The END of COAL in Durango - Does it matter? Coal vs. Oil Firing 101
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- The Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge railroad recently ended all coal burning at their railroad - let's take a look at the differences between coal and oil.
Visit the channel shop: hycetrains.com...
Join my discord: / discord
Become an ES&D Train Crew Member and get extra perks!
/ @hyce777
![HOW DRUNK was the engineer? Citation Needed! [3/4 Idiot Show 2x01]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YVoLtHMJVy0/mqdefault.jpg)
2 things worth noting. Oil firing isn't exactly instantaneous. yes you can get a bigger fire as soon as you open the valve, but it takes a few minutes for that heat to transfer through the firebrick and into the boiler itself. Taking off out of Elbe, you have to slightly over-fire the engine for the first few minutes of running before she's at running temperature. And when cresting a hill, you need to plan ahead with your water (temperature-wise) to keep the safeties from lifting because those bricks are going to be as hot as the fire was for quite a bit after you turn the fire down.
Secondly, as someone who's only ridden behind oil-burners until last summer, I was surprised to find out just how not enjoyable being showered with soot 7 cars back from the 2102 actually was (Everything else about the day was absolutely spectacular and those folks deserve credit for running such a fine operation). It's worth noting that we as railroad people, fans and experts alike, represent a very small percentage of ridership that most tourist railroads will ever see. By and large, most of the folks paying for tickets on these trains won't notice a difference (other than a lack of black dust on their clothes afterwards) or they won't really care.
I'd be interested to see how D&S's online reviews look in the next few years as compared to pre-2020.
Well said - that's a good point about heat transfer through the brick. Makes sense.
@@Hyce777 You have to think about it like there's two fires in there. The second one will always be a minute or two (or more) behind the first.
Banking a coal fire isn't quite instantaneous either...
@@WesleyHarcourtSTEAMandMORE Yes indeed, but there's this misconception that simply turning an oil fire down will make the heat go away right then and there. Even without the firebrick, the water itself retains its heat for quite a bit.
Don't forget the oil prices are not stable. Coal and wood is the most stable to purchase plus, It be cheaper to run on wood than oil. Though Coal fired steamers came before wood fired, oil is the last variant. Travethik's engine is coal fired.
In the end, preservation societies/companies/clubs need to do what they have to do to stay 'alive' - whether us who are enthusiasts like it or not. Most of the general public would not even care or know the difference.
As always Hyce, this is a well-rounded fair assessment of both methods. Awesome video.
Hear hear!
The whole reason 3985 was converted to oil was, when they first got it running, they ran it around a couple places and burned down half of Wyoming.
Elaborate please
now THATS a 3/4 show story
Correction it was Utah not Wyoming and 3985 started a ton of brush fires to the point the news stations were running stories about brush fires and they were almost not allowed to run the engine back to Cheyanne because if it’s ability to burn down Utah. 3985 was then restricted to Cheyanne to Laramie for the next 8 years until it was converted to oil.
As the engines of San Juan would say watch it ash holes
There's things in Wyoming?
A running Engine that burns oil is better than a coal burner that can't run at all. As a guy who's been running and firing oil burners for 6 years now, I think you hit the nail on the head pretty well here Mark.
Still, coal is better. Coal is better. I also love modern coal powerplants. They take out all the smoke and bubble it through de-sulferizors to make gypsum for drywall. What comes out looks like steam. Coal is fine.
@@RobertCraft-re5sfHow is that possible? For coal-fired power plants to make gypsum and drywall, that is.
@@RobertCraft-re5sf i mean if you really want to get into it, coal is not better. Coal might be your preference and that's just fine, but that doesn't make it better. Oil is the superior fuel source. And I'm not saying that from an environmental stand point at all either. More BTUs per volume and less ash and waste. Takes less time before and after running to fire up and shut down. You can instantly turn the fire off in an emergency. Lower fire danger. Coal is cool, but oil is better.
@@Tank245 Where coal is actually better IMO is in running steam locomotives that historically only ran on coal. Like Montezuma, for example. Running on oil for environmental friendliness and lower fire risk is good and all, but if it's at the cost of historic value? Sorry, but I'll stick to coal as much as I can, in that case.
What does the exhaust from burning that particular oil smell like? Similar to kerosene or jet fuel exhaust?
Big Diehl is a hugely underrated channel that deserves more subs. Amazing captures and sounds!
He's a fantastic videographer, and his storytelling game has only been escalating. Very worth the watch.
honesty kinda happy since 481 wasted all of her time sitting in the roundhouse all summer to get used in winter. They didn’t want to start another fire so they didn’t run her when it was warm and dry. Coal is also corrosive and dangerous to breathe but I love collecting whatever coal I can find on the track side. I got the newspaper announcing the last coal run hung on my wall. A nice artifact that will remind me of when the mikados were so dirty but still full of personality. After the conversion she can run all year now.
Also the fact that RGS #20 might come here makes me so exited since she’s done so many things here, like get 346 from the montezuma lumber company and was also in the film “a ticket to tomahawk”. The replica locomotive made for that film is here at Santa Rita park. Not likely at all but it would be so funny to fit #20 in the replicas parts and repaint her.
