Alternative Steam Locomotive Fuel

[mushroomchow]

Afternoon all,

Just got back from a holiday to the USA, and during my trip I visited the Grand Canyon. While there, I was lucky enough to cop Grand Canyon Railway's No. 29 locomotive at the village station on a charter for a filming contract.

I was talking to a spotter who informed me that the line's steam locos had in fact been converted from coal firing back in 2009 and now run on waste vegetable oil collected from local restaurants. It was partly due to the green angle - originally oil fired, they had been suspended from operation in 2008 due to their heavy fuel consumption and emissions within the national park - and partly due to simple economics, with rising fuel prices making them impossible to run profitably.

I was impressed to say the least - there was very little to suggest that I was looking at anything other than a conventional locomotive, and the result was viable, cheap-to-run motive power with green credentials to boot. The video below shows 29 in action on a similar charter.

I've had my concerns about the UK heritage railway industry, by far the biggest in the world, for some time now, specifically its ability to adapt to dwindling, increasingly expensive coal supplies and the growing move away from fossil fuel use backed by government legislation and international commitments. There will come a time, sooner than many in the industry would like to admit, that coal burning locomotives will be economically unviable, or even banned by emissions laws.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on what approach heritage railways should take to keeping steam viable in years to come, with it being likely that it will become next to impossible to source coal at a sensible price within two or three decades. Do you like the idea of converting locomotives here to run on alternative, renewable fuels? What are the alternatives to coal firing?

As another angle, how does it sit with those of you who take a "purist" angle to preservation - is it more important to remain operational, or to stay as close to its original condition as possible - even if that results in permanent storage of a large number of preserved steam locos?

One last point - apparently the steam locos are nicknamed the "french fry express", as when working hard they tend to smell a little bit like a McDonalds.

Anyway - discuss!

 

[WestRiding]

Not sure what i think..... A question springs to mind. How did it smell? Not authentic im guessing. Did it smell like Mc Donnalds all the time, or was the smell of proper oil still there?

 

[Bevan Price]

Many steam locos - mainly overseas - have been converted to oil firing in the past, so it should be quite feasible (if not cheap) for heritage line steam locos to be converted to burn oil. I think some modifications to the firebox ("combustion area") are usually needed to ensure efficient burning of the oil.
(Wood, and waste from sugar plantations have also been used to fuel steam locos, but usually only for short distance lines where such materials are already available; they are less dense than coal, so you get less heat per unit volume of wood or vegetable matter than you get from coal.)

 

[Midnight Sun]

Running steam engines on chip oil may be ok running in the middle of the wild west miles from anywhere once a day using AC stock. Using chip oil in town does not go down well with the locals. Swanage Railway first steam engine was oiled fired, a tank load of used chip oil was tried once, never again for smell was rank, The smell drifted down Station Road to the seafront. When your a new operation, good relations with your neighbours are need.

 

[bishdunster]

nothing new there, we used to collect used oil from the local chippies (and garages) in the early 1980s to use in an oil fired 0-4-0 tank loco, Richard Trevithick, a Barclay ISTR in the early days at Swanage ! Beat me to it Midnight Sun ! I must know you !

 

[Cowley]

Running steam engines on chip oil may be ok running in the middle of the wild west miles from anywhere once a day using AC stock. Using chip oil in town does not go down well with the locals. Swanage Railway first steam engine was oiled fired, a tank load of used chip oil was tried once, never again for smell was rank, The smell drifted down Station Road to the seafront. When your a new operation, good relations with your neighbours are need.

I’d not heard of that before, very interesting.

 

[MarkyT]

Another possibility might be a solid torrefied biomass fuel which the Minnesota-based Coalition for Sustainable Rail claims can be made with similar properties to coal for steam locomotives.
https://csrail.org/torrefied-biomass

Solid Biofuels
Imagine a fuel with the same energy, density and material handling properties of coal, without the associated carbon footprint, heavy metal or sulfur content. The University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI), a leader in the efficient processing of cellulosic biomaterial into carbon neutral biocoal, has engineered such a fuel. Known as torrefied biomass (or biocoal)...

Fantastic video by the way!

