Not sure where I fall in the spectrum between "naysayer", "nattering nabob of negativity", and "making the biggest mountain out of a molehill", but (with all due respect) I have two simple points to add:

First, even if the fire will stay lit without the blower on, running that way is dangerous because if a hiccup causes it to go out, raw fuel will splatter on hot firebrick. This instantly fills the firebox with the DREADED WHITE GAS. I've seen it before, and it ain't pretty. TRUST ME ON THIS.

Second, a butterfly firedoor is not a good thing on an oil burning LOCOMOTIVE if you happen to get an explosion of the DREADED WHITE GAS, because you might just have pieces of firedoor flying around the cab. While you CAN sand out by tossing handfulls of sand through an open firedoor, I've only seen this done on the FC Mexicano del Pacifico because they were too poor to afford a sand horn, and it doesn't work too well. These guys also used ditch water in the boilers, and lubricated everything with asphalt (when the bearing warms up, the asphalt melts) because of extreme poverty. None of this is recommended by me.

Do yourself a favor and sand out the right way --- crank up the blower when the engine is working hard, shut the baffle on the firedoor, and stick a full sandhorn in the peep hole and shake it. Trust me on that, too, (unless you "know better").

Kelly's point about the flame licking 'up and around' is well-taken, but (in my opinion) it does not assure what a good arch would do. Refractory arch on an oil-fired locomotive "ought" to shape and extend the plume with a surface that gets hot enough not to quench any part of the plume that impinges on it. You want a long, defined plume so it burns correctly with only the 'necessary' primary and secondary air, and at high draft rates the TOF of a given fuel droplet injected from the burner might be well under a second -- during which time it has to vaporize to fuel molecules, lose its hydrogens, reach luminous temperature reacting with oxygen, and oxidize all the carbon. Meanwhile, deriving some evaporation from 'cooling' and supporting tubes embedded in the refractory does not damage its effectiveness as a radiant surface... at least, if done correctly.

I have always had my doubts about those European metal arches -- if they are cooled with boiler water, as they'd almost have to be, they'll have the same miserable quenching effect that syphons in the firebox do. You might get around that a bit by providing secondary air under the arch, on the perhaps-dubious theory you could get enough laminar flow to mimick cooling holes in gas-turbine blades. I still think refractory, or at least a thermal-barrier coating, would be a better approach.

Sammy is correct -- you do NOT want to use any sort of trickle from a von Boden-Ingles style burner with 'natural draft' for just the reason he gives: you will sooner or later evolve a lean mixture of superheated hydrocarbons, which when exposed to air WILL puff (charming term for something decidedly not charming in practice!). You'll see amusingly-named 'explosion doors' in power boilers to deal with the results -- they seldom if ever actually work as intended, for the same sort of reason drop plugs in a SuperPower-size boiler don't help much...

I was thinking you might be able to gasket a butterfly door 'around the edges' so the leaves would seal on overpressure... but that doesn't help with the gap up the middle. And I hadn't thought about whether a critical-mixture deflagration might produce enough shockwave to shatter a cast door...

What form of Oil is intended to be burned?

Don't ask me why, but this window .drawkcab txet gniretne yllacidoirep detrats sah

I have not the slightest idea how this could even be possible.

There are two relatively broad categories here.

One is to use "gas oil" -- home heating oil, or with some additional additives that aren't needed for locomotive firing, #2 diesel. This is a far more volatile fuel than the #5 traditionally used in North America on oil-fired power, and therefore all the concerns Sammy mentioned about dreaded white gas in the firebox apply more pointedly. Most of the mechanical systems used for 'fuel efficiency' use this light, and relatively 'engineered', fuel, which can be -- at present -- relatively easily ordered and delivered by a range of suppliers, and -- at present -- enjoys a certain amount of immunity from Government transportation tax when used in steam locomotives.

The other alternative is to use 'waste oil' from the still-large market in automobile engine lubrication, sourced from a range of oil-change providers and garages. Most of the objectionable crap in this fuel can be removed by washing and crude separation followed by centrifuging -- the centrifuges involved are commodity items now, or can be relatively easily ginned up at the "production rate" needed for most tourist-style running. There is some argument about whether the residual additives like ZDDP have a deleterious effect on boiler components over time; it's certainly less than the historical issues with vanadium in #5 or other residual locomotive fuel...

What oil is UP using in the 4014?

Waste oil, processed as others have described.

I get why they did this, and thankfully there are other T1s as well, though hopefully they use higher grade or synthesized stuff. In either case, hopefully this can be used to A-B test solid biomass by running bio in 2101 on the same route, it would be interesting to see how their performances differ.

