I remember how expensive it was to run the Steam Engine in the Cuyagoga Valley in Cleveland in the 1980s so I cant imagine the coal bill for this monster
CandOforprogress2,
I expect you are not familiar with the railfan world of the 1980's. The 1980's was a time in America when steam railroad power was only ten years passing - Denver Rio Grande Western was just finishing using narrow gauge steam for regular freight operations. Just 20 years earlier American Railroads were steam powered.
-------------------------
Now about your picture of Grand Trunk Western 4070 - this operation of railfan steam was staged on purpose! Because smoking railroad locomotives were a rememberance of an immediate public experience of just past events.
Enviornmental pollution as we know it today was an even newer public issue. The Clean Air Act of 1964 was hardly comprehended by the public. Also the public consciousness about clean air issues was not widely held or popular.
Soooooo!- When railfan groups wanted to see railfan steam locomotives run - the railfans insisted on "photographic SMOKE!" and lots of it! From my perspective this photo of GTW 4070 lookes silly! This abnormal belching of great clouds of smoke for purposes of the camara. But it was the fashion of the time.
Further, most operating railroads in America would be aghast at such locomotive operation. Accountants and operating officials would only see this photographic display as - simply "too much fuel for the fire" producing unburned combustion and extreme waste of money as the coal is unburned without producing work. Further often railfan trip operators would throw oil into the firebox and or sand to clean the boiler flues just to "smoke it up for the camera."
--------------------
So go back to photos of the steam era and observe "the almost smokeless operation of high efficient steam operation."
C&O 1309 which is now Western Maryland Senic WM 1309 was one of the last steam locomotive built in America by the Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1949. C&O 1309 was also one of two such engines saved by the railroad which intended to keep on serving online coal producers who gave the railroad significant discounts on purchase of the coal it hauled.
Also consider the economy of railroad operation when the fuel could be burned right out of the ground without expensive refining required of diesel fuel. This was an economical and low cost operational consideration for new steam locomotive production in 1949.
Further consider that if the railroad steam locomotive technology had continued to develop into the 21st Century - how highly efficient coal burning steam locomotive operation could have become. Consider that coal fired power plants today produce little smoke if possibly even some water vapor cloud.
I seriously doubt that in "this day of enviornmental consciousness" that Western Maryland would allow locomotive WM 1309 to operate in this old fashioned "smoke it up for the camera" fashion so abhorant of it.
- Doc
I give you how clean UP runs 844 every single trip. There is very and I mean very little smoke from her unless they are cleaning the flues out.
Here she is running in Hana WY in April of this year. No smoke at all even as the only power on the train. https://youtu.be/UheS8pOSb14
Isn't 844 using oil as opposed to coal?
ChuckHawkinsIsn't 844 using oil as opposed to coal?
844 is oil fired, however, the same principles apply in firing a coal fired engine. Smokeless exhaust is the signature of a Fireman that knows what he is doing and doing it correctly.
The cost of operating any railroad locomotive is staggering when compared to the costs of running our own grocery getters. Filling up 3 units on one of today's intermodal trains will use upwards to 15,000 gallons of diesel as todays locomotives have 4000 & 5000 gallon fuel tanks.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Do not 844's flues need to be sanded from time to time? But this black exhaust is not the same as that which comes from overfiring the engine with coal.
Johnny
Deggesty Do not 844's flues need to be sanded from time to time? But this black exhaust is not the same as that which comes from overfiring the engine with coal. As for how expensive it will be to run 1309, consider that the use of steam coal in the U.S. is not as great as it used to be, so taking into inflation and the current coal market, I don't think it'll be quite as expensive as you think it'll be.
As for how expensive it will be to run 1309, consider that the use of steam coal in the U.S. is not as great as it used to be, so taking into inflation and the current coal market, I don't think it'll be quite as expensive as you think it'll be.
Back in the 1980s the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railway Steam Engine was run by the Midwest Railway Histirical Society. Looking down the Valley from Garfield Heights High School you could see the HUGE plume of smoke and hear the whoooo0000 of the Steam Engine. In Boy Scouts we went down to the MHRS shops in the J&L Steel works and we shovled out the coal ash pits as part of our service work.. I heard a number of 3000.00 Dollers for the weekly coal bill in 1988 which the coal had to be trucked in from a coal dealer. (They still had those?) So in 2018 dollers i cant imagine what that coal bill would be today
I believe the original subject matter was the cost of a ton of coal in the 1970's vs. the cost today. Not the amount of black smoke produced by loco 4070 in an old photo. Soooooo....what would the coal cost be in 2017 dollars for an ex-Chesapeake and Ohio Railway 2-6-6-6?
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Penny Trains I believe the original subject matter was the cost of a ton of coal in the 1970's vs. the cost today. Not the amount of black smoke produced by loco 4070 in an old photo. Soooooo....what would the coal cost be in 2017 dollars for an ex-Chesapeake and Ohio Railway 2-6-6-6?