They aren’t allowed to run coal anytime the ground isn’t wet, this includes winter. So they had an engine sitting around for 95% of the season which has no value to them. Hence the conversion.
@@CinemaRepository although there is wood as it still be cheaper than oil. Plus you might want to consider on the fact the D&S will have to answer to the N.R. of H.P. as they are on the list long before this and the registry is very adamant about keeping things original.
@@kevwebb2637NA they don’t care.
@@kevwebb2637 The oil conversion at D&S was reviewed and approved by NRHP in advance. It was either go oil or go all diesel. Rational people made a rational decision.
The thing about oil burners is that they are actually more environmentally friendly in the fuel as they can actually use used cooking oil as fuel from restaurants
I've seen a photo of a C&S oil-burner darkening the sky with black smoke running on the street in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Spent cooking-oil as fuel should be a commodity. Contamination must be daelt with.
That's acully false oil burner put out about the sane amount of emissions if not more .
It also smells like the food that was cooked in it.
Its... more circumstantial than that, if your just running a locomotive every once in a while, not very hard, and you have enough cooking oil sourced, it works just fine. but say if your running an operation like the Reading & Northern, its just more trouble than its worth. Cooking oil only burns so hot, so if you need power, you go get the thickest, most molasses-ie, least refined oil you can, and even that stuff can burn smokelessly if fired correctly. As for environmental friendliness... one steam locomotive always has and always will be more efficient and less impactful than the average 8 lane freeway, regardless of fuel type (Hyce did a video a little while ago on emissions, highly recommend watching).
TL;DR cooking oil is to true oil as wood is to coal, and the environment has nothing on steam power.
@@ELDRGW except cooking oil is made from plants and you're not adding extra carbon into the atmosphere.
Glad we're still going to run King Coal Mine coal at CRRM for the foreseeable future.
As a Californian who’s from the more predominately oil-burning part of the country, seeing more/converted oil burners doesn’t seem awful at all. However, the “romance” of changing something that always was is the hard part. You hit the nail on the head.
There are definitely benefits to oil over coal (although my experience tends to be oil vs wood). Not dumping loads of cinders in your passengers' eyes is definitely a plus for oil. After riding the coal-fired Cripple Creek & Victor I very quickly bought some sunglasses to wear on the Cumbres & Toltec.
I'll add in a story I've heard about converting from WOOD to oil, on the Oregon Lumber Company in Eastern Oregon. The logging engines, as well as those on the common-carrier connection Sumpter Valley Railroad, had been wood burners for decades because they could use scrap wood from all the mills, which was free. When the SVRy got the Unitah articulateds, they converted them to oil (no one wanted to chuck wood into those). The Standard Oil salesman then pointed out to OLC that the "free wood" wasn't really so free when you accounted for the cost of men to split it to size (if needed), stack it, move it on a flatcar, unload and restack it, and then load it on the engine. Not to mention the cost of the firefighting apparatuses on the engines to avoid lighting all of Eastern Oregon on fire. The OLC shortly converted most if not all of their logging engines to oil. (Curiously, Shay 7, now at Hesston, was later converted back to wood by OLC after the mainlines were removed and it was relegated to backup switcher at Baker City). Even today, with the help of chainsaws and a hydraulic wood splitter, it can take several volunteers most of an hour to split a cord of wood for our Heisler, and it'll burn almost all of that wood on a single roundtrip.
I know that the Coalition for Sustainable Rail was working on biocoal research for a while, but progress stalled during the pandemic.
Oh my god stop. X-D
"Coalition for Sustainable Rail". I hope that's a woke joke!
@Danis8Pastry Explain how that would be considered "woke."
@@Danis8Pastry How is that woke? Lmao
@@j-bird1778 The very very short definition of "Woke" is "Politically Correct". :)
@@VigilanteAgumon The very very short definition of "Woke" is "Politically Correct". :)
I rode this train to a back-country wilderness access. After de-training in the middle of nowhere, first, rinse tiny cinders out of my eyes.
My dad fired steam, and one of their post-work rituals was for my mom to rinse cinders out of his eyes.
I am sure Hyce must have the type of googles that I remember playing with as a child.
The differences between late 19th Century and now might be trees, as I imagine much of the primary forest wound up as mine timbers, rail-ties and as mine and town buildings.
After hearing that comparison, I think it amazing that the eastern roads used coal till the end. A matter of availability. I was part of moving millions of tons or so of Appalachian coal onto ships at Curtis Bay, Maryland.
Can an oil-burner emit a 100 foot yellow flame out the stack? I saw a switch engine die when it did that in the middle of B&O Bayview yard on a hot, humid Baltimore night. Spectacular. Early 1970's, the engine being an Alco.
Could there be a way to hand-load fine coal into a box that delivers the coal with a compressed air device? I believe that's how automatic stokers work. The Big Boy at Denver Forney Museum used compress air to blow the ground stoker-coal into the fire-box.
Great video, as always.
