Deep fryer oil now has a value for all the bio-diesel car owners. Restaurants don't give that stuff away anymore.
Hey, I just had a thought. How about choppin' up and burning old tires? :)
Firelock76 Hey, I just had a thought. How about choppin' up and burning old tires? :)
CSSHEGEWISCH Firelock76 Hey, I just had a thought. How about choppin' up and burning old tires? :) Lots of black smoke but the smell might be a bit of a problem
Hmmmm, never thought of that.
I know! Contact the Mega-Steam people (see their ad in Classic Toy Trains) and see if they can supply several hundred gallons of one of their scented smokes. I prefer "Coffee," but some might prefer "Lionel Smoke Pill."
Of course, there IS the problem of who's going to climb on top of the boiler and pour it down the smokestack.
Perhaps a foreshadowing of things to come...
Firelock76 You could always do what the Morris County Central in New Jersey did back in the 60's and 70's, burn waste oil. They used to send a tanker truck around to gas stations and auto repair shops that were glad to give it to them free just to be rid of it. I know those days are gone, though. I think even waste oil has a market value now. The Union Pacific steam shop has been using waste oil in 844 and 3985 since they converted 3985 to oil. Big advantage to oil firing is if they are low on fuel they can fill up at the same fuel rack the diesels use. i suspect UP will convert an auxiliary tender to 50% oil and water as a 4000 class engine will use a lot more fuel than the tender tank can hold. Out of the Steam Shop in Cheyenn, Wyoming the waste fuel of choice is biofue! It is delivered by the same type of 6 wheel home delivery truck that Delivers fuel to private homes. It's a Shame UP doesn't throw a sticker on both sides of the truck fueling their engines at Cheyenne. Something like " this truck fuels UP 844 in Cheyenne " just a thought. :)
You could always do what the Morris County Central in New Jersey did back in the 60's and 70's, burn waste oil. They used to send a tanker truck around to gas stations and auto repair shops that were glad to give it to them free just to be rid of it.
I know those days are gone, though. I think even waste oil has a market value now.
The Union Pacific steam shop has been using waste oil in 844 and 3985
since they converted 3985 to oil. Big advantage to oil firing is if they
are low on fuel they can fill up at the same fuel rack the diesels use.
i suspect UP will convert an auxiliary tender to 50% oil and water as
a 4000 class engine will use a lot more fuel than the tender tank can hold. Out of the Steam Shop in Cheyenn, Wyoming the waste fuel of choice is biofue! It is delivered by the same type of 6 wheel home delivery truck that
Too much steel wire in a tire to be us as fuel in a steam locomotive
Oil vs Coal -
The Bituminous coals were running around 13,000 to 14,000 BTU per pound how about the oil fields? A survey of Texas, California and Pennsylvania runs as follows:
-------------
COMPARISON OF OIL FIELD PRODUCTION IN 1944 AND ITS QUALITY BY STATE
CALIFORNIA
Coaling field-- specific gravity .927 -------------------------- 17,117 BTU/lb
Bakersfield production -- specific gravity .975 -------------- 17,600 BTU/lb
Bakersfield production -- specific gravity .992 -------------- 18,275 BTU/lb
Kern River field -- specific gravity .950 ---------------------- 18.845 BTU/lb
Los Angeles field -- specific gravity .957 -------------------- 18,855 BTU/lb
Los Angeles field -- specific gravity .977 - moisture .40% - 18,280 BTU/lb
Monte Christo field -- specific gravity .966 ------------------ 18,868 BTU/lb
Whittier field -- specific gravity .914 - moisture 1.06% ---- 18,507 BTU/lb
Whittier field -- specific gravity .936 - moisture 1.06% ---- 18,240 BTU/lb
TEXAS
Beaumont field -- specific gravity .924 ---------------------- 19,060 BTU/lb
Beaumont field -- specific gravity .926 ---------------------- 19,481 BTU/lb
Beaumont field ------------------------------------------------ 19,060 BTU/lb
Beaumont field -- specific gravity .942 ---------------------- 20,152 BTU/lb
Beaumont field -- specific gravity .903 ---------------------- 19,349 BTU/lb
Sabine field -- specific gravity .937 -------------------------- 18,662 BTU/lb
OHIO
Ohio fields ----------------------------------------------------- 19,580 BTU/lb
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania fields -- specific gravity .887 ----------------- 19,210 BTU/lb
WEST VIRGINIA
West Virgina fields -- specific gravity .841 ------------------ 21,240 BTU/lb
A quick review of foreign oil field production -
MEXICO
Mexican field -- specific gravity .931 ----------------------- 18,840 BTU/lb
AUSTRIA
Galicia field -- specific gravity .870 ------------------------ 18,416 BTU/lb
ITALY
Parma field -- specific gravity .786 --------------------------
RUSSIA
Baku field -- specific gravity .884 -------------------------- 20,691 BTU/lb
Novorossick field --------------------------------------------- 19,452 BTU/lb
Caucasus field -- specific gravity .938 ---------------------- 20,138 BTU/lb
JAVA
Java field -- specific gravity .923 ---------------------------- 21,163 BTU/lb
BORNEO
Borneo field -------------------------------------------------- 19,240 BTU/lb
In the UNITED STATES it looks like West Virginia, with the West Virginia field produced the highest heat oil at 21,230 BTU/lb . With Texas, Beaumont field a close second in the 20,152 BTU/lb range and Ohio with 19,580 BTU/lb. This West Virginia oil field produced an oil of almost 50% more heat value per pound than a common good grade of Bituminous coal!