Just did a VERY quick n' dirty (no coal joke intended) bit of research and as of 2015 the average cost of a ton of coal at the mine was about $32 a ton. Average shipping cost to an coal fired electric power generating station added $12 dollars per ton to the cost, so we're looking at an average cost of $44 per ton, delivered.
Now for that C&O 2-6-6-2, how many tons in the tender, plus how much you need on site? That I don't know. One thing I do know, steam is a hungry servant, so you better have a full pantry!
I wonder what the cost per a ton of diesel would be compared to a ton of coal?
Anyway, running 1309 isn't going to be cheap, but as long as they break even on the operating costs they'll be doing all right.
One more thing: I watched a bit of that 844 video and whoever's firing the locomotive certainly knows his business! Little or no smoke at all, which is what the railroad brass wanted to see back in the old days. A steam locomotive belching huge clouds of black smoke would have had the engine crew in the super's office with some serious 'splainin' to do back then. A PRR engineman's rule book in my possession from the 1920's said it best: Black smoke means poor combustion. Poor combustion means wasted fuel.
Penny TrainsSoooooo....what would the coal cost be in 2017 dollars for an ex-Chesapeake and Ohio Railway 2-6-6-6?
It would be lots, and unlike many "comparably sized" engines, an Allegheny will want fairly good coal in a number of respects, which might 'cost you' to deliver and provision where needed, fairly often.
But that is one principal reason no one's been even considering restoring an Allegheny to operation. 1309 is a comparatively small 2-6-6-2 (think 'Mikado-and-a-half) which happens to be of very late construction with some modern combustion-aiding design features, and while it might be loaded fairly heavily in service, it will neither be 'lugged' within the last couple of thousand lb. of available starting TE nor overfired to 'get it over the road' (in part, probably, to save the boiler, but having the effect of reducing fuel 'mass flow' in favor of better firing pattern.
Sure, if I were doing the job, I'd put Snyder preheaters on there (C&OHS should still have drawings from their tests) which would take the heat requirement from coal down even further.
For costing, I'd stick with the general AAR-advertised quality from the 'campaign' in the late '40s: good volatile content and ash characteristics; about 2" sized and not badly friable in handling; washed before loading. It might even pay to get some of the 'clean coal' feedstock that has been coated with fluxing material (although most of those are optimized for pulverized feeding).
Only the delivered price matters, and the 'proper' cost per ton includes delivery all the way to the bunker (that last lift can be interesting without the right kind of loader!) I don't have recent figures for this, and most of the development work I've engaged in treats the fuel as a subcontracted service, instead of doing the Bene Gesserit stuff needed to figure out the 'true' lowest price in context. So I have no idea what the functional post-Obama logistics and cost for suitable coal are. But it wouldn't be difficult for an interested party to make a few calls and at least get a first approximation.
The modernized Kriegslok 8055 had some very good people study her economics while setting up arrangements for excursions and Plandampf. At that time, the fuel cost (#2 diesel/gas oil) was about 5 to 6% of overall operating cost.
Firelock76 Just did a VERY quick n' dirty (no coal joke intended) bit of research and as of 2015 the average cost of a ton of coal at the mine was about $32 a ton. Average shipping cost to an coal fired electric power generating station added $12 dollars per ton to the cost, so we're looking at an average cost of $44 per ton, delivered. Now for that C&O 2-6-6-2, how many tons in the tender, plus how much you need on site? That I don't know. One thing I do know, steam is a hungry servant, so you better have a full pantry! I wonder what the cost per a ton of diesel would be compared to a ton of coal? Anyway, running 1309 isn't going to be cheap, but as long as they break even on the operating costs they'll be doing all right. One more thing: I watched a bit of that 844 video and whoever's firing the locomotive certainly knows his business! Little or no smoke at all, which is what the railroad brass wanted to see back in the old days. A steam locomotive belching huge clouds of black smoke would have had the engine crew in the super's office with some serious 'splainin' to do back then. A PRR engineman's rule book in my possession from the 1920's said it best: Black smoke means poor combustion. Poor combustion means wasted fuel.
Actually, cleaning the fires was dirtier work than filling the stokers during the winter.
Johnny I'm not surprised in the least. In John Maxtone-Graham's superb book "The Only Way To Cross," a history of the great Atlantic ocean liners, he describes what a nasty, filthy job coaling the great liners was. The coal dust seemed to go everywhere on the ships no matter what efforts were made to keep it under control.
It's no wonder that after World War One the steamship companys switched to oil fuel as fast as they could, a lot easier to handle and no mess to deal with after the fueling.
Wayne
C&O, have you ever seen 1309 in person? Monster? Not hardly as steam locomotives go.
