By Brad Wujcik, Chief Mechanic, R.J. Corman Railroad Co.
The test was conducted jointly by Brad Wujcik, Chief Mechanic, R.J. Corman Railroad Co., and Aaron Harner of 11 Good Energy on October 7th, 2006 at our Dover, Ohio locomotive shop. The locomotive that was selected is representative of a good portion of our fleet and was in average condition. No modifications or adjustments were made prior to, during or after the tests to the locomotive. The locomotive itself is an Electro-Motive Division GP16. The diesel engine inside is an EMD model 16-645BC. This engine has 16 cylinders, each of which has a 9-1/16' bore and a 10'stroke. Each cylinder has a 645 cubic inch displacement giving the engine a total displacement of 10,320 cubic inches. This is a roots- blown, two-cycle engine that is nominally rated to deliver 1500 hp at 800 rpm. The engine is directly coupled to an EMD model D12 DC main generator that is rated to produce 880kw of power. Under normal use, the generator produces electricity to drive electric motors that move the locomotive. For this test, the electrical power was connected to a loading grid and dissipated as heat. The loading grid allows the engine to be tested at full horsepower while remaining stationary. Electrical current and voltage measurements were taken and horsepower output was calculated. Since the locomotive power plant has a load regulator system, the amount of fuel injected remains constant for a given engine speed and the only factor that changes is the horsepower output. All of these factors combined gave us a very good way to compare your product with the #2 high-sulfur diesel that was currently used. In addition, the different mixtures of fuel and G2 Diesel were made with our fuel as well to eliminate a difference in diesel fuel as a factor.
Straight diesel fuel from the locomotive's own tank. This test is the normal test that is performed on a locomotive. We used this test to check variables such as water and fuel temperature that become important in our later tests. Once the system stabilized, we came up with following average of five different readings. The average horsepower over the one-half hour run at full throttle was 1480. The average horsepower remained high because the diesel fuel was being returned and kept cool in the tank which had approximately 880 gallons in it. (See Test 6.) It was noted that one cylinder was producing a constant wisp of black smoke which would normally require attention.
Five percent G2 Diesel, 95% #2 diesel fuel mixed and run from a clean 55 gallon drum. For this and all remaining tests, the engine's fuel system was purged and connected to 55 gallon drums, each of which contained the appropriate mixture. On this particular test the average horsepower produced was 1433 over a 1 hour run.Forty five gallons of fuel were consumed. The average horsepower fell from a high of 1451 to a low of 1405 due to the fact that the return to the drum was heating the fuel in the drum. To be fair, this test should not be compared to Test 1. It should be compared to Test 6. No noticeable change in the engine smoke occurred.
Ten percent G2 Diesel, 90% #2 diesel fuel mixed and run from a clean 55 gallon drum. On this run, the average horsepower was 1401. The horsepower fell from a high of 1428 to a low of 1378, again due to the heating of the fuel in the drum. A definite reduction in smoke occurred and the exhaust actually started to take on a pleasing odor.
Twenty percent G2 Diesel, 80% #2 diesel fuel mixed and run from a clean 55 gallon drum. This test had a high of 1428 and a low of 1358 with an average of 1397 hp over a half-hour run. Again, 45 gallons of fuel were consumed and the barrel heating was the cause of power loss over the run. A very noticeable reduction in smoke over Test 3 occurred as well.
One hundred percent G2 Diesel, 0% #2 diesel fuel run from a clean 55 gallon drum. Again, as with all of the previous tests, the fuel system was purged with the new mixture. The starting characteristics of 100% G2 Diesel were tested and found to be just as good as #2 fuel oil. The engine was run again for one hour and consumed 45 gallons of fuel at full load. The horsepower fell from a high of 1307 to a low of 1281 with an average of 1305 hp being developed. (Compare these numbers to Test #6.) The smoke was completely gone and the area surrounding the locomotive was filled with a very pleasant odor. As a matter of fact, we were able to stand at the exhaust stacks of the engine under full load without any problems. Under normal circumstances with #2 high-sulfur diesel, this cannot be done even at idling speed without burning of the eyes and nose. The barrel temperature rose again accounting for the drop in power, but it also clearly showed G2's ability to remove heat and cool the injection system as well as #2 diesel. This is a big factor in an EMD engine. The fuel of the locomotive is also a radiator for the fuel system. I have referred to this throughout because of the result of Test 6.
Zero percent G2 Diesel, 100% #2 diesel fuel run from a clean 55 gallon drum. This test was preformed to put straight diesel fuel under the same cooling conditions as was done with all of the previous mixtures. The results gave a clear and fair way to make comparisons. The barrel temperature rose again with a corresponding drop in horsepower from a high of 1442 to 1385. The average horsepower was 1406. The black smoke that the engine had previous to the tests returned immediately along with the normal odor (that now seemed foul). The characteristic "diesel knock" which was absent during G2 runs, returned when running 100% #2 diesel.
We were very pleased with the results of this test. The smooth running and pleasant odor were noticeable to anyone nearby. We are going to conduct further tests on this same locomotive by placing it in service on a 50/50 mixture for the winter. By next spring we intend to be operating on 100% G2 Diesel in three of our locomotives. Regular oil sampling should indicate benefits that cannot be seen.