Greetings:
Eighteen years ago when I arrived to work at The Valley Railroad, we received telephone calls from irate neighbors on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis complaining about smoke from our coal burning steam locomotives. In spite of training and instructions in our timetable as to where smoke was prohibited, the railroad had historicly had a real problem. We run through areas with up-scale homes, marinas full of nice white boats not to mention the fact that our landlord is the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
One of my first tasks was to solve this problem. After trying many of the tricks I learned over the years to cut down on the smoke (firing light and often, slugs, heels, banks, etc.), I took the easy way out and picked up the telephone.
Allow me to preface my next remarks with the assertion that I hold no stock in any coal company. I am not, and have never been paid a nickle by any coal broker, mine owner or the State of West Virginia.
That being stated, what I did was to call Bob McKay at Tower (now Tartan) Fuel Co. and placed an order for low volatile, bituminous coal from a seam of coal in West Virginia known as Pocahontas. I'm not going to going to bore you with a treatise on coal, but I will say that how much smoke coal produces is determined by a number of factors, primarily the percentage of volatile matter in the coal. Coal with less than, say 17% volatile doesn't smoke as much as coal with 20% volatile: low volatile=low smoke. We have been burning this coal since 1986 and have not had a complaint about smoke since, unless you count the owner of the hardware store we pass who doesn't like the way it smells (believe it or not the smoke smells just like coal smoke).
Now there is a cost (surprise!). Low volatile coal that also produces high BTUs and is low in sulphur content is expensive. We pay about $94.00 per ton delivered by rail (another story, don't get me started). By truck it is about $120.00 per ton.
It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have found.
Over the years we have tried to save money by buying other coals with varying success. A few years ago we ran most of a summer burning anthracite (also a smokeless coal). We have also tried other West Virginia coals, oxidized coal from Pennsylvania, etc. We always come back to the same conclusion: it is easier to pay for the good stuff than to fiddle around (or make smoke).
Now I have had any number of folks from other outfits tell me that this coal won't work in their locomotive because (fill in the blank). To this I say: nonsense. We have one locomotive with a narrow firebox, one with a wide firebox. We have burned this coal on table grates with 1/2" holes and finger grates with 2" gaps (now, both of our locomotive have Hulson type grates, obtained used from the U.P out of No. 3985).
I have also been told by folks from other outfits that all coal smokes. To this I say: nonsense. Come visit The Valley Railroad at Essex, Connecticut (essexsteamtrain.com) any time of day, any day of the week, when we are firing up from cold, starting out in the morning, putting the bank in at night or any time in between; you won't see any smoke most of the time and when you do see some it is never dense enough not to totally dissipate 20 feet from the stack.
Which would you rather deal with? Figuring out how to pay for expensive coal or fighting with angry neighbors?
I'll get off my soapbox now.
J.David

jdconrad@snet.net

David is right. Better coal means less smoke. The McKays know where to get it and they are very accomodating to the tourist railroad industry.

The Maine Narrow Gauge Museum operates coal burners in the middle of Portland, Maine without many smoke complaints. I helped them get initial approval to burn coal in that city. The Norfolk and Western cut down on coal fines haze at the stack by specifying double screened coal to take out the undersized fines.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Coal burning steam locomotives don't have to smoke!

