I also feel like the fact that in the US, our engines chuck everything out the stack, UK engines don't, and that's why they clean their smokeboxes often.
Do American engines make sparks, though? British engines produce a lot of sparks. You can see just how many they make at night. I've never seen this on American videos. Lineside fires are quite common along UK heritage railways in the Summer.
Brett told me about this after I posted the video ready to go, definitely a miss on my part. Our smokeboxes are "self cleaning." For you Brits out there, we clean them annually. And they don't need much...
@7822welshsteam yes, US engines certainly can produce a spark, but often times the engines that do make sparks normally have a spark arrestor placed on the stack to catch the sparks preventing them from escaping the stack and setting fires.
@@7822welshsteamSome. Usually the older ones that run on wood, hence why the smokestack often had mesh and a wide funnel, as it was meant to catch the sparks. Of course, the transition to coal basically removed sparks, and thus, the mesh was gone
Having taken a few combustion courses in university, there is nothing more satisfying than seeing a steam locomotive produce almost no smoke even under load. Yes, watching huge amounts of black smoke looks dramatic, but it's a sign of inefficiency! Not to mention the huge amounts of particulate pollution: The British steam locomotives often ran in more urban environments, so I would imagine keeping smoke down was a priority, even in the era when people thought cigarettes were healthy.
On the latter point, you are exactly right. Before UK locomotives could burn Anthracite Coal smokelessly (due to it having to burn at an extremely high temprature which early fireboxes could not handle to do so), they often burned Coke due to it being smokeless. In fact, several early railways, such as the Liverpool & Manchester, were subject to smoke abatement rules which necessetatated the use of Coke.
@@owenstockwood5040 Wasn’t there a law that stated something along the lines of, “all rail vehicles have to consume their own smoke”? I think I may recall something like that from the rules to the Rainhill Trials.
@@highball5550 the Metropolitan Rly. was subject to that rule also - not just for the reason of disruption due to smoke but also because it was all in tunnels. A chap called Fowler built a 2-4-0 with the object of reducing smoke, used effectively bricks to store heat and lessen fuel use and therefore smoke production. In fairness, it made little smoke, but also no steam either....
@@highball5550 we also had inspecters in many cities that would make sure stack emissions were kept to a minimum or the railroad would get fined, in the usa cuz no one wants black laundry after they wash clothes.
Back when steam locomotives were in earning revenue mode, making heavy smoke was regarded by the Norfolk and Southern Railway as a potential disciplinary offence, as it wasted fuel and led to complaints from the public. In the era before tumble driers, washing was commonly dried on a line and being downwind of a smokey locomotive, could ruin the whole wash. In the UK with preserved locomotives, making smoke is regarded as wasteful and anti-social.
I very much doubt the british clothes line was an issue, the wants of the public have rarely influenced dirty industries until very recently. Btw we still use clothes lines, modern washing machines spin nearly all the water off making the tumble drier practically redundant. Hanging out on the line is mainly to air the clothes, less so to dry them.
@@jeffslade1892I strongly suspect that in many cases the husband of the lady whose washing was ruined had something to do with the railway. He got his ear chewed off at home and had some words with the crew on the loco the next morning. Said crew fires the engine more carefully for an easier life.
We have a tumble drier and never use it. We either dry on a rotary drier in the garden or on racks indoors using heat from a wood burner. 24 hours on a rack in the spare bedroom and clothes will be dry whatever the temperature providing you have your ventilation and humidity sorted. Electric driers just seem to be one of the worst most wasteful and CO2 polluting devices around.
The wife’s grandfather was a conductor for grand trunk railroad back in the 1940s-50s. He always had a fit when he saw huge clouds of black smoke coming from the trains on TV shows and movies. So we all asked him one day why? He told us that all that smoke was from forcing the engine to run before it was properly warmed up and ready! He went on about air to fuel ratios, air flow and other things. He ended by saying he wanted to go to Hollywood and knock a few heads together and teach them how to properly run a steamer!
The simplest method of smokeless firing (also the least effort-intensive; I'm a lazy old bugger) is to watch the exhaust. When it turns white, add four or five shovelfuls to the part of the fire you didn't feed on the previous firing, and then when the exhaust changes from pale grey to white, repeat. This keeps the pressure up while minimising smoke. Disclaimer: this works on locos with a wide firebox, in my case NZR J and Ja class. I have never fired a narrow-firebox locomotive.
Added note on the Oil Burners. As they burn, soot will build up and the tubes and flues insulating from the heat of the fire. So, every now and again, they pour sand in the fire chamber which then bounces around and knocks soot loose. Leading to a big trail of black coming out the stack.
@@1940limited it’s practically required for oil burners. If you don’t sand the flues during a run, they can and will get blocked up. On the D&S we sand the flues 6 times on the way to Silverton
@@1940limited Lynn Nystrom was the gentleman who explained it to me back when Stephen Lee and he ran Union Pacific 844. While I haven't personally climb inside a boiler to find out. The theory is at least sound since sand is very abrasive. And to that the force of a locomotive's draft and it should easily take thin layers off.
I'm a fireman here in the UK - and I'm very much looking forward to visiting the US and experiencing your behemoths! This was a fascinating video, thank you; I never realised how different US-designed fireboxes were. Secondary air is drilled into us in the UK as extremely important; any large quantity of black smoke, such as at 3:24 in your video, would in the UK draw comments from the driver and frowns from any inspectors present!
Just make sure to remember how big the US is (Texas alone is nearly 3x the UK's size). You would be surprised how many tourists underestimate its size. I'm sure you have heard that the Big Boy should be running from Cheyenne (shy-ANN) to Omaha this month, so there is that.
@@ManOfUnknownWorth "Just make sure to remember how big the US is (Texas alone is nearly 3x the UK's size). You would be surprised how many tourists underestimate its size." Yup. That's a big one. It's pretty common europeans just don't 'get' the scale of things here. I have had conversations where they were telling me that they intended to go do this or that while they're here and they had to be told that their idea just wasn't feasible. Like, no, man. That's an 8 hour drive. One way. Speeding. With no stops.
@@ColonelSandersLite We have the same issue here in Australia, Western Australia is nearly 4 times the size of Texas with only a fraction of the population, people can travel for days without even seeing another person. This makes it dangerous as well because it is so remote and harsh. As an example, it takes nearly 30 hours of non-stop driving to drive from the capital to the northern most town.
One very important reason why you don't see black smoke in the UK - it is actually illegal. Cannot recall whether it is the Clean Air Act of 1956 or 1968, but allowing a locomotive to produce black smoke is naughty and can lead to fines. Whilst realistically, a heritage railway wouldn't be fined for a quick "oops, bugger" moment from the fireman, doing it consistently and deliberately for a photographic charter would be a big no-no. Quite how this will change with the slight coal problems that UK heritage sector has been having recently remains to be seen.
When smoke was wanted/needed for photos in the UK old VHS 📼 tapes would be thrown on the fire to produce the required effect. At least that's the rumours anyway.
An Act of Parliament was required for the construction of just about every British railway and from the Liverpool and Manchester Railway onwards every Act included the clause that "locomotives shall consume their own smoke". Not until fireboxes were designed to efficiently use secondary air and with the invention of the brick firebox arch could coal be used, prior to that coke was used being a smokeless fuel.
Steam trains should produce steam. Which, I think, is what Brits want to see on locomotive photographs & magic lanterns. I wonder if that's easier or more common on a cold humid island?
There’s an excellent video on YT from someone driving side-by-side on the highway alongside UP4014 at about 60mph, and the Big Boy was running so clean that it barely produced any smoke, despite how hard the locomotive was firing - impressive!
I personally saw, filmed and photographed 4014 Big Boy as it toured through Iowa a couple years back. He rolled some smoke climbing a small grade and then rolling out from a full stop. Big Boy is converted to burning oil and not wood and coal as in the early days. I am sure they aren't burning top shelf diesel. Big Boy also travels with a late model turbo diesel/electric. I am sure in lots of it's use it is mostly idling and letting the turbo diesel do most of the work
@@mixerman1We did too when 4014 was making its pass through IOWA, we drove down to Omaha and spent several hours at home plate touring and doing a LOT of chatting with the gang working there... I went right up the ladder to talk with the crew. Like whos' this chick??? The Diesel Electric provided electrical power for the train to run their A/C's, pump water and fuel and most importantly provide brake AIR. They told me Big Boy pulled the train, but the D-E was there incase they had any trouble. They could limp home on it if they had to, but they weren't going to hit the line without modern brake air quantities available... It all made sense to me.... It was a great day and we had a lot of fun down there. Well worth the trip and I learned a lot.
@@mixerman1nope, the diesel is there as a backup. Yes Ed D can control it from 4014’s cab but typically it’s just idling. UP originally tried to convert big boys to oil back in the 1940s but had issues reaching the HP & Tractive effort #’s to match the coal fired version along with issues with firebox heating (cold spots) so the effort was scrapped. In today’s service the few bits of HP & tractive effort lost aren’t a big deal since it’s not in revenue service. Tender & oil burner assembly installed on 4014 is mostly parts from 3985.
Interesting comments which agree with. In the UK in the 1950's steam era you never saw black smoke coming from operating steam locos. I worked on station shunt locos for a time and you were not allowed to make smoke in the station environment. Even now, in New Zealand, I can fire small steam locos and produce virtually no smoke with crap coal. My job is to show new firemen how to fire so that smoke is kept to a minimum once the loco is operating.
@@eleanorbartle5354 Firefighter - one that FIGHTS the fire, Fireman - one which occupation is "to deal/ to do" with fire, without specifying HOW exactly.
@@shanelmurray3448yep, nobody has problems with ambiguity, just look at dictionaries to see that few words have single meanings. Gender neutrality made firefighter become correct
In Britain, the type of coal used is normally a product called steam coal. This burns very hot (it would quickly burn through a domestic grate) and usually burns cleaner. In the traction engine community at traction engine rallies, owners get very annoyed with organisers who supply normal coal because it creates less heat to drive the engine, burns dirtily and reduces performance.
