On 27/09/2022 17.53, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <rsIYK.100166$ocy7.23231@fx38.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> "peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> writes:

>>> GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
>> also have
>>> blind spots to the front.
>>
>> OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
>>
>> Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
>> killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
>> on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> rather...large.

That's the one in the picture in the linked wikipedia article.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

On 28/09/2022 03.12, Kevrob wrote:

>> On 9/27/2022 3:36 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2022 15.03, Kevrob wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Trooper" has no gendered ending. Traditional in the cavalry.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.etymonline.com/word/trooper
>>>
>>> It's interesting that Heinlein used it in the title of a novel
>>> focusing on infantry.

> One could argue a member of the MI, when armored, was the functional
> equivalent of a tank.

Sure, one could plausibly make that case. However, they call themselves
"Mobile Infantry".

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <07a0f27b-08c4-4ab0...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Every Marine is infantry." sounds succinct enough. Or does "infantry"
> >raise some connotation I'm not aware of?
> >(Trying to think of a navy equivalent: "Every sailor also a paint-chipper"?)
> (Hal Heydt)
> Can't speak to "every sailor", but having taken a 2-quarter set
> of classes in Navigation from the Department of Naval Science
> (aka Navy ROTC) at Cal--I wasn't in the program, I just wanted to
> take the classes--I can tell you that every Naval *officer* is
> required to know how to navigate a ship.

Hmm... true, while "rifleman" would include officers and men, even if officers are just directing the fire.
The navy is more literally "all in the same boat," I guess the thing should be Damage Control. All, even if not specializing in it, are taught the basics.

> This was back in the day before satellite navigation, so, while
> we didn't get to actually practice with sextants, we did a *lot*
> of sight reductions. I am given to understand that celestial
> navigation is making a big comeback in Naval officer training
> since it became apparent that GPS constellations would be a prime
> target in any major war, so best not to have every navigator
> totally dependent on GPS.

There's a joke in Hornblower where one midshipman being trained is told that by his calculations, they have discovered the source of the Nile.
There's a joke, probably not in Twain, that shows the difference between a sailor and a river pilot. The sailor asks why the riverboat has stopped making way at night; the moon is as bright as the night before, when they continued moving. It is pointed out to him that a fog has arisen this night. "I can still see the stars." the sailor says. The pilot says, "Unless the boiler blows, we aren't headed that way!"

--
-Jack

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <rsIYK.100166$ocy7.23231@fx38.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>>Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
>>locomotive the engineer
>>>and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
>>each had a blind
>>>spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
>>years, the
>>>fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
>>trackside signals
>>>called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
>>Pennsylvania's
>>>GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
>>also have
>>>blind spots to the front.
>>
>>OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
>>
>>Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
>>killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
>>on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
>units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
>rather...large.

It is the _only_ remaining unit.

I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >In article <rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> >>locomotive the engineer
> >>>and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> >>each had a blind
> >>>spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> >>years, the
> >>>fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> >>trackside signals
> >>>called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> >>Pennsylvania's
> >>>GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> >>also have
> >>>blind spots to the front.
> >>
> >>OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> >>
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> >>
> >>Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> >>killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> >>on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> >
> >(Hal Heydt)
> >Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> >units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> >rather...large.
> It is the _only_ remaining unit.
>
> I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.

The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified it.
I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

In article <4325e84d-6409-4c53-b2fb-2962bf2bc12dn@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <07a0f27b-08c4-4ab0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >"Every Marine is infantry." sounds succinct enough. Or does "infantry"
>> >raise some connotation I'm not aware of?
>> >(Trying to think of a navy equivalent: "Every sailor also a paint-chipper"?)
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Can't speak to "every sailor", but having taken a 2-quarter set
>> of classes in Navigation from the Department of Naval Science
>> (aka Navy ROTC) at Cal--I wasn't in the program, I just wanted to
>> take the classes--I can tell you that every Naval *officer* is
>> required to know how to navigate a ship.
>
>Hmm... true, while "rifleman" would include officers and men, even if
>officers are just directing the fire.
>The navy is more literally "all in the same boat," I guess the thing
>should be Damage Control. All, even if not specializing in it, are
>taught the basics.

