• 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!

Converting from coal to oil fired steam

Status
Not open for further replies.

PMN1

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2013
Messages
43
In 1946 GWR fitted Laidlaw-Drew oil-burners in the fireboxes of 19 coal firing freight locos in South Wales and the trials were successful leading to further trials and eventually 93 locos were converted before the Treasury became concerned at the dollar expenditure in buying oil rather than coal and all were eventually converted back to coal firing.


Could oil fired steam trains compete with diesels?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Could oil fired steam trains compete with diesels?

A better question might be:

Could an oil fired, high-tech, ultra-modern steam engine compete?

As I understand it, if you're looking at fuel-cost-efficiency as the main metric for comparison, the major factor is the amount of heat energy lost (i.e. not used up by boiling the water and converted to motive power, but radiated out from the boiler and up the chimney).

Modern diesels should be much better than Victorian steam in that regard, but what would a true 21st century steam engine be like? Tornado doesn't fully count here, as it's really a much older design which has only been partly updated for a mixture of manufacturing and reliability issues.

Edit: Steam pressure not used should probably be left out, as the Victorian steam engineers had largely addressed that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another way to look at the efficiency of steam power.

A huge proportion of the world's electricity supply comes via steam power. Nuclear, gas, oil, and coal power stations very frequently use the heat from their fuel to produce steam which then powers a turbine attached to a generator. Steam is an excellent medium for converting heat into mechanical energy.

So, on a massive scale, oil-fired steam is highly competitive (although current supply economics make coal and gas more common in the UK, ignoring nuclear as a special case).
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
Oil-fired steam locomotives were in extensive use in the western USA, such as in California, from the early 1900s onwards, as volume oil production started. These were places close to the oilfields, and particularly to a supply of the residual semi-refined cheap (in fact, very cheap in those days) product left over at refineries, suitable for just burning in a firebox, while remote from coal supply. Some smaller operations changed over directly from wood to oil firing. If anywhere was going to succeed with oil fired steam it was here.

However, once diesels became practical these lines changed over as rapidly as other US lines where the reverse conditions applied, the changeover was well under way by 1950 once post-war loco production got under way, and was complete just a few years later. A large number of large, modern steam locos which were less than 10 years old went as part of the transition.
 
Last edited:

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
Whilst a modern oil-fired steam loco could have probably performed better than old designs, I don't think it could compete with a modern diesel.

Yes - one man crews on a main line steam loco. could have been enabled, with computer-controlled oil firing, and mass-produced steam locos could probably be built more cheaply than diesels.

But - you can ( in theory...) start a diesel loco. just when you need it, and it has a greater thermal efficiency than a steam loco. In contrast, it takes time to prepare a steam loco for action - often several hours to produce enough steam from cold water **. And, whilst steam locos probably need simpler maintenance than diesels, the work can be heavy & dirty, and that makes it difficult to attract sufficient skilled staff.


** -Yes - you can accelerate steam production, e.g. by putting an electric immersion heater in the boiler, but that increases operating costs, and affects boiler life due to the greater thermal shock / stress caused by rapid / cooling on boiler materials.
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,047
Location
St Albans
The GWR were not the only company in 1947 to turn to oil-firing - in total well over a thousand locos were converted. (Information from "The Oxford Companion to British Railway History")
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
Except in very special cases I doubt that oil fired steam locomotives will be used.
There are two main reasons to employ steam in todays world.

Firstly heritage railways and preserved steamers on the main line, I doubt that oil would find favour in such circumstances since it would be considered untraditional and it smells bad. Arranging for relatively small supplies of heavy fuel oil at remote location is probably more expensive than a tipper truck of coal.

The other reason to employ steam, or it least to seriously consider it, is concern about the future price and availability of oil. There is growing evidence that world oil production has reached a peak and is now declining, with consequent substantial price rises.
Coal is cheap and relatively plentiful, and significant reserves exist within the UK. Oil is increasingly imported, and largely from potentialy unstable places.
As I have posted elswhere on these forums, I consider that the future of UK railways is largely electric, especialy for intensive services of fast trains.
When oil becomes too costly for railway use I forsee a LIMITED return to steam for branches, secondary routes, diversions, and engineering trains.
There will allways be a demand for steam for heritage railways, and when keeping 100+ year old machines in running order becomes too expensive, then a dozen or so new ones could be built, for both heritage railways and outlying bits of the national network.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
Much as I like steam, I don't think new steam locos will be built for widespread use. There will be occasional projects like Tornado, to replace "lost" classes of loco., and there will be a few locos (mainly narrow guage) for heritage / tourist type railways.

Incidentally, Germany had several hundred oil-fired steam locos, many outlasting their coal-fired equivalents, until the end of regular main line steam in the 1970s.

Another problem with coal is getting high quality coal supplies that are suitable for steam locos. A lot of coal supplies contain too much "dirt", which forms ash & clinker deposits that reduce the efficiency of combustion. In turn, this can lead to insufficient steam production, and a need for unscheduled stops. Gone are the days when there were plentiful supplies of "Welsh Steam Coal", etc.
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
I do not forsee the building of new steam locos for WIDESPREAD use, but I do forsee the building of a relatively small number to a tradditional design for both heritage railways and a few outlying bits of the national network.

