The END of COAL in Durango - Does it matter? Coal vs. Oil Firing 101
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- The Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge railroad recently ended all coal burning at their railroad - let's take a look at the differences between coal and oil.
Visit the channel shop: hycetrains.com...
Join my discord: / discord
Become an ES&D Train Crew Member and get extra perks!
/ @hyce777
2 things worth noting. Oil firing isn't exactly instantaneous. yes you can get a bigger fire as soon as you open the valve, but it takes a few minutes for that heat to transfer through the firebrick and into the boiler itself. Taking off out of Elbe, you have to slightly over-fire the engine for the first few minutes of running before she's at running temperature. And when cresting a hill, you need to plan ahead with your water (temperature-wise) to keep the safeties from lifting because those bricks are going to be as hot as the fire was for quite a bit after you turn the fire down.
Secondly, as someone who's only ridden behind oil-burners until last summer, I was surprised to find out just how not enjoyable being showered with soot 7 cars back from the 2102 actually was (Everything else about the day was absolutely spectacular and those folks deserve credit for running such a fine operation). It's worth noting that we as railroad people, fans and experts alike, represent a very small percentage of ridership that most tourist railroads will ever see. By and large, most of the folks paying for tickets on these trains won't notice a difference (other than a lack of black dust on their clothes afterwards) or they won't really care.
I'd be interested to see how D&S's online reviews look in the next few years as compared to pre-2020.
Well said - that's a good point about heat transfer through the brick. Makes sense.
@@Hyce777 You have to think about it like there's two fires in there. The second one will always be a minute or two (or more) behind the first.
Banking a coal fire isn't quite instantaneous either...
@@WesleyHarcourtSTEAMandMORE Yes indeed, but there's this misconception that simply turning an oil fire down will make the heat go away right then and there. Even without the firebrick, the water itself retains its heat for quite a bit.
Don't forget the oil prices are not stable. Coal and wood is the most stable to purchase plus, It be cheaper to run on wood than oil. Though Coal fired steamers came before wood fired, oil is the last variant. Travethik's engine is coal fired.
The whole reason 3985 was converted to oil was, when they first got it running, they ran it around a couple places and burned down half of Wyoming.
Elaborate please
now THATS a 3/4 show story
Correction it was Utah not Wyoming and 3985 started a ton of brush fires to the point the news stations were running stories about brush fires and they were almost not allowed to run the engine back to Cheyanne because if it’s ability to burn down Utah. 3985 was then restricted to Cheyanne to Laramie for the next 8 years until it was converted to oil.
As the engines of San Juan would say watch it ash holes
There's things in Wyoming?
A running Engine that burns oil is better than a coal burner that can't run at all. As a guy who's been running and firing oil burners for 6 years now, I think you hit the nail on the head pretty well here Mark.
Still, coal is better. Coal is better. I also love modern coal powerplants. They take out all the smoke and bubble it through de-sulferizors to make gypsum for drywall. What comes out looks like steam. Coal is fine.
@@RobertCraft-re5sfHow is that possible? For coal-fired power plants to make gypsum and drywall, that is.
@@RobertCraft-re5sf i mean if you really want to get into it, coal is not better. Coal might be your preference and that's just fine, but that doesn't make it better. Oil is the superior fuel source. And I'm not saying that from an environmental stand point at all either. More BTUs per volume and less ash and waste. Takes less time before and after running to fire up and shut down. You can instantly turn the fire off in an emergency. Lower fire danger. Coal is cool, but oil is better.
@@Tank245 Where coal is actually better IMO is in running steam locomotives that historically only ran on coal. Like Montezuma, for example. Running on oil for environmental friendliness and lower fire risk is good and all, but if it's at the cost of historic value? Sorry, but I'll stick to coal as much as I can, in that case.
What does the exhaust from burning that particular oil smell like? Similar to kerosene or jet fuel exhaust?
In the end, preservation societies/companies/clubs need to do what they have to do to stay 'alive' - whether us who are enthusiasts like it or not. Most of the general public would not even care or know the difference.
As always Hyce, this is a well-rounded fair assessment of both methods. Awesome video.
Hear hear!
honesty kinda happy since 481 wasted all of her time sitting in the roundhouse all summer to get used in winter. They didn’t want to start another fire so they didn’t run her when it was warm and dry. Coal is also corrosive and dangerous to breathe but I love collecting whatever coal I can find on the track side. I got the newspaper announcing the last coal run hung on my wall. A nice artifact that will remind me of when the mikados were so dirty but still full of personality. After the conversion she can run all year now.
Also the fact that RGS #20 might come here makes me so exited since she’s done so many things here, like get 346 from the montezuma lumber company and was also in the film “a ticket to tomahawk”. The replica locomotive made for that film is here at Santa Rita park. Not likely at all but it would be so funny to fit #20 in the replicas parts and repaint her.