 

[pdeaves]

Using chip oil in town does not go down well with the locals. Swanage Railway first steam engine was oiled fired, a tank load of used chip oil was tried once, never again for smell was rank, The smell drifted down Station Road to the seafront. When your a new operation, good relations with your neighbours are need.

It surprises me that a seaside town is bothered by the smell of chips...

 

[DarloRich]

Flux Capacitor?

https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Jules_Verne_Train/Time_Train

 

[mushroomchow]

Had no idea they'd done the chip fat thing before in Swanage! And share @pdeaves ' surprise that the smell bothered anybody... I imagine a greater problem would be a circle of seagulls following the train hoping to nick a chip.

But no, I can confirm that the loco didn't really smell of anything at all - we're talking refined oil rather than just some dirty grease filled with scraps fresh from the fryer! Granted, it wasn't working much at all, but it had just done the 60 miles with a five coach train from Williams, uphill, with steam to spare and its cylinder cocks were going great guns. For a heritage operation, I have no fears that such a form of firing would affect locomotive performance.

Flux Capacitor?

https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Jules_Verne_Train/Time_Train

We'll have to wait to see if the combined efforts of Bittern and Tornado convince the ORR to raise the steam speed limit if so - 75mph isn't going to get us back to the Wild West, Marty.

 

[DarloRich]

We'll have to wait to see if the combined efforts of Bittern and Tornado convince the ORR to raise the steam speed limit if so - 75mph isn't going to get us back to the Wild West, Marty.

Personally I was more worried about 1.21 gigawatts of power required!

 

[edwin_m]

Personally I was more worried about 1.21 gigawatts of power required!

I think we're getting into the realms of the Infinite Improbability Drive...

 

[hexagon789]

I think the GWR had oil fired locos for a period of time. However I forget when and how many.

Is it cheaper than coal?

 

[ac6000cw]

I think the GWR had oil fired locos for a period of time. However I forget when and how many.

Is it cheaper than coal?

It was in the 1940's, largely at government behest, as far as I remember.

As to the relative costs, prices for different energy sources are largely driven by supply and demand, so something that is cheap to start with gets more expensive once everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts using it...

As an illustration, when oil production got into its stride in the western USA, the big 'western' railroads moved heavily into oil-burning for steam power - coal wasn't very available locally in California, so locally produced heavy 'Bunker C' oil (effectively the residue left over after the lighter, more valuable, grades had been refined off) was cheaper. When steam got generally retired in the early/mid 1950's, the Union Pacific - always a 'big engine' railroad - bought several batches of 'Bunker C' burning very powerful gas turbine-electrics from GE (rated at 8500 hp for the last batch), the spiritual heirs to the huge Challenger and Big-Boy steam locos. They were economical when the fuel was very cheap, but when it got more expensive in the late 1960s they were all retired because diesels were then cheaper to run (and much more powerful than they were back in the 1950s).

 

[67016]

I wonder if anyone has ever looked at the feasibility of using power from OLE or 3rd Rail to power heating elements!

 

[hexagon789]

It was in the 1940's, largely at government behest, as far as I remember.

As to the relative costs, prices for different energy sources are largely driven by supply and demand, so something that is cheap to start with gets more expensive once everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts using it...

As an illustration, when oil production got into its stride in the western USA, the big 'western' railroads moved heavily into oil-burning for steam power - coal wasn't very available locally in California, so locally produced heavy 'Bunker C' oil (effectively the residue left over after the lighter, more valuable, grades had been refined off) was cheaper. When steam got generally retired in the early/mid 1950's, the Union Pacific - always a 'big engine' railroad - bought several batches of 'Bunker C' burning very powerful gas turbine-electrics from GE (rated at 8500 hp for the last batch), the spiritual heirs to the huge Challenger and Big-Boy steam locos. They were economical when the fuel was very cheap, but when it got more expensive in the late 1960s they were all retired because diesels were then cheaper to run (and much more powerful than they were back in the 1950s).

Well coal isn't exactly cheap and the price of oil isn't either though the latter seems to fluctuate more so.

I wonder if anyone has ever looked at the feasibility of using power from OLE or 3rd Rail to power heating elements!

The Swiss had some steam locos which had elements powered off the 15kV overheads.

