The Challenges of the 2022 Heritage Season

We have been using the Treverthicks ovoids on the Bluebell. Results have been, shall we say, mixed …. Apart from the comments you make about quantity and difficulty of getting to light, they produce huge amounts of ash, and people have been having issues with the ash just clogging the fire. I think firebar spacing is pretty critical to get anything out of them. The other issue is that they don’t seem to move on the fire bed. With normal coal, it will often work towards any thin spots. But the ovoids seem to hit the firebed and stop dead (like throwing a stone into a sandpit) so there is a premium on very accurate coal placement.

Fire cleaning and emptying the ashpan after every trip seems to be the order of the day, but even with that, the general experience is that the fire deteriorates far more rapidly than you would get with normal coal.

Tom

 

There are two very different 'ovoids' out there at the moment so need to be clear as to what is being talked about. The Hargreaves Trevithick ovoids is essentially coal dust held together by a cement product, similar to the ovoids that have been produced for years for the smokeless fuel market. I understand that the coal content is an anthracite so will have a relatively high CV but anthracite is not the best fuel to use in a loco and can be difficult to light.
The CPL e-coal is similar in appearance but is of a different nature. It does contain some coal but the majority of it is from renewable resources and it is bound together by molassess, not cement. The e's a short video here: https://cplindustries.co.uk/how-do-we-make-ecoal/ CPL are refining the product to make it more loco friendly and trials have been taking place at various railways, both narrow gauge and standard gauge with some success.

 

Could anyone please clarify? Is the binding agent an actual 'cement' (as in 'Portland Cement'), or some other aggregate providing the function of a cement?

 

Indeed - it is the Trevethick ovoids that we have available at the moment. I haven't seen the CPL product.

Tom

 

As I posted earlier, I understand CPL's products at the moment (as the result of a presentation/Q&A by CPL) are one containing 5% biomass, whilst their "Ecoal 50" product contains 50% biomass. On that basis it is perhaps a little misleading to suggest "the majority of it" is renewables - at least to me that might suggest the biomass content is more than half. Even the posted video commentary says the 20% molasses and 30% olive cake combine to make half of the final the product totally renewable - which again doesn't seem to be the majority of it?

 

Binding agents can be anything like fish products to pva glue. Cement types are used.

 

When I was in Dresden, just after the Wall came down - and no, I didnt meet Putin, the Paddle Steamers burnt a flat hexagonal shaped brickette very successfully, or so it seemed to me.

 

There will need to be a replacement available by 2030 for coal as the price then will be so much higher as there will be none used in power station in Europe.

 

Three different options exist.

One, that perfectly restored engines as built with be stuffed and mounted as the is no fuel that makes realistic operation possible.

Two, engines burn various fuels that are available but not necessarily perceived as green at huge cost.

Three, suitable recycled and or green fuels are used in engines which are updated to modern levels of technology and efficiency.

Myself I always chose option three as it’s the only one that offers a chance for steam to operate beyond the coal.

 

I agree option 3 is the only choice carry on burning coal is not an option even if there is supply.