They aren’t allowed to run coal anytime the ground isn’t wet, this includes winter. So they had an engine sitting around for 95% of the season which has no value to them. Hence the conversion.
@@CinemaRepository although there is wood as it still be cheaper than oil. Plus you might want to consider on the fact the D&S will have to answer to the N.R. of H.P. as they are on the list long before this and the registry is very adamant about keeping things original.
@@kevwebb2637NA they don’t care.
@@kevwebb2637 The oil conversion at D&S was reviewed and approved by NRHP in advance. It was either go oil or go all diesel. Rational people made a rational decision.
Glad we're still going to run King Coal Mine coal at CRRM for the foreseeable future.
There are definitely benefits to oil over coal (although my experience tends to be oil vs wood). Not dumping loads of cinders in your passengers' eyes is definitely a plus for oil. After riding the coal-fired Cripple Creek & Victor I very quickly bought some sunglasses to wear on the Cumbres & Toltec.
I'll add in a story I've heard about converting from WOOD to oil, on the Oregon Lumber Company in Eastern Oregon. The logging engines, as well as those on the common-carrier connection Sumpter Valley Railroad, had been wood burners for decades because they could use scrap wood from all the mills, which was free. When the SVRy got the Unitah articulateds, they converted them to oil (no one wanted to chuck wood into those). The Standard Oil salesman then pointed out to OLC that the "free wood" wasn't really so free when you accounted for the cost of men to split it to size (if needed), stack it, move it on a flatcar, unload and restack it, and then load it on the engine. Not to mention the cost of the firefighting apparatuses on the engines to avoid lighting all of Eastern Oregon on fire. The OLC shortly converted most if not all of their logging engines to oil. (Curiously, Shay 7, now at Hesston, was later converted back to wood by OLC after the mainlines were removed and it was relegated to backup switcher at Baker City). Even today, with the help of chainsaws and a hydraulic wood splitter, it can take several volunteers most of an hour to split a cord of wood for our Heisler, and it'll burn almost all of that wood on a single roundtrip.
I rode this train to a back-country wilderness access. After de-training in the middle of nowhere, first, rinse tiny cinders out of my eyes.
My dad fired steam, and one of their post-work rituals was for my mom to rinse cinders out of his eyes.
I am sure Hyce must have the type of googles that I remember playing with as a child.
The differences between late 19th Century and now might be trees, as I imagine much of the primary forest wound up as mine timbers, rail-ties and as mine and town buildings.
After hearing that comparison, I think it amazing that the eastern roads used coal till the end. A matter of availability. I was part of moving millions of tons or so of Appalachian coal onto ships at Curtis Bay, Maryland.
Can an oil-burner emit a 100 foot yellow flame out the stack? I saw a switch engine die when it did that in the middle of B&O Bayview yard on a hot, humid Baltimore night. Spectacular. Early 1970's, the engine being an Alco.
Could there be a way to hand-load fine coal into a box that delivers the coal with a compressed air device? I believe that's how automatic stokers work. The Big Boy at Denver Forney Museum used compress air to blow the ground stoker-coal into the fire-box.
Great video, as always.
Big Diehl is a hugely underrated channel that deserves more subs. Amazing captures and sounds!
He's a fantastic videographer, and his storytelling game has only been escalating. Very worth the watch.
France did an oil fired locomotive test with Napoleon the third on the footplate on the 1860s. The locomotive they did the test on is still preserved!
Holy crap! That's cool.
I know that the Coalition for Sustainable Rail was working on biocoal research for a while, but progress stalled during the pandemic.
Oh my god stop. X-D
"Coalition for Sustainable Rail". I hope that's a woke joke!
@Danis8Pastry Explain how that would be considered "woke."
@@Danis8Pastry How is that woke? Lmao
@@j-bird1778 The very very short definition of "Woke" is "Politically Correct". :)
@@VigilanteAgumon The very very short definition of "Woke" is "Politically Correct". :)
I was on steam ships. If you lose the fire, usually when lighting off, the boiler has to be vented for a half hour before it's safe. Ship boilers are a lot bigger than those on locos and they're usually water tube rather than fire tube like locos.There are oil vapors in a boiler that just snuffed out its' fire that can explode. I was on 2 ships that relit a boiler within a few minutes. Both had an explosion. Both were USN destroyers. One, lighting off in Tacoma, blew a huge smoke cloud that mushroomed hundreds of feet in the air, but didn't hurt the boiler. But it scared the locals that sent most of the nearby fire stations trucks. They thought a magazine exploded. The other destroyer lighting off in a Canadian port a couple years earlier damaged the boiler. The water tube boiler didn't have a thick steel shell like a loco, but 3 drums. Very large pipes, 2 on the bottom and one on top with many rows of tubes connecting the bottom to the top. All surrounded by framework with bricks in the fire area plus insulation, more insulation above the bricks and covered with metal panels. Relighting gave a similar demonstration of smoke and sound, but puffed out all the panels, blowing some off. The brickwork was damaged and some of the piping. The ship returned home on its' other boilers, but because it was an older ship, the navy decided not to repair it.