The Middle Eastern oil fields we know so well in Arabia and North Africa were not developed until after World War II. Russia, Caucasus fields were up there at 20,138 BTU/lb as were the Java field at 21,163 BTU/lb.
Doc
kgbw49 Perhaps a foreshadowing of things to come...
Nah, too dirty. You can bet UP will have the 4014 shined up like a brand-new penny. I doubt we'll ever see a bigboy running unerneath the layer of grease, grime, and dust that really gave them that "hard-working" look again.
COAL TO OIL CONVERSION
-----------------------
The comparison of coal to oil as a locomotive fuel are relative to the costs of the coal and oil and vary greatly in specific type of fuel and the location of its source.
Also, to the cost of the fuel at the mine or the oil field should be added the freight, and the handling and the storage costs - because it is the price of the fuel in the tender that is desired. Based on the general heat values of the two types of fuels 1 pound of oil is equivalent to 1.5 pounds of coal.
When considering the change involved in the conversion of a coal fired locomotive to an oil fired one there is much more involved than is first apparent.
Tests on the Santa Fe showed that the evaporative efficiency of oil is about 40% more than for stoker fired coal. The use of the highly efficient "firebrick arch" symbol of the modern coal burning steam locomotive is very likely unnecessary in the oil fired engine. Tests by some railroads converting from coal to oil found that when testing engines similary equipped and un equipped could not justify the cost of the performance increase with the "firebrick arch" with either front or back firebox burner systems.
It was also found that oil burning locomotives were working at maximum evaporative capacity all of the time and to take advantage of this the speed of the train and its tonage hauled should be increased accordingly.
Experience also showed that the life of the firebox and boiler flues was reduced with oil burning design compared to coal. The more intense heat of the oil fired engine and the ability to produce a rapid change in temperature produce heavy expansion and contraction strains in the steels used in boiler firebox construction. Consequently oil fired engines are a higher maintaince concern than the even gentle fire of coal locomotives. Flue life of the oil burning locomotive is also shorter because of the more intense heat cracking the welded beads of the flue sheets. Similary the abrasive effect of repeated sanding of the flues in oil fired engines erodes the steel surfaces of the inside of the firebox and boiler.
Aside from these engineering parameters, the firebox of the coal locomotive is similar. It is desirable that the rivets inside the firebox are countersunk flush on the fire side and that the staybolts have no unnecessary projecting head. Crown stays as such are made without the usual head and are fitted tight with tapered threads. Conversion of coal burning firebox engines to oil requires the protection of the rivet heads with a firebox by a lining of firebrick - if possible.
---------------
Stoker, fire grate, and ash pan of course are not needed in the oil fired engine. Instead a firepan is fastened to the bottom of the firebox and the mud ring. This provides a channel for the burner system to spray oil from the front towards the rear of the furnace. The flame then reverses it direction towards the flue sheet through the central and side areas of the furnace. In this manner the "firepan" closes the bottom of the firebox while supporting the necessary refractory brick lining and providing air supply openings.
This firepan and its firebrick or refactory brick lining absorbs and radiates heat back into the boiler vaporizing the oil and aiding in combustion. Unlike coal all of the supporting joints of the firepan should be air tight to prevent leakage of air causing loosening of the "firebrick" and disturbance of the combustion.
Location of draft admission openings varies widely depending on the opinion of the designing engineers and is worked out with each locomotive furnace design. This is usually calculated to be 30% of the open flue surface area. Additionally, 5% of this amount is located around the firebox burner with the remainder distributed well over the rear 1/3 of the furnace. Large air openings are undesirable because they do not allow the air to mix well with the combustion process. Air should be admitted through jet like openings because the velocity of intake is as important as the volume of air that is admitted. Consequently, in a well designed oil furnace the air openings are "self regulating" without manual or automatic control.
The burner - the "oil burner" design for steam locomotives is of the "external mixing steam jet type" and is not as efficient as a "mechanical and pressure type," but is better suited to railroad work. Simple and rugged in design it gives great surface impact to atoms of oxygen. Oil in bulk form when broken into a fine spray forms a total surface of all of its aggregate drops. The steam jet designed into this "external mixing steam jet" oil burner provides the necessary atomization - although the steam takes up needed space in the firebox and absorbs some heat reducing its operating efficency.
The usual practice is to locate the burner in the front of the firebox directing the fire backwards against a flashwall giving as long a "flameway" as possible. It is desirable to make sure that the flame impingement is all against the ""flashwall and is not striking the firebox door sheet. The flame must fill the firebox making use of all the available heating surface.
----------------
There is much to consider when you think of converting an engine such as a Union Pacific Big Boy 4-8-8-4 like UP 4014 with its huge lignite coal burning firebox to become instead a refractory brick lined oil burner system without the factory equipped stoker and grates. History records that when a single "external mixing steam jet" oil burner was test applied by the Union Pacific in the 1950's to the gigantic Big Boy firebox it was simply insufficient to provide a flame of large enough capacity to operate the locomotive and Union Pacific abandon the project. I guess they plan to revisit this again in the near future in restoration of UP 4014.
