Being that this is RYPN and not the Enquirer (Train Orders) we need to ensure that there is some form of History included in this thread.

The States of Utah, Colorado and Idaho all informed UP at one time or another that Coal Burning locomotives would no longer be allowed in their respective states. Toward the end of the 3985 coal burning years, it was very clear to the manager that unless a change was made, the locomotive would be confined to the Sherman Hill area.

The 3900's had been converted to burn oil in their normal operating years and they were successful. A deal was made with the folks in North Platte to salvage what was left of 3977 oil burning system and thus, the conversion of the 3985 was a simple and a reasonable task.

A review of many books concerning fuel oil on the UP reveals the fact that UP was never a big fan of oil in the first place. All locomotives, including the 844 were delivered from ALCO (superpower that is) as coal burners, later converted to oil by UP at various locations. Being that UP owned many of their own coal mines, conversions were the lower item on the task list. The threat of mine strikes and coal shortages drove UP to "experiment" more with fuel oil conversions. If you look at the notes and the history, these conversions were never given detailed planning. Having personally been in both original oil pans for the 800 and the 3900 class, I can tell you first hand that both pans and the drawings and detailed information that went with them are limited.

For example, the fire pan in the 844 is not symmetrical in shape left to right. The conversion of the Big Boy to fuel oil was an experiment that could have and would have worked, had they given it some time to test and actually resolve.

My point is: If any of think that "real science" was behind the conversions of the UP steam to fuel oil, you are wrong. They used burners with proven track records, basic oil pan designs that had proven to work and they used very basic air flow calculations to make them work. Beyond that, the science is next to zero in terms of what UP actually did.

A little bit of study and some basic book reading can explain how to make the Big Boy burn fuel oil. It can be done and it can and will have to be successful to see the locomotive ever leave the State of Wyoming under her own steam.

Kindly,

Very well stated, John.
There is really no valid reason it can not be done.

Ira Schreiber

I'm not sure Tom Payne is the right man for advice when it comes to converting UP 4014 from coal to oil. Just look what happen to RDG 2100. UP may have contacted him, because he was involved in the last major coal steamer to be oil converted. To me, UP Steam should be looking at how they did the previous oil conversions for UP 844 & UP 3985. Also, when it comes to oil burning steamers; they should take a look at the following: ATSF 3751, GCY 4960, SP 2472, SP 4449, SPS 700, & SSW 819. Of the steamers mention GCY 4960 sticks out the most when it comes to being oil fired.

Greenest Train In America
http://www.thetrain.com/special-events/steam/

Xanterra EcoLogix Steam Conversion
http://vimeo.com/27867272

Steam Powered by Waste Vegetable Oil
http://vimeo.com/6438539

Questions:
- How many types fuel oils are used for making steam?

- What is difference from FO #5 Vs. FO #2.

- What is difference from Heavy Oil Vs. Diesel Oil

I'm aware of Vegetable Oil being the NEW Fuel Oil and burning Diesel Oil is more of a quick fix than long term operation solution.

Enjoy! ^_^

All fuel oils are used for making steam, really anything that somehow can make at least 212 degrees can make steam. Many large facilities that have boilers on site have dual fuel burners, that can run natural gas or fuel oil (#2), many of them use the same diesel fuel that is used for the standby generators, which will be ULSD #2 diesel now.

The main difference between the fuels is the amount of carbon in the molecules. Natural gas, methane, has a 4 hydrogen for 1 carbon, and is a ligther then air gas. Wiki says 86% of the mass of diesel fuel is carbon. Diesel fuel and #2 heating oil are more or less interchangeable, in many places they only pump #2 diesel when you ask for heating oil. The heavier oils have more and more carbon in them (for reference, coal is nearly all carbon). The heavier oils tend to be dirtier and less refined, so they cost somewhat less. In days past, the refinery was stuck with the heavy stuff and so they would find a market and price it accordingly, now they use catalyst technology to try to get as much of a gallon of crude to turn into more valuable oils and fuels, so they don't have to look so hard for a market for it.

The Union Pacific was unique in the western roads that burned coal and oil, in that the locomotives that burned each type of fuel were not segreated by divisions. (Santa Fe east of Kansas City-Coal, same for Rock Island, etc).