I was on steam ships. If you lose the fire, usually when lighting off, the boiler has to be vented for a half hour before it's safe. Ship boilers are a lot bigger than those on locos and they're usually water tube rather than fire tube like locos.There are oil vapors in a boiler that just snuffed out its' fire that can explode. I was on 2 ships that relit a boiler within a few minutes. Both had an explosion. Both were USN destroyers. One, lighting off in Tacoma, blew a huge smoke cloud that mushroomed hundreds of feet in the air, but didn't hurt the boiler. But it scared the locals that sent most of the nearby fire stations trucks. They thought a magazine exploded. The other destroyer lighting off in a Canadian port a couple years earlier damaged the boiler. The water tube boiler didn't have a thick steel shell like a loco, but 3 drums. Very large pipes, 2 on the bottom and one on top with many rows of tubes connecting the bottom to the top. All surrounded by framework with bricks in the fire area plus insulation, more insulation above the bricks and covered with metal panels. Relighting gave a similar demonstration of smoke and sound, but puffed out all the panels, blowing some off. The brickwork was damaged and some of the piping. The ship returned home on its' other boilers, but because it was an older ship, the navy decided not to repair it.
In WWI my father was a stoker on a coal fired troop transport and in WWII he was a chief engineer. So I picked up a lot.
Nice video on the comparison of coal or gas fired boilers.
Its like running a coal forge or a gas forge.
Is the coal forge more "romantic"? Perhaps- the smell and the aesthetic certainly have their place. But does it take a lot longer to set up, tear down, etc? Oh yes.
Gas is a lot simpler and more convenient.
At the end of the day, shy of getting into forge-welding duscussions, they are both going to get the metal hot enough to work, and get the job done.
France did an oil fired locomotive test with Napoleon the third on the footplate on the 1860s. The locomotive they did the test on is still preserved!
Holy crap! That's cool.
I frequently chase the Ceres Rail oil burner 3322 here in Cape Town, south Africa. She's an oil burner burning recycled oil. Sometimes the oil is substandard and doesn't burn.
The Great Northern during the 1920s ran into a dilemma when the first N-1 2-6-8-0 arrived on site and firing the Rosebud coal from northern coal mines in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho would not burn hot enough due to being very poor in density and being rather wet and freezing in the Cascades, Bitterroots, and Rockies. The Great Northern subsequently began to order all its engines around 1927 to burn bunker oil and began to convert and purge off all remaining coal burning engines.
This later allowed the GN to keep its lokies massive without having half the engine being a firebox like the Northern Pacific's Z class Challengers (infamously so large they had a picknick table and party inside the first Z-6) and allowed them to hold the record for largest steam engine with the R class until the big boys. Great Northern did keep some coal fired engines on the great lakes with its yard jokies but everything was oil fired until the end of steam came around 1968 or so when the last N-2s and 3 stationary boilers were scrapped or sold off.
Switch to oil today, then maybe someday later we can run locomotives off methane or something renewable.
2:58 RGS 20 on the high line…
Speaking of re-lighting an oil fire, I rode in the cab of Hammond no. 17 at the Mt Rainier Scenic several years ago. The engine crew said to try not to stand in front of the fire box door as she had a tendency to spit out fire when running.
I have actually ridden in the cab of that same locomotive, and got told the same thing! Lol.
V&T #29 has that same habit of spitting flames out of the firebox door when running hard.
While it is sad to see that art of coal firing a locomotive is dying out, i think it is worth it to keep these old machines running on the railroad even as the world becomes more and more hostile to them (i.e. coal mines close down and emissions regulations get stricter.)
WARNING depressing tangent ahead. proceed with caution.
One of my concerns as we continue on our quest to solve the greatest disaster of our time, and one that is a direct consequence of our way of life, while changing as little of that life style as possible (read: not actually solving the problem, but keeping up appearances of working on said problem); is that preservation will get thrown under the bus. Old equipment, like steam locomotives or old cars, has always seemed to be the easiest thing to point to as a source of pollution, and are not something the general public cares too much about, making them an easy target for any politicians trying to "solve" pollution. Of course, there are more effective solutions to climate change, like say reducing our nations dependency on cars, by making urban areas more affordable and increasing our passenger rail network, but solutions like that would require us to make major changes to our lives, and more importantly effect the bottom lines of the rich, so those are political non-starters. Mean while preservation of classic cars or steam locomotives would be seen as a luxury, and in the wake of an on coming crisis, only the most selfish of individuals would be unwilling to sacrifice a small luxury in order to help the greater good so off to the scrap pile they will go. The worst part about all this is that this is utterly inconsequential to the problem at hand (for some solutions see previously mention political non-starters). Of course i could be completely misreading the situation, preservation is alive and well, and as far as I can tell, no one is seriously attacking it. So I am just being paranoid, and I would be elated if that was just it, me worrying over nothing.
At the museum I used to work at, a person could get in free if they brought a gallon of used motor oil. They also accepted barrels of fryer oil and sometimes a mystery solvent. I was warned one day that they put 10% mystery solvent and it may go poof. I kept my head out of the door and stirred with the measuring stick to mix it well. It seemed to smell like motor oil. Maybe they were fooling. Didn't go poof and I didn't get lung cancer or high, brain cells still intact. Fryer oil made everyone hungry. We should have had a concession stand those days.