Norfolk and Western had stenciled on the front of the tender, right where the fireman could see it, "Black smoke means waste." When the railroad granted permission to O. Winston Link to photograph their engines at the end of steam operations, they requested he refrain from taking pictures of engines emitting black smoke.
As a retired engineer I remember having to calculate and analysis how to burn fuels efficiently in my university degree. Think this was the best lab experiments we did. Though I went on to work for a company that designed and tested engines that did not use combustion as its energy source. We still had to maintain the back up diesels and sited heating boilers so they burnt the fuel correctly without black smoke. A term to remember for future discussions on the subject is the Stoichiometric fuel mixture ratio which is when all the fuel is burnt with no excess air (Oxygen) used. Another wee aside, as all the firemen will tell you its the gases that burn and not the solids. Hence the soot. So Stoichiometric is your word of the day and a ratio to remember for your car is 14.7:1
The photography thing is certainly a big reason, and the pic at 2:10 is a perfect example of why. Photographers like action shots of a train, but that one pic looks like it was parked. True, you can demonstrate speed/movement in other ways, like with a panning shot, but that isn't always possible. Even though it's not a true representation, a big cloud of smoke gives the impression of the locomotive working and moving, and makes for a more dramatic shot overall.
O Winston Link got his stunning photos of US locos by arranging with the fireman to put rubber tyres in the firebox just before the photo location. This is possible with other photographers, so maybe black smoke is a photographic artefact.
Another factor could be whether In the UK, we are quite used to cool damp weather. What comes out of the locomotive chimney is a mixture of gasses from the fire and steam (water) from the blast pipe. The steam rapidly turns into water droplets which do not evaporate as the local air is close to saturation point and comes out of chimney as white "smoke". Think of it as the equivalent of an aircraft's contrail. This looks really good in a photo which may account for the different pressure from the photographic lobby.
@@verdunluck1578 i always see black smoke as something dirty and polluting, but big clouds of white steam look so nice. you can't count the pictures of white winter landscapes with trains that leave a big trail of steam clouds. (i'm from germany)
I think you summed it up perfectly in terms of the fuel quality how good the fireman is and coasting. Ed Dickens one time was asked the same question and he said that they realized when the engine is smoking it’s actually wasting fuel. So they try to keep both engines as clear as possible. Best advice if you want to see a big boy smoke, just chase it in the winter. Although N&W 611 and any of the locomotives at Cass Scenic Railroad smoke just as much as a power plant most of the time.
I recall a video from a UK steam preservation group who said they will no longer be doing black smoke due to environmentalist complaints. They also said HOW they got their smoke was throwing a few VHS tapes into the firebox.
Not really a train guy, but watched from curiosity. I can't believe how well I former you are, and how quickly and clearly you communicate the facts, history, and physics. I wish you Well and great success! You stand out from most "sales funnel" videos online, usually overselling something and wasting people's good time to do it.
When I first went to work for the railroad in the early 70s (in South Texas) there were still quite a few "old heads" from steam locomotive days left on the railroad. Hearing some of their stories, if a Road Foreman of Engines noticed an unusual amount of black smoke coming from a passing train, it was possible for the fireman to receive demerits "for waste of fuel". All the steam locomotives in use at the time were oil burners. Coal as a fuel in most of Texas had been phased-out by the time of WWI or in the 1920's at the latest. Plentiful cheap oil was too good a bargain for the railroads to ignore.
Didn’t know I needed to know this. I loved steam engines as a kid, and it’s still in there. This showed up on my recommended and I’m so glad I now know. The funny thing is that I technically already knew this due to working with rich/lean conditions on a truck I owned for the first near decade of my adult life. It just never crossed my mind that the same logic was relevant to steam engines! Love to see it.
In the UK we have dampers set up for directional running too, so you have control the airflow with those depending on the direction of travel relative to the firebox to get a good draft and complete combustion. Not sure how much of a thing that is on American locomotives.
We don't have dampers on 99% our coal burners. Oil, yes, and they exist front and rear; but less so for directionality and more for controlling the specific flow of the oil fire.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 Oh we do, they're mostly fold down seats attatched to the cab walls where space permits it. many smaller engines or pre-grouping ones may not have them though.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2Working class don't need seats. Let the buggers stand. It's good for them and stops them sleeping on the job. Like having windscreens on pre-war trams. Just let them get wet on the rare occasion it rains in Britain.
Having run five oil burners and being taught to fire by a retired SP fireman back in the eighties I have had very little trouble firing oil burners. WSLC 12 is a tricky little locomotive but always performed well for me. Really no excuses for smoke. I have had people ask me for more smoke. I told them no way!
its interesting how the amount of knowledge the teacher have, is resoulting in a simple answer that is easier so understand... Anwering complex questions with a simple answer, requires heaps of knowledge and experience. Thanks Hyce
In steam days larger UK stations would have signs on platform ends warning footplate crews not to make smoke, due to complaints from homes and businesses close to the line. Your comment about secondary air is spot on here. Ta.
Very interesting, I worked as a combustion Engineer on coal boilers for many years, so couple of points. To stop smoke you need three things - time, temperature and turbulance. Time is by furnace design, Temperature is design and operation, and Turbulance is normally via the secondary air, Coal has two different 'bits' that burn, volatile matter, which produces the smoke, and fixed carbon, which is in effect Coke, a smokeless fuel, so its the volatile matter that makes the smoke (generally) It's very easy to get a coal boiler to smoke. harder with oil, almost (but not quite) impossible with gas. Good video, enjoyed it.
This matches my experience with coal burning small gauge engines, to the point where as I’m about to leave the station, I’ll chuck a few scoops of coal in, and as I pull out, she blows a thick stack of smoke for photos, which dies down as I head up the back hill
I love that UA-cam occasionally tosses me an interesting video about steam engines, just to keep the little kid in me smiling. Thanks for a very interesting answer to a question I never thought to ask.
Having worked a few photo charters at Sumpter (as train crew not engine crew), I can confirm photographers and the photo organizer like to have smoke, and are not afraid to ask us to "back up and do another run-by with more smoke". Especially if one shall-remain-nameless-but-well-known-person is involved. I hear he fired the Shay at City of Prineville once and got buzzed, though not dropped on, by a firefighting air tanker because he put out so much smoke.
The Pennsy management did not like smokey fires. Their mantra was "A clean fire is an efficient fire". Which follows along with what you are saying, the right balance of fuel and air makes for more complete combustion and thus a low to no smoke fire.
Interesting insightful video! Having been a rail fan (steam mainly) for a long time I have to agree with you that photographer expectations have a big influence on smoke production. My Dad wrote a letter to Lucius Beebe in 1948 complimenting him on his then recent publication of Mixed Train Daily and got a response from the one of the biggest influencers of the time with regard to rail photography. I’ll quote a portion of the letter here where Beebe talks about the photos he used in his book. “The smoke effects were deliberate and calculated on our part. Simply we have seen so many pictures that we know to have been taken at speed but which show no exhaust at all that when we undertook Mixed Train we swore on a stack of Stork Club menus that we wouldn’t run a single action shot that didn’t show all the smoke we could get. We just think that an engine that isn’t visibly working steam has no point whatsoever to it. We worked apart” (referring to his partner Charles Clegg) “and took shots repeatedly over wide terrains to get the most possible exhaust, occasionally asking for it, but usually catching it at places where we knew we would get the greatest volume. We wanted every damn picture to be perfect, and there is hardly a single one we are going to change in the next printing.” If you have any of Beebe’s books you’ll see a lot of smoke being produced for the sake of drama and not efficiency. I thought this was a good data point to corroborate some of you conclusions.
Yeah, lots of different variables here... very situational question these days. But in the steam era, smoke was one of the greatest sins you could commit as a fireman, right next to letting the safety valves blow off. Some preservation groups still feel this way. The guy who taught me how to fire did some calculations about the costs of fuel and the cost of waste coal and water when there's black smoke or safeties lifting. He had a can in the cab for training purposes - every time the safeties blow or you see dark smoke, you put a dollar in the can. The money went back to the museum as a donation, but that really taught the trainee fireman a good lesson about waste...
Reminds me of an old story I heard once, a road kept getting complaint letters about smoke from a switcher that was working a yard all the time by the complainer's house. Looked 'er over, nothing was was wrong with 'er and the fireman was doing his job right, but still the letters came and the road foreman had to keep addressing the crew about it. Eventually the fireman got so fed up he went to the town dump and came back with a stack of old rubber tires and chucked 'em into the firebox. That little switcher coughed up a wad of black smoke so thick and smelly the place stunk like burnt rubber for days. Wasn't long after that the complaints stopped coming in.
Speaking as a photographer, that answer makes a hell of a lot of sense. In a still photo, you need something 'dynamic' to show movement, & a big plume of smoke is a great way to do that.
Lackawanna steam locomotives and I think Reading, too, were designed to run on "clean burning" anthracite but I'm not sure that's what always found its way into the firebox.
@@1940limited Those were designed to run on anthracite waste, not actual anthracite. Meanwhile, Welsh coal, the best Locomotive coal in the world, is anthracite.
@@1940limitedOh yeah. Heck part of the Delaware, Lackwanna & Western's marketing was based on the fact they used anthrecite coal. "Road of Anthrecite" and their big passenger train the "Phoebe Snow" leaned heavily on this.
Photographers really should know that the best train photos are ones taken during the colder months to get that beautifully thick white (sometimes dirty grey) smoke from the condensing steam... Instead of bothering the engineers with requests just for a happy snap. :P
Two things I'd love to see for videos, first of a quick 101 on the smokebox and blast nozzles Then I'd love to see Hyce's reaction to the Lithgow Zig Zag Railway over here in Australia.
Thanks for the explanation and reference to the preservation mode steam locomotives are in today. Back in the day it was discouraged to have a lot of smoke pouring out, especially in populated areas.
He is correct as to air/fuel mixture creating or limiting smoke. Also enjoyed the American to British steam engine construction. However the a-ha moment for me was that photographers wanting more dramatic pictures! That was very smart of him.
Thanks for this I'm from the UK and I have noticed from the times I've been on railways that large amounts of black smoke aren't a very common thing (I did see it once when a 9F passed, but that's the only time I can recall). This was very helpful.
With UK locos black smoke is often seen as the fireman is completing "putting a round on" ( firing up ).if he just covers the fire bed with a light covering the smoke goes gray at the chimney top just as the last shovel fulls are added once these ignite the smoke will fade away , if the fireman piles a load of coal in to the box in preparation for the road ahead ( a hill )whilst the loco is stood or not working it will smoke until all the coal has ignited and starting to burn bright to begin making steam.
All said is correct, but not the reason. Opening the firebox door and leaving it open while running to add oxygen above the fire creates engines with little smoke. It is also amazingly dangerous, because if the gasses blow back into the cab the resulting explosion will seriously harm the crew (this happened on a historical run recently).
If I understand correctly, In New Zealand they would sometimes "blow out" the boiler tubes of locos for photo runs by throwing a few shovels full of sand into the firebox, and it would clean the clinker buildup off the inside of the tubes and emit lots of smoke and even sparks (not great in summer!) looks impressive at sunset...
When you disturb the firebed by shoveling coal on it or stirring it, you also get smoke. Like you said - it's all fireman. Sometimes people want to see smoke for photographs. But most of the time, clear stack. However, quality of coal and even humidity can wreck a fire. I found when it got a lot more humid, like after a thunderstorm, the fire had a harder time burning when idle - more smoke.
I would guess that the fire having trouble combusting completely when the air is humid has to do with any air flowing in bringing with it moisture that, though it turns to steam inside the firebox, still has an overall cooling effect on the fire. In principle, it's like misting a fire with water vs dumping gallons at high pressure on the seat of the fire - misting on sufficiently small fires can be more effective, as it cools the area around the fire, sucking heat energy out of items around the fire, and reducing the likelihood of combustion spreading. Meanwhile, dumping gallons of water on the seat of a fire may well put out a primary fire, but could still leave you with items close enough to combustion that you may see secondary conflagrations. The catch with misting, from a firefighting standpoint of course is that you're then creating a steam heat hazard, which is something that should be accounted for when choosing how best to attack a fire.
@@KidarWolf Isn't it just the same issue as you generally have with starting any fire in a humid environment? The fuel is likely to be somewhat damp so there's a lot of water that has to evaporate first and that'll carry particulates with it.
slightly relevant is that any firefighter would completely understand this as they learn to read smoke. Thick black smoke is incomplete combustion. That's really all there is to it. Love these videos
I was told by someone long gone now, who ran them back when they were in service. He said they would get in big trouble in America for putting out smoke for over a certain amount of time. It wasted fuel and robbed power increasing costs. If you were the fireman and allowed it to smoke too often, you'd be fired according to what he told me. He said the smoke we commonly see today, or back in the early 1980's when he told me this, was due to operator error or lack of knowledge.
sincerely apprecite your analysis. you are clearly very knowledgeable on the topic given your experience. your channel has reignited (no pun intended) my fascination with steam engines. as a child a used to play around with a wilesco steam engine, which taught me the basics. I'm 35 now. Cheers and the best to you.
Im under the impression most of what comes out of a kettle's funnel (what we affectionately call steam engines in the UK!) is steam blown out of the cylinders, up the blast pipe mixed with some smoke from the firebox. Example on a cold day, you normally see lots of white steam coming out of the funnel as the hot steam cools. On a hotter day, you see far less steam because of the warmer ambient air temperature and not much smoke.
The exhaust steam is directed through the smokestack, where it helps the draft for the fire. Each "chuff" is a pulse, like a heartbeat. What exits the stack is a mixture of used steam and whatever gases and particles come through the tubes/flues. If you broke everything down by volume or weight my guess for what mostly comes out the stack (in descending order) is: 1. Lots and lots of hot air, depleted of oxygen and enriched in combustion byproducts. 2. Exhausted steam from the cylinders. 3. Unburnt fuel particles and other solid matter. Cinders, soot, ash, etc.
Close, but incorrect. The blast exhaust pipe works in tandem with the smokestack petticoat to create a vacuum in the smokebox. This sucks the gasses and smoke from the firebox. Remember, the steam from the cylinders continues to expand as it leaves the blast pipe, so the design of the petticoat to create the best vacuum is very complicated. We call it a "good steaming engine" when then got it right.
To add on to this and somewhat to back it up what mark is saying. If you pay attention to some videos of various locomotives running, especially oil burners. You will see the stacks burning very clean and when the engine gets close to the cameras it almost instantly turns black. Camera man says smoke, you give them smoke.hahaha
As a retired volunteer firefighter, I can tell you that solids (or liquids) do not burn. Only gases burn. With coal you get it hot enough to release the flammable gasses which burn. Same way with "flammable liquids", the liquid doesn't burn, only the gasses from the liquid burns.
I would like to add a few exceptions to this rule with things that have their own oxygen source as part of the chemical composition like gunpowder/C4/thermite.
Coal power plants grind up their coal into a really fine powder. I’m sure you still get a lot of incomplete combustion and soot, but the extra surface area helps a ton!
@@jeremyloveslinux Coal power plants also seem to have moved to 'no exhaust funnel' when they have cooling towers. As it is often undesired to have smoke (be it black or white) from a high funnel, nor steam clouds from a cooling tower, they inject the hot exhaust gases (that have run through filters, in the EU at least) into the top third of the cooling tower's interior, where the air is already hot anyway. This heats the moisture saturated air even more, so that it can take on even more moisture, thus reducing visible steam. The way higher airflow also dilutes the washed smoke, this way, when the powerplant is running at optimum, you have little to no smoke OR steam, and no funnel that is twice as tall as the cooling tower.
As a combustion engineer with over 50 years experience, of course some solids burn. Especially carbon, as in coke, which is mostly pure carbon and burns cleanly.
This is why UA-cam is the GOAT 🐐 LEARNING! ive never watched a locomotive educational video but the algorithm served it up and you explained everything in a understandable way and now im gonna watch all your videos and learn.
Wonderfully fascinating. I fondly remember steam trains rolling up the valley when I was very young and walking the disused railway embankment when a little older.
I always thought the Brits also wanted to minimize the smoke, because unlike the US they are actually densely populated and didn't want to smoke up the landscape. Besides, when it comes to engineering the Victorian Brits probably took pride in being efficient, so seeing the black smoke from incomplete combustion likely annoyed them. Like, they saw this could be better and so they decided to make it better.
British guy here , thank you so much for that really accurate description of a question I confess I had not Evan thought of , and it was interesting that it was mostly just what the photographer wants to see. I appreciated your answer of the small differences in the design of steam engine and most importantly why !! . Thank you a most interesting video.
Huh, neat. Very informative! I'm guessing we were also a lot hotter on not producing a lot smoke over here just because more of our rail network is at the end of people's gardens, or at the end of their street than the US. Not that it mattered much in places, the area I live (The Black Country) was named for the fact that the skies were always thick with smoke from trains and factories...
Thanks for this video. I've never fired a steam locomotive, however I picked up a neat fireman's instruction book from the twenties it's a real gem packed with knowledge. As you pointed out black smoke is unburned fuel the fireman did not get the heat out of it as he should have and he was wasting fuel and therefore company money. Thanks again.
I only clicked on this because of mild curiosity, but I must say the sound recording of some of the clips was exceptional. Added that bit of sub-conscious atmosphere that allowed this listener to 'feel the power' of the engines shown on a gut level. Cool...
Many years ago, when I lived in England I had a friend who owned a steam powered traction engine. This broke down close to home and I helped where I could. A week or so later boiler repairs were completed. When he was ready to leave there were complaints that the Brewery engine was not making any smoke. There was a small bag of tire trimmings in the cab (from the tire retreading business) and I was told to throw some in the firebox. I was unaware what this stuff would do, so I threw a bloody great big handful in. The whole place disappeared in enough black smoke to stop global warming.
I think you hit it on the mark, it's up to the fireman. The Reading and some other eastern RRs used anthracite (hard) coal, this is almost pure carbon and it burns very cleanly but is generally more expensive since it is valued for domestic use. Some bituminous (soft) is also clean burning, the narrow gauge East Broad Top hauled Broad Top coal generally to eastern markets where it was valued as a naval coal due to its low smoke, naval forces would disclose their position much sooner if they smoked a lot and passenger ships didn't like getting dirty and sooting up their passengers. I remember riding the EBT on a tourist run and you're right, the photags asked for more smoke, the firman would put a shovel of dry sand in the fire door and the draft would put it through the boiler cleaning out the tubes and making lots of smoke. As for smoking diesels, asking the engine to work hard at low rpm and low turbo boost means high rack settings and lots of smoke, generally a diesel in good condition, will only smoke when it's overworked. I also suspect that fuel was and is relatively cheap in the US and Canada, so nobody much cared.
Fun Fact: The most filthy crude oil still burns cleaner than higher quality coal, just barely. You can also use engine oil to fire oil burners if you're desperate.
One of my buddies inherited a piece of land out in the Midwest a few years ago, and together with a couple other friends, we built a 1 foot gauge miniature railroad, and all of our steamers, both finished and still being built, burn kerosene, except for our Jupiter, which burns store-bought wood chips. We don't only run steam, but it's always great when we do.
Thanks, Hyce. I've always wondered about the actual mechanics of being a fireman and how what they do affects the burn and power. It'd be cool to see a piece devoted solely to firemen and their duties and techniques on different machines. I still get chills from that beautiful outro.... Cheers from Ottawa, ON
Agree with all you said. When firing a Baldwin designed narrow gauge 2-6-2 tank loco, I sometimes had the choice - clean stack and a bit low on pressure, or close the fire hole door and have a bit of smoke and hopefully regain some pressure. Often it also depended on the water level too. If water level OK you could sacrifice a bit of water to hopefully maintain or increase pressure, but if water was low you needed to try and increase the pressure to at least maintain the water level. All good fun juggling fuel, water, pressure and emission from the funnel.
Thank you very much for your research and this video! I've always been a very huge fan of old cars, trains, and air craft. The beautiful designs, as well as the heart, craftsmanship, blood, sweat, and dedication of that era really appeal to me. I have always "kinda" noticed the "black smoke thing" quite often, but I don't think it actually really registered in my brain until I saw your video. I'm not kidding about my love for grand old machinery and transportation. I'm the very proud owner of my Dad's old fully restored 1930 Ford Model "A" Town Sedan. Man is it a handful to maintain... but boy do I ever love the time I spend maintaining it, driving it, and sharing it with others. There's no happier feeling! Keep up the great vids!
Laws were a big part, british engines have been required to "consume their own smoke" which is to mean burn smokelessly, it's not a side effect but a primary concern of the designs; complete combustion isn't for efficiency but for reducing pollution
I operate a 1/8 scale miniature coal fired locomotive and the main difference that I have had is the type of coal that I use. Anthracite is a much harder coal that burns hotter and produces very little smoke as compared to bituminous coal which a softer coal and produces a ridiculous amount of black smoke. Just like many people have already stated is that over firing an engine will produce smoke from unburned coal. Some people will tell you that anthracite is hard to burn, but it is not difficult, but only different and requires more air to keep it burning. So tending the coal is of major importance and keeping a nice bed of hot embers insures that the next shovel of coal will nearly immediately ignite. By the way, this hobby is fantastic.
The UK were fortunate to have Wales within it's borders which had plenty of Anthracite coal which burns very cleanly. Our heritage railways now have difficulties getting this.
A very good presentation. The LMS video you mention can be found on the Bennet Brook Railway site on UA-cam. One item that the video mentions is that the UK locomotives were designed to run with the fire door open. The designer placed a diverting plate behind the fire door to divert the secondary air down to the fire bed and away from the tube sheet. We don’t have such a design here in America, so to avoid allowing cold air to impinge on the rear tube sheet, we don’t usually run with the fire door open.
A couple of years ago I had a cab ride on an SY class locomotive in China which traces its' lineage back to an Alco design built for Korea in the 1920s. The firebox door was operated by a foot pedal. The fireman had to balance on his right foot as he collected a shovel full of coal, then swing to the left, putting his left foot on the pedal as he did so, and as soon as he released the coal swing back to the right to release the pedal. Firing is a hard enough job as it is without having to do that.
There is another slight difference, the U.S. has largely burnt anthracite coal (86-97% carbon, 33MJ/kg energy density). The U.K. Largely burns bituminous coal (76-86% carbon, 27MJ/kg energy density). I believe you are correct about it being down to the individual fireman and/or photography scenario, and firebox/flue design, but I feel coal type also plays a role.
"The Blower can be put on to stop the fire jumping out in a backdraft burning the Fireman -this happened to a well known Fiireman in New Zealand So from what I learnt is the Blower is put on a little to keep the fire from jumping out Also the Blower is used to create a thru draft to fan the fire and make it hotter while more coal is shovelled in to keep the fire Hot and stoked up for Hills and hard work hence the black smoke and straight up columns of smoke when she is working hard up a gradient ...Good video "
I randomly came by this video but I assume the UA-cam algorithm can see that I enjoy these little snippets of information. Thank you for a fascinating video. We don't see many of the great steam engines in the UK these days but when we do, they are surely a head turner. Now I'll be looking at the colour of the smoke and giving the fireman marks out of 10 for a good, clean burn.
Great video! Noticed when I went to Disney World in the mid-1970s and Disneyland in the 80s that the engines put out no smoke. I mistakenly thought they might be electric or Diesel powered, but no - they are all oil fired and regularly maintained to minimize emissions and maximize life spans!
It's nice to know the younger generation has an interest in these aged beasts and beauties. Hopefully they'll be around for generations to come. Appreciate the content... Keep up the quality work.
I don't know how things are where you're from, but in the U.S. steam locomotives are a big part of children's culture. Most locomotives you see in children's books, cartoons, movies, toys, etc. are steam. My kid grew up around trains (we lived half a block from the tracks for most of his life) and would always run to the corner to watch whenever he heard a train coming. He saw diesel locomotives every day of his life. But if you asked him to draw a train, it'd be a steam locomotive. So I suspect the interest in steam locomotives is safe for the foreseeable future. There's just something about them that people love.
@@jeffspaulding9834 From England. All our Trains are Electric or Diesel Electric. Thomas the tank engine is always a popular kids show but sadly does not always translate to a life long love of steam. But it only takes a dedicated few to keep them going for the rest of us. In my Home town of York. We have the National rail Museum Chock full of all manner of Trains and Carriages of yesteryear. Well worth a Google search.
Love that old-fashioned English voice on the LMS clip . It's very clear and easy to understand whatever your class in those days, but you would get some very strange looks in Britain if you spoke with that sort of register today. "I say old chap, a pint of your best bitter, please." Hilarious.
My father, who fired steam locomotives for the Baltimore and Ohio out of Baltimore, would often comment about steam locomotives shown on film and say they were being "over fired" for effect. He would also gripe about the cylinder cocks being open more than required, again for movie effect. I often imagine what would be like watching these UA-cam's about trains with him. He would be 103 this year. He was qualified for DC Union Station. Making smoke was a big no-no, and would get a fireman disqualified in Washington Terminal. I watched the video from British Rail about firing a steam locomotives. I did not know that American locos only had draft up through the coal. I would ask my dad about that feature. He told me that to reduce smoke in tunnels, shut off water to the boiler and coal to the fire, as each tended to cool the fire and make smoke. Watch water level, and when it disappears in the glass hope that the end of the tunnel is close. Can't do that unless the engine is steaming well. The tunnels on the Baltimore Division that caused problems where the Mount Airy Tunnel west of Baltimore, and the Howard Street Tunnel under Baltimore. Both had gradient, both produced gassed engine crews. Howard Street had an electric helper engine to get trains through the tunnel and over a hill called "The Belt Line." Built for trains in the 1890's, by the 1940's and 50's tonnages would often overload the helper and would require more power from the steam. In that case, according to one Yardmaster I worked with, after exiting the tunnel the steam engine crew would be relieved, taken to the hospital and given oxygen.
A good explanation. I'm not sure why photographers like to see locos being fired inefficiently. I am a fireman on a narrow gauge line in the UK. Until recently we were able to burn Welsh steam coal, which burnt very cleanly, usually with a slight haze unless we had just put a big round on. Sadly the Welsh government has forced the last mine producing steam coal to close on environmental grounds, so we are now importing coal all the way from Poland. This burns very differently so we are having to change our firing technique to minimise smoke. A very thin fire with a bit of top air seems to work, but the Polish stuff burns through quicker, so the fire needs constant attention.
It depends on what the fireman is doing. Black smoke tells us the fireman isn’t able to keep the fire hot enough and the smoke is wasted, unburned fuel billowing out of the stack. White smoke or no smoke indicates an engine is operating at maximum fuel efficiency. Or it can be the engine itself. Locos were usually assigned to a specific terminal in what ever class or duty; pool fright, helper service, passenger service, local freight, work trains, road switchers and/or snow removal. As a result these engines would hang around the roundhouse for extended periods of time. As a result of that, fireman became very familiar with these engines. So as it was known some engines steamed better than others. Black smoke can also be generated when sanding out the flues. As its name indicates, the this is done when the fireman would put several scoops of sand in the fire box or peep holes.
I also feel like the fact that in the US, our engines chuck everything out the stack, UK engines don't, and that's why they clean their smokeboxes often.
Do American engines make sparks, though? British engines produce a lot of sparks. You can see just how many they make at night. I've never seen this on American videos. Lineside fires are quite common along UK heritage railways in the Summer.
Brett told me about this after I posted the video ready to go, definitely a miss on my part. Our smokeboxes are "self cleaning." For you Brits out there, we clean them annually. And they don't need much...
7822 we have the same issue for sure.
@7822welshsteam yes, US engines certainly can produce a spark, but often times the engines that do make sparks normally have a spark arrestor placed on the stack to catch the sparks preventing them from escaping the stack and setting fires.
@@7822welshsteamSome. Usually the older ones that run on wood, hence why the smokestack often had mesh and a wide funnel, as it was meant to catch the sparks. Of course, the transition to coal basically removed sparks, and thus, the mesh was gone
Having taken a few combustion courses in university, there is nothing more satisfying than seeing a steam locomotive produce almost no smoke even under load. Yes, watching huge amounts of black smoke looks dramatic, but it's a sign of inefficiency! Not to mention the huge amounts of particulate pollution: The British steam locomotives often ran in more urban environments, so I would imagine keeping smoke down was a priority, even in the era when people thought cigarettes were healthy.
On the latter point, you are exactly right. Before UK locomotives could burn Anthracite Coal smokelessly (due to it having to burn at an extremely high temprature which early fireboxes could not handle to do so), they often burned Coke due to it being smokeless. In fact, several early railways, such as the Liverpool & Manchester, were subject to smoke abatement rules which necessetatated the use of Coke.
@@owenstockwood5040 Wasn’t there a law that stated something along the lines of, “all rail vehicles have to consume their own smoke”? I think I may recall something like that from the rules to the Rainhill Trials.
@@highball5550 the Metropolitan Rly. was subject to that rule also - not just for the reason of disruption due to smoke but also because it was all in tunnels. A chap called Fowler built a 2-4-0 with the object of reducing smoke, used effectively bricks to store heat and lessen fuel use and therefore smoke production. In fairness, it made little smoke, but also no steam either....
@@ajaxengineco I’ve heard of Fowler’s Ghost. The firebricks are a great idea until you run out of water.
@@highball5550 we also had inspecters in many cities that would make sure stack emissions were kept to a minimum or the railroad would get fined, in the usa cuz no one wants black laundry after they wash clothes.
Back when steam locomotives were in earning revenue mode, making heavy smoke was regarded by the Norfolk and Southern Railway as a potential disciplinary offence, as it wasted fuel and led to complaints from the public. In the era before tumble driers, washing was commonly dried on a line and being downwind of a smokey locomotive, could ruin the whole wash. In the UK with preserved locomotives, making smoke is regarded as wasteful and anti-social.
Hmmm, wasteful and anti-social... the name of a certain country springs to mind 😉
I very much doubt the british clothes line was an issue, the wants of the public have rarely influenced dirty industries until very recently. Btw we still use clothes lines, modern washing machines spin nearly all the water off making the tumble drier practically redundant. Hanging out on the line is mainly to air the clothes, less so to dry them.
@@jeffslade1892I strongly suspect that in many cases the husband of the lady whose washing was ruined had something to do with the railway. He got his ear chewed off at home and had some words with the crew on the loco the next morning. Said crew fires the engine more carefully for an easier life.
When O. Winston Link was getting permission to photograph NS trains, he was told never to take a picture showing black smoke.
We have a tumble drier and never use it. We either dry on a rotary drier in the garden or on racks indoors using heat from a wood burner. 24 hours on a rack in the spare bedroom and clothes will be dry whatever the temperature providing you have your ventilation and humidity sorted. Electric driers just seem to be one of the worst most wasteful and CO2 polluting devices around.
I don't know. That's why I'm watching this video.
It seems you don’t have you Anti C&S Spray on hand now you do after you watched this
@@OfficialDenverRioGrandeWesternthe C&S is a W Railroad. They saved the 346
😂
6:50
@@Jawst not All heros wear capes.
The wife’s grandfather was a conductor for grand trunk railroad back in the 1940s-50s. He always had a fit when he saw huge clouds of black smoke coming from the trains on TV shows and movies. So we all asked him one day why? He told us that all that smoke was from forcing the engine to run before it was properly warmed up and ready! He went on about air to fuel ratios, air flow and other things. He ended by saying he wanted to go to Hollywood and knock a few heads together and teach them how to properly run a steamer!
Wait wait wait...
Grand Trunk Railroad!?!
You just changed my life.
The simplest method of smokeless firing (also the least effort-intensive; I'm a lazy old bugger) is to watch the exhaust. When it turns white, add four or five shovelfuls to the part of the fire you didn't feed on the previous firing, and then when the exhaust changes from pale grey to white, repeat. This keeps the pressure up while minimising smoke. Disclaimer: this works on locos with a wide firebox, in my case NZR J and Ja class. I have never fired a narrow-firebox locomotive.
Added note on the Oil Burners. As they burn, soot will build up and the tubes and flues insulating from the heat of the fire. So, every now and again, they pour sand in the fire chamber which then bounces around and knocks soot loose. Leading to a big trail of black coming out the stack.
I've seen the sand technique used in various locomotives. Is it really effective?
@@1940limited it’s practically required for oil burners. If you don’t sand the flues during a run, they can and will get blocked up. On the D&S we sand the flues 6 times on the way to Silverton
@@1940limited Lynn Nystrom was the gentleman who explained it to me back when Stephen Lee and he ran Union Pacific 844. While I haven't personally climb inside a boiler to find out. The theory is at least sound since sand is very abrasive. And to that the force of a locomotive's draft and it should easily take thin layers off.
Very true! Sanding the flues makes a mess, but is ultimately a good thing.
@@1940limited *See thumbnail for example!
I'm a fireman here in the UK - and I'm very much looking forward to visiting the US and experiencing your behemoths! This was a fascinating video, thank you; I never realised how different US-designed fireboxes were. Secondary air is drilled into us in the UK as extremely important; any large quantity of black smoke, such as at 3:24 in your video, would in the UK draw comments from the driver and frowns from any inspectors present!
Just make sure to remember how big the US is (Texas alone is nearly 3x the UK's size). You would be surprised how many tourists underestimate its size. I'm sure you have heard that the Big Boy should be running from Cheyenne (shy-ANN) to Omaha this month, so there is that.
We know how to say Cheyenne, we were brought up on black and white cowboy programs
We have a Big Boy here in Scranton at Steamtown, but they don't run it.
@@ManOfUnknownWorth "Just make sure to remember how big the US is (Texas alone is nearly 3x the UK's size). You would be surprised how many tourists underestimate its size."
Yup. That's a big one. It's pretty common europeans just don't 'get' the scale of things here. I have had conversations where they were telling me that they intended to go do this or that while they're here and they had to be told that their idea just wasn't feasible.
Like, no, man. That's an 8 hour drive. One way. Speeding. With no stops.
@@ColonelSandersLite We have the same issue here in Australia, Western Australia is nearly 4 times the size of Texas with only a fraction of the population, people can travel for days without even seeing another person. This makes it dangerous as well because it is so remote and harsh. As an example, it takes nearly 30 hours of non-stop driving to drive from the capital to the northern most town.
One very important reason why you don't see black smoke in the UK - it is actually illegal. Cannot recall whether it is the Clean Air Act of 1956 or 1968, but allowing a locomotive to produce black smoke is naughty and can lead to fines. Whilst realistically, a heritage railway wouldn't be fined for a quick "oops, bugger" moment from the fireman, doing it consistently and deliberately for a photographic charter would be a big no-no.
Quite how this will change with the slight coal problems that UK heritage sector has been having recently remains to be seen.
When smoke was wanted/needed for photos in the UK old VHS 📼 tapes would be thrown on the fire to produce the required effect. At least that's the rumours anyway.
An Act of Parliament was required for the construction of just about every British railway and from the Liverpool and Manchester Railway onwards every Act included the clause that "locomotives shall consume their own smoke". Not until fireboxes were designed to efficiently use secondary air and with the invention of the brick firebox arch could coal be used, prior to that coke was used being a smokeless fuel.
Steam trains should produce steam. Which, I think, is what Brits want to see on locomotive photographs & magic lanterns. I wonder if that's easier or more common on a cold humid island?
@@ethelmini when it's colder, yes UK engines produce more smoke, I think it's called "Atmospheric smoke".
@@ethelmini As this video observed, smoke isn't steam.😀
There’s an excellent video on YT from someone driving side-by-side on the highway alongside UP4014 at about 60mph, and the Big Boy was running so clean that it barely produced any smoke, despite how hard the locomotive was firing - impressive!
I personally saw, filmed and photographed 4014 Big Boy as it toured through Iowa a couple years back. He rolled some smoke climbing a small grade and then rolling out from a full stop. Big Boy is converted to burning oil and not wood and coal as in the early days. I am sure they aren't burning top shelf diesel. Big Boy also travels with a late model turbo diesel/electric. I am sure in lots of it's use it is mostly idling and letting the turbo diesel do most of the work
@@mixerman1We did too when 4014 was making its pass through IOWA, we drove down to Omaha and spent several hours at home plate touring and doing a LOT of chatting with the gang working there... I went right up the ladder to talk with the crew. Like whos' this chick??? The Diesel Electric provided electrical power for the train to run their A/C's, pump water and fuel and most importantly provide brake AIR. They told me Big Boy pulled the train, but the D-E was there incase they had any trouble. They could limp home on it if they had to, but they weren't going to hit the line without modern brake air quantities available... It all made sense to me.... It was a great day and we had a lot of fun down there. Well worth the trip and I learned a lot.
@@erikaostlund5229 How cool is that, yeah I knew they were using the D-E for electric and air, thanks for the more info 😁
@@mixerman1nope, the diesel is there as a backup. Yes Ed D can control it from 4014’s cab but typically it’s just idling. UP originally tried to convert big boys to oil back in the 1940s but had issues reaching the HP & Tractive effort #’s to match the coal fired version along with issues with firebox heating (cold spots) so the effort was scrapped. In today’s service the few bits of HP & tractive effort lost aren’t a big deal since it’s not in revenue service. Tender & oil burner assembly installed on 4014 is mostly parts from 3985.
Your calm demeanor while describing in-depth explanations of these questions, which sometimes we didn’t know we had, is always much appreciated.
Interesting comments which agree with. In the UK in the 1950's steam era you never saw black smoke coming from operating steam locos. I worked on station shunt locos for a time and you were not allowed to make smoke in the station environment. Even now, in New Zealand, I can fire small steam locos and produce virtually no smoke with crap coal. My job is to show new firemen how to fire so that smoke is kept to a minimum once the loco is operating.
@@eleanorbartle5354 Firefighter - one that FIGHTS the fire, Fireman - one which occupation is "to deal/ to do" with fire, without specifying HOW exactly.
@@eleanorbartle5354 Thankfully there's no such thing as a "fireperson"... yet ;-)
@@eleanorbartle5354 which is the same as NZ. Not sure if its common in the UK??
@@shanelmurray3448yep, nobody has problems with ambiguity, just look at dictionaries to see that few words have single meanings. Gender neutrality made firefighter become correct
@@MrKotBonifacy Shhh... Don't give Them any ideas!
In Britain, the type of coal used is normally a product called steam coal. This burns very hot (it would quickly burn through a domestic grate) and usually burns cleaner. In the traction engine community at traction engine rallies, owners get very annoyed with organisers who supply normal coal because it creates less heat to drive the engine, burns dirtily and reduces performance.
Norfolk and Western had stenciled on the front of the tender, right where the fireman could see it, "Black smoke means waste." When the railroad granted permission to O. Winston Link to photograph their engines at the end of steam operations, they requested he refrain from taking pictures of engines emitting black smoke.
A clear stack is important in night flash Photography. Looks more dramatic.
As a retired engineer I remember having to calculate and analysis how to burn fuels efficiently in my university degree. Think this was the best lab experiments we did. Though I went on to work for a company that designed and tested engines that did not use combustion as its energy source. We still had to maintain the back up diesels and sited heating boilers so they burnt the fuel correctly without black smoke. A term to remember for future discussions on the subject is the Stoichiometric fuel mixture ratio which is when all the fuel is burnt with no excess air (Oxygen) used. Another wee aside, as all the firemen will tell you its the gases that burn and not the solids. Hence the soot. So Stoichiometric is your word of the day and a ratio to remember for your car is 14.7:1
The photography thing is certainly a big reason, and the pic at 2:10 is a perfect example of why. Photographers like action shots of a train, but that one pic looks like it was parked. True, you can demonstrate speed/movement in other ways, like with a panning shot, but that isn't always possible. Even though it's not a true representation, a big cloud of smoke gives the impression of the locomotive working and moving, and makes for a more dramatic shot overall.
O Winston Link got his stunning photos of US locos by arranging with the fireman to put rubber tyres in the firebox just before the photo location. This is possible with other photographers, so maybe black smoke is a photographic artefact.
Another factor could be whether In the UK, we are quite used to cool damp weather. What comes out of the locomotive chimney is a mixture of gasses from the fire and steam (water) from the blast pipe. The steam rapidly turns into water droplets which do not evaporate as the local air is close to saturation point and comes out of chimney as white "smoke". Think of it as the equivalent of an aircraft's contrail. This looks really good in a photo which may account for the different pressure from the photographic lobby.
@@verdunluck1578 i always see black smoke as something dirty and polluting, but big clouds of white steam look so nice. you can't count the pictures of white winter landscapes with trains that leave a big trail of steam clouds. (i'm from germany)
I think you summed it up perfectly in terms of the fuel quality how good the fireman is and coasting.
Ed Dickens one time was asked the same question and he said that they realized when the engine is smoking it’s actually wasting fuel. So they try to keep both engines as clear as possible. Best advice if you want to see a big boy smoke, just chase it in the winter.
Although N&W 611 and any of the locomotives at Cass Scenic Railroad smoke just as much as a power plant most of the time.
I recall a video from a UK steam preservation group who said they will no longer be doing black smoke due to environmentalist complaints. They also said HOW they got their smoke was throwing a few VHS tapes into the firebox.
That's... Interesting.
Ah man, could still preserve those VHS tapes, even if they are already used.
But nonetheless, that is absolutely hilarious.
That’s a joke son.
Not really a train guy, but watched from curiosity. I can't believe how well I former you are, and how quickly and clearly you communicate the facts, history, and physics. I wish you
Well and great success! You stand out from most "sales funnel" videos online, usually overselling something and wasting people's good time to do it.
Always as my day starts, Hyce uploads. Perfect
hi lilly ❤
@@ChiliCheeseNuggies ma'am I'm gonna invade your dms with chickens.
Coal tender over stoken boiler. They used to fine the tender for doing that back in the day. My father ran one. In state of michigan.
When I first went to work for the railroad in the early 70s (in South Texas) there were still quite a few "old heads" from steam locomotive days left on the railroad. Hearing some of their stories, if a Road Foreman of Engines noticed an unusual amount of black smoke coming from a passing train, it was possible for the fireman to receive demerits "for waste of fuel". All the steam locomotives in use at the time were oil burners. Coal as a fuel in most of Texas had been phased-out by the time of WWI or in the 1920's at the latest. Plentiful cheap oil was too good a bargain for the railroads to ignore.
The salt, it's probably Roundup. There will be a suit of law.
Didn’t know I needed to know this. I loved steam engines as a kid, and it’s still in there. This showed up on my recommended and I’m so glad I now know.
The funny thing is that I technically already knew this due to working with rich/lean conditions on a truck I owned for the first near decade of my adult life. It just never crossed my mind that the same logic was relevant to steam engines! Love to see it.
In the UK we have dampers set up for directional running too, so you have control the airflow with those depending on the direction of travel relative to the firebox to get a good draft and complete combustion. Not sure how much of a thing that is on American locomotives.
We don't have dampers on 99% our coal burners. Oil, yes, and they exist front and rear; but less so for directionality and more for controlling the specific flow of the oil fire.
S160s don't have them. That confused the drivers who came with the manor and the 42XX to the Churnet Valley.
In the United States of America, our steam locomotives also had seats for the crew. How come the UK never did?
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 Oh we do, they're mostly fold down seats attatched to the cab walls where space permits it. many smaller engines or pre-grouping ones may not have them though.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2Working class don't need seats. Let the buggers stand. It's good for them and stops them sleeping on the job. Like having windscreens on pre-war trams. Just let them get wet on the rare occasion it rains in Britain.
Having run five oil burners and being taught to fire by a retired SP fireman back in the eighties I have had very little trouble firing oil burners. WSLC 12 is a tricky little locomotive but always performed well for me. Really no excuses for smoke. I have had people ask me for more smoke.
I told them no way!
its interesting how the amount of knowledge the teacher have, is resoulting in a simple answer that is easier so understand... Anwering complex questions with a simple answer, requires heaps of knowledge and experience. Thanks Hyce
In steam days larger UK stations would have signs on platform ends warning footplate crews not to make smoke, due to complaints from homes and businesses close to the line. Your comment about secondary air is spot on here.
Ta.
Stamp of approval on the explanation of combustion and what actually makes smoke. Well explained!
Very interesting, I worked as a combustion Engineer on coal boilers for many years, so couple of points.
To stop smoke you need three things - time, temperature and turbulance. Time is by furnace design, Temperature is design and operation, and Turbulance is normally via the secondary air,
Coal has two different 'bits' that burn, volatile matter, which produces the smoke, and fixed carbon, which is in effect Coke, a smokeless fuel, so its the volatile matter that makes the smoke (generally)
It's very easy to get a coal boiler to smoke. harder with oil, almost (but not quite) impossible with gas.
Good video, enjoyed it.
This matches my experience with coal burning small gauge engines, to the point where as I’m about to leave the station, I’ll chuck a few scoops of coal in, and as I pull out, she blows a thick stack of smoke for photos, which dies down as I head up the back hill
I love that UA-cam occasionally tosses me an interesting video about steam engines, just to keep the little kid in me smiling. Thanks for a very interesting answer to a question I never thought to ask.
Having worked a few photo charters at Sumpter (as train crew not engine crew), I can confirm photographers and the photo organizer like to have smoke, and are not afraid to ask us to "back up and do another run-by with more smoke". Especially if one shall-remain-nameless-but-well-known-person is involved. I hear he fired the Shay at City of Prineville once and got buzzed, though not dropped on, by a firefighting air tanker because he put out so much smoke.
🤣 that's a heck of a tale! Would have been an amazing story had it ended with the loco getting drenched.
The Pennsy management did not like smokey fires. Their mantra was "A clean fire is an efficient fire". Which follows along with what you are saying, the right balance of fuel and air makes for more complete combustion and thus a low to no smoke fire.
Great explanation as always bud. Can't wait to see more like this. Keep doing the great work you do.🎉
Interesting insightful video! Having been a rail fan (steam mainly) for a long time I have to agree with you that photographer expectations have a big influence on smoke production. My Dad wrote a letter to Lucius Beebe in 1948 complimenting him on his then recent publication of Mixed Train Daily and got a response from the one of the biggest influencers of the time with regard to rail photography. I’ll quote a portion of the letter here where Beebe talks about the photos he used in his book. “The smoke effects were deliberate and calculated on our part. Simply we have seen so many pictures that we know to have been taken at speed but which show no exhaust at all that when we undertook Mixed Train we swore on a stack of Stork Club menus that we wouldn’t run a single action shot that didn’t show all the smoke we could get. We just think that an engine that isn’t visibly working steam has no point whatsoever to it. We worked apart” (referring to his partner Charles Clegg) “and took shots repeatedly over wide terrains to get the most possible exhaust, occasionally asking for it, but usually catching it at places where we knew we would get the greatest volume. We wanted every damn picture to be perfect, and there is hardly a single one we are going to change in the next printing.” If you have any of Beebe’s books you’ll see a lot of smoke being produced for the sake of drama and not efficiency. I thought this was a good data point to corroborate some of you conclusions.
Yeah, lots of different variables here... very situational question these days. But in the steam era, smoke was one of the greatest sins you could commit as a fireman, right next to letting the safety valves blow off.
Some preservation groups still feel this way. The guy who taught me how to fire did some calculations about the costs of fuel and the cost of waste coal and water when there's black smoke or safeties lifting. He had a can in the cab for training purposes - every time the safeties blow or you see dark smoke, you put a dollar in the can.
The money went back to the museum as a donation, but that really taught the trainee fireman a good lesson about waste...
I'm guessing the dollar in the can nowhere near covered the cost of the coal that was wasted.
@@quillmaurer6563 over covered until recently.
I love coming across random stuff like this 👍🏻
Reminds me of an old story I heard once, a road kept getting complaint letters about smoke from a switcher that was working a yard all the time by the complainer's house.
Looked 'er over, nothing was was wrong with 'er and the fireman was doing his job right, but still the letters came and the road foreman had to keep addressing the crew about it.
Eventually the fireman got so fed up he went to the town dump and came back with a stack of old rubber tires and chucked 'em into the firebox. That little switcher coughed up a wad of black smoke so thick and smelly the place stunk like burnt rubber for days.
Wasn't long after that the complaints stopped coming in.
@@des_smith7658 "Your honor, I'd like to submit as evidence this UA-cam comment made on June 18, 2023..."
Speaking as a photographer, that answer makes a hell of a lot of sense. In a still photo, you need something 'dynamic' to show movement, & a big plume of smoke is a great way to do that.
British engines also use anthracite (not culm) to fire with, whilst we use bitumous.
Lackawanna steam locomotives and I think Reading, too, were designed to run on "clean burning" anthracite but I'm not sure that's what always found its way into the firebox.
@@1940limited Those were designed to run on anthracite waste, not actual anthracite. Meanwhile, Welsh coal, the best Locomotive coal in the world, is anthracite.
Depends on the railroad; the setup is different, but so long as you're burning the correct coal in an engine set up for it, you won't have the plume.
@@Hyce777 So it was numerous factors that contributed to thick smoke.
@@1940limitedOh yeah. Heck part of the Delaware, Lackwanna & Western's marketing was based on the fact they used anthrecite coal. "Road of Anthrecite" and their big passenger train the "Phoebe Snow" leaned heavily on this.
Photographers really should know that the best train photos are ones taken during the colder months to get that beautifully thick white (sometimes dirty grey) smoke from the condensing steam... Instead of bothering the engineers with requests just for a happy snap. :P
That LMS video is a fantastic source for any railway, even if some of the details are different for across the pond.
Two things I'd love to see for videos, first of a quick 101 on the smokebox and blast nozzles
Then I'd love to see Hyce's reaction to the Lithgow Zig Zag Railway over here in Australia.
