In our fire station we have a log book from 1927, there were a lot of fires along the right of way and some roof fires that were logged as "spark from locomotive" as the cause. No wood burners around here.
We are not talking one or two fires here and there, these were a common occurrence.
Some years back I was railfanning a local railyard when a diesel switcher, probably an ex-Milwaukee Road MP15 which had been sitting idle for some time was coupled onto a VERY long cut of cars and worked like the devil to move them. It was pitch black outside and yes I saw plenty of sparks shooting into the air. Very impressive.
I have been trackside on a grade when a hard working coal fired steam locomotive went by, and yeah there was a shower of cinders that rained down afterwards. Glad I wasn't wearing a white shirt, but they did get in my hair which I only realized during the next morning's shampooing - and then I checked the pillow!
Dave Nelson
The wood burners with those unique ballon shaped smoke stacks did, so spark arresters were placed on top of the smoke stack to prevent forest fires.
Ye gods, so many posts, so much wack information...
The short answer to the original question: most of the time, no. In fact when firing to a ‘clear stack’ or even light haze there will probably be few fines carried over or pieces of glowing ash abruptly getting caught up and ejected. If the engine slips, however, or something changes in the firing, that can change almost in an instant. Here is some of what I have learned or seen about this:
First, there are several reasons why the ‘sparks’ are there; first related to a characteristic of ‘overfiring’ or excessive fines/trituration in fuel delivery which causes particles of unburned or ignited fuel to be lifted and carried in the draft, and second related to the amount and distribution of oxygen in the combustion plume (it’s intentionally close to a reducing atmosphere). This is compounded by visible radiant combustion stopping within no more than a few inches of the rear tubeplate.
Now remember that the gas at admixture with steam in the front end is still at very elevated temperature, the steam does not for a variety of reasons quench it much before ejection, and turbulence due to good entrainment means good mixing with ambient air ... the dormant combustibles will happily wake to complete their combustion.
Sandaoling is an extreme case of the same phenomenon reported for many Big Boys, and for a similar reason: ‘subbituminous’ fuel that has to be fired so fast and in so friable a state that much of the combustion actually occurs without touching grates at all, a bit similar to proper practice in oil firing but with much less heat release per lb. or measure of volume. Those Chinese effects are very real when observed.
Oil firing has something of the opposite problem: unburnt fuel even at ‘soot’ size tends to be sticky even at fairly elevated temperature, and has to be ‘encouraged out’ by sanding the flues as described. This is not a normal requirement on most coal-burning engines. Note that it produces a RICH black plume that would be a dandy lambent flame if it were above ignition temperature or there were any kind of a flameholder after the front end (think the fire in the locomotive at Lac Megantic) — the fact that you never see this in actual service should, I hope, get you thinking.
Much of the performance if ‘modern’ big steam is made possible in part via the ‘self-cleaning front end’ which is really kind of a euphemism. Prior to introduction of the arrangement, stuff carried forward through the Master Mechanic front end would be caught by internal screens (these replaced the external stuff in diamond or cabbage stacks) and would fall into a bottom-dump receptacle that had to be regularly checked. The self-cleaning arrangement bangs and scrubs any cinders across the screen until they break up enough to pass through it, and at least in theory the screen can then serve as a flame barrier for anything ‘glowing’ as it goes through. Plugging the relatively fine mesh needed to reduce cinders ‘effectively’ will of course progressively reduce draft on the fire until someone goes and bangs the screens open again. Modelers who are interested in this stuff can find interesting illustrations in the Locomotive Cyclopedias of the era (the 1922 edition is now free online; the ‘41 and ‘47 are precious troves of detail; the ‘52 has some fascinating detail but already shows the great dying-off).
It is difficult to assure there will be no re-ignition if carried-over particles under some combinations of fuel, firing, and running unless some kind of external filter above the nozzle is fitted (one Canadian practice was wire ‘baskets’ over the stack top in fire season). The effect both on performance of the front end and on required fuel and water consumption for a given amount of work required become increasingly prominent at either high speed or high steam mass flow.
thanks for those links, stix...i checked em out...you could very well be right!