Having to truck in coal from the north east. Sounds prohibitively expensive.
As someone who lives in the area, the coal was a menace
Yeah, when you have to have a second train following the first just to put out fires along the roadbed, you know you have a problem.
I learned a lot, before this video when I heard "coal converted to oil" my visceral reaction was "damn EPA at it again". Honestly you didn't even mention the EPA or pollution really much, what I took away from this was saftey and preservation. When you boiled it down about the running gear not wearing out, and such I immediately thought "well if we want to preserve steam for a long time, it seems oil would be the answer to not wear the parts out so quickly."
I'm like you, coal is nostalgic, I was really upset when I went to I think either Disney or Dollywood and found out the engines were oil fired. Up where I live in PA the East Broad Top uses coal, and boy when I smelled it, it completed the whole experience for me! In the case of Big Boy 4014, if they said "oil fired or nothing" I would 100% want Big Boy to roll again no matter what it took, so I would say oil fired, but would have loved to see Big Boy with coal! Great video sir!
Surprisingly it wasn’t the EPA that caused this, it was a lawsuit against the railroad by the Parks service and some nearby property holders after some bad wildfires a few years ago
The ones at Disney World are oil fired. The ones at Dollywood are coal fired.
@jordonfreeman166 ah ok, I knew it was one of them.
@andrewreynolds4949 I am honestly surprised! But it makes sense...
@@rev9fan1 The locomotives at Disneyland have been oil burners since opening day in 1955. For the west coast oil has always been the standard for the most part historically and present day. Even for someone who was growing up around the Southern Pacific or Western Pacific or Santa Fe in the steam era, they would probably have that same nostalgic opinion on oil as someone on the east coast would for coal. All the engines I have rode behind have been oil so I have nostalgia for it. I will be interested to see if the C&T eventually also fully converts to oil one day.
"there will never be coal in Durango again"
I don't think it was ever planned to convert 340 or 346 to oil firing? Assuming the run-in will take place at the D&S.
Neither of those locomotives work out of Durango
i don't think 346 is being test ran at durango
340 already burns oil, and 346 won't be test run at the D&S.
Oh. (Based the assumption on the fact RGS 41 had test runs up in Durango)
The Museum operated a number of oil fired locomotives for a time, No. 40 and Shay Nos. 12 & 14.
Coal really is cool to see run...but I'd rather see oil burning steam power than a buzzy brick on wheels.
You are lying here Hyce, your 10 wheeler and all the locomotives you run at the museum all burn oil...
Granted, you only do it when lighting the fire... That oily rag that is.
In northern germany one heritage railway tried wood pellet fuel as an alternative to coal. There are challenges e.g. the firebox needed conversion, the fuel can't get wet and you need about 1.7x the amount but it seems the trial was succesful and the conversion is here to stay. Besides the long term problem another reason to try this was the war in Ukraine which doubled the coal price.
I think that every heritage railway running steam which wants to stay running should start thinking about and trialing alternatives to coal rather today than tomorrow. It's only getting more difficult from here on out
In the 40s the NZR converted their biggest locomotives in the North Island - all K, Ka 4-8-4s and some J 4-8-2s - to oil burners due to a shortage of high quality coal in the North Island. In the early 50s if memory serves the NZR wanted to convert the K and Ka's back to coal and the firemen's union protested and stopped the reconversion.
Correct - it was a coal shortage that triggered the conversion, and the Enginedrivers, Firemen & Cleaners Association (the traincrew union of the day) liked it so much, that when NZR did reconvert a few of the K's to burn coal in the early 1950s when coal prices were more 'reasonable' and oil... less so, they kicked up a fuss and NZR abandoned the plan.
The same thing happened in 1957 when it was attempted to transfer a Ka class locomotive to the South Island and reconvert it to coal for use on the Midland Line between Springfield and Arthur's Pass. The EFCA managed to get that stopped too and the locomotive got sent back to the North Island in 1959 without turning a wheel in anger. Though there was a bit more than just 'no reconversion' behind that though.
Can you do a coal firing 102 with how a firebox with a stoker works?
I really want to! I need to experience it myself first though.
@@Hyce777 Also, please do a video on how oil firing works. Hardware, controls, etc. Thanks!
20:09, there is a clip of 2926 I think re-lighiting and it looks spectacular
To be fair; with that clip 2926 doesn't have a proper load so her firing isn't all that great. Even oil burners still need to be doing some actual work to pull a proper draft. Flammable vapors can gather in the box if the firebrick isn't hot enough due to this. The gurus on TrainOrders went into it better.
Cumbres and toltec is slowly converting to oil.
The bigest negative for oil is when it is time to put the loco to bed, the fire is extinguished and the fire box sheets are exposed to cold air ,where as with coal ,you leave it on the grate to go out and no cold air, is admitted ,so no thermal shock, have put the loco to bed on Sunday afternoon and it is just warm on thursday
0:12
"There I am Gary! There I am!"
me personally: go make it reversible so you can change back to coal potentially in the future
It's been my understanding that a conversion to oil is reversible if somewhat of a pain to do. Union Pacific converted a big boy to oil per the "Last of the Giants" video series. They were not happy with the burner setup they used so converted it back to coal in fairly short order.
