Poor firing, showing off, or bad coal?

There were OW Link photos where the smoke likely was the Fireman "showing off". As for recent runs of the 611, I attribute it to experience of the Fireman. The days of running 30K miles per month are long gone.

This lettering on the N&W 1218 A is typical. N&W Firemen took pride in a clear stack.

The skill of the fireman is not lost to the ages, but during photo runby's, the masses want to see black smoke.

Whenever we had a runby at IRM, I would tell my fireman to make smoke.

Rusty

CALNNC posted:

 So, has the skill of the fireman been lost to the ages?

Nope. Obtaining top quality coal for hand firing and stoker firing might be an issue, if the purchasing department folks don't get caught in the "buy based on price" syndrome.

Link's first photo showed an engine with the safety valve releasing. This is what the railroad didn't want him to show.

My primary experience has been firing with oil, and while I could make a clean fire, sometimes the engine belched smoked. It's kind of the nature of the beast.

Smoke is easy, just rake the fire and there will be lots of smoke.  Smoke comes from pieces of coal getting caught on fire.  Raking the fire exposes un-burnt surfaces on the coal embers and here comes the smoke.  You can get a similar effect with an oil burner by 'saturating' the fire box with the unlit oil that causes some additional smoke.  It is all for the camera.  As the previous poster showed smoke is waste.  On our live steam models it's also right in your face, soooooo!    Russ

ChiloquinRuss posted:

Smoke is easy, just rake the fire and there will be lots of smoke.  Smoke comes from pieces of coal getting caught on fire.  Raking the fire exposes un-burnt surfaces on the coal embers and here comes the smoke. 

You are trying to apply "live steam logic" to a full size working steam locomotive. For example, with NKP 765 roaring along or accelerating, with a heavy throttle, if the Fireman opened the fire door and began raking the coals, much of the fire would wind up being sucked up and out the stack! NOT really a good thing for the firebox either, what with all that cold air being sucked in through the open fire door. 

You can get a similar effect with an oil burner by 'saturating' the fire box with the unlit oil that causes some additional smoke. 

Again "live steam logic". On full size oil burning locomotives, just a little extra oil from the firing valve produces smoke. A bit more increase on the firing valve, begets LOTS of black smoke. There is no "saturating the fire box" involved (you make it sound like there is all sorts of liquid fuel oil burning in the fireman).

It is all for the camera.  As the previous poster showed smoke is waste.  On our live steam models it's also right in your face, soooooo!    Russ

ChiloquinRuss posted:

Smoke comes from pieces of coal getting caught on fire. 

Actually, it's just the opposite. Smoke is un-burnt fuel exiting the stack, which is why it's a waste.

Don't know the answer to your question, but here's a couple of images of the N&W 611 from April of this year.  We were riding about 19 cars back.

JeffPo posted:

Don't know the answer to your question, but here's a couple of images of the N&W 611 from April of this year.  We were riding about 19 cars back.

OK, but what you are seeing in those two photos is primarily water vapor, i.e. NOT "smoke"! Thus, what point are you trying to make?

If you want to know if you're wood-fired stove is burning good, look at the chimney.  If there's lots of smoke, it's not burning efficiently.  That smoke represents wasted BTUs going to the outside.

I used to have a job monitoring a corporate smoke stack from a boiler house.  It took a bit of practice, but there was a distinct difference between steam and smoke.  The former dissipates much more readily.  Nobody much cared about the steam, but the smoke meant we were polluting the atmosphere and wasting BTUs.

Al H. posted:

If you want to know if you're wood-fired stove is burning good, look at the chimney.  If there's lots of smoke, it's not burning efficiently.  That smoke represents wasted BTUs going to the outside.

I used to have a job monitoring a corporate smoke stack from a boiler house.  It took a bit of practice, but there was a distinct difference between steam and smoke.  The former dissipates much more readily.  Nobody much cared about the steam, but the smoke meant we were polluting the atmosphere and wasting BTUs.

Right. However, "steam" can NOT be seen, as steam is a colorless GAS. As the exhausted "steam" cools and condenses, depending on the weather conditions, the "cloud of steam" that then becomes visible (as in those two photos just above) is simply water vapor. Again, NOT "smoke".

OK.  Got me on a technicality.

From what I have read, some RRs kept a close watch on how much coal and water was used on a particular run.  Also cities had smoke ordinances.  I have much video of the EBT engines running, usually with a pretty clean stack. I have also read stories about crews who had a hard time keeping their fire going because of bad coal.  I really dislike seeing runbys with engines belching smoke just for some foamers.

smd4 posted:

ChiloquinRuss posted:

Smoke comes from pieces of coal getting caught on fire. 

Actually, it's just the opposite. Smoke is un-burnt fuel exiting the stack, which is why it's a waste.

Rather than mess with the firing valve Kyrian "discovered" the trick of just closing the damper down a couple of notches and smoke galore.  When the run by was over, just open the damper back up to where you had it.  Worked great on the 700.

jim pastorius posted:

From what I have read, some RRs kept a close watch on how much coal and water was used on a particular run.

