Coal Specifications - Locomotives

Does anyone have general specs on locomotive coal from either historical documentation or from the perspective of tourist / preservation locomotives - USA or Other ?

In other words if you were going to put out a contract to buy coal, how would you specify the desired product ?

Different railroads were able (economically) to obtain different grades of coal, and the likely grade of coal used was one consideration in designing steam locomotives: Northern Pacific, for example, used very low grade (sub-bituminous/lignite) from on-line deposits, and so bought steam locomotives with bigger grates/fireboxes thas average.

Get your coal grade right and the next problem is size: what size lumps should it come in? There was a preferred size for locomotive use (I can't rememberr what it was), which is now (I think) hard to get because most coal mines don't expect a demand for that size.

Good luck! (And I hope the next person responding to your query has more specific information than I do!)

With soft coal, it is a good idea to specify your use. If you don't specify, you may get a load of mine run, which can be anywhere in size from basketball all the way to dust. Stoker-size coal is around 2-3 inches, and will cost more due to additional processing at the plant. Tell them what you are using it for. And don't just look at price. We once got a load that had dirt and slate in it, clinkered up real bad, but it was "cheap".

Locomotives with larger fireboxes can get away with larger lumps of coal, while narrow gauge locos with small or skinny fireboxes use smaller lumps.

Cactus Jack,
as most mentioned: A good locomotive coal depends on the locomotive, the duty and the availability!

We here in Germany good different coal types. Usually we used coald for hand fired grates in the size of a mans fist, a so called "Knabbel".
Usually down to a teenagers fist was useable, larger lumps had to be shattered on the engine with a hammer to get the desired size, which was time consuming, and thus not a good thing for having a good steam loco performance, because the fireman has more "mining action" to do, as to feed the hungry firehole....
So several coal types were found, all hard- or stone coal. light flamable coal from the Saar region, to the less volatile coal from the Ruhr region to the heavy and usually not properly suitable coal of the Ibbenbueren mines, which was high grade anthrazit...

So a good mix of less volatile and high volatile coals were made an deliviered to the german railroad, some depots good a more volatile mix for the urban traffic, and a less, more heavy mix for the express and long distance traffic.

Softcoal was usually not used in western germany, but within the german democratic republic it was also used to fire their steam engines. Usually the grate had to be of a special design and for hand firing briquets were tried and used. But most engines got a so called "death firebed", which was a layer of granite stones on the grate, to fire the soft coal directly, whitout having to much burning coal dust dropping into the ashbox.

Mechanical stokers, like in Czech Republic, south africa or USA common weren't used in Germany, only on trial purposes... so hand firing was commonly used.

So, we used usually:
high volatile coal (35 - 30 % volatile content.),
intermediate volatile coals (30 - 20 % volatile content),
less volatile coal (20 - 14 % volatile content)

And from those a good mix, depending on locomotive and task to do was used.


The size, as mentioned at start was used depending on the grate. So a typical size was from hand mined coal, but mechanical mined coal contains usually less coal in the desired size, so wasn't used for german locomotives. The scappers of the mechanical mines only delivered hard coal for power plants, which used coal dust to fire their boilers.

Today we got our coal from poland and russia. the poland coal is o a good size and intermediate volatile, which low clinker ability, but high ash content. The Russian coal is more less volatile an develops clinker very rapid, if the drought shuts down by rapid closing of the throttle. So here the coal is much better for the long distance runs with open throttle and less stops.
Once we had south african coal, and... it was a mess. The coal had low volatile content, smoked horrible and clinkered so terrible, that the fireman had more to rake to grate, than being able to set up a fire. After only one trip uphill, you couldn't get the steam together for the climb, because the clinker plugged the grate and prevented the fual on the grate from being burned... So the engine had to go out of service, the fire had to be dumped and the grate had to be freed from clinker like a a old mine, with hammer and chisel!
Never again, and I knew why south african steamers used stokers and Hulson grates....

Steffen - Good info and interesting account of what you have seen with different coals and locomotives and locomotive use. This information is more what I was interested in finding out. I had heard that in general South African coal was poor,but have had no information on the Polish or Russian coals or how they fired in specific locomotives in specific duty cycles.

What I am trying to get at was actual specs developed by the engineering or purchasing departments. I realize various locomotives were built for different types of coal but rather than have the coal supplier dictate the coal, I am far more interested in telling the supplier what I will accept and even do random testing. I believe most larger railroads must have had something, but perhaps not ?

So my question relates to what were some of the specs, regardless of the type of coal, or even size. Certain criteria being:

Upper Calorific Value
Ash Content
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Material
Moisture percentage
Ash Fusion temperature

Whether it be a lignite burner or anthracite burner or in between I'd like to know either what specific railroads had for a spec or in today's world of tourist and heritage railroads what operators are asking of their supplier.