Bill Petitjean

> Greetings:
> Eighteen years ago when I arrived to work at
> The Valley Railroad, we received telephone
> calls from irate neighbors on a daily
> (sometimes hourly) basis complaining about
> smoke from our coal burning steam
> locomotives. In spite of training and
> instructions in our timetable as to where
> smoke was prohibited, the railroad had
> historicly had a real problem. We run
> through areas with up-scale homes, marinas
> full of nice white boats not to mention the
> fact that our landlord is the Connecticut
> Department of Environmental Protection.
> One of my first tasks was to solve this
> problem. After trying many of the tricks I
> learned over the years to cut down on the
> smoke (firing light and often, slugs, heels,
> banks, etc.), I took the easy way out and
> picked up the telephone.
> Allow me to preface my next remarks with the
> assertion that I hold no stock in any coal
> company. I am not, and have never been paid
> a nickle by any coal broker, mine owner or
> the State of West Virginia.
> That being stated, what I did was to call
> Bob McKay at Tower (now Tartan) Fuel Co. and
> placed an order for low volatile, bituminous
> coal from a seam of coal in West Virginia
> known as Pocahontas. I'm not going to going
> to bore you with a treatise on coal, but I
> will say that how much smoke coal produces
> is determined by a number of factors,
> primarily the percentage of volatile matter
> in the coal. Coal with less than, say 17%
> volatile doesn't smoke as much as coal with
> 20% volatile: low volatile=low smoke. We
> have been burning this coal since 1986 and
> have not had a complaint about smoke since,
> unless you count the owner of the hardware
> store we pass who doesn't like the way it
> smells (believe it or not the smoke smells
> just like coal smoke).
> Now there is a cost (surprise!). Low
> volatile coal that also produces high BTUs
> and is low in sulphur content is expensive.
> We pay about $94.00 per ton delivered by
> rail (another story, don't get me started).
> By truck it is about $120.00 per ton.
> It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have
> found.
> Over the years we have tried to save money
> by buying other coals with varying success.
> A few years ago we ran most of a summer
> burning anthracite (also a smokeless coal).
> We have also tried other West Virginia
> coals, oxidized coal from Pennsylvania, etc.
> We always come back to the same conclusion:
> it is easier to pay for the good stuff than
> to fiddle around (or make smoke).
> Now I have had any number of folks from
> other outfits tell me that this coal won't
> work in their locomotive because (fill in
> the blank). To this I say: nonsense. We have
> one locomotive with a narrow firebox, one
> with a wide firebox. We have burned this
> coal on table grates with 1/2" holes
> and finger grates with 2" gaps (now,
> both of our locomotive have Hulson type
> grates, obtained used from the U.P out of
> No. 3985).
> I have also been told by folks from other
> outfits that all coal smokes. To this I say:
> nonsense. Come visit The Valley Railroad at
> Essex, Connecticut (essexsteamtrain.com) any
> time of day, any day of the week, when we
> are firing up from cold, starting out in the
> morning, putting the bank in at night or any
> time in between; you won't see any smoke
> most of the time and when you do see some it
> is never dense enough not to totally
> dissipate 20 feet from the stack.
> Which would you rather deal with? Figuring
> out how to pay for expensive coal or
> fighting with angry neighbors?
> I'll get off my soapbox now.
> J.David


petitinc@nwlink.com

TVRM began using this same coal last year. The smoke generated by #610 went from quite a bit to almost nothing. We are very pleased.

G. Mark - TVRM

Look at our Revamped Website
aw90@comcast.net

Mystic Seaport's coal-fired steamship "Sabino" was virtually smokeless when I visited recently. So I asked the engineer what they were burning...you guessed it, the same Pocahontas stuff previously mentioned.




SJHussar@aol.com

> Greetings:
> Eighteen years ago when I arrived to work at
> The Valley Railroad, we received telephone
> calls from irate neighbors on a daily
> (sometimes hourly) basis complaining about
> smoke from our coal burning steam
> locomotives. In spite of training and
> instructions in our timetable as to where
> smoke was prohibited, the railroad had
> historicly had a real problem. We run
> through areas with up-scale homes, marinas
> full of nice white boats not to mention the
> fact that our landlord is the Connecticut
> Department of Environmental Protection.
> One of my first tasks was to solve this
> problem. After trying many of the tricks I
> learned over the years to cut down on the
> smoke (firing light and often, slugs, heels,
> banks, etc.), I took the easy way out and
> picked up the telephone.
> Allow me to preface my next remarks with the
> assertion that I hold no stock in any coal
> company. I am not, and have never been paid
> a nickle by any coal broker, mine owner or
> the State of West Virginia.
> That being stated, what I did was to call
> Bob McKay at Tower (now Tartan) Fuel Co. and
> placed an order for low volatile, bituminous
> coal from a seam of coal in West Virginia
> known as Pocahontas.

We switched to Pocahontas in 1991. At the time we were running 464, which has table grates. When we put the 4-6-0 back in service in 1993 she had finger grates. After a year or so we switched to Hulson type grates. We had a pattern made for the grate sections and had them cast locally. We fabricated the bars from mild steel. We have had no problems with the steel bars since they are below the fire.
We had one customer insist we were burning oil since we ran with such a clean stack.

Martyhuck@aol.com

> A few years ago we ran most of a summer burning
> anthracite (also a smokeless coal)

How did you do that? I thought minimum combustion temperatures and combustion time were too high and too long respectively, to make Anthracite burn it practical as a locomotive fuel with a specially designed firebox, such as a Wooten.

Appreciate more details, Thanks.

superheater62@yahoo.com

A question for the coal experts. Afew years back the Laona & Northern was burning pressed coal briquettes in their little 2-6-2. Was this an effort to cut down on smoke, or cost?

Dennis

dstorzek@elnet.com

> How did you do that? I thought minimum
> combustion temperatures and combustion time
> were too high and too long respectively, to
> make Anthracite burn it practical as a
> locomotive fuel with a specially designed
> firebox, such as a Wooten.

