Here's a question for all you steam mondo-nerds: Is there any history of use of charcoal as fuel for locomotives? I was looking at a page with information on a process that could be used to generate oil, and petroleum like distillates from wood chippings from timber that is too poor a grade for use as lumber (this is a big problem in northern New Hampshire- the lack of a market for low grade timber products). It generated charcoal as a waste product. It got me thinking, the btu content per unit weight and burning temperature of charcoal is similar to coal, is there any (practical) reason it couldn't be added to soft coal to form a "greener" solid locomotive fuel ? Has anyone tried it ?

Regards,
Trevor H.

Don't know that I qualify as a mondo-nerd, but yes, there is historical precedent for use of charcoal as a locomotive fuel. The references I've seen were for small industrial locomotives like Porters and the English Kerr-Stuart lokies. I believe they used some kind of combination grate as most were advertised as wood, charcoal or coal burners.

It doesn't seem to have been all that common, probably because of expense (I'd think charcoal would require more processing & handling than coal.) But if you have a cheap source it would definitely be worth consideration.
J

Yeah, expense was one thing I thought about could be a problem, but if you mixed with coal 3 parts coal to one part charcoal, that would make the expense a little less.

Another thing I thought of; isn't charcoal notorius for making a lot of carbon monoxide when it burns? You'd have to see if that was a problem.

Regards,
Trevor H.

Charcoal will throw a lot of sparks and burn fast. There are two kinds of charcoal, the natural kind like you find in the fireplace, and the pressed kind like Kingsford. The pressed kind is dense and has some staying power on the grates. The natural kind will just about be the same as burning wood straight, probably less btu because the volatiles are gone.

I have used wood scraps on my little live steam engine, and it throws a lot of sparks and you have to feed fuel constantly. The smoke can be unpleasant too. I use briquets to start my coal fire, and occassionally make a trip around the loop before switching. The briquets last longer, but still throw a lot of sparks, and make a lot of ash.

I think the French railways used briquettes about the size of cinderblocks which were made with coal slack, charcoal and wood byproducts back in the '50s? A guy called Serge Vitry wrote some articles for Railroad Magazine that featured it back in the '60s - early '70s. If I recall correctly, the fireman had to bust them up with hammers before chunking them in the firebox.

dave

It's notorius for CO emissions because people lighting off BBQ's inside an enclosed space and wind up getting CO posioning. I think coal or wood would have simular CO emission contents, but the "smart" people wouldn't do that because of the smoke. It's the old "If I can't see, it can't hurt me" thing. According to the CDC, ther were 103 deaths in 2006 from burning charcoal inside the house or other enclosed space.

One time I was firing the real Thomas and a kid offered a basket of "coal" for Thomas. I threw in what was really charcoal inside the firebox. After some brief yellow flames, there was no presence of the charcoal on the bed. Coal is nice because once it ignites it almost fluffs up and burns for a long time assuming you have a good grade. Charcoal is too light and would just be drawn right up the stack.