4449 burns oil?

Engineer-Joe posted:

OK, OK! Easy now. For some reason, I thought she was still burning coal? Looks like the tender is sealed? or are they just covers?

All modern SP steam locomotives burned oil, since the very early 1900s. Not much usable locomotive coal in California, but LOTS of oil.

I don't know these things.... 

Right.

Was there trouble getting good coal or something like that (I read) ?

In California, yes.

I have no memory. The whole UP steam program burns oil? right?

Since the UP has only a total of three steam locomotives now, both 844 and 3085 burn oil, and the 4014 will be converted to oil burning. Challenger 3985 was converted to oil burning about 1990, i.e. prior to the 1991 California State Railroad Museum's 10th anniversary Railfair.

Is it any easier to run with oil? Maybe less maintenance at the end of runs??

Yes and yes.

I can say she sure looks good to me.

Is it safe? (to return) 

What????

let me know...

The 4449 and the 700 both burn waste oil.  We used to run Bunker C originally in the 700 which fires a lot better than waste oil.  Switched to PS400 for a while, which was okay, then to waste oil, which is harder to fire without making a lot of smoke.  Has a tendency to flash if too hot.  They were designed to use heavy oil (nozzle design, etc).  But it's expensive and difficult to get delivered at out-of-town refueling stops.

Kerrigan posted:

The 4449 and the 700 both burn waste oil.  We used to run Bunker C originally in the 700 which fires a lot better than waste oil.  Switched to PS400 for a while, which was okay, then to waste oil, which is harder to fire without making a lot of smoke.  Has a tendency to flash if too hot.  They were designed to use heavy oil (nozzle design, etc).  But it's expensive and difficult to get delivered at out-of-town refueling stops.

Kerrigan,

There is no difference in the burner design for Bunker fuel, to No. 6, to No.5, to PS300 (marine boiler fuel), to waste oil. I suggest you check out all the photos and videos from last weekend's 4449 operation, and see if you find "a lot of smoke". When the UP steam program changed to using waste oil for fuel, both 844 and 3985 fired a LOT easier/better with much less smoke. Also, waste oil should NOT have to be heated, unless it is very cold outside.

Thank you! 

She looks better with the smaller SPL on the tender than the bigger SP lettering.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

She looks better with the smaller SPL on the tender than the bigger SP lettering.

Thais the "as delivered" styling, with the Train Number Indicators mounted forward, in their original "as delivered" position.

Kerrigan posted:

Switched...to waste oil, which is harder to fire without making a lot of smoke. 

I don't know...I don't have too much trouble with waste oil.

Hot Water posted:

Engineer-Joe posted:

OK, OK! Easy now. For some reason, I thought she was still burning coal? Looks like the tender is sealed? or are they just covers?

All modern SP steam locomotives burned oil, since the very early 1900s. Not much usable locomotive coal in California, but LOTS of oil.

I don't know these things.... 

Right.

Was there trouble getting good coal or something like that (I read) ?

In California, yes.

I have no memory. The whole UP steam program burns oil? right?

Since the UP has only a total of three steam locomotives now, both 844 and 3085 burn oil, and the 4014 will be converted to oil burning. Challenger 3985 was converted to oil burning about 1990, i.e. prior to the 1991 California State Railroad Museum's 10th anniversary Railfair.

Is it any easier to run with oil? Maybe less maintenance at the end of runs??

Yes and yes.

I can say she sure looks good to me.

Is it safe? (to return) 

What????

let me know...

 

All modern Southern Pacific steam burned oil? The AC-9 was not modern?

eldodroptop posted:

Hot Water posted:

Engineer-Joe posted:

OK, OK! Easy now. For some reason, I thought she was still burning coal? Looks like the tender is sealed? or are they just covers?

All modern SP steam locomotives burned oil, since the very early 1900s. Not much usable locomotive coal in California, but LOTS of oil.

I don't know these things.... 

Right.

Was there trouble getting good coal or something like that (I read) ?

In California, yes.

I have no memory. The whole UP steam program burns oil? right?

Since the UP has only a total of three steam locomotives now, both 844 and 3085 burn oil, and the 4014 will be converted to oil burning. Challenger 3985 was converted to oil burning about 1990, i.e. prior to the 1991 California State Railroad Museum's 10th anniversary Railfair.

