OIL FOR RAILWAYS as a driving power for locomotives, although before the war more generally adopted than for ocean transport, has been far outstripped by the latter since that revolutionary occurrence. The reasons for this are not difficult to discover. In the first place, the facts that practically' the whole of the Fleet was converted to oil and shipowners profited by realizing the efficiency of oil fuel burning, and, as one important factor in this, that oil supplies were more ample than they had hitherto believed ; that the advantages gained from its adoption for running locomotives arc not so numerous nor so obvious as in the case of traffic which is capable of moving over long distances, andtrof touching those parts of the world where supplies -tire available in large quantities ; and that supplies of solid fuel, in unlimited quantities, are either traversed by the railways or arc in close proximity to them. The benefits to be derived from the substitution of oil for coal as fuel in the locomotive arc, nevertheless, conspicuous. Both time and labour are considerably reduced ; the consumption of fuel is less, not only from the point of view of oil possessing a higher calorific value, but from the ability of the oil fired engine to take the steepest gradient by merely a temporary increase of oil supply to the burner, which can be returned to the normal when the gradient is passed. With a coal-driven locomotive this special condition of the track involves a considerable and unnecessary wastage of fuel, which there is no means of obviating. In addition to this advantage of a lower fuel bill and a greater amount of work obtainable from a ton of fuel, there is the saving of time in not having to cut out the engines for cleaning, etc., the greater capacity for steam raising, the saving of fuel when the locomotive is at the terminals, and the saving of time in the loading up with oil over that for coal. On the other hand, nothing is gained in the way of increased accommodation for merchandise, or in the direction of reduction of firemen. The cost of fuel, therefore, has to be borne irrespective of any other advantages, except in regard to those already referred to, and, although these are obvious advantages, they do not affect the earning capacity of a company so strikingly as in the case of a shipping company. They are
sufficient, however, to induce many railway companies of this country to turn to oil fuel, at the present time, though the price of oil and reliability of supply at home must always be more deciding factors than in ocean transport. The most vital consideration, however, is that the railway company must always be assured of ample home supply, as it cannot go further afield for this, as can a ship. Even such a national dislocation of the coal industry as occurred in 1921 induced few of the railway companies to resort largely to oil, though a number of main line routes were traversed by locomotives driven by the liquid fuel.
The position is far different, however, in foreign countries, especially in the United States, where oil fuel practice has been increasingly extended on the railways during the last ten years. This is, of course, not surprising when one remembers the extensive petroleum reserves of that country.
The adoption of oil fuel in America, and chiefly in California, was due in the first place to the fire risks which were run in employing either wood or coal.
Many large forest fires were started by sparks from coal fired engines, and oil fuel was introduced to obviate this danger. With the vast stores of fuel oil, however, at hand, the economic advantages accruing from the change over were soon recognized, and the use of oil fuel on locomotives more than doubled between 1910 and 1920. The figures showing the length of mileage, the total mileage run on oil, and the total consumption are us under— The consumption of oil based on these figures appears to amount, approximately, to 10 gallons for 100 ton miles. Before the adoption of oil only, and when the locomotives were run on wood, the cost worked out at I:12 15s. Od. a thousand train miles, whereas the same mileage on liquid fuel was secured on an expenditure of £8 4s. 5d. A comparison between oil and coal on certain American railways showed that 9.92 lbs. of oil were consumed for 100 ton miles, as against 18.20 lbs. of coal for the same distance.