Any ideas on what fraction of coal consumption (compared to total coal output) was attributable to railroad use? 10%.. 50%..etc?
UlrichAny ideas on what fraction of coal consumption (compared to total coal output) was attributable to railroad use? 10%.. 50%..etc?
.
I am sure it was less than 10%. Probably much less.
Coal was used for everything, almost all buildings had boilers. Most houses were heated by coal or wood.
Industries all used steam power. Steel mills devoured the stuff. Electrical generation was probably 75% coal at least.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
In a book I have on carloadings at specific stations on a particular railroad, coal loadings were separated from all other freight loadings. Yes, this was important business! Besides all of the uses mentioned, a lot of coal was heated up for the manufacture of cooking gas. Nearly every community of any size had gas works, with at least one of those large expanding tanks, filled with gas prepared in ovens by cooking (and coking) the coal and preserving the gas.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Think I read that 1948 was the year that decreasing US railroad coal consumption equalled the increasing consumption by electric power plants.
CShaveRR Besides all of the uses mentioned, a lot of coal was heated up for the manufacture of cooking gas. Nearly every community of any size had gas works, with at least one of those large expanding tanks, filled with gas prepared in ovens by cooking (and coking) the coal and preserving the gas.
Besides all of the uses mentioned, a lot of coal was heated up for the manufacture of cooking gas. Nearly every community of any size had gas works, with at least one of those large expanding tanks, filled with gas prepared in ovens by cooking (and coking) the coal and preserving the gas.
You see those expanding tanks all over London, but I don't think any of them are in use. They call them "gasometers" for some reason.
The ICC annual report says in 1929 US Class I steam locomotives consumed 113.9 million tons of bituminous, 1.6 million tons anthracite, 2.6 billion gallons fuel oil -- and 19499 cords of hard wood and 52815 cords of soft wood. What Class I would that be?
In 1929, US produced 535 million tons of bituminous coal.
timz The ICC annual report says in 1929 US Class I steam locomotives consumed 113.9 million tons of bituminous, 1.6 million tons anthracite, 2.6 billion gallons fuel oil -- and 19499 cords of hard wood and 52815 cords of soft wood. What Class I would that be? In 1929, US produced 535 million tons of bituminous coal.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Yeah, wonder what Class I burned any wood.
Looks like the Minerals Yearbook is the place to look for coal numbers
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435031187982;view=1up;seq=782
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015019917478;view=1up;seq=338
In the second link, anyway, note that the RR consumption given is total, not just by locomotives.
timzYeah, wonder what Class I burned any wood.
Murphy SidingThere were trains still using a lot of wood for fuel in 1929?
Review the procedure for firing up boilers from cold. You did not dump a burning oil-soaked rag on a pile of bituminous coal and wait for the heat and smoke to convect their way out the stack.
I do have a suspicion that in 1929 there were some Class Is -- Southern comes promptly to mind -- that might still be using woodburning locomotives on things like accommodation trains.
54light15They call them "gasometers" for some reason.
They are called that because they are not just 'reservoirs' for gas storage; they provide the required service pressure independent of what may have been involved in gas generation and transfer pressure. In so doing, they provide positive-displacement volumetric delivery measurement (as well as a relatively easy-to-read visual guide of the volume of gas available in the system). When producer gas (instead of natural gas) is being used, it doesn't pay to make a large volume of gas merely to store it; supply should lead demand, but only 'just' net of all prediction and production delays.
(And if you wonder, as I did when I was small in a house with a gas oven, why the cartoon suicide trope was 'putting one's head in the oven' -- review the composition of most city gas as provided in these systems...)
Johnny
SeeYou190 I am sure it was less than 10%. Probably much less. .Coal was used for everything, almost all buildings had boilers. Most houses were heated by coal or wood. .Industries all used steam power. Steel mills devoured the stuff. Electrical generation was probably 75% coal at least. .-Kevin
.Coal was used for everything, almost all buildings had boilers. Most houses were heated by coal or wood.
