• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Alternative Steam Locomotive Fuel

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexl92

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
2,268
I'm sure I read in Narrow Gauge World magasine recently that at least one line has converted a loco to bio-mass/compressed wood pellets.

You’re absolutely right - I can’t remember which. But Steam Railway magazine recently investigated the alternatives - oil, biomass etc and determined that there is currently no viable alternative to coal.

Oil has various challenges associated with it, and Biomass briquettes are a hopeful option for the future but the problem is that they don’t provide anywhere near as much energy per unit of weight as coal. So you need significantly more of it and whilst it has been made to work in a narrow gauge engine, there are real doubts that you could effectively fire a large express/freight engine with it and get reasonable performance.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
You’re absolutely right - I can’t remember which. But Steam Railway magazine recently investigated the alternatives - oil, biomass etc and determined that there is currently no viable alternative to coal.

Oil has various challenges associated with it, and Biomass briquettes are a hopeful option for the future but the problem is that they don’t provide anywhere near as much energy per unit of weight as coal. So you need significantly more of it and whilst it has been made to work in a narrow gauge engine, there are real doubts that you could effectively fire a large express/freight engine with it and get reasonable performance.
Perhaps you could use it when your large engine is pottering around at 25mph on a preserved line, and save the real stuff for main line outings?
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,271
Location
N Yorks
Could you use gas for getting the boiler up to temperature, and keep the coal for when it needs to move? Is gas any cleaner?

My mum had a gas poker when I was a kid. Used gas to get the fire hot then just coal.
 

alexl92

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
2,268
Perhaps you could use it when your large engine is pottering around at 25mph on a preserved line, and save the real stuff for main line outings?

Potentially, though I got the impression that you’d struggle to fire anything larger than a small industrial tank engine.
 

Midnight Sun

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Messages
310
I'm sure I read in Narrow Gauge World magasine recently that at least one line has converted a loco to bio-mass/compressed wood pellets.

You’re absolutely right - I can’t remember which. But Steam Railway magazine recently investigated the alternatives - oil, biomass etc and determined that there is currently no viable alternative to coal.

Hunslet 0-4-2 No 16 Green Dragon on the South Tynedale Railway runs on wood briquettes made from waste sawdust.
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
I wonder if anyone has ever looked at the feasibility of using power from OLE or 3rd Rail to power heating elements!

It has been done ! decades ago, possibly in Switzerland, several steam locos had a pantograph and transformer fitted and electric heating elements installed.
It worked fine but with a very low efficiency.
The conversion was a very short term measure to reduce reliance on imported coal pending the delivery of proper electric locomotives.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
It has been done ! decades ago, possibly in Switzerland, several steam locos had a pantograph and transformer fitted and electric heating elements installed.
It worked fine but with a very low efficiency.
The conversion was a very short term measure to reduce reliance on imported coal pending the delivery of proper electric locomotives.
Defintely Switzerland, during WW2 I think when imports would be difficult. The Swiss had plenty of hydropower so efficiency wasn't really a concern.
 

mushroomchow

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2017
Messages
455
Location
Where HSTs Still Scream. Kind of.
You both are thinking of the smell of frying chips. Clearly either of you have ever had to put out a deep fryer fire. Had you had done so, you would known what that would smell like. Once cooking oil reaches its smoking point -- the temperature at which it begins to chemically break down and smoke continuously. At this point, the fat molecules break down into glycerol and free-fatty acids, and the glycerol breaks down further to produce toxic fumes and free radicals. The smell of burning cooking oil reeks and the odor can persist for days. As for the smell bothered anybody, you may like the smell of brunt cooking oil most people don't. In the case of Swanage, Station Road is the retail centre of the town and the road is lined with shops and cafes. The oder drives away custom as people go elsewhere to get away from the smell. Good thing that the Web was not around then.
Alright, chill out, we were only joking. :rolleyes:

But that's besides the point - as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the reclaimed biofuel the Grand Canyon Railway were burning was practically odourless - the refinement process has come a long way in the past 35 years!

Perhaps you could use it when your large engine is pottering around at 25mph on a preserved line, and save the real stuff for main line outings?

Exactly this - it may not be viable for mainline operations for the time being, but there's no reason a locomotive on a preserved line that at most maybe does 100 miles a day with 5-7 coach trains couldn't feasibly use it. The Grand Canyon Railway is 60 miles long (so a 120-mile round trip), uphill for most of the outward journey, and their locos (2-8-2s) have managed just fine for the past 10 years. :)

Without meaning to be too blasé about it, Steam Railway's "research" seems to be blinkered by a misguided assumption that locomotives on heritage lines need to perfectly match their as-built mainline performance and range on coal firing.

While I'm sounding like a skipping record bringing up the Grand Canyon Railway again and again, I can't reiterate enough that there are already mainline steam locomotives out there pulling loaded trains on routes far longer and more challenging than anything we have in this country.

It's very much a viable alternative, it's just up to a railway to take the plunge and invest in the process of conversion and refinement. That "can-do" spirit that the industry thrives on is going to have to drive any introduction of alternative fuelling,
 
Last edited:

The Lad

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2015
Messages
408
Nellie, preserved in the Bradford Industrial Museum worked the Esholt Sewage works system fired on melted wool fat extracted from the sewage in the days when the first treatment of wool was when the fleeces were washed prior to making the yarn.
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
592
Widely reported this morning.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-51581817
Owners of wood burners, stoves and open fires will no longer be able to buy coal or wet wood to burn in them, under a ban to be rolled out from next year.

Sales of the two most polluting fuels will be phased out in England to help cut air pollution, the government says.

Bags of logs sold in DIY stores, garden centres and petrol stations often contain wet wood - a type of wood which produces more pollution and smoke...

Anyone know if there will be a derogation for museums and preserved railways, where "briquette" solid fuel fires would not provide the same (admittedly soot-laden) experience? And, of course, steam coal?
 

STEVIEBOY1

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2010
Messages
4,003
Widely reported this morning. Anyone know if there will be a derogation for museums and preserved railways, where "briquette" solid fuel fires would not provide the same (admittedly soot-laden) experience? And, of course, steam coal?
I just heard that too and wondered the same thing.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
Whether there is a derogation probably depends upon how much clout (i.e. money) heritage railways can muster to exert political pressure to get one.

After all, I see alot of big (often diesel) cars with one person in them on the roads and don't hear much about how that sort of behaviour will be banned.
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
The ban isn't going to outlaw preserved railways from using coal as a fuel source or even buying it. However, what it will mean is that in the medium term they may have to import more of the stuff from abroad.
 

bangor-toad

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2009
Messages
598
Anyone know if there will be a derogation for museums and preserved railways, where "briquette" solid fuel fires would not provide the same (admittedly soot-laden) experience? And, of course, steam coal?

Hi,
Buried in the various bits of Government paperwork is this:

Some parties have highlighted their concerns about the impact of our proposals on the heritage rail sector. Since the consultation, some have asked for heritage railways to be exempted from the proposed requirements. The government fully understands the importance of our nation’s heritage industry sectors that use coal as a source of fuel. As set out in the consultation, the proposals relate to fuels used for the purpose of domestic combustion, and will not apply to other uses such as for heritage railways. An exemption is not required for this use to continue.

Link to the full document: https://www.gov.uk/government/consu.../summary-of-responses-and-government-response

Looks like the challenges of getting coal in the future aren't going to be legal but rather logistical and cost issues.
Cheers
Mr Toad
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
657
I think that the use of natural gas for firing steam locomotives might be very attractive. It can be used either compressed, liquefied or adsorbed. The controls needed would only be those of an industrial modulating gas burner. It could therefore be fully automatic and safe - you could turn up to shed temperately, find the boiler just about up to pressure and be away after checks with no long hours of ash clearing, cleaning, lighting, stoking, coaling, shoveling (and showering afterwards).

What appeals more is that the combustion chamber and tubes would be treated much more gently by gas flames rather than very hot incandescent coal. Boilers would deteriorate and corrode less, last longer, have improved reliability and heat transfer, and enable more locos to be kept economically in steam.

If we are thinking of using electricity as a fuel then let's remember our thermodynamics: c3 units of heat make one (1000W) unit of electricity which then makes perhaps only 50 - 70W of nett mechanical power at rail.

The SR had a wizard way of by-passing this problem - the English Electric EE507 traction motor!

Just a thought,

WAO
 

Lloyds siding

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2020
Messages
400
Location
Merseyside
The ban isn't going to outlaw preserved railways from using coal as a fuel source or even buying it. However, what it will mean is that in the medium term they may have to import more of the stuff from abroad.
My information is that most heritage railways use imported coal. I'm told that Columbian is better steam coal than available from UK mines. There are no deep mines now, everything in the UK is from opencast extraction.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
The problems with coal supply was discussed recently, but this news makes this post of mine even more relevant
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/steam-on-rail-tours.197227/#post-4373327

read the second quoted passage: heritage rail depends entirely on coal supply by piggy-backing on the domestic consumer market, the demand is too insignificant to justify importing just for rail use, and the three remaining suitable UK pits are all due to close.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
I think that the use of natural gas for firing steam locomotives might be very attractive. It can be used either compressed, liquefied or adsorbed. The controls needed would only be those of an industrial modulating gas burner. It could therefore be fully automatic and safe - you could turn up to shed temperately, find the boiler just about up to pressure and be away after checks with no long hours of ash clearing, cleaning, lighting, stoking, coaling, shoveling (and showering afterwards).

What appeals more is that the combustion chamber and tubes would be treated much more gently by gas flames rather than very hot incandescent coal. Boilers would deteriorate and corrode less, last longer, have improved reliability and heat transfer, and enable more locos to be kept economically in steam.

If we are thinking of using electricity as a fuel then let's remember our thermodynamics: c3 units of heat make one (1000W) unit of electricity which then makes perhaps only 50 - 70W of nett mechanical power at rail.

The SR had a wizard way of by-passing this problem - the English Electric EE507 traction motor!

Just a thought,

WAO

As ever, gaseous fuels in an industrial environment constitute a potential risk, especially in a tunnel. Handling and storage are too much of a hassle.
As an alternative fuel, methanol or methanol/water azeotrope may be a better solution due to its easier storage needs
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,508
You’re absolutely right - I can’t remember which. But Steam Railway magazine recently investigated the alternatives - oil, biomass etc and determined that there is currently no viable alternative to coal.

Oil has various challenges associated with it, and Biomass briquettes are a hopeful option for the future but the problem is that they don’t provide anywhere near as much energy per unit of weight as coal. So you need significantly more of it and whilst it has been made to work in a narrow gauge engine, there are real doubts that you could effectively fire a large express/freight engine with it and get reasonable performance.
It is perhaps worth mentioning as an update that Biomass has now been successfully tested on a standard gauge locomotive.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,390
As for the gas powering of steam engines, Jay Leno has his traction engine and stationary engines converted to Gas, with propane being the fuel on his traction engine.
He reckons it's safer as if you get a loss of water incident then the fire can be shut down instantly, helping to prevent a boiler explosion. Plus (afaik) all his steam cars run on petrol (the lighting of which can be quite "interesting".

 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
657
As ever, gaseous fuels in an industrial environment constitute a potential risk, especially in a tunnel. Handling and storage are too much of a hassle.
As an alternative fuel, methanol or methanol/water azeotrope may be a better solution due to its easier storage needs

Natural gas (Methane) has been widely used for decades in confined spaces with high occupancy in relative (like all fuels) safety. This is because of its narrow flammability limits and high ignition temperature (both difficult to achieve). Tunnels usually have some ventilation but the real danger here is coal firing. Liquid and gaseous fuels can be turned off in an emergency and have thermal and flame failure cut-outs. A coal fire in a confined space cannot be extinguished and so risks (appreciably) suffocation or carbon monoxide poisoning. It has happened. The danger with liquid fuels is that they pool on leakage whereas gases are dissipated by ventilation.

We need some comparative trials to see what is actually practicable; theory is just a guide to where to start.

