Steam & Excursion > Coal to oil on the 4014

With the successful conversion of the 3985 from coal to oil burning in mind, I thought I'd stick my neck out to ask about the 4014. One 4000 was converted to oil burning some 70 years ago. I presume a lot of engineering would be needed to convert the 4014 to oil burning. Were there any plans or paperwork about the old conversion preserved? Even so I presume this will be an entirely new, from the ground up job. The conversion of a 70 year old steam locomotive must require a lot of engineering work. Every t crossed, every i doted so to speak. Were there plans for 3900 class locomotives preserved that helped the 3985 conversion? If so, did those help, and were any modifications done from those old plans. Thanks.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/14 04:00 by alco636.

The firebox on a 4000 is much larger than that of a challenger, so the same setup will probably not work. They would be better to study the oil burner setup of the cab forward at CSRM.

Posted from iPhone

alco636 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With the successful conversion of the 3985 from
> coal to oil burning in mind, I thought I'd stick
> my neck out to ask about the 4014. One 4000 was
> converted to oil burning some 70 years ago. I
> presume a lot of engineering would be needed to
> convert the 4014 to oil burning. Were there any
> plans or paperwork about the old conversion
> preserved? Even so I presume this will be an
> entirely new, from the ground up job. The
> conversion of a 70 year old steam locomotive must
> require a lot of engineering work. Every t
> crossed, every i doted so to speak. Were there
> plans for 3900 class locomotives preserved that
> helped the 3985 conversion? If so, did those help,
> and were any modifications done from those old
> plans. Thanks.

The steam crew actually acquired the oil burning equipment for 3985 from sister engine 3977.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/14 05:34 by chi-townadam.

I think the pans on the 4014 have been removed. The manager did study the cab-forward at CSRM and the burner assembly.

Jim Leonard
Cheyenne, WY

Good info. Thanks gentlemen.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

A great deal of thought and research into the UP archives as well as into modern techniques and knowledge has been underway by the steam crew caring for the 4014, 3985, and 844. Not to imply that this was not also done by previous steam crews at Cheyenne who maintained and ran two steam locomotives well for many memorable years. With that background, and the obvious care we saw taken to move the Bigboy from west to east successfully, I think the oil conversion and full restoration will be successful regardless of complaints from 5 or 6 persons. I worked along side the crew for months, rode part of the 4014 trip, and observed nothing but the most professional, safe, and kind operation at all times. (Sorry if this post stirs more complaints from those same persons.)

> The steam crew actually acquired the oil burning
> equipment for 3985 from sister engine 3977.

Only the Burner and Oil bunker came from the 3977. The in cab parts came from the 838 and the pan was fabricated from original UP drawings.
Steve

Drafting will be a big issue as it was on 3985 until it got squared away. It will be interesting to see what works best.
Hopefully the old records on 3985 are still around as well as the Big Boy conversion notes.

I've read that 4005 burned oil for about a year before being converted back to coal. It's been claimed by the current manager that they have all the blueprints to convert 4014 to oil as 4005 was.

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read that 4005 burned oil for about a year
> before being converted back to coal. It's been
> claimed by the current manager that they have all
> the blueprints to convert 4014 to oil as 4005 was.


From what I understood the 4005 fired ok but the size of the firebox and drafting caused it to have many hot and cold spots which were really hard on the stay bolts and that they were being replace very often so they opted to go back to coal. I an sure it can be engineered to engulf the larger firebox properly and to work fine.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

The grate area on a cab forward and a big boy are within 5 square feet of each other. Whatever worked for a cab forward should work on a big boy. I don't recall reading anything negative about firebox problems on cab forwards, so it can be successful on this size of engine. Do I wish they'd just leave her alone as a coal burner, yes...but I also understand the logistics of dumping the ash pan, cinders, etc.

Posted from iPhone

Bob3985 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kurt765 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've read that 4005 burned oil for about a year
> > before being converted back to coal. It's been
> > claimed by the current manager that they have
> all
> > the blueprints to convert 4014 to oil as 4005
> was.
>
>
> From what I understood the 4005 fired ok but the
> size of the firebox and drafting caused it to have
> many hot and cold spots which were really hard on
> the stay bolts and that they were being replace
> very often so they opted to go back to coal. I an
> sure it can be engineered to engulf the larger
> firebox properly and to work fine.

I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out,
but this engine is not going to pull 100 cars over
Sherman Hill. Or anyplace else. The steam demand
is going to be far less than that requires, unless
you want the pop valves roaring all the time, which
means it it will not have to be fired like it would
if it was pulling heavy loads.

That, in turn, means that it can be converted pretty
much the same way as 4005 was, but the issues it had
won't come into play. If a huge fire isn't required,
there won't be as much heat variance, which is the root
cause of staybolt and flue leaks.

They will easily be able to keep a steady 300 pounds
on it without having the firing valve wide open all
the time, only to have to suddenly cut it back when
the throttle is reduced. The throttle also will not
have to be wide open.

