OK, the 4000's were built so they could burn local, "Hanna" coal.
Would there be any change in their performance if the actually got to burn some "good" coal? And what was "wrong" with the Hanna? Was it lignite? And in the TRAINS BB issue, there is a "Hanna" on one of the maps. was the coal mined near there?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Most of the coal the Union Pacific Railroad mined came from Carbon and Hanna City.
It was a brown Coal. Low carbon content: 25 to 35 % carbon. Otherwise known as Lignite.
A lot of the steam engines that burned this coal had larger fire boxes and larger grates to utilize its "low heat content".
I am not sure of your question about using better coal, its not like putting high octane fuel in your mustang for the weekend for better speed. Steam engines that burned Lignite were engineered to achieve the same performance using this grade of coal.
I guess as a fireman cleaning out the fire box and finding lots of "clinkers" would be a more rigorous chore.
OK, the 4000's were built so they could burn local, "Hanna" coal.
Would there be any change in their performance if the actually got to burn some "good" coal? And what was "wrong" with the Hanna? Was it lignite? And in the TRAINS BB issue, there is a "Hanna" on one of the maps. was the coal mined near there?
Since the Union Pacific coal burning steam locomotives had fireboxes and smokeboxes specifically designed for burning that type of coal, trying to use, say West Virginia coal, simply wouldn't work.
When #3985 was still a coal burner, the crew tried some "high grade, high BTU" Colorado coal, and they had a lot of trouble firing 3985 with that coal. The next trips were operated with the "standard supply" of Wyoming coal, and 3985 fired just like she was originally designed.
What were the problems they faced, not being able to keep steam, having too much steam, fire not hot enough or too hot, and so on?
What were the problems they faced, not being able to keep steam, having too much steam, fire not hot enough or too hot, and so on?
You had to be there. Way too complicated to explain here, but one issue was klinkers, i.e. the higher grade coal sometimes melted into a klinker instead of completely burning. The same thing happened with that C&O 2-8-4 that Southern Railway used for awhile (leased it from the Kentucky Railway Museum), when they tried using the super high BTU West Virginia coal.
Noting the comment about high grade, high BTU Colorado coal, presume that is what the Rio Grande burned in their big, and quite powerful, locomotives. But they seemed to be the all-time Kings in voluminous smoke production! Was it caused by that coal? L105's and L131's looked like rolling volcanoes! For example: http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc...l22/id/53311/rec/181
If the "high grade" coal clinkered, the fusion temperature was too low. The fusion temperature (the point where the ash melts) must be higher than 2,600F to avoid clinkers.
There is a some very hot, low ash WV coal out there that has a very LOW fusion temperature. I know...I made the mistake of buying some for the 765 many years ago. Clinker city! Some of the firemen wouldn't speak to me for months... 
Rich's firemen after his purchase
I believe that was the time that the clinkers were so bad they had to get a diesel to take the loco east out of Buffalo..
Rich's firemen after his purchase
One of my favorite scenes of this great movie!
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
