Interesting, but typical of most general literature, is is a basic comparison short on meaningful anthracite coal data. That's not a knock. The variations and specifics of A coal were probably not widely understood (nor did they need to be) by companies that didn't use it.

Page #28 cites a fixed carbon number (they number the cite is about middle of the road for A-coal) and notes it was from a sample across 4 PA counties. Any serious discussion of A coal has to be broken down by field, and ideally by mine. The table on page #29 is just B coal.

So while a neat comparison, it's really just Coal 101 as far as A coal goes.

Rob

That's why I'm trying to find the BofM articles. The BofM yearbook had coal analyses from specific mines, and often from specific sections. Wait a minute...

Depending on the mine and the exact site, moisture in raw #8 coal in our area ranges from 2.7 to 6.5 percent, averaging 4.7%. Volatile matter averages 36.35%, varying from over 38 down to 32. Fixed carbon is typically about 49.87%, ash 9.1%, carbon almost 69%, Btu around 7000, sulfur about 3.81%, though this last varies greatly from 1.55% to 5.09%.(footnote4) Geological Survey of Ohio, Fourth Series, Ninth Bulletin, p. 299

(from my own book, Shift Report, but hey, it was handy.)

That'll give you some idea of the problem. If you look up the Farmington disaster, a prime factor in the explosion was the extreme volatility of the coal and the huge amount of methane liberated in the mine.

If "hard coal" is all the owner will consider, it should be possible to find some not quite so hard coal with higher volatiles if you look around. I tried to find mine by mine analyses for the anthracite regions, but we're on severely limited bandwidth.

Hi Dave,
(Long time listener, first time caller)

One place that might make for a good analog to what you're asking about is Conway Scenic up in NH. They burn a (roughly) 50/50 mix of stove-sized anthracite and run of the mine (anywhere from dust to footballs) bituminous in the 7470. It's a place I have experience with in the past, too, so I can at least speak to my run-ins with anthracite there.

That engine (7470) was designed for strictly soft coal, but seems to do ok for the most part with the mix. The hard coal kept the smoke down while the soft coal helped to keep down the number of dead spots that could develop in the fire bed.

How well a trip went would partly be determined by how well the mix fell out of the tender, though. If you get a lot of soft coal you would be able to keep pressure more easily, but shoveling a lot more. A lot of anthracite and you could be chasing the needle until it finally caught, and then do nothing but put in water for the next several miles. Having the mix would kinda give you a bit of both, with the soft keeping the fire bed hot enough to maintain steam while the anthracite worked on catching.

(Just my two cents. I know they're not worth much given my age and experience, but I figured I'd add the extra perspective.)

--Bill P.

Below is a link to download the Fireman's Preparatory Instruction Part 3 put out by the Railway Educational Association. This has a section on Firing with Anthracite. It is a very interesting read. I can tell you that burning anthracite is a major learning curve and given time I'm sure they will figure out a way to burn it successfully. As with any coal if you get a bad batch you can have headaches, it just seems that anthracite is a little less forgiving. That mixed with the fact that the majority of operators out there don't have any expertise in the area, it is hard to share stories of what works and doesn't. Hopefully this thread can open those communication lines. I have learned some things already that I never would guessed about the Valley and Conway Scenic burning anthracite.

http://www.rgusrail.com/manual/baker_fp ... _fpi_3.pdf

I had the chance for some mainline cab rides in China during the last days of big-time steam over there. The coal they used was a step above sand, but the composition of it was (mostly) very fine - a powder. While it was a lot of work - they had a 4-man crew - without a working stoker, they did make it work. I wondered if the powder composition made it easier to get the stuff to keep up a fire.
For the 113, would the size of the chunks of anthracite have made a difference?

Chris.

I read somewhere years ago that the Reading used a 60/40 mix of anthracite and bit and they switched the ratio during the winter. Unfortunately, I cannot recall where I read it.

Just as a matter of interest, at some point, the PRR used different grades of coal for freight and passenger service. An old engineer friend, now gone, told me that, when he was still a fireman working out of Enola on a transfer job, whenever he had the chance to get coal from the Harrisburg coal wharf, he would do so, making his job a little easier.

