# Accucraft C-25 Coal Fired



## fkrutzke (Jan 24, 2008)

Slightly over a year ago I had the pleasure of designing a coal fired boiler and the necessary accessories, grates, ash pan, safety valve, smoke stack venturi, blower, etc, for Accucraft Trains D&RGW C-25 #375.

This boiler was designed and dimensioned to allow use of the existing frame and running gear of Accucraft’s present butane fired C-25 with minimum modifications.

Within the next several months I should have in hand the production prototype for evaluation and will then respond to Accucraft with comments as to any needed changes. This process should lead to release of the locomotive for delivery within 3 to 6 months after my opportunity to examine it.

How closely Accucraft has followed my design for the C-25 I can not comment on. With the K-28, although I did not do the original design, I did make significant design change suggestions, most of which were adequately addressed by Accucraft. Most significantly of these were the smoke box layout, blower firebox and the grate / ash pan combination.
Adapting an existing butane fired design to coal fired is not a simple process. The need to use existing mechanical design, for instance smoke box, cab, and boiler mountings. Can complicate the process over that of a clean sheet design. Also to be considered is the fact that building a small scale live steam coal fired locomotive, that runs successfully, requires a significant learning curve. For a first try at a coal fired locomotive Accucrafts K-28 turned out well.

Accucraft, Bing, and Cliff have advance our hobby in many ways. Probably the most significant has been to open up live steam to a wider segment of the population that otherwise could never afford to participate. Hopefully the coal fired C-25 will continue this tradition.

Torry


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Torry, Wesley and I are looking forward to getting ours. You will have to come down and give us instructions on running it when it gets here. Hope it is in time for my Spring steam-up.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

fkrutzke said:


> Also to be considered is the fact that building a small scale live steam coal fired locomotive, that runs successfully, requires a significant learning curve. For a first try at a coal fired locomotive Accucrafts K-28 turned out well.
> 
> Torry


Sorry, Torry, but I have never understood such statements!
Coal firing in Gauge 1 has been around for many years, and the science of design has been well documented.
Surely, as long as the rules with regards to things like the ratio of length and diameter of flues and the amount of heated surface etc., there should be very little in the way of a learning curve, and certainly no expectation of failure.
I recall back in the early 70's watching a coal fired V2 running for a half hour without the fire being touched, but really wondered what the point was, as whilst others just packed up their locos and took them home, that gentleman spent a long time cleaning up the mess.
I know, it's the smell and it's just like the real thing, but it really doesn't excite me (yet)!
Maybe one day, but maybe not....
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## fkrutzke (Jan 24, 2008)

David:

What I was getting at was the manufacturing learning curve as a whole. Accucraft has come a long way from their first locos. I very clearly remember the first attempt at the Mich Cal Shay at DH. It would only run counter clockwise. There are a lot of other instances also. A single, talented craftsman, individual can take a well thought out and developed design and be very successful. What David Shaw, David Bailey Justin or myself have done are examples. I wasn't talking about that, I was referring to the process of product design, tooling, trade offs for manufacturing simplicity, cost containment, etc. ad infinitum. For all of these to come together in a successful product can take a while. All designs go through refinement to one degree or another. Yes, coal firing in Gauge 1 has a long history, going back to before LBSC. Accucraft started from a blank sheet of paper for the K-28.

Torry


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Torry

I think David's point is "Accucraft had NO EXCUSE for starting from a blank sheet of paper". Commercially produced batches of coal fired small scale locomotives have been being done for at least 40 years. The fact that someone chooses not to avail themselves of the accumulated experience of others is a separate issue. This criticism is NOT pointed just at Accucraft. Aster is notorious for NOT re-using their own successful designs, but having yet another engineer begin from scratch and take several iterations to approach "where they already were" with a previous locomotive.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Thank you Jim, my point exactly.
Regards,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## fkrutzke (Jan 24, 2008)

Jim:

Thanks for mentioning Aster, but this process is not isolated to our hobby. Other recent examples abound. In recent years the auto industry has been plagued with recalls to fix "wonderful, clean sheet, leading edge technology" that went awry, and in some notable instances cost innocent people their lives. We often put a lot of emphasis on breaking the paradigm, yet often what is tried and true is best; too many try to reinvent the wheel.

Torry


----------



## seadawg (Jan 2, 2008)

I must say that I am very satisfied with my K-28. I ran it at 2013 Diamondhead into the wee hours for two hours straight. (I did need to stoke it now and then!) I was tired and my feet hurt otherwise, who knows how long I could have run it.

If the C-25 has more of Torry's involvement than the K-28, I imagine that Accucraft will have another sucessful coal burner on their hands. (Now, what stuff do I have laying around that I can sell.......)


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

For those interested, Rob Lenicheck built a scratch built coal fired C-25. he started it before Accucraft announced coming out with their butane version and finished it about the same time as them. He posted a thread in this forum and did an article in Steam in the Garden on it.

I would think his name should be added to the list of notables mentioned above.
I have seen it run beautifully at local steamups and for the last two years at Sacramento.
it doesn't get noticed too much because it is an exact match to the prototype, as is the Accucraft version. it is also beautifully weathered, making it blend in all the more.

His latest project is converting a C-16 to coal.


----------



## seadawg (Jan 2, 2008)

I have contemplated converting an inside frame narrow gauge engine to coal. It does seem just inside the realm of do-able (especially after conversing w/ John Shaw on that subject). But, while gazing at the underside of my C-16 all I could picture was a row of wick holders, so that's the path I chose. 

There comes a point where the size of the firebox / grate make it difficult to actually operate the loco. My Willi has a firebox that is about 1" x 1" x 1.25" deep and it is quite a handfull to keep a good fire going... Constant attention.

P.S. The extra .25 on depth made all the difference in the world.

P.P.S. I still have my eye out for an inexpensive inside frame narrow gauge Accucraft engine!


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Rob had the frame and grate/ash pan at Sac
I'll contact him to see if he can post a couple of photos


----------



## fkrutzke (Jan 24, 2008)

Dave:

It should be pointed out that on the C-25 Rob built, the frame bulges out behind the drivers to wrap around the firebox as does the prototype. That is, the frame is wider at the firebox than along the length of the drivers. This allows a wider firebox. On a C-16 or similar model small scale coal fired locomotive, *unlike the prototype*, the portion of the firebox below the top of the frame does not usually have a water leg. The inner wrapper continues down below the mud ring, between the frames to the ash pan / grate. This means that the mud ring sits on top of the frames. This allows an adequate, although not generous, width to the firebox and grates; more so than if the water leg continued below the frames.

Torry


----------



## lenicheck (Jan 8, 2008)

*C-16 pics*

Hi, guys. Torry is correct about my C-25 design and the C-16 design I'm working on. The firebox legs are dry below the mud rings which ends at the top of the frame. The firebox is about .85" by 3". Should be an interesting challenge to fire.


----------



## seadawg (Jan 2, 2008)

Rob, looks GREAT! Only three words to help with that challenge to fire: Depth, Depth, Depth.


----------



## lenicheck (Jan 8, 2008)

I hear you, Dave! Should be fine - I've got about 1.2" or so from the bottom of the flues to the top of the grate...


----------

