Unless I was hallucinating an odor, that's what I smelled when viewing SR 401 at Monticello (IL) Railway Museum. Their rebuilding included (sadly!) conversion to oil. They said they were burning used lube oil but I didn't get a chance to ask about the bituminous smell as I had not noticed it yet. So how does that work? Would throwing a few gallons of creosote into the oil do this?

Here is a short video from yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMUc8KCgD2I

Steve

More than likely smelling the sulphur in the oil.

Perhaps but I've been around oil burners a number of times including those burning used lube oil and never noticed anything even remotely resembling coal smoke smell. Others commented on it too.

Steve

I've noticed that some of the waste motor oil that we burned at SVRy had a sulphur smell. I was conducting once when a passenger in the open gondola was holding forth to the group around him and exclaimed after taking an exagerated deep breath "smell that coal smoke". I chose for public relations sake not to correct him. So I can definitely imagine how this can be with an oil burner using waster oil. I doubt a small steam engine burning diesel would be mistaken in this way.

Why is it always "sadly" converted to oil? 401 is running and if that was the price, I would consider it fair. Maybe through support it may someday be converted back. But personally I've never experienced a coal smell while running oil. Just the wonderful smell of oil haze.

It's an absolutely beautiful restoration and if burning oil is what it takes for the many reasons one might have to make such a change then I fully support them in their decision. With the proviso that I get to append "sadly" when mentioning it. Just because it's not prototypical (did SR even have any oil burners?) and also, if truth be told, I really do prefer steam locomotives burning coal, as God intended. Hehehe.

BTW, one reason given for the change was difficulty in procuring coal in good locomotive size lumps.

But fuel is a minor quibble and they have a great deal to be proud of. For the 401 and also the museum in general. I remember when they couldn't even afford a continuous mainline connection. (That was decades ago.)

Walschaerts with slide valves (they do not appear to be conversion valves but I could be wrong) must be an unusual combination.

Steve

No

One great looking little locomotive though.

I guess now is the appropriate time to put on my railfan historian hat and point out that even the mighty NORFOLK AND WESTERN had oil burners at a point in it's steam era history.......

AT times when we got a load of heavy, high sulphur oil for the 1522, it was nearly as good as coal smoke.
Nothing can compare to coal smoke. If they made it as an after shave, I would use it. It would be nice in the model layout room too.

You are right about coal smoke, nothing CAN compare to it. Same with coal. Save me the work, thank you and give me oil any day. If I have to live with a truly historical object, lets make it the cutting edge of ancient technology.

James,

Sorry, but you left the roundhouse door wide open for this one:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 86&nseq=59

Definitely the "cutting edge of ancient technology"

So who, among larger lines, used oil to any extent east of the Mississippi? And among the great western liquid fuel users, roughly what percent (I guess of engines, not train miles or any complex form measure)? I know it would vary with the time period.

Steve

A lot depends on your definition of 'larger lines'. Floride East Coast was, to the best of my knowledge, a major user of oil-fired steam. I hadn't heard about N&W burning oil until just now, but Western Maryland had a quartet of oil-burning Pacifics to comply with a Baltimore city smoke ordinance. And I remember reading about a PRR engine (an E-6, perhaps?) that was an oil burner.

Nope, they are still slide valves:





-bcd

I'd get a bit bored if there wasn't a coal scoop in my hands...