I'm going to come right out and say that my knowledge about steam locomotives is not very good and i know many of you know way more than i ever will about them! This also is not a foamer question for the Railfanning board as i'm trying to find out some information on 2 ex LS&MS Ry. 4-2-4-T locomotives built by Cooke in 1859.

The locomotives in question are the #190 named Reindeer/ originally named Stranger, and the #191 named Gazelle. In the Locomotives of the NYC Lines book by May & Edson on page 84 it shows the #190 being rebuilt in 1872 and the #191 rebuilt in 1862.

On page 26 of the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. book by McLellan & Warrick there is a nice picture of the Reindeer on the bottom of the page wich states the locomotive was originally a 4-4-0 named Stranger blt. in 1854 and in the late 1860's rebuilt as a 4-2-0 but it is clearly a 4-2-4-T in the photo! I know the book has a few errors. The locomotive #190 was designed to only haul the company pay car.In the photo the locomotive has a tall diamond smokestack.

I also have another different photo of #190 in my collection with the same smokestack. Here is why i'm asking the question above. There is a photo in a somewhat rare 1870's LS&MS Ry. large 32 page photo book wich shows photo's of many of the stone arched bridges with other bridges and the depot's at Wakeman, Ohio, Fremont, Ohio and Chicago, all the photographs were taken by a H.L. Bliss of Buffalo NY.between 1868 - mid 1870's. In the book there is a photo of the Ashtabula,Ohio bridge with a 4-2-4-T locomotive on top with a baggage car and coach. The locomotive has a large funnel smokestack.The coach is lettered Lake Shore Railway wich dates the coach to 1868 as after that they were lettered Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry.

The photo on the bridge has to be either the #190 or #191 as the LS&MS Ry. had no other 4-2-4-T's only those two. I can't find any photo's of the #191 Gazelle or much about it but think the photo of the engine / cars on the Ashtabula bridge may be of the #190.

Sooooo, if a locomotive was converted/rebuilt from a woodburner to a coal burner what exactly is involved? Is changing the type of smokestack part of the process, maybe the grates? or is there way more involved? I was curious as to why the smokestack was changed on the #190 in the photo's and if perhaps maybe the locomotive was rebuilt/changed to burn coal instead of wood in it's later years of service?

Thank you for any replies and please don't throw me under the train for asking as i'm not foaming!

I think the process is relatively straight forward. Maybe different grates, perhaps to allow rocking.

Your stack design changes completely. Most wood burners had the "cabbage" or "radley and hunter" style stack with screens designed to trap wood embers that might start fires.

On a coal-burner, your netting is in the smokebox. It achieves the same purpose, but is not as elaborate.

The Heisler at Sumpter valley Railroad was built as a woodburner and still burns wood,However it has burned coal in the past. To change to coal burning, you add coal.. there are no other changes needed as the grates are the same for coal or wood.we never have to rock the grates with a wood fire how ever.

Jerry

As usual, the answer is "it depends". Sometimes there's no mechanical difference; sometimes drafting, dampers, and spark abatement hardware needs to be altered.

Coal packs more BTUs per volume than wood, so a coal fire will be thinner - fireboxes lacking depth may find wood a difficult fuel. Coal ash fuses at high temperatures into clinkers - wood doesn't clinker. This has ramifications on grate in terms of free air flow (gaps) VS fuel supporting (metal) and the need for the grate to be movable or have clinkers and cake removed or broken up by some means. Wood sparks are lighter than coal, and get thrown more easily, but expire more quickly. Wood fires probably need less forceful draft than coal in general terms. A tender of coal can get you over the whole division; a tender of wood won't. You will move many more cubic feet of wood than coal to get the same train hauled the same distance. This may affect the tender capacity and refueling stations along the way. If the GENERAL was a coal burner and TEXAS burned wood, the Andrews Raid might have had a different ending.

Your mileage may vary.....

dave

I've fired coal and oil burning locomotives. Never been around a woodburner.

I've operated/fired several traction engines on wood and coal.

My question is about "punching the tubes".

In the traction engine "world", it is common each day to run a flue brush through the tubes, usually in the morning either before the fire is lit or just after it is lit, to remove soot buildup on the tubes. This buildup would cause poor heat transfer, and has to be removed manually via brushing. This soot is from predominatly wood fuel, but sometimes coal as well.

In a coal burning locomotive, the cinders usually have enough velocity and cumulitive mass to scrub the tubes, keeping them clean. Punching the tubes is not necessary.

In an oil fired locomotive, sand is occasionally introduced via the firebox door to "sandblast" the tubes, removing soot.

So........

It has been my understanding that the screens and baffles are in the smokestak of a woodburner so as to keep the smokebox relatively free from obstructions if "punching the tubes" was needed. The screens and baffles were moved to the smokebox when coal was used because the need to punch the tubes became much less.

Any thoughts?

Where did the idea of "tossing sand in" come from? That is to say, if it works on oil-burners, why not use it on a wood-burner too? Is there just too much soot in a wood-burner? Or had it not been thought of until the oil age?

Would a wood burnining steam locomotive have more draft to pull the soot through the tubes? I have to say, I've never seen a photo of anyone "punch" a tube on a locomotive, though have seen it in the traction engine world.

Many locomotives were built as coal burners with relatively short smokeboxes, diamond stacks, and screens in the stack. I am roughly estimating that this was common practice of the 1870-1885 period.

After that period, many of those earlier coal burners were converted to have a lengthened smokebox, and the screens were moved from the stack to the smokebox. The diamond stack was replaced by a shotgun stack.

In this post 1885 era, new coal burners were built with the long smokebox with screens and a shotgun stack.

Well, actually the diamond stack in coal use didn't preclude the screen in the smokebox. Sometimes there were both.....or just the whirl or cone in the stack and the screen in the smokebox, based on the older books in my library. The extended smokebox was tried and discarded, than came back as exhaust nozzles and petticoat pipes improved along with the screen and diaphragm plate arrangement that eventually led to the Master Mechanic's Front End according to one author of Modern Locomotive Construction (1890). The bigger stacks with the huge sheet metal cones like the Funnel and Rushton were full of centrifugal diverters that spun the sparks outward into the sides of the enclosures then let them fall into the base, from which they could be removed.

No David, wood burners didn't want as intense a draft as coal burners, but did want more air and less metal in the grate. Plenty of flow at less velocity to help deal with the water and other volatiles in the less heat intensive wood. Lighter sparks and chips on fire would be less likely to be carried out with slower air.

I spent a wonderful afternoon firing the Climax at Puffing Billy......we started with the tender packed full of split red gum, and the cab and deck so piled with stacks of old lumber it was Hard to fit ourselves in. The supply was very diminished before we were halfway done with a short run.

Tubes were punched in locomotives, too - including coal burners, and usually from the cab during stops.

dave

I'm thinking a different issue, coal may burn hotter, will the boiler withstand higher heat?
Early non coal burning engines may have had a different metal mix.

Aside from that, a small engine you could have a rake long enough to run thru the fire to get embers down if neded, but if the grates are large enough, in time it'll just drop down.

Always informative, thanks Dave!