Am i ever gonna be able to lay any track???
Stix,I fully again it does look like it been touched up simply because of the fire coming from the stack-that would require a lot of hard firing just to keep steam up.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Here's a link to a tutorial on how to make fire particle effects using computer video simulation software, and one on making falling snowflakes. The results seem similar to what is shown in the train video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA4zjlbJSLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtq3Sx_HKfY
gmpullman BMMECNYC Can someone provide a link to the thread that contains the video the OP is speaking about? I believe this is the scene in question: Brent had posted it in Waldorf and Statlers Photo Of The Day! some time back. Regards, Ed
BMMECNYC Can someone provide a link to the thread that contains the video the OP is speaking about?
I believe this is the scene in question:
Brent had posted it in Waldorf and Statlers Photo Of The Day! some time back.
Regards, Ed
Thank you for finding that video, gmpullman, thats the one i was talking about. I couldn`t find it again.
Thank you everyone for the extremely detailed responses...i understand now that the video is not the norm for steam engines...
But man, that sure is some video!!
Several points:
a. Many steam locomotives had 'netting' in their smokeboxes meant to trap large hot clinkers and sparking bits of carbon, unburnt material, and such. The netting was attached at its upper end atop the flue sheet and was anchored at the lower forward end of the end-cap that is the smoke box cover with door. Hot gasses and crud was emitted from all the flues and went up the stack from there.
When the netting got too fouled, it greatly affected the 'steaming' of the locomotive. I read one story where an engineer had to ask his fireman to take his seat while he went forward along the running board, slid back the dogs, opened the smoke box door, and did something to free the netting from what he new to be impairing his locomotive's performance. When he returned, the steam pressure gauge showed more pressure soon and the locomotive was able to speed up.
b. Supervisors would cary smoke density cards with them. As they drove near their rights of way, tagging along revenue consists, they'd hold up the card and look for a match with the apparent smoke density emitting from the stack. If the smoke was too dark, that hogger would be written up for not correcting his fireman sooner. Dark smoke was a sign, not of an engine hauling harder, but of over-firing for the current demand on the boiler and reverser setting. IOW, wasted fuel blowing out the stack and settling on your mom's freshly washed and hung sheets near the tracks. And a lot of mom's did that....living near the tracks and hanging sheets.
c. Sand is routinely used to clear the flues if the fireman or hogger suspects they are getting carbon/soot stenosis. The fireman uses a coal shovel to dip into a pile of sand and he feeds it into the clamshell firbox door by letting the intake through the open door draw sand grains across the fire and into the flues. If that procedure were underway, yes, you'd get darker smoke as you might expect, and there would be no blame on any of the crew since that was legitimate maintenance. Just not near mom's sheets....thanks very much.
doctorwayne wjstix I would need to see another view of a Sandaoling train taken by someone else doing the same thing. It sure seems fake to me, like the orange glow and sparks were added after the fact by Photoshop or something similar. wjstix ....It sure seems fake to me, like the orange glow and sparks were added after the fact by Photoshop or something similar. I dunno....did they dub-in the sound of the multiple wheelslips, too? Wayne
wjstix I would need to see another view of a Sandaoling train taken by someone else doing the same thing. It sure seems fake to me, like the orange glow and sparks were added after the fact by Photoshop or something similar.
I would need to see another view of a Sandaoling train taken by someone else doing the same thing. It sure seems fake to me, like the orange glow and sparks were added after the fact by Photoshop or something similar.
wjstix ....It sure seems fake to me, like the orange glow and sparks were added after the fact by Photoshop or something similar.
I dunno....did they dub-in the sound of the multiple wheelslips, too?
Wayne
Changing the visuals of the video wouldn't affect the sound, no need to dub anything.
FWIW, dubbing sound is actually quite easy to do seamlessly. Most every movie or TV show you see has dubbed sound. A guy parks his car, gets out, and slams the door shut. The sound of the car door slamming is probably a post-production dub. I took a class on TV production from a guy who had worked as a sound guy in Hollywood, he talked about how he laughed every time he saw one movie where a guy slams the car door on a new top-of-the-line Mercedes, since he had worked on the film and knew the car door slam sound was one he had recorded from his own old, near-junker car.
richg1998 Off topic but today, diesels start fires. Rich.