Is it any easier to run with oil? Maybe less maintenance at the end of runs??

Yes and yes.

I can say she sure looks good to me.

Is it safe? (to return) 

What????

let me know...

 

All modern Southern Pacific steam burned oil? The AC-9 was not modern?

Yea, they burned oil. I don't get the confusion. Was the fireman going to walk all the way around with his scoop?  

J 611 posted:

eldodroptop posted:

Hot Water posted:

Engineer-Joe posted:

OK, OK! Easy now. For some reason, I thought she was still burning coal? Looks like the tender is sealed? or are they just covers?

All modern SP steam locomotives burned oil, since the very early 1900s. Not much usable locomotive coal in California, but LOTS of oil.

I don't know these things.... 

Right.

Was there trouble getting good coal or something like that (I read) ?

In California, yes.

I have no memory. The whole UP steam program burns oil? right?

Since the UP has only a total of three steam locomotives now, both 844 and 3085 burn oil, and the 4014 will be converted to oil burning. Challenger 3985 was converted to oil burning about 1990, i.e. prior to the 1991 California State Railroad Museum's 10th anniversary Railfair.

Is it any easier to run with oil? Maybe less maintenance at the end of runs??

Yes and yes.

I can say she sure looks good to me.

Is it safe? (to return) 

What????

let me know...

 

All modern Southern Pacific steam burned oil? The AC-9 was not modern?

Yea, they burned oil. I don't get the confusion. Was the fireman going to walk all the way around with his scoop?  

The AC-9 was not a cab forward. 12 built in 1939 for operation in Texas and New Mexico. Coal burners converted to oil firing around 1952.

eldodroptop posted:

The AC-9 was not a cab forward. 12 built in 1939 for operation in Texas and New Mexico. Coal burners converted to oil firing around 1952.

True. The AC-9 (2-8-8-4) were designed and built as coal burners, and assigned to El Paso & Lordsburg, where coal fuel was available. Upon being reassigned to California/Oregon, 11 of the AC-9s were converted to burn oil (Bunker fuel).

Kelly Anderson posted:

In their original home, were other classes of SP engines coal burners as well?  If so, what classes?

2-8-0, 2-8-2, 2-10-2... The number of coal burning locomotives was not very high overall but they were in use. 

Useful link 

http://www.modelingthesp.com/S...es/Coal_Burners.html

Hot Water posted:

Kerrigan posted:

The 4449 and the 700 both burn waste oil.  We used to run Bunker C originally in the 700 which fires a lot better than waste oil.  Switched to PS400 for a while, which was okay, then to waste oil, which is harder to fire without making a lot of smoke.  Has a tendency to flash if too hot.  They were designed to use heavy oil (nozzle design, etc).  But it's expensive and difficult to get delivered at out-of-town refueling stops.

Kerrigan,

There is no difference in the burner design for Bunker fuel, to No. 6, to No.5, to PS300 (marine boiler fuel), to waste oil. I suggest you check out all the photos and videos from last weekend's 4449 operation, and see if you find "a lot of smoke". When the UP steam program changed to using waste oil for fuel, both 844 and 3985 fired a LOT easier/better with much less smoke. Also, waste oil should NOT have to be heated, unless it is very cold outside.

Interesting.  I remember Clint changing the opening on the 700 nozzle when we switched from Bunker to the thinner oils.  Thought it had something to do with the differing viscosity.  The 700 did fire better/cleaner/hotter on the "C" then  it did on the recycled motor oil.  Maybe due to the coal-sized firbox vs the oil-fired ones?  4449 box/combustion chamber does seem smaller than the 700.  Would the size make a difference in the use of various fuel oils?

Kerrigan posted:

Hot Water posted:

Kerrigan posted:

The 4449 and the 700 both burn waste oil.  We used to run Bunker C originally in the 700 which fires a lot better than waste oil.  Switched to PS400 for a while, which was okay, then to waste oil, which is harder to fire without making a lot of smoke.  Has a tendency to flash if too hot.  They were designed to use heavy oil (nozzle design, etc).  But it's expensive and difficult to get delivered at out-of-town refueling stops.