It's all reversible.
Gotta say that while coal is the most nostalgic aspect of live steam, oil also makes a lot of sense too. As much as it'd be nice to keep the coalburners around the transition the D&S is making is not just out of safety but is for the future. As far as I know both Durango and Silverton have benefited immensely from having the D&S operate (Similarly for the C&T), as well as preserve not only historical equipment, but also the alignment that equipment was actually used on. IMO, the transition to oil- to keep history alive- is worth it
I just went to the National railroad museum today
As long they can keep steam locomotive to run today and for the upcoming days, I'm totally in fro oil/diesel burning conversion!!
Pros
Not as physical oil burning just turning dials,
Can immediately switch your power levels so don't have to fire ahesd of time, Can quickly egnite and end fires, no need to clean out ash,
Plus coal buring cinders can go out the funnel adding layers to the engine making running harder and damges the engine, plus its not pleasant for crew, and has less fire hazards to near by trees.
Sometimes coal isn't in your region so you use oil, coal mining is getting baned because of environmental problems, oil will stick around a bit longer...
- cons
Esayer to buger up your engines, like if your not on your toes and keep an eye on something that makes it work harder (driver change or wheel slip) your fire can be over worked and go out,
Oil is more costly. If you don't have the right air flow, something small screws up with oil surply having different types of oil that can really screw your fire up for the entire day,
Incomparsom coal is coal, some is less effecnt and big base ball coals can cause damgae.. it still works
The bricks under the fire if it gose out can be very hot to instantly light the oil and this can be dangerous...
The way I look at it if it keeps the locomotives running its fine but I do prefer a coal burning locomotive
good for not starting fires and cleaner air. the fireman has a lot better job now. what fool wants to shovel tons of coal.
And steam train can get wood and work good too and help get the fire more time to get more in and have hot water for the steam train help not get the 🌎🌎 get too hot for is.
I'm watching this while on break at Tweetsie R.R.
I still like coal but I know oil is safer and she's still a steam engine.
5:12 slight correction, there were 6 CB&Q O5Bs: 5614, 5620, 5626, 5627, 5629, and 5632. 5614 is also preserved in St. Joseph, Missouri.
The main advantage of a steam engine is you can burn anything. If you really wanted to help the environment you would convert them to burn waste plastic because there's no such thing as plastic recycling.
But burning plastic causes a REAL huge problem to the environment, it's not clean what so ever unfortunately. That's why there use to be a lot of places that burned garbage on the regular back in the day, and they switched to landfills. I'm nit a tree hugger by any means, but plastic definitely doesn't burn as clean as the common fuels we burn today.
@@rev9fan1 all of our choices in dealing with plastic have negative consequences.
I took a tour of the Durango shops in 2021 and the tour guide told us that the county was really on them after the fire that happened, and the residents were pretty mad about it. They had the SP #18 in town while we were there to train their engineers on oil burning locos while they were converting some of the coal burners. They also had received some of their new diesel locomotives and those were around the shop too. I definitely recommend taking a tour of the shops and yard in Durango if anyone ever is out that way.
I'm against it, but the cards were stacked against the railroad.
Honestly, my problem with oil burners comes from the hypocrites who are always clamoring that “OiL bUrNeRs ArEn’T ReAl StEaM lOcOmOtIvEs!”
You’re boiling water to make steam, regardless of what the fuel source is damnit!
Hell yeah we should build a nuclear steam train
Norwegian here: Ironically (oil nation now…) we had very few oil fired engines. Some post ww2 ‘kriegsloks’ were oil, but they didn’t fit into an infrastructure with coal bunkers abundant.
Today, we have very few engines running in preservation, as decommissioned secondary lines (there were many) got ripped up as soon as possible. The network has very few alternate routes, and is extremely “star shaped”.
And… there’s ERTMS - ETCS, effectively eradicating any vintage engine due to conversion cost.
Ultimately, steam operations are a vintage experience, romanticising and craving the use of ‘real’ coal (wrote this just as Hyce got there…🙈😅). The art, smoke & steam IS the love of steam engines, even if Hyce’s colleagues have to work their a***s off for us punters.
That’s why we’re here, after all…? 👍
they converted the k37 from narrow gauge to oil gauge 😭
Yes, yes they did. Lol
Hyce, excellent video. I run industrial boilers on both gas and no. 2 oil. We used to run no. 6 oil and I would rather work with that nasty sludge than coal any day! And a small anecdote, I used to hear stories from old navy guys that they would re-light fires off the refractory all the time, especially if they were in a pinch to get fires lit again. good stuff!
It went from smelling like coal to smelling like a 12v.
