BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BRHSlist] Re:Bituminous vs. Lignite

To: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Re:Bituminous vs. Lignite
From: Steve Wintner <steve_wintner@y...>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: <3B731569.88B3AA30@g...>
As I understand it, some locomotives had the coffin
heater inset into the smokebox, thus eliminating the
eyebrow. This forced the stack to be farther aft, so
this could produce a funny proportion. Im not sure if
the Q ever did that. Unfortunately, I do not have
Corbin here. I'll check further when I get home.

--- Gene Tacey <taceys@g...> wrote:
> No, Lignite burners had a overhanging look since the
> smokebox was extended. The
> extension was the entire smokebox, whereas coffin
> FWH form an arch when installed
> and look more like a huge eyebrow. The extensions
> contained extra screening since
> Lignite (i.e. Sub-Bituminous) coal has far less
> BTU's per weight than bituminous
> resulting in much more ash being created when
> burned. You can tell by looking at
> locomotives in the same class and see the overhang.
> Gene
> 
> KPMF16@a... wrote:
> 
> > Some of the Q's engines had Coffin feed water
> heaters that may be mistaken as
> > "bulging smoke box extensions." Is this the case
> here?
> >
> > Ken Thompson
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 


=====
-Steve Wintner
"Hearts have been hard
Hands have been clenched into fists too long"
-Midnight Oil

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>