> I have very little experience with oil
> burners but I can tell you that a tender
> load of crap coal will almost certainly
> result in lots of black smoke while still
> making very little steam. Sometimes lots of
> smoke and a good engineer are the only way
> you can get over the road.

> John Bohon
i would have to agree with john's responce.sometimes all a fireman can do is his best, and if that means black smoke, let it happen!as long as he is keeping up with the demands of the engineer and the locomotive.but if it is a regular firing pattern, something must be said to him about it!
the man who knows

When George and I decided to investigate why the 4501 was such a poor steamer (and hence required lots of coal which produced the resulting black smoke), we began by redoing the Master Mechanic Front End calculations. John, you probably remember faxing me the AAR practice on this. The results of the calculations were compared to the locomotive. We found the arch to be one row of brick too high and the draft sheet to be several inches too low.

Following those corrections, we looked at the exhaust nozzle. We determined that the nozzle had been sized for a bridge which was no longer in place. The loss of the cross sectional area of the bridge caused a slower exhaust velocity which impacted the vacuum achieved in the smokebox. I then designed a pepperbox type nozzle with an integral blower which was manufactured and installed.

The final result was a dramatic improvement in the steaming ability of the locomotive. The 4501 is still a bear to keep hot but she is far improved over what she used to be. And with good coal, she keeps a much cleaner stack.

We'll be doing the same analysis on 630 and making the same type of improvements.

G. Mark - TVRM

Updates constantly at our website!
aw90@comcast.net

Mark, I remember reading somewhere that 630 will be converted to oil during this restoration. Is this true? If so contact me off list and I may have some information on oil burners you could use.

I have always considered the 630 a good steaming engine. If you improve her like 4501 she should be nearly as good as the 610.

John Bohon

jhbohon@yahoo.com

> Look at photos of UP 8444 during runbys in
> the 1960s and early 1970s. The crews
> apparently used the runbys as an excuse to
> sand the flues of the oil-burner, producing
> clouds that at times rivaled the worst tire
> dump fires or Kuwaiti 1991 oil well fires,
> with a good dose of Mt. St. Helens or
> Vesuvius thrown in for good measure.

The folks at the tourist pike Eureka Springs and North Arkansas Railway actually used chopped-up tires to produce authentic black smoke for a period movie that was being filmed there ... my memory is uncertain, but I think it may have been the TV Civil war miniseries "The Blue and The Gray" back in the '80s. I know that the sheet-metal "lantern" they lowered over the headlamp is still on display at the depot where you buy your passenger tickets.

wryterkb@swbell.net

Mark, so long as you are recalculating and retrofitting, why not try GPCS firebox, Lempor or Kylchap exhaust, and see what additional efficiencies you can find?

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> The point is, it's still an artificial
> stand-in. If I pull out an actual photo of
> the real WM 734 on Helmstetter's Curve in WM
> days and compare, I'm still going to notice
> several subtle detail differences and the
> difference in driver diameters between it
> and a photo of "734" on a Franz
> charter. Sure, it's great for capturing the
> spirit and atmosphere and sounds, but one
> cannot produce a photo or scene
> indistinguishable from a 1940 scene.
> Nevertheless, I still help trim the trees
> for Carl...........

It's an artificial stand-in because all the real WM 2-8-0s are gone. But don't get all wrapped up in driver diameters or counting rivets; I don't, and I'm sure that very few (or none) of the paying passengers do either.

734 is an actor on a stage; it's all about impressionism. That impressionism is what sells the train to tourists, and the tourists are the major customers, not railfans or historians.

The A/C coaches are ever more "wrong" but here I have no complaint, either. They suit the tourist clientle just fine (And I have never sat down riding Man o' War, and anyone who has been there will know what I mean.)

edm5970@earthlink.net

Ironically an article in the Cumberland Times this week reported the neighbors in Ridgely, WV are complaining bitterly about the smoke from 734. One guy who claims his house is ground zero for the smoke has video taped the smoke every weekend since the begining of the season. He also says the 734 runs 24/7. I don't know where that comes from. A committee has been formed to find a solution. I suspect the solution may come down to converting the 734 to oil or to stop running steam. I guess we will see.

John Bohon

jhbohon@yahoo.com

One thing the committee should look into is how long this guy has owned his house, and how long the railroads (WM, CSX, as well as WMSR) have been there.

