Since no one else has started the thread, and since it's a good topic...let the discussions begin.

They've been going on in many threads for many years now. Perhaps if you were to pose a question, people might start discussing answers...... then things will, as usual, grow.

dave

This is, specifically, a continuation of the rather interesting discussion that sprang up in the original '3713 restoration thread'. I again encourage all the participants there to continue the discussion on the same rather remarkably civil and knowledgeable terms...

I hope I'm not the wrong person, ruining the wrong thread, but I'll try to be civilized, and I have a couple of what I think are good questions.

There IS one thing I might suggest. Nearly all RyPNers sign their real names to their posts, or make themselves known even if they use a self appointed imaginary nickname like QJdriver. I don't have any problem with somebody being rude, ridiculous, opinionated, or in some cases rationaly disagreeing with me. I'm a big boy, and I can take care of myself, or maybe even get over a difference somebody has with me. But I'd just like to know who I'm talking to man to man, most people on here own up to their posts for better or worse.

The New Hope Valley extended a very gracious and helpful invitation to me to come see how great that yucky old waste oil fires. I can't wait to take them up on it, their gorgeous saddletanker 17 is about as close to my #6 as a Vulcan could be. Thanks, fellas, I'm looking forward to getting your take on this.

First question: What about documented, recorded, objective, comparitive trials of these different fuels ??? I know many locomotive owners and operators have experience with a variety of oily substances, somebody surely kept records. It also seems to me that the locomotive builders must have conducted extensive testing to develop a system of oil firing that is so simple, versatile, reliable, and effective. You know they kept records.

Second question: What's up with this biodiesel from fryerlator grease that WON'T MAKE SMOKE ??? How do you know if you're running too rich, if you can't see your exhaust ??? Sounds pretty cool to me, if this stuff makes steam, I might have a new favorite fuel.

I have worked with diesel, waste oil and veggie oil. All are radically different in there basic form. Gas oil and veggie oil are very similar and you can vary the mix as you wish. You don't need to change the technology. Waste oil is dirty and you have to play with burners to get the best burn espeshaly when you use round Laidlaw burners. Veggie oil gives you less pollutants than the others. Waste is very unpredictable in quality and steaming. You may have environmental controls.

Beyond anything you need the right technology, strong draughting for good air, fuel mix, super heated atomising, fuel heaters etc. then you will get good combustion with any fuel.
Veggie oil is no different if you give to much fuel you will get black smoke. In all instances you will fire to a light haze.

Nigel did some very interesting work at Mt Washington a few years ago which quantified the difference in fuel consumption with specific alterations in fuel and combustion system design. Sulzer has also published their measured results of comparisons between their modern light oil system compared to old school steam and to diesel powered railcars on rack railways both economically and environmentally. For lump oil consumers, there's quite a bit of information on the differences in fuel consumption between the gas producer design and the traditional version of firebox and firebed. Anybody can Google this stuff and check it out.

I've been going a bit into stationary steam plant firing lately, comparing light oil and heavy oil, and found some interesting practices there which we don't seem to use, such as internally atomizing burners, compressed air atomization and pressurized fuel delivery to mechanically atomizing burners. I think some sort of variation on many if not all of these themes was tried on the Darjeeling Himalayan a few years back with decidedly mixed results, but all I can find out are pretty cryptic and general factoids about it. The L&N installed a hybrid oil firing system in GENERAL back in the 1960s based on Vapor Clarkson stuff if I recall correctly......... Might be interesting to find out about trials of this kind of technology.

Krupp built some very nice locomotives for Guatemala which used a system of 3 burners in the firebox which I'd like to learn more about if anybody can fill in the blanks.

dave

I would imagine the Darjeeling Himalayan also had some interesting challenges due to changes in altitude.

I confess to wondering about the power plant practice of atomizing coal until someone remarked on the safety aspect of burning coal dust in a moving firebox (and I absolutely SHOULD know better--it just seemed like a good idea until the implications of a tightly sealed combustion chamber vs. firebox doors dawned on me.) What negative safety implications would there be in some of those stationary boiler practices if anyone did adapt them for mobile use?

