Coal vs Oil

1. Oil can be emptied from tank cars to storage tanks by one man;

2. Smaller storage space for oil versus coal;

3. Cinder pit and all attendant costs done away with;

4. Oil crane can be placed near water tower so engine can take water and fuel at the same time;

5. Grates and smokebox netting eliminated, reducing air resistance and increasing draft;

6. Large engines are as easy to fire as small engines.

7. Full steam pressure can be maintained at all times regardless of grades;

8. Oil can produce 25% more steam than the max rate for coal;

9. Heating value for oil is fairly constant, while heating value for coal can vary widely.

10. No clinkers with oil;

11. Engine can be turned at terminal in less than 1/2 hour because no cinders to deal with;

12. With oil there is no waste of fuel corresponding to cinder loss with coal;

13. Less waste at the safety valve, due to better regulation of the fire with the oil burner;

14. Fewer fires cause by sparks (although it can and does happen).

Steve

Very good list.  I did not know all those advantages of oil.  I saved a copy for reference. 

By  coincidence I just finished building a base and installing wheels on my third oil tender shell I needed for Cab Forward engine, another reason for oil tenders, maybe a 15 on your list.

Thanks

Charlie

At the risk of setting hundreds of Nickel Plate engineers spinning in their graves, I would have loved to convert the 765 to burn oil. When planning the 765’s operations, I spent more time on working out coal logistics than everything else combined.

Given what’s going on in the coal industry these days, an oil conversion could still be in her future.

GREAT list! THANKS, Steve! I have a nice book on oil firing I purchased at the Roaring Camp and Big Trees RR giftshop in 2000, and it covers the subject very well.

Lets not forget that there was no ready supply of coal on the west coast of the U.S.. Thus the SP essentially progressed from wood burning locomotives to oil burning locomotives fairly quickly.

Also, the "oil" was actually the residual remains from the refinery process of making gasoline, diesel, naphtha, and lubricating oils, thus the term "Bunker Fuels", which were purchased by the pound and NOT by the gallon. Once the petro-chemical industry and plastics were developed in about the late 1950s, there was no longer much of anything remaining at the base of the cracking towers. As a result, the old Bunker C product used in steam locomotives throughout the western states (and Florida) became VERY expensive, if it was even available.  

A coal fired cab forward would be difficult to fire. 

@David Johnston posted:

A coal fired cab forward would be difficult to fire. 

Ya think?

Didn’t it all simply boil down to BTU/$?

Of course, access to the fuel must be a component of the cost of the BTU’s. If you’re stumbling over a wealth of coal, how likely is oil to be the economical choice?

@Hot Water posted:

Ya think?

Was there a SP class of articulated locomotives based on the cab forewards but the layout was conventional?   Ran out of El Paso?  Used coal because SP bought a line which required coal fuel?  El Paso and Southwestern?  Lionel imported a model of it?

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

Was there a SP class of articulated locomotives based on the cab forewards but the layout was conventional? 

Yes, The AC-9 2-8-8-4, from Lima Locomotive Works (1939?).

 Ran out of El Paso? 

Yes.

Used coal because SP bought a line which required coal fuel? 

Yes.

El Paso and Southwestern? 

Yes.

Lionel imported a model of it?

Yes, twice.

@TM Terry posted:

Didn’t it all simply boil down to BTU/$?

Of course, access to the fuel must be a component of the cost of the BTU’s. If you’re stumbling over a wealth of coal, how likely is oil to be the economical choice?

That is why the Pennsylvania Railroad and some other eastern roads used coal.  They owned the coal mines.

@David Johnston posted:

A coal fired cab forward would be difficult to fire. 

For guys that set up layouts at shows, and want to have some fun.........................

Run a coal tender behind a cab forward and see if any general public notices sumthin' funny going on. 

Matter of fact, see how many club members even notice or question it! 

@CAPPilot posted:

That is why the Pennsylvania Railroad and some other eastern roads used coal.  They owned the coal mines.

And they wanted to transport the rest.  One reason given they dieselized so late.

Oil, of course, was anathema to the N&W! LOL!

@Rich Melvin posted:

At the risk of setting hundreds of Nickel Plate engineers spinning in their graves, I would have loved to convert the 765 to burn oil. When planning the 765’s operations, I spent more time on working out coal logistics than everything else combined.

The logistics of oil firing made simple; this could have been 765 if it had been converted:

Two promoted Firemen from the D&RGW at Minturn, CO, hired out on the Santa Fe at San Bernardino, in 1940.  Another one came, also in 1940, from the Joint Line.  A narrow gauge Fireman came from Durango in 1951.  The three standard gauge Firemen, who were old head Engineers when I hired out in 1970, all said it was because of the good weather and the oil fired locomotives.  The one from the Joint Line said it was especially because the C&S had very few stoker equipped engines there and their trains were half of the traffic.  The narrow gauge fellow kind of got forced into it by abandonment of the RGS and reduction in D&RGW traffic.  He reminded us that he was a "coal burning Fireman."  But he was quite willing to fire the oil-burning engines out of San Bernardino until 1953, when it became all-diesel.

Coal smells better.

@smd4 posted:

Coal smells better.

That's no lie. Worst smelling one I ever experienced was Cotton Belt 819. Don't know what grade of oil they were burning in her at the 1990 St. Louis Convention but she reeked.

Yes, agreed, Nick. Paced 819 south of Dupo and it smoked like a volcano. Attributed it to an unskilled fireman, but maybe it was the oil fuel?