Off topic but today, diesels start fires.
Rich.
Yep, like when a GE turbo or fuel line lets go...
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
BMMECNYC2) very low quality coal (probably burning coal from the mine that isnt marketable)
I agree with this scenario.
Some excellent background information here:
https://www.farrail.com/pages/touren-engl/Steam-in-china-2017-Sandaoling-last+final.php
Thank You,
Ed
shahomyMember Batman posted a video the other day showing a steam loco raining sparks all over the countryside...and the cars behind it...I am completely baffled by the video...How is it the cars and countryside don`t catch fire? I believe in the vid it`s snowing, but...what am i missing here? I was gonna post, asking how much clearance is needed for a steam loco to pass under a building(i`m working on model power "old coal mine"), but after seeing that video...
That is not typical of modern steam locomotives. Watch videos of British preserved steam or US steam (N&W 611 for example).
Couple of things could be causing that:
1) likely lack of maintenance
2) very low quality coal (probably burning coal from the mine that isnt marketable) very fine coal possibly, given the videos of steam tractors spewing sawdust sparks.
[/quote]
wjstix....It sure seems fake to me, like the orange glow and sparks were added after the fact by Photoshop or something similar.
BMMECNYCCan someone provide a link to the thread that contains the video the OP is speaking about?
In Switzerland, the Rhaetian Railway operates a number of steam train excursion trains year around. Each train is followed by another train, usually pulled by one of their famous class Ge 6/6 I "Crocodile" engines. The train consists of a water tank car and fire fighting equipment.
The famous Furka Dampfbahn, which operates the steam train over the old Furka Pass Route, has sprinklers installed, which keep the surrounding area wet to prevent wild fires.
SeeYou190Only antique, clunky, innefficient, dirty, fuel guzzling, smoke belching, poorly aspirated, polluting, diesel engines could emit sparks. These should all be banned. . -Kevin
Tell that to the short lines and their employees that depends on those "antique, clunky, innefficient, dirty, fuel guzzling, smoke belching, poorly aspirated, polluting, diesel engines" that serves industries remember there's far more short lines then Class ones these days.
In semi recent history the UP Challenger was resurrected and caused a series of grass fires out West. The UP sought an answer to this rather negative publicity from their Publicity Machine by converting the big 4-6-6-4 to burn oil..........end of troubles!
I understand the D&S and C&TS often run a "train" behind their steam excursions to put out the occasional fires they create.
oldline1
i've read that sparks were common with early locomotives. They caused fires along the track, burned holes is passenger clothing as well as burns to flesh
John White's book has a fairly lengthy chapter discussing the development of Smokestack and Spark Arrestors
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
The video is a steam tractor and not a locomotive and there are no cars behind it. As pointed out they seem to be firing it with sawdust which burns but has very little heat value and generally burns as it flies up and out the stack. It creates some awesome fire and sparks but not much else.
I know little about diesels but steam locomotives burning wood can really create a lot of sparks. Many old woodburners had those huge ballon and other fat stacks to contain many levels of spark arrestors to help try to eliminate this. Coal burners could also spark but it wasn't as common. One reason is the better control of the fire and exhaust. As someone said the "flues were shaken" which isn't true. The flues were rigidly mounted at both ends...........firebox or combustion chamber end and at the smokebox on the other end. What got "shaken" were the grates that the coal bed would ride upon. The burning coal could be mis-managed and for various reasons create a bed that would get hard and start blocking the passage of air through the firebed. This choked off the ability of the coal to properly burn and a big loss of efficiency and loss of boiler pressure. When this happened the fireman would use his long coal rake to try to straighten out the fire. Often this was all that would be needed. If he let the fire get away from him he may then need to rock the grates to break up the clinkers. Usually this was done at the end of the run by the hostlers. When they did that it could create a lot of sparks as well as release a lot of unburned coal, soot, cinders and sparks. In the smokebox they had screens of various shapes and arrangements designed to catch cinders and capture them in the smokebox. These would be cleaned out at the end of the run or during a maintenance visit.
