Something I don't understand...

From what I've read, lots of smoke billowing from the stack of a steamer is supposed to be the mark of a poor fireman. I've ridden behind a few coal-fired steamers that don't make a lot of smoke -- Sacramento's 0-6-0T and the NS excursion engines spring to mind. But the stuff at Spencer, Strasburg, and Cass make huge clouds of thick, black smoke. Is it the coal? Firebox design? Fireman? Deliberate?

mconrad@msmgmt.com

> But the stuff at Spencer, Strasburg, and
> Cass make huge clouds of thick, black smoke.
> Is it the coal? Firebox design? Fireman?
> Deliberate?

I'll address Strasburg since I just spent a day photographing 89. The crews at Strasburg normally fire with an extremely clean stack. We got smoke in the runby pictures John and I posted only becuase they are deliberately hamming it up for us at our request. Even then, a few runbys were viewed as "do overs" becuase of a too-clean stack and lack of a photogenic plume. It took a while for the crew to get the hang of firing dirty at the right time and in the right amount.

89 in particular has air vents in the sides of her firebox to admit air over the firebed. This turbulent air helps complete combustion before the cumbustions gasses are drawn into the flues, making for a really clean fire ordinarily.

The cleanest fire I hever saw was Chinese 2-8-2 1647 at the Valley RR. That locomotive was fired so cleanely that you could see individual blasts of cylendar exhaust steam coming up the center of the stack, and almost nothing else. It was really impressive. I think there was a photo of her in the latest R&R showing that she still runs with a really clean stack on the Susie Q.


eledbetter@rypn.org

A big part of how clean you can keep the stack is the type and quality of coal you buy. I have seen everything from coal that made yellow smoke to coal them hardly ever smokes to coal that make big clouds of black smoke every time you even look at the shovel.

In the steam era railroads tried to keep a tight lid on fuel cost and locomotive could be fitted with different exhaust nozzles and grates with bigger or smaller openings depending on the coal being used. Locomotives would also have modifications to the smokebox or wider fireboxs to burn various types of coal.

As the end of steam neared they were less concerned about these factors and you found railroads like the Reading burning soft coal in wide Wooten fireboxs. I think by then the only care was to beat a few additional miles of each steamer and cut them up.

Tom Gears

> Something I don't understand...

> From what I've read, lots of smoke billowing
> from the stack of a steamer is supposed to
> be the mark of a poor fireman. I've ridden
> behind a few coal-fired steamers that don't
> make a lot of smoke -- Sacramento's 0-6-0T
> and the NS excursion engines spring to mind.
> But the stuff at Spencer, Strasburg, and
> Cass make huge clouds of thick, black smoke.
> Is it the coal? Firebox design? Fireman?
> Deliberate?

There are alot of factors that contribute to smoke. Two big ones are how hard the loco is working and what type of fuel is being used. In #1702, we use #4 fuel oil. We can usually burn a pretty clear stack. If we dilute it with #2, we have to give the fire so much fuel that it smokes heavily. Of course, if the photographers are present, the fireman can smoke the stack pretty easily with about any oil fuel. I have found that what kind of coal you are using has alot to do with how the fireman uses his/her shovel in an effort to keep the stack clear.

Another factor is the size of the firebox, the type of smokebox design, and other factors that affect the draft of the locomotive.

Ryan

lima709@aol.com

I buy our coal at Spencer. For years we burned donated coal from Duke Power. It was good stuff, burned fast and clean and had moderate smoke. Problem was that it was small and you burned a lot more coal than necessary...and a lot ended up just going right through the grates to the ashpan. So we switched to a supplier out of southwest Virginia. The coal he provides is fist sized chunks that catch fire quickly and burn hot and long. It also smokes heavy enough to kill 10,000 mosquitoes. A couple of years ago, we bought a "test" truckload of the Pocahontas coal that Tower Coal Co. sells. It is good stuff, slightly smaller than what we like but better than power plant coal. It will not make smoke no matter how hard you fire or work the engine. It also clinkers easily if you're not careful. The best situation is to alternate scoops of the nasty stuff with the clean stuff to get a blend that yields a light smoke and good steam. Having found it difficult to get coal screened large enough for steam engine use, a good supply is important this day and age. I also am a great believer in not making a plume that disrupts the neighborhood nearby, but at the same time, a steam engine needs to have a little puff, eh?

http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

> But the stuff at Spencer, Strasburg, and
> Cass make huge clouds of thick, black smoke.
> Is it the coal? Firebox design? Fireman?
> Deliberate?

It's all about the ratio of carbon to oxygen, of course.