(Hal Heydt)
The Maritime Service taught *everyone* how to fight fires. After
WW2 up to 1954, my father was at the Sheepshead Bay training
center. There was no specialized firefighting foam at that time,
so they were taught how to fight oil fires with water. (And,
yes, you can do that successfully...if you know how.)

In article <cDYYK.59588$kEr7.23990@fx44.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <rsIYK.100166$ocy7.23231@fx38.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
>>>locomotive the engineer
>>>>and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
>>>each had a blind
>>>>spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
>>>years, the
>>>>fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
>>>trackside signals
>>>>called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
>>>Pennsylvania's
>>>>GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
>>>also have
>>>>blind spots to the front.
>>>
>>>OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
>>>
>>>Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
>>>killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
>>>on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
>>units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
>>rather...large.
>
>It is the _only_ remaining unit.
>
>I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
>refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.

(Hal Heydt)
That would be...interesting. Might even convince a few people
that the width of railroad rights-of-way are that way for a
purpose.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 19:48:39 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> writes:
>>On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:38:46 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:56:40 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> >> In article <c1f4b831-91c2-49e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> >> peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >Until recently, women were barred from many job categories, or
>>> >> >Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), in the United States
>>> >> >armed forces. Now that this is no longer the case, the forces
>>> >> >are retitling MOS in gender neutral language where necessary,
>>> >> >similar to the replacement of "fireman" by "firefighter" in the
>>> >> >civil service.
>>> >> (Hal Heydt)
>>> >> Well...that's *one* definition of "fireman". My father's first
>>> >> job in the Navy was as a fireman. However, he wasn't tasked with
>>> >> putting fires *out*, rather keeping the fire going properly. He
>>> >> worked in the engine room keeping the boilers ready.
>>> >>
>>> >> (He jumped at the chance when the Navy offered to teach him
>>> >> electronics and by the time he left the Navy--in 1933--he was an
>>> >> Electrician's Mate.)
>>> >
>>> >Railroads kept the job title "fireman" long after steam locomotives went out of use.
>>> Probably a union thing ...
>>> --
>>Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam locomotive the engineer
>>and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and each had a blind
>>spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the years, the
>>fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming trackside signals
>>called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the Pennsylvania's
>>GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward" also have
>>blind spots to the front.
>
>OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
>
>Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
>killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
>on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.

If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
appears to be ginormous.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <cDYYK.59588$kEr7.23990@fx44.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>In article <rsIYK.100166$ocy7.23231@fx38.iad>,
>>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
>>>>locomotive the engineer
>>>>>and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
>>>>each had a blind
>>>>>spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
>>>>years, the
>>>>>fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
>>>>trackside signals
>>>>>called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
>>>>Pennsylvania's
>>>>>GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
>>>>also have
>>>>>blind spots to the front.
>>>>
>>>>OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
>>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
>>>>
>>>>Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
>>>>killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
>>>>on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
>>>
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
>>>units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
>>>rather...large.
>>
>>It is the _only_ remaining unit.
>>
>>I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
>>refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>That would be...interesting. Might even convince a few people
>that the width of railroad rights-of-way are that way for a
>purpose.

Until a few years back, the Freedom Train (steam) ran from San
Jose to San Francisco every year. Now that the caltrain route
has been electrified, I'm not sure the loco would clear the
catenary.

I suspect the 4-8-8-2 would be pretty expensive to operate.

On 28 Sep 2022, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote
(in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b-b40a-592a3679d8ffn@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > each had a blind
> > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > years, the
> > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > trackside signals
> > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > also have
> > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > >
> > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > >
> > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > rather...large.
> > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> >
> > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
>
> The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> it.
> I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.

they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php

in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
(for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
running despite the use of heavy oil.

Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.

