Re: D&S to convert K-37 493 to oil

I just read on another board the Grand Canyon is not allowed to run its OIL-BURNERS because of a fire out there. So just changing the fuel is no guarantee of anything.
My experiences as a fan with coal versus oil.

Coal just seems more natural, and hand-firing more traditional.
Coal smells better
Coal creates cinders, which look nice in the yard but not in the eye
Cinders could cause fires.

First experience with oil was riding a Union Pacific 8444 trip in 1968 (Same trip we did Rio Grande Freights in June).
At 60-70 mph my brother and I had our heads out the vestibule, and noticed no cinders and only what appeared to be a spray of water.

I was around many oil-burners in Europe in the 1970's, and oil-burners seemed more efficient with less smoke.

The downside from a fan/worker perspective is that all the yards and engine facilities had these globs of oil all over the ground, and it was a mess on your shoes.
The roundhouse areas and steam facilities were sometimes covered with this stuff. The EPA would have had a fit in those days over there. Spain was the worst.
Also in Germany, but Germany still had a lot of coal burners too.

I suspect today they would be more protective of oil leaks and ground saturation, but I can see puddles here and there if there is over spill and leaks.

493 was the last NG engine I saw in freight service in 1968, so I for one would be happy to see it run again. I am just not sure the oil factor will be enough to appease the locals.

Greg Scholl
[www.gregschollvideo.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2018 07:51AM by Greg Scholl.