Greetings, thank you for your support. We look forward to bringing additional information on the scientific engineering that is going into this design to obtain the best performance and efficiency that the Wootten firebox can deliver.
Once this locomotive is complete, I can't wait to see a double header with the 2102 if it comes up to the Reading & Northern and quite frankly, Andy Muller would love to have 2100 come to his railroad and be paired with his T1 2102 for a double header lash-up on the iron horse ramble. Now that would be a double header that I would love to see. Two former Reading railroad T1 steamers on the iron horse rambles. We haven't had a site like that since the 1970s and 1980s. So, keep up the great work and once it's done, please bring 2100 up to the Reading & Northern for a double header with the 2102.
While I'm not the biggest fan of the locomotive being converted to oil, I do understand the economical and practical benefits of the conversion in the long run, plus, it's better than the locomotive being stuck exposed to the elements in a park or outside an industrial complex. As long as it puts on a good show, that's all that really matters to me at the end of the day. There is one miniscule detail though that I'm curious about, and that is why does the stack talk of an oil burner sound different than a coal burner? I noticed this when watching videos of Everett Railroad 11, the locomotives of the Durango and Silverton, Great Smoky Mountains Railroad 1702, and other steam locomotives when they were coal burners compared to now that they are oil burners. Is it because of what type of fuel is being burned, how much the fuel is being burned, because of the locomotives draft, or something else? Keep up with the amazing work!
Hello, and great question. An oil fire does not need as much draft as a coal fire, and with advances in more efficient designs made to the blast nozzle and a reduction in back pressure the sound does change somewhat. Not to say an oil burner doesn't have a commanding chuff when working hard, as 3751 and 1522 have proven.
Thanks for the update, and the lesson about the different grades of bolts. About the water space inside the tender: how about painting it in marine paint?
Greetings, since the water needs to have chemicals added to treat it, the specific product we will be using is called Coal Tar, which is used in industrial and offshore operations where chemicals and saltwater are present.
I know you guys have the components to reconvert it to being a coal burner, but how much work and money would it be to uninstall the oil pan and burner?
Hello, should the 2100 be converted back to coal as we are putting all of those parts into storage, to remove the burner is very simple as it is just bolted to a mounting bracket. The pan itself would require a few days of work, but essentially the firebrick would be removed, and then the steel pan would need unbolted from the mud ring and then torch cut into five or six pieces to be able to be removed out from the bottom. Depending on if all paid staff was doing the work or being assisted by volunteers, the estimated removal cost would be between $3,000 and $6,000. Interestingly, the NYC had three 2-8-2 Mikados that each year were swapped from being coal burners to oil burners and then back again throughout their service careers as the seasons changed.
@@AmericanSteamRailroad I would imagine coal as fuel source probably cheaper than oil these days but much less available and the problem of ash and clinkers setting everything on fire everywhere it goes because brush isn't kept cleared like it was when it was constantly exposed to that environment makes burning it a big issue on the road.
@@bcbloc02but not every railroad can accommodate coal fired locomotives, because they don’t have the infrastructure to support. Focus on what’s really important for the future operations of 2100.
Hi Laura, while we would like to provide a date to everyone, we still need to raise $145,000 to pay for the items and professional services needed. What we can say though is that with the $145,000 we can have the AFT 250 (2100) completed in 12-15 months. Please encourage all to donate, join, or shop in our online gift store. Thank you. www.americansteamrailroad.org
Hi, in its coal configuration, the tender held 26 tons of coal and 19,000 gallons of water. With the oil conversion the water amount will remain the same, and the oil bunker will hold 5,000 gallons. This will give us a range of about 250 miles depending on the load and conditions.
Hi, Should an opportunity arise that can logistically be done, and is financially viable, ASR will do everything possible to make a meeting with the 2102 happen.
![일상 속 기분 좋음 [Proto disco meme]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DwmEIaZ7XGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The work on 2100 is going great I can tell.
Just received my t-shirt hat pin and raffle ticket in the mail. I cant wait for this.THANK YOU ALL. 😀
I’m so glad 2100 is getting the love and attention she deserves. Maybe an excursion with R&BM 2102? the future for this locomotive will be amazing
Beautiful work everyone
Nicely done.
Awesome update!
Good to see a proper oil conversion instead of refractory cement over the grates
Greetings, thank you for your support. We look forward to bringing additional information on the scientific engineering that is going into this design to obtain the best performance and efficiency that the Wootten firebox can deliver.
