Reading Company No. 2100 To Burn Recycled Oil

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

I don't know what to think about this.  Other traveling steamers burn coal.  611 and 765 are good examples.

Oil conversions are becoming more common.  Availability ,cost, and handling of coal.  Ash disposal. Possible lineside fires.  Here of this more and more.

Oil is not cheap either and heavy oil has its issues too, but recycled oil as is what many are using seems to be a happy medium.

Rich can speak of the 765, but 611 very often takes it's coal supply with them to avoid issues.

The other thing to consider is when they want to have #2100 running by. If you figure that estimates of going with coal take 2-5 years to implement to get you track ready, but oil takes you 1-3 years, the choice is easy. I am by no way suggesting that the year estimates are factual in any sense, just saying that that could be an answer to what they want to do. Be it 5, 10, or 15 years, whatever it may be, that be part of the choice.

The other thing is of course money. They're still seeking money for tube donations for the boiler. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing either, just every little bit helps.

I was curious where #2100 was as I hadn't seen the story in a bit and forgot. I guess out in Cleveland OH they have gotten rid of all their coal facilities since steam in that particular area. Maybe some small stuff I guess, not mainline though.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

The other thing to consider is when they want to have #2100 running by. If you figure that estimates of going with coal take 2-5 years to implement to get you track ready, but oil takes you 1-3 years, the choice is easy. I am by no way suggesting that the year estimates are factual in any sense, just saying that that could be an answer to what they want to do. Be it 5, 10, or 15 years, whatever it may be, that be part of the choice.

Don't understand your numbers concerning getting a coal burner "track ready" vs. an oil burner.  The price of proper "steam locomotive coal" is ever increasing, along with its shipping costs. Then there is the ash disposal issues and all the associated machinery necessary for handling the coal, i.e. loading it into the tender, as well as the ash.

The other thing is of course money. They're still seeking money for tube donations for the boiler. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing either, just every little bit helps.

I was curious where #2100 was as I hadn't seen the story in a bit and forgot. I guess out in Cleveland OH they have gotten rid of all their coal facilities since steam in that particular area. Maybe some small stuff I guess, not mainline though.

Totally unrelated to their future operations.

Coal smells great. And it's traditional.

But by all other measurable metrics, oil is easier and more efficient in any number of ways.

@Hot Water posted:

For the numbers part I was just saying as a non-existent for instance, meaning that the numbers are no way correct nor could they be from me. Also just saying what would be more cost efficient as that seemed to be stated in the video, which maybe wasn't apparent but was for me.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

For the numbers part I was just saying as a non-existent for instance, meaning that the numbers are no way correct nor could they be from me.

Then why post such meaningless statements.

Also just saying what would be more cost efficient as that seemed to be stated in the video, which maybe wasn't apparent but was for me.

Pretty sure the economical advantages of converting to oil burning were clearly stated many, MANY times in that video.

For what it's worth there is really only one "disadvantage" with an oil burning steam locomotive, and that is the rapid temperature changes within the firebox. Unlike a coal burner with its massive heatsink of red hot burning coal embers that reach pretty slowly to temperature changes, the oil burner has only a large flame. When the Engineer changes throttle and/or valve gear settings, the draft changes and if the Fireman is not on the ball quickly, rapid change in firebox temperature takes place.

Back in the days of regular in-service steam locomotives, the firebox was generally scheduled for replacement at 15 years for coal burners. Firebox replacement for oil burners was generally scheduled at 10 years of service.

@Hot Water, thanks for more information. My post is not meaningless, especially because I was hoping you would reply to illustrate what all is or would be going on. Maybe I could have just tagged you, either way it served its purpose. Thank you once again.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

@Hot Water, thanks for more information. My post is not meaningless, especially because I was hoping you would reply to illustrate what all is or would be going on.

Well, that REALLY isn't the proper way to enquire and learn about a given subject, i.e. first posting false statements and hoping for corrections.

Maybe I could have just tagged you,

How does THAT work?

either way it served its purpose. Thank you once again.

You are welcome, I guess.

@Hot Water posted:

My first post wasn't stated as fact, so it wasn't a false statement. I did say right after the numbers up there that they weren't factual. I do see that maybe a person may see that, perhaps I should have taken a bit more time word it properly so as not to open the door for confusion of that. Sorry, was getting ready to start work and thought it was clear.

Corrections are always happening on posts, we've seen that happen.

Tagging is popping the at sign @ and then the person's handle. Some people are hard to find because their handle may be similar to others and sometimes the wrong person is tagged.

I always look forward to your insights when talking about the real deals, and generally anything you offer. Some people dread when you post as they believe you could be yelling at them when you are just telling the truth plain and simple. It makes me laugh a little, just like when Rich(Melvin) comments.

For nostalgia reasons I wish they were going back with coal.  The Reading, the Wooten firebox were all about that.  However, I eagerly anticipate seeing the 2100 operational again.  And I will personally eat a huge plate of french fries, to contribute some used oil to its fuel stock!

@Ted S posted:

For nostalgia reasons I wish they were going back with coal.

If you were part of the servicing crew, you wouldn't say that.

The Reading, the Wooten firebox were all about that.

Lets remember that the Wooten design firebox was originally developed to burn mostly Anthracite coal. By the time the Reading T-1s were built from huge 2-10-0 locomotives, the use of Anthracite coal was pretty well limited to just adding Anthracite fines into the huge volumes of Bituminous coal being used. Thus, the Wooten firebox on the 2100 will work just fine as an oil burner, when properly converted and drafted.

However, I eagerly anticipate seeing the 2100 operational again.  And I will personally eat a huge plate of french fries, to contribute some used oil to its fuel stock!

Pretty sure they will NOT be using "French fry oil", but rerefined waste oil.

Very agreeable fellow doing the presentation. (Reminded me of the late great actor Richard Attenborough.) Re: the coal issue, I was reminded of the environmental issues that faced the 410' steamship SS Badger, the former C&O railroad ferry that crossed Lake Michigan between Michigan and Wisconsin. It was converted to carry passengers and automobiles, and is the last coal-fired ship in the United States.

A National Historic Landmark, the ship had issues with the EPA because it was dumping its tons of coal ash into Lake Michigan. There was a lot of discussion about converting it's boilers to natural gas, among other possibilities, all extremely expensive conversions for a ship. The Badger is also a NHL, uniquely coal fired, which was a factor. A compromise solution was finally reached, which is that smoke discharge is controlled, and the coal ash is now stored on board. Upon reaching shore, the ash is then transported via a conveyor system from the ship to a storage facility, and then used in concrete production. Of course, this solution cost millions to implement.

Point is, coal presents problems whenever it's used due to the pollutants discharged in the combustion process (smoke and ash/cinder residue). As the video notes, it's only workable for steam engines in certain limited situations.

Kelly Lynch recently commented, "I'd give the 765 3-5 years before an oil conversion is on the table."

On the left side of the cab, there was not much romantic attachment to the tradition of coal firing.

I come from a railroad which gradually burned more oil and less coal across the entire system during the 1900-1957 years, and the west end, where I was employed, got rid of coal very early in those years.  Of course, the railroad served 4 states which produced a lot of oil: California, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.  That had something to do with it.

When I hired out as a Fireman, all of the road Engineers had been steam engineers, and only 5 had worked on coal-fired engines.  Two came from the D&RGW at Minturn, Colorado, as Firemen in 1940, after somebody from Minturn had visited San Bernardino on vacation and related that all of the Santa Fe engines there were oil-fired; one had been a Santa Fe Gallup Fireman with a 1940 date and had traded seniority to the Los Angeles Division; and the fourth was a D&RGW narrow Gauge Fireman from Alamosa, who came in 1951 during the big narrow-gauge abandonment.  He jokingly bragged about being a coal-burning Fireman, but he told me that he had a great appreciation for oil-fired steam locomotives.  The fifth man quit the Santa Fe Joint Line (Denver-Pueblo) and re-hired at San Bernardino in 1940.  Santa Fe Joint Line crews handled the Santa Fe trains and the Fort Worth & Denver trains over that track.  Many of the FW&D coal-fired engines were hand bombers and it was uphill all the way to Denver.