All else equal (as much as that is possible) was it cheaper to pull freight cars with a coal powered engine than it was with an oil burner.?
Thank You
This is one of the timeless topics in steam-enthusiast organizations, and there are a few studies that somewhat carefully include and reject costs to ‘prove’ one or the other.
In the ‘good old days’ when both steam locomotives and all their auxiliaries and components were essentially costed-down and cheap relative to diesel-electrics, the first cost of the diesel could be wildly greater than a modern 4-8-4 or modernized 2-8-8-2 (I use those three advisedly). This in fact was the primary reason Baldwin abandoned the Essl locomotive … it couldn’t be sold by them cost-effectively at the time.
Likewise, the cost of coal at the time was radically lower than heavy oil in most places, especially for crappy or low-rank mine-run stuff from either low bidders or railroad-owned mines. So even net of ash-handling and other concerns the fuel bill might be lower for steam than for the engineered fuel used in diesels.
The big thing that made steam competitive was cheap but loyal labor. All the careful modernization of maintenance at a NYC or N&W could not reduce the relatively large expense of a water infrastructure (that on modern power needed to be cleaned and chemically treated), and the relatively large amount of servicing stuff that a steam locomotive requires.
You frequently see the Kiefer study (published in 1947) quoted. This famously established that a really good modern engine could be cost-competitive with diesels … on assured high-speed service with short turnaround, with water dipped from track pans, and with minimal service to running gear enroute. But take away the Great Steel Fleet (first by touting ‘Dieseliners’ and then because passengers quit in increasing droves) and the efficiency picture wildly dropped. Like
This is one of the timeless topics in steam-enthusiast organizations, and there are a few studies that somewhat carefully include and reject costs to ‘prove’ one or the other.
In the ‘good old days’ when both steam locomotives and all their auxiliaries and components were essentially costed-down and cheap relative to diesel-electrics, the first cost of the diesel could be wildly greater than a modern 4-8-4 or modernized 2-8-8-2 (I use those three advisedly). This in fact was the primary reason Baldwin abandoned the Essl locomotive … it couldn’t be sold by them cost-effectively at the time.
Likewise, the cost of coal at the time was radically lower than heavy oil in most places, especially for crappy or low-rank mine-run stuff from either low bidders or railroad-owned mines. So even net of ash-handling and other concerns the fuel bill might be lower for steam than for the engineered fuel used in diesels.
The big thing that made steam competitive was cheap but loyal labor. All the careful modernization of maintenance at a NYC or N&W could not reduce the relatively large expense of a water infrastructure (that on modern power needed to be cleaned and chemically treated), and the relatively large amount of servicing stuff that a steam locomotive requires.
You frequently see the Kiefer study (published in 1947) quoted. This famously established that a really good modern engine could be cost-competitive with diesels … on assured high-speed service with short turnaround, with water dipped from track pans, and with minimal service to running gear enroute. But take away the Great Steel Fleet (first by touting ‘Dieseliners’ and then because passengers quit in increasing droves) and the efficiency picture wildly dropped. Like
[quote user=“Overmod”]
kenny dorham
All else equal (as much as that is possible) was it cheaper to pull freight cars with a coal powered engine than it was with an oil burner.?
This is one of the timeless topics in steam-enthusiast organizations, and there are a few studies that somewhat carefully include and reject costs to ‘prove’ one or the other.
In the ‘good old days’ when both steam locomotives and all their auxiliaries and components were essentially costed-down and cheap relative to diesel-electrics, the first cost of the diesel could be wildly greater than a modern 4-8-4 or modernized 2-8-8-2 (I use those three advisedly). This in fact was the primary reason Baldwin abandoned the Essl locomotive … it couldn’t be sold by them cost-effectively at the time.
Likewise, the cost of coal at the time was radically lower than heavy oil in most places, especially for crappy or low-rank mine-run stuff from either low bidders or railroad-owned mines. So even net of ash-handling and other concerns the fuel bill might be lower for steam than for the engineered fuel used in diesels.
The big thing that made steam competitive was cheap but loyal labor. All the careful modernization of maintenance at a NYC or N&W could not reduce the relatively large expense of a water infrastructure (that on modern power needed to be cleaned and chemically treated), and the relatively large amount of servicing stuff that a steam locomotive requires.
