Steam Locomotives and Oil Firing

If we can get away from the alleged WCRC failings that have upset NR and back to the technical issues, perhaps it is time to raise the near-ultimate heresy and do some conversions to oil firing. I know that oil is more expensive but not as expensive as hiring a diesel locomotive and then burning the slightly more refined version in it. The owner of the first large conversion could find a lot of work on offer.

(Moderator note: This comment and the following that relate to it have been moved from the 'Steam Ban around York' thread in What's Going On)

 

You could be right there!!!

 

What? One of the great things about mainline steam in the UK is that some poor soul has to shovel several tons of coal. Take that challenge out of the equation and it becomes far less interesting. I read the stuff about such and such a run being a great bit of enginemanship by the man at the regulator and think to myself that that's only a part of the story. Unfortunately, oil firing would actually mean that it would be closer to the truth. Have you seen how fat some of those American firemen are!! Have to swap the bucket seat on an A4 for a sofa!

 

This forum has done surveys of the acceptability of various levels of diesel assistance but if people were offered the choice between a coal-fired steam loco in light steam with a diesel doing all the work and an oil-fired steam loco with the diesel still back at the depot I think that one would get a clear majority. However, I wouldn't go as far as the Swiss did in the war, which was to boil water by a rather big immersion heater fed from the OLE!

 

Indeed, 2 0-6-oWT shunters class E 3/3 8521 and 8522. 8522 is actually preserved but without the electric gubbins that was removed after the war. Another practice in coal short Switzerland during the war was to ban steam working under the wires and a common sight was an electric loco hauling a complete steam train to the junction or other point where the overhead ended

 

Other than the Leader were any UK locomotives designed with oil firing in mind? I have a vague memory of reading that the Bullied pacific firebox designs were too in which case converting one for the main line would be authentic and prudent. Equally an oil-fired 5AT might be more useful all round for the charter market than the new-build 2-8-2.

 

Almost any steam locomotive can be converted to oil firing. Quite a few British ones, of various classes, were temporarily converted for a while when coal supplies were short (late 1940s?). I agree that it would be good to have at least one main line certified one available for the next line-fire-risk season. As with some other matters, there is relevant expertise at Boston Lodge.

 

Weren't the VoR locos converted to oil, but for whatever reason converted back to coal again?

 

There are different forms of oil firing, as I understand.

The SE&CR experimented with oil firing just after the first world war, and the same system was used by the SR during the general strike. In that system, the firebox was lined with firebrick to a height of one or two bricks around its base, and the area in the middle was filled with broken fire brick. A small coal fire was then maintained in the back end, with an oil burner going through the firehole door, which could still be opened in order to add coal to the coal fire, the main purpose of which was to provide an ignition source and also maintain a more even firebox temperature when the oil supply was shut off.

In practice (and from memory) coal consumption represented roughly 20% of the energy content of the fuel burned and oil consumption about 80%, though it depended on the loco and the duties the loco was put to.

As a practical proposition, that system had the merit of being a very quick and simple conversion, utilising the existing locomotive boiler with minimal changes. It didn't completely eliminate the need for coal though (and hence spark throwing) though presumably it was reduced at least in proportion to the reduced coal consumption.

There are more sophisticated pure-oil systems (rather than hybrid) though I am not sure how amenable they are to retro-fitting to existing locomotive fireboxes, which would have to be a major concern. There is also the big issue of stresses set up by the stop-start nature of oil firing, whereas a coal fire doesn't result in such rapid fluctuations in firebox temperature.

Holcroft's memoirs contain quite a long description with experimental data of the experiences of the SECR with oil firing. One significant thing is that different locomotives seemed to adapt better or worse to conversion, which as I recall he believed to be down to variations in the specific firebox shape and depth.

Tom

 

DR, The East German Railway, seemed to be able to change individual locos from coal to oil burning and back fairly easily back in the day. I know for some at least they had different tenders available.

Others here will be more versed in what was actually done to make the conversions possible.

Those conversions were not done, by the way, because Herr Awkvard wouldn't let coal fired locos run near Berlin. But due to the various oil crisis back then.