In WWI my father was a stoker on a coal fired troop transport and in WWII he was a chief engineer. So I picked up a lot.
Nice video on the comparison of coal or gas fired boilers.
I frequently chase the Ceres Rail oil burner 3322 here in Cape Town, south Africa. She's an oil burner burning recycled oil. Sometimes the oil is substandard and doesn't burn.
I took a tour of the Durango shops in 2021 and the tour guide told us that the county was really on them after the fire that happened, and the residents were pretty mad about it. They had the SP #18 in town while we were there to train their engineers on oil burning locos while they were converting some of the coal burners. They also had received some of their new diesel locomotives and those were around the shop too. I definitely recommend taking a tour of the shops and yard in Durango if anyone ever is out that way.
I learned a lot, before this video when I heard "coal converted to oil" my visceral reaction was "damn EPA at it again". Honestly you didn't even mention the EPA or pollution really much, what I took away from this was saftey and preservation. When you boiled it down about the running gear not wearing out, and such I immediately thought "well if we want to preserve steam for a long time, it seems oil would be the answer to not wear the parts out so quickly."
I'm like you, coal is nostalgic, I was really upset when I went to I think either Disney or Dollywood and found out the engines were oil fired. Up where I live in PA the East Broad Top uses coal, and boy when I smelled it, it completed the whole experience for me! In the case of Big Boy 4014, if they said "oil fired or nothing" I would 100% want Big Boy to roll again no matter what it took, so I would say oil fired, but would have loved to see Big Boy with coal! Great video sir!
Surprisingly it wasn’t the EPA that caused this, it was a lawsuit against the railroad by the Parks service and some nearby property holders after some bad wildfires a few years ago
The ones at Disney World are oil fired. The ones at Dollywood are coal fired.
@jordonfreeman166 ah ok, I knew it was one of them.
@andrewreynolds4949 I am honestly surprised! But it makes sense...
@@rev9fan1 The locomotives at Disneyland have been oil burners since opening day in 1955. For the west coast oil has always been the standard for the most part historically and present day. Even for someone who was growing up around the Southern Pacific or Western Pacific or Santa Fe in the steam era, they would probably have that same nostalgic opinion on oil as someone on the east coast would for coal. All the engines I have rode behind have been oil so I have nostalgia for it. I will be interested to see if the C&T eventually also fully converts to oil one day.
5:12 slight correction, there were 6 CB&Q O5Bs: 5614, 5620, 5626, 5627, 5629, and 5632. 5614 is also preserved in St. Joseph, Missouri.
20:09, there is a clip of 2926 I think re-lighiting and it looks spectacular
To be fair; with that clip 2926 doesn't have a proper load so her firing isn't all that great. Even oil burners still need to be doing some actual work to pull a proper draft. Flammable vapors can gather in the box if the firebrick isn't hot enough due to this. The gurus on TrainOrders went into it better.
Its like running a coal forge or a gas forge.
Is the coal forge more "romantic"? Perhaps- the smell and the aesthetic certainly have their place. But does it take a lot longer to set up, tear down, etc? Oh yes.
Gas is a lot simpler and more convenient.
At the end of the day, shy of getting into forge-welding duscussions, they are both going to get the metal hot enough to work, and get the job done.
The bigest negative for oil is when it is time to put the loco to bed, the fire is extinguished and the fire box sheets are exposed to cold air ,where as with coal ,you leave it on the grate to go out and no cold air, is admitted ,so no thermal shock, have put the loco to bed on Sunday afternoon and it is just warm on thursday
I actually was on the 2nd to last trip of 481 as a coal. Got the news onboard. I was pretty honored!
In northern germany one heritage railway tried wood pellet fuel as an alternative to coal. There are challenges e.g. the firebox needed conversion, the fuel can't get wet and you need about 1.7x the amount but it seems the trial was succesful and the conversion is here to stay. Besides the long term problem another reason to try this was the war in Ukraine which doubled the coal price.
I think that every heritage railway running steam which wants to stay running should start thinking about and trialing alternatives to coal rather today than tomorrow. It's only getting more difficult from here on out
I'm watching this while on break at Tweetsie R.R.
2:58 RGS 20 on the high line…
Thanks for the interesting discussion Hyce! The Great Northern railway switched to oil for similar reasons. After the Wellington disaster (check out the 3/4 show episode) and the Big Burn of 1910 they began to switch the western divisions to oil.