.Industries all used steam power. Steel mills devoured the stuff. Electrical generation was probably 75% coal at least.
.-Kevin
Also, some long forgotten transportation like coal-burning ships, ferries, fishing boat and ocean liners which were built before RMS Aquitania of 1913, and SS Vaterland of 1913 were all fed with coal.
Renowned transatlantic liner like RMS Mauretania consumes about 5000 to 6,000 tons of coal in a single trip, enough to fill up 214 UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boy tenders. But many transatlantic liners converted to oil-burning since the 1920s.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Jones1945 SeeYou190 I am sure it was less than 10%. Probably much less. .Coal was used for everything, almost all buildings had boilers. Most houses were heated by coal or wood. .Industries all used steam power. Steel mills devoured the stuff. Electrical generation was probably 75% coal at least. .-Kevin Also, some long forgotten transportation like coal-burning ships, ferries, fishing boat and ocean liners which were built before RMS Aquitania of 1913, and SS Vaterland of 1913 were all fed with coal. Renowned transatlantic liner like RMS Mauretania consumes about 5000 to 6,000 tons of coal in a single trip, enough to fill up 214 UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boy tenders. But many transatlantic liners converted to oil-burning since the 1920s.
It is believed that Titanic sailed from England with a fire in her coal bunkers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDIt is believed that Titanic sailed from England with a fire in her coal bunkers.
And this weakened the critical bulkhead into that last fireroom...
Perhaps even more to the point, coal bunkerage 'done wrong' is likely a proximate cause of the rapid sinking of both Lusitania and Britannic.
Coal was a very, very dumb liner fuel.
Overmod BaltACD It is believed that Titanic sailed from England with a fire in her coal bunkers. And this weakened the critical bulkhead into that last fireroom... Perhaps even more to the point, coal bunkerage 'done wrong' is likely a proximate cause of the rapid sinking of both Lusitania and Britannic. Coal was a very, very dumb liner fuel.
BaltACD It is believed that Titanic sailed from England with a fire in her coal bunkers.
Dumb compared to....what other fuel that was readily available?
Plus, attributing the loss of those three liners to coal-related incidents drifts heavily into paraphrasing Pickett's and saying "I've always thought the torpedoes had something to do with it."
I like this video model of the Titanic engine room. I don't know if the sound is accurate, but it sounds convincing. The boiler room complex is amazing. Working in it must have been quite an experience. Boiler rooms can be intimidating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDFqY-0Do8
NittanyLionDumb compared to....what other fuel that was readily available?
Well, this thing called 'naft' that occurs in the Crimea and some other places. Known to work really well for steam generation by the early 1880s. Perhaps the only workable fuel for torpedo boats.
I am thankful to you for pointing out that Titanic and Britannic were sunk by torpedo ... I guess I learn something new on forums nearly every day.
Do you really think that one obsolete torpedo could sink a ship the size of Lusitania in that short a time ... absent a secondary explosion of such magnitude as to lead generations to think there had to be substantial secret armaments aboard? (Or that a mine hit on the bow would sink a ship the size of Britannic in the time it did?)
In both cases, the shock of the munition explosion caused levitation of the coal dust in the bunker structure and probably provided a prompt ignition source for a critical-mixture deflagration or worse to propagate around the ship, knocking riveted seams loose with pressure and shock. Yes, the explosives had 'something to do with it' but likely far less in both mass and action than the fuel-related explosions. And this before we take up the issue of prompt IR detonation in carbon powder (as at Flixborough, where some of the propagation likely took place at a fair proportion of lightspeed...)
Any problems in/with the coal bunkers on the Titanic may have exacerbated the problems, but I suspect the gash left by the iceberg was the primary issue.
While the cause of the explosion that sunk the Britannic remains unknown (possibly a mine), it's said that the flooding that occurred thereafter was actually worse than that on the Titanic, despite the fact that changes were made in the design after the Titanic sunk.