Consider also the noted failure in the coal to oil conversion of Reading Railroad Northern 4-8-4 RGG 2100 from its Antracite burning Wooton firebox to oil fire design using commercial burners and without historic considerations to steam locomotive engineering burner design.
Also consider surviving New York Central 4-8-2 Mohawk NYC 3001 in Elkhart, Indiana. This fortunate survivor had its stoker, grates and ashpan removed by Texas Pacific when put on display in Dallas, Texas. The T&P welded in what appears to be a oil burning "firepan" giving the impression of a never constructed NYC oil fired engine. At this point would the restoration of NYC 3001 continue on to an oil firing future or be historically correct reconstructed to coal fire - if so restorers need to be in search of the necessary stoker - grates - shakers and ashpan?
------------
Reduced life of the firebox steels is a concern if what you say is true about oil-firing, and I'm sure it is, but I doubt the UP's going to run an oil-fired Big Boy often enough for it to be a major concern. What do you think, once, twice, maybe three times a year, and on special occasions at that?
It's certainly not going back into revenue service. It's going into corporate ambassador and "ain't we cool?" service.
Dr. D, In your comparison to oil vs coal BTUs, I presume you were giving examples of crude oils. However, I doubt crude oil was used as loco fuel, as it contains many gummy and corrosive undesirables. Oil loco fuel that I have heard about was refined heavier (cheaper) fractions of the oil, which would generally have higher BTUs.
MidlandMike,
You make a good point for 2016 - the research I have been using to write is from steam locomotive engineering developed by Ralph Johnson who was on the design team at Baldwin Locomotive Works in the 1940's. At that time a great deal of heavy unrefined oil - straight run stuff like "bunker C" used in the Navy was on the market. Much of this would not even flow without heating to a liquid. F. Skip Farrington in his book The Santa Fe Big Three discusses the variety of oils used to fuel steam on the Santa Fe at the time. As with coal, low cost and BTU/lb performance was always a factor and local product with little or no refining was likely the product of choice.
Today I doubt if Union Pacific would use anything as crude as the oils that fueled steam in the early days. However the newer oils are refined - the principles worked out for the "design of the firebox" and the stresses on the boiler from the "oil fire design" would seem highly applicable to running restored locomotives today.
The whole 4-8-4 Reading Railroad 2100 debacle, where commercial boilermakers in Canada tried to design and fuel a coal burning railroad steam engine brings up the timeliness of the engineering discussion I have offered from Ralph Johnson.
Think of Union Pacific 4014 and the challenge to oil fire a Big Boy 4-8-8-4! The size of that Lignite coal burning firebox is likely just too large for oil fire. Similarly Northern Pacific when it designed the first Yellowstone 2-8-8-4 for use with the gigantic 153 sq ft Lignite coal firebox - the one they held the formal dinner in - they had to reduce the size of the furnace by blocking off the front of the grates just to burn the Lignite it was designed for - it was just too large even for coal.
I have never heard Union Pacific write or say much about the particulars of their locomotive designs - mostly, unlike the Santa Fe Railroad and its oil fired steam locomotives, they were committed to burning coal - and the coal in Wyoming was not that good of a product. The modern oil firing of Northern 4-8-4 UP844 is a matter of modern convenience not historically correct "over the road practice" for that railroad. I would venture to say that it would take a fairly couragous fan trip operator to try to similarly convert a coal fired steamer to oil firing considering the engineering challenges. Thankfully the Union Pacific in the 1950's did develop the technology which Union Pacific had in its engineering archives so they did not start out with just a blank sheet of paper.
The Union Pacific Steam Program is way out in front of the retro engineering of oil fired steam, and its also an indication of the big buck support the effort is getting from the company!
Hats off! to Union Pacific for a comprehensive steam program far beyond what most of us even realize!
New York Central 4-8-2 Mohawk 3001 missing its coal fired furnace is the only engine I know of way out there in the fantasy land of retro steam operation "what shall we do to fire boiler?" maybe oil! The Union Pacific Steam Program would be a good design team for them to consult.
Mike Pence the Governor of Indiana and Republican Vice Presidental candidate just came out in support of "coal production in America" - its time to ask him to give a push to the city of Elkhart, Indiana to restore their coal burning railroad locomotive as a public example of revived American interest in lost industrial might! - in my humble opinion!
Come on Elkhart - take a look at what Nashville, Tennessee is doing for civic public relations by restoring their NS&SL 4-8-4 steam locomotive - endless planning, fantrips and a unique historic attraction drawn to its civic minded town and community. Yes that means money coming to town.
My background is oil field rather than steam engine. Crude oil properties and viscosity can vary from well to well in the same oil field, and often contain stuff like parafin which can gum up things, and corrosive things like sulfides. Maybe it was less of a problem in the days of steam with large mechanical workforces and facilities, but for today it would seem to be an invitation for an on-the-road failure.
I did review Johnson on the FUEL OIL subject as that was what the grade of "reduced crude oil" used in steam locomotive firing at the time was called.