The Union Pacific owned company mines at Rock Springs, WY which provided it with a ready fuel source. Oil conversions, at least based on my reading, were scattered throughout the system. the LA&SL seemed to have a fair share of them, but coal burning locomotives ran through to LA, including the early Challengers on passenger trains. By the end of World War II, the UP had a oil burners on the property, but mostly older power. Coal strikes in 1946 and again in 1952 pushed the UP to convert locomotives to oil. By the end of 1946, all 4-8-4s on the system were made to burn oil. The 844 had just received a new Master Mechanic's front end, only to have it stripped out for the oil conversion all in the same year.

Some 4-6-6-4s, were converted to burn oil in 1945, for use on passenger trains on the OWR&N, with others coming in 1952. During the 1952 miner's strike, Cheyenne was converting one locomotive a day to burn oil, a process which only stopped due to the strike's end. During the strike, the UP also borrowed oil-burnig Santa Fe 2-10-4s.

Given the fact that emergency was the impetus to convert the larger, modern UP power to burn oil, I'm not surprised that 844's fireman isn't symmetrical, etc. Like John R. said, they used tried and true methods, basic calculations in order to get the locomotives in and out of the shop in short order, back on the road.

That being said, converting just about any locomotive to successfully burn oil isn't rocket science. There are well-established practices on what to do, and how to carry out the conversion. While one may have to tweak the design with regard to drafting in the fire pan, etc., the wheel need not be reinvented. Of course, this caveat is only if one operates under standard, tried and true practices.

Union Pacific borrowing ATSF 2-10-4's was something I had never heard before. I wonder what the UP thought of them going up Sherman Hill or out on the plains to North Platte....

Keep in mind that UP was forced to barrow a number of steam locomotives from other roads. During WWII the War Board "reallocated" a number of locomotives to and from the UP. For example, the D&RGW was assigned UP Challengers, while eastern roads were forced to give up big motive power as well. Notably, the UP ran a number of B&O 2-8-8-0's and 2-8-8-2's. This same motive power arrangement was found on various portions of all UP lines and almost all other lines until as late as 1949 and even 1950.

UP took lessons from all of these locomotives. They even took lessons from motive power that was returned to them that had been altered. Very few, if any of the modifications made to UP motive power ever stuck and likewise, the changes that UP made to visiting motive power was normally corrected after it was returned.

The development of the diesel was, to some extent, an effort by all roads to "standardize" motive power to keep one road from changing a standard unit to meet the needs of one single road. The NW/NS was one of the last to really jump on board as their Unions required long hood forward operations long after most, if not all other lines had agreed to short hood forward.

UP spent a lot of time and even money testing and looking at all sorts of Motive Power. Chief Designer of the Super Power, Otto Jabelmann spent a number of hours with designers and other roads as he and his team designed the UP super power fleet. Too bad we do not have a more detailed account of all of his studies!!!

I really recommend Kratville's book on UP motive power. Besides being a good book, it explains the how and why of UP motive power practices. It also helped clear up, in my mind, the inaccuracy of the "conventional wisdom" as to why a 4000 couldn't be returned to service.

From your friendly moderator: I am considering moving this to the Railfan forum.

Second: There is a lot of mis-information out there about burning oil in steam locomotives. I will attempt to clear up a few things.

Most of the locomotives designed or converted to burn out in the steam age were designed to burn No. 6 oil, also known as black oil, bunker oil, bunker c, heavy oil, or residual oil. Today, this oil is very difficult for historic railroading due to it's need to be heated, difficult handling requirements, and lack of availability in my areas. No. 6 oil is a residual oil, basically the leftovers from making distilled oils such as kerosene, diesel, and gasoline. The heavier oils are more troublesome when it comes to the products of combustion and are out of favor.

Don't confuse heating quantity with intensity. Quantity is measured in BTUs (English system) while intensity is in degrees.

The heavier the oil the higher the heating value (BTU content). The heating value of No. 6 oil is about 8-10% greater than that of diesel fuel and the heating value will vary slightly. Burning diesel does not mean you will burn way more than if you were burning No. 6 oil and with a properly trained fireman should never need to be force fired.

It takes a set amount of BTUs to convert the required amount of water into steam. This does not change based upon the fuel. In the simplest sense, the boiler does not know or care how the BTUs are generated. Also, it is all carbon based fuel and the largest part of the heat is comes burning carbon. The amount of air required to support burning the carbon does not greatly vary from diesel to No. 6 oil.