 

[DarloRich]

Well coal isn't exactly cheap and the price of oil isn't either though the latter seems to fluctuate more so.

for many years it was cheap and abundant in the UK

 

[hexagon789]

for many years it was cheap and abundant in the UK

I believe that's why other countries developed fuel oil powered trains and turbine trains. But then the oil crisis came and they either went for electrification or diesels.

 

[DarloRich]

I believe that's why other countries developed fuel oil powered trains and turbine trains. But then the oil crisis came and they either went for electrification or diesels.

yes - we had lots of coal so didn't look quickly enough at alternatives and then when we did managed to do so in a fairly cack handed fashion!

 

[hexagon789]

yes - we had lots of coal so didn't look quickly enough at alternatives and then when we did managed to do so in a fairly cack handed fashion!

By immediately scrapping nearly new steam locos and building scores of unreliable diesels.

 

[341o2]

It was in the 1940's, largely at government behest, as far as I remember.

As to the relative costs, prices for different energy sources are largely driven by supply and demand, so something that is cheap to start with gets more expensive once everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts using it...

As an illustration, when oil production got into its stride in the western USA, the big 'western' railroads moved heavily into oil-burning for steam power - coal wasn't very available locally in California, so locally produced heavy 'Bunker C' oil (effectively the residue left over after the lighter, more valuable, grades had been refined off) was cheaper. When steam got generally retired in the early/mid 1950's, the Union Pacific - always a 'big engine' railroad - bought several batches of 'Bunker C' burning very powerful gas turbine-electrics from GE (rated at 8500 hp for the last batch), the spiritual heirs to the huge Challenger and Big-Boy steam locos. They were economical when the fuel was very cheap, but when it got more expensive in the late 1960s they were all retired because diesels were then cheaper to run (and much more powerful than they were back in the 1950s).

The Southern also experimented with oil burning, the results were promising, but oil was expensive and in short supply during the war, so not proceeded with, except possibly Leader was planned for oil burning had it gone beyond the experimental stage.

Other UK oil burners have included the VoR locos, the Ffestiniog for a period of time and Woolwich, which initially went to the Bicton Woodland Railway

Brian Fawcett recalled use of Bunker C on the Central Railway of Peru, likening it to tar, and how passengers would close the windows on hearing the train enter a tunnel, in his opinion the fumes killed nothing but germs

Trying to confirm that the main railway in Venezuela used wood burning entirely

 

[krus_aragon]

Other UK oil burners have included the VoR locos, the Ffestiniog for a period of time and Woolwich, which initially went to the Bicton Woodland Railway

The Snowdon Mountain Railway has also played with oil-burning in the past. They now seem to have settled on running diesel for most of their trains, and charging extra for the steam services.

 

[Ken H]

Isnt the problem the heat of the flame from different fuels?

Does chip oil or whatever burn at a lower temperature than coal?

But then on a light railway, does that matter?

I know wood burns far far cooler than coal, so that may be an issue.

 

[EM2]

CIE had a peat burning locomotive, designed by Bulleid: http://bulleidlocos.org.uk/_oth/cc1_itb.aspx

Today, turf (or peat) may seem a most unlikely candidate to power railways; but in recent Irish history, at about a third of the price of imported Welsh steam coal, its cost and availability made such investigations worthwhile.

As far back as 1848, different Irish railways experimented with turf as locomotive fuel - trials showing that 100 tons of turf equated to between 43 & 47 tons of coal (depending on moisture content), but despite a relative cost saving of 10%, no railway ever adopted this as a sole or major use of fuel.

However, as WW2 began to bite, Ireland's 'Great Southern Railway' (GSR) found itself unable to replenish supplies of imported Welsh steam coal, and had to experiment with fine anthracite to keep its fleet of 500 steam locomotives active.

This became critical in 1942 and despite the use of thousands of tons of turf mixed with the coal and reducing train loads, they suffered from serious problems using very fine anthracite coal, that seemed to fuse into a solid mass of clinker, causing many failures.

The railways struggled on using turf to bulk out the coal available, but the winter of 1946/7 proved very problematic, very cold with heavy snowfall resulting in a severe restriction on the import of U.K. coal, exposing their dependence on this fuel.