--------------------------------
Quoting Ralph Johnson The Steam Locomotive p.8,
"Fuel oil consists practically of petroleum or of its residue after the more volatile oils have been removed. The petroleum or crude oil is a viscous mineral oil varying in color from light brown through shades of green to black. Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons that often contain a small percentage of sulfer, oxygen, and nitrogen. Gasoline, benzine, kerosene, and other oils comand higher prices can be distilled off and the residue remaining, of from 12 to 25 degrees Baume', is available as fuel for boilers.
Fuel oil in the United States is purchased by volume and not by weight. A gallon of reduced crude has a higher calorific value than a gallon of lighter crude. This fact should be remembered by users of oil fuel because in buying fuel calorific value is sought.
Oils are classified by their flash point ( the temperature at which they give off inflammable vapors); viscosity ( the tendency of the oil particles to hold togeather, thus retarding the flow); moisture ( in the form of emulsion in the heavier oils); sulfur ( which produces obnoxious gases and has a corroding effect if condensed on boiler tubes); specific gravity and heat value. These properties for fuel oils vary from different localities.
Heat value can be determined accurately by calorimeter tests. An approximate method proposed by J.N. LeConte gives the value, free from moisture, as: BTU/lb = 17,680 + (60 x degrees Baume') or according to Sherman and Kopff: BTU/lb = 18,650 + 40(degrees Baume' - 10).
From an ultimate analysis the calorific value of the oil can be determined by the Dulong formula: BTU/lb = 14,550 C + 60,600 (H-0/8) + 4000 S
One pound of fuel oil will average from 17,000 to 20,000 BTU. Assuming an average of 18,500, the equivalent evaporation from and at 212 degrees F. will vary from 14.3 pounds of water, with a boiler efficiency of 75 percent to 7.6 pounds of water, with a boiler efficiency of 40 percent.
The fuel losses when burning oil are not as great as when burning coal and it is safe to assume that, taking everything into consideration, one pound of oil possesses as much heating value as 1 3/4 to 2 pounds of average coal."
---------------------
As I said, I think it is fairly obvious from Ralph Johnson's text, that oil fired steam locomotives in the 1940-50's were burning a form of reduced crude oil refined only to remove the gasoline, benzine, and kerosene which were worth more money elsewhere.
By todays standards of distillation, the cracking and reforming of crude oil produces a great deal more gasoline than could be manufactured in the old days. I do not believe they were doing this "advanced refining of catalytic reforming oil molecules" in the mid 20th Century, but rather were doing what is called today as only "straight run refining."
The fuel oil used to fuel boilers in the 1940's was a thick sometimes un pourable product that required heating and probably included all the greases and asphalt that is removed today - they burned everything in the crude including the sulfer and the water - basically as it came out of the ground.
-------------------
Oil fired steam locomotives today are playing a completely different game - gone is the crude oil and it seems using the refined distilate products that had been formerly sold off as "kerosene/diesel" are now burned in the firebox furnace.
Burning diesel fuel oil would likely be desirable because it is on hand in the railroad yard - and it would be interesting to hear for sure just exactly what oil Union Pacific is burning in its Northern 4-8-4 UP 844 and Challenger 4-6-6-4 UP 3895.
Yes I did hear the Grand Canyon Railroad - 2-8-2 Mikado - the former Burlington Railroad - CB&Q 4960 steam locomotive in service for the National Park Service was burning old cooking oil from restaurants.
Which goes to show you that oil fired steam locomotives can likely burn anything you can set fire to!
I'm all for peanut oil - then Steam Railroading would smell like a giant peanut butter sandwich!
-----------
You know, I was just thinking, maybe the mention of Grand Canyon 4960 sparked it, but maybe a consortium of McDonald, Burger King, and Wendy's should sponsor a steam locomotive fueled by waste cooking oil.
That thing going down the track and leaving the aroma of french fries in it's wake would be great for business!
UP ran Challenger classes CSA-1 and CSA-2 3800-3839 on oil. Originally numbered in the 3900s, they were moved to the 3800 series when the Class 4664-5 Challengers were delivered in 1944 and took slots from 3930 up.
Challengers 3975-3984 from the 4664-4 series were converted to oil firing in 1946.
UP FEF-1, FEF-2 and FEF-3 classes were all operated as oil burners. In addition, many classes of locomotives that operated across the Los Angeles & Salt Lake were also oil fired.
It will be interesting to see if some type of modified SP Cab Forward 4-8-8-2 firing system is used in the Big Boy. They had a 139 square foot firebox area - about 11 square feet smaller than the Big Boy grate area.
AC-12 4278...oil-fired...firebox area 139 square feet...steam pressure 250 PSI...tractive effort 124,300 lbs...
Big Boy 4006...coal fired...grate area 150 square feet...steam pressure 300 PSI...tractive effort 135,375 lbs...
kgbw49,
You seem quite up on the UP firing of the Challenger series 4-6-6-4, although I believe both UP3895 and Big Boy 4023 were both coal fired engines when I saw them in Cheyene, Wyoming in the 1960's.
I have read - on this site somewhere - that Union Pacific did convert one Big Boy 4-8-8-4 to "oil fire" in the 1950's and this was not successful. Something about not really being committed to doing so and that just one burner in the firebox could not get the job done on Big Boy. Also, that this "oil fired" locomotive was re converted to coal fire. Possibly you are up on the details of what happened? I guess the plans exist for the "oil fire" conversion though - enough to give UP today a place to start on the project.