Hyce, excellent video. I run industrial boilers on both gas and no. 2 oil. We used to run no. 6 oil and I would rather work with that nasty sludge than coal any day! And a small anecdote, I used to hear stories from old navy guys that they would re-light fires off the refractory all the time, especially if they were in a pinch to get fires lit again. good stuff!
The Museum operated a number of oil fired locomotives for a time, No. 40 and Shay Nos. 12 & 14.
The cool thing about oil burners is that, depending on the type of conversion, just about any oil works. 4014 iirc burns used motor oil, refined used restaurant oil is also a viable option. Oil is also cheaper than coal to get trucked or you could even work with the community restaurants, have them donate the used oil and all you do is pay for the necessary refinement that may need to be done.
In regards to the Southern Pacific, Joel can fact check me on this if I'm wrong, the AC-9's were the only coal burning locomotives on the SP's roster. Aside from those, it was mainly oil-burners on the SP. the first oil burner for the raiload was, ironically, a 4-4-0.
In the 40s the NZR converted their biggest locomotives in the North Island - all K, Ka 4-8-4s and some J 4-8-2s - to oil burners due to a shortage of high quality coal in the North Island. In the early 50s if memory serves the NZR wanted to convert the K and Ka's back to coal and the firemen's union protested and stopped the reconversion.
Correct - it was a coal shortage that triggered the conversion, and the Enginedrivers, Firemen & Cleaners Association (the traincrew union of the day) liked it so much, that when NZR did reconvert a few of the K's to burn coal in the early 1950s when coal prices were more 'reasonable' and oil... less so, they kicked up a fuss and NZR abandoned the plan.
The same thing happened in 1957 when it was attempted to transfer a Ka class locomotive to the South Island and reconvert it to coal for use on the Midland Line between Springfield and Arthur's Pass. The EFCA managed to get that stopped too and the locomotive got sent back to the North Island in 1959 without turning a wheel in anger. Though there was a bit more than just 'no reconversion' behind that though.
Fantastic job, you are very knowledgable and well spoken.
Norwegian here: Ironically (oil nation now…) we had very few oil fired engines. Some post ww2 ‘kriegsloks’ were oil, but they didn’t fit into an infrastructure with coal bunkers abundant.
Today, we have very few engines running in preservation, as decommissioned secondary lines (there were many) got ripped up as soon as possible. The network has very few alternate routes, and is extremely “star shaped”.
And… there’s ERTMS - ETCS, effectively eradicating any vintage engine due to conversion cost.
Ultimately, steam operations are a vintage experience, romanticising and craving the use of ‘real’ coal (wrote this just as Hyce got there…🙈😅). The art, smoke & steam IS the love of steam engines, even if Hyce’s colleagues have to work their a***s off for us punters.
That’s why we’re here, after all…? 👍
Never really put much thought into the differences between oil and coal burning for a steam locomotive. I just figured that railroads on the east coast would burn coal because it was more plentiful and railroads on the west coast would burn oil because it was more plentiful. Very insightful, Hyce never knew the pros and cons of oil burning
In 1986, I rode the coal burning Durango and Silverton train, and loved everything about it, including the cinders, and the smell. Especially the smell! As a child, I would go to the basement of the theatre in a small town in west central Wisconsin, and watch my dad scoop coal into the furnace, to warm up the theatre for evening movies. The smell of a coal fire is so nostalgic for me. When I visited England and Scotland, the fireplaces had been converted to coal burning, and I was instantly swept back to that small theatre in Wisconsin! I will be riding the Durango and Silverton this July, on my 80th birthday, and will miss the coal smell.
At the museum I used to work at, a person could get in free if they brought a gallon of used motor oil. They also accepted barrels of fryer oil and sometimes a mystery solvent. I was warned one day that they put 10% mystery solvent and it may go poof. I kept my head out of the door and stirred with the measuring stick to mix it well. It seemed to smell like motor oil. Maybe they were fooling. Didn't go poof and I didn't get lung cancer or high, brain cells still intact. Fryer oil made everyone hungry. We should have had a concession stand those days.
Hi Mark, an excellent explanation about oil vs. coal. I so agree with you. On the one hand, it is lovely to see the fireman’s skill when scooping coal into the firebox and all that. On the other, there’s the cinders that, as you mentioned, go everywhere. From my experience, even with protective eyewear and earplugs, these little irritants seem to always find ways in! The cinder accumulation you described from 20 was OMG. Oil will certainly be the future and to echo you, Mark, the choo choos will still run on steam; and that is beautiful. BTW loved your video of the firebox-great videography! As always Professor an A+ learning moment! Truly grateful for your videos and cheers to you!
