 |
Re: Will the Silverton line have to convert to oil burning?
Author: Big Boy
Date: 06-17-2018 - 16:58
My thoughts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Historical... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Depends on historical status - are they
> > "registered" with somebody? If so, historical
> > integrity might require using the fuel they did
> > while in regular service. ...
>
> You are more thoughtful than the average steam
> nut, and I like your thinking.
>
> I agree, it would seem that preserving the system
> of fuel combustion is important if you want to
> preserve the historical integrity of the machine.
> For example, if you had a Civil War-era wood
> burner, you wouldn't change it over to coal or
> oil.
>
> However, museums have practical challenges to
> face. For example I heard that NW Railway Museum
> is converting its NP 0-6-0 to burn oil because
> coal is hard to buy in Washington State. And they
> intend to run the loco regularly.
>
> Also, I imagine that as long as the conversion is
> easily reversible and does not harm the historic
> fabric, then the museum won't jeapordize the
> "registered" status. I would guess converting to
> oil does not harm the object at all, and is easily
> reversible.
>
> My thoughts.
1. It's not a museum; it's a business. Makes a LOT of difference.
2. I've never seen or heard of an oil conversion that wasn't reversible.
3. There are and have been oil burners operating in National Forest and
National Park areas.
4. Unless very poorly fired or using very poor fuel, oil-fired engines
seldom, if ever, start fires.
5. The other economies that come with oil burning (no ashes to dispose of,
no clinkers, much easier fire-up and cool-down, much cleaner, etc.) will
also become a factor favoring oil.
6. Do you want steam or don't you?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Historical... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Depends on historical status - are they
> > "registered" with somebody? If so, historical
> > integrity might require using the fuel they did
> > while in regular service. ...
>
> You are more thoughtful than the average steam
> nut, and I like your thinking.
>
> I agree, it would seem that preserving the system
> of fuel combustion is important if you want to
> preserve the historical integrity of the machine.
> For example, if you had a Civil War-era wood
> burner, you wouldn't change it over to coal or
> oil.
>
> However, museums have practical challenges to
> face. For example I heard that NW Railway Museum
> is converting its NP 0-6-0 to burn oil because
> coal is hard to buy in Washington State. And they
> intend to run the loco regularly.
>
> Also, I imagine that as long as the conversion is
> easily reversible and does not harm the historic
> fabric, then the museum won't jeapordize the
> "registered" status. I would guess converting to
> oil does not harm the object at all, and is easily
> reversible.
>
> My thoughts.
1. It's not a museum; it's a business. Makes a LOT of difference.
2. I've never seen or heard of an oil conversion that wasn't reversible.
3. There are and have been oil burners operating in National Forest and
National Park areas.
4. Unless very poorly fired or using very poor fuel, oil-fired engines
seldom, if ever, start fires.
5. The other economies that come with oil burning (no ashes to dispose of,
no clinkers, much easier fire-up and cool-down, much cleaner, etc.) will
also become a factor favoring oil.
6. Do you want steam or don't you?
