Steam Locomotives and Oil Firing

I seem to recall that some DR oil-fired locos, notably the BR95 2-10-2 tanks at Saalfeld, used occasionally to perform spectacular 'Flamers', I think they were called, while standing in the station. I assume this was due to burning fuel being drawn through the boiler tubes [I'm not a technical person so don't 'flame' me] and was still burning as it exited the chimney. Don't think I managed to capture one on film.

 

East African Railways used oil firing from the 1930's. They used bunker "C" which is effectively the un-refineable **** left over at the end of refining heavy crude oils. On an economic level it was cheaper to ship that from the Gulf than it was to import high ash content coal from South Africa, let alone best Welsh steam coal. It needed steam heating to be suitably liquid to be pumped around, even in tropical Africa.

One problem of heavy and poorly refined oil is it eventually coats the firebox and tunes with a sticky insulating layer, however good the combustion. The "cure" in Kenya was to tip a bucket full of dry sand into the firebox when the loco was working hard and that removed much of the oily deposits in a volcanic eruption of black smoke.

More details information on EAR oil firing can be found in "Swindon Apprentice" by A E (Dusty) Durrant.

Bunker "C" was the fuel of choice for the 1960's power stations like Fawley and Milford Haven which were located next to oil refineries. Fawley now refines light oils mainly from UK on shore and off shore oil fields, so I don't know whether Bunker "C" is even available.

Another disadvantage in these environmentally sensitive days is that I think it had quite a high sulphur content.

As an aside, both the FR and Royal Hudson used surplus motor lubricating oil as fuel. How well would that work with the modern synthetic lubricating oils?

Cheers, Neil

 

DB 043 381 at Bw Rheine 24 May 77, and DR 95 0044 at Saalfeld, a year and a day later! I was given due warning by the firemen.






In the '70s and '80s, until the DDR ceased to exist, all of the Harz 2-10-2T's were oil-fired with the exception of 99 7222, which was used to warm-up the oil locos.

 

Amazing photos. Although given the uproar that can result from a video of Tangmere with the firelight reflecting on the exhaust, I'm not sure the UK is quite ready for scenes like that.

The GPCS tends to have the reverse problem, because it functions by creating a considerable volume of volatile gases (CO and H2) then burning them in the secondary air. Wardale tells of a crew loading the firebox on 2644 (a modified 19D) and leaving her to sit, without much blower on, while waiting for the right away. The sudden, explosive blowback was apparently rather impressive...

 

The problem with bunker C is that you need to heat it to make it flow , ok in steam days , always a steam source at the depot , these days not available , so recylcled oil flows easily without heat , diesel has lots of heat value but is subject to easy movement in the tender , thus it surges easily on stopping , putting out the burner ........

 

When the WHR were using oil firing I found the smell and bad taste in the mouth after going through a tunnel very off-putting, so can we have coal scented oil please, choose your favourite colliery!

Dave

 

As I think I have said before - not entirely true as this 1983 photo confirms - unless it had a very long pipe attached! I recall that other 2-10-2ts were coal fired being converted in the 1980s as a result of the oil crisis that saw the end of most of the standard gauge oil-fired classes or conversion to coal firing.

 

Bunker "C" was used by the shipping industry for many years, but there has been a steady move to lighter and less polluting fuels. Brittany Ferries have started a programme of fitting exhaust scrubbers and two ships are being converted to lng fuel. This was caused by EU regulations on transport emissions. The two cross Solent ferry operators Red Funnel and Wightlink are moving to low sulphur diesel to meet the legislation.

Cheers, Neil

 

I regret to inform you that my post is totally true! As your photo shows, 99 7222 is coal-fired, and was used to warm-up the oil-fired locos, but this did not prevent it from being used on service trains. Had it been oil-fired, it would have been renumbered 99 0222. German locos are easily capable of connection to other locos and to factories etc, in order to provide heat! A long pipe is not necessary.

Do you speak German as fluently as I do, and do you have the former DR connections that I do? I provide fact to this forum, not idle speculation based on casual observation.

 

Oh dear, didn't expect that kind of reprimand - did you not see the 'smiley' at the end of the comment? You stated very simply that 99.7222 was used as a fuel heating boiler and I merely corrected that as it was also used on line work, as you have subsequently admitted is true. I have never disputed that the loco was coalfired. Now to the point, your original post is not totally true unless you want to add some other footnote to what you originally said. Below you will see photographic evidence of three further coal burning locos with the 7 prefix that were on line work in 1983 and 1986, there may well have been more. I made two visits to the system in 1983 and so hardly 'idle speculation based on casual observation', although even that seems more reliable than your local contacts. An apology would be nice as you have accused me of posting incorrect information whereas it is your comment that 'all the Harz 2-10-2ts were oil-fired with the exception of 99.7222' is photographically proven untrue.