Thanks for the explanation and reference to the preservation mode steam locomotives are in today. Back in the day it was discouraged to have a lot of smoke pouring out, especially in populated areas.
If you wanted to really upset the station agents wife, just come by trailing a huge plume of smoke just after she had hung out fresh laundary!
He is correct as to air/fuel mixture creating or limiting smoke. Also enjoyed the American to British steam engine construction. However the a-ha moment for me was that photographers wanting more dramatic pictures! That was very smart of him.
Thanks for this
I'm from the UK and I have noticed from the times I've been on railways that large amounts of black smoke aren't a very common thing (I did see it once when a 9F passed, but that's the only time I can recall). This was very helpful.
Think the 9F has the biggest boiler out of pretty much all the operational preserved steam engines here in britain.
With UK locos black smoke is often seen as the fireman is completing "putting a round on" ( firing up ).if he just covers the fire bed with a light covering the smoke goes gray at the chimney top just as the last shovel fulls are added once these ignite the smoke will fade away , if the fireman piles a load of coal in to the box in preparation for the road ahead ( a hill )whilst the loco is stood or not working it will smoke until all the coal has ignited and starting to burn bright to begin making steam.
All said is correct, but not the reason. Opening the firebox door and leaving it open while running to add oxygen above the fire creates engines with little smoke. It is also amazingly dangerous, because if the gasses blow back into the cab the resulting explosion will seriously harm the crew (this happened on a historical run recently).
3:18 beautiful photography
If I understand correctly, In New Zealand they would sometimes "blow out" the boiler tubes of locos for photo runs by throwing a few shovels full of sand into the firebox, and it would clean the clinker buildup off the inside of the tubes and emit lots of smoke and even sparks (not great in summer!) looks impressive at sunset...
Love the deep dives. It’s like any industry, so much more complex than most people realize. Excellent Presentation!
When you disturb the firebed by shoveling coal on it or stirring it, you also get smoke. Like you said - it's all fireman. Sometimes people want to see smoke for photographs. But most of the time, clear stack. However, quality of coal and even humidity can wreck a fire. I found when it got a lot more humid, like after a thunderstorm, the fire had a harder time burning when idle - more smoke.
Absolutely true!
I would guess that the fire having trouble combusting completely when the air is humid has to do with any air flowing in bringing with it moisture that, though it turns to steam inside the firebox, still has an overall cooling effect on the fire. In principle, it's like misting a fire with water vs dumping gallons at high pressure on the seat of the fire - misting on sufficiently small fires can be more effective, as it cools the area around the fire, sucking heat energy out of items around the fire, and reducing the likelihood of combustion spreading. Meanwhile, dumping gallons of water on the seat of a fire may well put out a primary fire, but could still leave you with items close enough to combustion that you may see secondary conflagrations. The catch with misting, from a firefighting standpoint of course is that you're then creating a steam heat hazard, which is something that should be accounted for when choosing how best to attack a fire.
@@KidarWolf Isn't it just the same issue as you generally have with starting any fire in a humid environment? The fuel is likely to be somewhat damp so there's a lot of water that has to evaporate first and that'll carry particulates with it.
slightly relevant is that any firefighter would completely understand this as they learn to read smoke. Thick black smoke is incomplete combustion. That's really all there is to it. Love these videos
I was told by someone long gone now, who ran them back when they were in service. He said they would get in big trouble in America for putting out smoke for over a certain amount of time. It wasted fuel and robbed power increasing costs. If you were the fireman and allowed it to smoke too often, you'd be fired according to what he told me. He said the smoke we commonly see today, or back in the early 1980's when he told me this, was due to operator error or lack of knowledge.
sincerely apprecite your analysis. you are clearly very knowledgeable on the topic given your experience. your channel has reignited (no pun intended) my fascination with steam engines. as a child a used to play around with a wilesco steam engine, which taught me the basics. I'm 35 now. Cheers and the best to you.
Im under the impression most of what comes out of a kettle's funnel (what we affectionately call steam engines in the UK!) is steam blown out of the cylinders, up the blast pipe mixed with some smoke from the firebox. Example on a cold day, you normally see lots of white steam coming out of the funnel as the hot steam cools. On a hotter day, you see far less steam because of the warmer ambient air temperature and not much smoke.
The exhaust steam is directed through the smokestack, where it helps the draft for the fire. Each "chuff" is a pulse, like a heartbeat. What exits the stack is a mixture of used steam and whatever gases and particles come through the tubes/flues. If you broke everything down by volume or weight my guess for what mostly comes out the stack (in descending order) is:
1. Lots and lots of hot air, depleted of oxygen and enriched in combustion byproducts.
2. Exhausted steam from the cylinders.
3. Unburnt fuel particles and other solid matter. Cinders, soot, ash, etc.
Close, but incorrect. The blast exhaust pipe works in tandem with the smokestack petticoat to create a vacuum in the smokebox. This sucks the gasses and smoke from the firebox. Remember, the steam from the cylinders continues to expand as it leaves the blast pipe, so the design of the petticoat to create the best vacuum is very complicated. We call it a "good steaming engine" when then got it right.
To add on to this and somewhat to back it up what mark is saying. If you pay attention to some videos of various locomotives running, especially oil burners. You will see the stacks burning very clean and when the engine gets close to the cameras it almost instantly turns black.
Camera man says smoke, you give them smoke.hahaha
As a retired volunteer firefighter, I can tell you that solids (or liquids) do not burn. Only gases burn. With coal you get it hot enough to release the flammable gasses which burn. Same way with "flammable liquids", the liquid doesn't burn, only the gasses from the liquid burns.
I would like to add a few exceptions to this rule with things that have their own oxygen source as part of the chemical composition like gunpowder/C4/thermite.
Coal power plants grind up their coal into a really fine powder. I’m sure you still get a lot of incomplete combustion and soot, but the extra surface area helps a ton!
@@jeremyloveslinux Coal power plants also seem to have moved to 'no exhaust funnel' when they have cooling towers.
As it is often undesired to have smoke (be it black or white) from a high funnel, nor steam clouds from a cooling tower, they inject the hot exhaust gases (that have run through filters, in the EU at least) into the top third of the cooling tower's interior, where the air is already hot anyway. This heats the moisture saturated air even more, so that it can take on even more moisture, thus reducing visible steam. The way higher airflow also dilutes the washed smoke, this way, when the powerplant is running at optimum, you have little to no smoke OR steam, and no funnel that is twice as tall as the cooling tower.
embers burn
As a combustion engineer with over 50 years experience, of course some solids burn. Especially carbon, as in coke, which is mostly pure carbon and burns cleanly.
This is why UA-cam is the GOAT 🐐 LEARNING! ive never watched a locomotive educational video but the algorithm served it up and you explained everything in a understandable way and now im gonna watch all your videos and learn.
I'm surprised you didn't mention sanding the flues on an oil burner, that puts out a huge plume of black emoke.
Very true! I don't get to play with oil myself so I always forget about sanding the flues. Haha.
And if you're on an open-ended carriage in the train behind, you get sand in your hair, guess how I know. (New Zealand Railways Ja class)
Wonderfully fascinating. I fondly remember steam trains rolling up the valley when I was very young and walking the disused railway embankment when a little older.
Guys, we all know the real reason is that the fireman and engineer sit on the wrong side. Also Hyce, it’s the opening song in Firing 101.
You made me spittake my coffee, mate :P
This was very interesting and something I had noticed about U.S. and UK steam engines. Thanks for answering this question.
I always thought the Brits also wanted to minimize the smoke, because unlike the US they are actually densely populated and didn't want to smoke up the landscape. Besides, when it comes to engineering the Victorian Brits probably took pride in being efficient, so seeing the black smoke from incomplete combustion likely annoyed them. Like, they saw this could be better and so they decided to make it better.
British guy here , thank you so much for that really accurate description of a question I confess I had not Evan thought of , and it was interesting that it was mostly just what the photographer wants to see. I appreciated your answer of the small differences in the design of steam engine and most importantly why !! . Thank you a most interesting video.
Huh, neat. Very informative! I'm guessing we were also a lot hotter on not producing a lot smoke over here just because more of our rail network is at the end of people's gardens, or at the end of their street than the US. Not that it mattered much in places, the area I live (The Black Country) was named for the fact that the skies were always thick with smoke from trains and factories...
Thanks for this video. I've never fired a steam locomotive, however I picked up a neat fireman's instruction book from the twenties it's a real gem packed with knowledge. As you pointed out black smoke is unburned fuel the fireman did not get the heat out of it as he should have and he was wasting fuel and therefore company money. Thanks again.
Cool. I didn't know any of this. Good video!
I only clicked on this because of mild curiosity, but I must say the sound recording of some of the clips was exceptional. Added that bit of sub-conscious atmosphere that allowed this listener to 'feel the power' of the engines shown on a gut level. Cool...
Many years ago, when I lived in England I had a friend who owned a steam powered traction engine. This broke down close to home and I helped where I could. A week or so later boiler repairs were completed. When he was ready to leave there were complaints that the Brewery engine was not making any smoke. There was a small bag of tire trimmings in the cab (from the tire retreading business) and I was told to throw some in the firebox. I was unaware what this stuff would do, so I threw a bloody great big handful in. The whole place disappeared in enough black smoke to stop global warming.
Here's to cancer 😂
I think you hit it on the mark, it's up to the fireman. The Reading and some other eastern RRs used anthracite (hard) coal, this is almost pure carbon and it burns very cleanly but is generally more expensive since it is valued for domestic use. Some bituminous (soft) is also clean burning, the narrow gauge East Broad Top hauled Broad Top coal generally to eastern markets where it was valued as a naval coal due to its low smoke, naval forces would disclose their position much sooner if they smoked a lot and passenger ships didn't like getting dirty and sooting up their passengers. I remember riding the EBT on a tourist run and you're right, the photags asked for more smoke, the firman would put a shovel of dry sand in the fire door and the draft would put it through the boiler cleaning out the tubes and making lots of smoke. As for smoking diesels, asking the engine to work hard at low rpm and low turbo boost means high rack settings and lots of smoke, generally a diesel in good condition, will only smoke when it's overworked. I also suspect that fuel was and is relatively cheap in the US and Canada, so nobody much cared.