>
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 9:05:44 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 9/27/2022 3:36 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> > On 27/09/2022 15.03, Kevrob wrote:
> >
> >> "Trooper" has no gendered ending. Traditional in the cavalry.
> >>
> >> https://www.etymonline.com/word/trooper
> >
> > It's interesting that Heinlein used it in the title of a novel
> > focusing on infantry.
> Did Heinlein get to pick the title of the book ?
>
> Don't most publishers reserve the book title naming for themselves ?

If I was a publisher I would not try that with Heinlein. It wouldn't be hard for him to find an alternative.

FWIW I don't recall any such complaints in "grumbles from the grave".

William Hyde

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > > years, the
> > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > also have
> > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > >
> > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > > >
> > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > rather...large.
> > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > >
> > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> >
> > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > it.
> > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
>
> in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
> steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> running despite the use of heavy oil.
>
> Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
>
Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.
The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
became the primary product.

Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.

As the article points out, with advancing technology, refiners have steadily increased
their ability to form petroleum components into desired products and there is much
less byproduct. For example, commercial ultra-low-sulfur diesel oil is synthesized
from natural gas.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> > (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco.. Over the
> > > > > > years, the
> > > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > > also have
> > > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is..
> > > > >
> > > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > > rather...large.
> > > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > > >
> > > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> > >
> > > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > > it.
> > > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> > they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
> >
> > in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
> > steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> > (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> > quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> > above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> > things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> > noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> > the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> > them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> > their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> > running despite the use of heavy oil.
> >
> > Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> > more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> > we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> > power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> > ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> > that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> > was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
> >
> Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
> times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.
> The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
> for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
> started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
> became the primary product.
>
> Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
> which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
> In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
> unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
>
> These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
> weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
> people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
> volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
> ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
> be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
> through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
> were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
> fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
> distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
> through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
> substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
> from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
> the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
> to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.

Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships, including cruise liners,
Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.

It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to cover up. The
cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch fuels
to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area..

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterwezeman@hotmail.c=
>om wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:=20

>> Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in=
> those=20
>> times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.=
>=20
>> The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic repl=
>acement=20
>> for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When =
>people=20
>> started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which s=
>hortly=20
>> became the primary product.=20
>>=20
>> Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and=
> butane,=20
>> which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dang=
>erous.=20
>> In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation =
>with an=20
>> unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Ca=
>nada:=20
>>=20
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster=20
>>=20
>> These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with=
> a molecular=20
>> weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air.=
> When=20
>> people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found tha=
>t these=20
>> volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward int=
>o the=20
>> ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixtur=
>e that could=20
>> be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the=
> crude oil=20
>> through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovere=
>d and which=20
>> were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desir=
>ed safe ship=20
>> fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, =
>as opposed to a=20
>> distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard=
> Navy fuel=20
>> through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It =
>had a=20
>> substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of bla=
>ck smoke=20
>> from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading =
>that when=20
>> the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their =
>boilers had=20
>> to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.=20
>
>Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships,=
> including cruise liners,
>Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.
>
>It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to co=
>ver up. The
>cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch=
> fuels
>to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area=
>.
>
>pt

The USS Jeramiah O'Brien still runs on bunker oil for two or three
excursions yearly. One can walk down into the engine room during
the cruise and watch the triple-expansion steam engine in operation.

It's quite warm down there with both boilers operating.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:42:57 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> > > On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> > > (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > > > > years, the
> > > > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > > > also have
> > > > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > > > rather...large.
> > > > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> > > >
> > > > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > > > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > > > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > > > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > > > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > > > it.
> > > > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > > > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > > > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> > > they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
> > >
> > > in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
> > > steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> > > (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> > > quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> > > above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> > > things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> > > noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> > > the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> > > them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> > > their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> > > running despite the use of heavy oil.
> > >
> > > Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> > > more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> > > we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> > > power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> > > ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> > > that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> > > was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
> > >
> > Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
> > times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away..
> > The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
> > for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
> > started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
> > became the primary product.
> >
> > Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
> > which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
> > In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
> > unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
> >
> > These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
> > weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
> > people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
> > volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
> > ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
> > be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
> > through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
> > were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
> > fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
> > distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
> > through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
> > substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
> > from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
> > the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
> > to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.
> Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships, including cruise liners,
> Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.
>
> It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to cover up. The
> cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch fuels
> to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area.
>
What is the present cost of bunker oil compared to a distillate oil?

