Locomotive smoke and photographs

A lot depends on the railroad and their fuel supply, i.e. whether oil fired, or low grade of coal. However, you are partially correct about the "extra smoke for photographers", and could very well have happened a lot in the later days of steam.

Also, don't get confused about large outputs of white/light colored water vapor in cooler weather. Many folks think THAT is "smoke", but it is not.

Like Jack mentioned and having been on steam locomotive charters myself, yes, typically the fireman will over fire to create smoke for the runby. It is a better effect for the pictures, but not necessarily the best for the locomotive itself. 

Frequently when you see a photo in a train magazine and the photographer's comments, it will mention that when the locomotive crew spotted the photographer trackside, they 'obliged' him by making a lot of smoke.

PennsyPride94 posted:

It is a better effect for the pictures, but not necessarily the best for the locomotive itself. 

It's not necessarily harmful, but it can be an indication of inefficient firing practices by the fireman. Dark smoke is unburned fuel. When your fuel is literally going up the stack, it's pretty wasteful.

With oil firing, that dark, sooty smoke will coat the tubes. It's an insulator, and doesn't allow the heat to transfer from the tubes to the water (unless scoured away with sand).

Speaking of which, also with an oil burner, you will get great plumes of black smoke if the fireman is sanding the tubes when the photos is taken, and all the soot is scoured away and goes up the stack.

Showmanship!!!!

Great train race!!! 

smd4 posted:

PennsyPride94 posted:

It is a better effect for the pictures, but not necessarily the best for the locomotive itself. 

It's not necessarily harmful, but it can be an indication of inefficient firing practices by the fireman. Dark smoke is unburned fuel. When your fuel is literally going up the stack, it's pretty wasteful.

With oil firing, that dark, sooty smoke will coat the tubes. It's an insulator, and doesn't allow the heat to transfer from the tubes to the water (unless scoured away with sand).

Speaking of which, also with an oil burner, you will get great plumes of black smoke if the fireman is sanding the tubes when the photos is taken, and all the soot is scoured away and goes up the stack.

I was speaking more from the standpoint of a coal burning steam locomotive, but I see what you mean! 

I've studied O. Winston Link as much as I can over the years.  There is a story that the president of N&W asked him to not photo the engines if they were putting out black smoke, as that indicated they weren't being properly run.

 

Kent in SD

I believe that you are actually referring to the N&W Advertising Department's comments regarding Link's very first photo on the N&W, at Waynesboro, where the locomotive he photographed had its safety valve lifting at the Station. This, too, denotes poor firing practice: That steam blasting into the sky represents a whole lot of energy being wasted. That energy came from coal, which cost money.

Ben Bane Delaney of the N&W PR and Advertising Department told Link that they would not ordinarily approve that photo for publication for the foregoing reasons, but encouraged him to continue taking photos of the railroad.

Besides, since most of Links photos were taken at night, excessive smoke would probably have not been too visible.

smd4 posted:

 

Besides, since most of Links photos were taken at night, excessive smoke would probably have not been too visible.

Smoke actually shows up pretty well, at least in my own experience.  My exposure below was ISO 800, f5.6, with about eight small flash putting out total ~600ws.   Link typically shot at ISO 100, f16 which is essentially daylight level, his bulbs generating  >15,000ws.

 

Kent in SD

Check at 2:05 in this video from the Expo '86 steam locomotive runby in Vancouver. Great piece of showmanship from Great Western 2-8-0 #51. We see a lot of polite trundling from the other steamers, but I think the story was that #51's engineer feathered the brakes a little to make her work and let it rip with throttle and whistle. Maybe others among us know more.

 

smd4 posted:

 Besides, since most of Links photos were taken at night, excessive smoke would probably have not been too visible.

Steve,
There is PLENTY of smoke visible in Link's photos at night. With that much light, how could there not be!

MY POINT IS... It was the STEAM coming out of the safeties that the N&W had a problem with, not the smoke!