-------------------------
Santa Fe 5011 series 2-10-4 "Texas" engines were highly successful on on "oil fire" producing around 6000 horsepower. Likely the UP 4000 series 4-8-8-4 should accomplish the same performance unless there is something in that firebox design that precludes it.
----------------------------
I believe the Southern Pacific "cab forwards" were designed in an effort to control locomotive exhaust in tunnels and snow sheds and it seems "oil fire" would be a natural inclusion in that locomotive firebox design and likely the one remaining "cab forward" locomotive would have this design of firebox preserved.
If I was Union Pacific today I would surely visit the remaining ATSF 5011 locomotives and the SP "cab forward" engine to examine their firebox for similar design details useful on Big Boy UP 4014.
---------------------------
Its a shame the Canadian designers working to convert Reading Railroad 4-8-4 "Northern" RR 2100 "oil fire conversion" did not bother to examine the highly successful ATSF 2900 design oil fired "Northern" or even consult Union Pacific for the FEF oil fire design.
I believe the Reading RR 2100 project used a non steam atomizing burner that was placed in the locomotive fire door facing forward. Likely it was a pressure burner of insufficient capacity and not using the locomotive firebox design of reverse flame propagation to develop the necessary long flame pattern to heat the locomotive.
History would have easily shown them the path to go!
It just occured to me that with Union Pacific Railroad abandoning all this firebox coal stoker equipment including Standard stoker engines, auger and elevator systems, ash pans, grates, shaker bars etc. All of this equipment was a fairly standard railroad product - that they have removed the internals from Challenger 3894, Northern 844 and 813 parts engine.
Well there is a good home for this unused coal stoking equipment in Elkhart, Indiana! on New York Central Mohawk 4-8-2 NYC 3001!
Surely the mighty Union Pacific Railroad could give a sister steam locomotive a new lease on life with some necessary but used - entire coal stoking locomotive system! Come on UP what do ya say!
Wouldn't a running UP 4-8-4 and NYC 4-8-2 give us a return to American trans continental steam passenger service?
Where is Republican VP Presidental candidate Steve Pence, Governor of Indiana when you need him?
-----------------
Dr. D, there was one oil-fired Mohawk, albeit for a short period of time - Number 2973 which was converted to oil firing for the Rexall Train in 1936.
http://www.themetrains.com/rexall-train-roster.htm
I asked this question before, but I wonder what insights oil firing gives to David Wardale's insistence in The Red Devil that pulverized (or what he called micronized) coal firing was the way forward for coal-fired steam.
Much if not most of the The Red Devil is devoted to the concern that with coal firing, much of the fuel is unburnt and gets blasted out the stack as sparks and cinders, laid down as a carpet on the roadbed. The Gas Producer Combustion System (GPCS) gets a lot of good press on many Web sites, but Wardale's conclusion was that GPCS gets you part of the way there in alleviating this problem but to get all of the way there, you need PC (pulverized coal) firing.
Now I know we can argue whether the few attempts at PC firing were "unsuccessful" (labeling something as unsuccessful is such a dismissive catch-all phrase from that which genuinely will never work to that which didn't work because of a variety of factors), and whether PC firing is a non-starter with regard to how and where to pulverize the coal so it doesn't blow up in a dust explosion.
But oil firing is what PC firing is supposed to accomplish. The stuff is blasted into small droplets or particles that burn before they are drawn out the stack. If you look at historical data on the fuel efficiency of oil-fired vs coal-fired steam (such as ton-miles per pound of fuel, adjusted for BTU density of the fuel per pound), you should see an advantage to oil firing which I haven't seen in the data.
Could it be that the carbon losses with conventional grate firing are large if you operate at maximum evaporation, but a steam locomotive does not burn the majority of its fuel under such conditions? Yes, grate firing of coal has all kinds of problems -- clinker, spark and cinder throwing, a firing rate limitation per square foot of grate, cleaning the accumulated ash off the grate, distributing the coal evenly over the grate -- problems that either oil firing, to a more limited extend the GPCS or the hypothetical PC firing, if they ever get that to work, are supposed to alleviate. But perhaps the carbon carryover problem as a source of energy inefficiency, with so many other sources of energy losses in the steam locomotive, that this particular problem is overstated? Overstated in the sense that if you "cure" the draft-carrying-the-fuel-up-the-stack problem with oil or PC firing, the overall fuel savings are perhaps in the range of a few percent, especially if you consider the range of operating conditions and don't focus exclusively on high evaporation at the "grate limit" of the locomotive?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Dr D ... As I said, I think it is fairly obvious from Ralph Johnson's text, that oil fired steam locomotives in the 1940-50's were burning a form of reduced crude oil refined only to remove the gasoline, benzine, and kerosene which were worth more money elsewhere. By todays standards of distillation, the cracking and reforming of crude oil produces a great deal more gasoline than could be manufactured in the old days. I do not believe they were doing this "advanced refining of catalytic reforming oil molecules" in the mid 20th Century, but rather were doing what is called today as only "straight run refining." The fuel oil used to fuel boilers in the 1940's was a thick sometimes un pourable product that required heating and probably included all the greases and asphalt that is removed today - they burned everything in the crude including the sulfer and the water - basically as it came out of the ground. ...