The Atlantis was one of the freighters with concealed armament used
by the Germans as commerce raiders in World War 2. To the greatest
extent possible these raiders sustained their operations by taking fuel
and other supplies from captured ships. The Atlantis was diesel powered
as were a growing minority of merchant ships at that time. Back then
marine diesel engines required diesel fuel whereas steamers burned
cheaper residual fuel oils, so the Atlantis could only refuel itself from
from whatever diesel powered ships it captured. However, the fuel
efficiency of a diesel engine was so much better than a steam engine,
two and a half or three times better if memory serves, that the commander
of the Atlantis wrote in his book that, on balance, he preferred to have a
diesel ship. A modern marine diesel engine can operate on residual fuel.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-4, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:42:57 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> > > > (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > > > > > years, the
> > > > > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > > > > also have
> > > > > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > > > > rather...large.
> > > > > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > > > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > > > > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > > > > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > > > > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > > > > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > > > > it.
> > > > > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > > > > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > > > > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> > > > they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
> > > >
> > > > in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
> > > > steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> > > > (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> > > > quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> > > > above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> > > > things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> > > > noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> > > > the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> > > > them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> > > > their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> > > > running despite the use of heavy oil.
> > > >
> > > > Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> > > > more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> > > > we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> > > > power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> > > > ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> > > > that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> > > > was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
> > > >
> > > Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
> > > times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.
> > > The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
> > > for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
> > > started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
> > > became the primary product.
> > >
> > > Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
> > > which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
> > > In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
> > > unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
> > >
> > > These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
> > > weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
> > > people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
> > > volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
> > > ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
> > > be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
> > > through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
> > > were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
> > > fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
> > > distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
> > > through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
> > > substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
> > > from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
> > > the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
> > > to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.
> > Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships, including cruise liners,
> > Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.
> >
> > It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to cover up. The
> > cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch fuels
> > to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area.
> >
> What is the present cost of bunker oil compared to a distillate oil?

Something I never thought I'd have to look up....

From:
https://shippingwatch.com/suppliers/article13607391.ece

"In 2021, the average price on VLSFO grew by 46 percent to USD
544 per tonne. In comparison, the average price on HSFO increased
by 53 percent to USD 433 per tonne."

So, Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil is about 25% more costly than High
Sulphur Fuel Oil.

Apparently, some ships have scrubbers, that let them use HSFO inside ECAs.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:43:51 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:42:57 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > > On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> > > > > (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > > > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > > > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > > > > > > years, the
> > > > > > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > > > > > also have
> > > > > > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > > > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > > > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > > > > > rather...large.
> > > > > > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > > > > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > > > > > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > > > > > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > > > > > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > > > > > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > > > > > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > > > > > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> > > > > they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
> > > > >
> > > > > in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
> > > > > steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> > > > > (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> > > > > quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> > > > > above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> > > > > things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> > > > > noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> > > > > the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> > > > > them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> > > > > their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> > > > > running despite the use of heavy oil.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> > > > > more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> > > > > we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> > > > > power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> > > > > ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> > > > > that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> > > > > was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
> > > > >
> > > > Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
> > > > times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.
> > > > The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
> > > > for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
> > > > started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
> > > > became the primary product.
> > > >
> > > > Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
> > > > which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
> > > > In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
> > > > unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
> > > >
> > > > These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
> > > > weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
> > > > people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
> > > > volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
> > > > ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
> > > > be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
> > > > through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
> > > > were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
> > > > fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
> > > > distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
> > > > through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
> > > > substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
> > > > from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
> > > > the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
> > > > to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.
> > > Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships, including cruise liners,
> > > Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.
> > >
> > > It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to cover up. The
> > > cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch fuels
> > > to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area.
> > >
> > What is the present cost of bunker oil compared to a distillate oil?
> Something I never thought I'd have to look up....
>
> From:
> https://shippingwatch.com/suppliers/article13607391.ece
>
> "In 2021, the average price on VLSFO grew by 46 percent to USD
> 544 per tonne. In comparison, the average price on HSFO increased
> by 53 percent to USD 433 per tonne."
>
> So, Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil is about 25% more costly than High
> Sulphur Fuel Oil.
>
> Apparently, some ships have scrubbers, that let them use HSFO inside ECAs..
>
Is the Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil you are referring to a residual oil or a distillate?