You frequently see the Kiefer study (published in 1947) quoted. This famously established that a really good modern engine could be cost-competitive with diesels … on assured high-speed service with short turnaround, with water dipped from track pan
Hey Kenny. If it helps, that is what I thought you meant when I read it.
Yeah… 10-4.
Partly my fault. It is not easy to communicate via text. I admire the people that can always get their Point/Idea across the first time.
On a side note… are you in Michigan by any chance.?
I think that the heavy oil used in steam locomotive fires was half the cost of the lighter oil used in diesel locomotives, but a steam locomotive generally used 6 times the BTUs as a diesel locomotive.
Ralph Johnson’s The Steam Locomotive claims that for an oil-fired switch engine, it only uses 4 times the BTUs as a diesel and hence its fuel cost is only twice that of a diesel.
The other consideration is that during the Diesel Transition Era, oil got to be quite inexpensive because of its abundance from easy-to-exploit oil fields whereas coal was getting expensive owing to increased labor cost related to John Lewis’ actions with the United Mine Workers union – I guess labor action was held of during WW-II but after the war the union was more energetic in its demands for workers. There was at least one nationwide strike that impacted coal availability just as railroad were thinking about whether they wanted to keep using coal in steam locomotives.
The final consideration is that Eastern railroads were close to high BTU/low ash coal supplies, Western railroads not so much but they were closer to the Texas and California oil fields.
Bunch of stuff there, too.
History of burning oil in steam locomotives was understood as valuable surprisingly early, decades before oil became an optimal fuel for gas engines. There are various reasons why railroads adopted it over time, the most interesting being in locomotives like the Milwaukee A 4-4-2s where the hotter flame and lack of ash problems allowed optimization of high-speed design, and in railroads that could run oil-burning power over significant distance like Milwaukee and Santa Fe.
Most of the historic roads used cheap residual or heavy oil – #5 if not ‘Bunker C’ – and much of the burner design and placement was done to facilitate this stuff, which had to be heated but not too much. I think use of high elemental carbon content was instrumental in assuring good luminous flame in the radiant section, something that may get overlooked if the attempt is made to convert to light-oil firing with more ‘efficient’ more-modern burner technology.
Obviously the use of oil fuel involved a cost-effective source of reliable supply and the infrastructure to deliver it as a product that usually needed substantial process heat to flow. The oil ‘boom’ around the turn of the century combined with the relative scarcity of good locomotive coal in the West led to its preferential use there… but some sources were relatively rich in vanadium, for a reason I’ve always wanted explained, and this caused accelerated damage to internal boiler components, increasing overall operating expense.
Several improvements in refinery tech and alternative uses for heavy oil as a ‘feedstock’ changed the relative economy of this kind of firing – along with the interesting effort to burn heavy oil in diesels and gas turbines for the perceived cos
Wasn’t oil typically higher in Btu value than coal, generally?
Best coal is around 14,000 BTU/lb, oil is 18,000 - 19,000 BTU/lb.
Read an interesting story about why the Russian aircraft carrier is a smoky mess, the ship has oil fired boilers running on what the Russians call Mazat, which is similar to Bunker ‘C’. On a related note, the USN was rapidly converting from coal to heavy fuel oil before WW1.
Also according to several friends my hubby has in the navy the Russian carrier has never seen a full on Overhauling in its entire 30+ year service life. Yeah it was launched in the 80’s and never has been back to drydock for a full overhauling as it would cost the Russian navy more than it cost them new to repair the ship get it back up to snuff. That ship literally had a fleet tug following it around during it’s patrol in the Med when it was attacking Syria as it was that unreliable.
A bit of naval trivia. The USS Arizona was built as an oil-burner from the outset. However, it kept the ship stateside during the First World War, only the coal burning battleships were sent overseas to augment the Royal Navy, reason being the RN was hard-pressed to keep its own oil-burners fueled so it was less trouble logistically to have the American coal-burners on hand.
As things worked out none of the American battlewagons fired a shot in anger anyway.
Deferred maintenance!
…and to distillate in the 1970s - to avoid making smoke at all.
Yes, although there are a couple of factors to be considered. Oil is denser than coal, and contains less ‘ash’ component; it is also much easier to divide finely and carburete (mix with combustion oxygen) to ignite and then burn even when containg a large proportion of carbon by mass.
