Can a Wood burner burn coal and a coal burner burn wood? I realize generally the stacks are different but are their other differences that would preclude one from not being able to use the other fuel source. Do they require different fire boxes or fire tubes or a different fire grate for drafting ect?
Generally Speaking NO! The fire grates are very different for a wood or coal burner. That said, either could be re-fitted to burn the others fuel. The caveat is that wood fires produce a lot less BTU’s then coal burning, and the air intake to get the best combustion needs to be different. The grates themselves needs to be much beefier on a coal fired loco. You could burn wood in a coal burner, but not well, with probably no damage. But burn coal in a wood burner and you would surely do damage.
Coal burners can be converted to oil burners ( i.e., 4014 bigboy being converted right now) but I’m not sure about wood burners, I think it could be done, but I’m not sure.
D&RGW 315s grates/ Fire box.
Dave, I am sure a wood burner could be converted to oil, one would just have to be very careful to use a SMALL enough burner to not overheat the boiler.
And the trow a spin in here, different types of coal burned differently. So there are some differences in coal burners too.
Thanks Dave I suspected as much but wasn’t sure, though I didn’t expect it would be because of BTU difference though that makes perfect sense. I figured it would be more from the standpoint of need different draft (air intake) requirements.
David Maynard said:
And the trow a spin in here, different types of coal burned differently. So there are some differences in coal burners too.
In the UK design of steam locos had to take into consideration the type of coal available in the areas where the loco was intended to operate. Just in a small island nation. This would encompass such areas as firebox, grate size and construction, cylinder relative to boiler size, etc’. Prior to “Grouping” in 1923 (when 4 main rail operating companies were formed) there were a myriad of line operators, some large some small all with different classes of loco. These were not just for traffic type but to cope with differences in quality of coal availability throughout the operators’ area.
This issue still affects the extensive railway preservation industry over here as most of the older classes of loco still exist in operation, at least those built post 1910’s and some earlier. I’ve been on steam hauled railtours where a loco has been delayed or sidelined due to “poor coal”. Some of these coal burners have been converted to oil firing (and back again mostly) in the name of economy or to overcome this problem.
In the UK I do not think alternatives to coal were used originally, due to the vast coal reserves here, except were the locos were exported to some of our colonies where coal was not plentiful and wood burners, say sugar cane on plantation locos, were produced. Max.
Coal burns in lumps of one size of another, but oil burns in an atomised spray. The firebox is therefore totally different as there is no ashpan on an oil-fired locomotive. Similarly, there has to be a way of getting the oil into the firebox by injecting steam into the feed line at the correct temperature and pressure since you are not shovelling in big lumps of fuel. The fireman sits down and controls the heat and feed, rather than lepping around with a big shovel feeding the firehole.
Many locomotives in North America had mechanical stokers or coal-feed systems, usually an Archimedian screw situated at the base of the coal bunker that fed a continous supply of pulverised coal directly into the firebox.
tac
Ottawa Valley GRS
After WWII there was a proposal in the UK for British Railways (from 1947) to convert up to 1,200 coal fired mainline locos to oil burning. By the looks of this old film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5jApwuq11g - A seemingly simple job given the work carried out by the old GWR (replaced as were the other 3 rail co’s by BR) in preparation for this requirement with one of their 4-6-0 express passenger locos. Lovely English RP commentary.
I have traveled behind a coal fired 2-6-2 loco that has been converted to oil burning on the Vale Of Rheidol narrow gauge railway. Looking into the cab the only apparent modification was the lack of a coal hatch in the firebox backhead. You don’t have to apparently go to all the trouble of removing the fire grate - you still need a draught. You just need to put an oil tank where the coal should have gone and a means of atomising and igniting the oil to provide a heat source in the existing firebox to heat in the tubes to boil the water. This loco has now been converted back to coal burning spec. A similar experiment was tried on the Darjeeling Himalaya railway with one of their famous, also NG, 0-4-0 Class B locos. Again this has now been returned to coal burning configuration. And with that the essential aroma of coal that is missing from an oil burner (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-smile.gif)Max.
Examples of famous locomotives converted to oil-firing on rebuild include the SP&S E11 Northern #700, preserved in the Oregon Rail Heritage Center adjacent to OMSI on the east bank of Portland OR, and the Canadian Pacific Royal Hudson #2860 and standard Hudson #2816.
tac
…as far as stacks were concerned; the big difference is that wood burning results in a great amount of sparks issuing from the stack, so wood burners in most cases, to prevent line side fires, had stacks that caught as many burning embers(Sparks) as possible. Some also had lengthened smoke boxes to provide the appropriate draft.
There were a number of different spark catching stacks invented over the years…some were patented…
Fred
Yes Fred the stacks are dead giveaways. It is the reason I love wood burners. To me a good old wood burning 4-4-0 American with a big old balloon stack just yells Americana. Don’t know why as I am sure others could argue other types, configurations, and fuels are more “american” but I can’t help myself.
Here is a cab picture of a simple coal to oil conversion on a 1917 Vulcan 0-4-0 that is running in Georgia.
Devon, I like the Radley Hunter stack myself.
On the Maine two footers the earliest steamers were little wood burners…wood being plentiful and CHEAP! Soon though it was decided that coal just plain was easier and better so the engines were converted. The most visible changes were the removal of the spark arresting smoke stack and … The extension to the smoke box for internal spark arresting. You can often see the old wood burners have small smoke boxes while similar coal fired engines have fireboxes which extend forward.
On a couple of Bachmann’s 4-6-0 I sawed off smokebox extension between double row of rivets at midpoint in order to have a more accurate wood burner. This V&T being one of them. It came with a fancily lined stack and I’m pretty sure such paint would last about 20 minutes in real life so I got a plain stack to swap for it. The fancy stack might end up inverted and used in sci-fi miniatures games as a spaceship.
Oh, train is on Mike’s layout. My apartment is a bit short on garden space.
David I like that sort of stack also. Did not know it was called though. All of my prototype locos had this sort of stack and the Bachmann Big hauler stacks work great. That is what I was calling a balloon stack. They just look “right” to me.
Get, or find a copy of John H. White Jr’s book History of the American locomotive, somewhere in there is a page with what must be 30 or more different spark arresting stack designs. Some look straight out of Jules Verne.
Well a balloon stack, to me, is the one that has a rounded profile, like a ball, also called a cabbage stack. I am probably wrong, but that is the image that comes to my mind when that term is used.
Well I can’t argue with you thats for sure. So Radley Hunter it is.