The second explosion on the Lusitania has been possibly laid to the boilers exploding, although it has been reported that there were over 100 tons of munitions on board.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Overmod Well, this thing called 'naft' that occurs in the Crimea and some other places. Known to work really well for steam generation by the early 1880s. Perhaps the only workable fuel for torpedo boats.
Are you meaning 'naphtha' - much nastier than coal
WikiPedia Health and safety considerations[edit] The safety data sheets (SDSs) from various naphtha vendors are also indicative of the non-specific nature of the product and reflect the considerations due for a flammable mixture of hydrocarbons: flammability, carcinogenicity, skin and airway irritation, etc.[12][13][14][15] Humans can be exposed to naphtha in the workplace by inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact, and eye contact. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set the permissible exposure limit for naphtha in the workplace as 100 ppm (400 mg/m3) over an 8-hour workday. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has set a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 100 ppm (400 mg/m3) over an 8-hour workday. At levels of 1000 ppm, which equates to 10% of the lower explosive limit [1% = 10,000 ppm], naphtha is immediately dangerous to life and health.
The safety data sheets (SDSs) from various naphtha vendors are also indicative of the non-specific nature of the product and reflect the considerations due for a flammable mixture of hydrocarbons: flammability, carcinogenicity, skin and airway irritation, etc.[12][13][14][15]
Humans can be exposed to naphtha in the workplace by inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact, and eye contact. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set the permissible exposure limit for naphtha in the workplace as 100 ppm (400 mg/m3) over an 8-hour workday. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has set a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 100 ppm (400 mg/m3) over an 8-hour workday. At levels of 1000 ppm, which equates to 10% of the lower explosive limit [1% = 10,000 ppm], naphtha is immediately dangerous to life and health.
I thought big ships used heavy oil like bunker C, and small motor boats like a launch used naphtha.
tree68Any problems in/with the coal bunkers on the Titanic may have exacerbated the problems, but I suspect the gash left by the iceberg was the primary issue.
What, not the torpedo?
The only real 'contribution' the fire is supposed to have made, if I recall the discussions correctly, was to weaken the bulkhead of fireroom 5 in such a way that it failed early, thereby accelerating the rate of the sinking. I do not remember if anyone ran the numbers to see if getting a collision mat across the gap there (said to be about 5' but the seam opening might have been far more than that) would have kept the ship either from filling or breaking 'long enough' to permit one of the liners to reach her ... it was only a matter of under 60 miles physical separation as I recall.
While the cause of the explosion that sunk the Britannic remains unknown (possibly a mine), it's said that the flooding that occurred thereafter was actually worse than that on the Titanic, despite the fact that changes were made in the design after the Titanic sank.
I thought it was fully accepted that the cause was a mine; it sure as heck wasn't hospital supplies. The "issue" was whether the mine could cause enough mechanical damage to produce a sinking that fast -- it was a principal reason to access the damaged area either from inside or outside to assess this. If I recall correctly the 'conclusion', such as it was, was that the damage couldn't be seen well enough to judge.
On the other hand, it was CERTAIN that the ship went down too fast to beach, and I see (1) no cause that would produce this except wholesale opening of seams to water, and (2) no direct shock from mine detonation that would open seams to that extent. On the other hand, a critical-mixture coal-dust explosion would certainly serve, and if I recall correctly, contemporary reports of the sequence of events confirm secondary shock. The incident occurred in reasonably warm water, so no 'rivet embrittlement' issue could possibly apply as it might on Titanic.
Scotch boilers would not explode all together if exposed to sea water, nor would the result produce rapid sinking of the pattern observed. I also doubt that the magnitude of munitions reported to be aboard could have been prompt initiated to produce enough damage to sink a ship that size that fast. I wish we could know with any assurance whether or not the British were lying about the type and size of munitions load ... the latest I remember reading was that it was mostly small-arms ammunition, not major explosives or high-order material.