As a kid in the 90s, I was lucky enough to get to see 611 run. I remember getting rained on by cinders just after it passed. Thankfully, they weren't hot.
As long they can keep steam locomotive to run today and for the upcoming days, I'm totally in fro oil/diesel burning conversion!!
Well put together Hyce.
Ridership and viewership will appreciate the much cleaner stacks. Erosion of flue and stay ends in the firebox will be less as well....
The thing is that the coal source was close to the D&S..over the mountain in Hesperus. The closest oil sources..the refineries in Farmington and Gallup..are shut down.
very nice video, one thing that could help burn oil is have a computer run the firing, would be very handy for an wheelslip event.
I got to ride the Durango to Silverton train in the late 70's. I remember getting cinders in my eyes.
The exhaust from a coal fire is nearly 100% CO2, the exhaust from an oil fire is CO2 + H2O. Not that the amount of CO2 generated from historic rail roads and museums is a significant source of CO2 emissions, but it is nice to have a little less CO2.
Cumbres and toltec is slowly converting to oil.
I wonder if he had to extend the song because of how many members he got
I mean, i remember one time. The member section was like 5 minuites
Nope, it's the same length. There was once when it was two scrolls separately... Lol
I have gotten a cinder to the eye every single time I have ever chased the 765
Then you need to get closer to the engine.
I would like to thank the Rev. Awdry and Britt Alcroft for the romanticism of coal fired steam engines 😜
As part of the conversion, using computer control sounds like a good safety measure to avoid the oil issues. Manual over-ride possible of course for corner-cases, but - why not? It's a modification, so make it a restomod while your at it.
Just mount the computer in a dirty black box and no one will notice.
Probably the way to go to keep steam locomotives in operation in a lot cases, for all the reasons you've listed.
I watched an interesting video a while back about a railroad in Germany evaluating wood pellets as an alternative fuel. Some of the same benefits as oil: Current and future supply is more secure (apparently some of the best steam locomotive coal in Europe came out of Russia... something of an issue lately. Meanwhile wood pellets are made from sawdust and wood scraps), a cleaner fire with less ash and particulates, and practically no cinders. They were still in the early stages of testing, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of it, but I love that people are looking for ways to keep these magnificent machines running into the future.
Another benefit for oil fired locomotives is that the mainline locomotives that do run on oil can pretty much go anywhere they'd like. Whereas coal there's no infrastructure or coal for a coal fired engine to successfully run there.
Kings Island and Miami valley railroad (3ft gauge Amusement railway) have 2 Cagney Americans from the 80's that run PROPANE. Oil is pretty tame compared to that.
Missed you at National Train Day!
As mentioned at 20:15, AT&SF 2926 had a bit of a Kaboom during that railyards run last year, look it up...
You also have less flue tube wear with oil vs coal.. Probably not as great of an effect today but back in the days when they ran constantly it meant you had to replete the flues less often.Today the length of time between flue removal and subsequent reuse or replacement of them is short enough that flues don't have enough use to wear out.
West Virginia ex-pat here. My old home state will continue to mine coal until no one will buy it and then the congressional party will add an amendment to the federal budget to subsidize coal mining.
Thanks for the video. I don't work on choochoos, so I have only an armchair opinion.... namely, if it's burn oil vs not go at all let's burn oil! I do love the smell of coal smoke, and I agree that hopefully as time goes on a few coalburners will stay alive, especially in smaller places like the crrm where the fire danger is easier to mitigate than on a line through the woods that's miles long. I think the D&S made a good choice and I hope one day I can see it and ride behind one of those excellent oil-fired steam choo-choos!! Thanks again!
PS. I rode behind the 2102 last year, and after a day of coal burning train with the coach windows open I was covered in little gritty cinders - I didn't mind, but I had to explain to the gent in the next seat where the grit came from!!
I like you Hyce like the smell of coal but not in copious amounts. How about installing stack scrubbers to remove some of the cinder pollution?
The D&S, like the D&RGW before them, did install fine-screened cinder traps on top of the stacks, and later the D&S added a crude sort of "scrubber" consisting of water sprayers across the exhaust, but a truly effective coal exhaust scrubber would completely destroy the aesthetics of a steam locomotive, so probably a non-starter.
Coal really is cool to see run...but I'd rather see oil burning steam power than a buzzy brick on wheels.
I'm against it, but the cards were stacked against the railroad.
In the early 20th century, the British and Japanese had a number of mixed-firing warships (coal augmented by oil). It seems that some kind of oil-biased dual/mixed-firing arrangement would be ideal for historical railroads: run on oil in normal circumstances, with the option to chuck in a few shovelfuls of coal from time to time for the nostalgiaz.