...
We seem to be debating semantics. Yes I realize we are not talking about advanced refining such as cat cracking. But "refined only to remove the gasoline, benzine, and kerosene" is basic refining. Calling it "reduced crude oil" does not make it the same stuff that came out of the ground. Thus my original point about not using crude oil BTU values as fuel oil values. Fuel oils are generally classifed from 1 to 6. No. 5 & 6 are sometimes called residual fuel oil. No. 6 fuel oil was more or less what the navy called bunker "C"., and I hear was used by at least some steam engines. No. 5 fuel oil was used by UP turbines. I understand current oil fired steam engines often use No. 2 ("distillate") fuel oil, because it is so readily avalable, eg. home heating oil.
Thanks for the information on the 1-6 oils and the Navy "bunker C" classification - its been a while since I encountered those terms. To repeat your discussion and add to it from Wikipedia - The chart is as follows,
FUEL OIL CLASSIFICATION
No 1 ------- Volatile distillate for vaporizong pot burners. It is the kerosene produced after naptha used for gasoline production - older terms are coal oil, stove oil and range oil.
No 2 ------- Distilate fuel oil - home heating oil - similar to diesel fuel with centane number describing ignition quality.
(No 3) ------- A distillate oil for burners using low viscosity fuel - "No 3" is an obsolete classification that has been merged with No 2 oil.
No 4 ------- Commercial heating oil for burner installations not using an oil pre heater.
No 5 ------- Residual type industrial heating oil requiring pre heating to 170 to 220 degrees for proper atomization at the burner. This fuel is called "Bunker B" - Used in Union Pacific turbine locomotives.
No 6 ------- High viscosity residual oil requiring pre heat to 220 to 260 degrees F - may contain up to 2% water and .5% mineral soil - also called residual fuel oil - Navy classification as "Bunker C" - replaced coal aboard steam powered Navy ships.
----------------------
The "reduced crude" term and the measure of crude by BTU is the work of Ralph Johnson ME who was the Chief Engineer for Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1944.
He was also pretty intent that for steam engines the higher "calorific value" of the heavier "reduced crude" had more energy. He felt the lighter oils while useful for combustion in "distilate engines" like the Diesel had less inherent heat energy than the "reduced crude" which had the extra BTU/lb of the asphalt and greases - which the "external mixing steam jet oil burner" could handle and burn in the steam locomotive firebox.
In this case the "reduced crude" was pre heated to liquid state and then mixed and sprayed with live steam into the firebox where it ignited. The atomization done by the hot steam easily brought the thick oil droplets to ignition point. The drawback of this steam heating of the heavy oil was that it filled the firebox with steam and also cost a flat 4% off the top of steam production of the boiler.
I also reviewed F. Skip Farrington Jr. and his book The Santa Fe Big Three which included engineering evaluations of the oil burning ATSF engines 5011 class "Texas" - 2900 class "Northern" and 3640 class "Hudson." The performance of oil fired railroad steam engines of the ATSF was discussed from an operational perspective.
Particularly noted was the importance of the pre heating of the tender oil supply before pumping it to the firebox burner - this was very important - as and too much pre heating and the "reduced crude" oil would cause the oil to "gas" before it could be burned. The "gas" would hit the "external mixing steam jet oil burner" and the bubble would cause the firebox to flame out.
The operational steam pressure supplied to the "external mixing steam jet oil burner", and the very unique nature of the various "reduced crude" oils required much skill in the operation of the firing controls of the oil fired steam engine - and it took experience to acquire this. The fireman had his work cut out for him in the operation of the oil fired railroad steam engine.
--------------------
Dr DIn this case the "reduced crude" was preheated to liquid state and then mixed and sprayed with live steam into the firebox where it ignited. The atomization done by the hot steam easily brought the thick oil droplets to ignition point. The drawback of this steam heating of the heavy oil was that it filled the firebox with steam and also cost a flat 4% off the top of steam production of the boiler.
Guys, if you're going to repeat simplistic old wives' tales, at least put some novel content in (perhaps some of the anecdotes about firing GS-class engines and such that can be found on the Web, or better, some of the stories from the people who fired 1522 for a living.
And if this is going to turn into a thread on oil firing, we should either start a new one with an appropriate title or have Gramp change the title to something more appropriate to what the thread is actually about. No one searching the forum will look for an oil-firing discussion on a thread with 'Coal for Steam Engines' as the title.
The point of the live steam in a von Boden-Ingles burner is well established, as is the relative lack of problem with heat uptake by the added 'water' content. When you say "the atomization ... brought the thick oil droplets to ignition point" you are confusing light-off with carburetion, and not adequately discussing either primary air (which the steam effectively replaces here unless some care is taken in the arrangements) or secondary air in the latter.
Filled the firebox with steam? Really? (Keep in mind first that the steam is a bit of 'opportunity cost', as it would of course be better to use preheated compressed air to do the business but that's far more difficult and expensive to try to arrange on a locomotive than a simple steam jet -- make your assessments net of overall system cost and complexity, not (as so many apparently do) just on the basis of mechanical vs. steam (vs. compressed air, which doesn't work much better in a firebox than it does in a Diesel engine) atomization and plume shaping.