Two23 posted:

  There is a story that the president of N&W asked him to not photo the engines if they were putting out black smoke, as that indicated they weren't being properly run.

 

Kent in SD

I guess the president knew there was a problem.

 

 

smd4 posted:

I believe that you are actually referring to the N&W Advertising Department's comments regarding Link's very first photo on the N&W, at Waynesboro, where the locomotive he photographed had its safety valve lifting at the Station. This, too, denotes poor firing practice: That steam blasting into the sky represents a whole lot of energy being wasted. That energy came from coal, which cost money.

Ben Bane Delaney of the N&W PR and Advertising Department told Link that they would not ordinarily approve that photo for publication for the foregoing reasons, but encouraged him to continue taking photos of the railroad.

Besides, since most of Links photos were taken at night, excessive smoke would probably have not been too visible.

Ummm...

Rusty

smd4 posted:

MY POINT IS... It was the STEAM coming out of the safeties that the N&W had a problem with, not the smoke!

But, what you said was:

Just a favorite of mine....

The folks who operated these locomotives when they where making money for a railroad, didn't like to see smoke, especially dark black smoke coming out of the stack.

But railfans love a nice plume, be it 

STEAM

or

SMOKE

 

Ed

I don't like to see any more smoke than is necessary. I like to see the engines run efficiently, like they would have been when they were actually in revenue service. While we're at it, I don't like any more whistle than is necessary either. I like to watch, and listen to the machinery of the engine working properly. Unnecessary use of the whistle is actually a rule violation. I think it's embarrassing to me as a retired engineer,  to see somebody laying on the whistle, trying to be an "artist" during a run by, when there is not a grade crossing around for miles, completely drowning out the sound of the engine, the rods, and the train. Keep it real, we didn't buy a ticket and ride the train just to listen to the whistle being blown for the sake of making noise. (rant over)

locopilot750 posted:

I don't like to see any more smoke than is necessary. I like to see the engines run efficiently, like they would have been when they were actually in revenue service. While we're at it, I don't like any more whistle than is necessary either. I like to watch, and listen to the machinery of the engine working properly. Unnecessary use of the whistle is actually a rule violation. I think it's embarrassing to me as a retired engineer,  to see somebody laying on the whistle, trying to be an "artist" during a run by, when there is not a grade crossing around for miles, completely drowning out the sound of the engine, the rods, and the train. Keep it real, we didn't buy a ticket and ride the train just to listen to the whistle being blown for the sake of making noise. (rant over)

Well sir, you just might be the ONLY paying passenger on any/all of the various main line steam excursions throughout the United States that DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR THE WHISTLE during a photo run-by!

I can remember quite some years ago, performing a photo run with SP 4449. Since I already knew we were going to perform TWO run-by for the passenger on the train, I suggested that we NOT use the whistle (except for the start of forward movement) and NOT make any smoke! The crowd was not fully aware that we were going to perform two run-by, so before the first run-by was even over, we were getting the gestures from some of the people to "blow the whistle", and more than one comment came over the radio about "What happened to the smoke???", even though we had 4449 "down in the corner" at full throttle, and a bit of air set in the passenger train.

Naturally, the second run-by was with whistling and noticeable smoke during another full throttle pass. Needless to say, we never tried THAT, i.e. no whistle and no smoke, operation again!

Big Jim posted:

Steam coming out of the safeties is not a "problem" per se. It can happen when a loco is being worked hard and then the throttle is closed.

It's not a "problem," and no one said it was. Sometimes it's unavoidable. It is generally considered poor firing practice on the part of the fireman nonetheless. 

Of course it can happen when the throttle is closed. But Big Jim, I know that with your steam locomotive firing experience, you know that a good fireman will know the road, and know when that throttle will be closed, and plan accordingly.

smd4 posted:

Big Jim posted:

Steam coming out of the safeties is not a "problem" per se. It can happen when a loco is being worked hard and then the throttle is closed.

It's not a "problem," and no one said it was. 

Yes, you did:

"smd4 posted: