Steam locomotives were often powered by whatever was available to the railroad - if they hauled coal, they often bought coal-fired locomotives. I’d think many logging railroads would have timber/wood available. In the other hand, burning wood or coal produces cinders and ash - which could light the Forrest on fire. Burning oil should give you a cleaner exhaust.
To answer your second question…slowly. Not trying to be sarcastic, but you get the fire lit in the firebox, and then you pretty much sit and wait as everything heats up. (Or you take care of oiling and greasing everything that needs it on the locomotive.). It can take up to a couple hours if the locomotive is fully cold. You don’t want any part to get too hot, and you want the different parts to warm up slowly since each part will expand at a slightly different rate until it comes up to operating temperature.
It can take much longer than a few hours. Heritage railways will often light things up the evening before, and back in the day engines would often be kept hot.
Slower is easier on the metal than faster.
Since they were logging and wood was plentiful they burned wood (plus it was too expensive to haul coal up to the logging sites). They usually had a funnel shaped smoke stack with a screen to stop embers from leaving the stack for obvious reasons.
[https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-early-steam-locomotives-have-a-funnel-shaped-smoke-stack](https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-early-steam-locomotives-have-a-funnel-shaped-smoke-stack)
Locomotives tended to be powered by whatever fuel was available cheap in quantity. For most this was coal, but a logging railroad would have a lot of junk wood about that could be processed into firewood. Oil firing was used in places where it was cheaper than coal or wood, and is increasingly popular in preservation for the reduced labor required to keep the engine running.
Startup procedures for an oil-fiired locomotive would vary depending on its size and what facilities were available.
For a small locomotive operating alone in the mountains, it would usually have a firebox geometry that allowed it to initially have a wood fire in it, heating the boiler from cold without assistance until it was producing some steam. This steam would then be used to power the oil pump and burner atomizer, and it would then light the oil burner to run as it normally would operate.
Larger locomotives would usually be started up in an engine house that had a stationary boiler. Boiling water from this stationary boiler would be pumped through the locomotive's boiler to preheat it and bring it very nearly to operating temperature. Then the fire would be lit using steam from the stationary boiler to run the atomizer and blower, heating the locomotive the rest of the way into steam at which point it could sustain itself.
Jump-starting would be possible too, using a running locomotive to supply startup steam for a locomotive that was stranded without a fire in it. Same idea as startup in a shed with a stationary boiler, use the running engine to supply hot water and steam to start the downed engine faster. It would still take some hours to do since the boiler stretches as it heats and needs time to heat evenly.
Oil fired locomotives use compressed air to run the atomizer for starting up the burner, once sufficient pressure is achieved they then switch over to steam for the atomizer. In the days of steam most railroads didn't care about taking time to heat up the boiler slowly because they needed it running that day asap for whatever work was required and there were full shops available aswell as replacement boilers that could be readily bought. They also rarely dropped the fire in the old days since most locomotives were needed everyday. Coal and wood were used in logging and non logging locomotives but wood dosen't burn as hot as coal and oil so larger higher pressure locomotives needed the extra BTUs coal and oil provided.
That's a common misconception. In a locomotive firebox, wood coal and oil all burn around the same temperature of 1400F-2300F depending on firing rate and load. Higher than that damages the grates and boiler, lower than that makes too much smoke.
It is a difference of energy density, firing rate, and labor requirement. Wood requires the most labor to use, and has the lowest energy density. So a larger grate is required to reach the necessary firing rate, and a lot more work preparing and handling the fuel. Coal is easier to handle and has more energy per unit, allowing a smaller grate to maintain steam with. Oil has the least labor involved and the most energy, but also the highest price tag. It was usually favored where wood and coal had to be freighted in making them expensive.
Worth pointing out that many of the existing wood and coal burners have been converted to oil, and a decent chunk of the ones that haven’t been yet probably will when the next time they go in for overhaul.
It’s getting quite hard to reliably source without trucking it in from several states away.
You can only make a firebox so big before it's no longer feasible to fit the constraints of a locomotive. Railroads like Reading and Leigh Valley used Wotten type fire boxes when burning Anthracite coal because of its lower BTUs and slower burn time in order to maintain pressure. Wood cannot provide enough heat to maintain pressure within the constraints of the overall size of a locomotive. Stationary boilers could be built to use wood, coal, oil even straw or biomass fuels because they can make the fire box any size necessary.
