I was wondering if anyone could offer some insight into the advantages/disadvantages of oil vs. coal burning locomotives in preservation. Most of the engines restored in recent years here in Canada have been oil burners (CPR 2860, 3716, 1201, CNR 6060, 1392, 2141) and I'm curious as to the cost/maintenance savings of oil if any. Does a tender of oil have the same range as the same tender of coal? Taking this one step further, would it be feasible to convert an oil burner to propane or natural gas? I believe the small engines at Busch Gardens burn propane but can it be done on larger, standard gauge engines? Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

jason.whiteley@sympatico.ca

Hi Jason;

Oil is popular due to its ease of handling compared to coal in excursion / tourist service. Heating oil is almost universally available, and used crankcase oil works well where there are no environmental problems burning it.

I was told on a visit to the Ffestiniog that one small locomotive could pull 5 cars as a coalburner but was able to pull 8 on oil. They replace the boiler every decade so using it up with force firing was not a consideration in the economic calculation.

Whether a tender of oil will last longer than a tender of coal is a function of too many variables to answer simply.

Having fired both types, I find that coalburners are more forgiving than oilburners having several hundred pounds of thermal mass in the firebox in various stages of combustion rather than a few ounces of flying fire. Boiler stresses are "ironed out" with less violent peaks and valleys in BTUs / minute. Oil fired locomotives are easier for us old guys with bad backs than hand bombing coalburners and more responsive to changes in steam consumption, with more stresses on the boiler as a result.

The situation varies with each seperate set of conditions so neither fuel is superior to the other for everybody all the time.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

Dave has pretty well covered the technical aspects of coal versus oil firing. Railroads in remote regions, particularly the west, favored oil due to its ready availability compared to coal. Classic examples are the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads. All of the locomotives that served on the western divisions of those roads were oil fired starting in the late 1890s. Southern Pacific actually had the first oil fired locomotive, which operated in the LA Basin.

In my discussions with folks that have had experiance on both oil and coal fired locomotives, I have come to this conclusion myself. From an ecomonic and envirommental standpoint, oil is by far superior to coal (maintenance and repair costs notwithstanding). The per unit price of oil can be less than half that of coal simply from the purchasing standpoint. Oil is less expensive to transport and store (as long as it's done properly).

Oil in general is much better for the environment than coal as the heaviest crankcase oil will burn cleaner than the cleanest coal if the locomotive is fired properly. In fact, a couple of western tourist lines in California burn used motor oil because that is the only alternative fuel available to them.

Another added benefit is that there is no ash produced when oil is burned. If coal is burned, you have to deal with the ash. It can be transported to certain dumps or landfills but there are additional hazerdous materials charges assessed. Coal also has to be loaded using machinery such as a crane or earthmover unless you have an elevated coaling platform of some sort. Oil can be loaded using a pump.

envlink@voyageronline.net

One last response to this: Another consideration was shown by coal-burning UP 3985, which seemed to set half a (dry, admittedly) state ablaze on its first test runs and was quickly converted to oil shortly thereafter. Oil-burners can only set grass and brush fires if there is almost deliberate action, whereas even the best-screened coal burners have fire-setting potentials. (Heck, even diesels and Fairmount track cars can set fires in the right circumstances.)

In Britain, a drought a number of years ago had the effect of "dieselizing" a great many of the excursion lines. Oil burners are almost unknown there, so steam use was curtailed. A few war-vintage saddletankers were converted (or converted back) to oil on a couple lines as a result, if I recall correctly.

LNER4472@gateway.net

> Taking this one step further, would it be feasible to convert an oil burner to propane or natural gas?

The others have pretty well covered the realities of coal vs. oil usage.

The disadvantage of using propane or natural gas is that you'd have to haul a lot of it and it's dangerous. As a general rule of thumb, the denser the fuel (or the lower the temperature at which it evaporates) the higher it's btu content per unit volume. Coal and heavy fuel oils have high btu contents, and burn slowly, which is ideal for an external combustion engine like a steam locomotive or stationary boiler.

Lighter fuels like diesel oil, gasoline, or JP4 are better suited for internal combustion engines where ignition has to be very fast.

