Coal Vs. Oil

Oil works great on bearings and coal works great in the fire box. Not too sure how well they would work if used the other way around .

As for NS excursions, I certainly cannot imagine a N&W steamer being converted to burn oil.

Gilly

I love them smell of coal smoke in the morning...

The UP Challenger is running on oil.

Don

A lot depended on what railroads you are inquiring about. For example on the Southern Pacific, there really wasn't enough good quality coal in the west coast, so the SP pretty much changed from wood burning to oil burning (yes there was coal in New Mexico, but the expense was just too great to haul it all the way to California and Oregon).

Now if you are asking about the "benefits" of one over the other, assuming either fuel was available, consider some of these points:

Coal fuel

1) Right up front, the fire box lasts longer when coal is used as the fuel. Since the coal fire reacts very slowly to temperature changes, the firebox experiences far less stress. Firebox changeout was normally every 15 years.

2) Coal was easier to transport and load into the tender during the days of steam, because of those massive coal docks.

3) A "down side" of coal burning was obviously the cinders expelled out the stack and the large quants of ashes, which required ash pits and corresponding facilities to remove them, and dispose of them.

4) Railroads such as N&W, C&O, B&O, Clinchfield, PRR and NYC tended to own there own coal mines, and had very strict specifications for the BTU content and lump sizes. 

OilFuel

1) The firebox issue was worse with oil as a fuel, and the firebox needed to be changed out at 10 years, due to the much higher stress. Remember, with an oil burner there really is no "fire", just a large flame, which is controlled by the amount of oil flow, i.e. the Fireman. That large "flame" changes instantaneously with corresponding rapid temperature changes, if the Fireman wasn't careful.

2) The Bunker C fuel was very cheap, however it had to be heated to at least 140 to 160 degrees in order to pump it. Therefor, all locomotive fueling points required a power house in order to supply steam for heating the storage tanks, pumps, and fueling stand pipes. Locomotive tenders also had to have steam heating coils within the oil bunkers to keep that tar fairly liquid.

3) A positive side of oil fuel was; no ashes and no cinders.

4) Every single steam locomotive had to have a supply of sand in the cab, in order for the Fireman to "sand out the flues", and keep them clean from oil soot and unburned globs of oil.

Well, it WAS, up until the winter of 2010/2011.

Hot Water/Jack nailed it. Exactly what I was looking for, which was just a general idea on the pluses and minuses with both. Much appreciated. 

I know Rich has said many times if he had his way he would convert the 765 to an oil burner in a heart beat.  

From a logistics point of view that makes perfect sense,  I'm sure the NKP gods would rain down thunder however....

...as well as a very well known engineer, mechanic and mentor with a rabid attraction to God's railroad...

You had your choice with one of the Weaver offerings, CP Hudson 2816.  It was done both ways, coal or oil.

I guess the fuel situation also prevented the major steam builders from coming out with an "off the self" line of locomotives outside of the USRA and AMC series.  Example:  UP tried to burn" better coal" in 3985, and that experiment showed she ran better on the poorer, local "Hanna" coal.

And from what I have read, there were differences in the same wheel arrangement of the AMC locomotives, depending on the railroad. 

Actually, you do get occasional sparks. And if the fireman isn't paying attention, he can let burning oil drip onto the roadbed, lighting ties on fire.

Yeah, but it's not that easy on the prototype...

Rusty

Another famous oil-burner is Sierra 4-6-0 No. 3, star of movies and TV shows. I think her movie star predecessor, 2-8-0 No. 18, burned oil, too. Wood was piled in their tenders when they were filmed.

Steam into History's Civil War replica, No. 17, rolled out of [David] Kloke Locomotive Works in May, 2013. She burns oil.

So does her elder sister, the LEVIATHAN. No. 17 was built from these plans.

Correct. Not to mention the differences in the bottom of the firebox area, i.e. just an enclosed firepan for the oil burner, while the coal burner has all that nasty ashpan and ash hopper stuff. 

And grates, "clinker" hooks, stokers and/or shovels, as well as other necessities.

But a well-tended fire is nice and even, as posted.

I think firing with coal might be a little more intellectually challenging, since you really have to plan ahead, and have a good understanding of how coal combusts. I fired an engine with wood, and it's similar. But oil is definitely just so much easier. Being able to increase (or decrease) the fire exactly when I need to is a great benefit.

On very small locomotives you may be correct, however on the big main line locomotives, firing an oil burner is MUCH more difficult since the ever so slightest change made by the Engineer instantaneously effects the draft and the combustion air need for the fire. With a large coal burner, the fire reacts pretty slowly, so if the Fireman "takes care of his fire properly, there isn't much the Engineer can do to him.". I have found that to be very true, unless of course the Engineer slips the drivers. 

That happens on our small engine, too, so we do have to pay attention. Passengers in our open-air cars don't appreciate it when I asphyxiate them because our engineer makes a move I wasn't anticipating! I can see how a properly-tended coal bed can alleviate that situation.

Quite right..

Additional advantages of oil over coal:

--Oil is stored in tanks, filled by tank car by gravity, so one man can fill the tanks;

--Smaller space needed to store oil v. coal;

--Oil crane can be placed near the water standpipe, so both fuel and water can be taken at about the same time;

--No front-end netting needed, so the draft can be better;

--Larger blast pipe can be used, lessening back pressure;

--Full steam pressure can be maintained at all times regardless of grade conditions; hence, more tonnage can be hauled than when coal is used;

--Oil produces 25% more steam than the maximum rate for coal;

--Heating value of most oils is the same; heating value of coal varies greatly;

--At terminals, engines can be turned around in less than 1/2 hour, since no ashes need to be dumped;

--No waste of fuel corresponding to cinder loss or waste due to coal dropping into ash pan.

Once I did see UP 3985 leave Houston and the crew sanded the flues just north of Belt Jct.  The smoke effect was great!

But sand is an abrasive. I know it can clean the flues, but can it also pit them if not properly used?

As with all oil burners, we sand our flues pretty much every trip. At the end of the season, when we go down for our annual inspection, we open up the smokebox.

On the floor of the smokebox will be an accumulation of black sand and soot, which we drain out of a plug in in the bottom of the smokebox. Taking a magnet to the pile of sand/soot brings up a surprising amount of steel filings.

So yes, the sand does abrade the tubes. I am not sure how long it would take to thin the tubes to a dangerous level.

I'm not sure what you mean by using the sand "properly." I suppose one could sand too much. The "book" says to sand after every occurence of belching thick black smoke, which tends to soot up the tubes. That would probably be too much for our operation. I tend to sand when we're pounding up a grade, and I see the pressure dropping a bit, even with a heavy fire. After pouring in a scoopful or two of sand, I can see the pressure start climbing, so I know we needed sanding.

The technique is pretty simple: When we're stomping up grade, the engine is working hard, and the exhaust blasts are enormouse. The draft from these blasts is more than enough to suck the sand from the scoop through the hole in the fire door and through the tubes.

In the old days, a long, angled funnel would be used, in order to direct the sand stream to as many tubes as possible. We don't have one of those (I'd love to get one made), so we just used a regular scoop like you might find in a bin of peanuts at the grocery store.