On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 1:18:46 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

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

Less than half of the width of the wheelbase on the train. I presume the
intent is to avoid obstructing the view of the train.

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

There are some such at the link I provided.

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

John Savard

On 10/1/2022 12:18 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 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.
>
*waves hand* <monotone voice> You never took any such pictures.

> Or, I might drive up there tomorrow and take some new pictures.
>
*waves hand* <monotone voice> You must go take pictures to replace the
ones you never took.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 1:18:46 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, I'm not sure how John determined that they're only 2 feet high.
>
>Less than half of the width of the wheelbase on the train. I presume the
>intent is to avoid obstructing the view of the train.

I found a picture I took a few years back, with an adult male standing
next to the informational signs - the top of the sign reaches his navel,
which means the sign stands about about 3' tall, as DT had guessed.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>On 10/1/2022 12:18 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>*waves hand* <monotone voice> You never took any such pictures.

Ha... I found them. And I've indexed them in a more searchable
manner :-).

There is a couple standing next to one of the signs in the photo;
the couple are the same height, which means they're in the 5'6"
range; and the sign reaches their navel. That is, as you suggested,
about three feet.

Here is an excerpt from the article linked by Wolffan. It has some interesting details about different types
of residual fuel oil that have been used in various locomotives. The cab-forward articulated units that came
up in the discussion were used only by Southern Pacific, but oil fueled steam locomotives were used by quite
a few railroads. Steve Lee quoted here was in charge of the Union Pacific Railroad's heritage fleet of working
steam locomotives.
> ............................................................................
A review of "Operation of 8500-Hp Gas Turbines in Locomotive Service" by Harold Rees, Chief Mechanical
Officer, Union Pacific Railroad, October 1960, shows that the original specification for turbine fuel was for
a residual fuel that would flow at a viscosity of 95 SUS at 210 degrees Fahrenheit. The specification matches
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ATSM) standard known as Number 5 fuel oil, also known
as Bunker B. (Read the Wikipedia article about the definition of SUS, used as a measure of viscosity)

So, Union Pacific used No. 5 heavy fuel in its gas turbine locomotives, not Bunker C. No. 5 heavy fuel (Bunker B)
was a slightly higher grade of residual fuel than the Bunker C used in steam locomotives. As mentioned in Rees'
report, burning residual fuel in a gas turbine was different than burning residual fuel in a steam locomotive, and
the higher grade fuel was needed to control the ratio of non-combustible, destructive by-products in the fuel itself.

Why "Bunker C"?
Bunker C is simply a generic name for one of several heavy residual fuels. Railroaders were not chemists. Many
were veterans of the U. S. Navy, where the term "Bunker C" was very common. The black heavy fuel used for the
Gas Turbines looked and acted like the black fuel used in ships and in steam locomotives. Right or wrong, they
continued to use Bunker C as the name of the nasty black, residual fuel that made their daily lives so difficult.
And railfans tend to use whatever names railroaders use.

Using Heavy Fuel in the Gas Turbines
Union Pacific turbine number 50, the demonstrator, used solely diesel fuel during its tour. In 1952-1954, with the
delivery of turbines 51 to 75, General Electric worked with petroleum suppliers to develop a specification of a
low-cost, residual fuel that would minimize the amount of ash in the gas flow through the turbine blades, resulting
in deposits of foreign material on the internal components of the gas turbine, but not contain corrosive chemicals
present in the fuel used in early stationary tests.

In his 1975 book "Turbines Westward", Tom Lee wrote, "Diesel fuel was used to start the turbine and to bring it up
to 80 percent of its 6900 RPM maximum, at which time modified No. 6 heavy black fuel was cut in. The black
turbine fuel was generally referred to as Bunker C oil, but the fuel was actually different from regular Bunker C."

