Yeah Ed, I was involved in some of those issues about 20 years ago when I was working on Amtrak's Fuel Tender program. We had an old E-8 loco that had both engines removed and replaced with (6) 1350 gallon aux. water tanks from the old SDP40-F's. Total fuel capacity in the E-8 including belly tanks was 9300 gallons of #2 fuel. The fuel level gauge was removed from one side of the fuel tanks on two F-40's and replaced with a float switch. One F-40 at each end of the E-8. Every time the float switch dropped, pumps would kick on in the E-8 and transfer fuel to the F-40's through hoses with quick disconnects. Of course, the transfer rate on those pumps didn't need to be high capacity. On one trip from Chicago to Seattle, we got to Seattle with almost enough fuel on board to return partway to Chicago WITHOUT refilling in Seattle. We used a fuel consumption rate of 2 gpm per F-40 (that's gallons per mile!) plus fudge factors. On the return trip when we passed through Spokane, where there was a drive-up fuel truck alongside the station track...he was going to pump fuel no matter what until we explained we didn't need his services on this trip (guess he didn't get the message). All this got started due to the fact that the contract RR's were no longer using the fuel stanchions at the end of the passenger station platforms. The EPA tried to get the contract RR's to clean up those areas, but they explained that Amtrak was the only one using them. Sooooo, the EPA went after Amtrak to clean up the mess. Amtrak had about 180 fuel sites across the country and thought that one way to eliminate the problem (and excessive cost) would be to carry the fuel and eliminate the need for en-route refuelling. Evidently, the cost of a fleet of "fuel tenders" was excessive. I think Amtrak has since gone back and put containment pads in and improved the fuel nozzle shutoff features. Just a little history from my RR'ing days. cb

http://chaski.org/homemachinist/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=53047&view=next