Thanks for all the responses. Some great info. Had no idea that Conway mixed coal for the 7470.

Thanks all.

Dave

On another railroad-oriented web site, some quite experienced steam operators are offering the opinion that it likely isn't the coal, but rather the heat loss from the 113's unjacketed boiler, that is the main culprit in the steaming issues.

I'm going to call a semifoul on this one.

Sure, it is foolish to not work to do the easy things you can do to prevent as many of the BTUs you out into your boiler as practically possible from doing anything other than turning water into steam. That said, there are and were a lot of boilers that ran without jackets in stationary, traction engine and small lokie use. Think of Falk, or Bear Harbor as examples. They run because they take in enough BTUs from burning enough fuel fast enough to replace what leaks out through the skin of the boiler to not affect the ability to make enough steam to put to productive use in the engine. Even locomotives designed to run with jackets are usually tested after repairs or overhaul with no jacket on and keep up with demand, inefficient as they may be naked.

So, since we know the grate and heated surface area are capable of maintaining steam as much as any other similarly proportioned locomotive, enough fuel is capable of being burned in the firebox, so the rate of burn is what must be insufficient to keep up.

Easy enough to prove: fire it on a decent grade of bituminous and see what happens.

dave

Dear CP:
While the lack of a jacket (and more importantly: insulation under it) is certainly an issue, it oughtn't prevent the locomotive from steaming. At Illinois Railway Museum, we successfully operated No.1630 without a jacket for a couple of years until I made a jacket for it.
J.David
PS: Believe it or not, the first insulation that we installed on 1630 was the real thing: asbestos! It was still available at the time (c.1975) from a place in Chicago and I drove down in my Chevy CarryAll and brought back boxes of the stuff. We were happily insulating the boiler when Steve Deidrich, one of our volunteers said that he had heard that abestos was a carcinogen. I laughed and said that I would check up on it. Well, he was right, we finished insulating the boiler, but soon thereafter took the jacket off and installed Rock Wool blocks, donated to us by Eagle-Pitcher Industries, the same outfit that had given us the 1630 in the first place.
Be well,
J.David

Another steam loco that has operated successfully without boiler jacketing/insulation, and is close enough to 113 to compare notes: PRR 643 at Williams Grove near Dillsburg, Pa.

I have enjoyed the discussion of A coal and B coal properties on RYPN.

There is a valuable distinction between educational conversation and unsolicited advice. Dave, much to his credit, did not start a "what should the #113 guys do about coal" conversation. Instead, he started a thread aimed at increasing the level of understanding about the topic of coal mixing... not aimed at the #113 team but for the edification all. I applaud that.

Too often, rail site threads point fingers rather than ask intelligent questions.

RYPN, IMHO, is at its best when the focus is on facts and knowledge sharing without judgement.

It would be great to hear more from our elders who actually fired on the anthracite roads in the late steam era, but the pool must be small. To have had 5-10 years experience, these gents would now be at least 85 years old.

Rob

Don't shoot the messenger. Just sayin' ... when guys named Wes Camp and Jack Wheelihan offer an opinion, I tend to take them more seriously than others.

It could very well be a mix of both issues.

Wasn't shooting the messenger or being critical of the gents on TO. I have been reading that thread, too. Just commenting on different ways of approaching the subject.

Rob

Some additional info from the world of Google books:

From "Practical Locomotive Operating" 1913
http://books.google.com/books?id=NllMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186
Mentions 3-5 tons of anthracite culm per 1 ton of bituminous run of mine for wide firebox locomotives. Also gets into the discussion of why all wide fireboxes designed for slack anthracite are not all Wooten fireboxes.

A study on smoke abatement from 1915
http://books.google.com/books?id=E9c0AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA15-PA3&lpg=RA15-PA3
Goes into great detail of how anthracite roads used different sizes and mixes for different kinds of service.

A discussion on the O&W's effort to burn waste A coal. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ahd4izJ5RXUC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428

Rob