Steam & Excursion > 4014 rate of oil usage

Ive seen comments here about the potential  or projected rate of oil usage on 4014 ,(yes I did do a search but did not find a definitive answer-I ask here so I wont have to read through 3 hours of posts  I feel someone will point out that they did a search and found the answer in less than 30 seconds  I appreciate your skill),   what will be the per mile burn rate and will the oil tender(s?) have enough oil capacity to get from Cheyenne to ?  Rawlins?   Rock Springs?

I assume 4014 will burn more than 3985--any speculation on how much more?

thanks for your responses



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/19 08:07 by dougd.

After we get the esoteric answer......will it smoke!

Good question, with no answer. Will they run a protection diesel? Is he using the burner out of the 3985 which is a proven
commodity? How much of a train do they intend to pull? Lotsa varibles.

Out

I hope we will have a kindly interpreter among the esoterics!  I have had some in the past for my  "lack of knowledge" questions



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/19 08:40 by dougd.

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good question, with no answer. Will they run a
> protection diesel? Is he using the burner out of
> the 3985 which is a proven
> commodity? How much of a train do they intend to
> pull? Lotsa varibles.
>
> Out

Yes, lots of variables. Fuel consumption will also depend on the trailing load, how the throttle & reverse gear are set, and the Fireman.

I can't recall the calculated fuel usage on 3985 over various districts with various trains, but since Bob Krieger generally did the fuel requirement calculations, maybe he'll chime in and post some consumption numbers. Obviously the slower and harder the locomotive is worked, then the greater the fuel & water consumption will be. Such as when we had to help that stalled train on Archer Hill (2005?) with 844. I think she was using over 30 gallons a mile, at full throttle and about 20 MPH maximum!

I note from Ehernbeger's Challenger Portraits   p.8 the tender's oil capacity is 6000 gallons. (I guess  tenders are carrying both water and oil)
At 30 gal per mile, one tender will not get them to Rock Springs, barely to Rawlins.  Are there 2 (3?) tenders?   If  burn rate is greater than 30 gpm  distance is further reduced.  

Where did 3985 and 844  typically "oil up" on trips west.  I have seen oil trucks in Ogden, but did 3985 need  a refill before Ogden?

From what I remember they usually took fuel at Rawlins with both 844 and 3985.  The territory from Rawlins to Rock Springs is fairly flat, so the locomotive would not be working in the sense that they were on Sherman Hill. 

dougd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I note from Ehernbeger's Challenger
> Portraits   p.8 the tender's oil capacity is
> 6000 gallons. (I guess  tenders are carrying both
> water and oil)

Yes, ALL tenders carry both fuel (oil or coal) and water. 

> At 30 gal per mile, one tender will not get them
> to Rock Springs, barely to Rawlins.

The usage probably NOT be "30 gallons per mile" for fuel consumption.

  Are there 2
> (3?) tenders? 

The UP has two auxiliary water tenders, which carry ONLY water. Since a ball-park consumption rate of 10 to 1, i.e. 10 gallons of water per each gallon of fuel, what usage is always higher.

 If  burn rate is greater than
> 30 gpm  distance is further reduced.  

THAT would be very unusual in excursion service.

> Where did 3985 and 844  typically "oil up" on
> trips west. 

Generally at overnight stops at Rock Springs.

I have seen oil trucks in Ogden, but
> did 3985 need  a refill before Ogden?

Not that I remember.

Unless the firebox size, cylinders, boiler capacity etc are identical from the 3985 to the 4014, I see no reason to expect that a burner which is adequate in a Challenger will be as efficient in a Big Boy. What am I missing?

I appreciate your responses and info
D.

grahamline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless the firebox size, cylinders, boiler
> capacity etc are identical from the 3985 to the
> 4014, I see no reason to expect that a burner
> which is adequate in a Challenger will be as
> efficient in a Big Boy. What am I missing?

Maybe UP used the same size burner in 4005, back when it was converted from coal to oil, because that was what was available, and it worked.

grahamline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless the firebox size, cylinders, boiler
> capacity etc are identical from the 3985 to the
> 4014, I see no reason to expect that a burner
> which is adequate in a Challenger will be as
> efficient in a Big Boy. What am I missing?


The engineering drawings for the Big Boys and Challengers are available on DVD from the Union Pacific Historical Society.  The UP used the same burner on its oil-burning FEF Northerns, early (1936) Challengers, late (1942) Challengers, and would have used them on oil-burning Big Boys if any more of the class had been converted beyond the experimental application to the 4005.  The drawing for the oil burner includes a revision block that shows all of these locomotive classes using this burner design.

