City of St Louis (NW Modeling List)

[NW Modeling List]

Guys:  The short answer is that coal with a higher caloric content burned in
a locomotive not designed for that coal would result in a slightly lower use
of coal per ton-mile in that locomotive if fired at or near stoichiometric
conditions.  But, there are many if, ands, or buts that would effect the
transfer of heat within the locomotive and the capture and conversion of
that heat energy into work.  

Gary Rolih
Cincinnati

 
-----Original Message-----
From: nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org
[mailto:nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Modeling List
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:26 AM
To: NW Modeling List
Subject: RE: City of St Louis (NW Modeling List)

Many UP Challengers were modified to burn oil (including the still-operable
3985) without any major problems.  This would probably qualify as "better
fuel" if not better coal.  I don't know if this affected their output or
not.  However, the Big Boys didn't like the change in diet on an
experimental basis and were not converted to oil-burners.  There appears to
be more involved than removing grates and installing an atomizer.  I also
suspect that just loading the tender with 14,000 BTU coal without looking
into other modifications (drafting being one) isn't the answer either.  UP's
on-line coal sources were pretty low quality, somewhere around 10,000 BTU/lb
IIRC.

FWIW, UP 844 was also converted to burn oil with not problems mention that I
know of.

Dave Stephenson.




      
________________________________________
NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list
Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/