261 is considering a conversion from coal to oil

Crescent-Zephyr · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:15 pm **Posts:** 1802

PMC wrote:

PaulWWoodring wrote:

To be truly forward-thinking about this, the conversion should be to liquid bio-fuel of some kind. I keep saying this, I know I'm a broken record, but fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels are going to be on their way out big time in the lifetimes of the younger members of this board, if not some of us who are fossils ourselves.

I just wonder if all this is necessary for preservation, and if coal will really become blacklisted for museum operations. While I think 130 car coal trains to Orlando so the people can run their air conditioners 24 hours a day/365 days a year are going away, I don't think coal will become like asbestos and be beyond consideration for other uses. SRR and D&S put together probably haven't put out as much CO2 in their entire existence as that plant in Orlando (which I lived three miles from) puts out in a week.

My understanding is that as coal power plants shut down it will harder to find, and more expensive to source quality coal for steam locomotives.

Obviously Colorado has their own issues with the fire seasons getting worse and worse and lately.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:54 pm

CA1 wrote:

I thought the 4960 also had issues generating enough steam to really power a train after the biofuel conversion as well.

There's someone who chimes in here occasionally with FAR more experience and authority, but until he does.........

Factor in having to pull a diesel and 10-15 cars up a 3.5% grade with a 2-8-2 not really designed for grades and passenger trains, and reconsider.

Stationary Engineer · **Joined:** Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:26 pm **Posts:** 258

I'm surprised that they haven't tried torrefied biomass from CSRail, which is also located in Minn. I guess it costs twice as much as coal. But that may be relatively cheap in a few years.

Crescent-Zephyr · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:15 pm **Posts:** 1802

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

CA1 wrote:

I thought the 4960 also had issues generating enough steam to really power a train after the biofuel conversion as well.

There's someone who chimes in here occasionally with FAR more experience and authority, but until he does.........

Factor in having to pull a diesel and 10-15 cars up a 3.5% grade with a 2-8-2 not really designed for grades and passenger trains, and reconsider.

What type of consist did the 4960 pull prior to the bio-fuel?

hullmat991 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:12 pm **Posts:** 232

Stationary Engineer wrote:

I'm surprised that they haven't tried torrefied biomass from CSRail, which is also located in Minn. I guess it costs twice as much as coal. But that may be relatively cheap in a few years.

Saw this comment on the S.T.E.A.M. Facebook group post on the topic.

Quote:

Ken Ristow
I will chime in on this torrefied biomass fuel option.. I believe someday it'll be a sensible option. The place that I work at was one of the very first places to try it on a steam locomotive. In order for that type of fuel to be used on a regular basis a lot more development and thought needs to go into it..
It is not something that you can just dump into a tender of a locomotive that's equipped to fire coal through a Stoker or even hand fired locomotives at this point..
From our experiments we learned that there is spark arresting to consider, there are also three different types that we were testing. He was also discussed how we would work in a stoker application, at the time it was not determined if front end Arrangements would have to be changed for drafting and for Sparks that would be emitted by this type of fuel. I've seen comments on this being an option when people don't realize that it's still a testing phase of that type of fuel to be.. I worked directly with the group on the testing phase again it was deemed that it is not readily an to just throw into a Mainline steam locomotive..
I do believe that it is capable of becoming an option of fuel for steam locomotives oh, it has never been tested on a main line size locomotive pulling heavy loads.. I give the group of individuals a lot of credit for taking the initiative to look into the development and research necessary to have this a considerable option in the future..
We know that it provides enough heat and BTU's to boil water and generate Steam, however there are handling Logistics it still need to be worked out.
We have no idea how this stuff would go through a Stoker and how was toker with distribute it for example. Again along with it is the need for further development of the proper drafting and firing methods that would be required for this type of fuel for the demands of a Mainline sized locomotive. We tested it at the Milwaukee Zoo on locomotives that are 1/4 size of full size.. in OUR specific application it was a couple rounds of successful testing that made it quite apparent what needs to be looked into as another form of research and development.

Edit - Removed the repeated section.

Dave · **Posted:** Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:07 pm

He's so convinced he said it twice..... without changing a word! That's focus.