Cactus Jack wrote:
Upper Calorific Value
Ash Content
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Material
Moisture percentage
Ash Fusion temperature

Okay, let's see.
Depending on German locomotive specifications I would choose a coal:
"Fettkohle"
UCV = 8350 - 8450 kcal/kg
AC = 4 - 7 %
FC = 87,5 - 89,5 %
VM = 19 - 28 %
MP = up to 3 %
AFT = from 1000°C to 1200° C, higher Temperatures might get thick clinker layers, because the ashes don't drop into the ash pan, lower ash fusion tmeperatures might lead to a floating ash, which flows into the grate gaps, solidifies in the gaps, and thus plugs the air gaps of the grate and leads to massive combustion problems because of deficient combustion air.

But the AFT depends a little bit on the combustion temperatures and on grate and combustion air flow design... So some locomotives can deal well with high ash fusion temperatures, others won't do well...

For some circumsances, a more volatile coal woud be a much better choice:
"Gaskohle"
UCV = 7850 - 8350 kcal/kg
AC = 4 - 7 %
FC = 82 - 87,5 %
VM = 28 - 40 %
MP = 4 - 5 %

Hope this helps and helps, to compare different coal specifications used in locomotives. That might fit for German locomotive boilers and hand fired grates, but I do not have any guess, if this also works for US Locomotive boilers and grates...

Steffen

This is exactly the detail I was looking for !!
Hopefully others will be able to contribute also.

As for German locomotives, what class do you find the easiest to fire, and what class do you consider to be the best engineered and developed ?

Any thoughts on the 52 8055 ?

Thanks

CJ

Cactus Jack wrote:Steffen
This is exactly the detail I was looking for !!
Hopefully others will be able to contribute also.

Don't mind, your're wellcome...
But: Do not forget, this is for german engines, and I won't bet a buck, that this will fit identically to US locomotives.
Because locomotive development and boiler design might be totally different.
Sorry again, but I have mass on books about technical specs and facts of german steam locomotives, but I haven't one for US steam locomotives... A space I tried to fill, but I wasn't able.

Cactus Jack wrote:As for German locomotives, what class do you find the easiest to fire,

Well, a question I do not realy can answer, because I do not have large experience on the many different locomotive types. Each is unique and for me each has something special.
So easy belongs to experience, and sorry, I do not have that much experience than others have
But: I found that uniform type series 23 is trickiest to fire... and that some old boilers, like the larger prussian type boilers forgive many failures and errors in firing done.

Cactus Jack wrote:and what class do you consider to be the best engineered and developed ?

Jack, this is no something depending on what you prefer, of better what you like or love, as of realy a thing in construction and design. Consider that some locomotives are not designed and layout by the construction company, more by a committee of the railroad itself.
So the german railroad demanded a heavy freight engine, and the companies presented some ideas and studies. The comitee often did not take simply one suggestion, so they often merged many ideas, but often did not find any positives in suggestions and insist on suggestions and ideas of committee members.
Example: It was known in the years of 1932 to 1935 that large boilers with long tubes without a proper firebox design won't really be considered as good and freely steaming boilers, but the boiler for uniform type series 45 heavy freight engine was a long tube boiler, because committee member Wagner insist to use such a boiler, and proposals on different firebox designs, like combustion chamber and water tubes were abandoned, even if the company who submit the proposal had experience from other countries....
Look about the 19D of the SAR, which was developed by the North british locomotive company, but was later also build by Krupp, Borsig in Germany in Skoda in Czech Republic.
So later the 25 and 25 NC series for SAR was designed and constructed by Henschel in Germany after WW2... Not much of the knowledge one can find in the post Worldwar2 locomotive and boiler constructions here in germany, because of the impact of those inflexible and often insist railroad technical committee.
So the knowledge was there and it was used by the companies, but I found no entry into the locomotives for the german railroads.

So to be honest, there are some locomotives, which had a realy good design and were very good... but many had not all possibilities which would have made them especially a realy good design.
So I think the old express series of uniform type series 01 are a very well done, also the bavarian S3/6 and the IVh of Baden were very well construcions, because here the companys had more impact on the construction ideas, rather than a committee. So no wonder, why those engies survived even the uniform series and could not get easy replaced...
Also I think the last of the uniform type locomotive designs, the series 66 was a very well design, but in the end at the age of steam, such things came to late.....

Cactus Jack wrote:Any thoughts on the 52 8055 ?

