Steam & Excursion > Reading 2100 modifications revisited

A week ago Dave wrote at http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,2110896:

"The Big Problem Causer in the 2100 is the way it is now fired. When they switched from coal to oil, instead of a traditional installation of an atomizer in the front of the firebox, they put a steel plate over the firedoor and mounted a furnace type burner (that's what it looked like) to the plate, and it seemed to direct the fire towards the rear tube/flue sheet.It also was said the capacity of the burner used was not enough to keep the heat in the firebox uniform, no matter where it was placed, which resulted in damage to the firebox itself..."

I just found a couple video clips that illustrate the installation. Shown are Bob Harbison firing, fireman trainer <G> Tom Moungovan and engineer Tom Payne.

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

From all credible reports of those who were directly involved in the 2100's operation during this ill fated venture the rube goldberg set-up was an unqualified disaster.

It was impossible to maintain working pressure with anything beyond the throttle barely open and the evaporation rate was so poor that it couldn't even maintain pressure when the gun was turned on!!

In addition it has resulted in substantial damage to the firebox side sheets/combustion chamber due to improper air introduction mechanics/design.

In short, a total failure.

Fortunatly Mr. Payne went broke before anyone was seriously injured or worse, so I guess we need to be grateful for that!!

Darn shame as if he'd only accepted the help that was offerred to him by steam professionals that knew how to convert from coal to oil properly, all this potentially fatal to the machine damage could have been avoided!!


As the old saying goes...you can lead 'em to water............

Ross Rowland

You know, you take a perfectly good, traditional, eastern Pennsylvania coal burner and RUIN IT!!! Who knows if it can ever be "economically" returned to its natural, correct state of operation. If you wanted an oil burner in the first place, pick up a western locomotive out of a park, and rebuild it. Please don't come back east, and ruin the tradiion of a coal burner. p.s., yes, I know, engines on the UP were converted back and forth, depending on where they were to be operated, or, the current price of oil or coal. But please.... if there WAS a New York Central 4-6-4 left, some damn fool would try to rebuild it to burn oil! Keystone1

This is all an utter shame. I knew someone who offered their help and they were essentially told to get lost. Just looking at that set up I can say that I would not have wanted to be on that engine. Where did these guys get the idea to go back and change over 100 years of good steam locomotive operational mechanics? If someone were going to modify a steam engine, it seems like they should want to invest a lot of time and money in research and testing before throwing something together.

This makes me sick. Wish I could see a T-1 run, but it sounds like a slim chance now.

...maybe someday... 2124 or 2102?

The device on the floor behind the fireman's seat.....somebody please tell me that's NOT a fuel pump!!!

-YD-

Well, I guess you could always call it a "transfer pump"....'course it transfers fuel, but....

Cheers, Dave

> You know, you take a perfectly good, traditional,
> eastern Pennsylvania coal burner and RUIN IT!!!
> Who knows if it can ever be "economically"
> returned to its natural, correct state of
> operation.

I won't bother debating the merits of the oil burning system. In its second incarnation, it worked reasonably well, and the harder the engine pulled, the better it steamed. I was told that the design was based on a proven installation by CP (or CN, can't recall which for sure), not simply something Tom Payne made up. I think that with a bit more fine tuning it would be a decent design. A truly great design? Probably not... Workable? Yes.

The one feature of the design that should be most appreciated is that all of it can be reversed very easily and economically. That's the whole reason for installing the burner in the rear. It enters the firebox using the hole the stoker would normally occupy. Firebricks were placed on the grates (yes there were bricks) and also could easily be removed. There were no structural modifications of any kind. Nothing was done that can't easily be un-done.

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I guess you could always call it a "transfer
> pump"....'course it transfers fuel, but....
>
> Cheers, Dave


Groovy. Nothing cries "Lets Go Railroading" to me quite like pressurized fuel hose running through the crew compartment. If you need me, I'll be back in the diesel, checking expiration dates on all the fire extinguishers.

-YD-

MRSR_Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The one feature of the design that should be most
> appreciated is that all of it can be reversed very
> easily and economically. That's the whole reason
> for installing the burner in the rear. It enters
> the firebox using the hole the stoker would
> normally occupy. Firebricks were placed on the
> grates (yes there were bricks) and also could
> easily be removed. There were no structural
> modifications of any kind. Nothing was done that
> can't easily be un-done.

.... except for the aforementioned firebox damage resulting from a poorly designed conversion to oil.