The intensity or temperature of the flame does not change very much through the range of various fuel oils. The amount of excess air impacts the flame temperature way more. The notion of using diesel fuel warping a firebox of a boiler designed to burn No. 6 oil is rubbish. There has to be other factors in play.

If you run perfect combustion, which is only possible under ideal conditions, you have no smoke and the maximum amount of heat. Since "ideal conditions" do not exist you have two options; a little smoke or no smoke. A small amount of smoke means you are just a tiny bit fuel rich, often known as an "efficiency haze". If you have no smoke you have excess air. Without an O2 meter you have no clue if you have 2%, 10%, 70% or even 200% excess air, it all looks the same. Given these two choices, unless running through "no smoke" areas, engine crews ran with the "efficiency haze".

With the proper engineering a UP Big Boy or Reading T-1 can burn kerosene, diesel, used motor oil, No.4 or No. 6 oil. The trick is finding the right person to head of the conversion and that person choosing the proper equipment. My best guess is start with a copy of what is on the 3985 and make some basic modifications to scale it up to larger furnace. Don't over engineer it and keep it simple. Rely on the smart guys who designed the furnace volume, heating surface, and drafting arrangement 70 years ago, then knew their stuff. Burning diesel makes the most sense since it is already available on the railroad.

I have to remind myself about the coal burning intensity the big boys needed, they consumed coal much harder than the challengers. Any firebox design differences between the challenger and big boy?

Between the above posts by Messrs. Gears and Rimmasch the subject question is well addressed.

I'm confident that UP is plenty savy enough to know that the only value Tom Payne can bring to this table is to show them how NOT to convert the locomotive from coal to oil.

I'm also confident that they know that Bob Franzen did a superb job of converting the GCRR's locos to oil and I'm sure will be willing to consult with them on this job.

Ross Rowland

My only question regarding the #2 is if there might be bio-diesel blends in the mix somewhere... I know that up here in the northeast, we've had some problems with algae growing in the oil that we sell for heating (conveniently, it's a #2 blend). Out of curiosity, does anyone know what that would do to a larger application such as 4014?

Alge and bacteria is an issue on diesel engines only because it clogs up the system that measures some clearances and nozzles in the 10-thousands of an inch, and can be abrasive. It also clogs the filters which measure their efficiency in microns. I would suspect a steam engine the smallest clearances in the system are at the nozzle which is still likely in the fractions of an inch, and they would have little trouble passing dirty diesel.

Tens of thousandths are fractions of an inch.

There are different types of burners, and the most efficient and clean are also the least forgiving of variations in quality of the feed stock. Also, the density of the fuel as fed to the burner impacts the efficiency of the atomization process...assuming you are using atomization rather than vaporizing.

If you plan on dirty, variable and dense fuels, the old style technology will do it well, you just have to design for adequate firebox coverage and good air control. If you want to burn lighter and cleaner fuel more efficiently, you can also design for that, but you are also choosing to limit yourself in terms of the ability to use other fuels of different qualities by doing so.

You can burn lighter and cleaner fuels in old school systems, but you have to adjust your operating parameters and accept the loss of efficiency and higher emissions than by going with a more highly engineered system.

If there's a reliable and dependable supply of fuel that can be burned very cleanly and efficiently it may be worth accepting the limitation to take advantage of the gains. It's already being done elsewhere in the world, and we can learn from that just as we can learn from the way UP did it for heavy fuel in the old days.

Learn about this stuff if you want to take part in a meaningful discussion.

dave

The term "fuel oil" is attached to many liquid fuels, you can find Nos. 1-6 fuel oil in many texts and government specifications. Kerosene is sometimes called "No. 1 fuel oil", the term fuel oil standing alone normally means No. 2 to a homeowner. If you are purchasing "fuel oil" from a refinery you will need to be a lot more specific.

"Low sulfur" is not a fixed number either, here in east the legal limit varies from state to state. Some permits might be for a fixed percentage such as requiring .5% or .3% sulfur while other permits are written to permit a total number of pounds of sulfur per year for a specific source allowing a user to a bit of a loophole to burn higher sulfur fuel during the winter months and then switch to natural gas in the summer months when gas is more widely available and less expensive.