While I don't have anywhere near the education and the ability to do the kind of quantitative analysis and comparison of fuels that Brother Overmod does, my observations from the seatbox are a tad different. It seems to me that anything with enough "hot stuff" in it to make steam, will also produce the DREADED WHITE GAS in what seems to be more or less equal amounts. It's true that heavy refined oil isn't as volatile as diesel when you dump it in the tender, but even in the tropics it has to be heated up before you try to fire with it, and it seems to act a lot like diesel once you do so. The main difference in how it fires is that you have to open your firing valve wider and adjust it more often with diesel than with "steamship fuel". A tank full of it will make more steam and take you further than a tank full of diesel, and BEFORE IT IS HEATED it weighs more than an equal volume of diesel.

I've never seen a KABOOM from diesel because my teachers made damn sure to impress me upon me to never turn off my blower until shutdown. They had no problem convincing me of that because when I was younger I saw some frightening KABOOMS from a museum operation which used steamship fuel, and had not trained their enginemen correctly. Also, in Mexico, I observed a string of idling narrow gauge locomotives using the same fuel --- these were left unattended one night while I was taking time exposures, and every so often one or the other would lose it's fire for a few seconds before relighting with a terrifying KABOOM. (One side of the yards in San Lazaro terminal was next to a seedy neighborhood liberally supplied with cantinas and bordellos. Evidently the hostler was taking care of some personal business rather than watching his outbound power.) From what I can tell, no matter what the fuel, the DREADED WHITE GAS is still the DREADED WHITE GAS.

Some of my fireman friends report similar experiences while (mis)using waste oil, and the cure is the same. One big difference is that there seem to be more acids in waste oil, and I have observed significant wastage of the inner firebox sheets after long term usage of it. I haven't seen this on engines using refined oil, and it is certainly possible that recent improvements in the processing of recycled oil might mitigate the negative effects of acids contained in recycled gooze....

Everyone here at ASR is excited to be moving into this next phase of work on the 2100 this month. We have scheduled weekly work sessions covering usually 4 days per week where a combination of contract help and volunteer labor will start measuring, cutting, polishing and installing the 291 new 2" tubes in the boiler of the 2100. Stay tuned for more updates over the coming weeks as we make this push to truly wrap up the major boiler work on this fine steed. We still need more funds right now to complete the seal welding of the tubes. We need another $2,200.00 to complete the seal welding. You can still sponsor one or more tubes at a price of $37.00 each at our website. Everyone's support and words of encouragement in this thread mean everything to us. Moving away from coal again was not an easy or popular decision at first but as most of us who are watching the economy and world we live in now realize that for some operators, burning recycled oil will be the best way to ensure long term viability for an engine such as 2100.

Can't wait to share more with you. If you are in the Cleveland area and would like to see what we've accomplished in person or would like to join the ASR team, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Rob Gardner
ASR President and 2100 Project Manager

As much as I love coal for both opex and environmental reasons going to oil is a no-brainer.

I have visited this operation several times and can testify to the high quality work being done and ask those that can to donate towards this very worthwhile effort.

Thanks, Ross Rowland

Perhaps it is a no brainer. Easier, certainly.
Since some of us tend to look at these big restorations at least partially through a historical lens, I’ll mention the obvious; the 2101 and the company that created it owe their very existence to coal. Installing an oil burner is some tough love I guess. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate all the hard work that goes into this and the I’m sure the group is making the best decisions for their situation. I commend them on their progress and look forward to seeing a second T-1 in steam.
A bit of context, I am part of a restoration effort that is nearly complete after years of work. We wrestled with the question of converting to oil firing also. As others have stated here, there are a number of advantages. In the end we chose to stay with coal, out of some concern for the firebox but, I think, mostly out of nostalgia. Sounds kinda silly right? But then again, the astronomical costs of an extensive restoration usually are difficult to justify in typical business terms.

I see Frisco1522 is browsing this thread. He has personal experience with both heavy and light oil firing on the same (very successfully operated!) locomotive and has commented on this here before.

I am browsing this thread and will concur with Ross that in today's world conversion is a no brainer.
The logistics involved between the two fuels make it an easy choice. Purchase/delivery of coal and dealing with the ashes/cinders/clinkers add enormous expense to the burning of coal.
We (1522) prior to a trip would notify our local dealer where we would need to refuel. We would specify where and when we would need it delivered. At the designated time and place there would be a truckload of hot #5 or six oil which would be pumped into the bunker from a ground connection. Easy peazy. While I'm sure the price of oil is a lot higher now, I would bet its cheaper than coal.
For a "captive" coal burner like on the BM&R, a lot of the inconvenience is avoided, if you're going to be running on different roads coal can be a pain.
Conversion would be a lot of work, but not a huge expense as one poster said.
Training to fire an oil burner will also make life easier.
We had a minimum of staybolt issues and no flue/tube issues over the life of our restoration.
And I still highly recommend against using the Butterly doors. Do it right.

LOL Rob!!! Well hey, if you guys are going to do that, you might as well paint it green and yellow also. If it's going to smell like a Reading diesel, it ought to look like one too. :)