Also by the way. I have been a supporter of oil fired steam locos for a long time on these boards. I really think that may one day be a prime requirement of continuing to allow 19th century technology run on a 21st century railway. As it reduces some of the risk such as fires and delays due to poor quality coal. Increased costs will dictate the level of such steam that will continue to run on the main line.

Purists wont like it. But I would guess the vast majority of the bums on seats probably won't give a damn. And for those of us who have enjoyed oil fired steam in Germany to see oil being burned in a fire grate will be vastly better than hearing it being exploded under a cylinder head.

 

60163 was designed with Oil Firing as a possibility... might be bitter sweet for WCRC if they did..

Was many locomotives in the UK were oil fired (Ive an ABC here with pictures of GWR locos with big oil drums on the tender and it seems more than just a handful in an experiment).. Are there any former BR oil fired locos preserved ? anyone know how many locos were oil fired ?

Fantastic ! Would be interested to know the energy efficiency of this... (This locomotive truly does meet the criteria of being a kettle).

 

There is a very detailed article in German at http://www.lokifahrer.ch/Lokomotiven/Loks-SBB/E_3-3/e-dampf.htm
It states that they saved up to 1200kg of coal per day and 36,000 Swiss Francs per year although the conversion cost of 100,000 Francs meant it took three years to pay for itself. From cold the loco could be steamed and ready for service within an hour

 

On oil firing on BR:

 

Wonder if anyone thought of refuelling on the move with "Oil Troughs"?

 

Would add another layer of jeopardy to the issue of spark throwing!

Tom

 

A couple more points taken from Holcroft's memoirs.

Firstly, with regards the time taken for conversion, he estimated 48 hours to assemble an oil-fired loco, assuming the materials (oil tanks, burner, pipes, valves etc) were to hand - I assume much of that time was involved with brickwork in the firebox. His estimate was 8 hours to convert an oil-fired loco back to conventional. That accords with your view of the East German system. The work could be done on shed, it didn't need to be done at the main works.

The SE&CR also experimented with an all-oil system, specifically on an L class 4-4-0. Unlike the hybrid locos (which could be lit up on coal until there was sufficient steam pressure for the burner), in the all-oil system, an auxiliary steam supply was needed for lighting up. In practice, this came from another locomotive on shed, which provided steam for the burner until a pressure of about 30psi was reached, after which the oil-fired loco could provide enough steam for its own burner. That is a consideration if there was thought about converting an current mainline loco to oil-firing: you would need a steam supply for lighting up! I seem to recall that one of the mainline steam groups in New Zealand have a little shed-pet 0-6-0T which is used for providing steam when they light up their big oil-fired mainline beast. Holcroft's experience was also that there was much more tube leakage from the fully oil-fired loco, presumably as a result of the firebox cooling quite quickly during periods standing idle when the burner was turned off.

Incidentally, the first oil-fired SE&CR loco was an H class: the answer is "NO" before anyone asks...

Tom

 

The issue of thermal shock etc can be addressed I think Tom by letting the loco cool down and fire up a bit more slowly. Extra fuel oil, extra manpower time though. But if it keeps steam on the main line......................

 

I believe German sheds had piped supplies from the Sheds boilers to the road.

 

Ffestiniog used air compressors to atomise the oil before loco could use its own steam. Locos starting cold could be brought to working pressure in about an hour but in practice 2 hrs was usual to avoid strain on boiler. Oil fires could blow out when burners turned down. Official disapproval re locos driven with fires out due to cold air being drawn through boiler. Conversion back to coal due to economic not heritage reasons. There were concerns some locos e.g. Penrhyn ladies would not be as powerful on coal but seem to be working ok to me. Suggest consult Boston Lodge before re conversion to oil firing. Sean

 

I think it was not just at the beginning and end of the day, but also the waiting around time in the middle of a trip.

Still, it must be feasible and there is expertise around: as I say, some of the NZ mainline steam these days is oil fired, as I believe is a lot of the US mainline steam.

That was then and this is now ... You have to think about what is available to anyone who considered such a conversion in today's world.

Tom