Was it a major rebuilding to convert a steamer over to oil? I’ve read about classes of locomotives that were converted, but weren’t most oil burners built that way originally?
im pretty sure the major difference is in the firebox…youd have burners instead of grates…brickarch??? …not sure
It would be a lot easier to convert from coal to oil than vice-versa. Remove stoker, grates and ash pan and replace w/ oil burner in firebox and steam line to tender oil bunker in colder climes. Compared to all that would have to be added to go from oil to coal, piece of cake. Most notable example, SP AC-9s when transferred to Modoc Line from New Mexico compared to rendering cab-forward a cab-backwards.
It sounds as if conversion was fairly simple. Why didn’t more railroads convert over to oil burning, to extend the life of their fleet, rather than purchasing diesels?
coal to oil wasn’t too bad; oil to coal would have been a bear – except when the engine was converted from coal to oil then back to coal. UP did that with, I think, some of the Challengers and maybe some of the FEFs, and I think some other roads did too. Partly because supplies of coal were a little uncertain just after WWII.
Diesels had so many other advantages over steam that the oil/coal question just wasn’t a factor. (OK, OK – I know that the comparison of the Niagaras to the Es on the NYC was just about a wash – but the Niagaras were brand new, and used on such trivia as the 20th Century, and were very very well maintained in first class facilities – hardly representative of the average steam engine in 1950 vs. the average diesel).
Not to mention the fact that a diesel is a lot cheaper to maintain in general than a steamer…
Most Western Railroads converted to oil because it was more plentiful than coal. While in the East, coal was more plentiful than oil. Its pretty obvious right there.
Cotton Belt converted its TEXAS steam locomotives to oil fuel in 1923. It was done because of the plentiful supply of oil fuel in TEXAS.