Oil Firing

Well, here we are into fire risk problems. And those damn experts, (who are they anyway?), have been telling us for ages now that this is the sort of weather we can expect more and more in our summers.

So. I wonder if any loco owner is now starting to prepare a cost/benefit/practicality analysis of converting to oil firing.

 

We're now 16 years on from this thread last being touched and still complaining about diesel assistance or replacement on rail tours due to lineside fire risk.

What progress has been made ?
The NYMR are progressing oil firing for an S160. In view of the fire risk and environmental concerns along their route that seems a good move.
The VOR have reinstated oil burning on one of their 2-6-2 tanks, also due to fire risk along their line.

Some metre gauge steam locos which have been restored recently in Switzerland for RhB or DFB have been modified for oil firing, partly due to the problems getting suitable coal and due to fire risks in forested areas.

We have a drier weather systems occurring more frequently, the quality of coal is at best variable and much more expensive than in 2010. Oil is also more expensive but comes with known combustion characteristics. With many developments, it helps to come second.

There is experience in Europe and shortly home grown experience for oil burning equipment on larger locos. The big question is , who will push the boat out and say oil/bio fuel is the way forward on the main line?

Cheers, Neil

 

As I said in another thread I for one wouldn't travel behind oil fired steam because of the smell of it. A coal fired locomotive with diesel assistance at the rear is better to my mind - or nose should I say.

 

I can understand that view, but this may eventually be a case of oil fired steam or no steam in high fire risk months or locations in years to come.
I can't recall much smell of oil when travelling behind oil fired locos in Switzerland, but they burn light oil. East African Railways in the 1970's burning high sulphur Bunker C oil was a different matter...

Cheers, Neil

 

Indeed. I don't recall any particularly unpleasant odours coming from the three or four oil fired 141 Rs that I've ridden behind either.

 

If someone wants to do efficient advanced liquid fuel firing then you’re welcome to get in contact with me and we’ll add you to our current list of active conversion projects.

 

I remember the steam Isle of Man Steam packets & Waverley when she burnt heavy oil could clean your sinus's

 

I have heard that oil firing copper fireboxes can be problematic. Is this true / urban myth / complete spheroids?
Pat

 

The 8Fs which were sent to the Middle East during WWII were mostly converted to oil firing given the task of shoveling coal in desert temperatures, and there were problems. The main one was superheater elements burning out at the return bend, which was a separate forging. The standard British fitment was too thin and the elements too long so they came too close to the very hot oil flame. The distribution of primary and secondary air was also wrong and caused poor steaming until modifications were made to the ashpan, dampers and firebox doors, but there are no reports of damage to the copper fireboxes from oil burning. There are reports of firebox damage when local fitters used cement instead of lead in the fusible plugs and crews then ran them low on water, but that's a different story!

 

I seem to recall from when ex Turkey 8274 was at Bury it is fitted with a welded steel firebox. Presumably the one now with SRPS is the same.
Would these have been replacements fitted in Turkey having been built with copper?

 

See the NYMR thread https://www.national-preservation.c...eneral-discussion.29732/page-573#post-2989864

 

They certainly weren't fitted in Britain.

 

Also don't recall smells on the Rheine - Emden line during the 1970s - only the roar as they passed by !

 

I seem to recall reading that Tyseley's Rood Ashton Hall is to be converted to oil firing during its next overhaul. I'm not sure if the overhaul is actually in progress or not.

Nick M.

 

I believe that's the plan.
Oil firing based on the design used in service in the late 40's and early 50's.
Cylinder mods to make it more gauge friendly.

But I don't think any serious work has commenced yet.
It was all in one piece in the shed when I did a tour a few weeks ago.

 

I've lost track but is there a boiler from a 28xx/Hall and some Hall cylinders spare from one of the "repurposed" ex Barry locos? Maybe worth considering rather than altering those currently on RAH?
Mention of the Turkish 8fs fitted with steel boxes also made me think of 8518 being broken up. Could have been the basis now for an oil firing project .....

 

IIRC the No.1 boiler from 7927 went on the Grange. There is/was another No.1 boiler at Tyseley from 2873 at the SDR which was intended for the abandoned Castle to Star project. I think that the cylinders from Maindy Hall which became Lady of Legend may still be at Didcot.
Ray.

 

The extension frames and cylinders from 4942 are now being fitted to 5967.

 

So possibility of using 2873's boiler as an oil fire conversion if it has no planned usage?
I don't know how much work there would be adapting 4965's boiler nor how easy to revert to coal fired.
Then there's the tender fuel bunker to adapt. 4965 has the low sided tender I think so you'd imagine needing a larger one for oil so new required? There must be a set of GWR tender frames about to put a new tank on rather than rebuild the current good one?
So basically I think I'm suggesting just use 4965's loco frames and running gear.
Or maybe just use 'Cogan Hall' which the Grange people say has no further use ......