Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Wood vs. Coal for Fueling Steam Engines
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Excellent post! I wasn't aware the IGN used lignite. I had thought the only western road to delve into sub-bituminous or lignite in a big way was Northern Pacific, burning Rosebud sub-bituminous with a BTU of around 8,800 BTU/lb. As an aside, this coal was unfortunately called "lignite" at the time, instead of sub-bitumininous which has misled a lot of people since then. <br /> <br />Aren't economics and geography fascinating? I can learn about this stuff all day. <br /> <br />I was just told that oil-fired locomotives on one major road usually had a 10-year heavy overhaul cycle while its similar-sized coal-fired locomotives had a 15-year heavy overhaul cycle, because the locomotives that were oil fired had greater thermal shock cycles in their fireboxes, which tore them apart faster. <br /> <br />OS
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy