Gas or Coal fired

[Garry Coles]

Hi
I was just wondering about the pros and cons of heating my 3 1/2 " loco boiler with a gas burner instead of coal.
What would be best? butane or propane.
Would the exhaust steam draw through the boiler to much and suck the gas flame out.
Can anyone give advice on this idea one way or another.
Look forward to replies to my odd question.
Garry

[chris vine]

To my mind, half the fun of a small locomotive is the skill of keeping a coal fire in good fettle.

If you go making things too easy, who knows where you will end up? Does the track you run on go round in a complete circuit? You could make it very easy by not moving at all, you will end up in the same place!!

I hope this is taken in the methylated spirit in which it is intended......

Happy days
Chris.

[Tony K]

I think you should go with coal firing on a 3½" loco - it is more difficult than a 5" but I found it good to learn on. Then when you get to 5" it is easier. I did it this way and I think it paid off.

However, my mates reckon all 2½" locos should be gas or spirit fired. That should stir something up!!

Have they got coal in Jersey?

[baggo]

May 3, 2008 19:18:50 GMT Tony K said:

However, my mates reckon all 2½" locos should be gas or spirit fired. That should stir something up!!

That's because they don't know how to drive and fire a loco Tony


Seriously though, a 2½" loco is a real test of driving skill. If you can drive and fire one, any larger loco is a piece of p**s.

I did fire my loco with a propane torch when bench testing it but found it difficult to get anything like the heat that you get from a good coal fire. Not a fair test though as the burner is not designed for the job.

John

[ianengr]

Hi Garry,

I haven't had any experience in this area apart from steaming boilers on the bench with an LPG blowtorch, but I suspect you would need to control draughting carefully with dampers and control excess air to the burner for efficient heating. I tend to think it may involve a good deal of trial and error. A system that can be easily modified from the start might be good thinking.

If you are inclined towards gas firing, go for it, as there is little difference in principle to the oil firing of locomotives done in significant numbers, but do be mindful of safety issues.

Regards.

Ian.

[jgb7573]

Like Ian I have no personal experience of this. It is, however, common in the US. If you fancy trying it, give it a go and let us know how you get on.

[havoc]

I know of one engine that is gas fired. I don't think it is a problem but I fear you need a boiler designed for it. Not just a coal fired boiler where you stich a blowtorch in. If you do so, then propane is the way to go as it keeps a more constant pressure than butane when you draw a serious quantity during a longer time.

[Nigel Bennett]

One of our members built an Adams Tank to the Kelvin Moonie design, and he gas-fired it. There were one or two problems; escaping burning gases heated up the backhead fittings to an extraordinary degree, and the other big thing was the gas pressure vessel - some Societies refuse to accept them and obtaining certification in the first place is not simple.
However, it did run OK but he's now shoving coal into it as the more practical solution.

[circlip]

Weren't fireclay arches added to act as a radiant?? Problem has got to be risk of burning the ends of the tubes. Ian.

[AndrewP]

I too have wondered about gas firing and there seem to be (at least) 2 approaches.
To design a boiler specifically for it like this
whole site worth reading!

Or fit a gas burner in place of the grate like this with apparently an arch as well.

Andy

[circlip]

Should have qualified my answer by saying a blowlamp or roarer type burner, cos it sounded as though Garry was thinking of adapting an already built loco. This type of question used to appear in the ME with regards to "Oil" firing existing designs. Ian.

[Boadicea]

Oh dear - is there a bucket anywhere I can throw up in? ;D