John -

I agree: sometimes the fuel - as well as the condition of the locomotive - makes it impossible to do anything but belch clouds of black smoke. But that is rare, isn't it? What I very much object to is DELIBERATELY making lots of black smoke.

It is sad that to please uninformed people, an excellent fireman sometimes has to do a lousy job of firing a steam locommotive which is in superb condition.

Folks: black smoke MAY make uninformed people happy - and put $$ in the coffers of the locomotive's operators, but: don't you think that perhaps those who have done so for all these years are MIS-educating the public and thereby teaching them that our beloved steam locomotives MUST make all that "pollution" in order to run??

I worry that this may get in the way of operating some steam locomotives, and - worst case - some steam locomotives not being allowed to run at all because they "pollute the air" so much. Well..."everybody" knows that - just look at all that SMOKE in these pictures!! Maybe the FRA knows better, but what about all the other government groups at different levels: cities, counties, states, etc.?

Anyone think I have NO reason at all to worry about this? I look forward to your replies!

Margaret (SP fan)

> I have very little experience with oil
> burners but I can tell you that a tender
> load of crap coal will almost certainly
> result in lots of black smoke while still
> making very little steam. Sometimes lots of
> smoke and a good engineer are the only way
> you can get over the road.

> John Bohon


mhm2472@NOSPAMyahoo.com

> John -

> I agree: sometimes the fuel - as well as the
> condition of the locomotive - makes it
> impossible to do anything but belch clouds
> of black smoke. But that is rare, isn't it?
> What I very much object to is DELIBERATELY
> making lots of black smoke.

> It is sad that to please uninformed people,
> an excellent fireman sometimes has to do a
> lousy job of firing a steam locommotive
> which is in superb condition.

> Folks: black smoke MAY make uninformed
> people happy - and put $$ in the coffers of
> the locomotive's operators, but: don't you
> think that perhaps those who have done so
> for all these years are MIS-educating the
> public and thereby teaching them that our
> beloved steam locomotives MUST make all that
> "pollution" in order to run??

> I worry that this may get in the way of
> operating some steam locomotives, and -
> worst case - some steam locomotives not
> being allowed to run at all because they
> "pollute the air" so much.
> Well..."everybody" knows that -
> just look at all that SMOKE in these
> pictures!! Maybe the FRA knows better, but
> what about all the other government groups
> at different levels: cities, counties,
> states, etc.?

> Anyone think I have NO reason at all to
> worry about this? I look forward to your
> replies!

> Margaret (SP fan)

The coal doesn't necessarily have to be crap nor the fireman not doing his job correctly to produce smoke. The Shays at Cass burn a very good quality bituminous coal that generates prodigious smoke, and even the little Porter 0-6-0T at WK&S smokes heavily under some conditions. In the old days, railroads in urban settings were often under the watchful eye of "smoke inspectors" who used the notorious Winkelman chart to assess fines. The Pennsylvania RR used a very poor grade of coal for freight engines, which generated a lot of smoke and cinders, while the passenger power got better coal, for obvious reasons.


K4s1361@hotmail.com

> John -

> I agree: sometimes the fuel - as well as the
> condition of the locomotive - makes it
> impossible to do anything but belch clouds
> of black smoke. But that is rare, isn't it?
> What I very much object to is DELIBERATELY
> making lots of black smoke.

I do not think I could call coal that makes a lot of smoke rare. I also think I left the wrong impression in my original post that only bad coal can make a lot of smoke. I have used quite a few different kinds of coal that steam very well but all you have to do is put a shovel full in the box and the stack will turn black. Other coal like the stuff off Broad Top Mountain that the East Broad Top burns seldom makes much smoke. Smokey photo runbys are relatively rare on the EBT.

Some locomotives seem to produce more smoke from the same coal than others regardless of the kind of coal used. From my experience with Southern 4501 both firing and just observing she makes a lot of smoke. If you are sitting still and throw in a shovel of coal the stack will turn black. I know the folks at TVRM were experimenting with ways to correct this but I am not sure if they had any success. Perhaps Mark Ray can fill us in. Hard working coal burners unless very well drafted, are using good coal, or being properly fired (usually some combination of these things)will generally produce quite a bit of smoke. Firing with a stoker can reduce smoke if done properly but the same can be said of hand firing. Simply put I do not think you can eliminate smoke with a coal burner like you can with oil.

> It is sad that to please uninformed people,
> an excellent fireman sometimes has to do a
> lousy job of firing a steam locommotive
> which is in superb condition.

