Locomotive transmission.

@Waterloo50 asked the question I had, but I have one step further now. When the trains changed to oil, what was the procedure? The video I posted on those two 1897 and 1901 locomotives in the woods of Maine, they man showing the two attached fuel cars mentioned the changeover for carrying oil. I would think no use for a firebox if that was so, @DaveBrt.
Lubliner.
Converting coal to oil was simple, they removed the stoker, grates and ash pan which apparently made enough room for an oil burner inside the fire box. It appears that the use of oil burner locomotives was popular with western railroads because they had an abundance of oil compared to the Eastern railroads which had large amounts of coal. I think ‘Big Boy 4014’ was converted from coal to oil. I’ve read a couple of reports from drivers that reckoned that oil burner loco’s were the best thing ever, no glare at night from the firebox, no ash and soot and the engine ran just as sweet going backwards as it did forwards, another benefit was that the fireman could spend more time helping the driver control the engine which helped to increase safety.
 
In the Official Records, Navy, they frequently request a certain coal density (?) that puts off less soot, and easier to clean out of the fire-box. Two different grades of coal were available.
Lubliner.
I'll have get some references, but what I remember is that post Civil War, fireboxes had to be redesigned to handle the higher temperature of coal.

I think the addition of fire brick was needed to protect the metal bottom of fire boxes. Also firemen would have to be retrained to use less fuel and different color of the fire to judge temperature.

Coal was used until the end of the steam locomotive age. Oil had its problems. Cost of conversion, oil was more expensive than cheap coal and technical problems because the oil used was a type of oil that was more like tar than oil. The cheap oil was called bunker c, the stuff left over after all the good stuff is distilled. It had to be preheated to use. On a steamship not so much a problem because once up, it will be going weeks or longer before stopping. A problem for locomotives.

Check out
 
I saw a video once on oil an burning destroyer and the benefit to diesel conversion. There was a huge problem with the clogging of the tubes that aerated the oil into the ignition faze. I am stumped as to how they would aerate the oil into a mist for a chamber burn in a locomotive. Not that they didn't, but the invention needs some explanation for sure, @steamman.
Lubliner.
 
I saw a video once on oil an burning destroyer and the benefit to diesel conversion. There was a huge problem with the clogging of the tubes that aerated the oil into the ignition faze. I am stumped as to how they would aerate the oil into a mist for a chamber burn in a locomotive. Not that they didn't, but the invention needs some explanation for sure, @steamman.
Lubliner.
On warships, the black oil went through a heater just before entering the boiler. As the oil was forced into the burner, it was spun into a spray pattern. The burner tips had to be changed (to change the spray pattern) to match the expected speed, though this was not required very often. Tips were also changed for cleaning (once a watch, I believe). The replacement Navy Distillate fuel was still heated and sprayed, but the burner tips rarely needed changing for cleaning while at sea.
 
More on oil-fueled steam locomotives.
https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
California lacked coal and it was at one time cheaper to import in on sailing ships than use US sources. I have read other articles that say coal was much cheaper. Which was best may depend on local conditions.

The link above has a lot of interesting history. Firemen complained about the dirty tar like fuel. Southern Pacific made a huge investment converting coal to oil. Most of the article is about turbines and diesels not steam.
 
More on oil fired.
https://www.google.com/books/editio...led locomotives&pg=PA202&printsec=frontcover

xE0hEE1GbZSa3lmv4Z9BT9voBqh1IUGZTQ4gZzoejLfkHI63xj.png
 
More on oil-fueled steam locomotives.
https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
California lacked coal and it was at one time cheaper to import in on sailing ships than use US sources. I have read other articles that say coal was much cheaper. Which was best may depend on local conditions.

The link above has a lot of interesting history. Firemen complained about the dirty tar like fuel. Southern Pacific made a huge investment converting coal to oil. Most of the article is about turbines and diesels not steam.
I thought about Steve Lee who published the first two articles in you link above, and cannot find a matching reference. There was a 'Steve Lee' in the confederate navy that may be the one and the same. The family of "Dill" is found easily, and that is not the one I mean. Anyone that can provide the information on 'Steve Lee' in the Navy it would be appreciated. My search abilities are still in their infancy.
Thanks,
Lubliner.
 
Back
Top