Steam locomotive coal

Thai1On

Slave to my route
I'm curious what is the favored coal to be used in steam locomotives, anthracite or bituminous and why?

I've also read some rail terminals offered both types at there coaling towers.
 
It depends what was more easily available in the region. For example, railroads in northeastern Pennsylvania (and beyond) preferred anthracite because it was there, it burned hotter, and it burned cleaner. For other railroads, particularly ones that hauled bituminous, it was more economical to use that. The towers with both would probably be one of the railroads considered an "anthracite road" which used both. I'm not sure who those were, possibly Erie and Lackawanna, if not others, and I could be wrong. (I don't know much about those two)
 
Some coaling towers were designed to provide both anthracite and bituminous coal. My 400 ton coaling tower (kuid2:210518:7823:2) was based on a real tower that did just that from 8 chutes. 6 for bituminous coal and 2 for anthracite. Its on the DLS and all 8 chutes are animated with smoke and sound.

Anthracite also known as hard coal burned hotter and cleaner as simulatortrain mentioned but it burned slower so a larger firebox was necessary. Bituminous was also know as soft coal. Most locos could probably burn either in a pinch but ran best when burning the coal they were designed for.

Ben
 
The Grand Canyon Rwy is now burning used/refined cooking oil.

Many tractors, trucks, and cars, used vegitable oil in the Great Depression
 
hey,simulatortrain,there is another railroad that you accidently foregot the Reading railroad that ran coal trains and utilized the camelback steam engines that burned the type of coal that you mentioned,which explains why their firebox design!;)
 
hey,simulatortrain,there is another railroad that you accidently foregot the Reading railroad that ran coal trains and utilized the camelback steam engines that burned the type of coal that you mentioned,which explains why their firebox design!;)

No, I know, but they only burned anthracite. I'm not sure, but I think Erie and Lackawanna both had engines that burned both types.
 
the Central railroad of New Jersey used 2-8-2 mikados and camelbacks,but the website that I went to,read that this railroad burned different coal types in the fireboxes of the engines but I'm not sure,as I don't know much about this railroad!
 
Last edited:
Most roads burned Bituminous, as it was more readily available. Roads that ran in the eastern part of Pennsylvania though, burned what is called Culm, or waste anthracite. Essentially, it is the waste coal that is too small for market. A special firebox was needed to burn it though, as you needed a wide grate area. This wide firebox, called a Wooten after its creator, is the reason why these railroads ran locomotives called camelbacks. The cab wouldn't fit over the firebox which, due to lack of trailing truck technology at the time, needed to be over the drivers for support. Because of this the cab was placed straddling the boiler. The engineer was in the cab, and the fireman was between the cab and the tender.

Eventually, the invention of the trailing truck, allowed the cab to be placed behind the large firebox, though some camelbacks were still being produced until they were outlawed by the FRA in the 1920s. (construction wise anyway.)

During the middle part of the 20th century, these railroads began to run bituminous coal in their fireboxes, as it was discovered that culm, when powedered, can be burned in an oil burning powerplant, instead of oil. It then became profitable to burn it in the area, which is still going on today.
 
thanks for the help jadebullet,and when you mentioned the camelback types, given the fact he was isolated and had to shovel into the huge double door firebox which certainly was unconfortable,and the engineer was sitting above the drivers where the whirling siderods were located,two dangerous elements which explains why construction of these steam engines were banned,for safety reasons!
 
Last edited:
Not really because of the side rod motion, it was mainly because if a rod broke (which is fairly common) it would be propelled into the cab, usually destroying which ever side of the cab was above the broken rod, and whoever was in that seat
 
Not really because of the side rod motion, it was mainly because if a rod broke (which is fairly common) it would be propelled into the cab, usually destroying which ever side of the cab was above the broken rod, and whoever was in that seat

See, my problem with that argument for saying they're more dangerous is, that if you throw a rod on a conventional engine, you're at least going on the ground, and in most cases, hard. Sure, it's not an almost guaranteed death, but it's not all that different.
 
Not really because of the side rod motion, it was mainly because if a rod broke (which is fairly common) it would be propelled into the cab, usually destroying which ever side of the cab was above the broken rod, and whoever was in that seat

That's the most bizarre thing, I was talking to someone about a week ago who was telling me the exact same thing. Weird coincidence, eh? Reminds me of the snake-head effect the old steel ribbon on wood type of rail use to produce.

And that also doesn't mention the fact that the fireman and engineer were, in essence, in two completely separate parts of the locomotive, which makes it a tad hard to communicate verbally, especially when you have steam and fire roaring and hissing all about you. Just being together in the same cab is barely audible without having to shout to the other person over the ambient noise.


I don't suppose any railroads ran their steam off of lignite coal on a common basis, did they? Would that even have enough stored energy to generate enough heat? Also, was there ever any practice of 'cutting the coal' with a mixture of high and lower-grade coal as a money-saving measure?
 
That's the most bizarre thing, I was talking to someone about a week ago who was telling me the exact same thing. Weird coincidence, eh? Reminds me of the snake-head effect the old steel ribbon on wood type of rail use to produce.

And that also doesn't mention the fact that the fireman and engineer were, in essence, in two completely separate parts of the locomotive, which makes it a tad hard to communicate verbally, especially when you have steam and fire roaring and hissing all about you. Just being together in the same cab is barely audible without having to shout to the other person over the ambient noise.


I don't suppose any railroads ran their steam off of lignite coal on a common basis, did they? Would that even have enough stored energy to generate enough heat? Also, was there ever any practice of 'cutting the coal' with a mixture of high and lower-grade coal as a money-saving measure?

Some camelbacks were equipped with speaking tubes for the two to communicate.

There were some lignite steamers, but mostly smaller ones.
 
Speaking tubes? Well it works, I know that even in a noisy Uboat, speaking tubes worked quite well between the command room and engine room, and the Diesel room on a Uboat can get quite loud.

anyone have some links to good sites on Camelbacks?
 
Biutminous was preffred because it was more avabile, but railroads in northeastern Pennslyvania used anthracite, though it burned slower. One benefit of anatharcite was it didn't produce soot which the Delware Lackwanna and Western Railroad turned into a jingle for their passsenger trains, specficly the Phoebe Snow.:cool: The jingle went like this:

Says Phoebe Snow
About to go
Upon a trip
To Buffalo
"My gown stays white
from Morn till night
Upon the Road of Anthracite."
 
Last edited:
The Reading (reding? reading? How is that pronounced anyway?) burned hard Anathracite coal in its locomotives. The PRR however usually burned cheap soft coal. In 1956, PRR leased 10 steamers from the Reading to help supplement their own locomotives (not wanting to repair existing engines.) After a year of hard use and poor coal, the Reading locomotives had to all be scrapped. The soft coal had done a NUMBER on their workings.
 
Back
Top