Yes excellent fireman sometimes have to incorrectly fire a locomotive and it does misinform people. The other side of the coin is that people who know nothing about steam locomotives expect them to make lots of smoke. The operator is sometimes caught in a catch 22 between proper handling of the locomotive and pleasing the paying customer. In general I think coal burning locomotives on the mainline will be working hard enough to produce enough smoke and noise to please most of the observers which is about the best you can do anyway. Some operators like the NKP 765 folks seem to operate the locomotive properly and let the rest take care of itself. With shorter trains and locomotives often not operating near capacity on smaller railroads this is frequently not possible so they have to decide what is best for them.

I think more problems with smoke can be aimed at green fireman than excellent fireman who must fire the locomotive improperly occasionally. I learned to fire at a place with tight smoke restrictions and generally using poor coal. As a result I learned how not to make smoke in the wrong places. Generally this takes some planning, a little knowlege of the railroad, and learning how to manage the fire. Unfortunately most of us, myself included, will never have the opportunity to fire enough different locomotives under enough different conditions for enough miles to truely become good fireman.

Unfortunately a lot of volunteers who are firing a locomotive on a two or three mile run often never learn how to manage a fire. It is not their fault, they just never have the opportunity to fire a hard working locomotive or fire often enough to learn the job.

> Folks: black smoke MAY make uninformed
> people happy - and put $$ in the coffers of
> the locomotive's operators, but: don't you
> think that perhaps those who have done so
> for all these years are MIS-educating the
> public and thereby teaching them that our
> beloved steam locomotives MUST make all that
> "pollution" in order to run??

> I worry that this may get in the way of
> operating some steam locomotives, and -
> worst case - some steam locomotives not
> being allowed to run at all because they
> "pollute the air" so much.
> Well..."everybody" knows that -
> just look at all that SMOKE in these
> pictures!! Maybe the FRA knows better, but
> what about all the other government groups
> at different levels: cities, counties,
> states, etc.?

> Anyone think I have NO reason at all to
> worry about this? I look forward to your
> replies!

I think you have plenty of reason to think making to much smoke is going to cause problems in the future. That is why when I fire I try to make as little smoke as possible in areas where it may offend local residents or shop keepers and if I need to make a lot of smoke try to do it away from the general public. I think it will be the angering of our neighbors that will cause steam operators the most problems in this respect and not people looking at photos of smoking steam locomotives.

Again I think this is more a problem of green fireman than the occasional photo runby and that better training of fireman is in the best interest of everyone. Other solutions will be using coal with less smoke in it and probably converting some coal burners to oil. Cleaner burning coal is generally more expensive and can fire differently than the coal inexperienced fireman are using so there will be a learning curve with this solution. Some operators are already experimenting with this solution.

> Margaret (SP fan)

John Bohon


jhbohon@yahoo.com

> I have very little experience with oil
> burners but I can tell you that a tender
> load of crap coal will almost certainly
> result in lots of black smoke while still
> making very little steam. Sometimes lots of
> smoke and a good engineer are the only way
> you can get over the road.

> John Bohon

What I can tell you is that you can have the best oil in the tender and still be able to make tons of smoke. Although this is the wrong way to fire any oil-fired locomotive it can be done moving the oil regulator in the cab to wide open position. With that adjusting the steam flow to the burner to produce the black clouds of smoke instead of adjusting it so it produces almost no smoke.

This dramatically reduces the effeciency of the steaming capacity for the locomotive, which in turn the steam pressure will start to drop depending on how hard the locomotive is working so this should only be done for a short period of time before you wind up losing your boiler pressure. And yes the more impurities in the oil the less steam capacity it has therefore it won't burn as clean and effecient which would produce black smoke.

Look at photos of UP 8444 during runbys in the 1960s and early 1970s. The crews apparently used the runbys as an excuse to sand the flues of the oil-burner, producing clouds that at times rivaled the worst tire dump fires or Kuwaiti 1991 oil well fires, with a good dose of Mt. St. Helens or Vesuvius thrown in for good measure.

LNER4472@bcpl.net

> What I very much object to is DELIBERATELY
> making lots of black smoke.

> It is sad that to please uninformed people,
> an excellent fireman sometimes has to do a
> lousy job of firing a steam locommotive
> which is in superb condition.

I'm one of the photographers who likes to see a fair amount of smoke on runbys during photo charters. I am not uninformed about proper firing techniques. Instead, I am trying for a certain overall aesthetic effect in the final image.

The photo runby on a photo charter is an artificial exercise from beginning to end--the train is positioned at a time and in a direction and at an angle to catch the light--it has no actual traffic, no economic need for being, might never have run at that location in that direction at that time of day, the equipment usually is not even be from that line, and so on.

