How big is loco coal?

[Norton961]

Interesting about the GWR buying loco coal from collieries near the various depots. The Lilleshall Co in Shropshire had a contract with the GWR to supply Loco coal and I presume that would go to the sheds at Wellington, Much Wenlock and possibly Shrewsbury. Wrexham shed would be provided by the local collieries. The LNWR also had a contract with the Lilleshall Co so that would supply Trench, Coalport and again possibly Shrewsbury (LNWR side). They might also have supplied Stafford. The railway companies did not want the cost of shipping coal over long distances if decent coal was available local to the shed.

 

David 

[Caledonian]

Something worth bearing in mind is the evolution of coal cutting, or more precisely its mechanisation. Back in the day when we had those photies of "walled" coal banks, the coal was being cut out by hand on the face and despatched to the surface in lumps. Once mechanical coal-cutters took over the coal came out quicker but a lot less neat and tidy.

[CEINEWYDD]

Lots of info on this thread.  Just a question to the tame geologist - Reading the Keith Turton books etc there are loads of reference to Gas/steam/foundry/coking / manufacturing coals , but I can't find anywhere that explains what causes  the differences (except for anthracite which apparently has less arsenic and was used in the malting process. Introducing arsenic into the brewing process was not a good idea).  Now I assume that gas coal had a higher volatile component, and cooking the coal in the ovens drove it off. So far so good.  But was the usefulness of the other types because of the presence (or absence) of other chemicals and compounds, and in different proportions??  Anyone point me in the right direction (bearing in mind it's 50 years since I just about passed Chemistry 'A' level????  

 

 

[doilum]

2 hours ago, CEINEWYDD said:

Lots of info on this thread.  Just a question to the tame geologist - Reading the Keith Turton books etc there are loads of reference to Gas/steam/foundry/coking / manufacturing coals , but I can't find anywhere that explains what causes  the differences (except for anthracite which apparently has less arsenic and was used in the malting process. Introducing arsenic into the brewing process was not a good idea).  Now I assume that gas coal had a higher volatile component, and cooking the coal in the ovens drove it off. So far so good.  But was the usefulness of the other types because of the presence (or absence) of other chemicals and compounds, and in different proportions??  Anyone point me in the right direction (bearing in mind it's 50 years since I just about passed Chemistry 'A' level????  

 

 

To I had the answer a couple of years ago. It is now in the care of the National Coalmining Museum. It was in one of a series of text books written about 120 years ago for men studying for their mining exams. It came from my late grand father.

Chemical composition is only one factor in deciding the characteristics of a particular coal. The density, physical structure and consistency were all important. The previous generation could identify coal from an individual seam by sight, feel and dirt left on the hands. Different coals burned at different temperatures suiting different applications. Anthracite had a high calorific value and burned almost smokelessly. 

[Compound2632]

On 07/07/2020 at 06:58, Trog said:

I remember being told by an old driver, of how when he was a fireman he got fed up with a group of Gypsies camped below a low embankment where Bedford Fire station now is. Apparently every time they went past these Gypsies were lined up along the fence begging for coal. One day just as they got near to Bedford a huge lump of coal came out of the tender, seeing the begging Gypsies ahead he dragged it across the foot plate and threw it out of the door. He said that it was only as he watched it fly over the wildly scattering Gypsies heads, and disappear through the roof of a caravan, that he realised that if you threw something off a loco doing 60MPH then it would also be doing 60MPH.

 

In Saltley Firing Days, Terry Essery tells a similar tale involving the partial demolition of a platelayers' hut. So I suspect this is an oft-repeated enginemen's folk-tale. Good physics lesson nevertheless!

Edited September 27, 2020 by Compound2632

[Steamport Southport]

Good view of the size of loco coal here. If you've only got a small bunker then put it on every surface possible. I presume the fireman will be busy with the hammer.

 

LNER Y5 7230 Stratford 1946.