MRSR_Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > You know, you take a perfectly good,
> traditional,
> > eastern Pennsylvania coal burner and RUIN IT!!!
>
> > Who knows if it can ever be "economically"
> > returned to its natural, correct state of
> > operation.
>
> I won't bother debating the merits of the oil
> burning system. In its second incarnation, it
> worked reasonably well, and the harder the engine
> pulled, the better it steamed. I was told that the
> design was based on a proven installation by CP
> (or CN, can't recall which for sure), not simply
> something Tom Payne made up. I think that with a
> bit more fine tuning it would be a decent design.
> A truly great design? Probably not... Workable?
> Yes.
>
> The one feature of the design that should be most
> appreciated is that all of it can be reversed very
> easily and economically. That's the whole reason
> for installing the burner in the rear. It enters
> the firebox using the hole the stoker would
> normally occupy. Firebricks were placed on the
> grates (yes there were bricks) and also could
> easily be removed. There were no structural
> modifications of any kind. Nothing was done that
> can't easily be un-done.

Bob, I had a conversation with Tom too about this and I am fairly familiar with the CP's oil-burner arrangement. The truth is that Tom's version is/was QUITE a stretch from what the CP did and was VERY poorly done. Call it easy and economical if you want. The right way would have been a lot more work and expense but in an application like this it should have been a priority. The real version on the CP includes a standard Von-Bodden Ingles burner and damper below the fire-door at the rear of the actual fire-pan, exactly opposite of most oil-burners that have the burner and main damper in the front of fire-pan. Tom's version was too high, necessitating the fuel pump for when the oil level in the tank fell below the burner. I don't know what Tom ended up doing for a damper although I know there was some provision made after I left. I don't really know much about the actual burner Tom used but even if he had done all of this the "CP" way I'm not sure it would have been sufficient to properly fill that firebox. The T-1 firebox is unusually wide and I don't know of any roads that ever burned oil in a firebox that wide. I think some type of multiple-burner arrangement might be necessary to truly do this one right. One thing's for sure: Tom isn't known for doing anything the right way.

Scott

its a miracle that thing didnt have a crown sheet failure from the way it sounds the firebox was damaged. what a shame

Will Hemb
Flower Mound, TX

Scott, the burner did better the harder the engine was working, but as you know "working her" on that run wasn't exactly the same as pulling 50 loaded coal cars. So you're probably correct that it wouldn't have been sufficient if the engine was truly working hard. You're right about the height too, though he did have the burner aimed down. In fact, one of the modifications I wanted to make, but never got the chance to try, was a small mound on the floor for the fire to bounce off of and disperse them into more of the firebox. We made a temporary one by accident one day when they lit the engine off on wood and the resulting pile of ash formed a mound. I couldn't believe how well the engine fired that day, it was great. I asked what the change was, and was told they hadn't changed anything. Sure enough, by the end of the day the ashes dissapated and once again you had to work at it to keep her hot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/10 07:07 by MRSR_Bob.

Has anyone in a position to know actually stated that the firebox was damaged or is this just a fear based on the circumstances?

I "heard" that the grates and hangers were not just removed, but torched out, so you can't just place them back in position for a back to coal operation. Anyone know about this distruction???

I've seen photos taken during the conversion process that show the grates still in place with steel plate sections plug welded on top of them. Don't know if this was later changed.

I'm glad this conversation is off and running. This whole fiasco has really been bugging me for some time. My hope is that all the firebox damage has been overstated.

One thing is for sure, when restoring a vintage steam locomotive, one should not take the Rube Goldberg approach. Hopefully, one day she will be brought back east and the actual damage can be assessed.

You can make all the excuses,rationalizations etc. that you want but that doesn't alter the bottom line facts in this issue.

For the industrys sake let's hope that this ill fated venture is used as a teaching tool of what NOT to do if one wishes to convert a locomotive from a coal burner to oil. How badly this poorly engineeered system damaged the boiler is an open question and may never be fully addressed. From the available evidence there does appear to be substantial discoloration of areas of the sidesheets in the firebox and combustion chamber which may or may not be indicitive of serious internal damage??? The only way to really know is to do a VERY thorough boiler inspection ( including an ultrasound) by acredited professionals.

With the current state of the mainline steam game being what it is, the chances of anyone being willing to invest that kind of effort/money in the 2100 is EXTREMELY remote. I'm saddened to say that the overwhelming odds are that it will continue to sit in some remote corner of the world and eventually be forgotten. Sure hope I'm wrong but that's the reality.

The one slim chance for revival might be if she does get auctioned off to help pay some of the debt accumulated by Tom Payne and the buyer at that auction is a T-1 lover with a fat checkbook!!

Other than that I'm afraid her continuing value to the steam world will be as a stark real life example of how NOT to do things!!

Sad but true!!

Ross Rowland

I recall seeing the grates sitting on the floor next to the engine in St. Thomas - were they later reinstalled?

any pictures available of this conversion?