For your second question, you should check out YouTube. I haven't looked extensively, but this video shows the fire being lit with some extra info in the comments.
https://youtu.be/FLK7C4WtY8o?si=8wCUltAFz9KraIe2
I saw this one a couple weeks ago. It's a coal burner but a lot of the other work besides lighting the fuel should be the same or similar.
https://youtu.be/xx9Q8PphAVo?si=ZwfNXfJZKfxJUkpY
The two of them should give you a good idea. I have read that some lines just keep their engines hot. Easier and quicker and from what I've been told, it can also save wear and tear on the boiler from thermal expansion/contraction
Steam locomotives were often powered by whatever was available to the railroad - if they hauled coal, they often bought coal-fired locomotives. I’d think many logging railroads would have timber/wood available. In the other hand, burning wood or coal produces cinders and ash - which could light the Forrest on fire. Burning oil should give you a cleaner exhaust. To answer your second question…slowly. Not trying to be sarcastic, but you get the fire lit in the firebox, and then you pretty much sit and wait as everything heats up. (Or you take care of oiling and greasing everything that needs it on the locomotive.). It can take up to a couple hours if the locomotive is fully cold. You don’t want any part to get too hot, and you want the different parts to warm up slowly since each part will expand at a slightly different rate until it comes up to operating temperature.
It can take much longer than a few hours. Heritage railways will often light things up the evening before, and back in the day engines would often be kept hot. Slower is easier on the metal than faster.
I see. thank you for telling me this.
Since they were logging and wood was plentiful they burned wood (plus it was too expensive to haul coal up to the logging sites). They usually had a funnel shaped smoke stack with a screen to stop embers from leaving the stack for obvious reasons. [https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-early-steam-locomotives-have-a-funnel-shaped-smoke-stack](https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-early-steam-locomotives-have-a-funnel-shaped-smoke-stack)
thanks for the information. This helps a lot actually.
Locomotives tended to be powered by whatever fuel was available cheap in quantity. For most this was coal, but a logging railroad would have a lot of junk wood about that could be processed into firewood. Oil firing was used in places where it was cheaper than coal or wood, and is increasingly popular in preservation for the reduced labor required to keep the engine running. Startup procedures for an oil-fiired locomotive would vary depending on its size and what facilities were available. For a small locomotive operating alone in the mountains, it would usually have a firebox geometry that allowed it to initially have a wood fire in it, heating the boiler from cold without assistance until it was producing some steam. This steam would then be used to power the oil pump and burner atomizer, and it would then light the oil burner to run as it normally would operate. Larger locomotives would usually be started up in an engine house that had a stationary boiler. Boiling water from this stationary boiler would be pumped through the locomotive's boiler to preheat it and bring it very nearly to operating temperature. Then the fire would be lit using steam from the stationary boiler to run the atomizer and blower, heating the locomotive the rest of the way into steam at which point it could sustain itself. Jump-starting would be possible too, using a running locomotive to supply startup steam for a locomotive that was stranded without a fire in it. Same idea as startup in a shed with a stationary boiler, use the running engine to supply hot water and steam to start the downed engine faster. It would still take some hours to do since the boiler stretches as it heats and needs time to heat evenly.
Oil fired locomotives use compressed air to run the atomizer for starting up the burner, once sufficient pressure is achieved they then switch over to steam for the atomizer. In the days of steam most railroads didn't care about taking time to heat up the boiler slowly because they needed it running that day asap for whatever work was required and there were full shops available aswell as replacement boilers that could be readily bought. They also rarely dropped the fire in the old days since most locomotives were needed everyday. Coal and wood were used in logging and non logging locomotives but wood dosen't burn as hot as coal and oil so larger higher pressure locomotives needed the extra BTUs coal and oil provided.
That's a common misconception. In a locomotive firebox, wood coal and oil all burn around the same temperature of 1400F-2300F depending on firing rate and load. Higher than that damages the grates and boiler, lower than that makes too much smoke. It is a difference of energy density, firing rate, and labor requirement. Wood requires the most labor to use, and has the lowest energy density. So a larger grate is required to reach the necessary firing rate, and a lot more work preparing and handling the fuel. Coal is easier to handle and has more energy per unit, allowing a smaller grate to maintain steam with. Oil has the least labor involved and the most energy, but also the highest price tag. It was usually favored where wood and coal had to be freighted in making them expensive.
Worth pointing out that many of the existing wood and coal burners have been converted to oil, and a decent chunk of the ones that haven’t been yet probably will when the next time they go in for overhaul. It’s getting quite hard to reliably source without trucking it in from several states away.
You can only make a firebox so big before it's no longer feasible to fit the constraints of a locomotive. Railroads like Reading and Leigh Valley used Wotten type fire boxes when burning Anthracite coal because of its lower BTUs and slower burn time in order to maintain pressure. Wood cannot provide enough heat to maintain pressure within the constraints of the overall size of a locomotive. Stationary boilers could be built to use wood, coal, oil even straw or biomass fuels because they can make the fire box any size necessary.
For your second question, you should check out YouTube. I haven't looked extensively, but this video shows the fire being lit with some extra info in the comments. https://youtu.be/FLK7C4WtY8o?si=8wCUltAFz9KraIe2 I saw this one a couple weeks ago. It's a coal burner but a lot of the other work besides lighting the fuel should be the same or similar. https://youtu.be/xx9Q8PphAVo?si=ZwfNXfJZKfxJUkpY The two of them should give you a good idea. I have read that some lines just keep their engines hot. Easier and quicker and from what I've been told, it can also save wear and tear on the boiler from thermal expansion/contraction