I did mean Tacoma in my previous post - made that correction.

I will add: an engine Tom Payne was quite familiar with was the CN 6060, which as far as I know is an example of a successful conversion to oil firing.

Chris.

Mark,
A link to a page with some good info on oil burners:
http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/nday/gc/oil.htm

One of the princples of efficient locomotive firing is what I like to call dwell time-how long does the heat produced from the fuel stay in the firebox, so that it can be absorbed by the sheets before it is exhausted out the tubes. Modern theory on oil burning locomotives was to install the burner(s) under the front of the firebox and firing below the mudring into a flash pan or wall, that flame will curl up and over the arch, pulled by the exhaust. Obviously a lot more time for heat absorbtion to take place than the burner arrangement the 2100 was set up with, which fires straight at the heel of the syphons and forward flashwall and out the tubes. This example is a simplification, add in air dampers, how much air and where it is added from can make drastic changes too.


My 2 cents,
Mike Tillger

There's a bunch of "standards."

Canadian practice was a burner under the firedoor, centered, and a brick arch. Most US practice was a burner under the throat, centered, and no brick arch. Recent designs primarily from Europe are for centrally mounted burners or clusters of burners surrounding a central pilot burner. Bear in mind that most European locomotives have a much smaller grate area then US locomotives do, and burn clean light fuel oils.

I've been working on finding a better way to fire small US locomotives from a central location using dirty heavy oil since there's insufficient throw from the throat to the door sheet. I'm at the experimental stage now with everything on hold. Shorter throw multiple burners might be another option.......and certainly multiple burners would have been better in a wide firebox. Balancing the system might be in issue.

I've been told a locomotive in Tennessee was equipped with a dual burner system but know nothing more about it.

dave

Thanks Mike. Couldn't have asked for a better explanation

[quote="Mark Z. Yerkes"][quote="Mike Tillger"]Mark,
A link to a page with some good info on oil burners:
http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/nday/gc/oil.htm

One of the princples of efficient locomotive firing is what I like to call dwell time-how long does the heat produced from the fuel stay in the firebox, so that it can be absorbed by the sheets before it is exhausted out the tubes. Modern theory on oil burning locomotives was to install the burner(s) under the front of the firebox and firing below the mudring into a flash pan or wall, that flame will curl up and over the arch, pulled by the exhaust. Obviously a lot more time for heat absorbtion to take place than the burner arrangement the 2100 was set up with, which fires straight at the heel of the syphons and forward flashwall and out the tubes. This example is a simplification, add in air dampers, how much air and where it is added from can make drastic changes too.{quote]

On most big engines, the front mounted burner goes through the throat sheet several inches above the mud ring, not below it.

I know next to nothing about oil fired steam locomotives as they've never appealed to me and my total life experience is with coal fired engines, with the slight exception of running the 4449 a little bit while it was pulling the AFT. IMHO a coal fired locomotive is the real deal.

What I do know about Payne's rube Goldberg set-up is that in service it was an utter disaster and was incapable of maintaining working pressure under any conditions even running as a light engine, and the way it produced the heat so unevenly caused extreme strain on the firebox. As stated earlier, thank goodness he went broke before there was a very serious accident.

Ross Rowland

Greetings:
One most important feature found on successful oil fired locomotives is the brickwork (or refractory material) found around the perimeter of the firebox, sometimes over 2 feet thick (see bottom photo of GCRy No.29 in the Marty Bain article).
The brickwork serves a couple of purposes. First, it protects the firebox sheets from direct contact with the flame; Second, once it gets hot, it retains heat inside the firebox which helps to insure proper combustion (and something relight the fire off of if it goes out), (be sure the door is pinned!)
No.2100 has no firepan and is lacking proper brickwork. It only has one layer of firebricks (I don't think that they have mortar) was laid on top of the grates, nothing like a "real oil burner".
Someone claiming to be the owner of 2100 once called me looking for "advise", but what he really wanted was for me tell him that his ideas were going to work. I patiently explained why they wouldn't, but he didn't want to hear...
J.David

I love how everyone "heard something from someone" and it must be true. There are a couple guys here who know a good bit about the 2100, and a few more who lurk who know even more. Can we stop couch quarterbacking this?

I was on the one and only short test run out of St. Thomas, Ontario several years ago. I have a good basic knowledge of steam, I do not claim to be an expert. I can tell you it did not fire well at all. With only the auxiliary tender and a caboose behind it they could not keep the pressure up. Only 8 miles out of town we had to go back. Don't ask me the details of the modifications, because I don't recall or do not know except for the fact most of the grates are still in it.

True, and that's why most serious restoration business plans only count on railfans for a very small contribution (if any). Relying on fans to foot the entire bill is unrealistic at best,

Rob

I don't want to be negative but this is thread is an example of how not to oil firing. Most of the best practice is the total opposite way to this loco.

Ictus mortus ferrus equus ferus caballus


Death, Iron Horse. What's the deal with the fish though?

Garum to season the dead horse you beat to death before eating.

dave

In vanum est verberare ferroequum mortuum; currit iam ut quantum potest.

And I think the fish would be 'ichthys', in Greek, not Latin -- but good catch, Dave. I think he was getting at the meaning of 'blow' or 'stroke' but semantically that's different from what he wanted to express.