Ashpans on steam locomotives converted from coal to oil

[marknewton]

I'm under the belief that an oil fired locomotive produces no significant ash, and that an ashpan is therefore not needed.

So if a steam locomotive originally built to burn coal was converted to burn oil, would they modify or remove the (now unneccessary) ashpan,

If the conversion is done properly? Remove it and replace it with a a specialised firepan - you still need to control the combustion air and contain the flame. Have a look at Cuban oilburners if you want to know why this is a good idea... Also the firebox is lined with refractory brick to retain the heat, and prevent burning the heads off the wallstays.

Mark.

[CAZEPHYR]

 

 

The ash pan is removed and the parts you normally see at the bottome edge of the firebox is gone after the conversion along with the grades and the handles to shake the grates.   The oil burner and needed piping along with the heater to heat the oil was added but the overall weight of the locomotive was lighter after the conversion.

 On the Union Pacific FEF-3 series, the conversion removed about four thousand pounds of metal and that was noted in the weight on the drivers after the conversion.   The weight the trailing truck was lighter also by 2000 pounds.  The three tons of metal is reflected in the total weight of the engine and the tractive effort was reduced slightly.

 

Cheers

[egmurphy]

I'm under the belief that an oil fired locomotive produces no significant ash, and that an ashpan is therefore not needed.

So if a steam locomotive originally built to burn coal was converted to burn oil, would they modify or remove the (now unneccessary) ashpan, or just leave it even though it was no longer needed?

Thanks

Ed