Been talking to some of those involved in previous efforts at running the 2100 for its current owner, and was startlingly informed that the oil burner installed is some wacko, off the shelf unit that is intended for Scotch Marine boiler service.Now, I know that the Morris County used a jury rig like this on their ex Southern Consol, but I figured we all had enough sense by now to whip out a Cyclopedia and follow what the SP, ATSF, Baldwin, and every body else did instead of re-inventing the wheel.The 2100 didn't run out of traction, it ran out of wind.

I also understand that the burner they use more or less blows fire in thru the firebox door, and, if its like others I have seen of this type, uses an electric pump as part of the atomization process.Hate to tell them, but there is a much simpler, better, and non-experimental way to do it.And, no, I am not a member of the "Fighting Keyboardists," but am someone who has a serious problems with people who do bad things to steam engines and then blame the engine, rather than their tinkering, for failure. I am also reliably informed that the operators consulted several promenant steam rebuilders in this country about their oil burner conversion and how to do it right, but were told that "thats not how we want it done."

The Grand Canyon Railway has some very interesting things going on with their locomotives. Specifically with the installation of Lempor exhaust systems and burners. While I am not volunteering anybody for anything, there is some really neat stuff going on out there. I believe they are burning #2 diesel with a very clear stack, and not having problems keeping up steam. I was really impressed with what they are doing out there.Ryan

There are those that sit back and say what needs to be done and there are those who go out and make things happen. There is something to be said for trying something new. I have been boilers my whole career and have seen some crazy ideas come and go but you have to give anyone credit for trying. You learn a lot more from trying new things and making mistakes than you do from doing the same old thing over again. These folks are making something happen which is a lot more than I am doing right now, they have my respect.

Buying a largely off the shelf burner you stick in the firedoor (against the advice of professional steam contractors) is hardly "making things happen", at least in the positive sense.Just how well did the firedoors burner work for the Morris County guys? I know from experience that such a burner would seem to be hard on a tube sheet and grossly undersized.Lempor, Kylchap, and Lemprex exhaust systems are another topic altogether, and are proving largely successful the world over.But all I am saying is this day and age you don't call out your local heating boiler guy and have him convert a 250mainline steam locomotive from coal to oil firing with the stuff in his warehouse.

I was involved on a few other tourist lines while MCC was in operation, and learned to fire both oil and coal. While visiting the MCC a few times, I got talking oil burners with some of their people. The burner that I was familiar with, on ex-FEC 148, was a traditional gravity fed, steam atomized unit. What they tried to do on the MCC was a bit more sophisticated, using a pump in an attempt to get a finer spray and squeeze more BTUs out of the fuel, in this case automotive drain oil. These burners were not "off the shelf", however.As I recall, and this is going back into the late '60s and early '70s, there was quite a bit of experimentation on the MCC. 2-8-0 385 at one time had two burners, one in the firedoor, and one facing aft, below the boiler barrel. My understanding is that they tried to blow each other out.0-6-0 4039 at one point had two burners, each mounted in the ashpan on each side, pointing up at roughly a 45 degree angle. This tended to develop a hot spot on the crown sheetBoth engines eventually (and maybe sooner than eventually!) got single burners, facing forward, and mounted below the firedoor. They were still pressure fed, however.For what it's worth, the gentleman that started the MCC was Earl Gil, who was literally and with no offence intended, a rocket engineer. I had the opportunity to ride (and guest fire) both engines at least once, and the later single burner systems seemed to work quite well, even up the hill out of Newfoundland.Pressure systems work in marine applications; I was in a Liberty ship this summer with steam up in it's Scotch boilers, burning number two. And when the General did it's tour on the 1960s, there were two Briggs and Strattons hidden under the wood on the tender, one for the (diesel) oil burner's fuel pump, the other for an air brakc compressor.I don't know what the problem with 2100 is, perhaps a misapplication, but pressure systems can be made to work. And what's wrong with some experimentation? Is everyone still using bronze for hub liners, and avoiding Delrin like the plague? Lets give the guys in Portland a chance to work the bugs out.

But all I am saying is this day and age you don't call out your local heating boiler guy and have him convert a 250mainline steam locomotive from coal to oil firing with the stuff in his warehouse.[/quote] While a local heating boiler guy may not know how to convert a loco from coal to oil, there is still not much to it. Lets look at what one would need....firebrick, steel for fire pan, morter, a burner and some piping. Applying a SP design firpan(as previously mentioned in another post) would be simplistic at worse, the hardest portion of the task would be that of doing the math for the required air inlet square footage. The burner, even if of a traditional locomotive design, would do a good job of keeping the stack from being to terribly dark if the supply steam is superheated prior to it's introduction to the atomization process....even if one were to burn a #4-5 fuel oil. Were they to apply some Porta technology coupled with several of the burners produced by Nigel Day then they would not only be capable of pulling more but they would also save fuel. But this another subject indeed.

All interesting stuff, but regarding the 2100; Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I haven't seen or heard any credible evidence that they had any less than full boiler pressure. Can someone verify for me that they did indeed run out of breath?Mark D.

2100 did NOT run out of steam. We had 240 lbs when we stalled.

Looking at it from a business point of view.... If an off the shelf burner set up worked...Wouldn't it give you more avaliable parts?Wouldn't it make technical support more avaliable?I'll be the first to confess I don't know a thing about oil burners, other than my No. 2 scoop is usless, but from a mangement stand point there is logic behind a deisicion like that. Now a little bit of logic alone doesn't always get the job done, but I wasn't in the cab, so how can I say that it was the burners fault?

My point exactly!So, why bother making noise about the type of burner in the firebox?If it makes enough steam, what's the big deal?Mark D.

Believe it or not, you can have steam pressure "up" but the boiler can still not be steaming right.An old man put it to me this way "Just 'cause the guage shows pressure don't mean she's hot."Now this is a situation that seems to be a phenomena only on oil burners, and I myself have seen it, even on engines with original equipment. It usually is manifested with a "quick steam up" and even though you're firing to beat the band, the engine just won't make steam right.Seems to me that a jury rigged firing system might also cause this.

I would again respectfully suggest we avoid rushing to judgement until all the facts are disclosed. It has been reliably reported that the 2100 had full working pressure and simply stalled on the grade without slipping. If that proves to be accurate then the oil burner arrangement is moot. I'm confident that the facts will emerge and the folks at GPRR will master the task. There's no doubt that the 2100 can handily take an aux. tender and 6 lightweight coaches up that grade if all systems(mechanical&human) are a go! In the interim let's give the GPRR guys our support! Ross Rowland

What was MCC main reason for using oil instead of coal? Trackside fires, economy or just fueling facilities.

I was not an insider at MCC, but suspect that economy and ease of fueling were big considerations. The nice thing about an oil burner is that you can feed it through a hose. No coal pile, front end loader, crane, coal dock, etc. No ash pit either.The economics is another issue. I really don't have any numbers for today (coal vs. oil), but I do know that MCC used to run their own tank truck around to gas station, municipal garages, and other places that had fleets of vehicles and did oil changes. The oil was free for the taking back then. Now, it is considered somewhat of a hazmat, and garages have to pay to have it taken away. Black River used drain oil in 148 at the same time, purchased from dealers that collected oil from garages. I don't remember a cost per gallon, but I do remember one of the Black River officers mentioning the use of about four gallons per mile in tourist service. I also remember water, lots of it, settling to the bottom of the tank, but thats another topic- (Very low BTU value).