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-4, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:43:51 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:42:57 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > > > On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> > > > > > (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > > > > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > > > > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > > > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > > > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > > > > > > > years, the
> > > > > > > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > > > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > > > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > > > > > > also have
> > > > > > > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > > > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > > > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > > > > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > > > > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > > > > > > rather...large.
> > > > > > > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > > > > > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > > > > > > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > > > > > > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > > > > > > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > > > > > > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > > > > > > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > > > > > > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> > > > > > they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility. All of our
> > > > > > steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> > > > > > (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> > > > > > quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> > > > > > above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> > > > > > things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> > > > > > noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> > > > > > the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> > > > > > them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> > > > > > their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> > > > > > running despite the use of heavy oil.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> > > > > > more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> > > > > > we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> > > > > > power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> > > > > > ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> > > > > > that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> > > > > > was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
> > > > > times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.
> > > > > The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
> > > > > for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
> > > > > started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
> > > > > became the primary product.
> > > > >
> > > > > Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
> > > > > which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
> > > > > In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
> > > > > unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
> > > > >
> > > > > These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
> > > > > weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
> > > > > people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
> > > > > volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
> > > > > ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
> > > > > be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
> > > > > through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
> > > > > were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
> > > > > fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
> > > > > distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
> > > > > through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
> > > > > substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
> > > > > from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
> > > > > the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
> > > > > to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard..
> > > > Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships, including cruise liners,
> > > > Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.
> > > >
> > > > It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to cover up. The
> > > > cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch fuels
> > > > to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area.
> > > >
> > > What is the present cost of bunker oil compared to a distillate oil?
> > Something I never thought I'd have to look up....
> >
> > From:
> > https://shippingwatch.com/suppliers/article13607391.ece
> >
> > "In 2021, the average price on VLSFO grew by 46 percent to USD
> > 544 per tonne. In comparison, the average price on HSFO increased
> > by 53 percent to USD 433 per tonne."
> >
> > So, Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil is about 25% more costly than High
> > Sulphur Fuel Oil.
> >
> > Apparently, some ships have scrubbers, that let them use HSFO inside ECAs.
> >
> Is the Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil you are referring to a residual oil or a distillate?

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
> appears to be ginormous.

No doubt it is. But at first glance, I would have mistaken it for a diesel.
And a fairly modern one at that.

John Savard

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 4:47:11 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
> > appears to be ginormous.

> No doubt it is. But at first glance, I would have mistaken it for a diesel.
> And a fairly modern one at that.

This site

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-8-8-2

has additional images (or, rather, links to those images), some of which have
additional references for size. And, of course, the width of railroad tracks is a
standard 4 feet and 8 1/2 inches.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
> appears to be ginormous.

Apparently, though, the informational stands are actually only 2 feet high or so.

I can only assume the printing on them is big.