Yes, there's a road to go before it is going to be well understood, but once we didn't know how to fire oil, coal dust, or anthracite either. Who is up for being the laboratory?

Ron Travis · **Joined:** Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm **Posts:** 1543

I understand “torrefide” fuel to be processed from wood and other low density fuels such as grasses. Any fuel that can burn with a flame is capable of boiling water and producing steam. However, there may still be a limitation in ability of the fuel to produce steam fast enough in a boiler to perform the intended work.

One fuel that was readily available for farm work was straw, and its use was explored for powering farm equipment. The immediate issue encountered was the steam production limitation when attempting to power engines for the heaviest work such as plowing.

To get more power out of the fuel combustion, a return-flue boiler was developed for straw combustion. There was some development and manufacturing for this (horseless) straw-burning power, but it does not seem to have developed widespread popularity.

I suspect that the current interest in torrefide fuel for steam locomotive use faces the same constraints of being low density as does straw. Although with enough straw (or torrefied pellets) being fired into large enough boilers, it would seem that the limitations of low density could be overcome. But boilers with enough heat exchange and the ability to fire large flows of these ultra-low-density fuels may not be practical for being applied to the workload they are (thermally) capable of handling.

So the development of torrefide locomotive fuel would lead in the direction of using the densest wood, and then further increasing the density in the manufacturing process of the torrifide pellets. With these fuel density issues, it is easy to see how the natural preference landed on the coal option. I don’t doubt that a successful torrefide fuel pellet could be manufactured, but the cost/benefit of the manufacturing process likely depends on a benefit that is much higher than it was perceived to be in the historical past. That new benefit may be worth the cost for recreational steam power if coal is regulated out of use.

https://www.farmcollector.com/steam-eng ... am-engines

http://mbagmuseum.ca/artifact/petersons ... ng-engine/

hadder · **Joined:** Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:21 pm **Posts:** 178

Crescent-Zephyr wrote:

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

CA1 wrote:

I thought the 4960 also had issues generating enough steam to really power a train after the biofuel conversion as well.

There's someone who chimes in here occasionally with FAR more experience and authority, but until he does.........

Factor in having to pull a diesel and 10-15 cars up a 3.5% grade with a 2-8-2 not really designed for grades and passenger trains, and reconsider.

What type of consist did the 4960 pull prior to the bio-fuel?

The consist that steam pulls on Grand Canyon Railway is based upon operational logistics. Fuel source has no factor. So yes, consists have changed slightly since the days when 4960 and 29 were burning Diesel fuel, but the changes are strictly based upon the change in passenger operation parameters.

It's true that Veggie Oil has less BTU's than #2 or #4 fuel oil that was previously used. However, 4960's firebox is big enough and the drafting more than sufficient to handle combusting an extra amount of fuel to compensate for the less BTU's. So fuel consumption has gone up, but there is no effect on steam pressure. In fact, 4960 fires so well that crews typically have more of a problem with too much water in the glass versus too little. It is very easy to keep the gauge pegged at 200 psi with a clean stack on a 3% grade.

Eric

choodude · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:58 am **Posts:** 327

I was at the Everett Railroad test. It was a very enjoyable day and I got to meet one of the great stars of the modern steam engine excursion business in person. Yay!

When they were testing the the engine working hard in "sprint mode" embers from the fuel were able to start a small line side fire. So the CSR folks know there is more work to be done with the binding process. It has been over a year ago, but I have not heard any updates from them about progress in this regard. I'd imagine fallout from Covid-19 affected them like everyone else.

"The goal of the tests was to haul revenue trains with the torrefied biomass. However, initial test runs with the 100% torrefied fuel in EVRR No. 11 demonstrated that the fuel made plenty of heat and minimal smoke, but fines present in the fuel, combined with the hard-working exhaust of the locomotive under test conditions, resulted in ember emissions. As such, CSR and EVRR opted to take baseline coal test data during the normal day’s runs, and ran a special, one-car train after hours with the torrefied fuel to ensure that any potential stops would not impact paying customers."

From:

https://csrail.org/everett

Brian