Kerrigan,

There is no difference in the burner design for Bunker fuel, to No. 6, to No.5, to PS300 (marine boiler fuel), to waste oil. I suggest you check out all the photos and videos from last weekend's 4449 operation, and see if you find "a lot of smoke". When the UP steam program changed to using waste oil for fuel, both 844 and 3985 fired a LOT easier/better with much less smoke. Also, waste oil should NOT have to be heated, unless it is very cold outside.

Interesting.  I remember Clint changing the opening on the 700 nozzle when we switched from Bunker to the thinner oils.  Thought it had something to do with the differing viscosity.  The 700 did fire better/cleaner/hotter on the "C" then  it did on the recycled motor oil.  Maybe due to the coal-sized firbox vs the oil-fired ones?  4449 box/combustion chamber does seem smaller than the 700.  Would the size make a difference in the use of various fuel oils?

Not really. A lot depends on how much fire brick is installed inside the firebox during the conversion from coal to oil. A prime example was the UP 3985, i.e. once LOTS of additional fire brick was added, plus some re-designe of the air intakes, 3985 became a LOT easier to fire.

One of the advantages of Bunker over waste oil is the higher BTUs from "C"

• 1 Btu/US gal = 278.7 J/liter

Advantage is in availability in remote locations ... have to truck Bunker in heated.  Waste oil is available most everywhere.

Hot Water posted:

Kerrigan posted:

Hot Water posted:

Kerrigan posted:

The 4449 and the 700 both burn waste oil.  We used to run Bunker C originally in the 700 which fires a lot better than waste oil.  Switched to PS400 for a while, which was okay, then to waste oil, which is harder to fire without making a lot of smoke.  Has a tendency to flash if too hot.  They were designed to use heavy oil (nozzle design, etc).  But it's expensive and difficult to get delivered at out-of-town refueling stops.

Kerrigan,

There is no difference in the burner design for Bunker fuel, to No. 6, to No.5, to PS300 (marine boiler fuel), to waste oil. I suggest you check out all the photos and videos from last weekend's 4449 operation, and see if you find "a lot of smoke". When the UP steam program changed to using waste oil for fuel, both 844 and 3985 fired a LOT easier/better with much less smoke. Also, waste oil should NOT have to be heated, unless it is very cold outside.

Interesting.  I remember Clint changing the opening on the 700 nozzle when we switched from Bunker to the thinner oils.  Thought it had something to do with the differing viscosity.  The 700 did fire better/cleaner/hotter on the "C" then  it did on the recycled motor oil.  Maybe due to the coal-sized firbox vs the oil-fired ones?  4449 box/combustion chamber does seem smaller than the 700.  Would the size make a difference in the use of various fuel oils?

Not really. A lot depends on how much fire brick is installed inside the firebox during the conversion from coal to oil. A prime example was the UP 3985, i.e. once LOTS of additional fire brick was added, plus some re-designe of the air intakes, 3985 became a LOT easier to fire.

No additional bricking was added to 700 which is why the box remains so ..... big, with no grates, etc.

Kerrigan posted:

One of the advantages of Bunker over waste oil is the higher BTUs from "C"

Grade	Heating Value (Btu/US gal)	Comments
Fuel Oil No. 1	132900 - 137000	Small Space Heaters
Fuel Oil No. 2	137000 - 141800	Residential Heating
Fuel Oil No. 4	143100 - 148100	Industrial Burners
Fuel Oil No. 5 (Light)	146800 - 150000	Preheating in General Required
Fuel Oil No.5 (Heavy)	149400 - 152000	Heating Required
Fuel Oil No. 6	151300 - 155900	Bunker C

• 1 Btu/US gal = 278.7 J/liter

Advantage is in availability in remote locations ... have to truck Bunker in heated.  Waste oil is available most everywhere.

There is NOTHING "good" about the Bunker fuels:

1) Even if Bunker C can be found, it is no longer cheap.

2) With a tender full of Bunker C, steam must be applied to the tender for days, in order to heat the Bunker C to over 150 degrees, so it will flow (175 degrees is even better), prior to even firing up the engine.