John Savard

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 3:23:37 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:43:51 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:42:57 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 1:18:49 AM UTC-4, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 28 Sep 2022, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote
> > > > > > > (in article<ab076c99-3f6b-402b...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:12:28 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > > > > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > > > > > > > > > In article<rsIYK.100166$ocy7....@fx38.iad>,
> > > > > > > > > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but it was also argued on the basis of safety. On a steam
> > > > > > > > > > > locomotive the engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > and fireman could each only see down one side of the locomotive, and
> > > > > > > > > > > each had a blind
> > > > > > > > > > > > spot extending to a point considerably in advance of the loco. Over the
> > > > > > > > > > > years, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > fireman had become sort of a co-driver, doing things like confirming
> > > > > > > > > > > trackside signals
> > > > > > > > > > > > called out by the engineer. Many non-steam locomotives, such as the
> > > > > > > > > > > Pennsylvania's
> > > > > > > > > > > > GG1 electrics or a modern freight road unit moving "long hood forward"
> > > > > > > > > > > also have
> > > > > > > > > > > > blind spots to the front.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > OTOH, you had cab-forward steam locos like the SP 4-8-8-2:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Which purportedly were designed to keep the stack smoke from
> > > > > > > > > > > killing the engineer in the sierra nevada tunnels. The picture
> > > > > > > > > > > on the wiki doesn't really exhibit just how large the engine is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (Hal Heydt)
> > > > > > > > > > Not just the smoke. The heat, as well. There is one of those
> > > > > > > > > > units at the California State Railway Museum is Sacramento. It's
> > > > > > > > > > rather...large.
> > > > > > > > > It is the _only_ remaining unit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been there many times. I've always wished they would
> > > > > > > > > refurb it and use it for their excursionary runs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Southern Pacific cab-forward locomotives burned oil rather than coal.
> > > > > > > > This was necessary because, with the crew in front of the locomotive rather
> > > > > > > > than between the locomotive and tender, no-one was positioned where they
> > > > > > > > could shovel coal. I don't know what the cost differential of oil versus coal
> > > > > > > > was at that time. but the advantage in tunnel operation must have justified
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > I suspect that they burned a lower grade and cheaper oil than that required
> > > > > > > > by diesel locomotives, similar to the "black oil" used by steamships. They
> > > > > > > > still needed a fireman to control fuel feed and boiler water level.
> > > > > > > they used Bunker C. https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > in the dim and distant past, I worked for an electric utility.. All of our
> > > > > > > steam units used Bunker C oil, and we fed it to the gas turbines as well.
> > > > > > > (for reasons of economy; the company was not about to purchase large
> > > > > > > quantities of kerosine, a.k.a. jet fuel, for the GTs.) The article linked
> > > > > > > above talks of starting GTs with something like Bunker C, but we ran the
> > > > > > > things on it. This generated truly incredible clouds of smoke and very loud
> > > > > > > noises. The company had steam units which were built in the early 1950s, and
> > > > > > > the vendor had long since gone out of business; our workshop made parts for
> > > > > > > them and kept them running for literal decades after the theoretical end of
> > > > > > > their service life. The workshop also fiddled with the GT to keep them
> > > > > > > running despite the use of heavy oil.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any steam unit running on Bunker C would take a while (60-90 minutes, often
> > > > > > > more) to start up. GTs lit by pressing a button. I worked at System Control;
> > > > > > > we had limited control of the steam units, and there had to be a crew at the
> > > > > > > power station to start them. We could light the GTs by hitting the
> > > > > > > ’start’ button. Of course, first we had to check the cameras to ensure
> > > > > > > that no-one was close to the front or the back of the GTs, being too close
> > > > > > > was A Bad Idea. The smoke was impressive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting article about railroad use of fuel oil. It seems that back in those
> > > > > > times the oil companies would almost pay you to haul residual fuel away.
> > > > > > The petroleum industry got started in the first place as an economic replacement
> > > > > > for whale oil to use in lamps, so kerosene was the desired product. When people
> > > > > > started working on automobiles gasoline was a low-cost byproduct, which shortly
> > > > > > became the primary product.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Crude oil contains varying amounts of light fractions such as propane and butane,
