Ya it seemed from the photos that the burner wasn't near the throat sheet.
I thought most larger US locomotives had some sort of arch.

This article was just posted yesterday:

https://durangoherald.com/amp/357473-la ... -coal-mine

When I knew the 148, back in the last century, it had one burner under the throat sheet facing the rear, and I don't think it had a brick arch. We ran it on drain oil, and on one notable occasion a mix of diesel and number 2. I would be curious to know if US Sugar kept the same burner, and what they are burning now. If they have changed anything, it may be too soon to see what the results are.

I "guest fired" one or maybe both of the Morris County Central engines, 385 and 4039, when they were at Newfoundland. Earl Gil used a pressurized system, of his own design, to pump drain oil. There was a 115VAC motor for fire-up, then a DC motor, running off the headlight generator, running a DC pump motor. I'm not sure if there was one pump with two motors or two pumps. I do know that the headlight generator was not up to that kind of service, and towards the end 4039 had a Briggsy on the tender, running the AC pump, and maybe the headlight.

I understand that there were several different burner configurations used, in an evolutionary process. I'm going from memory here (45 years+) ago, but I believe both engines started out with two burners. 385 had one under the throat sheet, and one in the fire door, facing each other, and I was told that they tended to put each other out. ?? Again this is 45 years ago-

4039 also had two burners at first, put into the ashpan on each side, and pointing up at a 45 degree angle into the crown sheet. This was said to create a hot spot on the crown sheet. Not good for the crown sheet, or for circulation.

I believe both engines wound up with just a single burner under the throat sheet. It would be nice if some of the former MCC guys could contribute to this discussion. I don't know if any of them are on this forum.

I only volunteered there a few times, as I was at Whippany River. My biggest recall from those few times there was when I stalled the Plymouth, with a dead battery. We had to push start it with the 4039; at least it wasn't fouling a switch!

FEC burners are a curious casting having three concentric cores. Atomizing steam goes down the central core, oil in the next layer out, and a heating jacket in the outermost layer. I should mention the SLM / Sulzer design incorporates a stainless steel arch which in service heats up and gradually droops, at which time it is turned over until it goes back again the other way. I think trying to adapt industrial burners designed for a limited variability in rate of feed in locomotive practice where feed varies widely accounts for such things as the opposing / dueling burner idea and whatever went into 2101...... although Crown used Leahy burners with apparently successful results.

Current US practice yes but it has not always been that way. Early SP and SF set ups had the burner under the firedoor. See Fuel Oil- The Science of Railways. Vol XVI Copy write 1904

Robby Peartree

From my understanding of the GPCS, this is nowhere near as simple as just "drop another grate in and drill some holes" or whatever. Or, for another analogy, dropping in a diesel engine in a car designed for gasoline (see GM's diesels in the 1970s for a taste of what's to come).

The complexity involved is enough that you really need to build yourself what is in effect a new boiler, just like South African Railways' Class 26 versus Class 25NC. This is something somewhat easily done if you're building new locos from scratch (especially, as examples, the Ffestiniog) or starting with running gear and don't have a reason to care about historical authenticity.

If one really wants to pursue this line, you'd have to find one of the D&RGW Mikados with a shot boiler and start from there.

And this is simply a Gedanken experiment, because I've seen no evidence that adopting the GPCS would do anything to produce the real goal here--the reduction of cinders and empers to reduce fire risk.

I don't understand your post. Is it an attempt at sarcasm or??[/quote]

It is not sarcasm at all. In fact, I hear if you use Christmas snow in the boiler for coal steam, Frosty the Snow Man not only appears but he grants you a special wish and a ride to see Santa.
Yes it is Sarcasm. But the problem is Railfans do not seem to study history or the technology of railroading. Today they argue over paint and what locomotive they want to see operate so they can take pictures. They have no clue that railroads could convert steam locomotives between fuel types in a matter of days. They look at a locomotive from the Harriman Era and think the boilers are the same because the grate areas are the same never mind that one locomotive has Crown Bars and the Non Harriman Line Locomotive has Staybolts. If you think about the history of railroading and the different fuels used, it should be painfully obvious to anyone that the use of oil can be dons successfully. If one does not understand the issues of the conversion the Question to ask is what needs to be done to make the conversion a success.

Robby Peartree[/quote]

By all means then, educate them with sarcasm and wiseass answers. That's why some of them ask questions, so they can walk away wondering what they just heard.
This site is slowly circling the drain.

It is not sarcasm at all. In fact, I hear if you use Christmas snow in the boiler for coal steam, Frosty the Snow Man not only appears but he grants you a special wish and a ride to see Santa.
Yes it is Sarcasm. But the problem is Railfans do not seem to study history or the technology of railroading. Today they argue over paint and what locomotive they want to see operate so they can take pictures. They have no clue that railroads could convert steam locomotives between fuel types in a matter of days. They look at a locomotive from the Harriman Era and think the boilers are the same because the grate areas are the same never mind that one locomotive has Crown Bars and the Non Harriman Line Locomotive has Staybolts. If you think about the history of railroading and the different fuels used, it should be painfully obvious to anyone that the use of oil can be dons successfully. If one does not understand the issues of the conversion the Question to ask is what needs to be done to make the conversion a success.