This reminds me of when the NH&I started running steam again (1992?) after a hiatus of maybe ten years. The people with the new McMansions started to complain that they could look right down the train's smokestack. (Seriously, it was in the paper-) Then someone pointed out that the track was there long before they built their new houses.

> A committee has been formed to find a
> solution. I suspect the solution may come
> down to converting the 734 to oil or to stop
> running steam. I guess we will see.

> John Bohon


edm5970@earthlink.net

Some Californian recent arrivals started a similar problem at D&SNGRR a few years back. A curmudgeonly and nameless master mechanic at another Colorado NGRR which burned oil was interviewed by a reporter from the Durango paper at the time. He dared the reporter to print a statement that the complainers had every reason to believe that the trains they saw when they chose to move to Durango would continue to operate much as they had for a century or more and much as they hopefully will for longer than they will reside in Durango and if they didn't like it they were welcome to move back to California.

The reporter didn't print it.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

My first thought was it is a good thing they live in Ridgely in 2004 instead of 1944 if they think the railroad runs 24 hours a day now. Of course I have also been known to ask people to show me exactly where the railroad was when they moved into their house. Unfortunately I do not think any of this would do any good with the officials involved. They more or less said some solution would be found. It would be ironic if a state as coal rich and money poor as West Virginia would force the railroad to switch from using coal to oil be it diesel or the steam engine. I guess that is the world we live in today.

I got the newspaper wrong in my original post. It was the News Tribune.

John Bohon

jhbohon@yahoo.com

Mark -

Sheesh - :) - that'll teach me to choose my words more carefully! :)

What I meant was that I DETEST all that "burning of Rome" black smoke WHEN IT WAS DONE DELIBERATELY and the locomotive was otherwise perfectly able to steam well WITHOUT emitting more than the slight brownish haze a properly-fired OIL-burner (and a number of coal-burners) would make.

Yes, I am very aware of the compromises that we who run steam locomotives must make, but I still strongly feel that we are short-changing our visitors/customers/passengers by giving in to their uninformed demands for all that smoke. And I also feel ver strongly that we have an important mission to educate our visitors/customers/passengers about what the steam era was really like - both the good and the bad stuff. One thing I really like pointing out to our visitors at the Golden Gate Railroad Museum (home of the oil-burning SP 2472) is precisely what I have been saying here: in the steam era, and on the SP and on other roads (including the Milwaukee Road, which used coal-burners!) making all that black smoke would quite properly get the engine crew in trouble.

We have reliable word that on the Milwaukee Road, in the steam era, a fireman who got caught making black smoke UN-necessarily would get 2 or 3 "Brownies"; once he amassed 25 Brownies, he would get 2 weeks off work - at no pay. Really! And this was with coal-burning locomotives, too!

I think it is very imprortant to put things in context, and Eric is right when he points out that a number of steam locomotives could not help but make black smoke - sometimes. I have to ask, though:

Would those engines make dense black smoke CONTINUALLY, the way many steam locomotives have done (and do now) after the 1950's to please the photographers?? I kind of doubt it.

I just wish who operate steam locomotives nowadays did not have to give in to those uninformed demands - that is all. But sometimes we have to do things we really do not like to please our paying customers. That's life.

Margaret (SP fan)

> All this talk about smoke is amusing, but
> inaccurate.
> First, in the 'old days' lots of smoke was
> made. Take a look at photos taken from the
> begining of steam until the end. In at least
> half the pictures smoke is pouring from the
> stack. Were all the firemen 'bad' firemen?

No, of course not.

> Was all the coal smoky coal?

No, not necessarily.

> Take a look in the latest issue of TRAINS
> magazine in the article on Horseshoe Curve.
> I see a triple header smoking up a storm,
> and a single 2-10-4 belching out a cloud.
> Typical railroad photos of the day. Staged?
> Well, I can't prove it isn't but neither can
> anyone prove it was. Moreover, not every
> photo of steam showing smoke is staged.
> There are times when the choices are to
> either make steam for the engineer to use
> up, or have a clear stack.

See above - that was not what I object to.

