The purists won't like it, but it sure as hell makes a heck of a lot more sense.

It's just the way of things now, and people / rail fans need to get use to the idea that things change. The PRR T1 Trust also changed plans on fuel some time ago, but I noticed that they were fairly quiet about the change to oil until pressed in the Facebook comment section.

If all people were fine with things changing there is no need for old steam trains to operate at all.

Doesn't seem to be an issue for 611 and 2102 currently? So it's not impossible.

But I also understand how oil-burning engines make sense and of course, railroads back in the day converted engines to burn different fuels as it made sense as well.

I will say too.. last time I rode the open air car at Durango it was nice to not get cinders in my eye! :) haha.

I just hope they didn't spend too much time/effort "undoing" the previous oil burner conversion.

I recall (and this might be a false recall) that the 2100 did not steam properly with the last conversion? Any truth to this? It might have just been someone blowing smoke... no pun intended.

From what I remember from the YouTube video on the groups channel from when they were getting it ready to move to Ohio; they said part of the reason why the conversion didn't go well was that it used a too small single burner setup.
As for what they've done to restore it back to coal? I know they removed the oil bunker insert from the tender, reclaimed the stoker equipment from the museum in Canada where the oil conversion was done, I believe they also partnered in an order for brand new grate castings with another group, and had at least some work done on the stoker motor.

Wait until they sand the flues when you're hanging out the window....

That's about the size of it. Sometimes I feel like we're in the film The Revenge of the Killer Tomatoes in which tomatoes are banned so they try making pizzas with strawberry sauce, it gets to the point where a steam locomotive burning french fry oil just isn't the same thing anymore.

.

OK, we're looking at a Wootten firebox, Tuyere grates and thermic syphons. This is a great system for burning Anthracite Culm. So, the idea that the USA standard(ish) SP oil setup is then only"proper" one? Kelly, I hate to disagree, but...... given the adaptation was done in Canada, it's not unusual that the proven Canadian burner under the door design would have been chosen, especially since you can keep the brick arch. I can't recall any Canadian power built with Wootten fireboxes, though..... and burning oil.

FMW is familiar with the many systems that have been used in a lot of different circumstances and I'm very curious about what they will design in terms of retrofits to everything from the firepan through the stack. Filling that big wide box with burning wet particles is going to be an interesting propisition.

When the late Tom Payne bought the 2100 I called him to congratulate him and when he said during the conversation that he intended to convert her to oil I offered to introduce him to Robert Franzen the then CMO at the GCRR who has just converted a locomotive ( or 2 ?) to oil and I was sure would share what he learned with Payne. His reply was " I know exactly what to do and don't need any advice".

Long story short his Rube Goldberg conversion was a total disaster, couldn't maintain working pressure and produced very uneven heat patterns that did certain injury to parts of the firebox.

As to the wisdom of converting to oil in today's reality there's really no other choice especially if the locomotive's operating locations may change frequently.

The combined costs of the coal, getting it loaded into the tender and taking care of getting rid of the ashes "properly" add up to being VERY expensive, whereas oil is easily available, a breeze to load and no ashes. Makes oil a no brainer and affords the opportunity to use bio-diesel or used deep fryer oil that will make the greenies happy.

To service the 2101 ( AFT 1 ) when she powered the Freedom Train throughout the Northeastern US we used 7 captive service gondolas that rotated between the coal mine and one of our upcoming service ( display) sites, we arranged for a railroad supplied burro crane ( no longer exist) to load the coal into her tender, and raked the ashes level onto the ballast.

In some cases such as the R&N where the engine never leaves the same fixed base staying with coal may make sense but even there oil would be a good deal cheaper per mile.

Ross Rowland

A PROPER conversion to oil would be a smart move. You have to do what will make life easier if your aren't on your own railroad, like R&N.
I don't know what you would call the previous version of oil burner that she suffered with other than sub Rube Goldberg and IMO dangerous.
So, proper burner below the throat sheet aimed at the flash wall in back of the firebox, proper firebrick walls and floor. Maybe an ATSF style Van Boden type.
The important thing is to get the drafting dialed in. That can make or break you.
I wouldn't be in favor of retaining the butterfly door. I don't know if it would sustain a blast from an oil fire mishap as well as a typical oil burner door. Just don't think it would be a good idea. I've seen a couple of relights on 1522 in early days from rookie firemen that wouldn't be ideal for a butterfly door.
Safety First.

I seem to recall reports in Railfan Magazine at the time that SLCA was ordering a very specific mine's specific seam of coal for their locomotives--at something like five to ten times the going price for more readily available coal. This, of course, is comparable to auto or boat racers ordering super-premium racing gasoline, and a necessity when you are promising reliable "turnkey" steam locomotive service systemwide to a Class One railroad, unlike some of the disasters in coal supply reported by the crews of London & North Eastern 4472 only ten years earlier. (Fortunately for AFT 1, she didn't get to run in "lignite country"..............)

And being an Easterner used to seeing power plant anthracite and bituminous rolling through my town (as well as the occasional cars of petroleum coke) and having fired an Eastern coal burning steamer or two in my day, I was flabbergasted to see the "black dirt" falling from Western hoppers on the BNSF years later....... I mean, I guess you can get it to burn, or they wouldn't be mining and moving it, but egads at the thought of chucking THAT cr*p in 1361 or 98 or 425 or EBT Mikados or whatever......

Saw the locomotive many times in the St. Thomas, Ontario shops, but never looked at the fuel burner. The idea for buying the loco was to run longer tour/cruise type trips, as I recall, so the notion of burning oil made good sense then.
It is too bad that an inadequate burner system was used. This was discussed at length on this site several years back. Knowing a couple of the people involved in the project, it may not be surprising that it all got bolluxed up! Sadly, there is plenty of information available on the Canadian and American oil burning systems used back in the day, both of which worked very well. Not sure why they thought they should reinvent what had worked so well, and still works.
Luckily, even after the loco left St. Thomas, the coal stoker still laid in the pit where the engine had sat.
It was an interesting project with interesting plans. Too bad it all went sideways. Best wishes to the new owners for many years of trouble free operation.

There was nobody involved with the project that had any real experience. Tom Payne thought he did, but it didn't take long at the time to realize he didn't. He did a number of questionable things. Did you know the grates were not removed? They were still in the firebox. The rest of the crew was a family from BC. The father was a former CP carman, but no steam experience at all. The rest of the family were just labourers.