To me, these deviations from "the way it really was" do not matter, becuase perfect recreation of a specific historical scene or event is not, strictly speaking, the purpose of a photo charter--the purpose is to help photographers create striking and evocative images in their viewfinders and on their film or detectors.

As with all photogrpahy, that involves manipulating reality--by what you crop out and what you leave in, by the focal length of the lens you use, and all sorts of other creative choices. The end result is an artistic statement, not a simple, 1:1 representation of reality.

By all means, run without smoke in regular service for reasons of good neighborliness, thermodynamic efficiency, and historical accuracy. But I say, if smoke on the photo charter runby helps create the effect the bulk of the paying customers are seeking in their creative interpretaiton of reality, let them have it. The only way to judge the effictiveness or "appropriateness" of that decision is to judge the final images--and even then, it's going to end up a matter of taste. After all, the presence or absence of smoke is no less artificial than every other thing about these iamges.

eledbetter@rypn.org

I think the killer fog of 1952 changed many English minds about the beauty of coal smoke. See link below.

Roger

> Regarding the previous comments on the extra
> smoke on runbys:

> Photographers of the past and the early days
> of preservation, as well as photographers
> today in Britian did not associate smoke
> with pollution. (The British refer to the
> smoke as "clag".)

> Rather, smoke was a sign of prosperity, and
> was viewed as something atmospheric in
> appearance; something to set the tone for
> the picture. A very good example of this is
> some of the Depression era and WII era
> public art murals that were painted of
> trains and factories. Nearly all of them
> depicted vast quantities of smoke coming
> from the stacks. It made the background of
> the picture, and symbolized prosperity, not
> pollution and inefficiency.

> We have a new generation of photographers
> now that want a prototypical look, or view
> the presence of smoke as symbolizing
> pollution and inefficiency. That is
> understandable, but not always a universal
> opinion; and old habits die hard for some.

> -James Hefner
> Hebrews 10:20a


The Killer Fog of '52
belpaire@aol.com

> The photo runby on a photo charter is an
> artificial exercise from beginning to
> end--the train is positioned at a time and
> in a direction and at an angle to catch the
> light--it has no actual traffic, no economic
> need for being, might never have run at that
> location in that direction at that time of
> day, the equipment usually is not even be
> from that line, and so on.

> To me, these deviations from "the way
> it really was" do not matter, becuase
> perfect recreation of a specific historical
> scene or event is not, strictly speaking,
> the purpose of a photo charter--the purpose
> is to help photographers create striking and
> evocative images in their viewfinders and on
> their film or detectors.

*With all due respect, I disagree.

Most photo charter operators take particular--some would say extraordinary--pains to precisely replicate a vintage era. In many cases the efforts have extended to weathering otherwise-shiny equipment. In other cases, the best one can do is capture at least the approximation and feel of the old-time experience--for example, the Franz WMSR trips run with too-new freight cars and a "close-but-no-cigar" Consolidation.

If the operators go to such extremes to create a time-capsule "is it then or now?" setting to be photographed, why ruin it with pyrotechnics that would have gotten the crew called on the carpet in the old days?

In most of the similar U.K. photo charters I've seen in British magazines, the smoke is period as well--there as necessary, but not likely to lead to charges of excess.

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

I'm so happy to see a steam locomotive running, it doesn't bother me if it's smoking or blowing its whistle or not! -- Ray

> And while we are at it why not do the runbys
> without the voluminous clouds of black
> smoke.


raymondreter@aol.com

All this talk about smoke is amusing, but inaccurate.
First, in the 'old days' lots of smoke was made. Take a look at photos taken from the begining of steam until the end. In at least half the pictures smoke is pouring from the stack. Were all the firemen 'bad' firemen?
Was all the coal smoky coal?
Take a look in the latest issue of TRAINS magazine in the article on Horseshoe Curve. I see a triple header smoking up a storm, and a single 2-10-4 belching out a cloud. Typical railroad photos of the day. Staged? Well, I can't prove it isn't but neither can anyone prove it was. Moreover, not every photo of steam showing smoke is staged.
There are times when the choices are to either make steam for the engineer to use up, or have a clear stack. Obvious choice is make steam. Most of the time when a locomotive smokes it is for a short period of time, and then the stack will clear. It's caused by any number of factors I'm not going to get into here. Many railroads recognized that smoke is inevitable, and thus while condemning smoke as wasteful of fuel also put time limits on smoke. Two or three minutes was not a smoke offence in these cases. I's like to add that in my opinion those who haven't fired a steam locomotive, ESPECIALLY coal, while they are entitled to their opinions really don't know what they're talking about when they say smoke is never necessary, and that it's the sign of a bad fireman, or a locomotive in poor condition.(?)
Mark D.


mnmach@lakes.com

While there are certainly things you can do as a fireman to control the amount of smoke due to the quality of coal and the locomotive (not the condition of the locomotive) smoke is inevitable. As an example, I don't think anyone would question the condition of Strasburg's locomotives but each engine is certainly unique. #475 when working doesn't produce much smoke, sometimes no matter how hard you try. #90 on the other hand, a shovel full will produce smoke. There is nothing wrong with either engine they just operate differently.