Jack, if we consider 52 8055, we must first start discussion on SAR series 26, the "L.D. Porta" or Nicknamed "Red Devil", before we can get deeper in discussions on 52 8055.
From my viewpoint it's only a step, it's only a glimpse spot inside the huge treasure box, what might be possible if anyone starts from a plain piece of paper.... but to get the answer, Jack, someone has to start from the plain piece of paper, which is so far away from to be done, that the deep understanding of what was going on with Red Devil might help and start a discussion, which is more a discussion on something virtual as something existing...

So 52 8055 is something... well, it's simply locomotive tuning. That's like taking an old Volkswagen Golf Rabbit or GTI, fit another exhauster, mount another cam shaft, remove the common shock absorbers and springs, and mount new sachs race absorbers and low profile springs, get in the new recaro leather seats, mount new rims and sport tires and tune up the electronics for fuel injection... Sound different, has more power, will have more grip in curves and speed up much better, but it will always be a tuned up car, always stay a Volkswagen...
So this car cannot be compared really to a Lamborghini Murciélago or Ferrari 458 Italia, because of the different point of startup.
So the startup at 52 8055 was a reconstructed war series 52 uniform type locomotive. Consider war series as robust, but only designed to be in service for 3 up to 5 years. Being able to run even with damaged bearings or with less educated and experiences footplate staff... So those engines were very simple.
Because of the high numbers of those locomotives build, the "Deutsche Reichsbahn", the railroad company of the German Democratic Republic choosed, because other replacements were missing, to reconstruct those engines to keep as much of them in service as possible, to hold up the railroad service till replacements will abandon time by time more and more of those engines. So a new boiler was constructed, designed for the most available fuels and having enogh power, even in bad circumstances. The carriage was reconstructed and some things to simplify the engine for War usage were dismounted and more with complicated or more valuable things replaced.
So the so called Reko locomotives of east germany arose...
And 52 8055 is a Reko Locomotive....

So the tuning started with the uniform type series 52 War type locomotive, whitin the Reko project, leading to 52 8055 NG
The locomotive war first numbered as 52 1649 and was build 1942 in Graffenstaden (Grafenstadt during the WW2), which is today again france. Within the Reko project around 1960 in the GDR 52 1649 was also choosen to be reconstructed and during summer 1962 this reconstruction was done at the shop in Stendal.
Here the number was changes to 52 8055.
so we have here the first step in tuning up a locomotive.
What DLM made is simply to further tune up the locomotive... so what you have is compareable to to above mentioned Volkswagen... that's no compareable locomotive for any existing modern locomotive... it shows only what might be possible, if one will start up from a plain piece of paper...
Understand?

Steffen

Yes I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the insight on the German Uniform Type Committee locomotive design process and the short comings that resulted.

I also understand what you are saying now about the 52 Class. It indeed would be interesting to start with a clean sheet of paper. Perhaps it would have no real practical value though, but it would be fun.

Wardale's work with the 19D 2644 and the Red Devil is also very interesting with the GPCS system and other improvements that gained some substantial fuel savings in coal and water with increased power output. A fascinating study and project.

Well, Jack,
I will post a little later... but what can be assumed, if you start from a clean sheet of paper... and end up with a prototype, it might look like this:


Edit:

Okay Jack,
as you see in my picture above, modern steam does not look like most people expect. If you start from plain, you first have to erase the picture of the old steam locomotive in the brain of the people. This is memory, this is past... but most people, if they hear steam locomotive, they do not listen, they have the picture in their mind, the picture of the boiler, the smokin' chimney, the wheels and all the rods and bars and the huge pile of coal on the tender behind...

But if we now start from plain, well...
So first is the engine! No steamer will today have an external steam engine. No... It will be a monoblock steam engine, as the steam motors one can found in Henschel rotary snow plows or on spilling engines. A multi-cylinder block type motor propelled by steam... self oiling like all modern internal combustion motors and having a modern valve gear for typical control.
This motor is coupled to a modern 4 gears hydro-gear, like many diesel locos have. This will help, to ensure to bring the revolution range and torque output to a wider range or output rounds, thus control output speed and power a little better, horrible tractive effort on low speeds and going higher speeds with reduced tractive effort will be possible.
Next comes the carriage. Main shafts, like the modern cardan shafts will propel typical trucks, like found in Diesel and e-Locos... not more bogies without power, all axles go on power, so no weight is without power, all engine weight goes to tractive power...
The cassis, a smooth surface, easy to clean and to color, also having a better streamline and also always a today given cab forward possibility.
So a cabin with controlled air ventilation and climatic could be given, one man operation by electronics, uniform to most other locos.
Inside now, beneath the monoblock engine and the gears, is a modern water tube boiler, going on liquid fuel, like light oil or diesel, but beeing able to go on liquid gas or natural gas or natural oils, like rape or sunflower.
A articulation makes the 'double locomotive' perfekt, and puts loco and tender together, but all trucks on the tender are powered by the main shafts, so you have a 'booster', but not to boost in short periodes, it's a tender with a full drive gear for all trucks of the tender, again it's still: All axles do tractive power...
Inside the tender is water capacity, a modern flat plate condensator and a fuel tank.