Correct. Back in the 1920s, the Southern Pacific instituted "fuel conservation" awards, which would be given to Engineers and Firemen, for conserving fuel. Naturally the quality of the Engineer's skill would ensure that a good Fireman also received the award. The award was presented as a had badge, with the persons name and date engraved on the back.

  Also cities had smoke ordinances.

Yes.

I have much video of the EBT engines running, usually with a pretty clean stack. I have also read stories about crews who had a hard time keeping their fire going because of bad coal.  I really dislike seeing runbys with engines belching smoke just for some foamers.

Except THOSE are the folks that are paying for the cratered train, and in many case they are paying BIG BUCKS! Thus, they get what they want.

Hot Water posted:

OK, but what you are seeing in those two photos is primarily water vapor, i.e. NOT "smoke"! Thus, what point are you trying to make?

Look at all that white:  who says our model smoke fluid ain't prototypical!  We just need to re-label it "Water Vapor Fluid."

Here's a link of the J series that illustrates the lack of smoke back in the day.  Click ahead towards the middle to skip all the upfront stuff if not interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH_o5xZ8wRU

CALNNC posted:

Here's a link of the J series that illustrates the lack of smoke back in the day.  Click ahead towards the middle to skip all the upfront stuff if not interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH_o5xZ8wRU

Yes, back in the days of steam, the N&W passenger locomotives didn't make much smoke at all. But then, lets remember that the N&W was using the absolute FINEST QUALITY, and highest BTU per pound coal.  

Kerrigan posted:

Rather than mess with the firing valve Kyrian "discovered" the trick of just closing the damper down a couple of notches and smoke galore.  When the run by was over, just open the damper back up to where you had it.  Worked great on the 700.

Yep, it's all about chemistry. You just need to have sufficient oxygen to combine with the fuel. Less oxygen = unburned fuel--or smoke.

smd4 posted:

Link's first photo showed an engine with the safety valve releasing. This is what the railroad didn't want him to show.

My primary experience has been firing with oil, and while I could make a clean fire, sometimes the engine belched smoked. It's kind of the nature of the beast.

No. It was the black smoke that the N&W didn't want shown. 

One thing that you must keep in mind when viewing old N&W company images, such as the one in the original post here, is that company photographers would air brush out imperfections in many of the negatives, such as smoke, telephone poles, etc.

If any of you happened to view any of the streaming video of 611 ferry moves, you have noticed that the fireman had the stack pretty clean.

Very true-a lot of work was done in the dark room in the old days.  I read that if a safety valve popped it meant that you were wasting fuel- coal or oil.

jim pastorius posted:

I read that if a safety valve popped it meant that you were wasting fuel- coal or oil.

Depends on the circumstances that led to it. Listen to Link's Virginia Creeper arriving and stopping at Green Cove.

One of my favorite engineers was firing on a Class A heading a fifty car troop train up the Blue Ridge grade at 40 mph and he lifted the pops. His engineer told him, "Son, if you can do that, you'll be alright!"

Big Jim posted:

No. It was the black smoke that the N&W didn't want shown. 

"Your photo of Train Two at Waynesboro is excellent," Dulaney had written. "However, it is not one that we would ordinarily approve for publication, because at the time the picture was taken, the locomotive pop valve was lifted."

Response received when O. Winston Link first asked for permission from the railroad to take a series of photographs of it (emphasis added).

--Steam, Steel & Stars, page 23. What's your cite?

Rusty Traque posted:

The skill of the fireman is not lost to the ages, but during photo runby's, the masses want to see black smoke.

Whenever we had a runby at IRM, I would tell my fireman to make smoke.

Rusty

Let me do a slight clarification of this, speaking from the point of view as someone who has participated in about 100 steam charters over the years.  Yes, often times the smoke output on runbys in general and photo charters especially is overdone, occasionally to the point of hilarity.  Yes, there are some people out there (really a small, vocal minority) who want a "Burning of Rome" smoke plume every time.

That said, most people, if they have an opinion at all, just want something that is visible coming out of the stack that signifies that the engine is working and moving forward....and, where the smoke blend into the color of the sky.  Take a cloudy day where the sky is that milky grey, and you are going to get a lot of calls for black smoke just because the photo line wants to "see" something in their pictures.

The best option is a cold, sunny day where you are going to get a lot of vapor and these billowing steam clouds.  That combination keeps the photographers happy and the firebox in good shape....and you aren't wasting coal/water, which will cost you down the road at the end of the day.  The problem that you end up with is that those perfect conditions rarely come together, even though a lot of charters are scheduled during the colder months whenever possible.  It's a balancing act.

Just to show what I'm talking about here, the vast majority of a photo line will be VERY happy with this (taken this past Saturday in Pennsylvania).  Looks good in the photo, and you aren't destroying the fire in the process.

More than once I have heard a comment from a millennial that steam engines emitting clouds of black smoke are filthy things polluting the environment, and they should banned!

In my opinion, the black smoke is negative publicity. White steam is much better.

As a side note, in the picture, the track on the far right seems to missing quite a few ties.  Looks like a piece of O gauge track.  Is there a reason for this?

smd4 posted:

Big Jim posted:

No. It was the black smoke that the N&W didn't want shown. 