BaltACDAre you meaning 'naphtha' - much nastier than coal
'naft' was an Islamic term for what we'd now call 'petroleum' -- hydrocarbon material coming out of the ground.* Back in the day there was 'white naft' and 'black naft' (corresponding to different kinds of crude, still encountered today). I have sources in the history of technology but it will take me some time to spin them up -- it's been years now. Where did the time go?
No light hydrocarbon mixture would find much use in steam generation at liner size, and yes, the explosion and vapor hazards alone would make 'naphtha' or even the lighter fractions of gas oil undesirable for firing liners (even if they did not have higher opportunity value for other purposes).
I did not look carefully at the specific fractions used for oil torpedo boat fuel in the late 19th Century, but I don't believe they were like the 'white gasoline' or similar fuels used in many contemporary steam automobiles or flash plants. A reasonable place to start reading is the Office of Naval Intelligence General Information Series IX (June 1890) chapter XI, which is about a decade newer than the first 'treatises' on practical locomotive oil firing I have read.
BTW: Yes, I checked, and Turbinia was coal-fired ... and from the available photographs with comparatively little forced draft visible in her exhaust plume kinetics, despite stories that her funnel glowed under hard running...
*What 'naft' originally meant was apparently combustible or explosive liquid, probably at least similar to Greek fire, and then by extension in military context, explosive.
There is a Naft Oil Company and several ' fuelling stations' in the Toronto area. Saudi owned.
Yes, I actually believe that theory which explained what actually happened; this theory explained a lot of unanswered questions about the sinking of the unsinkable ship. After years of waiting, I am glad that I finally know what really happened.
By the way, judging from the forward A-Deck promenade, the ship in the pic should be Titanic's sister ships RMS Olympic
I love the RMS Lusitania more than the RMS Titanic. If I was a billionaire in that era I would insist to take the Lucy. She was a bit smaller but fast enough to save me one travel day. Let alone the interior was much more classy.
RMS Lusitania. Slender and well proportioned; powerful and fast, classy and luxury.
The Titanic began the trip with a fire in one of the coal bunkers, which required a few days to extinguish, but there is no evidence that it contributed to the cause of the sinking or added to the disaster.
However, what the fire does do is provide one of several indications of the incredible hubris surrounding the so-called “unsinkable ship.” This attitude is probably the overall cause of the sinking because it promoted risk taking to prove the ship’s invincibility and win the business competition at stake in the first voyage.
The attitude manifested itself in several ways, including a lack of caution in speeding through the ice field, suppressing the “black eye” news of the coal bunker fire, nearly causing a collision as the ship sped out of the harbor, and providing only enough life boats for an unsinkable ship.
This attitude was in the ship’s marketing, and had become well known as the ship was being constructed. It worried people who instinctively knew the human downside of having too much pride. It led to a popular feeling that the ship was jinxed. People reported premonitions of the disaster. Some even canceled their trip out of fear as the day drew nearer.
To me, this is the truly incredible drama of the Titanic story. It should have been the centerpiece of the movie.
Yup, and that's what makes me nervous about flying lately too. A combination of cavalier attitude.. watching the uniformed kids on the flight deck as I board.. recalling how little I paid for the flight and wondering what portion of that pittance is allocated to safety..
RE: Britannic, wasn't it all the open portholes on the lower decks that allowed water to flood more compartments even after the watertight doors were closed?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Overmod I wish we could know with any assurance whether or not the British were lying about the type and size of munitions load ... the latest I remember reading was that it was mostly small-arms ammunition, not major explosives or high-order material.
I wish we could know with any assurance whether or not the British were lying about the type and size of munitions load ... the latest I remember reading was that it was mostly small-arms ammunition, not major explosives or high-order material.
As you know that the British Government and the Royal Navy shamelessly lied and suppressed the truth for almost 100 years, kept changing their lines to take year after year, they are not trustworthy I am sure. Victims of the Lusitania are still buried with undetonated depth charges and underwater explosives, ... sometimes I don't really understand that why I still have faith in humanity.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.