As to your fluency in German, I've never conversed with you in German so can't tell. My local contact was mainly with the very attractive serving wench in the local ratskeller and she was no expert on steam locomotives but we communicated quite well.

Den Anhang 11024 ansehen

 

As we used to say in the RAF, "Don't assume; check!" I'm afraid that you have assumed on the basis of a couple of DDR visits, whilst I have checked: I quote from "Dampflok Archive 4", by Manfred Weisbrod and WolfgangPetznick, published by VEB Verlag für Verkehrswesen Berlin, 1981: "Die erste Lokomotive mit Oelhauptfeuerung war die 99 244, die 1976 umgebaut wurde. Bis Ende 1980 hatten alle Neubaulokomotiven Oelhauptfeuerung erhalten. Die letzten beiden Maschinen, die diese Feuerungsart erhielten waren die Lokomotiven 99 233 und 99 246.

(The first loco with oil-firing was 99 244, which was rebuilt in 1976. By the end of 1980, all of the new-build locos (99 222 is an original) had received oil-firing. The last two locos to receive this type of firing were 99 233 and 99 246.)

Please don't insult my intelligence by calling into question the authors' knowledge, as you have previously done concerning Rudi Rindelhardt, the chief engineer of RAW Meiningen, as they are universally acknowledged as the leading historians on DR steam locomotives.

 

Gentlemen, please!

 

Oh dear, oh dear! I apologise to fellow forum members for continuing this arguement but my honour is at stake here as I am being made out to be a liar and a fool. I fear Sir Nigel is making the mistake, often perpetrated on NP, of quoting from learned tomes and taking what they say as gospel where there is eyewitness and photographic evidence to the contrary. It may well be true that all the 2-10-2 tanks on the Harz system, bar 99.7222, were converted to oil-firing by 1980 - I can't prove or disprove that. What I can prove, and know to be true from various sources including my own extensive visits to the system in 1983, 1984, 1986 and 1989, is that there was then a programme to convert them back to coal firing. I believe this was due to the oil crisis of the early 80s. The photos I have uploaded show some of those locos, there were more and I could post more examples, or are you suggesting I have Photoshoped the images and changed the numbers? As further evidence see the photo below taken in Wernigerode yard. You will notice the mountain of coal behind the [coal fired] 99.6101 and the coal hoist. Are you suggesting that this was purely for use by the little tank and 99.7222? Any enthusiast who has travelled abroad will tell you never to rely on what the locals tell you for a variety of reasons. Did Herr Weisbrod and HerrPetznick ever visit the line or did they work from DR records? There is also further evidence of 99.7222 on regular line work - read World Steam magazine issue 98 where a regular diagram for the loco is printed.

Anyone familiar with the DR in those years will know that on the standard gauge this oil crisis resulted in the withdrawal of the oil fired 03.0 pacifics and 50.0 2-10-0s on the lines between Berlin and Rostock/Stralsund and the 05.0 pacifics and 44.0 2-10-0s in the south and their replacement with coal fired locos [or, oddly, diesels]. There was even a programme to convert the 44s to coal-fired stationary boilers.

I'm not sure how I have contradicted Rudi Rindelhardt - never heard of the chap nor what I have contradicted. I only know that I have spent weeks on the Harz system staying in Stollberg, Paulsdorf and Wernigerode, not making flying visits with railway tours, and know what I saw and have the photos to prove it. I'm sure there are others on here who will confirm my view.

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

A picture often appropriate on NatPres!

 

DFDS have withdrawn their Harwich - Esbjerg service (the last sailings are tomorrow) citing the future cost of low-sulphur fuel as one of the main reasons.

Whilst EU regulations place strict limits on the fuel burned by ships berthed in EU ports, the major legislation comes from the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) MARPOL convention and is in force internationally. Currently, there is a global cap of 3.5% sulphur content on bunker fuel and this is set to reduce to 0.5% by 2020. The Channel, North Sea and Northern European waters are designated 'special area's' for marine air pollution and vessels sailing in these waters must burn bunker fuel with no more than 1% sulphur. Ships entering the channel from the Atlantic/Bay of Biscay have to change over to the lighter fuel and ensure they are only burning this when they enter the special area. From January 2015 the sulphur content in 'special area's' reduces to 0.1% which is causing a lot of pain in the Maritime Industry (even though member states of the IMO agreed to it as long ago as 2008).

Exhaust scrubbing is the alternative to burning the lowest sulphur content fuel, though I'm not sure of the legal numbers around the exhaust emissions.

 

Martin....according to the Deck and Engineering Cadets I teach, there are still plenty of 'oars in use, especially on runs ashore in foreign ports

 

As well as 'oars' there a used to be plenty of exhausted scrubbers in Liverpool after the ships had come in!