I honestly don't have anything against oil burners as I am in the same state as the Mt. Rainier scenic railroad. I am only ranting about the Historic Landmark side as the protections provided by the Historic Landmark would play a huge role of keeping the place/vehicle of historic value from being destroyed, but have a side effects of being strict against modifications. Like if the Historic place/vehicle did have modifications prior to becoming a historic landmark then it will be limited to the period, but if the historic place/vehicle didn't have modifications prior to becoming a historic landmark, they are screwed. So, I strongly believe that changing fuel source can have effect with the Historic Landmark, since Durango & Silverton didn't burn oil prior to becoming a historic landmark, I think soon it won't be the ridership or cost that will bite it. In the end, it still matter if the place/vehicle is a Historic Landmark or not. Virginia & Truckee for example historically burnt wood, coal, and oil so it will be easy for them. If I were to find out about this before the oil conversion, I would state my concern as the protections provided from being a Historic Landmark still play a role of keeping the railroad alive for future generations. So, I only fond out when this video came out. Also, in regards to the White Pass & Yukon route, they will end up facing the same risk as the Durango & Silverton because of the Alcos they sold after they became a Historic Landmark.
The D&S oil conversion was reviewed and approved by the historical landmark people in advance. They understood it was either convert, or shut down.
@@taijuan5087 Web source?
Don´t think it is a big deal that they don´t operate coal burners anymore. BUT I DON´T LIKE OIL BURNERS BECAUSE I CAN/AM AN AUSTRIAN AND WE DON´T HAVE OIL BURNERS (we had ten and they were converted to coal)
One thing that is a real benefit for oil burning is the learning curve. It is *far* far easier to train a new fireman on an oil burner than it is to train a new coal burner fireman.
Interesting! Never considered that, but it makes sense.
I wonder if he had to extend the song because of how many members he got
I mean, i remember one time. The member section was like 5 minuites
Nope, it's the same length. There was once when it was two scrolls separately... Lol
one thing that will be unavoidable, is that on day coal firing will disappear completely and all the skills and knowledge will go with it, the connection to coal and telling its story in history, we are getting to a point now that so many young people have never even seen coal
On the slight plus side there is sea coal which will never vanish just it'll sit there.
I like you Hyce like the smell of coal but not in copious amounts. How about installing stack scrubbers to remove some of the cinder pollution?
The D&S, like the D&RGW before them, did install fine-screened cinder traps on top of the stacks, and later the D&S added a crude sort of "scrubber" consisting of water sprayers across the exhaust, but a truly effective coal exhaust scrubber would completely destroy the aesthetics of a steam locomotive, so probably a non-starter.
In regards to oil burning steam locomotives: Back in Eastern Germany in the late 60s they decided to equip near the entire fleet of the class BR95.0, a tank engine, with oil burners. Do to the way the class was build, it happened that when they had to clean the boiler pipes of oil residuals with steam after shutting off the burner, the residuals ignited explosively and a big fire came out of the smokestack. This could only be done if the cleaning with steam was done directly after shutting off the burner and could only be achived with this class, thanks to it's short boiler pipes. There are quite a lot of photos of that and I imagine it must have been an experience to see that.
I can't find any pictures - what must I search to get them to show up?
@@C.I... google in German "baureihe 95 feuer", it should be the first image.
@@C.I... search for "baureihe 95 feuer", it should be one of the first images to show up
@@C.I... look for "baureihe 95 feuer" and it should be the first image showing up
@@C.I... you have to look for "baureihe 95 feuer" and it should be the first image showing up
As mentioned at 20:15, AT&SF 2926 had a bit of a Kaboom during that railyards run last year, look it up...
This is why some of the big mainline steam locomotives being restored in the East are being converted to oil firing, such as Chesapeake and Ohio 2716, Reading 2100, or Atlantic Coast Line 1504. For 2100 and 2716, it's because there will be more operating opportunities as oil burners, less environmental constraints, and to decrease the number of struggles in terms of refueling on certain railroads. For 1504, its because of ease of maintenance, and being more environmentally friendly. For me personally, while I'm not the biggest fan of locomotives being converted to oil, as long as steam puts on a good show, and as long as steam still rules the rails, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If converting to oil means that a locomotive can operate more places (including the MAINLINE *wink wink*), then that's a worthy trade off.
Kings Island and Miami valley railroad (3ft gauge Amusement railway) have 2 Cagney Americans from the 80's that run PROPANE. Oil is pretty tame compared to that.
Not surprising. Even the RMS Olympic, sister to the world's mist famous ship RMS Titanic, was converted from coal burning to oil burning later in her career. Oil is just that much easier and cost effective to work with.
Santa Fe 3751 and the following 3752 Class were built as coal burners but were converted to oil during a rebuild in 1937 making them identical to the 3760 class 4-8-4’s. The Milwaukee Road S3 class 4-8-4 Northerns #’s 262, 263, 267 and 269 were built as coal burners and were converted to oil for use between Avery, Idaho and Othello, WA on the non-electrified gap. And GCR ex-CB&Q 2-8-3 #4960 was coal burning until the Grand Canyon Railway acquired her and rebuilt he to burn oil and look more like a Santa Fe 2-8-2.