The oil burners UP used in their large steam locomotives were actually pretty simple devices.  They were two-piece assemblies made of cast iron.  They have two connections, one for fuel and the other for steam.  There is a good-sized slot (2 1/2" wide x 1/2" tall) to discharge the oil into the firebox, and a thin slot 2 1/2" wide x .031" tall for steam (presumably to atomize the oil into small droplets).  The point of mentioning this is simply to say that the burner, when operated on FEF Northerns and Challengers, was evidently capable of supplying more oil than was necessary, and therefore still had capacity to supply the firing requirements of a Big Boy.

Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY

---

---

I don't know if this is just legend, but I remember reading that the 4005 was a "great steamer" when fired with oil, but the spot heating of the single burner was the reason for the failure of the conversion.  If this was indeed the case, then what I couldn't understand was why didn't they then or now choose to attempt a multi-burner system.  I ask for feedback, as I certainly have no experience with this, but if you had a "U" shaped assembly with 5 or so burners, it would seem that the crown sheet would be heated more evenly, and could be a more efficient burner.  As for oil amount, I would think it would be not much more than 10% or more than the 3985.  Larger locomotive, but same load.....? 

Thanks!

Steve

SteveC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if this is just legend, but I
> remember reading that the 4005 was a "great
> steamer" when fired with oil, but the spot heating
> of the single burner was the reason for the
> failure of the conversion. 

No, that actually isn't true, i.e. an "old wives tail". Once the proper amount of fire brick was added and the burner was properly aligned, then the so-called "spot heating", with resultant staybolt breakage/leaking, was corrected/eliminated. Locomotive 4005 then became a good seaming and performing locomotive. 

As additional information, the main reason that the oil burning conversion of the 4000 class was not pursued further was, 4005 used so much fuel when working westbound out of Cheyenne, that she would have required additional fuel near the summit of Sherman Hill, just as the coal burning 4000s did. However, the major investment in a steam heating plant and all the necessary fuel heating equipment, for just one group of 25 locomotives (assuming the other 24 4000 class locomotives were subsequently converted to oil burning) on Sherman Hill, was deemed to be counter productive. Thus, 4005 was used between Cheyenne and Denver, and subsequently returned to being a coal burner.

If this was indeed
> the case, then what I couldn't understand was why
> didn't they then or now choose to attempt a
> multi-burner system.  I ask for feedback, as I
> certainly have no experience with this, but if you
> had a "U" shaped assembly with 5 or so burners, it
> would seem that the crown sheet would be heated
> more evenly, and could be a more efficient
> burner. 

See above reply.

 As for oil amount, I would think it
> would be not much more than 10% or more than the
> 3985.  Larger locomotive, but same load.....? 

Apparently the 4005 did indeed use so much fuel, that it could not make it all the way over Sherman Hill with a full tonnage train. Even the coal burning 4000s had to take on coal prior to the summit of Sherman Hill on westbound tonnage trains.

> Thanks!
>
> Steve

HotWater,

Do UP excursion era trains typically take Track 3 westbound over Sherman Hill or the 1.55% grade (the Old Line?).  Would you expect the fuel consumption to be less on Track 3 (assuming same travel time to the summit)?

WOW  4005 used the full 6000 gal to get  to the top of Sherman?   Why would 4014 be any different?  
Not pulling a full freight plus track 3--I get that but that is still alot of oil to get 60 +  miles



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/19 13:12 by dougd.

sgriggs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater,
>
> Do UP excursion era trains typically take Track 3
> westbound over Sherman Hill

Yes.

or the 1.55% grade
> (the Old Line?).  Would you expect the fuel
> consumption to be less on Track 3 (assuming same
> travel time to the summit)?

Yes.

dougd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW  4005 used the full 6000 gal to get  to the
> top of Sherman?   Why would 4014 be any
> different?

Because 4014 would NOT be handling a full tonnage freight train on the 1.55% westbound grade, i.e. the original double track main line. The drastically reduce gradient on track #3, which was built in 1953, was well after 4005 was burning oil fuel. As mentioned above (previous post), the steam excursions generally have used track #3 for westbound moves.

> the coal burning 4000s had to take on coal
> prior to the summit of Sherman Hill on
> westbound tonnage trains.

1950 timetable shows no coal dock
between Cheyenne and Laramie. Wonder
how often they needed coal at Harriman
after 1953.

http://wx4.org/to/foam/sp/maps/zukasETT/1950-05-28UP-Wyoming8-TimZukas.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/19 16:52 by timz.

Maybe Ed & Company are planning a tankcar of fuel behind the two tenders.....