3) Trying to use Bunker C in the modern era, i.e. being on display, is a disaster.

4) Bunker C smokes a LOT, when working the locomotive really hard, i.e. accelerating out of slow orders. Look at photos of SP steam locomotives "back in the day", not mention the sky blackening clouds issued by your SP&S 700, over the years.

Didn't the UP stop using waste oil for a while due to a flash-fire that burned someone in the cab?  More prone to it or something? What was that all about?

Whatever; it's what is available now days, 25 years later,  for reasonable costs in most places.

eldodroptop posted:

Hot Water posted:

Engineer-Joe posted:

OK, OK! Easy now. For some reason, I thought she was still burning coal? Looks like the tender is sealed? or are they just covers?

All modern SP steam locomotives burned oil, since the very early 1900s. Not much usable locomotive coal in California, but LOTS of oil.

 

All modern Southern Pacific steam burned oil? The AC-9 was not modern?

No, the AC-9 was not modern. For one thing, the cab was at the rear. Strictly old school.

I'm joking.

BTW, I believe I recall having read that the New Mexico coal that the AC-9s burned was pretty lousy stuff. I'll bet they fired a lot better after conversion to oil at the time they were reassigned to the West Coast,

Kerrigan posted:

Didn't the UP stop using waste oil for a while due to a flash-fire that burned someone in the cab? 

No. The UP was still using the "heavy stuff" way back then, i.e. prior to the Steve Lee era.

More prone to it or something? What was that all about?

The UP employee opened the fire door to show a "visitor" the fire/firebox, and it woofed on him. The much more serious part of that event was, the UP guy was wearing some sort of synthetic (polyester?) jump-suit/coverall which immediately stuck to his body! He spent quite some time in the hospital in Denver.

Whatever; it's what is available now days, 25 years later,  for reasonable costs in most places.

Hot Water posted:

Kerrigan posted:

One of the advantages of Bunker over waste oil is the higher BTUs from "C"

Grade	Heating Value (Btu/US gal)	Comments
Fuel Oil No. 1	132900 - 137000	Small Space Heaters
Fuel Oil No. 2	137000 - 141800	Residential Heating
Fuel Oil No. 4	143100 - 148100	Industrial Burners
Fuel Oil No. 5 (Light)	146800 - 150000	Preheating in General Required
Fuel Oil No.5 (Heavy)	149400 - 152000	Heating Required
Fuel Oil No. 6	151300 - 155900	Bunker C

• 1 Btu/US gal = 278.7 J/liter

Advantage is in availability in remote locations ... have to truck Bunker in heated.  Waste oil is available most everywhere.

There is NOTHING "good" about the Bunker fuels:

1) Even if Bunker C can be found, it is no longer cheap.

2) With a tender full of Bunker C, steam must be applied to the tender for days, in order to heat the Bunker C to over 150 degrees, so it will flow (175 degrees is even better), prior to even firing up the engine.

3) Trying to use Bunker C in the modern era, i.e. being on display, is a disaster.

4) Bunker C smokes a LOT, when working the locomotive really hard, i.e. accelerating out of slow orders. Look at photos of SP steam locomotives "back in the day", not mention the sky blackening clouds issued by your SP&S 700, over the years.

I would imagine that for the vast majority of the trains that these oil burners pull, they aren't really going to miss those few BTUs lost from not using Bunker C.

I always enjoyed firing the 700 when we were using Bunker "C".   Love the smell too.  Was able to cruise up the gorge, etc. with nice clean stack.  Get her set up and she would almost fire herself ... get up and polish the gauge glasses ... :-)   Watch the video of us climbing up the Yakima River Canyon with a 21 car passenger train .. clean stack, even though we ran out of sand on the wet rails and had a lot of slip-and-start-overs.  Kenny did great that day!  Smoke it up for run-bys shutting the damper down a notch or two and leaving the firing valve alone = quick recovery to clean fire.  Little harder to manage; keep the tank at the right temp.  Don't want it too hot; flashes and woofs the fire.

Everyone's experience is different.  Some people are natural firemen, and others never learn how even after many hours on the left side of the cab.

The goal is to have a good safe time and show them off for the public/supporters.