Yes, I know, a lot of verbiage will be used trying
to rationalize why a bunch of new stuff will be done.
This guy doesn't give a hoot what works or what makes
sense.

Somewhere I heard that Steve said the 4005 burned close to 6o gallons of oil per mile in service. That's a lot of oil. (I hope I am quoting him correctly)

Next question would be "60 gallons of what?" As has been said it's not going to
run 365 days per year. You can make a really big fire with the right burner and
nozzle setup and with some hot (read expensive) oil it'll get down the road just
fine, IF it ever gets done.

Out

Thank you Bob. I didn't know that happened. Learned something new today. Good discussion, thanks everyone!



Bob3985 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kurt765 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've read that 4005 burned oil for about a year
> > before being converted back to coal. It's been
> > claimed by the current manager that they have
> all
> > the blueprints to convert 4014 to oil as 4005
> was.
>
>
> From what I understood the 4005 fired ok but the
> size of the firebox and drafting caused it to have
> many hot and cold spots which were really hard on
> the stay bolts and that they were being replace
> very often so they opted to go back to coal. I an
> sure it can be engineered to engulf the larger
> firebox properly and to work fine.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read that 4005 burned oil for about a year
> before being converted back to coal. It's been
> claimed by the current manager that they have all
> the blueprints to convert 4014 to oil as 4005 was.

And if he does it "exactly" as the 4005 was done, then a very short life for the 4014 will ensue. Typical for the Village Idiot. A more even spread of flames is needed for the larger firebox!!!

In my continuing quest to learn how steam locomotives operate, and out of complete ignorance, I will post this question to Hotwater, Realist, Bob3985 and anyone else who knows how the Challenger and Big Boy oil conversion was done: With a firebox as big as those engines have, how many burners or aerators or whatever distributes the fire would be required to bring the engine up to operating steam pressure? Jack, I know there are several valves on 4449, and what exactly do they control? Where the spray is directed? Seems like it would be tough to distribute the oil fire evenly in a Big Boy firebox. Just asking.

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The grate area on a cab forward and a big boy are
> within 5 square feet of each other.

Perhaps just as, or maybe more important, is the relative shape of the fire box on the two locos. If they are within a foot or two of each other in length and width, or within 10 or 20% in general proportions, then you are likely correct. If one is long and narrow and the other is fat and wide, then there is more question that one design will "just work" in the other. (I don't have info on the relative firebox dimensions, so offer no opinion one way or the other.)

There is also the point Realist reminds us of: a huge hot fire may not be important. Will the same burner design that worked in a cab forward and might work in a BB at full throttle going up the hill, still perform well at the much lower throttle likely to be required for a lot of passenger/tourist use?

This is where I keep arguing that a real combustion engineer should be hired to make some computations and tell you what will probably work before you start bending sheet metal. (They aren't that hard to find, you can look in the Yellow Pages and find one near you with a valid state license. They often work in small offices and might do a consulting job like this for maybe $2000 or so.) Or I would make that point, except I'm told that all the engineering that steam engines will ever need has already been done by the Holy Priests at Alco, and all that is is left should be done by seat-of-pants mechanics with 8th grade educations, who will "feel" the right design.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Or I would make that point, except
> I'm told that all the engineering that steam
> engines will ever need has already been done by
> the Holy Priests at Alco, and all that is is left
> should be done by seat-of-pants mechanics with 8th
> grade educations, who will "feel" the right
> design.

To be fair, the boys in Schenectady probably never envisioned the 4000's burning oil...

They, along with Jabelmann and the boys at the UP, designed and built an engine to suit their needs, burning Hanna coal. They also probably never figured on a coal miners strike that contributed to the oil conversion of the 800's and many 38-3900's...

nycman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my continuing quest to learn how steam
> locomotives operate, and out of complete
> ignorance, I will post this question to Hotwater,
> Realist, Bob3985 and anyone else who knows how the
> Challenger and Big Boy oil conversion was done:
> With a firebox as big as those engines have, how
> many burners or aerators or whatever distributes
> the fire would be required to bring the engine up
> to operating steam pressure? Jack, I know there
> are several valves on 4449, and what exactly do
> they control? Where the spray is directed? Seems
> like it would be tough to distribute the oil fire
> evenly in a Big Boy firebox. Just asking.

Jim, generally, most of these large oil burners just had (have) one large standard style burner. And the atomizer valve on the manifold is pretty much the only one that has anything to do with the distribution of the oil, other than the tank and line heaters, which simply ensure sufficient flow TO the burner with heavy oil. All the other valves are things like the blower, blowback, maybe a blow-forward, and various other auxiliaries that are not part of distributing the oil. The only exception that I know of from the steam era in the US were the SP&S Challengers, which I'm told had two burners, one above the other, more or less in the standard location. Each had its own firing valve and atomizer, and the lower one was used for firing up and low demand operation, and when higher firing rates were needed the upper one was started. I believe this was due to these engines having particularly large fire boxes, and if it were me I'd at least consider this option for the 4014. But it seems unlikely, and as Realist has said, may not even really be necessary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/14 21:10 by flash34.