Pulverized/atomized/micronized coal firing was tried in a variety of steam locomotives in several countries beginning in the ~1920's with mixed results. I believe the most successful conversions were done in Australia in the late 40's or early 50's using local low-grade ("brown") coal.

David Wardale investigated the practice in South Africa in the 1980's and had serious discussions with a pulverized coal firing equipment manufacturer. The manufacturer's rep actually rode in the cab of a couple of locomotives and carefully studied the design of SAR engines and thought their equipment could be fairly easily adapted to locomotive use.

Pulverized coal brings a whole new set of challenges (mainly safety related) but it does away with worries about dealing with firebeds and ashpans and it provides nearly instantaneous response to varying loads just like an oil burning engine.

The first time I bribed my way into the cab of a QJ, we were doubleheaded with about 40 mixed loads and empties and an occupied waycar, track speed move. I had studied the English translation of China Rail's steam locomotive operators manual for several weeks before my trip, but I had only fired coal on a 15" gauge live steamer a few times, and had no other experience with it. They showed me how to step on the button and swing the scoop, and I knew from the internet that they were in the habit of just firing little bites.

The coal looked more like a tender full of coffee grounds, than coal. They had a water hose rigged up over the gangway, and every so often they wet down the pile so that it was sort of muddy. I went to it, working side to side, back to front, in the pattern they called for in the manual, with less than half a scoop of slurry per swing. It seemed like maybe 30 seconds went by, I hadn't even covered the grates once, when the Assistant Driver taps me on the shoulder and points at the seat. I thought I was doing it wrong, then they point at the steam gauge, and hand me a smoke. We all just sat there while the train ran itself.

At the time I was thinking that THIS is actually firing with coal dust !!! It was pretty typical, the only place I saw anybody using what I considered to be decent looking coal was the Daihuichang narrow gauge.

How long had they been firing before they let you fire? If you aren't experienced, you don't know how much the crew had set you up before they let you throw in a few. I hope that doesn't sound negative, but I did want to ask specifically because they might have been doing you a favor since you bribed your way up for a cab ride.

I've fired plenty of coal dust on the narrow gauge, and it's not the part of the coal bin you're excited to see when you find a load. You have to move a whole lot more and keep it wet to get it to burn and stay on the bed otherwise it just sucks out the stack.

That's probably right, the pops must have been sizzling already, but I wasn't watching !!!

However, it seemed that all of the crews on all the different Chinese railroads I observed, got real quick results with just a little bit of wet slop, without killing themselves. The bigger issue is: Isn't this actually firing with coal dust in the real world ???

Well, there's slack coal and then there's real dust. The dust systems used pulverized coal, so small as to be blown into the fire on a blast of air. If you tried to shovel it, it would blow off the scoop from the draft in the gangway.

I've seen photos of the Reading T1 northerns running on coal that was about the size of a small pebble or large green pea. this is far larger than pulverized coal dust, and was fired in a standard stoker.

This would have blown off the scoop, too, that's why they wet it. I guess it sticks to the grates or sticks together somehow. All I know is they make it work. It's burning useless trash, but in a low tech way. They control emmissions by paying the crews more for using less fuel.

Now I'm starting to understand coal firing --- they must have had a boiler full of water, and she was getting ready to pop, so they let me fire for a minute.

uhmm,, throw some coal in and light the fire....

we've got all kinds of boiler types and firebox designs from the ole wood burners to watching a gradiation of engine technology flex into superpower steam with experiments in between like triplexes that couldnt steam up to steam turbines, fire tube boilers like the ace 6000 running at higher PSI than the usual engines.

Yes, and that's why I wanted to start this.

For those who have operated oil-fired locomotives, and at the risk of having you state what to us is obvious:

What kind of service were you in? What weather and altitude conditions affected your road? What impact, if any, did that have on how you fired?