Steve Lee wrote on April 17, 2000:

When the turbines were envisioned, it was intended that they use Bunker C as the primary fuel. In this way, the high
fuel consumption rate of the turbines would be offset by the low price. However, the turbine could not be started on
Bunker C, due to its sludge-like consistency. Once the turbine had been started and was up to speed and temperature,
it could be successfully switched to Bunker C. Thus all of the turbines carried small diesel fuel tanks on the A unit.
The diesel fuel was used to start the turbine and bring it up to speed. It was also used in the 1-30 class to power the
Cooper-Bessemer "pony" engine (also in the A unit) that was used to hostle the locomotives around the shops and in
the yard, and was initially supposed to be used instead of the turbine itself on long downhill grades, to provide excitation
for the dynamic braking, rather than running the turbine for that purpose. I should point out here that the turbines
themselves (as opposed to the turbine locomotives) only had two speeds; full speed and slightly less than full speed;
fuel consumption was high at either speed, hence the pony engine.

Early on in the program, it was found that the use of Bunker C increased the maintenance costs and reduced the
availability of the turbines. This was due to erosion of the compressor blades and flame buckets, corrosion,
imbalances caused by deposits on the blades, etc. Some tests were run using Bunker B (No. 5) fuel instead of
Bunker C (No. 6), and most of these problems either went away completely or were drastically reduced through
the use of No. 5 fuel oil, which is produced several ways; today, it's usually a product of the refining process, but it
can be produced by running Bunker C through several steps of the normal refining process, and it can be produced
by re-refining used lube oils. No. 5 is thick and tarry and has to be heated like Bunker C, but the corrosive trace
elements have been removed by the refining process, most of the asphaltic solids (which left baked-on deposits)
are removed, as well. The drawback is that No. 5 cost (in those days) a cent or two more per gallon than did Bunker C.
Keep in mind that this was when diesel fuel was costing the railroads about 10-12 cents per gallon. Even though a
turbine sucked down far more fuel than did diesels of comparable horsepower, the turbine's advantage was that it's
fuel cost only 2-2.5 cents per gallon, so even if it used twice or three times as much fuel as comparable diesels
(it did, and more) , it's total fuel cost was lower than the diesels.

An ongoing problem throughout the service lives of the turbines was the fact that as refining processes and technologies
improved, the amount of heavy fuels left over from the refining of a barrel of crude oil got smaller and smaller. That, in turn,
caused the price of both Bunker C and No. 5 to go slowly upward. Every time the price of No. 5 went up, the turbines lost a
little of their fuel cost advantage over diesels. By the late 1960's, turbine fuel costs (per horsepower) surpassed diesel fuel
costs, and that was the end for the turbines.

Once it was found that the turbines lasted longer and stayed out of the shops a little longer on No. 5 fuel, UP quietly began
using only No. 5 fuel in the turbines. This was never advertised, but it is fact. (Steve Lee, April 17, 2000, via email to The
Streamliner discussion group)

Steve Lee wrote on April 18, 2000:

Bunker C, known in marine circles as simply bunker, or bunker fuel, is a waste byproduct of the crude oil refining process.
It is not crude oil, but it is not very far from it. Forty to fifty years ago, the refining of a barrel of crude oil left quite a bit of
Bunker C. This was considered a waste product and was sold to railroads for locomotive fuel and to marine operators as
ship fuel, for just a couple of cents a gallon; at times it sold for only a fraction of a cent per gallon.

Bunker C is a thick, tarry substance with a high asphalt content; it also contains trace minerals that were in the original
crude oil, but have been concentrated as a result of the refining process. It is so thick it has to be heated in order to flow
reliably; if it isn't heated, when the ambient temperature is below freezing, Bunker C solidifies to the point that you can walk
on top of it and not leave footprints. It's a good fuel for open- flame boilers such as locomotive boilers and ship boilers.

Most oil-fired steam locomotives used Bunker C, although in some parts of the country they actually burned raw crude oil.
As noted before, Bunker C was readily available and dirt cheap. (Steve Lee, April 18, 2000, via email to The Streamliner
discussion group)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:26:38 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>The USN gave my uncle a career by making him a ship's cook. This
>facilitated a sidways move and he ended up high end gourmet chef.
>
>(I don't know what customers would have made of a chef with a thick
>Nova Scotian* accent and sailor's tattoos)
>
>* He was born in the US but moved to NS as a kid. In fact, I think
>he thought he was a Canadian citizen right up to the moment his
>induction papers arrived.

I dunno - I've had lobster in Glace Bay, Cape Breton, NS and I wasn't
complaining....nor were my kids!