WAO
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
Natural gas (Methane) has been widely used for decades in confined spaces with high occupancy in relative (like all fuels) safety. This is because of its narrow flammability limits and high ignition temperature (both difficult to achieve). Tunnels usually have some ventilation but the real danger here is coal firing. Liquid and gaseous fuels can be turned off in an emergency and have thermal and flame failure cut-outs. A coal fire in a confined space cannot be extinguished and so risks (appreciably) suffocation or carbon monoxide poisoning. It has happened. The danger with liquid fuels is that they pool on leakage whereas gases are dissipated by ventilation.

We need some comparative trials to see what is actually practicable; theory is just a guide to where to start.

WAO


The high auto-ignition temperature of methane is an irrelevance. Any fire is going to be caused by an external cause - static / spark / hot brake residue / existing fire or similar.
As for relative safety, until only a few years ago if you'd proposed gas heating on a high risk site such as a chemical plant you'd be laughed off site. What may be an acceptable explosion risk in a house, isn't in an industrial environment.
Methane explodes, coal doesn't.
 

Flying Phil

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2016
Messages
1,924
........

......If we are thinking of using electricity as a fuel then let's remember our thermodynamics: c3 units of heat make one (1000W) unit of electricity which then makes perhaps only 50 - 70W of nett mechanical power at rail.

The SR had a wizard way of by-passing this problem - the English Electric EE507 traction motor!

Just a thought,

WAO
I have thought about this and wondered if you had a battery/steam hybrid where the batteries are charged by solar panels on carriage roofs as well as a connection at stations. (There is a "solar powered" railcar operation in Byron Bay Australia) but using immersion heaters to provide steam. There would be an efficient transfer of elec to heat to "steam" energy, but obviously then losses as per usual. Still the electricity would be free..and very Green ...and no CO2/particulates in use.
 

Flying Phil

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2016
Messages
1,924
I have thought about this and wondered if you had a battery/steam hybrid where the batteries are charged by solar panels on carriage roofs as well as a connection at stations. (There is a "solar powered" railcar operation in Byron Bay Australia) but using immersion heaters to provide steam. There would be an efficient transfer of elec to heat to "steam" energy, but obviously then losses as per usual. Still the electricity would be free..and very Green ...and no CO2/particulates in use.
PS ...we would also keep our beloved Chuffs!
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,508
Solar panels on coach roofs would probably take away from the heritage aspect. I doubt there's a stretch between stations on a UK preserved railway long enough that it couldn't be done on battery power alone.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The energy density of sunlight at the earth's surface is about 1.4kW per square metre. Even a class 08 is rated at about 300kW. So on-board solar panels aren't going to provide enough power to run anything resembling an conventional train, particularly considering the amount of time they'd be facing in the wrong direction, shaded or in the dark. Even in ideal conditions they are well below 100% efficient.
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
657
Very well. put.

The nett radiation at ground level normal to the sun after atmospheric losses drops to about 1000W/m2. PV panels can convert about 15% of this to electricity.

A small 300kW locomotive at 6% efficiency requires 5MW of heat in its boiler, 514kg/hr of coal at 35MJ/kg CV (half a ton!). It would be less than that if not working continuously.

To get 5MW electricity continuously we would need at least 3.3 ha (about 8 acres!) of solar panels, at £1000/m2, plus installation, upwards of £40M. If we were to put up some OLE, it would be enough to power a class 87.

That's why industry does use hydrocarbons even in petro-chemical plants both for energy sources and as refrigerants.

I imagine that we'll just keep using our footplate shovels (with the fried breakfasts!)

WAO
 

Flying Phil

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2016
Messages
1,924
Thanks Edwin and WAO..... but I did say Battery hybrid and so the solar panels are not providing all the power required continuously, so that would alter the economics. Also a lot of the heat energy from the firebox is "lost" up the chimney on conventional steam locomotives so again there is an efficiency gain using electrical immersion heating....It may be "green wash" but it may be a route forward if the eco-zealots get more powerful....
 

mdewell

Member
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
14
Location
Wrexham
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top