Dear Superheater:
I believe that the Wooten firebox was designed to burn "culm" which was very low grade anthracite and considered to be more or less a waste product of the anthracite mines. Culm was widely used for ballast, only to be dug up and sold after railroads were abandoned since coal prices had gone up so much since steam days.
There were a number of early steam locomotives specificly designed to burn anthracite.
In any event, we successfully burned anthracite (stove size) most of one summer in our No. 40, a 2-8-2 with a wide firebox.
That summer, we experienced extream difficulty in obtaining coal via rail because of a car shortage/congestion. Coal from West Virginia by truck was $120./ton verses $75./ton from the Wilkes-Barre, PA area. We could save a lot of money by burning antracite.
The BTU rating was in line with the bituminous coals we used, we had no trouble with burning up grates or anything like that. But as you correctly note, the coal burns at a slow rate and it works best with a very thin fire (<3"). So it is very unforgiving and can't be left too long without attention, if a section of the fire goes out, you have a dickens of a time getting it going again. There just wasn't enough "extra" in the firebox to move around. Also it tended to form clinkers if you fiddled with the fire. It was tricky to bank up the locomotive overnight and not have it pop off. After a while, hopper cars were again available and I decided that the cost savings and ease of delivery (by truck) just weren't enough to outweigh the stress (human) involved in using it. We went back to bituminous delivered by rail.
We could start a new thread on the subject of coal deliveries by rail (but won't, as it would be too painful).
J.David


jdconrad@snet.net

> We could start a new thread on the subject
> of coal deliveries by rail (but won't, as it
> would be too painful).
> J.David

J. David said: "I've tried my luck
With shipping coal by rail, by truck,
I've bought it here, I've bought it there,
Just to keep smoke from the neighbors' air;
But now I smile from day to night
By never burning Anthracite!"

This sounds like the same coal that we used on NKP 759 back in the early 1970's. I remember that the coal was more expensive but it was high btu and LOW ash. Great when you are the one cleaning the ashpan. I believe that the coal pile on the OC in Dennison is from that source. I had suggested this coal to JJJ a few years ago. They purchased several loads and then went back to another coal for the photographer's specials that produced more smoke!! Back in the day, railroads did NOT want smoke and you could be penalized for making excessive smoke. We sometimes forget that fact.

steamfan@crusoe.net

> J. David said: "I've tried my luck
> With shipping coal by rail, by truck,
> I've bought it here, I've bought it there,
> Just to keep smoke from the neighbors' air;
> But now I smile from day to night
> By never burning Anthracite!"

My overalls stay black as night
by never using anthracite
Smoke won't be voluminous
if you burn the right bituminous
And never fret about your boil
if you burn waste crankcase oil
But far better it would be
if you can find some Bunker C
Just avoid the constant trouble
of the oil slopping off the shovel
Many firemen are wiser
to run it through an atomizer
Hold your head high above the weasels
who have substituted diesels
In the motive power duel
there's no fuel like an old fuel.

dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

That's why NYC ran electric out Harmon was smoke........Wooly

> This sounds like the same coal that we used
> on NKP 759 back in the early 1970's. I
> remember that the coal was more expensive
> but it was high btu and LOW ash. Great when
> you are the one cleaning the ashpan. I
> believe that the coal pile on the OC in
> Dennison is from that source. I had
> suggested this coal to JJJ a few years ago.
> They purchased several loads and then went
> back to another coal for the photographer's
> specials that produced more smoke!! Back in
> the day, railroads did NOT want smoke and
> you could be penalized for making excessive
> smoke. We sometimes forget that fact.


wooly421@charter.net

Aieee!
Enough, already!!

K4s1361@hotmail.com

> Aieee!
> Enough, already!!

No doggerel contribution from one of the pro writers on this board? Were you just appointed head of the Pun Police?

Seriously guys, why was the subject line of Boiler Washes carried over from a previous post in another thread rather than replaced with the appropriate one from this thread? Can this feature be altered to automatically change the subject line or eliminate it altogether so one can type in a better one?

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

fortunately we didn't have irate neighbors to deal with, but i remember very early on this summer with the 142 steam trips on the Bel Del that the guys from NYS&WTHS demanded pocohontas No. 7, based on heavy recommendation from you guys.

they were particularly concerned with burning grates.

for 25 tons by truck it cost us... accessing database...$3344.75. and they showed up with pea coal if i am recalling this ancient history from may '04 correctly (memory is the second thing to go, i can't remember the first).

we have since gone to a mine run coal (includes chunks the size of a watermellons) that apparent SRR uses. i don't know what seam it's from, maybe Pocohontas No. 3?

when i fired last i found it to be quite smokey no matter how i handled the fire.

for the most part, we must carry a light fire because the runs we do are all on fairly flat railroad and (sadly) the trip only goes 8 miles round trip.

RCW

http://brwrr.com
rcw7585@njit.edu