Natural gas and propane can be used in internal combustion engines but their economy is not that great. Their main advantage is that they are clean combustion, which is why the UP and some other railroads have experimented with NG fueled switchers in locations like Los Angeles. Engines that are converted have reduced horsepower.

The volume of gas required to fire a large locomotive would be considerable and the potential for leaks and accidents substantial. Coal and oil if ignited in an accident would just burn. Propane or NG would explode.



Washington Steam Railroads and Locomotives
brianfr@speakeasy.org

> As a general rule of thumb, the denser the fuel (or the lower the temperature at
> which it evaporates) the higher it's btu content per unit volume.

I reworded that sentence and missed that I'd turned my argument around. That should read "The higher the temperature at which it evaporates".

Washington Steam Railroads and Locomotives
brianfr@speakeasy.org

I take a religious view of this matter.

If God had meant for steam locomotives to burn oil, He wouldn't have made coal!

I was wondering if anyone could offer some
> insight into the advantages/disadvantages of
> oil vs. coal burning locomotives in
> preservation. Most of the engines restored
> in recent years here in Canada have been oil
> burners (CPR 2860, 3716, 1201, CNR 6060,
> 1392, 2141) and I'm curious as to the
> cost/maintenance savings of oil if any. Does
> a tender of oil have the same range as the
> same tender of coal? Taking this one step
> further, would it be feasible to convert an
> oil burner to propane or natural gas? I
> believe the small engines at Busch Gardens
> burn propane but can it be done on larger,
> standard gauge engines? Any input is
> appreciated. Thanks.

> jason.whiteley@sympatico.ca


Old Time Trains
oldtimetrains@rrmail.com

Jason;

When 1201 was being rebuilt during the '70s in Toronto, the stoker was also rebuilt. (I believe that it was actually re-installed, but I could be wrong in that). Half way through the rebuilding, the cost of coal approximately doubled, and plans for oil firing were drawn up from old CP ones for that class. (CP did the drawings, but none of the class were ever converted in regular service)

Thankfully, it was converted to oil. I spent a lot of time firing her, and we would refill anywhere, and make the local fuel supplier happy. Coal is expensive, messy, and in some areas, not prototypical!



john.stewart@crc.ca

Crown Metal Products would equip their smaller gage engines to burn propane at extra cost. The steam speeder Beekman built at Gold Coast RR back in the late 60's could burn whatever he could find but ran a lot on LP gas. Recently, i did my test runs on GOAT with a lot of LP gas oyster roaster burners in the firepan. The gas burners were incapable of keeping up with steam damand, but I am sure burners would be designed that could.

It was an expensive way but clean, and she is being converted to oil this winter before going on a regular operarting schedule next spring.

We used piped in natural gas run through the oil burners to fire up the engines at Georgetown Loop. At about 25 PSI we wheezed them out to clear the stack through the enginehouse door and ignited the fuel oil.

I don't know of any big engine that was tried on LP or natural gas. Somebody out ther may have some information.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Dave,
When the 3751s boiler was complete and hydroed it was fired off on natural gas with only two furnace burners. This was at the steel mill though and the natural gas pressure was 70lbs. Also this was a steam test so there was not a demand on the boiler. It was however a large amount of water to heat to 400 degrees F on two natural gas burners.

I agree in general with the above statements regarding the merits of oil versus coal firing, however one shouldnÂ’t make a blanket statement that oil firing is less expensive than coal. BTUÂ’s (British Thermal Units) are the name of the game when it comes the steam engine fuel, whether you are burning wood, coal, oil, propane, straw, or buffalo chips. If you want to boil X amount of water, then you have to burn X number of BTUÂ’s in the firebox, so it comes down to the cost per BTU when deciding on the most economical fuel.

Railroads in the Southwest tended to use oil because there was oil being pumped out of the ground in their neighborhoods, while coal deposits were more remote, and the costs of transportation tipped the scale in favor of oil.

The number of BTUÂ’s in coal varies widely, but on average, coal contains 12500 BTUÂ’s per pound. That makes 25,000,000 BTUÂ’s per ton. Oil contains 144,000 BTUÂ’s per gallon. If you divide 144,000 into 25,000,000 you get 174 gallons of oil being equal to one ton of coal, as far as heat value, on average.