A few thoughts:

a "small" locomotive (between-the-frame firebox, for example) makes little smoke when being worked hard. But let off the throttle, or rake the grates, and it will really clag up.

removing the brick arch, which extends the amount of time the carbon has to react with oxygen, can make a loco smoke more.

Cheap coal will smoke more.

It was always a pleasure to stand trackside as 4501 approached at 50mph, 10-12 cars behind the tank, with the pops singing and those repetitive little brown puffs marking each shovelful that the fireman threw. It's tough to make a big engine run clean and keep the pressure right on the peg.

But for photo runbys? Ham it up just a little ;-)

JAC

Matt;

As others have stated below, "smoke", in some opinions, makes for good pictures.

Maybe, 50 years ago, yes. Now, though, you have environmental concerns, and visible smoke is frowned upon by many non-railway types.

Maybe, those of us that think that smoke enhances the experience had better re-think, and wonder what kind of trouble our steamers can get into by making smoke when none is required.

Just my 0.02c worth - brought home by people shaking fists at 618 passing by making tons of smoke (woops) and by my wife, who generally is 100% behind my hobbies, shaking her head in disbelief at some of the antics in Greg Scholls Canadian Steam in the late 50s series.

In the picture below, it was cold, and fireman Jim Lohnes was having trouble with the oil fire and a cold firebox...

John Stewart
Ottawa, Canada.

> From what I've read, lots of smoke billowing
> from the stack of a steamer is supposed to
> be the mark of a poor fireman.


freewrl-1@rogers.com

> Matt;

> As others have stated below,
> "smoke", in some opinions, makes
> for good pictures.

> Maybe, 50 years ago, yes. Now, though, you
> have environmental concerns, and visible
> smoke is frowned upon by many non-railway
> types.

> Maybe, those of us that think that smoke
> enhances the experience had better re-think,
> and wonder what kind of trouble our steamers
> can get into by making smoke when none is
> required.

> Just my 0.02c worth - brought home by people
> shaking fists at 618 passing by making tons
> of smoke (woops) and by my wife, who
> generally is 100% behind my hobbies, shaking
> her head in disbelief at some of the antics
> in Greg Scholls Canadian Steam in the late
> 50s series.

> In the picture below, it was cold, and
> fireman Jim Lohnes was having trouble with
> the oil fire and a cold firebox...

> John Stewart
> Ottawa, Canada.

John: Is that the 1201 by any chance?



midlandblb@cs.com

At Pine Creek, I think we would say that quality of the coal has to be the number one issue relative to smoke amounts. In my many years on our Shay, 26, and Lady Edith, I have burned everything from free coal (mostly dust and small pieces), Pocahontas, and what we thought was Pocahontas. The free stuff was smokie for only a few moments or if it was raked. One load of good stuff smoked only a bit and was clean in all our engines. One load of supposed good stuff was terrible. Really terrible. Smoke was awful.

All three engines, all so different from each other, all reacted roughly the same with the various coal qualities relative to smoke.

We make it a point to buy the good stuff, although it has been a while since we had a chance to have a coal fire. Our Mogul should be done shortly.

J.R.

> Something I don't understand...

> From what I've read, lots of smoke billowing
> from the stack of a steamer is supposed to
> be the mark of a poor fireman. I've ridden
> behind a few coal-fired steamers that don't
> make a lot of smoke -- Sacramento's 0-6-0T
> and the NS excursion engines spring to mind.
> But the stuff at Spencer, Strasburg, and
> Cass make huge clouds of thick, black smoke.
> Is it the coal? Firebox design? Fireman?
> Deliberate?


http://www.njmt.org
jrmay@njmt.org

Disclaimer: I am not a fireman, but I have talked to some steam-era engineers and firemen about this. My post reflects late steam-era railroad operating rules. (BTW, I HATE black smoke coming out of the stack!)

I am an active member of the Golden gate Railroad Museum, and I talked to two steam-era firemen about this. Both said it was strictly against the rules. The SP fireman said that a fireman who was not able to keep a locomotive from making lots of smoke would get informally blackballed. Engineers would say, "Get that guy outta the cab! I don't EVER want to work with him!" The Milwaukee Road fireman said the crew (or the fireman only, I do not remember) would get 2 or 3 "brownies" every time they were caught making unnecessary smoke. 25 "brownies" and teh Milw gave a man 2 weeks off - WITH NO PAY. !!

Also: I don't know about you folks, but *I* wouldn't want people taking photos of the results of me doing a LOUSY job. I know, smoke shows the trains was moving for still photos.

Why was it against the rules in the steam era to make smoke?

