Also, if the locomotive had a mechanical stoker such as an HT or BK, the entire fire door opening would have to be reconfigured, as was done on CNR 6077 for example.
| Attachments: |
|
DSC_8072.JPG [ 168.29 KiB | Viewed 9220 times ] |
| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| converting steam https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30838 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | john 5614 [ Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | converting steam |
how do you convert a steam locomotive form coal to oil and on a similar subject why did the big boys failed as oil burners. thank you John Ross |
|
| Author: | BDrotarIII [ Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
According to William Kratville's Big Boy book, they steamed great, but the single burner caused spot heating on the crown sheet, which made it leak. |
|
| Author: | Kelly Anderson [ Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
. |
|
| Author: | joe6167 [ Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:19 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam | ||
Also, if the locomotive had a mechanical stoker such as an HT or BK, the entire fire door opening would have to be reconfigured, as was done on CNR 6077 for example.
|
|||
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
Baldwin Locomotive Works 60000, now in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, was switched back and forth from coal to oil to coal in the NorthWest United States during its tour. It does have a stoker, and a borrowed oil tender was used. There is an on-line contemporary report with some details. |
|
| Author: | DBH [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
We converted Southern #401 from coal to oil fire. It is a really different set of job skills to fire a oil burner. So far we have found our conversion works pretty well. We have modifed the firing valve from last year & hope to have a little better control now. We are burning mainly waste motor oil & that seems to work well. Dave Huffman |
|
| Author: | CofG1974 [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
So if one wants to convert an oil burner back to coal just reverse the above process right? For those in the "Know", can some tell me which type is easier to maintain from a cost standpoint? And which one is more feasible to use in a museum type operation? Jamie |
|
| Author: | sbhunterca [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
Much of the answer will be in your museum's location and surrounding land uses. If you're thousands of miles from a source of good steam coal, the transportation costs may make oil the most economic choice. As well, if you are surrounded by residential neighbourhoods or other places where "greenies" lurk, you would be well advised to switch to oil to avoid becoming the victim of a fossil fuel witch hunt. If you're publicly denounced as evil for burning coal, any savings will be unimportant. However, if you're near a good source of coal, away from residents who are likely to complain, then coal is very possibly your best choice. Just try to keep as clear a stack as possible! Coal takes more labour in handling but oil can require more firebox repairs. Coal piles lying on the ground are becoming unpopular with environmental types, but unless you have your oil fired locomotives fuelled by tank truck, you will have to deal with strict regulations on oil storage. Perhaps an operator who has switched fuels (and thus has maintenance and operating history for both on the same locomotive and assignment) could give some clear economic information. Steve Hunter |
|
| Author: | whodom [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
sbhunterca wrote: As well, if you are surrounded by residential neighbourhoods or other places where "greenies" lurk, you would be well advised to switch to oil to avoid becoming the victim of a fossil fuel witch hunt. If you're publicly denounced as evil for burning coal, any savings will be unimportant. I'm waiting on someone to switch to "bio-mass" (e.g.- wood) since it's considered "carbon neutral" and therefore "green". I guess there is that one narrow gauge engine; the owner should tout his environmental foresight. |
|
| Author: | PaulWWoodring [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
sbhunterca wrote: Perhaps an operator who has switched fuels (and thus has maintenance and operating history for both on the same locomotive and assignment) could give some clear economic information.Steve Hunter Sounds like the GCRy people and their experience with bio-fuel would be helpful. Depending on how often you would operate the engine, you might have to try and collect used fry oil from every restaurant within 30-50 mi. radius of the railroad to get enough oil to operate more than occasionally. |
|
| Author: | Aarne H. Frobom [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
Remember that coal must be handled twice: once as fuel and once as ashes. If you are looking for operational economy and not historical accuracy, the convenience of oil is significant. If your engine moves over the road on someone else's property, handling coal and ashes becomes even more of a problem. (Of course, some maintain that burning coal is a better test of manhood than twirling a firing knob.) There is a hate-coal movment in this country, and one of its strategies is to have coal ash declared a hazardous waste, which will require it to be cleaned up completely and disposed of at high cost. I don't know yet how actively we should be worried about this, but it's out there. Aarne Frobom Stoker Jet City, Michigan |
