North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I thought the S160 was running on rape seed oil not diesel?

 

They have been using both.

 

Thanks Kje7812 I thought I had missed something. Is this to compare running cost between the two fuels or just the availablity of the rape seed oil?

 

The original plan, as I understand it, was for the Railway's Footplate Inspectors to be trained up on the oil firing and then to cascade it down to the remaining footplate volunteers. At the moment that training is very much in the first phase and I'm not sure that any of the Inspectors currently have the necessary experience. As the Inspectorate is essentially made up of volunteers the training has to coincide with their availability. I think 'Piglet' is the only person with significant oil firing experience of the type fitted although others in the engineering department have been involved with the installation and trials and obviously have some knowledge.

 

Reports from whom? I can't dispute it because I don't know actual facts but I'm dubious. It's not in daily use for reasons I've explained in other posts.

 

I am not so sure. This is based on a few minutes on the internet only so could be wrong but:

Coal produces about 9000kWh per tonne. Diesel about 12700 and Rape oil about 10800.

On the assumption that the loco would burn 3 te of coal @£400 per tonne is £1200 per day.

Diesel roughly £700/te. Rape oil is roughly £1000/te. But you need less of both.

The equivalent to the cost of coal (3te / day) for diesel is £1500 and rape oil £2500.

If I am approximately right, then diesel would probably be an affordable alternative to not otherwise running steam due to fire risk. Rape oil much less so, unless they have a a source that is much cheaper.

 

Good loadings today. I saw plenty of people coming off the 1555 arrival at Pickering. The station was busy earlier. It's the first Thursday running of the season and I did wonder if the NYMR had missed out on quite a bit of custom by not running 7 days from June 1st.

Just over a carriage and a half of passengers on two Whitby trains every Thursday and Friday for the six weeks since June would, perhaps, have brought in £116,400.
I'm sure more than that number would've travelled had the line been open.
Is the management keen to make money?

And how about a sign telling everyone 'Trains running daily'? Quite a few locals seemed unaware it was open today.

 

I guess it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, given it is early days, crews are still finding the most efficient way to fire the loco, so conceivably costs are higher now than they might ultimately be. But (assuming the "12 tons of coal equivalent" figure meant price) it is hard to imagine that they are still burning 2- 3 times more oil than the thermal figures would suggest is required. If nothing else, I think the only way you could burn that much oil without creating steam would be if the loco had permanent clouds of black smoke, which I don't think the visual evidence supports.

Tom

 

Regarding smoke Tom, on all the clips I’ve seen the exhaust is a good bit darker than I’d be happy with on coal. If it were coal fired you’d say the fireman had just put a heavy round on. As it’s oil I’d assume there’s less such fluctuations as it’s a continuous (though variable ) feed rate?

 

V2 of the timetable up for today. 31466, 37688, 47077 and 37264 out. No steam. No explanation.

 

I'd agree with that, most videos of the loco working up the gradients has a pretty solid grey/ black exhaust. You don't tend to see this in the U.S on oil fire locos.

I'm guessing an element is crews getting used to the loco.

 

Very amateurish! No wonder the railways going down the pan

 

I agree that the exhaust is generally on the dark side. I suspect that there is still some tweaking to be done rather than crew inexperience. The fuel oil essentially needs to be burnt before the gases hit the tubes so dwell time of the flame within the 'box is important. If the flame is longer than the box then you will end up with smoke even if you have sufficient air in theory.

 

Oh no? This is the UP Challanger coming over the brow of the Continental Divide at Creston, Wyoming in 1995 - it could be seen coming for miles

This is it a couple of minutes later


That said, I have no idea what grade of fuel they were using.

Peter

 

UP4014 uses Fuel Oil, a fb link is here, as it is refueled at the end of the day.
UP3985 is being converted from Coal to Oil, at the moment, during is rebuild.

(2) Facebook

The black smoke on UP 4014 is usually a result over over fueling the fire, and in many occasions is done for effect, photo opportunities etc.., Ed Dickens has confirmed this in the past.
Bear in mind UP are training new firemen(??) at the moment, the ability to not get it quite right is increased.

Interestingly the loco that NYMR went to see before starting the conversion in Florida, did not seem to show the same amount of black smoke.

Hope this helps.

 

And 60163 supposedly running from Monday with absolutely no information at this moment in time whether remotely realistic or not.

There are numerous comments on social media posts on Facebook where footplate trips at Grosmont are being run today asking the same questions.

Whats happened to 926? Tested and runnjng or still needs stuff doing?

 

Pretty sure that 3985 used "Bunker C", which is a thick heavy oil often used by ships. It has high viscosity and high energy content, and it requires preheating (by steam) to flow properly.

Again, pretty sure, to save time, 4014 acquired 3985's "oil" tender, and 4014's tender went with 3985 to Illinois, hence the need to convert it from coal to oil (as stated above).

Happy to take corrections!

When I was involved with oil firing the rule was that light grey smoke was best. No smoke and we would not maintain pressure and/or water. Black smoke was over-firing and completely unnecessary. Blue smoke was caused by too high an atomiser setting in relation to the oil flow, and it made a not very nice smell. Black and blue would usually cause the driver's boot and the fireman's backside making contact. (Not really!)

Still curious why copper fireboxes are allegedly not suitable for oil firing.....?

 

You can ask Google AI why and you’ll get some plausible answers, some maybe not so much ….

 

That's how I remember it. One thing that does puzzle me is why some/most oil fired locos in the U.S. don't appear to have a 'brick' arch - surely lengthening the flame path would ensure better combustion and reduce the amount of dark smoke.
Ray.

 

I did:
***
Copper fireboxes are actually suitable for oil firing and have been used successfully with liquid fuels, meaning the premise that they cannot be used is incorrect.
Operational Factors

• Flame Impingement: Direct contact between a raw, unshielded oil burner flame and metal sheets can cause severe localized overheating, which applies to both copper and steel.
• Refractory Protection: Oil-fired setups require a proper firepan and firebrick arrangement to shield the lower sheets and evenly distribute radiant heat, regardless of whether the inner firebox is copper or steel.
• Thermal Response: Oil burners provide rapid, intense heat compared to a gradual coal fire, requiring careful handling by the fireman to avoid thermal shock during start-up.

***

As I suspected...