SR6900,

I was basing my question off of the coal I have seen in the bin at TVRM up til the last time I was there circa 2008. What I have most always seen is that of coal that is about twice to three times the size of the bulk of the coal seen in the tender....also, the coal at TVRM had usually been impressively free of fines. This coal is unwashed mine run of a certain chemical composition.
Given the track record of fuel on hand at TVRM I deduced there was an error by the broker or at the mine, both of which i have run into. IN fact some mines, while providing coal of the proper chemical composition flat out refused to wash it and I was curious as to whether or not this is the case here.
I don't understand how or why it is you derived that I was stating anyone especially GW doesn't know how to order coal. See, one of the purposes of this forum is to educate and or provide insight. In providing explanations to some of the questions/comments I was effectively providing factual information so that it is available for others to use.

Cheers, Jason

Absolutely! This goes back to a point made in another thread. TVRM has always (since my first association with them circa '97) done a phenomenal job in keeping there equipment up!

Cheers, Jason

Mr. Phillips,

Why is it necessary to attack a question when it was a legitimate one? Granted you might feel that the question was unnecessary, but is that not the reason for forums such as this.

He was not questioning the quality of the coal, just the size. And base upon the stories and information that I have been told through the years from friends and family that have been engineers and fireman, size was a relevant matter.

The L&N may have used whatever coal that would burn, but there is way to much documentation from railroads and other research institutes to make me believe that railroads did not care about what coal went into their locomotives. Efficiency and cost effectiveness were definitely in their thought process.

And we are talking about current day, period everyday operation. In this age you should be choosing the correct coal for what your operation requires. IF you like small coal then great, if you like larger coal then that is fine to.

I get aggravated when someone gets their ego hurt because something was said that goes against their way of thinking, and then stands up with their feathers ruffled and begins squawking. The ability to be open minded and listen and let go is a far greater ability than maliciously delivering derogatory comments.

sheesh . . .

Hello, moderator.

While that may be the case with decent coal, from my experience, smaller coal pulverizes into dust much more quickly compared to the larger lump coal, especially if the general hardness is lower. From the mine, to the truck, to the coal pile, to the loader and finally the tender, you’ve put the coal through five stages of handling that effectively reduce its useable size. Not to mention, the time the coal spends in the tender effective crushes it further with the locomotive’s movement. The fines are okay for yard firing and runs that consist of little work being done by the locomotive. When you put a serious load behind a locomotive, however, the larger coal is far superior in hand firing. Unlike fine coal, the larger lump does not get sucked off the grates as easy or as quickly. It also doesn’t clog the grates and provides sufficient air-space through the firebed, lessening the likelihood of clinkers and mounds to form. Seems to me that the fireman's workload would decrease substantially with larger coal, perhaps?

As a final note, you can always break larger coal down into smaller pieces and not the other way around. It seems a lot of guys overlook that little factoid when they're arguing for the fine coal.

Best,
DC

Jewell Smokeless Coal Company

We developed a specification years ago for the coal we wanted to burn. Marty Knox was a great help (he may not realize this). Key components in the specification are percent volatiles, BTU content, and ash fusion temperature. The best coal for us comes from West Virginia (can you say Pocahontas?).

Your requirements may vary. Void where prohibited by law.

Mark, are you saying the coal currently being burned in 630 (while on the road) is not treated or processed in any way? It just burns hot and with no smoke?

The coal I've seen used at TVRM does allow for some smoke. The current load here in NC makes none.

If you guys yammering about coal size want a shock, look in the tender or coal bin of any British steamer photographed in the 1950s and 1960s. I've seen photos of everything from well-processed coal to mine-run with slabs as big as a man; hammers were presumably mandatory.

Well that would just make for a bad day. Bet you could have made some money off of steam operated jack hammers with those firemen.

If you look at really old photos of British steam, sometimes they stockpiled coal by building walls with it. The blocks of coal were like big stones and they fitted them tightly together into walls. I have seen photos of tracks in yards running between perfectly orderly square edged walls of coal.

Note what that says about wage/living standards in Victorian England. You had enormous pools of cheap, working class labor.

Mechanization and the world war loss of life changed that quick.

This is absolutely true in all respects. Railroads were notorious for burning the cheapest stuff they could find,whether it met any standards or specs or not. When confronted with a "bargain," especially during times of tight budgets, the Purchasing & Stores Department would almost always go for the lowest price. To compound the issue, railroads often bought huge amounts of coal and stored it on the ground, usually for months but sometimes for years. This was usually done in anticipation of miners going on strike, but there were other reasons, too.

Handling this coal multiple times (loading it, unloading it, reloading it, dumping it into a coal chute, then again into tenders) tended to break the coal up into more fines. The cheap coal usually already had a high slack and shale content, and this handling and rehandling usually added sand and gravel to mix. Having the coal sit in the weather caused it to deteriorate, too, as rain and other factors reduced the amount of volatiles in the coal. If it was poor quality coal to begin with, none of this improved it any. Just an inconvenient fact of railroad life.

We'd all love to believe that railroads of yore did everything according to strict policies and procedures. Not always.

Today's steam locomotive operators have the luxury of time and money that allows them to be very choosey about what they burn. That's a GOOD thing, IMO. That, and the presence of skilled engine crews, makes the difference.

One of the reasons I like RYPN is conversations like this. I have virtually NO experience firing with coal, but I can fire with stuff as light as #2 diesel to asphalt. When the day comes I get a shot at firing coal, this conversation will come in handy from a technical aspect...

I'm sure this was true on many if not most railroads, but I don't believe it was universal.

The L&N for instance, did extensive testing and figured out skimping on coal was a false economy (see the Trains all-steam issue on the L&N M-1 2-8-4's). Somehow I doubt the N&W skimped either.

The NYC, N&W, IC, etc.(to name a few) invested large sums (for the day) into studying fuel economy. One report which comes to mind is that of results pertaining to a University of Illinois Locomotive Test Plant study which was commissioned by the IC. It details cost benefit analysis between both grades of coal and sizing. They performed both laboratory and "in field" test all utilizing a specific class of modern (for the time) 2-8-0s. This study was conducted in the mid to late 20's IIRC.

It is mind boggling to me the quantity of unburnt fines which are to be collected from the smokebox of a locomotive at a 31 day, even on a locomotive with an arch. Not a problem of course on a locomotive which doesn't really work. However, when the exhaust gas velocity is sufficient the fines are sucked through the tubes and most of them out the stack quite readily.

Cheers Mr. Odom, Jason