OIL-BURNING LOCOMOTIVES In 1882 Thomas Urquehart, Superintendent of Motive Power of the Griazi-Tsaritzin Railway of Russia converted 143 of the locomotives of this railroad from coal-burners to oil-burn ers and made service tests on them which showed that one pound of oil equaled 1.78 pounds of coal. The oil had a calorific value of 18,600 B. t. u. and the coal used, a Russian anthracite, con tained 24,920 B. t. u.
in the year 1888, Dr. Charles B. Dudley presented to the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia a comprehensive paper dealing with the subject of oil fuel for locomotives. Dr. Dudley founded his conclusions largely on a series of experiments which had been conducted by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Fle deter mined that, based on the relative heat values of the fuels, one pound of oil was equivalent to one and three-quarters pounds of coal ; while taking into account the various incidental economies due to the use of oils, one pound of the latter was practically equivalent to two. pounds of coal. Dr. Dudley pointed out the following advantages which oil has over coal as a fuel for loco motives : 1. Less waste of fuel : First, from smoke and unburned gases which go out the smoke stack ; second, cinders, which are carried through the tubes and deposited in the smoke box or exhausted from the stack ; third, fuel, which escapes through the grates.
2. Economy in handling fuel.
3. Economy in handling ashes.
4. Economy in cleaning locomotives, the absence of smoke and cinders in using oil being the source of this saving.
5. Less waste of steam at the safety valve. The oil is under positive and practically instantaneous control, and with proper attention the working steam pressure of the boiler may be maintained under all conditions of operation with out the safety valve being allowed to open. Steam lost through the safety valve simply means so much fuel gone to waste. The occasional raising of safety valves cannot be prevented with the best handling of an ordinary coal fire.
6. Economy in cleaning ballast. The cinders thrown out of the smoke stack of coal-burning locomotives are not only a loss on account of not being burned, but also because they fall on the track and choke the ballast, especially where rock ballast is used, thus interfering with the drainage.
7. Economy of space in carrying and stowing fuel, as a pound of oil does not occupy as much space as a pound of coal and a higher heat value is obtained per pound of oil than of coal.
8. No fire from sparks.
9. Very little smoke and no cinders.
10. Possibility of utilizing more of the heat.
A report of the Indian Government on a comparison of oil and coal on the Northwestern Railway of India gives the follow ing advantages of burning oil in locomotives : (1) Release of en gines and rolling stock required for carrying coal ; (2) saving cost of unloading and stacking coal and putting on tenders; (3) loco motives cleaner and more comfortable for the staff, and easier work for the firemen, also there is a saving of one fireman per engine, as Indian locomotives as a rule carry two ; (4) saving of fuel during period locomotives are standing at stations or in yards ; (5) rapidity with which steam can be raised; (6) larger blast pipes can be used to reduce back pressure in cylinders; (7) less wastage of fuel in transit and in stock and probably consider ably less stolen ; (8) absence of sparks and smoke when the ad mission of air, steam and fuel are properly regulated. No ashe3 to be removed from ashpan or smoke-box, no ashpits to be cleaned." The recent determinations made by the Missouri. Kansas, and Texas Railroad of Texas are of interesta This road figures its 1918 fuel (coal) cost around $6,250,000, and its 1920 fuel (oil) cost at less than $4,750,000, or a saving by substitution of oil for coal of approximately $1,500,000. Detailed investigation by ex perts have shown that barrels of oil are the equivalent of one ton of coal, and the cost of handling the oil is one cent a barrel.