Yep, oil is good for when the operational efficiency is the focal point, and since the D&S is a revenue railroad it makes sense to make this move. Imo coal is more rewarding in terms of challenge and skill. Sure it's alot more work before and after (not to mention during!) the run, but I feel a great sense of accomplishment when working the shovel. I'd miss it, even if my back won't.
Our railroad has a huge pile of original coal from the SJ days of operations, so we currently have the benefit of running on free fuel. With only a couple of days of operation a year, it should last us a while yet.
8:50, THIS exact thing was the big issue with the SJ E10 4-8-0s built in the 40s, they had woefully inadequate fireboxes but when converted to oil they performed great. A few B 4-6-0s were also plugged in to burn oil.
As many others have said; whatever needs done to pay the bills and stay alive and most people couldn't care less as long as it goes "choo choo" and "whoo whoo"... But I'd put a neat little fake coal cover over the tank to sell the illusion it still burns coal. ;)
I recently commented to someone that if they wanted the coal experience on more than just the CRRM's loop, they should visit the Cumbres. As far as I know, they're only planning the 2 oil conversions. When 492 returns under steam, she'll still be a coal-burner.
I honestly don't have anything against oil burners as I am in the same state as the Mt. Rainier scenic railroad. I am only ranting about the Historic Landmark side as the protections provided by the Historic Landmark would play a huge role of keeping the place/vehicle of historic value from being destroyed, but have a side effects of being strict against modifications. Like if the Historic place/vehicle did have modifications prior to becoming a historic landmark then it will be limited to the period, but if the historic place/vehicle didn't have modifications prior to becoming a historic landmark, they are screwed. So, I strongly believe that changing fuel source can have effect with the Historic Landmark, since Durango & Silverton didn't burn oil prior to becoming a historic landmark, I think soon it won't be the ridership or cost that will bite it. In the end, it still matter if the place/vehicle is a Historic Landmark or not. Virginia & Truckee for example historically burnt wood, coal, and oil so it will be easy for them. If I were to find out about this before the oil conversion, I would state my concern as the protections provided from being a Historic Landmark still play a role of keeping the railroad alive for future generations. So, I only fond out when this video came out. Also, in regards to the White Pass & Yukon route, they will end up facing the same risk as the Durango & Silverton because of the Alcos they sold after they became a Historic Landmark.
The D&S oil conversion was reviewed and approved by the historical landmark people in advance. They understood it was either convert, or shut down.
@@taijuan5087 Web source?
Rock Island towards the end of steam had a region ( Iowa into Kansas IIRC been a couple years undermy belt since I read the issue of Rock Island Lines) that had been converted to oil burners that restricted those locomotives to those regions. Forget why at this point but it may have been issues with coal infrastructure and cost to repair something with a short remaining lifespan vs converting steam to run on a fuel with an infrastructure that could be converted over to serve diesels easily.
im sad to see coal firing slowing working its way out, despite all the good it will bring to the running and preservation of steam. there is something about seeing a massive plume of smoke roaring out of that stack that makes you feel "oh yeah.... she's working hard!". one of the main things you attribute to the thought of "train" is a plume of smoke, a loud, wailing whistle, and the hypnotic beauty of mechanical precision in motion.
Heh relighting off the bricks is always… fun if you’re daring enough 😂
In the UK, the Welsh government shut down the last Welsh coal mine recently. This was the mine producing the cleanest most energy dense coal, which our engines were designed for. Now coal has to be imported from across the globe, and when it gets here it isn't a patch on our own stuff. It's still in the ground, but now we can't access it.
me personally: go make it reversible so you can change back to coal potentially in the future
It's been my understanding that a conversion to oil is reversible if somewhat of a pain to do. Union Pacific converted a big boy to oil per the "Last of the Giants" video series. They were not happy with the burner setup they used so converted it back to coal in fairly short order.
It's all reversible.
Fun fact , the last true western Maryland steam locomotive , 202 4-6-2 on static display , is in fact, an oil burner, which is quite cool considering that the western Maryland was primarily a coal road , Side note 734&1309 if you don’t know already are not original Western Maryland locomotives tho both burn coal. 202 , was initially considered for restoration for the western Maryland after Allegheny Central done moved out with his G5 Pacific. , but due to her low tractiveeffort she was left where she sits today ,
Funny you mention the whole cinders in eye part... got a cinder in my eye at Strasburg. Yeah, that was fun. Anyway, while I'd preferred to see things remain firing on the fuel they were originally built for, it's probably for the better, especially if it means no choochoos vs oil choochoos. Hell, look at the Big Boy... they converted that to oil. It is what it is.
So were the UP FEF-3 class. 844, The Living Legend herself was converted to oil a year after going into service and remains so in preservation
It's hard for me to imagine the economy of running a wood burning locomotive. Fuel value of full tender of firewood is a small fraction of that of coal, and it's a lot more expensive.