Awesome
Once this locomotive is complete, I can't wait to see a double header with the 2102 if it comes up to the Reading & Northern and quite frankly, Andy Muller would love to have 2100 come to his railroad and be paired with his T1 2102 for a double header lash-up on the iron horse ramble. Now that would be a double header that I would love to see. Two former Reading railroad T1 steamers on the iron horse rambles. We haven't had a site like that since the 1970s and 1980s. So, keep up the great work and once it's done, please bring 2100 up to the Reading & Northern for a double header with the 2102.
While I'm not the biggest fan of the locomotive being converted to oil, I do understand the economical and practical benefits of the conversion in the long run, plus, it's better than the locomotive being stuck exposed to the elements in a park or outside an industrial complex. As long as it puts on a good show, that's all that really matters to me at the end of the day. There is one miniscule detail though that I'm curious about, and that is why does the stack talk of an oil burner sound different than a coal burner? I noticed this when watching videos of Everett Railroad 11, the locomotives of the Durango and Silverton, Great Smoky Mountains Railroad 1702, and other steam locomotives when they were coal burners compared to now that they are oil burners. Is it because of what type of fuel is being burned, how much the fuel is being burned, because of the locomotives draft, or something else? Keep up with the amazing work!
Hello, and great question. An oil fire does not need as much draft as a coal fire, and with advances in more efficient designs made to the blast nozzle and a reduction in back pressure the sound does change somewhat. Not to say an oil burner doesn't have a commanding chuff when working hard, as 3751 and 1522 have proven.
Thanks for the update, and the lesson about the different grades of bolts.
About the water space inside the tender: how about painting it in marine paint?
Greetings, since the water needs to have chemicals added to treat it, the specific product we will be using is called Coal Tar, which is used in industrial and offshore operations where chemicals and saltwater are present.
Basically, if no chemicals are added, the water could get clogged with Limescale. Right?
@@AmericanSteamRailroad ok then.
I know you guys have the components to reconvert it to being a coal burner, but how much work and money would it be to uninstall the oil pan and burner?
Hello, should the 2100 be converted back to coal as we are putting all of those parts into storage, to remove the burner is very simple as it is just bolted to a mounting bracket. The pan itself would require a few days of work, but essentially the firebrick would be removed, and then the steel pan would need unbolted from the mud ring and then torch cut into five or six pieces to be able to be removed out from the bottom. Depending on if all paid staff was doing the work or being assisted by volunteers, the estimated removal cost would be between $3,000 and $6,000.
Interestingly, the NYC had three 2-8-2 Mikados that each year were swapped from being coal burners to oil burners and then back again throughout their service careers as the seasons changed.
@@AmericanSteamRailroad I would imagine coal as fuel source probably cheaper than oil these days but much less available and the problem of ash and clinkers setting everything on fire everywhere it goes because brush isn't kept cleared like it was when it was constantly exposed to that environment makes burning it a big issue on the road.
@@bcbloc02but not every railroad can accommodate coal fired locomotives, because they don’t have the infrastructure to support. Focus on what’s really important for the future operations of 2100.
I thought you guys said you were going to weld all the staybolts into the firebox as apposed to threading like the railroads all did back in the day.
If you're talking about the bolt in the video, it is not a staybolt. The waist sheet is a support and is bolted normally, as shown above.
We need a finished date.
Hi Laura, while we would like to provide a date to everyone, we still need to raise $145,000 to pay for the items and professional services needed. What we can say though is that with the $145,000 we can have the AFT 250 (2100) completed in 12-15 months. Please encourage all to donate, join, or shop in our online gift store. Thank you.
www.americansteamrailroad.org
Laura, if you want to see this locomotive operate as soon as possible, you’re gonna have to donate.
Will you have to change the fire box doors for the oil conversion?
Yes, our plans are now to create a large swinging door with the peephole, like you see on other oil burning steamers.
How big is Reading #2100's Tender?
Holds 20,000 gal of water
Hi, in its coal configuration, the tender held 26 tons of coal and 19,000 gallons of water. With the oil conversion the water amount will remain the same, and the oil bunker will hold 5,000 gallons. This will give us a range of about 250 miles depending on the load and conditions.
I wish I could enter in for the raffle.. I could maybe get a home.
Will 2100 one day meet up with 2102?
Hi, Should an opportunity arise that can logistically be done, and is financially viable, ASR will do everything possible to make a meeting with the 2102 happen.
@@AmericanSteamRailroad awesome! You could call it "the sisters reunite" or something