Steam & Excursion > LNG/Propane or Kerosene to Power Steam Locomotive

First of all, I am not suggesting this as an alternative fuel to power steam locomotives, but more out of curiosity (don't want to rile anyone up). Would it be possible to use LNG / Propane or possibly Kerosene (jet fuel) as an alternative to coal, for instance, on the K class narrow gauge steam locomotives? If so, what types of modifications would be necessary? As I understand it the UP 844 FEF-3's and ATSF 3751 were originally coal fired and later converted to fuel oil. I assume this was based on reduced cost and availability of high grade coal.

Piece of cake, few burner modifications and then something looking like an ethanol train following behind,
using the water filled tender as a buffer car.

Well first, the UP didn't convert their 800 class locomotives for economical reasons. There was an impending coal strike after World War II, and the UP converted all the FEF-2 and FEF-3 classes pretty quickly, and simply left them as oil burners, until the end of steam. A number of Challengers where also converted to oil burning and painted two-tone gray, for passenger service. What with the new, light weight streamlined and air conditioned passenger equipment, the reduction in soot & cinders into the AC units was dramatic when pulled by oil burning steam locomotives.

Originally, the oil burning locomotives burned Bunker C, which was CERTAINLY not a "premium fuel". The bunker fuels must be heated in order to even pump/move them, and the fuel bunkers on oil burning steam locomotives MUST be steam heated, or the Bunker C turned solid!

Today's oil burning steam locomotives, 4449, 844, 3985, 3751, etc., generally burn waste oil, i.e. re-claimed crankcase oil drainings. The stuff is reasonably cheap, doesn't have to be heated much, if at all in summer months, burns reasonably clean, and is readily available nation-wide. That said, I know that 4449 and 844 have had to use diesel fuel, from time to time, with absolutely no burner changes nor firing complications. In fact, the CPR Empress Hudson, 2816, has been using standard RR locomotive diesel #2, ever since she has been in service on the CPR operation.

On 4449 specifically, over the past 36 years, we have used everything from #6, to #5 "power plant" oil, to waste oil, to diesel fuel, to a 50-50 mixture of RR #2 diesel fuel and NEW RR diesel crankcase oil! She will literally burn anything from paint thinner, to kerosene, to heaver oil.

I heard some number of years ago that Orange Empire Railway museum got a supply of outdated military jet fuel to try in their steam locomotive Ventura County RR #2. The results, I was told, were pretty spectacular as the fuel burned almost explosively to the point of being uncontrollable. Any comments on this incident from anyone who was there?

To HotWater - maybe you can comment on firing with fuels as volatile as kerosene or Jet A. The viscosity difference between those light fuels and something like #5 must require a deft touch on the firing valve and atomizer to keep things from getting out of hand. BTW, I remember the "great locomotive chase" up Cajon Pass in 1989 and the word was that you guys had a tankful of old journal oil for that run.


Have fun, be safe,
Doc Jones

I think a number of aumusement park railroads are using propane or CNG in their steamers. A number of "live steamers" (1 1/2" scale) are known to use propane particularly in areas with high fire danger. I would imagine that a full size steamer could burn propane but the draw on the fuel source would certainly result in a freeze up--it happens a lot with 1 1/2" engines that are working hard.

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

DocJones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


To HotWater - maybe you can comment on firing with
fuels as volatile as kerosene or Jet A. The
viscosity difference between those light fuels and
something like #5 must require a deft touch on the
firing valve and atomizer to keep things from
getting out of hand. BTW, I remember the "great
locomotive chase" up Cajon Pass in 1989 and the
word was that you guys had a tankful of old
journal oil for that run.


Doc Jones

Doc,

Mixing that "light" stuff in with the #5 or waste oils hasn't been a problem. I remember during the 1984 New Orleans Worlds Fair trip, one of the oil suppliers was trucking the fuel out of some place up in Oklahoma. Although it was supposed to be #5 Power Plant oil, we quickly discovered that it burned REALLY hot, with virtually NO SMOKE, and we then were having trouble doing nice photo run-bys, since simply overtiring during the run-by only resulted in lifting the safeties, but NO SMOKE! After about three days of that, I finally asked the truck driver, "What the hell is this fuel?". He said it was a "Hot #6", which still had the gasoline & naphtha in it! WELL, NO WONDER!!!

Concerning that side-by-side "locomotive chase" up Cajon Pass, back in 1989, that was the time our fuel truck never showed up in Colton. The SP Mechanical Dept. simply had us take 4449 over to the diesel servicing facility, and fill the tender with half diesel fuel and half diesel engine lube oil. It burned hot enough, but we had to constantly sand out the tubes while climbing the SP's side of Cajon Pass. George Lavacot was Fireman, and every time he slapped my back, I put another scoop of sand thru her. We discovered that engine lube oil (SAE 40) with all the special additives for turbocharged diesel engines, made a nice gray coating on the inside of the firebox, upon arrival at Bakersfield, that evening.

