East Coast / Mid Atlantic Oil Burning Steam? oil Burner Questions as well....

[C&WRailway]

 

It seems to me that all the Eastern and indeed Mid Atlantic railroading is about coal and with for good reason, however, Since there were several large and old refinerys and complexes on the Middle East Coast (such as the one in Chesapeake, VA (formerly known as South Norfolk)) that had been present since shortly after the turn of the century there would be at least a few smaller railroads that had experimented with oil burning steam.  Especially once coals prices began to soar in the 40's and Diesel Loco production was in a hold mode with WW2.

Any thoughts? 

In addition i would ask a newbie question concerning oil burning locos:  Since the only real difference is in the 'fuel' between a coal or oil burner does all the other piping/pumps remain the same.  I suppose the Tender and some other items are the only major difference.

Lastly,  Any studies on the efficiencies of oil versus coal on steam locomotives.  I know the western railroads had to go oil due to less than idea coal availability.

 

Thanks for the help!

NC

[g. gage]

My extended family are native far westerners, a trip back east was going to Salt Lake City. But I do seem to recall reading someplace that some east coast cities required railroads to use oil because of polutiion. Out here coal was used in Washington and the WP used coal east of Elko, NV. The SP used coal in New Mexico. Both railroads transfered locomotives between coal and oil burning territories.

Advantages of oil over coal is that oil had no ash, it burnt cleaner (the SP officals didn't allow photos of smoking locos) and oil could be piped which made the SP cabforward locomotives work so well. Note the firebox is at the fornt of the loco while the oil is in back in the tender.

Hope this helps, Rob  

[dehusman]

One major impediment is that oil during WW2 was a premium due to wartime use.  On the east coast oil would have to be carried by rail from the Gulf Coast mostly since U-boats were sinking tankers of the eastern seaboard. and a land route was more secure.  The railroads would not be likely to "experiment" with new fuels since "experimenting" with engines was frowned upon.

Changing from coal to oil involved removing the coal bunker, stoker, ashbox and firebox grates, installing a oil tank, oil pump (sometimes), hoses and pipes to bring the oil from the tender to the firebox and new burners/grates.  The engine would be out of service for several months while these changes were being made.  It was pretty significant surgery.

Dave H.

[C&WRailway]

Thanks for the replys.  After i had posted i was looking around on the web and noticed that indeed the N&W had experimented with Oil Burners.  It was mentioned in an issue of the N&W Historical Societys publication. 

I understand about "experimenting" being a  no no during the war years and i can see that.  I suppose the years prior to that may have involved some.  I suspect that coal prices had been at a premium for a very long time.

Thanks Again,

NC

[BillyDee53]

The Florida East Coast burned oil.  Once upon a time, when Florida was still a nice place, the Gold Coast RR Museum in Ft Lauderdale operated an FEC pacific.  If you asked when you bought your train ticket, and paid an extra buck, you could ride in the cab.

[ndbprr]

Burning coal has always had a "smoke" problem. You add coal it upests the balance in the firebox and stem fans are in heaven.  Everybody else has the same reaction they do when you stop at a railroad crossing when two or three more cars could have gotten through (in their opinion).  Many cities had smoke ordinances. The PRR had inspectors who went to various locations and monitored smoke being produced even giving time off for excess smoke.  The 0-8-0 switcher assigned to Washington DC by the PRR fired on oil for that reason.  Since oil burns from an oil jet rather than a bed of coals it is much easier to control he smoke issue.  Coal was cheaper.  That is why railroads used it.  They are in the business of making money.  If you see some of the anthracite area engines like the Reading their engines had an extremely wide firebox called a Wooten firebox.  The dutchmen were cheap and they designed it to burn the fines from the mines that had no other use and was cheap to obtain.  A normal firebox would have blown that stuff right  out the stack because the draft would have been to srong.  Widening the firebox lowered the speed of the air making using it practical.  From personal experience with a #6 oil system on furnaces that stuff is pure he**l to use. 

[C&WRailway]

I understand and appreciate your reply, but i certainly have to disagree on the "coal was cheaper" comment.  At the end of steam (50's) the reverse was true.  Coal had gotten way out of hand in pricing and oil was dirt cheap.  Couple that price difference with the greater efficiency of the diesel along with dropping the extra steam facilities and you get dieselization.  I know its hard to believe today in the time of high fuel prices but oil of any kind used to be 'dime a dozen'.

 

Thanks again!

NC

[ndbprr]

Well I am not sure there is one answer to the question. It would depend on what was available locally.  In the case of the PRR there were any western Pa coal mines that shipped on the PRR minimizing tranport costs even for them.  In the case of the anthracite fines I stand by my statement as they were a product that coudn't be sold and were cheap.  Now if I was in Texas and had close access to oil fields it might be different.  I know SP used oil and maybe for that reason. 

[C&WRailway]

Oh i completely agree with your comments concerning the anthracite, there is no doubt.  I guess when i was refering to oil burners i was thinking about the Chesapeake Virginia area (at the time called South Norfolk).  They had a Texico Petroleum refinery there that had operated since around 1900 and finally closed in 2000.  During my peferred timeline (late 40's up to mid 50's) i suspect that with the cheap prices of Oil it 'Could' have been possible for a shortline or beltline to think about Oil burners verus purchasing new diesels.  I guess that is the context of my statements.  Thanks again for the information.