1. That "smoke you can walk on" is UNBURNED fuel. The railroad did NOT allow their firemen to waste fuel, especially since steam locomotives are not exactly THE most fuel-eficient machines ever invented: only around 7% of the fuel burned actully moves the engine forward. (Diesels: c. 15%.)

2. The smoke soots up the flues and makes the engine a poor steamer.

And: as John Stewart so ably pointed out, we who operate steam locomotives now do so in a vastly different political climate than the old days. I like to say - when giving tours at the Golden Gate Railroad Museum, making black smoke you can just about walk on for the past 60+ years has been giving the WRONG message to the public: that these marvellous machines do not work worth a DARN UNLESS they smoke up a storm. Bad for the environment, eh? (Not really!)

The SP's specs for PROPERLY firing a steam locomotive were to have s light brown haze above the stack. (For oil-burners! The SP had almsot NO coal on its property. A perfectly clear stack may indicate that the boiler is not hot enough.)

> Something I don't understand...

> From what I've read, lots of smoke billowing
> from the stack of a steamer is supposed to
> be the mark of a poor fireman. I've ridden
> behind a few coal-fired steamers that don't
> make a lot of smoke -- Sacramento's 0-6-0T
> and the NS excursion engines spring to mind.
> But the stuff at Spencer, Strasburg, and
> Cass make huge clouds of thick, black smoke.
> Is it the coal? Firebox design? Fireman?
> Deliberate?

In the steam era, every Chicago & North Western roundhouse had signs reading "SMOKE IS FUEL WASTED". This motto was also printed on employee timetables.

tr2manz@frontiernet.net

Ashland PA's "Lokie" Henry Clay #1 is a 3' gauge 0-4-0T anthracite burner with a wide firebox and no brick arch or combustion chamber.

Last weekend it showed almost no visible smoke. Also can go for an hour or so between stokings.

They hosted a wedding party in relatively open cars and nobody got dirty.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> Disclaimer: I am not a fireman, but I have
> talked to some steam-era engineers and
> firemen about this. My post reflects late
> steam-era railroad operating rules. (BTW, I
> HATE black smoke coming out of the stack!)

> I am an active member of the Golden gate
> Railroad Museum, and I talked to two
> steam-era firemen about this. Both said it
> was strictly against the rules. The SP
> fireman said that a fireman who was not able
> to keep a locomotive from making lots of
> smoke would get informally blackballed.
> Engineers would say, "Get that guy
> outta the cab! I don't EVER want to work
> with him!" The Milwaukee Road fireman
> said the crew (or the fireman only, I do not
> remember) would get 2 or 3
> "brownies" every time they were
> caught making unnecessary smoke. 25
> "brownies" and teh Milw gave a man
> 2 weeks off - WITH NO PAY. !!

> Also: I don't know about you folks, but *I*
> wouldn't want people taking photos of the
> results of me doing a LOUSY job. I know,
> smoke shows the trains was moving for still
> photos.

> Why was it against the rules in the steam
> era to make smoke?

> 1. That "smoke you can walk on" is
> UNBURNED fuel. The railroad did NOT allow
> their firemen to waste fuel, especially
> since steam locomotives are not exactly THE
> most fuel-eficient machines ever invented:
> only around 7% of the fuel burned actully
> moves the engine forward. (Diesels: c. 15%.)

> 2. The smoke soots up the flues and makes
> the engine a poor steamer.

> And: as John Stewart so ably pointed out, we
> who operate steam locomotives now do so in a
> vastly different political climate than the
> old days. I like to say - when giving tours
> at the Golden Gate Railroad Museum, making
> black smoke you can just about walk on for
> the past 60+ years has been giving the WRONG
> message to the public: that these marvellous
> machines do not work worth a DARN UNLESS
> they smoke up a storm. Bad for the
> environment, eh? (Not really!)

> The SP's specs for PROPERLY firing a steam
> locomotive were to have s light brown haze
> above the stack. (For oil-burners! The SP
> had almsot NO coal on its property. A
> perfectly clear stack may indicate that the
> boiler is not hot enough.)

On SP 786,i always fired with a light haze at the stack.......a totally clear stack meant that you were drawing cold air into the firebox....not a good thing!

I've run her with the throttle wide open and only had a slight haze at the stack. The only time she really smokes is when we dust out her flues every 10 miles or so.....

kbcotton@flash.net

I agree with Margaret. Black smoke was never a sign of proper operation of the machine. It gives people a false notion.

Also it provides ammunition to the clean air fanatics. Railfans or no, these "photo ops" are bad all around. The railfans are most in need of education.