All valid points, i think D&S kinda got pushed into the change, loke either change or no steam locomotives. I've never fired a big coal burning locomotive. But from what I've seen, its alot of work. It's a shame that tradition is going away, but the big Ks are still going
This is awesome. I learned so much!
And nobody mentions dual firing? Some South Australian engines had this postwar with supplemental oil-firing systems fitted to a coal-burning firebox. I'm not sure how the system worked, but lowkey it worked to some degree.
That's bizarre
Having to truck in coal from the north east. Sounds prohibitively expensive.
I'm surprised that there isn't a move to gas firing, as these fuels would be cleaner then oil and likely quite a bit cheaper as well.
CSRR’s Shay 2 is the only known Shay to have burned wood, oil, and coal, and Cass has had oil fired Shays in its roster, though they were all short lived before conversion to coal.
But they do run a fire watch behind the trains during dryer times, but have luckily never started a large forest fire.
I do love the smell of coal smoke, every time I go to Cass the smell of the coal smoke always brings me back to those childhood memories of the family train rides up the mountain behind the thundering Shay locomotives.
But at some point, non renewable resources are going to run out (though humanity will make this planet uninhabitable long before then I think) and Hyce brings up great points as to why coal may not be the smart choice for steam preservation, even from a non environmental perspective.
19:34 ive re lit my propane forge off of the hot bricks
As always great video!!🛤️🚂
Pros
Not as physical oil burning just turning dials,
Can immediately switch your power levels so don't have to fire ahesd of time, Can quickly egnite and end fires, no need to clean out ash,
Plus coal buring cinders can go out the funnel adding layers to the engine making running harder and damges the engine, plus its not pleasant for crew, and has less fire hazards to near by trees.
Sometimes coal isn't in your region so you use oil, coal mining is getting baned because of environmental problems, oil will stick around a bit longer...
- cons
Esayer to buger up your engines, like if your not on your toes and keep an eye on something that makes it work harder (driver change or wheel slip) your fire can be over worked and go out,
Oil is more costly. If you don't have the right air flow, something small screws up with oil surply having different types of oil that can really screw your fire up for the entire day,
Incomparsom coal is coal, some is less effecnt and big base ball coals can cause damgae.. it still works
The bricks under the fire if it gose out can be very hot to instantly light the oil and this can be dangerous...
I like your opinion about them converting to oil. Doesn't really matter if it's coal or oil. As long as they keep the steam trains running that's all that really matters. Didn't know that getting oil was more expensive than getting coal. I would've thought the exact opposite.
Not exactly a fact-check, but I think in the evaluation of the actual cost per BTU - coal v. oil - oil comes out ahead.
I can think of one other minor drawback to converting a coal burner to run on oil. It would alter the distinctive flavor of the food that comes from the K-37 Kitchen 😅
Oil burning is very good in my opinion for Heritage operations, especially during rising price costs which is even effecting us brits over the pond, even if "it's not historic" preventing lineside fires like we have on the railway I work on, is important, as saftey should always outweigh historical accuracy.
Don't think the price issue can be avoided.
Oil is known for prices to go all over the place. As for lineside fires yeah those have become a bigger issue as the weather keeps getting ridiculessly warm like right now it's been in the 20's for early may and peak of summer will probably hit 40C.
I am so glad I got to shovel coal as a volunteer. That said, wouldnt want to do that every day day in and day out.
I think if a museum could have a track connected to a railroad where they can get a hopper of coal dropped off they could keep coal operations going fairly easily. Most decent-sized coal mines have rail connection, or are at least near enough where coal could be trucked from the mine's wash plant to a yard or siding where it could be transshipped.
No problem. I assume you will make a sizeable donation to said museum in order to help fund such a project?
@@taijuan5087 Yeah, my museum has a connection already c:
Hi, nice video idea would be to do a break down all DR&W locomotives located at c&T ,D&S , CRM , an etc that would be cool 😎
I want to.
Luckily, montezuma will have very few thermal bricks to remove for an inspection 😂
I have a _brilliant_ idea the CRR can do to cut their operating costs immensely, be easier on the logistics, be historically authentic (technically), and be easier on the fireman, even easier than oil.
Install overhead catenary lines, install pantographs on the locomotives, and thereby convert the choo-choo trains to _Electro-Steam_ power!
Yeah, that was a thing! In Switzerland, back in the years 1939-1945 or so, for reasons you can probably guess, but, _they did it;_ and it apparently gave every satisfaction.
The swiss tried that in the 30s or 40s - a small steam locomotive with an electric heating element that ran off of overhead catenary. Not sure if they considered it a success - I think it was just born out of necessity more than anything.