Robby Peartree[/quote]

By all means then, educate them with sarcasm and wiseass answers. That's why some of them ask questions, so they can walk away wondering what they just heard.
This site is slowly circling the drain.[/quote]

Just following your lead.
Robby Peartree

I have never had the pleasure of firing a boiler, but from everything I have read, and my experience heating with both wood and coal, I can make a few assumptions.

My understanding is that each locomotive fires different, even if of the same class (ie K36, K37) and there is certain coals that fire great, good, not so good and bad. I see this as potentially being a problem moving forward as mines close down. How many operations will be using the type of coal used in locomotives in the future? Will it be enough to justify keeping the mines open? Do the Colorado locos burn the same type of coal as, say the ones at Strassburg? On the east coast? In MI and IN? Or the SS Badger?

Now, my question for those who have actual experience firing with and working around oil, can the same system fire a wide variety of oils with minor, or no modifications, just by adjusting ones firing technique. I know that there is a huge difference between bunker C and kerosene, and everything in between, but if using a steam atomizing burner with a controllable fuel preheating system, is this feasable? If so, this really adds to the versatility of a locomotive. Burn what is cheap/readily available at any given time. I look at the amount of WVO that gets hauled away from resteraunts, the amount of used engine oil, hydraulic oil and other oils being hauled away by GFL, Safety kleen and others. I used to have to pay to have oil hauled away. This could really open up some doors.

Just some thoughts

We burn re-refined used motor oil, which has been processed to remove 'undesirables' like water and antifreeze. Even so it can be quite finicky to light up with, as a slug of water can put out the flame. For this reason we usually let it sit in the tender for a while, drain off the water etc which has settled to the bottom of the tank, and then blow air back through the burner line to mix up the remainder.

For some time in the past we had a deal with the local transit agency which got us free fuel in the form of unrefined used oil straight from a municipal bus garage. This stuff was full of 'undesirables', and did not fire well at all. Many oil spills resulted from flameouts. This stuff was also full of metal shavings and other heavy crud which built up into a thick layer on the bottom of our tender's oil tank, which was eventually removed when we finally had the tank steam cleaned a couple years ago.

There may also be environmental considerations with used oil, as the producer may be required to dispose of it with a certified outfit like the ones you mentioned.

From what I've heard and read it seems that most historically oil-fired engines were designed to burn thick, heavy fuel oil and that they fire best on that sort of grade, but I, too would like to hear more about how the different fuels behave, I've heard Canadian Pacific was using a light oil (diesel fuel?) in 2816, and Grand Canyon has been burning used vegetable oil in their engines for some time now. Corrections are welcome, I'm a relative novice at this too.

Agreed. Sadly it’s not just this site. Many organizations suffer from this attitude.

Fortunately they are the generation on the way out, and there is hope for a new future.

SD70,
My previous employer had waste oil furnaces to heat the shop. I was new to these when we moved in to that building. I learned very quickly that all oil had to be pre processed before going to the furnace. All oil went into totes where it would sit and allow all solids, water and antifreeze to settle out. After a period of time I would pump the oil out of the totes, through two strainers, into the furnace storage tanks, never allowing the pickup tube to get any closer than 6" to the bottom of the tank. After coming up with this process I did not have any issues with the burners.

If the viscosity of used engine oil is ideal for firing a locomotive, I would think a form of pre processing the oil and storing it in tanks would help.

There are systems for processing this oil, involving centrifugal separation, that are available at relatively little cost. I have not used one directly but would not hesitate to recommend that anyone doing waste-oil firing invest in one and use it.

Yes, the common setup used in most oil fired locomotives is very versatile and forgiving. The biggest difference I have seen is in the amount the oil must be heated to get it to flow and atomize properly. My experience has been that with the waste motor oils, little heating is necessary except in cold weather, and none if using light heating oils or straight diesel.

You are correct in the assumption that it may open doors. In the other assertion, well..... it depends. Some systems are very forgiving and some not, and there are trade offs involved as the wider the flexibility, the less efficient and clean relative to a system that can be tuned to burn a plentiful, reliable and clean oil. So, in terms of sustainable steam, you need to weigh the flexibility benefit against the clean and efficient cost. A lot of it has to do with having a good reliable and economic source of fuel you can relay on, choosing a locomotive that can be well adapted to burn that kind of fuel in the specified service, and refining the installation and training the engine crew in good firing procedures for those circumstances. Some firemen could make steam with terrible coal, while others couldn't with great coal - the human element matters as much as the hardware.