 

 

Ben Brooksbank Wiki

 

Coincidence that this thread appeared whilst looking for GER 0-4-0STs. Seems quite common for them to be piled high with coal. I wonder whether that's the reason they had the flat top to the tank.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In Saltley Firing Days, Terry Essery tells a similar tale involving the partial demolition of a platelayers' hut. So I suspect this is an oft-repeated enginemen's folk-tale. Good physics lesson nevertheless!

In the opposite of this tale, a lady with a house backing on to the railway at Bordesley Jc, Birmingham, allegedly used to place a china chamber pot decorated with roses on her garden wall, which passing firemen could not resist taking pot shots at.   She would have enough loco coal in her garden each day to keep her fire going that evening.  
 

This is one of those stories which, if it’s not true, should be!

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, CEINEWYDD said:

Lots of info on this thread.  Just a question to the tame geologist - Reading the Keith Turton books etc there are loads of reference to Gas/steam/foundry/coking / manufacturing coals , but I can't find anywhere that explains what causes  the differences (except for anthracite which apparently has less arsenic and was used in the malting process. Introducing arsenic into the brewing process was not a good idea).  Now I assume that gas coal had a higher volatile component, and cooking the coal in the ovens drove it off. So far so good.  But was the usefulness of the other types because of the presence (or absence) of other chemicals and compounds, and in different proportions??  Anyone point me in the right direction (bearing in mind it's 50 years since I just about passed Chemistry 'A' level????  

 

 

You might find this Report of interest especially when you get down to the MR Company's responses to Major Pringle's recommendations where there is a lot of information about the coal involved following their response regarding lighting in passenger coaches.

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_AisGill1913.pdf

[Compound2632]

17 hours ago, CEINEWYDD said:

Lots of info on this thread.  Just a question to the tame geologist - Reading the Keith Turton books etc there are loads of reference to Gas/steam/foundry/coking / manufacturing coals , but I can't find anywhere that explains what causes  the differences (except for anthracite which apparently has less arsenic and was used in the malting process. Introducing arsenic into the brewing process was not a good idea).  Now I assume that gas coal had a higher volatile component, and cooking the coal in the ovens drove it off. So far so good.  But was the usefulness of the other types because of the presence (or absence) of other chemicals and compounds, and in different proportions??  Anyone point me in the right direction (bearing in mind it's 50 years since I just about passed Chemistry 'A' level????  

 

A vastly complex subject about which I for one wish there was more information available to the lay railway modeller. As I understand it, the coal even from a single colliery could vary depending upon the seam it came from - hardly surprising from a geological point of view, since different seams were formed at different times many millennia apart, so under different conditions. So a single colliery could produce coal for a variety of different markets, quite apart from producing it in different sizes, for those customers for whom size mattered - nut, cobbles... - a whole lost terminology. There was a wonderful Government proposal during WW2 to reduce mineral train mileage by supply gas works with coal from the nearest collieries. The reply from the City of Birmingham Gas Department's Chief Chemist was succinct and to the point: "Give us this coal and we cannot make gas."

 

Re. the Aisgill report, the two collieries whose coal was examined, Blackett and Naworth, were on the North Eastern's Newcastle & Carlisle line; i.e. the Midland was evidently seeking economy by minimising the "coal-miles" of the fuel its Carlisle engines ate. In that context, it's interesting to find reference to comparison with "the best Welsh coal used by the Company". That would, I suppose, have been steam coal from the eastern valleys (not reached by the Midland) rather than anthracite from the western valley (reached via the Midland's Swansea Vale line). That would involve quite a few coal-miles, even to the nearest major Midland engine sheds in the West Midlands.