@taijuan5087 I mean... I cited exactly that example? Did you miss 'read more'?
But yeah, electro-steam was a thing, it worked.
@@ShadowDragon8685 Oops - I guess I should have read your entire comment!
@@taijuan5087 Fair enough!
I don't know how true this is but when I went to visit SP4449 in Portland one of the museum workers I was talking to had mentioned to that what they do to get their oil supply is they have a bunch of deals with a bunch of local 5-minute oil change places. He said that she literally runs on jiffy lube. And that the oil change places get a tax write-off because giving away a product well also not having to deal with the complicated process of getting someone to take the waste oil off their hands and all that the museum has to do is find a way to get it to the museum
Waste oil burns very nicely in oil-fired steam locomotives and has a lot of BTUs.
is it possible to switch from coal to wood? What about charcoal? I'm not sure how these fuels work entirely, but there are alternatives to coal still if you can't convert to oil
Chrysler or whatever it is called now, came out with an electric car. It has an electric motor which is nice and quiet
and they have a sound system that puts out all the engine noise and screeching of a muscle car. I see that happening
to steam locomotives in a 100 or more yrs. They will have either an electric or diesel motor. A smokestack that puts out
simulated burned coal/oil. A sound system that puts out all the noise of a steam loco. It simply won't be economical
to run a real steam loco. You probably won't be able to find coal or oil at the rate we are burning it.
My only
Issue with converting steam train fuel sources is the smell. I love the mix of coal, steam and lubricating oil.
Form an environmental stance. I don’t think the remaining coal trains are really “that bad” but if we can emulate the smell, I’m honestly okay. As long as it makes steam
Didn't the D&S also purchase two or three WP&Y diesels a few years back? I think when the railroad took delivery of some new E3000CC-DCs they sold off a couple of their own alcos to somewhere.
they purchased 6
If I donate a Standard Gauge locomotives to Oregon. I would convert to oil burning. If I donate a Big Boy Locomotive and a DMIR Yellowstone locomotive to Oregon I’ll convert it to oil burning.
DAMN THE 416 FIRE
There is one thing to note on. Wouldn't it be cheaper to run on wood as you still have to use wood to start a coal fire? But instead of putting coal in the bunker, wood will be in the bunker instead. Plus, I am surprised the D&S didn't use their GE Centercabs during summer and the Former White Pass & Yukon Alco DL535E they acquired. But, wouldn't it also be safer to run diesel in the summer as even with oil burners, the fire management still trails it like Porky's revenue run in Oregon, 2023.
Wood is even worse (or better?) at throwing flaming embers from the stack than is coal, so it's not really a solution.
@@taijuan5087 Wood don't burn as hot as coal. Plus, wouldn't the filters placed in smoke box and top of stack still be effective with wood. Wood embers will just burn out faster since wood fires are not as hot as coal. Wood got replaced by coal due to the horsepower advantage that coal has over wood.
@@taijuan5087 I forgot to mention that in southern California a 2-6-2 davenport Trench and a Orenstein & Koppel despite being coal fired are running on wood.
Switch to oil today, then maybe someday later we can run locomotives off methane or something renewable.
I'm an old Dinosaur (Well, young dinosaur, Lol) personally and think engines should be coal fired, they don't smell right otherwise. That said, I can also see advantages to oil firing, especially if you're running through heavily wooded areas that are liable to to catch light from a stray spark out the chimney for example.
Oil firing is a lot less common over here in the UK. The Ffestinog once had several oil fired locos. At least two of their double Fairlies and maybe even the Baldwin Mountaineer and the single Fairlie were all Oil fired at one stage, but by the late 00s Oil became far more expensive than coal, so they converted them all back to Coal firing. Don't know what the pricing works out at now, given that every Heritage Railway in the UK now have to import their coal because the dumbass government shut down our last coal mine and subsequently means no more good ol' Welsh Steam Coal anymore.
When I was 11 years old I got to take a ride on the D&S, the trip of a lifetime. However by the time we were halfway back to Durango on our round trip because of the constant cinders my eyes I was just over the experience. I hate coal.
starting an oil burner should be very different too since the oil needs to be pumped, which in turn requires pressure.
Is there a manual startup oil pump?
Gravity, thankfully.
@@Hyce777 that's enough? I thought the atomizer nozzle was too narrow for that.
@@erumaaro6060 Nope. System is designed so that the burner is lower than the bottom of the oil tank on the tender. Gravity is a wonderful thing. Some really big locomotives, like the SP Cab-Forwards with the tender as far away from the firebox as one could get it, used low air pressure in the oil bunkers to push the oil through the lines to the burner.
Reusing restaurant cooking oil will make it smell like french fries when your choo choo steams past