Steam Locomotive Burning Charcoal?

watemple

Still here... lurking
This has really made me wonder. Since charcoal burns cleaner, produces no ash, and is not a fossil fuel, would it be possible for steam locomotives to use it as an alternative to coal? Also, have there been an engine that used it for its fuel?
 
I suppose in theory yes but even tho charcoal burns hotter doesn't it also burn slower (sort of like Anthracite) only to a greater degree? The firebox would have to be gigantic.

Ben
 
What would be the point. Effectively one has to "slow burn" the wood to produce the charcoal so it would make more sense to have a wood burner locomotive.
 
And wood burners are prettier too, lol.

Ok - enough jokes. As an experiment to prove it could be done - yes but that's about where it ends. One pound of wood does not make one pound of charcoal so its even less efficient then burning coal (even anthracite). Coal is ready to use right out of the ground as soon as it has been reduced into a usable size. Converting wood to charcoal on the other hand is a relatively slow and time consuming process.

As for environmentally friendly - I'm not so sure. The conversion process has to drive off everything except carbon and that means lots of particulate matter and potential greenhouse gasses.

Bottom line to me is it sounds good but doesn't pass the reality test.

Ben
 
It would certainly have to have a large area firebox. Potentially even bigger then engines that burned anthracite with their Wooten fireboxes. You couldn't go any wider so they would have to be longer.

Ben
 
You may find that locations that produced charcoal may have used lower grade charcoal to fire their local switcher(s), I'd expect in addition to plain wood, but the process to produce it would negate any other industry using it unless they had no other viable fuel source (this could be possible in an area with multiple charcoal producers, who are using the majority of timber for their own fuels and products).

That said, some railways did use other similarly 'processed' fuels. The UK and Australia both used 'coke' as fuel in the earlier days, as it produced less smoke (to some degree).

Quite a few miniature railways also use 'charcoal briquettes' for fuel, but these of course are much smaller scale.

Regards
Zec
 
And Eire experimented with peat, including Bulleid with his turf burner follow-on from his Leader disaster.


Thanks for that. Just been reading some fascinating history on Bulleid and his CCI locomotion. Pity it was scrapped. Peat is claimed to be smokeless, might have been good for the greenhouse gases problem. Pity, all those EMD locos in Ireland prevented this project from going forward. And of course, Bulleid's retirement as CME at 75 years of age.
 
Isn't peat (sort of) coal before it has completely transformed into coal? Also - I think its wet when mined (they don't call them peat bogs for nothing). Considering the amount a single loco would need the drying process would be immensely time consuming.

Ben
 
As Charcoal is produced by burning wood it's not going to save anything on emissions not to mention the destruction of Rain forests, apparently charcoal production has been banned in some countries.
 
Peat (or turf as it's more commonly referred to in Ireland) isn't entirely smokeless but it is pretty inefficient when used for the likes of raising steam. This was the initial hurdle Bullied had to overcome, but as CIÉ had already committed to dieselisation, something which Bullied was a part of, and indeed did so before British Rail, it was not the introduction of diesels that saw an end to the 'turf burner' but the fact that, like the many non-standard designs, it wasn't particularly economic to pursue and the initial impetus behind the need to burn turf, namely the second world war, had long since ended.

Personally, I found the turf burner an improvement visually over the Leader design and I think working conditions were certainly more favourable for the crew. Turf is still used to generate electricity in Ireland but if you have ever travelled around the bogs where turf is harvested on the industrial scale to do so, you will see that it is far from environmentally friendly.
 
Excuse me bumping the thread, but I thought I'd add to the discussion a bit. (I saw the thread, and just had to reply!)

Your idea is actually pretty good! In fact, there are experts that are thinking of fairly similar ideas.

There's a group that goes by the name "Coalition for Sustainable Rail" that is working on an experiment to use biocoal as fuel for a steam locomotive. (The locomotive in question is former AT&SF 4-6-4 #3463.) They've done calculations, and they say that the locomotive could possibly reach 130 mph while burning biocoal! Whether this is realistic or not is questionable, but they do seem to be optimistic. (Link here: http://csrail.org/) (News article from 2012 here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05...m-engines-another-high-speed-rail-boondoggle/) They also have some other railroad related projects that are pretty interesting.

Torrefied biomass, or "biocoal", is biomass that has been exposed to heat in an oxygenless environment (usually in the form of a sealed container). The "charred" power that's left is then compressed into solid "chunks" (for lack of a better word). It's similar to charcoal, but the materials they're made of and their production processes are somewhat different. (I believe charcoal is exposed to a small amount of oxygen while being heated, but don't quote me on it.)

The advantage of using biocoal is that is burns as hot as coal and can be used in place of coal without converting the combustion chamber, but burns as cleanly as wood and can be made using virtually any kind of biomass. There are several power plants that have been utilizing biocoal as half of their fuel source. (Burning coal 50% of the time, and biocoal the other 50%.)

Others have already talked about charcoal, so I won't bother.

Not to get too far off topic, but steam modernization has been in the works ever since diesel locomotives "took over", though it's been rather "behind the scenes". The late Livio Dante Porta probably contributed the most to this effort. Many people have been inspired by his work (including myself), and have been expanding on his principles. (I personally would absolutely LOVE to do this as a career, but the idea of going to a university unfortunately doesn't appeal to me.)

So, yeah, you're thinking in the right direction!
 
Not trying to start an argument here but I'm afraid I don't see the advantage.

Coal to coke or charcoal and biomass to biocoal both use the same basic process. Driving off the non-carbon content in a non-oxygen (or very low oxygen) environment. It can't be 100% sealed as that non-carbon content has to get out and go some where (usually in the form of a gas with a bit of particulate matter included). You then burn the resulting product (coke or biocoal) in an oxygen environment to generate heat which produces CO2. Its a simple chemical reaction. 1 atom of oxygen (which is diatomic meaning its really O2) combines with 1 atom of carbon to produce one molecule of CO2. A greenhouse gas. Just like burning any carbon based fuel be it coal, coke, charcoal, bio-coal or wood.

Net result = no advantage over burning coke or charcoal other then you start with a (relatively) useless product rather then coal which is usable right out of the ground. The only other advantage I can see is the original biomass is self sustainable on a yearly basis (the growing cycle) whereas it takes mother nature millions of years to make coal. In either process you will end up putting the same amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

TANSAFAL

As for 130 MPH - so what. That's far more a matter of the loco design, diameter of the drivers , and how well the running gear is balanced then what fuel it burns (with the exception of wood which has too large a ratio between carbon content and non-carbon content to burn hot enough to product steam fast enough). Far better to use efficiency and ease of maintenance as the ruling criteria then speed.

Ben
 
Last edited:
In either process you will end up putting the same amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.


But doesn't wood burn much cleaner than coal does? I mean, you're still producing carbon dioxide, but surely not the same amount.

I believe the biggest advantage is its ability to burn hot while being, like you said, a sustainable fuel source.

As for 130 MPH - so what. That's far more a matter of the loco design, diameter of the drivers , and how well the running gear is balanced then what fuel it burns (with the exception of wood which has too large a ratio between carbon content and non-carbon content to burn hot enough to product steam fast enough). Far better to use efficiency and ease of maintenance as the ruling criteria then speed.

Hence "questionable". ;)

I agree, this should go no further than a debate. There's already too much crap going on in the forums.
 
Burning trees is not very environmentally friendly so extremely unlikely to be considered these days. It's not the pollution issue, its the destruction of forest issue which also contributes to global warming.
 
Back
Top