Were I work, we burn about 800 tons of coal per year, at $53.00 per ton, in the tender. If we were to burn oil, we would have to be able to buy 174 gallons of oil for no more than $53.00. ThatÂ’s $0.30 per gallon, in the tender, which is to say the least, some pretty cheap oil! If you can use old crankcase oil, you might be able to beat that price, but not by too much, when transportation costs are added in. Twenty years ago, my employer was able to run our engines on crankcase oil for $0.05 per gallon, plus transportation, but I am under the impression that it has since become illegal to burn crankcase oil without itÂ’s being re-refined (read $$$).

Propane is really out in the stratosphere with regards to cost per BTU, not to mention explosive. The most powerful non-nuclear bombs in the US arsenal use propane or LPG for explosive.

It is widely accepted that oil burning is harder on the boiler than coal, making maintenance more expensive. However, it is certainly possible to abuse a coal fired boiler, it is just a lot more work.

Air pollution? Well yea, coal burners pollute the air, so do oil burners. We have had the EPA sicked on us, but they have never done anything, partially because there is nothing to do short of putting us out of business, and partly because we are so small. Seems there is a coal burning power plant up the river from us that burns 800 tons every four hours.

70 PSI gas would make me kind of nervous.

Great way to test, no nasty stuff to crawl through afterwards.

I agree about a lot of water to hear, you guys were lucky it was just a static test. Our steam test was followed immediately by a running test at 35 PSI. GOAT was a shoestring, fast track repair job. We got her up to 150 psi the next firing day when the public was invited (we knew no major embarassments would occur) and had a choice of running the engine or the air pump.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Thankfully, it was converted to oil. I spent
> a lot of time firing her, and we would
> refill anywhere, and make the local fuel
> supplier happy. Coal is expensive, messy,
> and in some areas, not prototypical!

According to books on the subject, one western road considered 110 gallons of oil to be equivalent in heat/work to a ton of coal. If that is so, then a tender carrying 6,000 gallons of oil will take a train as far as would 54.6 tons of coal. Most tenders in the west held 26-30 tons of coal, so the answer is that one certainly could go further on one tank of oil than on one tender full of coal.

Today, there a lot of other considerations. You don't want your pet engine to rain cinders and ash down on your invited guests and paying customers. If an engine runs across long distances and makes multiple fueling stops, such as on, say, a BNSF Employee Speical that might cover 4 or 5 states, the logistics of having a carload of coal AND a crane or front-end loader AND an operator at all the refueling locations can be a real hassle, especially compared to having a tank truck with pump from a pre-arranged vendor.

In many cases, there are substantial costs involved in the above; in some others, it might be volunteer, but probbly not if you run regularly or even semi-regularly. (and yes, I remember when Southern used to coal 4501 on the road from 100-pound bags of coal....talk about a hassle!)

Proper disposal of the ashes (in many states, they can't just be dumped on the ground and left any more, though I'm sure certain opertors do it).

> Twenty years ago, my employer was able to run our engines on crankcase oil for $0.05 per
> gallon, plus transportation, but I am under the impression that it has since become
> illegal to burn crankcase oil without it?s being re-refined (read $$$).

I'm glad you made the point about "rerefined" oil. I've been biting my tongue but folks have been using the phrase "crankcase oil" pretty freely.

I don't know about the legality of burning it, but I suspect that it's not. The stuff that comes straight out of a crankcase is pretty nasty and shouldn't be burned. It's contaminated with all kinds of nasty chemicals, particulates and metal bits that are byproducts of combustion and wear. Rerefining filters most, if not all of that stuff out.

Recycled/rerefined oil is commonly called crankcase oil. The few steam railroads I've asked about the oil, when pressed, admitted they used rerefined oil. I'm sure there are some "old heads" out there that use the stuff straight.

There's plenty of information on rerefined oil on the web. A quick search with an engine like Google will provide you with dozens of informative links.



Washington Steam Railroads and Locomotives
brianfr@speakeasy.org

In addition to the other information listed above, there were other fuels used. On many western roads, particularly the "Q", many locomotives burned lignite whenever there were considerable sources located near the railroad line. Some European railroads, particularly those in the northern continent or in the U.K. burned peat in their locomotives. In otherwords, coal was nice but if there was an alternative fuel that was more readily available, all the better.

envlink@voyageronline.net