 

Photographic evidence shows the use of South Yorkshire coal from the recently-opened Dinnington Main Colliery at Derby, in this photo taken on 25 November 1909:

 

 

NRM DY 2114,  released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Compound2632

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Re. the Aisgill report, the two collieries whose coal was examined, Blackett and Naworth, were on the North Eastern's Newcastle & Carlisle line; i.e. the Midland was evidently seeking economy by minimising the "coal-miles" of the fuel its Carlisle engines ate. In that context, it's interesting to find reference to comparison with "the best Welsh coal used by the Company". That would, I suppose, have been steam coal from the eastern valleys (not reached by the Midland) rather than anthracite from the western valley (reached via the Midland's Swansea Vale line). That would involve quite a few coal-miles, even to the nearest major Midland engine sheds in the West Midlands.

 

Reputedly the best coal for railway engine use was Western Valley coal and coal from the Western Valley outcrop (such as Royal Arms pit which was up above Rhymney and was quite popular in the preservation era although very expensive so folk stopped using it).  Eastern Valley coal is softer than Western Valley so would be more friable but probably the GWR might have used at somewhere like Pontypool Road where it was mined on the doorstep although they might just as easily have used coal off the Vale of Neath.

 

At one time a lot of GWR coal came from a bit further west going almost as far west as Aberdare and most of the coal flows over the GWR to the London area, and elsewhere, came off the Vale of Neath line including shipment coal for Liverpool.  Similarly coal going to the SR came from the Rhondda and Rhymney Valleys so not quite so good as Western Valley coal but maybe a bit cheaper because the ash content was a bit higher than Western Valley coal

[roythebus]

Some of the coal that is imported these days is absolute rubbish for steam loco use. ask any of the heritage railway drivers!

[Kingdom2]

On 27/09/2020 at 23:55, Compound2632 said:

In Saltley Firing Days, Terry Essery tells a similar tale involving the partial demolition of a platelayers' hut. So I suspect this is an oft-repeated enginemen's folk-tale. Good physics lesson nevertheless!

 

Back in the 1950's I would go with my Grandmother to visit her birthplace in the Sirhowy Valley, including a pair of elderly sisters who were level crossing keepers on a line to  Markham Colliery. On one visit, the kitchen door had just been stoved in by a HUGE lump of coal which had "fallen" off a loco, bounced on the yard and crashed through the closed door. When we left, they were still trying to work out a suitable explanation for the local BR Estates office

John

[PatB]

On 28/09/2020 at 07:37, Steamport Southport said:

Good view of the size of loco coal here. If you've only got a small bunker then put it on every surface possible. I presume the fireman will be busy with the hammer.

 

LNER Y5 7230 Stratford 1946.

 

 

Ben Brooksbank Wiki

 

Coincidence that this thread appeared whilst looking for GER 0-4-0STs. Seems quite common for them to be piled high with coal. I wonder whether that's the reason they had the flat top to the tank.

 

 

Jason

Well, I think that's an excellent answer as to how to get extra weight into small model locos. Just cast some coal piles in lead or whitemetal. 

[DCB]

On 28/09/2020 at 00:37, Steamport Southport said:

Good view of the size of loco coal here. If you've only got a small bunker then put it on every surface possible. I presume the fireman will be busy with the hammer.

 

LNER Y5 7230 Stratford 1946.

 

 

Ben Brooksbank Wiki

 

Coincidence that this thread appeared whilst looking for GER 0-4-0STs. Seems quite common for them to be piled high with coal. I wonder whether that's the reason they had the flat top to the tank.

 

 

Jason

Obviously this was the underlying concept behind the GWR's adoption of  Pannier tanks

[peach james]

Coal is a subject near and dear to those of us who have to burn the stuff in models...

 

Dad figured the last good welsh coal he saw was in 1964.  That would be burning it in a Sentinel waggon- I'd presume in 8122/OF rather than Yarna (7529) by then.  

The best coal for any purpose is of course, determined by the sucker who has to do the work with the object, and the person paying the bills.  Quality of coal was a major driver behind The Red Devil in South Africa- Wardsdale's writing is quite interesting on it.  A quite serious % of the total trip miles in SA were for loco coal.  (I think about 2%).  Remember, you as a company are earning $0 on those trip miles...