You are right about naval use. US Navy ships in WW1 produced significantly less smoke operating on British coal.
Fun Fact: The most filthy crude oil still burns cleaner than higher quality coal, just barely. You can also use engine oil to fire oil burners if you're desperate.
One of my buddies inherited a piece of land out in the Midwest a few years ago, and together with a couple other friends, we built a 1 foot gauge miniature railroad, and all of our steamers, both finished and still being built, burn kerosene, except for our Jupiter, which burns store-bought wood chips. We don't only run steam, but it's always great when we do.
Thanks, Hyce. I've always wondered about the actual mechanics of being a fireman and how what they do affects the burn and power. It'd be cool to see a piece devoted solely to firemen and their duties and techniques on different machines.
I still get chills from that beautiful outro....
Cheers from Ottawa, ON
Agree with all you said.
When firing a Baldwin designed narrow gauge 2-6-2 tank loco, I sometimes had the choice - clean stack and a bit low on pressure, or close the fire hole door and have a bit of smoke and hopefully regain some pressure. Often it also depended on the water level too. If water level OK you could sacrifice a bit of water to hopefully maintain or increase pressure, but if water was low you needed to try and increase the pressure to at least maintain the water level. All good fun juggling fuel, water, pressure and emission from the funnel.
Thank you very much for your research and this video!
I've always been a very huge fan of old cars, trains, and air craft. The beautiful designs, as well as the heart, craftsmanship, blood, sweat, and dedication of that era really appeal to me.
I have always "kinda" noticed the "black smoke thing" quite often, but I don't think it actually really registered in my brain until I saw your video.
I'm not kidding about my love for grand old machinery and transportation. I'm the very proud owner of my Dad's old fully restored 1930 Ford Model "A" Town Sedan. Man is it a handful to maintain... but boy do I ever love the time I spend maintaining it, driving it, and sharing it with others. There's no happier feeling!
Keep up the great vids!
Laws were a big part, british engines have been required to "consume their own smoke" which is to mean burn smokelessly, it's not a side effect but a primary concern of the designs; complete combustion isn't for efficiency but for reducing pollution
I operate a 1/8 scale miniature coal fired locomotive and the main difference that I have had is the type of coal that I use. Anthracite is a much harder coal that burns hotter and produces very little smoke as compared to bituminous coal which a softer coal and produces a ridiculous amount of black smoke. Just like many people have already stated is that over firing an engine will produce smoke from unburned coal. Some people will tell you that anthracite is hard to burn, but it is not difficult, but only different and requires more air to keep it burning. So tending the coal is of major importance and keeping a nice bed of hot embers insures that the next shovel of coal will nearly immediately ignite. By the way, this hobby is fantastic.
I'm glad you mentioned the LMS instructional video, because I was going to recommend it.
That video of UP 3985 going to the Super bowl and sending up a massive volcanic plum from sanding the flues is something else.
The UK were fortunate to have Wales within it's borders which had plenty of Anthracite coal which burns very cleanly. Our heritage railways now have difficulties getting this.
Words that come to mind; legitimate, honest and factual. Nice work and well done from a random viewer from down under.
Good lad. Excellent technical description. From a UK railway fan.
Really satisfied at finding an answer to a question I’d never wanted to ask 😊
I am not sure how this wound up in my feed but found it interesting and educational. Thanks!
A very good presentation. The LMS video you mention can be found on the Bennet Brook Railway site on UA-cam. One item that the video mentions is that the UK locomotives were designed to run with the fire door open. The designer placed a diverting plate behind the fire door to divert the secondary air down to the fire bed and away from the tube sheet. We don’t have such a design here in America, so to avoid allowing cold air to impinge on the rear tube sheet, we don’t usually run with the fire door open.
A couple of years ago I had a cab ride on an SY class locomotive in China which traces its' lineage back to an Alco design built for Korea in the 1920s. The firebox door was operated by a foot pedal. The fireman had to balance on his right foot as he collected a shovel full of coal, then swing to the left, putting his left foot on the pedal as he did so, and as soon as he released the coal swing back to the right to release the pedal. Firing is a hard enough job as it is without having to do that.
There is another slight difference, the U.S. has largely burnt anthracite coal (86-97% carbon, 33MJ/kg energy density). The U.K. Largely burns bituminous coal (76-86% carbon, 27MJ/kg energy density). I believe you are correct about it being down to the individual fireman and/or photography scenario, and firebox/flue design, but I feel coal type also plays a role.
In short, It would be hard for British firemen to keep up with coal intake, and It would be easy for American Firemen to exceed coal intake.
"The Blower can be put on to stop the fire jumping out in a backdraft burning the Fireman -this happened to a well known Fiireman in New Zealand So from what I learnt is the Blower is put on a little to keep the fire from jumping out Also the Blower is used to create a thru draft to fan the fire and make it hotter while more coal is shovelled in to keep the fire Hot and stoked up for Hills and hard work hence the black smoke and straight up columns of smoke when she is working hard up a gradient ...Good video "
I randomly came by this video but I assume the UA-cam algorithm can see that I enjoy these little snippets of information. Thank you for a fascinating video. We don't see many of the great steam engines in the UK these days but when we do, they are surely a head turner. Now I'll be looking at the colour of the smoke and giving the fireman marks out of 10 for a good, clean burn.
Really like your enthusiasm and energy in answering issues. You make the learning process really engaging. Well done.😉👍🏻
I have asked this question myself and your explanation was really helpful. Thank you.😅
I didn't know that I was interested in this until I watched it. Thanks, and loved the dobro in the outro music.
Great video! Noticed when I went to Disney World in the mid-1970s and Disneyland in the 80s that the engines put out no smoke. I mistakenly thought they might be electric or Diesel powered, but no - they are all oil fired and regularly maintained to minimize emissions and maximize life spans!
Very interesting. Thanks for that. For years,I had wondered about this very topic, then I learn from you why it occurs.
It's nice to know the younger generation has an interest in these aged beasts and beauties. Hopefully they'll be around for generations to come. Appreciate the content... Keep up the quality work.
I don't know how things are where you're from, but in the U.S. steam locomotives are a big part of children's culture. Most locomotives you see in children's books, cartoons, movies, toys, etc. are steam.
My kid grew up around trains (we lived half a block from the tracks for most of his life) and would always run to the corner to watch whenever he heard a train coming. He saw diesel locomotives every day of his life. But if you asked him to draw a train, it'd be a steam locomotive.
So I suspect the interest in steam locomotives is safe for the foreseeable future. There's just something about them that people love.
@@jeffspaulding9834 From England. All our Trains are Electric or Diesel Electric. Thomas the tank engine is always a popular kids show but sadly does not always translate to a life long love of steam. But it only takes a dedicated few to keep them going for the rest of us.
In my Home town of York. We have the National rail Museum Chock full of all manner of Trains and Carriages of yesteryear. Well worth a Google search.
Love that old-fashioned English voice on the LMS clip . It's very clear and easy to understand whatever your class in those days, but you would get some very strange looks in Britain if you spoke with that sort of register today. "I say old chap, a pint of your best bitter, please." Hilarious.
My father, who fired steam locomotives for the Baltimore and Ohio out of Baltimore, would often comment about steam locomotives shown on film and say they were being "over fired" for effect. He would also gripe about the cylinder cocks being open more than required, again for movie effect. I often imagine what would be like watching these UA-cam's about trains with him. He would be 103 this year. He was qualified for DC Union Station. Making smoke was a big no-no, and would get a fireman disqualified in Washington Terminal.
I watched the video from British Rail about firing a steam locomotives. I did not know that American locos only had draft up through the coal. I would ask my dad about that feature.
He told me that to reduce smoke in tunnels, shut off water to the boiler and coal to the fire, as each tended to cool the fire and make smoke. Watch water level, and when it disappears in the glass hope that the end of the tunnel is close. Can't do that unless the engine is steaming well.
The tunnels on the Baltimore Division that caused problems where the Mount Airy Tunnel west of Baltimore, and the Howard Street Tunnel under Baltimore. Both had gradient, both produced gassed engine crews.
Howard Street had an electric helper engine to get trains through the tunnel and over a hill called "The Belt Line." Built for trains in the 1890's, by the 1940's and 50's tonnages would often overload the helper and would require more power from the steam. In that case, according to one Yardmaster I worked with, after exiting the tunnel the steam engine crew would be relieved, taken to the hospital and given oxygen.
Thank you for the clarity on this issue
Great video! The older I get, the more interested I am in old trains 😁 And I learned a lot here. Thanks!
A good explanation. I'm not sure why photographers like to see locos being fired inefficiently. I am a fireman on a narrow gauge line in the UK. Until recently we were able to burn Welsh steam coal, which burnt very cleanly, usually with a slight haze unless we had just put a big round on. Sadly the Welsh government has forced the last mine producing steam coal to close on environmental grounds, so we are now importing coal all the way from Poland. This burns very differently so we are having to change our firing technique to minimise smoke. A very thin fire with a bit of top air seems to work, but the Polish stuff burns through quicker, so the fire needs constant attention.
It depends on what the fireman is doing.
Black smoke tells us the fireman isn’t able to keep the fire hot enough and the smoke is wasted, unburned fuel billowing out of the stack. White smoke or no smoke indicates an engine is operating at maximum fuel efficiency. Or it can be the engine itself.
Locos were usually assigned to a specific terminal in what ever class or duty; pool fright, helper service, passenger service, local freight, work trains, road switchers and/or snow removal. As a result these engines would hang around the roundhouse for extended periods of time. As a result of that, fireman became very familiar with these engines. So as it was known some engines steamed better than others.
Black smoke can also be generated when sanding out the flues. As its name indicates, the this is done when the fireman would put several scoops of sand in the fire box or peep holes.
Nice to learn stuff from someone who actually knows what he is talking about. That's me subscribed.
I liked the long answer. Ka pai. Kia kaha! Peace and love from NZ brother!
As a photographer I'm proud to be part of the whole problem. X)
Also, thank the algorithm for sending me this bit of interesting information.