Obviously it was a question of “when” and not “if” but C&TS confirmed via their Special Projects Facebook page that #489 will be converted to burn oil.

The D&S and C&TS are such special places that it’s sad to see even a minor part of their historic elements change but I know it’s for the best to keep them running into the future.

Good.

Frankly, its absolutely ridiculous with how the D&S, and now C&TS are being treated over converting to oil, and with D&S, buying some diesels.

Some of these buffs would rather see the places turned into a trail, then have an oil fired engine ruin their precious photos.

Happy to see C&TS is being proactive here, and I certainly hope they can also pick up one of the White Pass Alco's while they can.

Well, as I said, it’s sad to see from a historical view. Which I would think anyone on a site specifically about Rail Preservation would understand. But it’s also the result of good leadership for them to look into the future and decide how to adapt to assure they can continue operating well into the future.

Where does C&TS get their coal from? And what are the future prospects for that mine/supplier?

Liquid fuel (whether it be heavy fuel oil, used oil, diesel, or vegetable oil) is more likely to be more easily available for many years into the future.

While it won't smell the same, if desired you can get an oil-burner to make as much smoke as you want.

One thing that no one seams to realize is that these oil conversions can be reversed. one I worked on many moons ago was CP 2317. when we prepped for use in Scranton we made many improvements to the previous oil conversion done for the bicentennial Steam Train, but never actually used for same. the ash pan had been removed but was retained. after a couple of seasons In Scranton it was converted back to coal use, with a new ash pan fabricated using the old one as a template. I believe the grate bearers and grates were on hand for reapplication as well.

Al P.

From what I've learned it's really a two-pronged problem - one being the fire risk and the ongoing conflict with the forest service - and the second being what's considered to be the 'inevitable' loss of their coal supplier in the future.

I love coal smoke as much as the next guy, but given the situation, I think it's the right decision. I'm glad 493 is working as good as it is, it's not always easy to do a conversion and get the performance you need, and that's a very challenging railroad with enough steam demands as it is.

I've bemoaned what I consider to the the short-sightedness of so many electrical utilities tearing out their infrastructure to handle coal when the scrap value of steel is so low - better to mothball it not knowing the future than remove it, and in some cases like the Somerset Railroad (Rochester, NY) the entire rail access is being removed. Gas looks like the current default decision, but so did whale oil in 1840. Same with D&S, it may be oil, but historically the infrastructure and history retaining coal handling needs to be preciously preserved.

Is the performance generally negatively affected in such as conversion?

Meaning the locomotive doesn't steam as freely as on coal due to less btu?

From what I know, it’s mostly dependent on how well the conversion is made. I recall 2 instances of this occurring: UP 4005, and Reading 2100. 4005 was converted in the early 50’s, but unsuccessfully because the burner wasn’t large enough. 2100 turned into a very poor steamer when it was working in Canada in the mid 2000’s after oil conversion. Can’t recall what went wrong with the conversion but I do recall something did go wrong.

Personally, I’m a bit disappointed to see this conversion. I understand why it’s happening, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Is there a negative performance? Absolutely just ask any railfan! 200psi coal steam has better performance than 200 psi oil steam. The pistons can tell the difference!

Steaming has to do with the design of the firebox and drafting but given the western railroads that had locomotives with the same size fireboxes or larger with oil as a fuel I do not understand the confusion on how oil will perform.

Robby Peartree

The C&TS gets its coal from the King Coal Mine. The mine just recieved a 20 year extension and expansion with the BLM. That said look at an Oct 25, 2018 article in the Durango Herald discussing the lack of coal sales for home heating due to changes at the mine. There have been signs of things changing at the mine and I suggest the signs were out there.
With respect to the relationship with the Forst Service the lack of consistant leadership with vision is hurting the C&TS. The Commission meetings after the 2002 season had an apology from the Forest Service for the situation. Given the tone then I wonder how the relationship has changed.

Robby Peartree

Coal is dead as a fuel. It's going away now. The goal in the future is ultimately going to be to keep operating steam locomotives going in any form for as long as possible. The suppliers that do survive in the long run are not going to keep supplying fuel grade coal-at least not for small batch orders (probably anything less than 10,000 tons). The long term viability of coal as a resource for anything is questionable at the moment. Most of the experts see it becoming a resource for extraction of elements for chemical processes. Gas is also on the way out-most of the major utilities have stated that as far as their long term energy plans are concerned, it's just a gap filler or bridge fuel on the path to total conversion to renewables.

As to new generation coal burning generation plants that some countries have planned (like China), most of those will never actually be built. While there are some that are planned, most have not been funded.

.

So much misinformation has swirled around the 4005 over the years. It was done partially to send a message to coal that large price rises and/or strikes could cost them.
As for the Reading engine, the people in WA don't know how lucky they are that that thing didn't burn somebody alive in the cab or explode. Half assed doesn't begin to explain it.
Both fuels have their advantages, but it seems like the hue and cry today is eliminate fossil fuels.
3985's conversion did well after the drafting problem was cured. I was never fortunate enough to fire her after the fix, but before it, you'd better be on your toes every second. You could go in the toilet very quickly. I was lucky.
My main experience is with oil burners.

What's tricky is converting fireboxes that are either very small and square or very large for burning bad coal (like Reading T hogs), providing you are using common US practice. I'm working on a conversion for a very small tank engine and we're going to go with a centrally mounted burner that is similar but more adaptable than that used on the Welsh small engines to make use of waste oil as fuel. Draft alterations will not be considered until we know something needs to be changed.

No, the pistons don't care what is creating the pressure shoving them down their cylinders' bores. Ask any fireless you run across that's willing to talk to you.

If this is the price of the C&T not having to shut down during high fire-risk times, then I guess it has to be. Perhaps some entrepreneur will come up with a coal smoke "scratch and sniff" for the hard-core railfans....or you could always come to Cass here in wild, wonderful West Virginia where all the geared steam still uses good old WV bituminous.