I have some mechanically hewn coal in the bunker out back.  (it's a sea can, with a wood wall).  About 2.5 tons of it.  Size is up to about fist sized, which makes it near perfect for the 2x3" door on the big traction engine (4" model), but small for full size use.  It would be workable by the shovelful, and probably is close to the ideal size for most use.  You don't want it smaller, as it will entrain in the air and then get flung out the chimney.  Again, "Red Devil" goes into the losses and at high firing rates, they could be quite substantial.  Not to mention risk- if you start lifting 1/2" pieces of coal that are on fire and spreading them around the lineside, then the chances of fire go up a lot.  (smaller than 1/8" in any dimension is generally OK...)

 

I haven't had the fortune of trying different seams of coal from the same mine, generally we get what we get, and we don't get too upset.  Some of the best to burn that I have had was Nanaimo patent fuel- pressed fuel from the mid 1950's that was outstanding to burn.  There certainly is a lot of variables to making a good coal burner, and caring about what you are doing is about #1 for it.  A lousy fireman will complain about good coal, an good one gets on with what's at hand as best they can manage.  I've burned some that I swear, I'd have been better off picking up rocks covered in asphalt off the road rather than continuing with the lumps of "coal" that I had been given, but onwards and upwards, and the 4" kept on burning it just fast enough to make steam.

As models get smaller, the margins get smaller, and the variables of coal become more of an issue.  So, for example, at 1 1/2" models, they are far more sensitive than the 4", and if you go smaller (1 1/4" or 1", such as a Minnie), they become very selective as to size of coal and choice of coal for grate/blast nozzle setup.  Usually, you can make it work, but it becomes a lot less enjoyable.

An example is my pair of 3/4" railway engines- the Brit with the LBSC/Riddles designed boiler with a combustion chamber, and the Martin Evans Caribou.  Both should be about the same- they have close to the same grate area.  However, the combustion chamber means that the longer flame path in the Brit = it will burn just about anything well.  The rather shorter box in Caribou renders it more sensitive to coal choice.  I have about 100 lb of Pocahontas that is prefered fuel for it, rather than the Quinsam which I used on Britannia.  (currently it's with dad, he's supposed to do a heavy general on it, but so far it's spent 4 years awaiting  and being run ! )

Anyway, as always, a photo of about the right time is the best reference you can use.

James

[doilum]

9 hours ago, roythebus said:

Some of the coal that is imported these days is absolute rubbish for steam loco use. ask any of the heritage railway drivers!

I didn't recognize the stuff they were burning at Beamish last year as "coal". Very acrid and geologically weird.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 28/09/2020 at 00:37, Steamport Southport said:

Good view of the size of loco coal here. If you've only got a small bunker then put it on every surface possible. I presume the fireman will be busy with the hammer.

 

LNER Y5 7230 Stratford 1946.

 

 

Ben Brooksbank Wiki

 

Coincidence that this thread appeared whilst looking for GER 0-4-0STs. Seems quite common for them to be piled high with coal. I wonder whether that's the reason they had the flat top to the tank.

 

 

Jason

Extra weight to improve adhesion  - they didn't have traction tyres.

[The Stationmaster]

On 03/10/2020 at 04:03, peach james said:

Coal is a subject near and dear to those of us who have to burn the stuff in models...

 

Dad figured the last good welsh coal he saw was in 1964.  That would be burning it in a Sentinel waggon- I'd presume in 8122/OF rather than Yarna (7529) by then.  


James

You could still get Royal Arms coal well into the 1980s to my knowledge but as it was hand cut (it came from a small privately owned pit) it started to get extremely expensive so anybody who had been using it for locos went to alternatives and they varied greatly in quality.  There was some Russian stuff which allegedly was very close to 'Welsh Steam Coal' (seam and position in the coalfield not identified) in terms of calorific value and ash content and it was absolute rubbish.  There was some quite good Polish coal which some people used and you could still get Blisworth in reasonable lump size although the quality of what was supplied as Blisworth varied very much and some times it was no better than house coal (and probably was house coal).