YOU CAN TURN IT OFF
YES HE SAID IT
Ive fired both types, and after the day its another hour or two properly cleaning/shutting it down
Oil you just boop
Clean engine
Home time
Honestly coal firing is good but with the cost of coal increasing and even emissions oil fuel firing is probably the future 🤷♂️
I'm an old Dinosaur (Well, young dinosaur, Lol) personally and think engines should be coal fired, they don't smell right otherwise. That said, I can also see advantages to oil firing, especially if you're running through heavily wooded areas that are liable to to catch light from a stray spark out the chimney for example.
Oil firing is a lot less common over here in the UK. The Ffestinog once had several oil fired locos. At least two of their double Fairlies and maybe even the Baldwin Mountaineer and the single Fairlie were all Oil fired at one stage, but by the late 00s Oil became far more expensive than coal, so they converted them all back to Coal firing. Don't know what the pricing works out at now, given that every Heritage Railway in the UK now have to import their coal because the dumbass government shut down our last coal mine and subsequently means no more good ol' Welsh Steam Coal anymore.
I love learning about the pros and cons of different ways of fueling a steam locomotive. I'd love to see a video about the pros and cons of propane compared to coal.
Propane doesn't have enough heat compared to other fuel oils or coal for most full-size locomotives.
@@Hyce777 Oh, okay.
@@Hyce777 but it is a A LOT more available than coal for us live steamers any longer. We have to have SUPER HIGH BTU burners to fire. My #20 has both propane burners and coal grates. To burn propane I would need probably 3 propane bottles open at the same time (still need to test that.) I have the propane so I can go to some railroads which do not allow coal fired locomotive like Train Mountain. It is also really easy to work on injectors, etc. if you can cut the fire at any time.
Ridership and viewership will appreciate the much cleaner stacks. Erosion of flue and stay ends in the firebox will be less as well....
It was the 416 Fire in 2018 that supposedly was started by hot embers from a Durango Silverton Steam Locomotive that was burning coal that caused the switch from coal to oil. This was part of the lawsuit settlement by Durango Silverton railroad. The main reason for this is that burning oil does not result in hot embers which can start line side fires, which is a problem with coal. So in summary, burning oil is much less of a fire hazard than burning coal.
Great informative video and thumbs up, BUT: What is with the overuse of the word "itself"? Why say "the firebox itself"? or anything else "itself". You already said "the firebox" and believe it or not, we get it.
If I donate a Standard Gauge locomotives to Oregon. I would convert to oil burning. If I donate a Big Boy Locomotive and a DMIR Yellowstone locomotive to Oregon I’ll convert it to oil burning.
Sadly, most of the people who ride the D&SNGR are doing so for the scenery and don't care one iota about the locomotives. In fact, most of the complaints I've heard about the ride center around the steam locomotives. The huge effort of keeping these vintage machines operating is spent on us steam lovers, and we are in quite a minority compared to the rest of the riders.
Most riders, and a lot of citizens of Durango, would be very happy to see these trains pulled by diesels, or, even more so, quiet electric locomotives.
Don’t get me wrong that oil burning locomotives does well but I still prefer coal burning locomotives since you use your muscles to shovel coal into the firebox and if I was a fireman I would use the shovel to shovel tons of coal into the iron horses firebox to keep it going
I'm still upset about the switch away from burning wood in narrow gauge steam locomotives! If they would have been selectively logging the forested area for steam locomotive fuel and forest fire prevention they wouldn't have had a 20 million dollar forest fire law suite against the railroad. Not seriously, but if not doing forest management to inhibit large forest fires the expectation has to be there will eventually be large forest fires. There have been promoted certain situations were forest fires have beneficial effects, but that can not be said for large forest fires.
The original oil burners in the western US used bunker oil of high sulfur and BTU content. It was cheap and still is and much less expensive than light fuel oil or diesel. In converted coal to oil steam locomotives they are designed to run on light fuel oil the same or very similar to home heating oil or diesel. It is expensive, but should not be much more air polluting than running a huge heating oil furnace.
Modern oil fired home furnaces have clean burning technology to meet emissions. The converted steam locomotive are unlikely to have that. In the wilderness that is not a big issue. For the new 140 mph T1 duplex steam locomotive that could have daily regular tourist high speed trips from the middle of major cities it might have been better to get a natural gas company sponsor for natural gas burning and never have an issue with air pollution with a public might be looking for reasons to gripe against the tourist railroad.
Hay look I have a keyboard and something to say, It’s a little bad and a little good, and it drives the algorithm. Don’t forget to like and subscribe.
The Locomotives at Disney World run off compressed natural gas. They are great, clean burners. and they actually smell pretty cool. They still gave a lot of grease to add to the odor. I don't know about energy density of the fuel, but they go a full day between fills (it is also flat Florida not like going through the mountains). They are very beautiful engines though.
All valid points, i think D&S kinda got pushed into the change, loke either change or no steam locomotives. I've never fired a big coal burning locomotive. But from what I've seen, its alot of work. It's a shame that tradition is going away, but the big Ks are still going
That's kind of heartbreaking that the song "The Silverton" is no longer accurate. Other than that, I wouldn't care.
The thing is that the coal source was close to the D&S..over the mountain in Hesperus. The closest oil sources..the refineries in Farmington and Gallup..are shut down.
