Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="wsherrick"][quote user="Bucyrus"][quote user="wsherrick"]  The ability of a steam locomotive to burn low grade coal with emissions that are cleaner than a diesels IS ALREADY IN PLACE ...This firebox can be retrofitted on any locomotive for a tiny, tiny cost and built into new ones at no additional cost, so that sort of blows away any argument that there has to be some sort of mystery technology procured at huge cost to achieve these results.  [/quote]I understand the primary and secondary air concept, and don't doubt the viability of the gas producing firebox, but I do not conclude that it is the ultimate solution and that no further advancement can be made or is needed.  If the concept of locomotives burning coal today were developed from scratch, with a clean sheet of paper, and with perfect, objective, engineering/economic logic, I would be surprised if the road lead unerringly to a conventional reciprocating/rod locomotive with a Lempor exhaust and a gas producer firebox. You mentioned that steam locomotives can be retrofitted to a GP firebox for a tiny, tiny cost.  The Durango & Silverton RR has been exploring the possibility of converting its 2-8-2s to a GP firebox.  It seems like the cost is a major issue.  As I understand the GP firebox, it brings the secondary air in through many small tubes that penetrate inner and outer walls, passing through the pressure vessel.  Would it be possible to bring the secondary air into the firebox without penetrating the pressure vessel with the air passages?    [/quote]I have read a little about what the D & S is going through.  In my community we have much the same problem as they do except the problem yuppies come from New York.  I generally would tell them in a nice way to go pound sand when they complained about smoke from the locomotive. If my information is correct the D&S is having complaints about the engines when they are banked off for the night. Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't have any direct contacts out there.  One way to cure that problem is to install heating elements above the mud ring in the boiler and plug the steam engine in overnight.  It has been done elsewhere.  To answer your other question. No, there is no other way to introduce secondary air into the firebox without going through the boiler shell and the firebox sheets since the firebox must be always covered with water while operating.  It is possible and has been done since long before we were born to drill holes in boilers.  The other major modifications they would have to do is get different grates which would allow the prescribed amount of primary air and put in steam jets to allow the introduction of steam into the fire bed.  I can't see how that would be that terribly expensive, versus say a routine replacement any of the firebox sheets or throat sheet which has to be done once in a lifetime or so.  Do you have any cost estimates for their firebox conversions? That has me curious.  The FRA should allow these modifications without too much hassle, but again I am only guessing in that regard.  If the D&S does take the plunge and convert at least one of their locomotives the resulting savings in fuel costs would more than justify the expense of the conversion.  [/quote]You are correct that the D&S complaints began with Durango residents complaining about the smoke from locomotives idling in hot standby mode overnight in Durango.  Many possible solutions have been suggested to address this overnight condition including the use of gas burners placed in the fireboxes, a central boiler to keep the engines hot, the use of wood pellets for fuel, expanding the capacity of the engine house scrubbers, and better training, technique, and discipline for the firemen.I offered a proposal to solve the overnight smoke problem based on my assumption that there was insufficient oxygen above the fire, causing the flames to self-extinguish before all the volatiles burned.  Specifically, what I proposed was a portable over-fire air injection probe that would be inserted through the fire door opening during overnight hot standby.  It would be equipped with a secondary door frame and its own lightweight fire door so it would close off the opening, and yet allow periodic firing.  Ambient air would be forced in by a blower, and it would be also electrically heated so it does not chill the flames.  D&S considered my proposal, and then tested the locomotives to see if they were oxygen deprived while idling overnight.  They concluded that the engines were not oxygen deprived, and therefore, that my proposal would not solve the problem.     This smoke issue has been developing and gaining popularity for several years, and has been evolving from nuisance complaints by those affected, to a perceived environmental offense that affects people who are out of reach of the visible smoke.  This has elevated the issue to involve the Colorado health department.  There has been some controversy over just what authority they have.  It is my understanding that they are presently involved with the potential solution to the problem.The D&S hired Wasatch Railroad Contractors to analyze the problem and make suggestions.  They produced a report that offered suggestions including the remediation of the Durango ash pile which spent a lot of time smoldering and contribution a substantial amount of smoke.  WRC's ultimate solution was to rebuild the locomotives with Lempor exhausts and gas producer fireboxes.  While these upgrades would presumably improve efficiency and emissions during operation, it is unclear to me how they would reduce smoke produced during overnight idling.  I have asked that question, but have never gotten an answer.  How would you answer this question?  From what I understand, the D&S is reluctant to take a risk on these two mechanical upgrades to the locomotives because they are unable to get any guarantee of the results, and the cost is very significant considering the uncertainty of the outcome.  Also, as I understand it, the D&S seems inclined to solve the problem by fixing the smoldering ash pile, burning wood pellets overnight, and making major upgrade to their scrubber system.Here an excerpt from the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce meeting of 7/12/2007:  Train Smoke Mitigation Task ForceMeeting MinutesJuly 12, 2007 3:00-5:00pmAnasazi Room, La Plata County Courthouse V.  Discussions with Nigel DaySteve Marple reviewed the notes he sent out on his discussions with Nigel Day.  Laura will email the group those notes again.  There was a lot of discussion about Nigel's comments.  Steve said that basically Nigel feels that he can improve what exists but that it would be new technology of making a gas producing combustion system.  It would be a huge commitment from the railroad.  Nigel's comments focused on operating time, but the effects would also be beneficial during start-up.  Overall if the locomotives are more efficient, there would be less smoke at all times.  The input included:<ul class="unindentedList"><li>All three improvements (draft system, gas-producing combustion system, and lempor exhaust) would need to be made to see the increased benefits; it could not be done in stages. There would likely be no incremental gains.</li><li>Two designs would need to be done for the engines</li><li>1 design would need to be done for the spark arrester (Nigel was doubtful it would work with the existing spark arresters)</li><li>DSNGRR could perform all the necessary machining and improvements except they would need rolled steel.</li><li>Have to do the improvements in winter</li><li>The cost to change to a gas producing engine would be about $250K per engine according to Wasatch and the members said there didn't seem to be any place or person to find out how well this would work.</li><li>Jerry expressed frustration that they didn't get any real world experience from railroads looking at this technology or cost benefit to making such huge changes.</li><li>Jessey said she would contact the N. Hampshire Railroad about what they do.</li><li>Nigel stated that he would remain as part of the Wasatch team and working with him would require going through Wasatch. </li><li>Steve M. felt the gas-producer combustion system is a completely different way to burn coal in the locomotive. This would be a fundamental change and would potentially improve everything (efficiency, smoke, etc...) but it would be a risk for DSNGRR. </li></ul>While no decisions were made, the Task Force did not seem ready to recommend engine changes at this time.******************Note the assertion, "Overall if the locomotives are more efficient, there would be less smoke at all times."  Again I ask, how would the GP firebox and Lempor exhaust reduce smoke when the engines are idling overnight with a low fire?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag