A comment in another (closed) thread reminded me of this. In the other thread, someone suggested that the best locomotive for a large-scale Norfolk Southern steam program would be the 1218, but converted to oil firing. While I agree this is pretty much blasphemy, apparently the N&W actually designed such a conversion back in the 1940's.

Check out this drawing from the N&W Historical Society archives:

http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=20909

Does anyone know the story behind this? Perhaps it was in response to some of the coal miner's strikes at the time?

Considering the N&W was the last railroad to switch to diesels, it was probably one of many ideas they were coming up with to continue running steam with cheaper operating costs.

Not sure on its origin, and I do agree that it's blasphemy, but it does raise an interesting hypothetical question in my mind. Were the 1218 to be converted to oil (yes, I know, it's a stretch...and that's assuming the long shot of her ever returning to the rails), would/could a model similar to 2816's be adopted? And by that I mean the fact that the Empress burns the same fuel that those big, new, shiny diesels passing her do. I'd imagine a setup like this would theoretically ease refueling logistic stress, and possibly cut down on fuel costs.

Union Pacific Challenger 3985, a locomotive and boiler of similar size to the 1218, was a coal-burner, converted to oil.

Oil fuel was several times more expensive per BTU in the mid-1940's when this drawing is dated. It definitely would not have been a cost-saving measure.

The origin can be traced back to a looming coal strike, they designed an if needed alternative.

The idea as I stated it (as it was also discussed by management during NS steam program episode one) is to utilize "off the rack" diesel fuel. If the bunker area of the tender were to be enlarged by 30% or so a tank of sufficient size could be accommodated. Sufficient size being large enough to get between established fueling points.

Blasphemy? I call over coming modern day operating logistics by utilizing existent resources thus minimizing special accommodations to be rather logical....... as well as necessary for something like that to ever hypothetically happen.

I also offer this, spend enough time on coal and one fully realizes the investment in time and unique services required on a daily basis. The savings extend WELL beyond those associated with refueling.

Cheers, Jason

In my overflowing box of useless credentials and talents, I do claim to be a somewhat knowledgeable N&W modeler and afficianado. Thus, I give this answer:

There are photos of the N&W class K-1 4-8-2 locomotives converted to oil burning in 1947. This was due to a miner's strike.

I know of no other such conversions, and I'm sure it was short lived. The plans for other classes of locomotives were probably drawn up for an "as needed" scenario that never happened.

As is well known, the N&W was loyal to coal.

Mark is correct. All of this was done as N&W's response to the United Mine Worker's strike that began in late 1946. It is well documented in the Jan/Feb 1998 issue of the N&WHS newsletter. 107 and another K1 4-8-2 were converted to oil, and "just happened" to be assigned to the local Pocahontas Division passenger trains through the coalfields. The oil firing components were purchased from the Santa Fe. There were plans to convert other K's and 4 Class A's, but the strike ended before any further conversions took place.

As for the original quote about an oil burning 1218, back when we were putting 1218 back together for display at VMT, Scott Lindsay made the remark that a late "super A" with roller bearing rods converted to burn oil would be about the perfect modern day mainline excursion steamer. Low maintainance, turn on just about any wye you could still find, haul any load at any speed, and fuel up anywhere.

That's strange, Bobby Saxtan told me the same thing, almost in those same words.

I mean blasphemy only in a historical sense-the A was a coal burner on a railroad that had coal running deep in its "blood." I did not intend to paint a [modern day] conversion that would ease operating logistics as blasphemy-far from it, since in many cases compromise is required for an organization's survival. I just meant to use the word blasphemy as a way to express how N&W "purists" would be rolling over in their graves. I wouldn't exactly like to see her converted, but if it meant having her out on the road again, you'd bet I'd be behind it in an instant!

Max,

Understand.....

Gary, 1522,

I mentioned this to Scott (the referred NS management) and he basically said "funny you should mention that".

Jason

Such learned men should be listened too!

the A class is an offshoot of the Y6 design, the boiler is actually longer than the Y6b,
the Y6's made for the slow and powerful trudging over the mountain grades, the A for the more level and speedier routes and some passenger runs, but no stranger helping grind coal up the mountains and even some pusher service.

We are very fortunate to have the near Y6b 1218. The engines were built with coal in mind and use.

Don't forget actual Y6a 2156 in St. Louis.

Just what are the differences between a 6a and 6b? I have a book on such things..... Currently over 1,000 miles away.

Thanks, Jason