Trains Magazine reports that the 261 is looking at the feasibility of converting to oil.

I wonder how many years we have left to see coal burning locomotives in the USA?
Maybe 10?

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... OnQkaBkN0E

Makes a ton of sense. Between the substantial cost/btu savings and all the environmental issues plus ease of operation its pretty much a no brainer.

Too bad as I for one love the smell of soft coal burning and to me it's the " full monty" of mainline steam....but in today's reality it must go.

Sad but true. Ross Rowland

Oil is more easily handled and sourced than coal is these days.

For an engine that "goes on the road" it makes things much easier. No figuring out coal loading, no worries about where to dump ash, and oil is much easier to purchase. Don't get me wrong, the smell of coal smoke on a brisk October morning is one of my favorite smells.

What is the difference, if any, on corrosion between coal and oil fired locomotives?

Coal ash leaches acid which if left on the grate bars, against the mud ring, or in the ashpan can encourage deterioration in those areas. Oil burners shield them with firebrick, which can is kept wet between firings lead to its own deterioration as well. Both produce soot which is its own kind of thing..... more insulating than damaging. Neither one doesn't damage whatever it is used in.

Despite current EPA allowances for coal in historical restorations such as steam locomotives, I expect to see further regulation in the not-too-distant future. Whether it makes a drop of difference in the climate swing or not, there are issues with coal that have to be faced.
Personally, I think you could run a steam locomotive in seasonal service all year and not come close to the emissions left by highway vehicles on I-95 in New Rochelle on a single Friday evening.

To be truly forward-thinking about this, the conversion should be to liquid bio-fuel of some kind. I keep saying this, I know I'm a broken record, but fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels are going to be on their way out big time in the lifetimes of the younger members of this board, if not some of us who are fossils ourselves.

4 of the S3’s that worked on the Idaho Division were converted to oil at some point. Wouldn’t be non historic for 261 to receive the same treatment.

It doesn’t bother me like it did for the Rio Grande mikes, locomotives that were never (to my knowledge) oil burners

I would rather have them go to liquid bio-fuels like veggie, hemp, corn, soy, sugar, algae, etc. These fuels are more sustainable and environmentally friendly. If I did a restoration or a new build I would have it run on these liquid bio-fuels which I would prefer veggie oil.

A bio-fuel may be more 'politically correct', but how practical is it for refueling on a Class 1 (where 261 does some running from time to time)? Diesel fuel would seem a pragmatic choice.

.

I thought the 4960 also had issues generating enough steam to really power a train after the biofuel conversion as well.

That's about design, not about fuel.

I just wonder if all this is necessary for preservation, and if coal will really become blacklisted for museum operations. While I think 130 car coal trains to Orlando so the people can run their air conditioners 24 hours a day/365 days a year are going away, I don't think coal will become like asbestos and be beyond consideration for other uses. SRR and D&S put together probably haven't put out as much CO2 in their entire existence as that plant in Orlando (which I lived three miles from) puts out in a week.