We are looking at putting in a traditional range in our period cottage. It would be for cooking, hot water and central heating. The cottage currently has solid fuel central heating and we were thinking of switiching to oil. Any opinions out there on which would be better and cheaper?
There are a variety of pros and cons, but I'd always go for oil, the novelty of lighting a fire a cleaning ashes will soon wear off. Oil can be put on a timer like any other CH/HW system. As for cost, it depends where you get your solid fuel, I have relatives who have a wood on their land so they basically run it for nothing. I don't know how much coal costs these days, but it's a better fuel - keeps it's heat longer and you don't have to re-fill it so often. One thing to bear in mind is that you only fill and oil tank once or twice a year, so you have a to budget for one time big cost, rather than a monthly direct debit.
We have solid fuel heating already but we were thinking of going for an oil burning range as we got older but people have cautioned me about rising oil prices.
We will probably opt for a Trianco Redfyre or a Stanley Stove. Redfyres are made in Yorkshire and that is a plus point for us. Both Range-Cookers come highly recommended.
Agas do not do central heating so are not being considered.
We've just had the back boiler on a multifuel Rayburn go again. This is twice in 6 years!. Apart from the fun of mopping up and draining down the system, it always chooses this time of year to go. We're now looking at options of ranges for CH/HW and cooking using oil, as the ash and dust and coal get to you in the end. I've been warned off oil fired Rayburns, but are Esses, and Stanleys any different? Are there any other makes ?.
