Phil,
Thanks for the feedback. Which coal fired engines
are you running?.
In my experience
and majority of UK. GI live steamers, anthracite has proven to
be the most effecient coal to use. i.e. very
hot, very clean burning, no clinkers, minimal ash residue and
minimal sulphur to corrode the firebox/boiler. Welsh coal is
another favourite among experienced coal steamers.
Trent Dowler is correct regarding hard and soft coals.
It is interesting
the web site your referred to mentions "low sulphur" content
in many
adverts. But does not state sulphur is the long term death knell
for boilers. I did not find any actual data on the site
comparing coals. (Could you clarify location).
Anthracite burns hotter than the lower grade coals by 15-2o%
and thereby burns out any minimal amount of sulphur residue
before it has time to settle onto firebox surfaces.
Majority of the large scale
steamers in CA prefer Welsh coal, because Anthracite is not easily
available. Welsh coal is also one of the harder coals.
To answer Trents other coal questions. The soft coals break
very easily
and turn into a powder almost on immediate contact, whereas the
very hard coals do
need a considerable pressure or impact to break, and tend to
shatter under impact. (use safety glasses when breaking). Also
the harder the coal the brighter and shinier the surface
texture. Duller (almost matt black) coals will have more clinker,
(which fuses into unburnt pieces and
clogs the firegrate. Also burns much less efficiently and is
difficult to start. Because
soft coals burn less efficiently, the tendancy is
to add more coal to the firebox, which in turn causes more
clinker and takes up more firebox area.
Whereas harder coals have total combustion to an ash, which is
easily cleaned out with no clinkers.
I understand the harder coals are older, and have been
subjected to higher pressures during
formation, have less fossils and originally were forest areas.
Softer coals are younger have more fossils.
and usually from old lake or sea areas. i.e. hard mud!
I think we are drifting off topic.
Tony D.
06:47 PM 1/19/01 -0500, Phil. Paskos wrote:
>I'm sure there are many grades of Anthracite coal. I live in Reading PA.
>The home of the Reading Railroad. If you read the history of the Reading,
>you'll find that they spent untold amounts of money to get Anthracite to
>burn properly in their engines. The Wootten fire box very wide and shallow
>finally allowed them to use a low grade anthracite mixed with bituminous
>coal. At the Pa. Live Steamers anthracite has not proved to work well.
>
>Phil.P. Reading,PA.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Anthony Dixon wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Guys,
> > > Too clarify my my
> > > question of yesterday. I am looking for a source of
>Anthracite,
> > > and not your "basic coal".
> > > Anthracite is a "Super Grade" of coal, and burns much
> > > hotter, and cleaner than
> > > basic coals, it leaves minimal ash residue with no "clinkers"
>to
> > > clog up the firebox.
> > > Although not a coal expert, I grew up in a
> > > mining area in the U.K. and know even "basic" coal has many
> > > multiple grades, dependant upon which mining areas they came
>from
> > > in the world. I also lived near several full size steam
> > > railway lines and engine depots, and knew several drivers and
> > > firemen. One of their prime discussions constantly heard was
> > > running long distance trains through several areas where each
> > > areas coal, affected the pull capabilities of the engines
> > > dramatically. i.e.
> > > Firebox skills.
> > > Most of the U.K. mines are now
> > > closed, So the privately owned Live Steam
> > > Heritage Railway Societies have been using coal from Poland,
> > > Russia, China etc. But most
> > > recently they have found a high sulphur content in some of
>the
> > > coals used, and this has corroded the fireboxes on several
>newly
> > > rebuilt engines at a cost of over $150,000 per boiler.
> > > Therefore using any old coal is not a good thing even
> > > for our tiny 18 cub inch
> > > fireboxes. (Yes, you can visually tell that a
> > > different textured coal will burn better
> > > than another, and its potential for clinkers, or cleaner
>burning).
> > > I do know several larger scale live steamers in
> > > the California area using coal imported from Wales, but have
>not
> > > found any using anthracite.
> > > Another interesting item for the none coal firers, is
> > > that when a
> > > coal fire is actually well lit in the firebox, there are
> > > dramatic differences in the colour of the
> > > coals. i.e. some coals glow a darker red = Low
> > > temp burn, some a bright pink to yellow/green =
> > > high temps. But the best is white hot, and getting up to
>1,000
> > > degr F. with very little actual smoke. i.e. Anthracite.
> > > FYI. The G1 Live steamers being built in
> > > U.K. by various modelers all have to have boilers certifide
> > > for these temperatures.
> > > "Keep your coal fires burning",
> > > Thanks for all your comments and feedback.
> > > Tony D.
> >
> > Here in Western Australia, the local coal is both wet and soft. It is
>very poor
> > indeed.
> > The only option was to import hard steaming coal from the other side of
>the
> > country. Small boilered engines (5 in gauge, 4" boilers) clinkered and
>clogged
> > with ash.
> >
> > Recently, model engineers have used char, in plave of coal. It burns
>cleanly and
> > with about twice the calorific value of local coal. The problem was the
>asthetics
> > associated with smoke and smell. A mixture of 75% char and 25% coal
>seems to
> > keep most people happy. The total comsumption is about 65% of pure coal.
>Boilers
> > seem to stay cleaner with less ash produced.
> >
> > The steaming generation is also gretly enhanced from the higher flame
>temperatures
> > and better air flow due to less matterial being combusted.
> >
> > The mixture may have application for smaller scale boilers.
> >
> > Chris Rowles.
> >
> >
>