So this engine would be longer, than many uni locomotives, but will have more axles in tractive power, having a smokeless exhaust and will sound not like a steamer... listen to a SAR 25 condensator locomotive... the howling sound of a exhaust turbine will maybe be to listen, if the boilers go on full power, like a jet turbine sound. No steam will be visible and the often restricted range because of the water capacity is increased because of the condensator tender, which was shown even in South Africa, to increase the range of the series 25 to about double or nearly tripled....
Consider, that this increase might be the game for the steamer, because can travel to long distance, without any stop for fuel and water, and if... well, usually in the same range as many diesels...

So, Jack, that is if we start from plain... and you have to start with a prototype, and with many many improvements and alterations, to get a locomotive perfect and for the common operation duty...

And that's why all other things have to be considered good and a step in the right direction, but stay only tunings or tune ups... but won't be a Next Generation Steam locomotive, or something which can compete with those construction kit diesel locomotives... Here you also can establish a construction kid steamer... a 4 x 3 cylinder compound motor, or a 2 x 3 cylinder, or a 2 x 4 cylinder compound engine? What about a 4 x 2 cylinder compound? Many engines can be placed inside the cassis... also why not having a carriage or 4-4-4-4, or 3-4-4-3? What about 2-4-4-2 or 2-3-3-2 or better 2-2-2-2 or 3-3-3-3? Every combination is possible, only restrictin engine power and fuel capacity as reducing or increasing engine lenght, but the normal 'look' would be like the picture...
You know now, why I talk abut a vision, much more than any company still today goes?

This I call the "Blue Phoenix Project"....

That sure is different and visionary !

I do not know much about the 25 Class SAR engines other than I have heard that they had much trouble maintaining the condensing systems. How much did the condenser save on coal or didn't it ? As a way to save water I guess they were a success for a while but with much cost and trouble.

I understand that Xanterra bought the Grand Canyon Railway in Arizona USA and converted the former CB&Q 4960 to burn vegetable oil as part of their corporate mission of going "green". However since water is an issue in the Southwestern USA they do not like to operate steam often account of the water resource use. Bearing that in mind and the political views of coal and carbon foot prints I wonder about the future development of any coal fired locomotives.

If the new locomotive from a plain sheet of paper burned diesel how would it rate against internal combustion with thermal efficiency (either on petroleum distalled oil or natural like vegetable or sunflower) ? Would that be an issue ?

Is there any future for coal as a transport fuel ?

Jack,
today we can deal with those troubles. Because the problems with the condensors had come from rust and corrosion. Because plain water is high corrosive, and with some salts and oxygen it's like a acid, thus you need special seals and alloys to deal with those circumstances.
All power plants today and even most river or sea steam ships had condensators, so today we know how to deal with such things, and even Henschel knew about, but wasn't permit to do a complete tune up, because even in South Africa the end of steam was remarkable. So no cash was pumped in such projects, a wonder that SAR series 26 was allowed, but David Wardale dreamed of a series 26 condensator version... but there was no permit for any further development.

Modern Power plants act as condensator locomotives.... so even about 7 up to 20% of fuel is saved. This is because the water is better pre-heated and the internal drought is much better controlled, so combustion is more efficient and the heat is better transfered to the water.
So in modern steamers you use the same principle as for steam driven power plants: A modern boiler, most efficient and not that fuel wasting boilers as the most steamers have... a modern steam engine, monobloc type and well designed... and we use modern trucks, with roller bearings and modern drive shafts for well power delivery... we use a typical cab forward cassis and an articulated back on back double locomotive design, so we melt tender and locomotive to a uniform tied together engine. So we get something what blends into all other modern locomotives and a driver won't feel, hear or see, that he drives a steamer... he won't realize....

So today, coal isn't the problem, it's the hype for less carbondioxide, and diesels and steamers can't match up with electric locomotives, because even here with power plants are need, but... you can mix with wind and water power sources, so less carbondioxide will be exhausted and diesles can't match up.
Same fpr other fuels... Water isn't also the problem, because we can condensate... but we cannot convert al historical engines to condensator engines. But a modern engine, there is realy no way around a condensator, if you want to match up range and distance parameters of other combustion engines...
Internal combustion engines always suffer from improper combustion, so they won't be able to get all the power out and do a full stechometric combustion, power plants do... so a boiler of a modern steamer will be even that efficient, and thus having about 95 up to 98% effiviency... Thus it would be a good game to focus on 40% complete efficiency and thus match up with modern diesels... but using bio fuls and are water conserving.

And first all after that we talk about coal again