Hmmm. Maybe that stuff you described as burning so hot, etc is the same stuff we got a tankfull of once. It was thin, kinda greenish like sewage and burned super hot. Sometimes you can get too much heat.

So am I assuming correctly, that the steam engine could be designed specifically (injectors, etc) to utilize a higher BTU fuel? If this is true, than a high BTU fuel, like Kerosene should be able to increase the range of an engine vs. a lower BTU fuel utilizing the same volume of storage (not considering water). Even though a fuel like Kerosene is more expensive per gallon, it also has a higher BTU content per gallon and burns cleaner, which I would assume cuts down on maintenance costs. This would be the same scenario for propane.

I am surprised that there is not a fuel standard for each specific engine that crews must adhere too. Mixing fuel grades seems like a maintenance nightmare to me? Why not designate a specific type of fuel, such as diesel or Number 9, and optimize the injection system for that type of fuel.

Just some thoughts. Thanks for the comments. Lot of good stuff to ponder.

Most additives for high load sleeve bearings such as a turbo would most likely be lead based which
has a fairly low melting temp and a nice grey color. Lead lined tubes, lots more sand!
The question of gaseous vs liquid fuels is an interesting one in that the liquid fuels as used tend to
burn for an extended period after ignition because of the droplet size and disperse heat nicely in
the firebox. A gaseous burn tends to ignite and extinguish almost immediately as the fuel burns
very quickly. This would require a very different nozzle and distribution arrangement so that the
flame front front would be directed at the heated surfaces. The UP in their propane turbine
experiment found that the propane burned very cleanly and even considering the btu equivalents
seemed to require more gaseous fuel than would have been expected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/12 13:05 by rehunn.

But none of the above smells as good as burned coal!

casselton,

I don't know quite where you are going with your questions. First, there is NO "injection system" for oil burning steam locomotives. The fuel is all gravity feed from the tender bunker, through the firing valve (under the Fireman's side of the cab), and into the burner. Steam, as also controlled by the Fireman, is used to atomize (spray) the oil flame towards the door sheet (rear of the firebox).

Concerning the mixing of various fuels, it is really no big deal. You burn what ever is available, that is the least expensive and easy to handle (delivered by tank truck). There have been times in the past, when the host railroad's shop manager has even asked to to burn all their shop waste liquids. Sure, just have the fork truck bring the 55 gal. barrels to the tender, raise them up, and pour the "stuff" down the hatch. As I stated earlier, she'll pretty much burn anything flammable.

For some strange reason, this thread reminded me of the time a buddy with a warped sense of humor suggested converting UP 3985 to wood-burning......

Z

The fuel we got when I was first on the crew was, as we found out the hard way, slop oil or oil tailings from the refineries. This was generally a blend of left over crude with a mix of whatever else they dumped in the tank, including transmission fluid and more. This caused issues one display in Denver which led the UP to set specs for the steam loco fuel. Now as Jack said earlier, the closer to dinosaurs you get the more btu's there are. Well, the tests ended up setting specs for #5 burner oil. On the NW part of our trips we got burner oil out of Portland and man did that burn well. It was black compared to the dark brownish #5 we were getting. That was burner fuel for the ships and it worked great in the locos.
I don't feel that any of th fuels questioned above would provide the btu's that the current fuel does in an open firebox. Even kerosene is much lighter than the burner oil. When we had to use some #2 diesel, it didn't have the btu's that 5 did and thus we went through more per mile.
Back in the day, bunker oil was burned because the refineries practically gave it away to get rid of it. These days refineries now crack the crude down past bunker to petroleum coke for sale to power plants. That stuff burns very hot. Perhaps that would work if blended in with coal as long as it didn't burn the grates.
As we used to say on our trips, "We are keepers of dinosaurs that burned dinosaurs".

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

Hmmmm, I wonder if we could use a combination of solar power and wind power and save on fuel costs? Probably get a fat check from the gubmint for going green. Just sayin.........

(I hope Todd does not delete this for being somewhat off-topic)

Shortly after the end of WW2 my mother’s uncle drove his ‘38/’39 V8 Ford from Los Angeles to Ohio to visit relatives. As a 9-year old kid I was impressed with someone who would make such a trip, and was fascinated by his stories about his cross-country journey.

Fifteen years later I again met the old gentleman in California and, as they say , heard the rest of the story about his trip back home.

When he got into California (Route 66 – west of Needles, CA) he saw a sign for ‘cheep’ gasoline. Always willing to save a nickel, he tanked up and headed to LA. His Ford never ran so good! It went uphill just as fast as it would go downhill. It was evening when he pulled into his driveway. Later, when he tried to put the car into the garage, the engine would not start. As a seasoned back-yard mechanic, he worked the next morning to get the motor to start. Finally, he pulled one of the heads and observed that the valves were burned so badly that they would not seat.