Shaking the grates and even fooling with the fire could create a lot of black smoke. Most railroads were quite sensitive to black smoke, as already mentioned, and they had folks out on the mainline watching for it and reporting incidences. The crew would get called into the office for doing so. Railroads tried to be considerate to the public when possible and spent a lot of money and effort in training, maintenance and policing the crews on handling the engines.
Oil burners tended to build up a layer of soot in the flues which reduced the heat transfer to the boiler. It had to be removed periodically depending on the service at the time. Oil burners generally had a box on the front of the tender full of sand and a scoop. When they needed to clear the flues the fireman would take a scoop or so of sand and hold it by the firedoor and allow the venturi effect of the draft draw the sand into the firebox and out the flues. This effectively sanded the flues and released the buildup. There were designated areas to do this usually away from populous areas if possible. Coal burners didn't need this as the cinders naturally created the same sandblasting.
BMMECNYC gdelmoro This might be it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHYKx909S6E Well, that explains what the OP was talking about if that was indeed the video. They were intentionally making those sparks. It appeared they where shoveling sawdust or some such material (notice whatever they were shoveling in to the tractor was visible on the camera).
gdelmoro This might be it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHYKx909S6E
This might be it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHYKx909S6E
Well, that explains what the OP was talking about if that was indeed the video. They were intentionally making those sparks. It appeared they where shoveling sawdust or some such material (notice whatever they were shoveling in to the tractor was visible on the camera).
I was wondering what that was
Gary
SeeYou190Ummm... MODERN diesel engines absolutely DO NOT ever emit sparks. This spark would need to get past the Catalyst Soot Filter (CSF or DPF), and the Selective Reductant Catalyst (SRC or SCR) before being expelled from the exhaust. This should be impossible unless multiple components are compromised.
Probably wont be seeing sparks coming from a tier 4 compliant locomotive.
SeeYou190Even with a turbocharger, solid partially burned material could get through the combustion cycle and make it into the exhaust where they would ignite when reaching oxygen in the atmosphere, but this would be very rare.
It happens quite a lot to GEs (google GE locomotive turbo fire).
also some explanation here:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/p/254895/2850268.aspx
A little column A, a little column B.
dehusman Modern diesels also emit sparks, that's why many non-turbocharged engines were equipped with spark arrestors.
.
Ummm... MODERN diesel engines absolutely DO NOT ever emit sparks. This spark would need to get past the Catalyst Soot Filter (CSF or DPF), and the Selective Reductant Catalyst (SRC or SCR) before being expelled from the exhaust. This should be impossible unless multiple components are compromised.
FAIRLY MODERN diesel engines in proper operating order should also never emit sparks. Even with a turbocharger, solid partially burned material could get through the combustion cycle and make it into the exhaust where they would ignite when reaching oxygen in the atmosphere, but this would be very rare.
Only antique, clunky, innefficient, dirty, fuel guzzling, smoke belching, poorly aspirated, polluting, diesel engines could emit sparks. These should all be banned.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The book "The Steam Locomotive by Ralph P. Johnson" has a chapter on "front ends", that part ahead of the boiler which produces the draft through the boiler and expels the combustion gasses by putting the exhaust steam through a nozzle beneath the stack. It mentions various attempts on coal burning locomotives to cut down on anything expelled from the locomotive that might cause fires along the right of way. There were many different attempts using plates, netting, or a drum that that broke up cinders by centrifugal force.
There is also a chapter on cinders. It mentions: "In tests on the 'Big Four' the average maximum height of live sparks measured at night with a transit was 170.7 feet." It also mentions: "Practically all sparks with sufficient temperatures to ignite combustibles when they reach the ground, fall within the 50 foot zone." (50 feet from either side of the track.)
Eugene Crowner
Can someone provide a link to the thread that contains the video the OP is speaking about?