Trains.com

Converting steam locomotives from coal to oil use.....

11329 views
7 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Converting steam locomotives from coal to oil use.....
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, May 4, 2007 9:43 PM
     Was it a major rebuilding to convert a steamer over to oil?  I've read about classes of locomotives that were converted, but weren't most oil burners built that way originally?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: heart of the Pere Marquette
  • 847 posts
Posted by J. Edgar on Friday, May 4, 2007 10:05 PM

 

 im pretty sure the major difference is in the firebox......youd have burners instead of grates.....brickarch??? ....not sure

i love the smell of coal smoke in the morning Photobucket
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: North Idaho
  • 1,311 posts
Posted by jimrice4449 on Saturday, May 5, 2007 9:43 PM
It would be a lot easier to convert from coal to oil than vice-versa.   Remove stoker, grates and ash pan and replace w/ oil burner in firebox and steam line to tender oil bunker in colder climes.   Compared to all that would have to be added to go from oil to coal, piece of cake.   Most notable example, SP AC-9s when transferred to Modoc Line from New Mexico compared to rendering cab-forward a cab-backwards.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, May 6, 2007 6:55 PM
     It sounds as if conversion was fairly simple.  Why didn't more railroads convert over to oil burning, to extend the life of their fleet, rather than purchasing diesels?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,537 posts
Posted by jchnhtfd on Sunday, May 6, 2007 8:42 PM

coal to oil wasn't too bad; oil to coal would have been a bear -- except when the engine was converted from coal to oil then back to coal.  UP did that with, I think, some of the Challengers and maybe some of the FEFs, and I think some other roads did too.  Partly because supplies of coal were a little uncertain just after WWII.

Diesels had so many other advantages over steam that the oil/coal question just wasn't a factor.  (OK, OK -- I know that the comparison of the Niagaras to the Es on the NYC was just about a wash -- but the Niagaras were brand new, and used on such trivia as the 20th Century, and were very very well maintained in first class facilities -- hardly representative of the average steam engine in 1950 vs. the average diesel).

Jamie
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Northeast OH
  • 2,268 posts
Posted by NeO6874 on Sunday, May 6, 2007 9:55 PM

Not to mention the fact that a diesel is a lot cheaper to maintain in general than a steamer... 

-Dan

Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Franklin, NC
  • 166 posts
Posted by traintownofcowee on Monday, June 4, 2007 12:23 PM
Most Western Railroads converted to oil because it was more plentiful than coal. While in the East, coal was more plentiful than oil. Its pretty obvious right there.

Take a Ride on the Scenic Line!

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,967 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Monday, June 4, 2007 3:09 PM
Cotton Belt converted its TEXAS steam locomotives to oil fuel in 1923. It was done because of the plentiful supply of oil fuel in TEXAS.    
COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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