Oil Firing

From what I've read Stratford were, once again, streets ahead of the others, having a 'small' coal fired grate which was lit with the 'rag on a stick' and kept burning, thus being a form of pilot light.

 

Or possibly not. The GER had oil fired T19 locos around 1900.

 

Hydraulic transmission is still widely used I believe in DMUs and industrials but I guess you are referring to mainline locos. At the time hydraulic transmission (which generally seems to include the ones with automatic gearboxes and fluid couplings) looked pretty attractive at c. 80t for a Warship cf. 130t+ for a Peak or Class 40.

 

The SECR system (which Holcroftvsaid was based on the Derby system) had the same, the reason given by Holcroft being to maintain a more even temperature in the back corners of the box when the oil supply was shut off.

Tom

 

Umm, whatever the technical merits, a solution that requires the operator to keep a coal storage and distribution infrastructure alongside the new oil one is a lot less than ideal from the POV of logistics.

 

I guess it depends on the rationale for oil firing. Reading Holcroft and his description of the 1921 (SECR) and 1926 (SR) trials, it seems they were looking for an insurance policy if coal supplies were interrupted by strikes. So the overriding requirement was something that could be fitted quickly and cheaply without substantial changes to the existing locos; and where - even in a strike - you would have some coal supplies available and all the infrastructure for coal handling. So they did a kind of hybrid oil / coal system. There are figures in his book; I think they were getting about 80% of the energy from oil and 20% from coal. He also noted that more or less any old rubbish coal was sufficient. As things turned out, the 1926 general strike collapsed and they never needed to roll out the scheme fully.

If your requirement is to make a strategic switch from coal to oil, then you would design things differently, but in so doing may also require more substantial changes to the locomotive firebox (and ancillaries) design.

Tom

 

Another thing with coal was pilfering Somene once said to me that he wondered how much of coal leaving a East midland coal mine to one of the larger loco sheds, in a say a 13 ton wagons went into a loco firebox .Pilvering was known to be quiet high,signal boxes were suplied off the tender of the local pickup goods, as was brake vans for the guards fire.Coal reserves kept at loco shed were white washes top and sides so if any was stollen it could be noticed.None of that if oil was used.

 

But the GER never did and as far as I can tell never intended to make a full oil-firing changeover, even on a local level, peaking at around 60 locomotives in the mid 1890s according to the GER Society. A significant reason for doing it at all was to burn the waste from their gas plant (having been fined for discharging it into the Lea); as usage outstripped the supply available from this source (with introduction of carriage electric lighting helping to reduce the amount of gas needed), having to buy oil to supplement the waste oil made the economics a lot less attractive and it was gradually phased out.

It was however pretty successful in a technical sense. In addition to conversions and some of the T19 class, as far as I can tell some fraction of the original S46 round-top Clauds were built oil-fired, and I have seen their strong early performance as oil burners cited as a factor in the good reputation of the class.

 

Not forgetting the Class 14 s which had a very short live in B R service.

 

Stratford wasn't running exclusively on oil fired locomotives, so coal storage/distribution infrastructure wasn't a problem.

 

As many of the participants in this discussion has pointed out, oil firing does not have a strong tradition in the UK, still it is viewed by many as the eventual way forward.
What often is lost in the debate is the actual role of coal firing in the heritage sector. It was energy from coal that created the industrial revolution, first in the UK and then in the rest of the world.
Thus coal firing is not just a technical issue, it is very much the heart and soul of what we are doing. If we lose the possibilities to use coal, a vital core of what we are doing is lost and gone. It is like putting a diesel in the tender and run steam outline diesel locos.
Just recently a Swedish delegate in Fedecrail published some info on the work don there, and I got a link to this document. To me it expresses quite well what I and many of my colleagues have felt for quite a while:
https://fedecrail.org/wp-content/up...026-39-Final-REVISED-KATOWICE-DECLARATION.pdf
Read it!
Yes, I am fully aware that the heritage sector in Europe can not alone maintain the production in any coal mine, and eventually we may face defeat when coal is no longer available.
But that day is still quite far away, and until then, don't just jump at the so called "alternatives". Fight for maintaining the use of coal as long as possible

 

That paper expresses an intention that, if at all possible, one coal mine should remain in production on a small scale, to supply the heritage sector and as a working museum in itself.

 

I disagree. I have worked on steam across the world. I’ve seen the universal decline in coal quality, suppliers, the movement against’dirty’ fuels and now the high price of such lower quality fuel.
Again and again I see the belief that somehow some sort of grandfather rights the heritage sector is going to become a special exception. Any licence to open or keep open a mine is going to be strongly opposed. Politicians want to keep their jobs to make a u turn is a quick way to lose there jobs.And there work and damage can be done with a stroke of a pen.

As to timing I believe that it is five to midnight for coal. Ok you can keep arguing for coal right up to midnight then wake up next morning and sit there wondering what to do immediately to stop the extinction of steam.

To that end you must have a reserve plan. That has to involve liquid fuels. The work to deal with such circumstances has to be done now. It’s a long process fitting an engine out and very few who have the skills. How when and where such work is used is another matter but to quote the Boy Scouts, be prepared.

Evolution or extinction. Just ask the dinosaurs how quickly it happens.

 

Interesting. Can someone tell me how Europe's blast furnaces would survive without coal/coke?

 

That question presumes that the ability to make virgin steel is necessary and desirable. Given the moves towards electric arc furnaces, the assumption is at minimum open to challenge

 

What do you want, steel or crap steel?

 

A more constructive question is how far will it be possible to go with electric arc furnaces? AIUI they are only suitable for recycling scrap steel, and presumably the supply of that will diminish over time as we build more and recycle a percentage of it - there is always waste, if only because of rust and it is naive to expect 100% recovery of usable stuff. It really then depends on whether you aspire to the Thatcherist view point that is always best to choose the cheapest option and risk being held hostage to outside forces, or whether it would be more sensible to maintain at least some capacity to make virgin steel in this country. My personal feeling is that we live in an uncertain world and the latter option is a pragmatic choice.

 

I remember the large number of trains that used to run out of Hitchin carrying scrap from the huge processing plant nearby that were ultimately destined for China.

The steel we got in return was, shall we say, not the best...