|
| Author: | DBH [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
One thing to think about is will you be running in cold weather. Things like heat coils in the tender & the oil pipeing need to be addressed. Also be careful of what you are getting. We have got several barrels of oil that had lots of water in it. You need to have sumps in the tank with proper valving so water can be drained off. Some hyduralic oil won't burn & makes it real hard to fire properly. I will say I have always liked firing coal but in the long term operation of steam, I think oil makes sense for us. Dave Huffman |
|
| Author: | PaulWWoodring [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
Aarne H. Frobom wrote: Remember that coal must be handled twice: once as fuel and once as ashes. If you are looking for operational economy and not historical accuracy, the convenience of oil is significant. If your engine moves over the road on someone else's property, handling coal and ashes becomes even more of a problem. (Of course, some maintain that burning coal is a better test of manhood than twirling a firing knob.) There is a hate-coal movment in this country, and one of its strategies is to have coal ash declared a hazardous waste, which will require it to be cleaned up completely and disposed of at high cost. I don't know yet how actively we should be worried about this, but it's out there. Aarne Frobom Stoker Jet City, Michigan I've long been somewhat conflicted on this subject, as one who both loves steam and is more than a little concerned about the long-term state of our environment. I've justified (in my own mind at least) promoting the operation of coal-burning steam locomotives as a very small, insignificant use of coal for the purpose of accuracy in presenting "living history". It is necessary, however, to acknowledge that coal, like other common products we've used and taken for granted all of our lives, has decidedly dangerous downsides and consequences. For instance, it's been proven that burning coal pollutes the air, water and ground with elements like mercury. I don't think anyone here would even consider accurately portraying a locomotive repair shop display that used real asbestos to lag boilers. We've learned about the dangers of that material over the last 50 years, and the shameful legacy of the lies told by it's producers in order to keep selling it, and about all of the lives and families it destroyed. We may come to find that over time coal will generally be regarded in the same way by the majority of Americans, as well as by most people around the World. I've shoveled more than a few tons of real estate into the flaming maw of a firebox in my life. I enjoyed it immensely, and am glad for the memories. However, if we are going to continue to be able to operate the beasts we all love into the future, we will probably have to adapt other ways of producing the heat it takes to create the steam. That is just a fact of the 21st Century. |
|
| Author: | CofG1974 [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
Steve why does oil fired engines need more frequent fire box repairs? Also what's the cost difference to maintain the types? Does coal cost more to maintain or oil? Jamie |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: converting steam |
PaulWWoodring wrote: I've long been somewhat conflicted on this subject, as one who both loves steam and is more than a little concerned about the long-term state of our environment. I've justified (in my own mind at least) promoting the operation of coal-burning steam locomotives as a very small, insignificant use of coal for the purpose of accuracy in presenting "living history". It is necessary, however, to acknowledge that coal, like other common products we've used and taken for granted all of our lives, has decidedly dangerous downsides and consequences. For instance, it's been proven that burning coal pollutes the air, water and ground with elements like mercury. I've shoveled more than a few tons of real estate into the flaming maw of a firebox in my life. I enjoyed it immensely, and am glad for the memories. However, if we are going to continue to be able to operate the beasts we all love into the future, we will probably have to adapt other ways of producing the heat it takes to create the steam. That is just a fact of the 21st Century. It is necessary to acknowledge, however, that "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." Burning coal pollutes, has sulfur and mercury emissions, etc. Guess what? So does burning oil--even "biofuel" emits "greenhouse gases," CO, and a bunch of other noxious stuff. Ditto diesel emissions. Ditto gasoline/petrol. Ditto burning wood. Ditto burning dried fish. So let's electrify the Grand Canyon and Strasburg. Ooops, hadn't taken into consideration what you're plugging the substation into, eh? Is it all wind power, or solar or methane from a landfill? Even nuclear power has "leftovers" problems. And what about all the environmental damage of all that copper mining? Battery power? Same electrical supply problem. Plus, do you know where all that lead, zinc, nickel cadmium, lithium, or whatever in the batteries comes from? Or eventually goes? Horses? Well, you see, we have this manure problem producing nitrogen that's polluting the estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay........ So, as I see it, if we micro-analyze the problem far enough, we're back to putting sails on rail carts.................. </sarcasm> |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|