The 4% is notable both for its reduction of available enthalpy from the fuel and for the loss in water rate. It is also notable that the only real reason this energy isn't recovered in the Rankine cycle is that no practical feedwater or air preheating below the condensation point of water is conducted on American locomotives. Where this can be done (as, notably, in the Donlee TurboFire XL boiler) not only does the combustion water contribute to conduction/convection heating, so does any steam injected later in the plume for NOx reduction (which becomes of significant importance in some versions of high-intensity low-volume pulverized coal firing).
Particularly noted was the importance of the preheating of the tender oil supply before pumping it to the firebox burner - this was very important - as and too much pre heating and the "reduced crude" oil would cause the oil to "gas" before it could be burned....
You don't mention that the gassing occurs quicker, and much more pronouncedly, if heating is applied to any oil with lighter fractions, for example the "#5" that was used for modern excursions, and of course 'light oil' firing (they don't call it 'gas oil' for nothing!) The "importance" is in the careful regulation of the preheating of the tender oil supply -- and there are several aspects to this, including some experimentation at Santa Fe (and elsewhere) about exactly where and how you applied the preheat, for example in a 'vessel' inside the tender, or as tracers on the supply line to the burner. I thought as a child that this was one of the great potential uses of steam-regulating thermostats, and I still think that control of the temperature of the bunker, the preheating chamber, and the burner lines ought to be a fairly simple feedback-control exercise (and most emphatically not something that makes the fireman twiddle a wheel valve or two while having to keep checking a thermometer stuck somewhere, or staying alert for signs of gassing)
The "gas" would hit the "external mixing steam jet oil burner" and the bubble would cause the firebox to flame out.
At least try to get the explanation right. The gas 'bubble' blows the liquid fuel out of the burner, and since most of the flameholding (not related to hot refractory causing reasonably quick contact or radiant relighting) is in the jet in a regular external-mix steam-jet burner, and the steam to an extent will shield the oil plume from relighting if the atomization characteristics aren't properly established when flow resumes, you get the flameout. The fun comes when you relight the plume after a certain amount of unburned oil has blown or dribbled into the hot firebox after the "flameout" cause has been solved -- that is when, for example, you find out that explosion doors don't work for critical-mixture 'puffs' (charming word, isn't it?)
A somewhat similar problem can occur with waste-oil firing when you have morons who don't pretreat their fuel. It used to be common to find that waste oil from the most usual source -- garages and service stations -- was commonly contaminated not just with things like power-steering, transmission, and brake fluid, but with dead antifreeze and the 'mayonnaise' that can form when water gets into the oil. When a slug of this hits a von Boden-Ingles burner it can also make the flame go dim or go out, often with the result that fuel dribbles down into the pan or actually forms slug tracks between the rails. Lighting off again can be comical in a variety of ways. One 'correct' answer is to provide centrifugal separation of the oil (of course it is wise to filter it while you're taking that trouble) which can be relatively easily adjusted to give you a good fuel stock.
Experience, and a great deal of common sense and fast attention without warning. Folks on coal roads back in the day thought oil firemen had it fairly easy because they didn't have to shovel anything, either 'coming' or 'going'. That might have been true for roads that used relatively good feedstock oil, but bottom-of-the-barrel cut (as demand for higher fractions took off after the early 20th Century) made the job much more ... intensive. As with PTC, when you don't know in advance when hell time will beset you, but it can be at almost any time, the strain is far worse than just 'what the job requires in a crisis'.
Fortunately, most aspects of modern oil firing are either less rigorous or can be automated with a greater degree of reliability. Before people get too dismissive of the job done on RDG 2100, I encourage them to look into the history, and the specific assumptions and design of the burner that was put in, before judging.
Overmod,
The Santa Fe tests of ATSF 3766 a "Northern" 4-8-4 give an example of the challenges required for use with oil fired locomotives. These tests were done by the railroad company and were extensive and give an example of the detailed "on-site engineering" the company was doing in order to get the oil fired locomotive to perform on the railroad. It appears this was a daunting task for professional engineers - let alone modern railfan steam operators.
In these tests Santa Fe was reducing the diameter of the smokestack - changing the bottom of the smokestack (petticoat pipe) height in relation to the exhaust steam nozzle hidden in the firebox. They were also changing the shape and opening of the exhaust steam nozzle to get the boiler to draft in a different fashion. Finally they were changing and regulating the air flow and space around the firebox burner - apparently by welding and or changing fire brick space to include more air supply.
SANTA FE TEST 87312
June 19th, 1939
Boiler Performance - "It was difficult to maintain full boiler pressure when working the locomotive at capacity under continuous demand with the front end arrangement as applied...previously the petticoat pipe was cut off 8 inches above the nozzle and bushed from 3 7/8" to 3 3/4"...the smokestack was bushed from 27" to 25 1/2" and nozzles opened to 3 7/8" and air opening around the burner increased from 5"x5" to 7"x7."..."
"The oil flow to the burner was very erratic with the drum type oil heater as applied with the large vent at Topeka, unless the direct heater was used excessively. It was more uniform after applying the 32-unit coil heater. Severe gassing, however, was experienced with the coil heater in case the temperature of the oil went above 200 deg. F. Some reduction in heating surface has been made since, on other locomotives, which should decrease the gassing because it was usually experienced when starting to work steam after the heater valve had been left open as little as one-tenth turn while drifting or standing. It was necessary, however, to regulate the heater valve closely at all times and especially with variable flow of oil to burner."