How are all these electrified routes to be maintained ? when oil becomes too expensive I can certainly forsee a return to steam for engineering trains.
And having built/leased/ purchased these machines they may as well be used on outlying non electrified bits of the network.
 

bangor-toad

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2009
Messages
598
I've wondered about this...

If you were going to design a coal powered engine now you could use all the modern technology and know how. There'd be no need for a fireman shovelling coal from a bunker into a fire box - way too inefficient!

Perhaps a viable option would be to use a pulverised coal boiler. This takes crushed coal, really fine particles, and burns them in a jet of flame. This type of technology is widespread in coal fired power stations so it'd only be a case of scaling it down rather than coming up with something completely new. With the right size distribution you can get thermal efficiencies around 45%.

Compare that with the generally accepted figure of a "good" steam loco having around 10% thermal efficiency...
Whilst I think it's unlikely we'll ever see a return to steam I think it's not such a clear cut situation as it initially appears from a technical or staffing cost perspective. Of course, politics and sentiment would be key. Hey, if I win the next EuroMillions rollover perhaps I'll fund the development myself :lol:

So, to make a modern steam loco look for what's needed. I'd imagine that it'd need a cab at both ends to drive from. The driver would control a fully automated crusher/pulveriser and boiler so there'd be no need for a fireman. You'd probably want the loco to be quite large to fit in the equipment and the coal.
Hmmm, perhaps it would look like this:

300px-SR_Leader_05.jpg


Bullied was right!
Cheers,
Jason
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
So, to make a modern steam loco look for what's needed. I'd imagine that it'd need a cab at both ends to drive from. The driver would control a fully automated crusher/pulveriser and boiler so there'd be no need for a fireman. You'd probably want the loco to be quite large to fit in the equipment and the coal.

It might also be a steam-electric, using a turbine-generator to power bogie mounted traction motors, for easier/smoother power delivery (think pulling away, eliminating complex valve timing gear, plus not needing the traditional huge driving wheels, much smaller and simpler than Bulleid's steam power bogies). I don't know for certain that steam-electric would be more efficient / easier / better, it's just an option which would need to be considered in the overall design.

It could even potentially be a bi-mode, steam-electric / pure electric! ;)
 

bangor-toad

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2009
Messages
598
It could even potentially be a bi-mode, steam-electric / pure electric! ;)

Hi there,
Nice idea! Bi-mode steam isn't new though. The Swiss got there in the early 1940's with this methodology, a steam-electric engine that retained the ability to be coal fired. Mind you, I don't think anyone has tried a steam/electric or pure electric hybrid yet. Could be fun to try.

swisselc3a.jpg


Wow, I'm really being obscure today!
Cheers,
Jason
 
Last edited by a moderator:

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
I suspect that we may see yet see coal burning steam engines with electric transmission, and probably burning pulverised coal, as suggested in previous posts.

Electric transmission has many advantages as detailed in the earlier post, to which may be added, the relatively easy generation of power for ETS, which is a problem with traditional steam.
Steam turbines, alternators, and electric traction equipment are standard off the shelf items.

Pulverised coal burning has its merits, but also two significant drawbacks.
Firstly, if the loco is to be filled with lump coal to be pulverised on board as needed, then that adds expense, weight, complication, and another point of failure. If instead the loco is to be loaded with ready pulverised coal, probably in a converted tank wagon, then that adds certain risks.
Fine coal dust is explosive and requires care and precautions in handling.

The other drawback is that pulverised coal burning equipment is not so easily started and stopped. If the steam supply is excessive, and fireing therefore ceased, then starting can be innvolved.
One option that was considered in the USA some years ago, was to equip the fire box with a small grate for lump coal, this grate being sized so as to keep up steam pressure when the engine is stopped. Pulverised coal then to be blown in under air pressure as needed, it would ignite instantly and reliably due to the small but hot pre-existing fire in the grate.
Hand stoking this small grate would be not much more work than a domestic fireplace, the great majority of the heat input being from pulverised coal.

There was considerable interest in this technology in the USA at the time of the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
IPulverised coal then to be blown in under air pressure as needed, it would ignite instantly and reliably due to the small but hot pre-existing fire in the grate........There was considerable interest in this technology in the USA at the time of the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s.
That's pretty much how standard large USA locomotives had been fired since the 1920s, with mechanical stokers (the coal-fired large ones were way beyond the capabilities of a hand-shovel fireman). Coal was not fully powder pulverised but it needed to be crushed small, to suit the auger screw that fed it from the tender to the back of the firebox. It was blown from there by directional jets, under the control of the fireman, to various points around the firebox, where its small size led to ready ignition. The jets were steam rather than air - it seems strange that the firebox was being filled with steam, but the developed system worked well. Of course, the steam never condensed but was carried through to the chimney.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
The Ffestiniog and WHR - have converted from oil - back to coal. Cheaper apparently. They did burn waste oil , collected by volunteers back in the 1970's - but really too much effort and issues with train cleanliness and so on.

