The Everett Railroad Company has successfully converted its historic 1920s steam locomotive No. 11 back to fuel oil with help from rail preservation contractor FMW Solutions, allowing the popular tourist railroad operation to improve the locomotive’s performance and simplify its operation.

“With our increased ridership and popularity, the 11 has been operating on our tourist trains now more than ever. It’s become a challenge to get the right coal at a reasonable price, and the quality of coal can greatly affect how a locomotive operates. Combined with our desire to be a good neighbor through reducing smoke, we’ll also be able to simplify our fueling logistics and free up more space for parking,” said Alan Maples, President of the Everett Railroad Company.

The conversion to oil meant more than just changing the fuel. FMW Solutions performed the engineering and design work for the required drafting changes in the locomotive smokebox, which included a new exhaust nozzle, and petticoat extension to optimize draft production without needing to alter the original smokestack. FMW also provided guidance for the firebox and firepan modifications, which Everett Railroad performed in-house.

“There are some major differences in how coal and oil combust, which means that the steam locomotive needs to generate more of a draft on the fire to evenly distribute the heat and draw the fire forward,” explained Wolf Fengler, Vice President of Engineering for FMW Solutions. “Our approach was informed by historic railroad mechanical practices, modern fluid mechanics, and our background in installing similar systems on other locomotives.”

“Working with FMW Solutions made this an economical solution in more ways than one. With our upcoming season just around the corner, we had a fairly small window to get this conversion right and ensure the conversion itself was cost-effective. FMW had the skills to ensure that this was the case. Their work went a long way to save us money and the engine’s performance now is the best it's ever been,” explained Zach Hall, Everett Railroad steam shop foreman.

The Everett Railroad constructed a new oil tank for the 11 and Stockton Locomotive Works provided Everett with a burner, firing valve quadrant, and emergency oil shutoff.

Built by the Cooke Works of the American Locomotive Company, the locomotive was originally constructed to burn oil for a railroad in Cuba, but ultimately never delivered for its intended use. It was converted to burn coal and served various short line railroads until the 1980s. The 11 was later acquired by the Everett Railroad Company in 2006 and restored to service in 2015.

The Everett Railroad Company is a short-line freight and tourist railroad headquartered in Hollidaysburg, PA, operating 22 miles of track and providing rail freight transportation for industrial and agricultural customers. Its tourism program has welcomed over 100,000 passengers to the area since 2015. It is currently restoring Huntingdon & Broad Top Mountain Railroad steam locomotive No. 38, which will also be an oil burner. For more information on the Everett Railroad Company, visit http://www.everettrailroad.com.

Full press release, additional images, and an Ovaltine commercial here: https://www.fmwsolutions.com/newsroom/2 ... ngineering

Great work. Is that a plumb bob at the center of the petticoat extension or part of the revised exhaust? Is the current set up similar to how it was originally built by Cooke? Unfortunately, when I made my copy of the ALCO Standard Practice book I neglected to copy 74 (SMOKE BOX Arrangt. & Front) and 75 (SMOKE STACK) so I do not recall if ALCO had guidance for oil-burner front ends in the Standard Practice book. Thank you.

The plumb bob is used to line up the petticoat/stack with the blast nozzle and part of the new arrangement.

This type of arrangement may have been used by ALCO and the railroads to fabricate and maintain their equipment. The design has been modified from what ALCO originally did, which has improved the draft and efficiency.

Yes, thank you. I understand the use of plumb bob in this application. I merely wanted a confirmation that the object in question was indeed a plumb bob and not part of your design, as it is inside the petticoat and so would not be visible in the drawing view that you provided. As for the design, my question was to how your design compared to what ALCO originally did as built as an oil burner for the RR in Cuba and not as rebuilt for coal burning. Since the locomotive was never shipped to the customer in Cuba I inferred that ALCO also performed the rebuild to convert to coal, so when you say, "modified from what ALCO originally did" it is not clear to me if you are referring to what ALCO did when they built it as an oil-fired locomotive or what ALCO(?) did when they rebuilt the locomotive to burn coal.

Yep, more or less, the front end has been returned to "as-built," but the exhaust nozzle itself is new in both design and build.

Good to see some great contractors getting more work - awesome job.

What about the other end of the combustion system? Firepan design?

One of their shop men showed me a picture of the firebox last week. Standard practice, neat job --- "That dog will hunt".

.

Would there be any advantage to a firefox setup like this to have an arch to elongate the oil flame path? - not necessarily with arch tubes, but potentially supported in a different way.

.

Look what I found!

Cheers!

I am, by no means, an expert in this, but have read a few articles recently on alternative firing methods for miniature boilers. Contrary to the original post, I was under the assumption that oil, and propane or LNG, needed less draft because of forced burn rate by means of the fuel flow and atomizer (in the case of oil), and only needs enough draft to exhaust the byproducts of combustion, whereas a solid fuel needs the draft signal to pull air through the fire to increase the burn rate and BTU output. I would be curious to hear from those with experience.

Was this the locomotive that was being tested with biochar instead of coal?

.