"The average oil temperature of oil in tank to burner for both types of heaters are shown below:
TEMPERATURE IN DEG. F. Heater - type/temp
Average temp of oil in tank --------------------------- 131 drum - 104 coil
Average temp of oil to burner ------------------------- 178 drum - 169 coil
Temperature rise from tank to burner ---------------- 47 drum - 65 coil
"The above indicates an advatange for the coil heater over the drum type, but it is doubtful if the above results can be attained in regular service and particularly in winter weather because of the careful regulation required."
--------------------------
In reading this I am struck with the conclusion that - 1/10 th turn on the fuel valve if left unattended by the fireman could result in failure of performance. Also the caution that the test results and design were questionable in winter railroading.
The Santa Fe fireman on the oil fired steam locomotive had his work cut out for him. These were interesting requirements and demands for a fairly low paying job which required much professionalism.
------------------
Overmod, on the "Snuff Dipper",
Is the smoke stack really like that, or is the artist just having fun?
I need to get the DVD with all the old issues on it, but If this illustration is accurate and not on the DVD, I may buy that one on eBay too.
Dr DIn reading this I am struck with the conclusion that - 1/10 th turn on the fuel valve if left unattended by the fireman could result in failure of performance. Also the caution that the test results and design were questionable in winter railroading.
You are correct, of course, and this was far from the only example of that sort of control-theory 'nonoptimization'!
Of course, reading between the lines Santa Fe and Union Pacific, to name two, did an awful lot of remarkably stupid experimentation with front ends, drafting, and firing in general. I wish Kratville had been more 'up' on the nuances here, as some of the whoppers he described in books like 'The Mighty 800' deserve far more detail discussion than he could give them.
My personal advice is to rustle up a copy of Koopmans' "The Fire Burns Much Brighter" (yes, it's a plug, but it is that good) and then look at the correspondence discussion with David Wardale. Without proper and flexible draft provisions, trying to spray appropriate lambent flame into an absorbing cavity is nearly as interesting as fusion plasma confinement. You shouldn't be surprised to find that the very large firebox with distributed plume designs worked nicely for making oil firing more tractable ... or that firing anywhere near the oil analogue of grate limit resulted in rapid 'nonlinear behavior'!
(I believe the appropriate comparison was mentioned at least once in Railroad Magazine, that both stoker firing and oil firing could tolerate a weak back but required a strong mind...)
Paul MilenkovicThe turkey vulture is a kind of mini-condor just like the Big Boy is a nano-Vesuvius. These pairings do similar things, but one member of the pair is much, much bigger.
We had noticed.
On the other hand, they describe roughly equal solid angles at the viewer's eye when seen in photographs. So no, not much, much bigger from a visual comparison standpoint ... which was the point of the joke. You do realize it was a joke, right?
I agree width you observation about locomotive smoke box design (front end design) - when you consider this development work was done in 1939 almost 80 years ago by men who were educated in the 19th century - well I guess they were very successful.
I am particularly fond of comparing the locomotive performance design of the Union Pacific and the Santa Fe - both western American railroads and both really big on high performance steam locomotives - compare your UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4 coal fired giant with the ATSF Texas 2-10-4 giant for mountain railroad freight work. One rigid frame the other articulated.
Compare also the fast fleet passenger engines - UP 800 coal burner 4-8-4 Northern with bronze bushed siderods and pedestal tender - to ATSF 2900 oil burner 4-8-4 Northern with full roller bearing drive riding on 8 wheel tender trucks.
Yes, the comparison is an exercise in examination of superlative American steam power. With ATSF building the biggest ever built 4-8-4 passenger engine and UP with the biggest ever built 4-8-8-4 freight engine. An exercise in contrasts!
As far as "front end design" of course they would have benefited by late 1950's Giesel exhaust and poppet valve performance - consider also - ATSF with its oil burners with extended smokestacks on accordion lifts - wow - and UP with coal burners with double smoke stack and huge front end volume!
Both unique designs with many locomotives saved - did anyone else use the air powered extending smoke stack like Santa Fe? Was the UP double smokestack design a real success?
Yes, - Just a few thoughts on two of my favorite railroads with similarity of engineering design and also the differences common to the two railroads - and both companies preserving many of their famous locomotives for future generations.
Santa Fe steam so seldom seen - and Union Pacific steam - the most prolific of all the remaining railroads with its excursion Northern UP 844 never retired with 70 years of service out of Cheyene, Wyoming - and similarly the ATSF 2900 Northern saved by the company in Belen, New Mexico and never run.
--------------
Lets also not forget the two fantastic name trains Santa Fe's - The Super Chief - Union Pacific's - The City of San Francisco - as famous as the railroads themselves!
Guess thats the way of it -
Most interesting that the intern mentions the "Super Chief" and the "City of San Francisco", both of which were diesel-electric powered from the start. I would have expected him to mention the "Chief" and the "Overland".
Re: Steel fibers in scrap tires:
I suspect the Kevlar/aramid fibers are worse.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.