I think ,much like 4 master ocean going sailing ships,- steam was a 19thC modeof propulsion.
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
Our 1/4 scale EAR 31 class runs on kerosene rather than heavy oil due to scaling down issues with combustion but the protypes in Africa , incidentally the last steam locomotives built and tested by Vulcan ran on heavy oil.

image015.jpg

In terms of efficiency though, it would still be more efficient to burn the keroseen in an internal combustion engine and then use either electric or hydraulic transmission.

it is probably cheaper to run our coal fired locos than the cost of kerosene
Of course if you are able to burn a heavy bitumen grade oil as used to be the case in Africa and America which was not much use for anything else, even with all the smoke :lol: then it could turn out cheaper.

The holy grail in steam technology would be to produce a zero heat emission exhaust with modern boiler and steam pipe insulation staying within loading gauges etc
However unlike modern domestic and commercial boilers running on natural gas which produces no corrosive by-products when the exhaust is condensed, coal and oil produce nasty by-products up the chimney and so corrosion and fouling of any subsequent exhaust heat recovery equipment as it condenses can be a real issue. The fleet of Midland Mainline Caprotti boilered 9fs suffered greatly with corrosion of their innovative but flawed feed water preheater drums
 

lord rathmore

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2012
Messages
92
Location
suffolk
A better question might be:

Could an oil fired, high-tech, ultra-modern steam engine compete?

As I understand it, if you're looking at fuel-cost-efficiency as the main metric for comparison, the major factor is the amount of heat energy lost (i.e. not used up by boiling the water and converted to motive power, but radiated out from the boiler and up the chimney).

Modern diesels should be much better than Victorian steam in that regard, but what would a true 21st century steam engine be like? Tornado doesn't fully count here, as it's really a much older design which has only been partly updated for a mixture of manufacturing and reliability issues.

Edit: Steam pressure not used should probably be left out, as the Victorian steam engineers had largely addressed that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another way to look at the efficiency of steam power.

A huge proportion of the world's electricity supply comes via steam power. Nuclear, gas, oil, and coal power stations very frequently use the heat from their fuel to produce steam which then powers a turbine attached to a generator. Steam is an excellent medium for converting heat into mechanical energy.

So, on a massive scale, oil-fired steam is highly competitive (although current supply economics make coal and gas more common in the UK, ignoring nuclear as a special case).

The main drawback is thermal efficiency. I've worked in electricity generation all my life and the way we get 40% efficiency out of a power station is to use a condenser which increases the efficiency of the Rankine cycle considerably. Steam locos can't have any sort of condenser that makes sense - the only ones used in the past were for minimising steam in underground systems and they had to have their water tanks replenished regularly. Some experimental steam turbine locos had a condenser but it was a vast cart towed behind and never worked very well.
So the answer is - not really. A steam loco will struggle to get a thermal efficiency of more than 15% overall without a condenser. Diesels do about 40. Steam pressure could be increased (which will increase efficiency) but there are huge drawbaks to using HP steam in a mobile unit.
 

Teaboy1

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
529
Location
Tickhill SY
Steam locos can only use steam effectively down to about 100 psi below that it becomes almost impossible to get any work out of it. By the time its done its expansion bit and flowed out exhasut valves and into blast pipe its virtually at atmospheric pressure and condensing like mad. It cant work any more with the back-pressure it has.
Modern power plants also use steam but can use it quite effective as they have condensers and cooling towers and use the steam to almost full vacuum levels of back-pressure so they can get maximum work out of steam. They also reheat IP steam.
Only thing a loco designer can do is increase pressure and increase super-heat levels but this make for more complication and expense. I believe the French Compounds were about the most effective at extracting work from the available steam but needed 2 expansion stages and where complicated.
Coal quality is too variable these days, you cant quite get hi calorific low ash steam coal these days so they would have to burn rubbish. I personnaly believe that we have just about reached the limit with simple open cycle steam locos using coal but oil and LNG would be the way forward ..... provided you are happy with a 100 ton of volatile LNG hooked up behind a fire breathing loco ??? Dont think NR would be too happy with that mixture.
However they would pass Euro 5 !!
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
Steam locos can't have any sort of condenser that makes sense - the only ones used in the past were for minimising steam in underground systems and they had to have their water tanks replenished regularly. Some experimental steam turbine locos had a condenser but it was a vast cart towed behind and never worked very well.
Some South African steam locos had condensers in the tender, not so much concerned about thermal efficiency, or exhaust in tunnels, but to minimise their water consumption across desert areas where there was little supply. 90 such locomotives, built by North British, lasted to the end of steam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Class_25_4-8-4
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
The Ffestiniog and WHR - have converted from oil - back to coal. Cheaper apparently. They did burn waste oil , collected by volunteers back in the 1970's - but really too much effort and issues with train cleanliness and so on.

I think ,much like 4 master ocean going sailing ships,- steam was a 19thC modeof propulsion.

There have been serious proposals to bring back sailing ships, due to increasing oil prices !
So we may yet see a return to both coal burning locomotives and to sailing ships. Progress in the last 100 years has been largely based on oil fuel becoming ever cheaper and more plentifull, it is now becoming more expensive and less plentifull.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top