The quality of the coal you burn is a huge factor no matter how good of a fireman you are. It was mentioned earlier about EBT and Broad Top Coal. EBT hasn't burned Broad Top Coal in many many years. However, several years ago some volunteers cleaned off the tenders of #16 and #18 before a spectactular. This coal had sat in those tenders since 1956. We put it on the pile of coal we were going to use for the weekend event. I got a couple of backhoe bucket loads on #15 that year. Surprisingly, pretty good stuff. Burned well and lived up to its reputation of not creating much smoke.

My point is that even really good fireman, and I work with some of the best, fall prey to the quality of coal and the quirks of each particuliar locomotive. Some engines, even in the best shape of their lives, smoke!

> All this talk about smoke is amusing, but
> inaccurate.
> First, in the 'old days' lots of smoke was
> made. Take a look at photos taken from the
> begining of steam until the end. In at least
> half the pictures smoke is pouring from the
> stack. Were all the firemen 'bad' firemen?
> Was all the coal smoky coal?
> Take a look in the latest issue of TRAINS
> magazine in the article on Horseshoe Curve.
> I see a triple header smoking up a storm,
> and a single 2-10-4 belching out a cloud.
> Typical railroad photos of the day. Staged?
> Well, I can't prove it isn't but neither can
> anyone prove it was. Moreover, not every
> photo of steam showing smoke is staged.
> There are times when the choices are to
> either make steam for the engineer to use
> up, or have a clear stack. Obvious choice is
> make steam. Most of the time when a
> locomotive smokes it is for a short period
> of time, and then the stack will clear. It's
> caused by any number of factors I'm not
> going to get into here. Many railroads
> recognized that smoke is inevitable, and
> thus while condemning smoke as wasteful of
> fuel also put time limits on smoke. Two or
> three minutes was not a smoke offence in
> these cases. I's like to add that in my
> opinion those who haven't fired a steam
> locomotive, ESPECIALLY coal, while they are
> entitled to their opinions really don't know
> what they're talking about when they say
> smoke is never necessary, and that it's the
> sign of a bad fireman, or a locomotive in
> poor condition.(?)
> Mark D.


Strasburg Rail Road
asholley@hotmail.com

Having been on the business end of both numerous cameras and scoop shovels, and also having paid to attend, as well as arrange and operate photo charters, I would like to say that Mr. Ledbetter is right-on. Remember, the purpose of the enterprise is to give the customer what the customer wants and will pay for. No smoke (and NO, great gouts of 70s-era UP 8444 smoke is TOO much), and you might as well be shooting a diesel. A bit more than a nice dark gray haze is good. And that's why winter steam photography is so great-- all that billowing "vapeur".

Railroad Museum of New England
hpincus@mindspring.com

> I think the killer fog of 1952 changed many
> English minds about the beauty of coal
> smoke. See link below.

> Roger

Perhaps. But do a google search for "steam" and "clag" (smoke). I just did it, and it returned 274 hits; most of them trip reports from British "gricers" on overseas trips. And most of them praised the amount of smoke, rather than objecting to it. In fact, they objected if there was none in some cases.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Project
http://www.survivingworldsteam.com


Surviving World Steam Project
james@survivingworldsteam.com

the Franz WMSR trips run with
> too-new freight cars and a
> "close-but-no-cigar"
> Consolidation.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. I've looked at lots of pictures, and I think the 734 is a great stand-in for a WM engine. Now, if only someone could get the Pacific out of Hagerstown-



edm5970@earthlink.net

> Sorry, but I have to disagree here. I've
> looked at lots of pictures, and I think the
> 734 is a great stand-in for a WM engine.
> Now, if only someone could get the Pacific
> out of Hagerstown-

The point is, it's still an artificial stand-in. If I pull out an actual photo of the real WM 734 on Helmstetter's Curve in WM days and compare, I'm still going to notice several subtle detail differences and the difference in driver diameters between it and a photo of "734" on a Franz charter. Sure, it's great for capturing the spirit and atmosphere and sounds, but one cannot produce a photo or scene indistinguishable from a 1940 scene. Nevertheless, I still help trim the trees for Carl...........


LNER4472@bcpl.net