His tank of ‘cheep’ gasoline was war-surplus 100-Octane aviation fuel from one of the decommissioned training bases in the Mojave Desert. Yes, too much 'heat' made the old V8 run like the wind, but resulted in a major engine rebuild.

I and many others burn propane in our live steam locomotives. The reason why no one does it in full size is due to the expense of the fuel. With my little boiler however, one $21 BBQ tank will last all weekend. Cheap entertainment.

Kerosene is also used as an oil burner fuel in live steam, usually in the form of diesel #2. Kero, Jet-A and diesel are all similar substances with different formulations and additives to make it easier or harder to burn. Jet-A is very flammable and also very stinky, it's terrible to use in a steam engine due to the smell, and probably not so good for you fumes that go with it.

#2 Diesel is a happy medium - it burns well, you can get it anywhere and if you have a deft hand on the firing valve it burns very clean.

heating kerosene burns very clean but is more expensive than diesel last I checked.

A few 24" and 36" gauge park trains burned propane but I don't know of any currently doing so. The largest thing I can think of at the moment is the 'Lil Puffer locomotive at the San Francisco Zoo. It was converted to propane to satisfy the local hippies.

We don't use Bunker C or other heavy oils in live steam because the orifii are too small, and it would decrease the time between tube brushings.

For a while at least I know Roaring Camp was burning used motor oil, put through a strainer first I'm sure. recycling!

Photo is me with my live steamer, a replica of Ward Kimball's Chloe. The propane tank is in the red MOW caboose shell behind me.

--M

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..

---

That would be a "fable", a "myth", or a whatever. Higher octane fuels actually burn cooler
ie will take more static and dynamic compression due to the raised octane. Unless you
build a motor with said higher compression you will not realize any power gains. 100 octane
in a flathead is just a waste of money. You could get a little more power by changing the
spark advance but even that's not enough to fry a motor.

OK, Crew....

What-on-Earth were you thinking?

Basic locomotive REALITY: 95% of usable heat energy goes up the stack as unused! The energy released in the firebox is measurable in multiplying the (sampled) BTU value of the fuel, multiplied by the quantity consumed (and the rate of consumption).
The effective usable horsepower at the draw-bar (tender's coupler) is also measurable (in draw-bar pull & ground speed).

With modern steam locomotives, the NET usable power is, typically, 5% to 7% of the total heat produced -- and that's at 'short cut-offs' and reasonable speeds. At higher power demands, the loco's conversion of heat into work is even MORE horrible! Imagine buying 8,000 to 12,000 gallons of burnable propane and then wasting 95% of that cost for 'dramatic pictures'. Even Warren Buffet would gag on 95%-investment losses!

Earlier discussions on T/O posts have described the real problem of trying to gasify huge amounts of Propane -- conversion from liquid to gas state.
The tanks absorb immense heat from the atmosphere and become ice-coated, ice clogged. I believe some of Norm Sandly's steam engine creations (Bush Gardens, etc.) burn propane; but, it has limited uses for high HP machines.

So, get off of these dream/hogwash imaginings and deal with what works. Hotwater has explained, ad nauseum, the realities of suitable fuels for oil burners.
At times, HICO had obtained oil-washed coal from the mines ----- NOW!-- talk about HOT, the 759's pops lifted even with one hand-fired scoopful!

All of these desires for 'modernized' (mechanical tinkering and exotic --expensive---fuel possibilities) steam locos is moot, unless you can bring up the HP conversion realities.
Even, today, the infernal combustion engines waste immense amounts of heat, but their ratios are in the 33% to 40% efficiency ranges -- 8 times the poor old steamers!

Enjoy and support (with labor & cash) your local RR preservation resources and admire what our fathers did in operating these 'dinosaurs' -- on a daily basis!


Overfire Jets
(We clear the air!)

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tanks absorb immense heat from the atmosphere
> and become ice-coated, ice clogged. I believe
> some of Norm Sandly's steam engine creations (Bush
> Gardens, etc.) burn propane; but, it has limited
> uses for high HP machines.

That's correct. To keep the tanks from freezing we run parallel tanks in larger engines. Scale that up to full size and you have problems. Propane is a great chemical - stores at room temperature, self pressurizing. But like using an aerosol can, the rapid boiloff results in the can getting very cold very quickly as the reaction absorbs heat to facilitate the liquid to gas state change.

A lower volume out of parallel canisters is needed to overcome this.

On my Chloe, it has few enough burners to ever freeze up the lines, but the tank has gotten quite cold on occasion when firing hard with passengers.

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..

what an amazing thread!

thanks for all the great information