> > > > > > which are gasses at ordinary temperatures and pressures. This can be dangerous.
> > > > > > In 2013 a tank car train loaded with crude oil from the Bakken formation with an
> > > > > > unusually high volatile content derailed and destroyed a small city in Canada:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These fractions are light for hydrocarbons but are heavier than air, with a molecular
> > > > > > weight of 44 for propane and 58 for butane, compared to about 28 for air. When
> > > > > > people started replacing coal with oil for powering ships, they found that these
> > > > > > volatile fractions would leak from the fuel tanks and settle downward into the
> > > > > > ship's bilge spaces. Mixing with air, this could form an explosive mixture that could
> > > > > > be set off by a single spark. The solution to this problem was to put the crude oil
> > > > > > through a refinery to boil off the light fractions, which can be recovered and which
> > > > > > were eventually marketed as LP (liquified petroleum) gas. Since the desired safe ship
> > > > > > fuel was what was left after distillation this is called a residual oil, as opposed to a
> > > > > > distillate fuel made from the fractions boiled off. This was the standard Navy fuel
> > > > > > through and after World War Two, and was commonly known as black oil. It had a
> > > > > > substantial amount of non-combustible crud, hence the thick plumes of black smoke
> > > > > > from ship's funnels seen in photographs from that time. I recall reading that when
> > > > > > the Iowa class battleships were reactivated decades after the war, their boilers had
> > > > > > to be adapted to the distillate fuel oil that had become standard.
> > > > > Heavy Fuel Oil (aka HFO or 'Bunker oil') is still used in many large ships, including cruise liners,
> > > > > Its so viscous that tanks need to be pre-heated so it can flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > It can also be very polluting, a fact the cruise companies would like to cover up. The
> > > > > cheapest grades have a high Sulphur content, and some ships actually switch fuels
> > > > > to a less polluting grade when they enter a country's Emission Control Area.
> > > > >
> > > > What is the present cost of bunker oil compared to a distillate oil?
> > > Something I never thought I'd have to look up....
> > >
> > > From:
> > > https://shippingwatch.com/suppliers/article13607391.ece
> > >
> > > "In 2021, the average price on VLSFO grew by 46 percent to USD
> > > 544 per tonne. In comparison, the average price on HSFO increased
> > > by 53 percent to USD 433 per tonne."
> > >
> > > So, Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil is about 25% more costly than High
> > > Sulphur Fuel Oil.
> > >
> > > Apparently, some ships have scrubbers, that let them use HSFO inside ECAs.
> > >
> > Is the Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil you are referring to a residual oil or a distillate?
> I think its a residual.
>
So, what is the present cost of distillate fuel oil compared to residual oil? My previous
information on this subject was similar to that in the link. An article, likely in _Trains_
magazine, about Union Pacific's famous gas turbine locomotives said that they made
sense in their day, because they could burn residual fuel oil, which at that time cost
ten cents per gallon compared with thirty cents for diesel oil. As time passed, refining
technology improved, reducing the amount of residual oil produced per unit of crude
oil refined, and other markets for residual oil developed, such as feedstock for plastics
synthesis. As the cost differential between residual oil and diesel oil became less, at
some point there was no economic justification for the gas turbine locomotives and
they were retired. In some cases their driveline components were reused in big new
diesel locomotives.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
>> appears to be ginormous.
>
>Apparently, though, the informational stands are actually only 2 feet high or so.
>
>I can only assume the printing on them is big.

Ah. Sized for 1st graders, no doubt.

Which, of course, only makes the engine even larger!
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 12:29:43 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> >> If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
> >> appears to be ginormous.
> >
> >Apparently, though, the informational stands are actually only 2 feet high or so.
> >
> >I can only assume the printing on them is big.
> Ah. Sized for 1st graders, no doubt.
>
> Which, of course, only makes the engine even larger!
> --

Menhaden is fished for its oil. People take it for its Omega-3 content.
So, some humans ingest bunker oil.

It'd be a shame if a ship leaked bunker and killed bunker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menhaden

--
Kevin R

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 10:27:50 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> If we take the informational stands as, say, 3 feet high, the engine
>>> appears to be ginormous.
>>
>>Apparently, though, the informational stands are actually only 2 feet high or so.
>>
>>I can only assume the printing on them is big.
>
>Ah. Sized for 1st graders, no doubt.

Perhaps, I'm not sure how John determined that they're only 2 feet high.

I'm digging through my photograph collection to find my pictures of the
locomotive with nearby people for scale.

Or, I might drive up there tomorrow and take some new pictures.