 NC

[AltonFan]

I seem to recall a photo of an oil-burning locomotive on a Western maryland passenger train.  A number of coal-burning railroads used oil on passenger trains to minimize smoke and soot issues.

[jguess733]

Don't forget that the oil has to be preheated before being pumped from the tender other wise it won't flow very well. IIRC it needed to be heated to around 200 degrees.

[R. T. POTEET]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that either Atlantic Coast Line or Seaboard Air Line converted some of their passenger locomotives to oil simply to eliminate the sparks that had a nasty habit of burning holes in lady's beautiful dresses and, of course, hats. I'm not exactly sure just when this particular conversion took place. I know that Milwaukee did the same thing with some of their passenger locomotives.

Sometimes conversion was a matter of economics; apparently it wasn't too awfully hard a task and Santa Fe had some Texas-types that were converted back and forth several times; a recent Trains and Locomotive feature on RFDTV showed an oil bunker either being removed from or being installed in the tender of an Uncle John locomotive.

Apparently during WWII those railroads which encountered smoke abatement ordinances went to the head of the list for allocation of diesel switchers.

[twhite]

Oil simply burned cleaner. 

I grew up with SP steam in the Sierra, and frankly, the amount of smoke coming out of a stack depended more on the weather (colder, more visible exhaust) than it did the fuel.  Oil simply burned cleaner, and about the only time you'd see a huge amount of exhaust would be if the loco was just starting up (to clean out the flues a little) or working hard in cold weather.  And for the most part, the oil exhaust from the stack just dissipated as the loco moved on.  I remember when UP brought their coal-burning locos--the 4-8-4 and 4-6-6-4 to Railfair in Sacramento some years back.  Something about those cinders flying around all over the place were possibly 'romantic', but for someone who had grown up with oil-burning steam, it just seemed a little bit 'foreign' to me. 

SP didn't allow photos of their steamers 'bellowing' smoke, simply because for the most part, they DIDN'T.  Except for photographers and fans.  But mostly, they ran very clean.  Even those big cab-forwards struggling up 'The Hill' toward Donner Summit with two or three of them handling a train.  Frankly, ALCO PA's spewed more exhaust than an AC cab-forward--it's probably why SP engineers called them "Honorary Steamers". 

Tom

[markpierce]

Yeah, SP rules!

Mark

[C&WRailway]

Oil simply burned cleaner. 

ITom

Now that we are on the subject what 'type' of oil did the oil-burners use and where did it fall in the refining process.  For instance was it on the 'early' end of the process as in easier to acquire and much cheaper?  In addition what other industrys or such used this same grade?  I guess i am fishing to see what other industrys / machinery etc. would use this in helping me do some layout adjustments.

 

Thanks!

NC

[Flashwave]

An intresting side note: UP had experimented with an oil burning Big Boy once, but for reasons unkown, only used one burner. The Challengers used 2, why the Big Boy didn;t, is not clear. The resulting engine though had about the oomf as the triplex, And was quickly un-converted.

[fwright]

I believe you will find Bunker C - the thick crud left over from the refining process.  It was cheap; used in both marine and locomotive boilers.  There was no need for the more expensive refined varieties required by infernal combustion engines.  And steam was readily available to preheat the oil to get it to flow reasonably.

When refining processes changed in the '40s and '50s to favor more production of higher grade fuels, the price of Bunker C jumped rapidly.  The price increase was another factor in pushing out steam in favor of diesel in both marine and railroad applications.

The real difference between steam in marine and railway applications is that larger ships cruising for hours at the same power setting could use super-heated steam turbines more efficiently, where railroads found the reciprocating engines to be more efficient at the ever-varying loads.

my understanding, those with more direct knowledge can correct

Fred W

[ndbprr]

Bunker C is also called #6 oil.  At room temperature it is almost tar.  I ran a steel mill #6 oil system and I started to heat the three million gallon tanks in July so they would be warm enough to use around November.  I tried to shoot for 168 degrees  F.  At that temperature it was about like motor oil in viscosity and flowed better.  At the burners steam was injected into the oil stream 15# higher than the oil pressure to atomize it.  if you didn't have enough steam pressure differential it just flowed out the end of the burner like out of a hose and didn't even burn.  It is the only fuel I know that you have to force to burn. I hate the stuff.  There is still #6 made but with the price of crude oil today further refining of the bottoms products converts a lot more of it to lighter cuts that have higher returns. If they didn't do that gasoline could well be over five dollars a gallon.  There are still some bottom products that can't be used.  they are a tarry gooey material called petroleum coke or pet coke for short. It is sold to steel mills primarily to add to their coke ovens as a raw material.  They like it becasue it almost pure carbon with very little volatiles in it.  They coke them out along with the coal volatiles and increase their carbon yield.  Not having any steam engine experience I can't imagine there being much difference in firing.  Initially a cold engine would require power house or at least external steam to heat the tank and boiler.  Once the oil was hot enough the burner could be lit off.  I'l bet that was a fun experience.  I guess somebody got to toss in a fusey or something similar after the oil was opened up.  Believe me once it lights you wouldn't want to be in front of the firebox door.  Many a time I went home while watching a #6 oil light off with no eyebrows and a sunburn. Then it is just a case of keeping the fire going.  How they preheated oil for refueling and how they loaded it would be an interesting discussion as well as firing technique and what you did when you needed to shut down a burner.