Remember that carbon has more ‘heat content’ than the volatiles in steam coal, but is more difficult both to vaporize and to heat above its reaction temperature (reasons why firing anthracite as a locomotive fuel has been so difficult over the years-- it is literally easier to smelt the fire bars in the grate than to generate steam in a boiler with the evolved combustion gas…) Oil has less problem in these regards… once you have volatilized it correctly.
Interestingly, the earliest complete volume on oil locomotive firing I have, from the 1880s, has an effective way of fire control: it uses a bed of hot lava rock, like a gas grill, and sprays the oil on this to volatilize and burn with much the same effect as a good gas-coal fire. This is not as efficient as a von Boden-Ingles or Thomas burner, or a modern mechanical-atomization setup with lighter oil or ‘distillate’, but is has the practical effect of enormous stepless turndown which, with only a little concern for fuel distribution, reduces prompt thermal-distortion effects in the firebox and chamber structure, probably a greater concern on a practical North American road locomotive than sustained high heat release.
Net cheapness of fuel is a consideration. Much of the perceived benefit (even of “#5” which is like Bunker C without the asphalt and other residual crap) was its cheapness; improvements in ‘cracking’ alone removed the cost advantage by the late '50s. Today the only real reasons for oil firing with ‘gas oil’ involve convenience: nominal fuel compatibilit
RE: fuel cost, the Big Boy was designed around burning massive amounts of the cheap low-grade coal from southern Wyoming mines that I believe were owned by Union Pacific. I’ve heard a few times over the years that the Big Boy’s performance and power output could have been improved with the use of better coal or a proper oil firing design, but I also recall reading that during the intial in-service testing period the boiler was shown to able to fully supply and keep up with the demands of the machinery while being fired with that low-grade coal.
The early period of oilfield development in western Canada coincided with the final period of revenue steam locomotive operation, and both CN and CP converted large numbers of engines from coal to oil firing in the years after WWII, to take advantage of this newfound cheap fuel supply. I’ve heard that in a few cases the refineries here had such a hard time dealing with the leftover residual grades that they actually paid the railroads to take the ‘sludge’ off their hands!
[quote user=“Overmod”]
MJ4562
Wasn’t oil typically higher in BTU value than coal, generally?
Yes, although there are a couple of factors to be considered. Oil is denser than coal, and contains less ‘ash’ component; it is also much easier to divide finely and carburete (mix with combustion oxygen) to ignite and then burn even when containg a large proportion of carbon by mass.
Remember that carbon has more ‘heat content’ than the volatiles in steam coal, but is more difficult both to vaporize and to heat above its reaction temperature (reasons why firing anthracite as a locomotive fuel has been so difficult over the years-- it is literally easier to smelt the fire bars in the grate than to generate steam in a boiler with the evolved combustion gas…) Oil has less problem in these regards… once you have volatilized it correctly.
Interestingly, the earliest complete volume on oil locomotive firing I have, from the 1880s, has an effective way of fire control: it uses a bed of hot lava rock, like a gas grill, and sprays the oil on this to volatilize and burn with much the same effect as a good gas-coal fire. This is not as efficient as a von Boden-Ingles or Thomas burner, or a modern mechanical-atomization setup with lighter oil or ‘distillate’, but is has the practical effect of enormous stepless turndown which, with only a little concern for fuel distribution, reduces prompt thermal-distortion effects in the firebox and chamber structure, probably a greater concern on a practical North American road locomotive than sustained high heat release.
Net cheapness of fuel is a consideration. Much of the perceived benefit (even of “#5” which is like Bunker C without the asphalt and other
Yes, Kenny, just outside Lansing, Michigan.
It is a yes/no answer, with the answer being ‘yes’ (for bituminous locomotive coals, anyway), but that doesn’t imply you can substitute one for the other proportionally in firing a steam locomotive.
Anthracite has a higher heat value over oil than oil has over bituminous, but that doesn’t make it a suitable locomotive fuel.
Phoebe Snow notwithstanding, huh?
Actually, anthracite coal WAS tried as a locomotive fuel in the 1830’s, and it worked pretty well. Unfortunately this was only in vertical boilered locomotives where the firebox was located directly under the boiler. And of course vertical boilered locomotives were an evolutionary dead end. So it was back to wood firing until bituminous coal came along.