Coal to Oil - What Changes are required on a Steam Locomotive

Remove the grates, stoker, etc. Add a specialized fire pan and fire bricks to retain heat. Add an oil bunker in the tender and necessary plumbing. Modify super-heaters. Modify the trailing truck if need be. Light fire. Go. ;-) Hotwater could provide a much more detailed explanation I'm sure. But that's the bare bones. I think.

Why would you "modify the superheaters" and the "trailing truck"?

Good question, Jack. Kinda has me scratching my head, too. J 611, no changes are required to the superheaters or the trailing truck in a coal to oil conversion.

I wish we could convert the 765 to oil. Coal delivery and loading logistics are a nightmare compared to the simple delivery of a truck full of oil and connecting a hose. However, there would be an entire generation of NKP engineers spinning in their graves if we did that!

Guess we'll stick with coal.

I would think that since oil burns hotter than coal it would take less returns through the boiler to superheat the steam. Though I guess that doesn't really make sense. I don't think steam can be too hot. As for the trailing truck I would think that all the weight you are removing from the fire box would have some effect on the trailing truck and possibly the weight of the locomotive itself on the drivers. In the O-gauge world I have to add tire balancing weights to some of my locomotives to help with adhesion thought that might be true in the real world as well. Can't speak from experience there though.

As for my personal preference I love the smell of burning coal. Please don't convert the 765

No, that doesn't make sense. Oil doesn't burn hotter than some coal fuels.

Just because the coal grates and stoker system is removed, that doesn't mean the firebox area gets any lighter. When converting to oil burning, a terrific amount of fire brick MUST be added, which in many cases may be equal to, or heavier than the stuff removed. Also, don't forget that many locomotives had the stoke engine mounted in the tender.

I have many years of experience firing five stationary water tube boilers that were converted from pulverized coal to heavy fuel oil.  In general, the fuel conversion amounted to removing the coal burner and replacing it with a fuel oil burner, fire-eye, oil strainers, and related controls. We used steam or compressed air to atomize the fuel.  Other burner designs use mechanical pressure to force the fuel through the sprayer plate.

We did nothing to the boiler fireboxes or brick work.   In stationary practice, a coal firebox has a large ash pit which makes the furnace bigger than required for burning oil, but not so much as to cause operational problems.

Our largest two problems burning heavy fuel oil were: 1)  keeping the flame off the back wall at greater than 80% firing rates 2) fouling of the gas passes, cyclones, and air heater tubes due to the sticky nature of fuel oil ash.

Yep, heavy fuel oils such as #6 oil do have ash content although not nearly as much as coal. The downside with fuel oil ash is it's like a sticky tar that's one heck of a job to remove.

I use jet A in mine.  Biggest problem is getting the atomizer just right.  I think I would rather burn coal - if I adjust the injector it blows the fire out.  

But then, running a steam locomotive is not something one does casually, and I have not devoted the time to learning the fine art of keeping the thing alive.  I do know how to fix it.

Not to mention the forums members who would come after you with pitchforks and torches!

Jerry

Personal opinion, but keeping alive a beast that was removed from revenue service some 50 plus years ago needs to be tempered with reality. 

IF converting to oil eases the logistical requirements, lowers your costs, and allows your organization to make enough money to ensure that you have the funds for the next 15 year FRA maintenance, then I say go for it, purests be ****ed. 

I'd rather my kids get to continue to see steam locomotives in operation instead of rusting away in some museum, which is what far to many formerly operating excursion steam is now doing.

Coal or oil, doesn't matter to me.  Running or rusting, does matter. 

regards,

Jerry Zeman

There are also modifications to the front end, including removing any screening/netting and the table plate.

J611 didn't really mention the installation of the burner itself, which might have to be fabricated. There are several designs available. Also, we need to create a firing control lever in the cab to adjust oil flow. Next, we need to add atomizer plumbing off the turret (the oil needs to be sprayed into a fine mist, or atomized, to burn properly and efficiently. Think spraying a can of hair spray though a flame). We'd also need to add a Chicago fitting somewhere in the line so that the engine could be started on air (air being used in the blower and atomizer before there's enough steam pressure available to switch over). This plumbing can be routed through the steam heating coils that would need to be in the bunker, to heat the oil on cold days. We would need to make an emergency fuel cutoff valve accessible on both sides of the engine, as well as in the cab. This oil plumbing would also need to have some way to blast steam through it to blow out any "boogers" that might be in the oil.

The fire door would need to be changed also--you need a place to pour the sand for sanding the flues. Depending on the fire's air needs, this door might have a built-in damper.

Finally, we can't forget to have a ready supply of sand available, and a scoop to pour it!

What does running the injector have to do with the burner?? How could it blow the fire out? And the atomizer would need to be contantly adjusted, depending on load.

Are you talking about a live-steam locomotive?

Yes, I'm sure he is. I've heard them referred to as "crotch rockets". Sure wouldn't want to try expensive jet fuel in any of the big, main line locomotives.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Would jet fuel even have enough BTUs for a main line engine?

Jet fuel would have enough BTUs to fire steam locomotives.  Looking at the chart below, kerosene, very close to Jet A, is not too far off in terms of BTU per gallon compared to bunker C (fuel oil #6).  Just run more gallons of jet A in the firebox to get the same overall BTUs per hour.  Downside is cost.  Jet A is running near $6 per gallon nowadays, last I looked.  Heavier fuel oils are a lot cheaper.

http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/...20common%20fuels.pdf

It's not necessarily that easy: You need a corresponding amount of oxygen to burn those extra gallons--and if your firebox doesn't have a way to admit that extra O2, you're just going to get a whole lot of wasted fuel in the form of black smoke.

Discarded jet fuel can be had cheaply from some airport jet servicing facilities much like used oil can be had from auto service garages. It's no good for flight usage but for a live steamer...you betcha. That would be for a smaller scale steamer: for something like the 765, most likely not.