Switch to full style
This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Re: and you thought restoring a plane was hard

Thu May 16, 2019 4:12 pm

maradamx3 wrote:Smokeboxes and stacks can be retrofitted to all but eliminate cinders. It really comes down to practicality. If you're running around a few hundred feet of track, coal is probably the best for tourism and nostalgia. If you're going cross country like UP does, oil has to be a better logistical choice. Personally, as long as it sounds, looks, and smells like a steam loco, it's all good! Huff & chuff!
If you can totally eliminate cinders from a steam locomotive's exhaust, I've never heard of it, and I have talked with the biggest names in RR preservation. UP had a nightmare each time they took 3985 out on the high iron, starting up wildfires often. That's one of many reasons they converted her to oil (and 4014 has 3985's tender attached to the locomotive right now because they didn't have time to do the conversion to 4014's tender in time to meet the deadline for last week).
As for coal v/s oil, yes, it's clearly easier to load, burn, run and service a locomotive on oil than coal.
But it doesn't smell the same! :wink:

Re: and you thought restoring a plane was hard

Thu May 16, 2019 11:18 pm

Here's an interesting story that was part of Big Boy's visit to Ogden...

https://kslnewsradio.com/1905305/englis ... s-granted/

-Tom

Re: and you thought restoring a plane was hard

Fri May 17, 2019 4:50 am

Tom wrote

Here's an interesting story that was part of Big Boy's visit to Ogden...

https://kslnewsradio.com/1905305/englis ... s-granted/


This is a really interesting idea. I wonder if we could be converted into high-octane for an airshow flyby...

Re: and you thought restoring a plane was hard

Fri May 17, 2019 11:39 am

maradamx3 wrote:
airnutz wrote:When this thread came up and I referred back to my photos, I could read the 3985 number to start my research on them. At the time back then I was at a small warning lights only RR crossing in Bracken, Texas within 50 feet of the track. 3985 was making a stream of black smoke as she approached and this made me think it was still coal fired. But due to member Sopwith's question about coal vs oil fired, I pretty much know my answer after further reading which reminded me of the rain of cinders which followed steamers especially under load. I also know now altho coal oil fired they still emit plumes of black smoke for effect for the crowd or when under load when...ahemm...they pour the coals to 'er. Reflecting back, there were no cinders following 3985's passing on people or vehicles awaiting right up to the edge of the track.

When the volunteers decided in 1980 to dust off 3985 and return her to working order she was coal fired and remained that way for almost 10 years till she was modified for fuel oil. Many of her Challenger sisters came equipped oil-fired. The main reason for the conversion being 3985 was starting numerous trackside fires due to coal cinders. They figured a zone of about 50 feet on either side of the track or their most fire prone zone. I dunno what the operating kit was for 3985 back then but it was customary for coal fired steamers to carry an additional water car with fire fighting equipment and personnel. An added benefit or fatality to the coal-fired experience was you no longer would get the rain of cinders...sometimes burning...in your hair and clothes and everything else.

Smokeboxes and stacks can be retrofitted to all but eliminate cinders. It really comes down to practicality. If you're running around a few hundred feet of track, coal is probably the best for tourism and nostalgia. If you're going cross country like UP does, oil has to be a better logistical choice. Personally, as long as it sounds, looks, and smells like a steam loco, it's all good! Huff & chuff!

Thanks Mardamx3, as P51 noted, 3985 had a reputation for blowing cinders setting fires back then and I knew that she had never gotten the conversion you detailed. In my previous post on page 2 I noted I witnessed the 1990 or '91 or '92 visit of 3985. In my post you responded to here I was trying to date my photos with what I could remember of her passing. I knew she had been converted to oil in 1990, but I was trying to figure if I saw her before or after being converted given that I couldn't locate a schedule of 3985's events in those years. With the help of the Texas Transportation Museum in San Antonio I probably witnessed the 1992 visit. The 1990 and 1991 visits to south Texas were in the Houston area as far as I can tell. With Bracken being on the northeast side of San Antonio I reckon '92 is it.

Re: and you thought restoring a plane was hard

Sat May 18, 2019 1:47 pm

old iron wrote:Tom wrote

Here's an interesting story that was part of Big Boy's visit to Ogden...

https://kslnewsradio.com/1905305/englis ... s-granted/


This is a really interesting idea. I wonder if we could be converted into high-octane for an airshow flyby...

Maybe we could be run through a smoke generator during a dogfight sequence? :rolleyes:
Post a reply