I stumbled on this photo set for a Spanish engine restoration, and read how they converted the engine from coal to oil. Traditional oil burners have a big single burner blowing against firebrick. This new burner has a multi jet assembly. Why the change in burner design?


http://www.martynbane.co.uk/extras/080rebuild/oilfiring/index.html

.

One should be very skeptical of attempts to "fix" something that already works fine. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with trying something new that could possibly have benefits. It's possible that a multi burner arrangement (maybe with completely separate burners) might promote more even heating.

Our forebears were not stupid and probably considered and perhaps even tried something like that but it was weighed against having more complexity to maintain. The laws of combustion have not changed of course but the economics may have. Maybe less boiler / firebox maintenance now makes something worthwhile that would not have been in the past. You never know until you try.

But as usual, let someone ELSE try it first!

"Light oil" prominently mentioned in the caption. The burners we are accustomed to were made to make use of less refined, heavy sludgelike oil. They will fire light oils also, but nowhere near as cleanly, completely or efficiently as a burner that vaporizes more than atomizes. Vaporizing burners - and the photos show a draft pan built for a single centrally mounted burner , the rest of the holes and nozzles in the pan are to impart a swirl to the air entering to further mix it with the fuel for complete combustion - have been very successfully used in the UK, and another arrangement with a cluster of burners surrounding a central pilot burner by Sulzer / SLM in their line of very clean and efficient rack engines. This isn't new technology, it is already proven for the specific requirements concerned.

The pictures mainly show the firepan of a Liadlaw Drew of Edinburgh system. There is a central burner which ejects the fuel in a horizontal and tangential spray across the air tubes. This should not be confused with a vertical system like SLM's. The system was mainly used on marine and stationary boilers.

The one shown is probably designed by Phil Girdlestone. I my self have used upgraded variants of the system which first used in a high profile conversion to oil at the Ffestiniog railway in the 1970's with success. My work included up grades on the burners, air tubes, atomising super heaters and draughting. The system is more suited to small square fire boxes. Long boxes are better done with weir type burners. The correct technology for each specific situation, not a case of reinventing the wheel.

.

Kelly -

I think Mr. Lisowski's comment was directed at Mr. Peartree's comment that was directed at you. IMHO Mr. Peartree was unwarranted and your comments about the burner were spot-on and even necessary.

It is far from an unknown that people new to an industry can do damage to the industry, particularly where technology and complex systems are involved. From RRs that bring in non-railroad managers off the street to auto companies that put novice engineers in charge of designing equipment that needs years of experience and accumulated knowledge, there is always someone who thinks he can do it better, based on a lack of adequate knowledge. Can anyone say airbag or key-switch recall? I have worked with engineers who went to one of the 'best' engineering schools in the land and didn't know anything about putting oil in gearboxes or basic electrical safety and would spend thousands on PLCs and hardware when a handful of $15 relays and timers would do the job. They weren't stupid by any means, but very lacking in practical knowledge through no fault of their own - such is the state of our current educational system where Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy ideas (apologies to Ren and Stimpy...) trump knowledge. Seems some people think everything would be perfect in the world if only everyone would just smile more and be happy...

Those who know steam know boilers are are more than just overgrown teapots with conditions and stresses that rival and maybe exceed complex large structures. It may be that those who carry the torch for this older technology do need to be more aggressive in passing on the extensive complex knowledge we deal in. There's been debate on RYPN about the passing/loss of knowledge before. I've heard people say steam locomotives aren't rocket technology and that's certainly true, but it is much more complicated than fire heating water. Just ask the owners of the two boilers recently built/rebuilt/rebuilt in Germany. Sounds to me like the burner in question was very much a product of someone who could be said to suffer a from a broad lack of collective steam locomotive/industry knowledge, starting with the basics of heat flow through a firebox....

Quite the opposite. Read the caption - Mr Girdlestone who is mentioned as the designer of the system is an internationally recognised expert. He just hasn't worked in the US because we gave up steam earlier and he wasn't needed. Just because it doesn't incorporate more obsolete designs based on American practice doesn't indicate incompetence - we might have developed similarly more sophisticated designs ourselves if we had continued to run steam into the present day.

I have been PMed over this message... Some have thought some posts insulting, another reacted to a follow up post.

As your moderator, we need to ask for clarification on statements before reacting to them... In this case the term "Experts" was a reference to a US coal burning locomotive badly converted to oil, but engineers who had little or no railroad background, and apparently didn't review literature on how it was traditionally done...

Later posts showed that in this case the conversion came from a different engineering tradition from across the pond, and was a well thought out installation.

The internet, including posts on this board are different that a personal conversation where you can pause and ask for more explanation within the flow of the conversation... But in many cases the posts are posted with no more thought than a simple conversation...

Please, if an answer is confusing or might be insulting (but might not) step back and ask for clarification... before reacting...

Thanks, Randy

As an after thought I would like to add that I am unaware of any connection between the Laidlaw Drew system and the system fitted to the Reading locomotive. Comparisons between the two systems are thus speculative.

Sadly Phil Girdlestone passed away today in his home in South Africa, he designed the firing arrangement shown in the photos at the start of this thread. As mentioned by Mr. Day this was based on decades of development on the FR. The term "expert" is often thrown around casually, but I believe it applied more so to Phil than most.

R.I.P. Phil


http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/pg/pghome.htm

Sad news indeed about Phil.

We are collectively a lot dumber now. Perhaps we can do less reacting and more reading and research.

.