"Your photo of Train Two at Waynesboro is excellent," Dulaney had written. "However, it is not one that we would ordinarily approve for publication, because at the time the picture was taken, the locomotive pop valve was lifted."

Response received when O. Winston Link first asked for permission from the railroad to take a series of photographs of it (emphasis added).

--Steam, Steel & Stars, page 23. What's your cite?

Well, if you want to quote the book, how about looking through and seeing the number of photos with a pop lifting. Also note on page six(?) of "Night Trick" published by the N&W, engine 2145 has its pop up as it goes over Hawksbill Creek.

Bobby Ogage posted:

More than once I have heard a comment from a millennial that steam engines emitting clouds of black smoke are filthy things polluting the environment, and they should banned!

In my opinion, the black smoke is negative publicity. White steam is much better.

Banning Millennials might do more for our society .... ;-)

Big Jim posted:

smd4 posted:

Big Jim posted:

No. It was the black smoke that the N&W didn't want shown. 

"Your photo of Train Two at Waynesboro is excellent," Dulaney had written. "However, it is not one that we would ordinarily approve for publication, because at the time the picture was taken, the locomotive pop valve was lifted."

Response received when O. Winston Link first asked for permission from the railroad to take a series of photographs of it (emphasis added).

--Steam, Steel & Stars, page 23. What's your cite?

Well, if you want to quote the book, how about looking through and seeing the number of photos with a pop lifting. Also note on page six(?) of "Night Trick" published by the N&W, engine 2145 has its pop up as it goes over Hawksbill Creek.

Nice red herring.

I never said that there weren't any shot showing safeties lifting.  I was merely responding to your incorrect rebuttal to my statement about the N&W frowning on lifted pop valves, and NOT black smoke, with documented evidence to support my point.

smd4 posted:

Big Jim posted:

smd4 posted:

Big Jim posted:

No. It was the black smoke that the N&W didn't want shown. 

"Your photo of Train Two at Waynesboro is excellent," Dulaney had written. "However, it is not one that we would ordinarily approve for publication, because at the time the picture was taken, the locomotive pop valve was lifted."

Response received when O. Winston Link first asked for permission from the railroad to take a series of photographs of it (emphasis added).

--Steam, Steel & Stars, page 23. What's your cite?

Well, if you want to quote the book, how about looking through and seeing the number of photos with a pop lifting. Also note on page six(?) of "Night Trick" published by the N&W, engine 2145 has its pop up as it goes over Hawksbill Creek.

Nice red herring.

I never said that there weren't any shot showing safeties lifting.  I was merely responding to your incorrect rebuttal to my statement about the N&W frowning on lifted pop valves, and NOT black smoke, with documented evidence to support my point.

 

And you didn't read what I wrote in that they indeed published a photo with a lifted pop. Now, go back and read the part where they didn't want to see the black smoke.

Would sanding the flues also produce black smoke?

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Would sanding the flues also produce black smoke?

On an oil burning steam locomotive, yes. However, depending how much crap is sanded out of the flues/tubes, sometimes after only 2 or 3 or 4 scoops of sand, the smoke pretty well clears up.

Big Jim posted:

Now, go back and read the part where they didn't want to see the black smoke.

Tell me what page that's on, and I will.

It was made very clear that the n&w didn't want to see an abundance of smoke in links photographs.   It's noted in several publications.   

The quality of the coal used seemed to be a big factor with some engines and RRs. "Run of mine" coal was used at times and this, unwashed, unscreened, full of rocks and mud, could be rough stuff. I have a book on the Pennsy, of their Conemaugh line in the Allegheny valley, with a photo of a tender being loaded right from the mine.  Cheap coal, save money.

smd4 posted:

Big Jim posted:

Now, go back and read the part where they didn't want to see the black smoke.

Tell me what page that's on, and I will.

Since I have to do your homework for you, read all the way to...Page 36!

Thank you!

RickO posted:

jeremy ferrell posted:

It was made very clear that the n&w didn't want to see an abundance of smoke in links photographs.   It's noted in several publications.   

But what about video? Maybe these firemen didn't get the memo, including the helper at the end.

That is the eastbound Blue Ridge grade, and appears to be filmed in the late 1950s, and obviously NOT a "company" movie. By then, photographers from all over the country, and world, were visiting that location to photograph the last days of steam on the N&W. Wonder if the crews might have been doing a little extra for all the photographers that day?

Hot Water posted:

RickO posted:

jeremy ferrell posted:

It was made very clear that the n&w didn't want to see an abundance of smoke in links photographs.   It's noted in several publications.   

But what about video? Maybe these firemen didn't get the memo, including the helper at the end.

That is the eastbound Blue Ridge grade, and appears to be filmed in the late 1950s, and obviously NOT a "company" movie. By then, photographers from all over the country, and world, were visiting that location to photograph the last days of steam on the N&W. Wonder if the crews might have been doing a little extra for all the photographers that day?

Notice how the stacks magically clear up at the 51 sec. mark!