The eye of saran will still make you gave an eyewash station
In think it does make sence. And it's a positive thing even if its a little sad. Let yhe neoghbor have their EV and drive a 4cyl if you have to daily so you can keep driving your goat on weekend
At the beginning of the video I figured all steam originated as coal and only more modern conversions were using oil. I hadn't realized some of them burned oil back in the day when they were in heavy use. Now? I'm kind of with you. I may not so much think of the guy with the shovel but steam locomotives 'should' be coal fired in my head even with the new information. Now more logically... I think oil is probably better over all because of fire hazard and all the down sides. And ultimately, as you said... Whatever you can get to keep them running is the main thing. If fire hazard isn't a problem where you run and coal is a lot cheaper overall, then run coal. But I have no problem with oil conversions and have ridden on a little oil fired train a couple of times and as you said it still does the chug chug whistle thing. As always, thanks for sharing.
The cool thing about oil burners is that, depending on the type of conversion, just about any oil works. 4014 iirc burns used motor oil, refined used restaurant oil is also a viable option. Oil is also cheaper than coal to get trucked or you could even work with the community restaurants, have them donate the used oil and all you do is pay for the necessary refinement that may need to be done.
ua-cam.com/users/shortshMx17Klxu44?si=p5ollQVGUehmDVog
This is what he’s talking about weird stuff. 2926 had a flashback, which blew out through the ashpan with a mild *fwoomp* noise as it came alive.
I would like to thank the Rev. Awdry and Britt Alcroft for the romanticism of coal fired steam engines 😜
Hyce, tell us the truth! You have a bunch of lazy firemen who are tired of shoveling coal! 😂
It's hard for me to imagine the economy of running a wood burning locomotive. Fuel value of full tender of firewood is a small fraction of that of coal, and it's a lot more expensive.
Luckily, montezuma will have very few thermal bricks to remove for an inspection 😂
I suppose I should be careful how I speak as I also do historical railraoding and I am watched for videos I have made as well for stuff that might violate our rules in how we speak about people or organizations, but the one thing I would like to put out there many steamers are being converted to oil as a fuel, so how is this helpful when they say we have even less oil and petrol products then we do coal, we got 200 years of coal its said, how does that help keep the fire going in the future if we run out of the fuel we have less of, and 2 dont you get more milage out of good coal? and isn't the bunker oil dirtier burning then coal, and isn't there a risk of hotspots if the burner isn't set up right like the big boy the first time round they tried it?
That said though if it can burn hot enough it can make steam and last long enough for the trip could be renewable oil, liquified natral gas maybe even hydrogen gas or renewable biomass,
but point taken someone got to go though the hell of going down to get the coal its toxic, and bad on the mountains and area to get it. and its not good on those communities, though the thing is what is the cleanest but most energetic source of fuel for the future thats widely available, but steam has the advantage of being able to use anything that can combust and the harder your run steam the better it makes its rated power especially if its a free steaming engine.
though I guess mark adressed most of this.
Coal is a great fuel. It’s only energy nasty’s and green nutters who don’t want it! It smells great and captures the history of steam better.
Oil is obviously cheaper and less likely to cause a fire. Though coal burners causing fires are very rare.
In regards to the Southern Pacific, Joel can fact check me on this if I'm wrong, the AC-9's were the only coal burning locomotives on the SP's roster. Aside from those, it was mainly oil-burners on the SP. the first oil burner for the raiload was, ironically, a 4-4-0.
im sad to see coal firing slowing working its way out, despite all the good it will bring to the running and preservation of steam. there is something about seeing a massive plume of smoke roaring out of that stack that makes you feel "oh yeah.... she's working hard!". one of the main things you attribute to the thought of "train" is a plume of smoke, a loud, wailing whistle, and the hypnotic beauty of mechanical precision in motion.
Vegetable Oil GCR4960. So cool to ride behind a 100 year old Mikado to the Grand Canyon.
SVRy 19 and 20 were built as wood burning and then converted to oil by the white pass
For our small operation the oil works out really well on the big engines. Our little heisler is still wood burning and you gotta throw a lot of wood.
I don’t want to imagine what the fireman had to deal with back on the original sumpter valley throwing wood into a large mikado with stuff like 4% grades
Oil-fired steam locomotives are becoming more relevant than coal-burning steam locomotives
Chrysler or whatever it is called now, came out with an electric car. It has an electric motor which is nice and quiet
and they have a sound system that puts out all the engine noise and screeching of a muscle car. I see that happening
to steam locomotives in a 100 or more yrs. They will have either an electric or diesel motor. A smokestack that puts out
simulated burned coal/oil. A sound system that puts out all the noise of a steam loco. It simply won't be economical
to run a real steam loco. You probably won't be able to find coal or oil at the rate we are burning it.
I have a question about the auger style coal engines vs fireman skill concerning proper coverage in the firebox.
I recall a video of how an auger works but i dont think this comparison was mentioned.
I know you say proper firebox loading is important to an even fire, how does an auger achieve this or is the fire so big on those engines it just eats everything anyway?
We may not like it, but it's the truth. And when all's said and done, these locomotives will continue to operate despite the price of giving up the romance of coal firing.