> Obvious choice is make steam. Most of the time
> when a locomotive smokes it is for a short
> period of time, and then the stack will clear.
> It's caused by any number of factors I'm not
> going to get into here. Many railroads
> recognized that smoke is inevitable, and
> thus while condemning smoke as wasteful of
> fuel also put time limits on smoke. Two or
> three minutes was not a smoke offence in
> these cases. I's like to add that in my
> opinion those who haven't fired a steam
> locomotive, ESPECIALLY coal, while they are
> entitled to their opinions really don't know
> what they're talking about when they say
> smoke is never necessary, and that it's the
> sign of a bad fireman, or a locomotive in
> poor condition.(?)

> Mark D.

My sources are asteam-era SP fireman (oil-burners) and a steam-era Milwaukee Road fireman (coal-burners).

Margaret (SP fan)

mhm2472@NOSPAMyahoo.com

> Mark -

> Sheesh - :) - that'll teach me to choose my
> words more carefully! :)

> What I meant was that I DETEST all that
> "burning of Rome" black smoke WHEN
> IT WAS DONE DELIBERATELY and the locomotive
> was otherwise perfectly able to steam well
> WITHOUT emitting more than the slight
> brownish haze a properly-fired OIL-burner
> (and a number of coal-burners) would make.

> Yes, I am very aware of the compromises that
> we who run steam locomotives must make, but
> I still strongly feel that we are
> short-changing our
> visitors/customers/passengers by giving in
> to their uninformed demands for all that
> smoke. And I also feel ver strongly that we
> have an important mission to educate our
> visitors/customers/passengers about what the
> steam era was really like - both the good
> and the bad stuff. One thing I really like
> pointing out to our visitors at the Golden
> Gate Railroad Museum (home of the
> oil-burning SP 2472) is precisely what I
> have been saying here: in the steam era, and
> on the SP and on other roads (including the
> Milwaukee Road, which used coal-burners!)
> making all that black smoke would quite
> properly get the engine crew in trouble.

> We have reliable word that on the Milwaukee
> Road, in the steam era, a fireman who got
> caught making black smoke UN-necessarily
> would get 2 or 3 "Brownies"; once
> he amassed 25 Brownies, he would get 2 weeks
> off work - at no pay. Really! And this was
> with coal-burning locomotives, too!

> I think it is very imprortant to put things
> in context, and Eric is right when he points
> out that a number of steam locomotives could
> not help but make black smoke - sometimes. I
> have to ask, though:

> Would those engines make dense black smoke
> CONTINUALLY, the way many steam locomotives
> have done (and do now) after the 1950's to
> please the photographers?? I kind of doubt
> it.

> I just wish who operate steam locomotives
> nowadays did not have to give in to those
> uninformed demands - that is all. But
> sometimes we have to do things we really do
> not like to please our paying customers.
> That's life.

> Margaret (SP fan)

> No, of course not.

> No, not necessarily.

> See above - that was not what I object to.

> My sources are asteam-era SP fireman
> (oil-burners) and a steam-era Milwaukee Road
> fireman (coal-burners).

> Margaret (SP fan)
Margaret
I really meant no offence to you, although I did word things strongly.
I don't know of any engines running today that continually blow out black smoke. I do know that at times we deliberately smoke up the 261 more than would be normal, but only for a short period. Also, with the 261 just about anyone on the engine crew is given a chance to fire the engine while we're running, when it's practical to do so, and smoke will sometimes result from that. After all, that's how ya' learn.
I respect that your information comes from a Milwaukee Road fireman among others, but would he have been a western fireman? There, the Milw. used oil. Coal is a totally different breed of cat. That said, most often when a fireman might have got into trouble for smoke was when in the yard or other "smoke restricted" area. Once out on the road, firemen always controlled their smoke as much as possible, but if smoke was made nobody really said much. (This from what I've read here and there.) But, as seen in photos, it was not always a clear stack.
I don't profess to be the worlds greatest fireman, far from it. But I do work to not make smoke. Never the less, it still happens at times, partly because I'm not the worlds greatest fireman and partly because sometimes that's the only decent choice.
And, when the engineer says "make smoke" you do. It sure isn't hard to do.
The loads of coal we had on the last half of the Grand Excursion was exceptionally smokey stuff to work with. It also made lots of ash, thickening the fire quickly,(Which makes smoke even more likely) and prone to clinkers. Nasty stuff, but worked with as needed it could be dealt with. It did take some getting used to after the stuff we usually get, though. Still, there was more smoke than normal over all.
Mark D.


mnmach@lakes.com