 

[Ken H]

Irish railways had a peat burning locomotive, designed by Bulleid: http://bulleidlocos.org.uk/_oth/cc1_itb.aspx

This may be urban myth

Esholt sewage works (North of Bradford, visible from Leeds Shipley line) used to burn the dried solid matter from the works. The smoke was quite smelly!

(In primitive cultures, burning dried animal dung is quite common)

 

[341o2]

Another bizarre locomotive fuel mentioned in Wikipedia, is that on resumption of public services on the Snowdon Mountain Railway after WW2, due to coal shortages, attempts were made to fire the locomotives with discarded Army boots, apparently the stench at Llanberis of burning rubber.......certainly beats the smell of chip oil

 

[ac6000cw]

I was talking to a spotter who informed me that the line's steam locos had in fact been converted from coal firing back in 2009 and now run on waste vegetable oil collected from local restaurants. It was partly due to the green angle - originally oil fired, they had been suspended from operation in 2008 due to their heavy fuel consumption and emissions within the national park - and partly due to simple economics, with rising fuel prices making them impossible to run profitably.

I think another reason they converted to oil firing (from coal) was to reduce the fire risk in a forested area from sparks and cinders in dry weather.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on what approach heritage railways should take to keeping steam viable in years to come, with it being likely that it will become next to impossible to source coal at a sensible price within two or three decades. Do you like the idea of converting locomotives here to run on alternative, renewable fuels? What are the alternatives to coal firing?

There is no shortage of coal - around the world, around 20 million tonnes are being mined every day (China accounts for around half of that), and even in the UK there is a new mine for metallurgical coal (for iron & steel making) in the early stages of development in Cumbria. Coal production will decline, but very large reserves will still be there in the ground, and opencast mining is cheap, probably even on a small scale.

As MarkyT suggested, I suspect the easiest non-coal fuel to switch to for heritage steam locos might be a version of biomass (basically processed/compressed wood). One advantage of that might be a more consistent product to shovel into the firebox - the burning characteristics of coal vary depending on where it comes from (natural product etc.), and older locos were designed around burning whatever was local to the railway they ran on.

(and of course in other countries, where coal was not available they commonly burnt wood from the forests they ran through - hence the large 'spark arresting' chimneys that were a feature of e.g. early American locos 'out west' - maybe what went around will come around, albeit in a different form).

 

[Ken H]

I think another reason they converted to oil firing (from coal) was to reduce the fire risk in a forested area from sparks and cinders in dry weather.



There is no shortage of coal - around the world, around 20 million tonnes are being mined every day (China accounts for around half of that), and even in the UK there is a new mine for metallurgical coal (for iron & steel making) in the early stages of development in Cumbria. Coal production will decline, but very large reserves will still be there in the ground, and opencast mining is cheap, probably even on a small scale.

As MarkyT suggested, I suspect the easiest non-coal fuel to switch to for heritage steam locos might be a version of biomass (basically processed/compressed wood). One advantage of that might be a more consistent product to shovel into the firebox - the burning characteristics of coal vary depending on where it comes from (natural product etc.), and older locos were designed around burning whatever was local to the railway they ran on.

(and of course in other countries, where coal was not available they commonly burnt wood from the forests they ran through - hence the large 'spark arresting' chimneys that were a feature of e.g. early American locos 'out west' - maybe what went around will come around, albeit in a different form).

We could still harness the energy from UK coal without mining
There is underground coal gassification. you drill a hole into a coal seam, inject chemicals that break down the coal and release gas, which you bring to the surface.
but its similar to fracking so we probably wont do it.
but could you run a steam engine with gas. I can see all sorts of safety issues.

 

[Midnight Sun]

It surprises me that a seaside town is bothered by the smell of chips...

Had no idea they'd done the chip fat thing before in Swanage! And share @pdeaves ' surprise that the smell bothered anybody... I imagine a greater problem would be a circle of seagulls following the train hoping to nick a chip.

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.

Isnt the problem the heat of the flame from different fuels?

Does chip oil or whatever burn at a lower temperature than coal?

But then on a light railway, does that matter?

I know wood burns far far cooler than coal, so that may be an issue.

It would not be possible to give an accurate flash point for all types of cooking oil, such as corn, rapeseed, olive, peanut, sunflower, etc., but they are somewhere between 300 to 330°C

 

[Llanigraham]

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.