As RME said, 1309 is not really a large locomotive. The Boiler/fire box is similar is size to a USRA Heavy Mountain or NKP Berkshire 765.
The whole point of the design, the reason for articulation, was better low speed power on sharp curves and steep grades - she will be right at home on the WMSR.
She will use no more coal than a great many other steam locos still in operation. I suspect NKP 765 uses more coal than 1309 will require.
1309 - overall wheelbase - 88.56', weight of engine - 434,900 lbs, firebox - 389 sq ft.
765 - overall wheelbase - 87.73', weight of engine - 428,500 lbs, firebox - 460 sq ft.
USRA 4-8-2 - overall wheelbase - 75.7', weight of engine - 352,500 lbs, firebox 373 sq ft.
Sheldon
Firelock76 It's no wonder that after World War One the steamship companys switched to oil fuel as fast as they could, a lot easier to handle and no mess to deal with after the fueling.
The "a lot easier to handle" would translate into a lot less labor needed to fire. A couple of other reasons include less chance of a spontaneous fire breaking out in an oil bunker vs a coal bunker and no coal dust explosions as was thought by some to have amplified the effect of the torpedo strike on the Lusitania. Bunker C had the advantage of a very high flash point, so there had to be a major fire going before it would get hot enough to burn.
Just don't use high volatile crude oil in lieu of Bunker C - remember the Taiho.
- Erik
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I suspect NKP 765 uses more coal than 1309 will require.
You'd be right for another reason: 765 is an explicitly high-speed design, and it is relatively difficult to fire 'around' sections of her large grate at speed to burn less fuel (this in addition to the recognized difficulties in assuring a hot thin fire across most of the grate area continuously using only the stoker). While there were some interesting experiments with this size power (Tuplin's observations on the Niagara among the most striking) they didn't involve sustained high-horsepower output at high cyclic rpm. Even with very precise short cutoff, I think it is likely that draft loss past a partial fire would result in murder on parts of the boiler structure, even a welded boiler structure, in comparatively short order...
So I expect the 2-6-6-2's firebox to be no greater than ... well, about 1.5x the size of a Mikado for comparable service, and to be fired with about the same frequency and patterning as the Mikado would be, with a little more mass at each firing. I suspect the C&O's use of them would involve some fairly heavy pulling, at relatively low speed, combined with a relatively large number of stops and reverses (and perhaps sitting just after pulling) and the type of fire and method of stoking it would have to accord with this -- the usual hot, thin firing with heel to shake down progressively might consume too much fuel, and generate too much water loss indirectly by making pops lift at the 'wrong' times.
Fire, speaking about coal fired steamers. Back in the 60 and 70's, back when their was still fairly good number of steam boats ( ore, grain And coal carrier's ) on the great lakes, you could stand on the shores of lake Erie and see just the tops of the stern deck houses and stack's, just belching up black smoke on the horizon, much like the 4070 in the picture in question. Luckily steam survived much longer on the lakes than on the railroad's.
As my nephew will attest, there is one place where steam replaced diesels: in submarines.
CSSHEGEWISCH As my nephew will attest, there is one place where steam replaced diesels: in submarines.
CSSHEGEWISCHAs my nephew will attest, there is one place where steam replaced diesels: in submarines.
But most emphatically not coal-burning. If you see black smoke ... strike that, most any visible emission ... well, you won't be a steam fan, one way or the other, for very long.
Yes, I think a coal-fired submarine is called a "monitor". Not that it would matter much, the crew was already deaf and blind from hand firing that big turret!
Well, a "monitor" wan't a submarine, although with that low freeboard it was darn close to being one. It certainly wasn't an easy target to hit, although that turret must have rung like a bell whenever a Rebel shot hit it!
The "Monitor" gave it's name to a whole class of riverine and harbor defense warships, and interestingly enough the class lasted right up to the early 20th Century.
Here's another wrinkle: During the First World War the Royal Navy had a class of ships they referred to as "monitors." Essentially a one-turret baby battleship they were intended as shore bombardment vessels. Whether they were actually used as such is open to question, somehow I doubt it, I'm not sure where the RN may have had the opportunity to do so.
Just a little more useless knowledge there.
Firelock76 Well, a "monitor" wan't a submarine, although with that low freeboard it was darn close to being one.
Wayne, it's not like you to suffer from 'whooooooooosh!', but did you not notice the laughing smiley there?
She's referring to a monitor's tendency to BECOME a submarine with little ado, for example off Hatteras. Very good at submerging, but somewhat defective thereafter... [I would have put a Hunley comment here, but now that they've found them, I keep full respect.]
Oh, I got the joke all right, I think, but it's certain "Monitor" was no kind of a sea-boat.
Ah, the "Hunley." I'm sure you watched the video of Charleston Harbor when the "Hunley" was salvaged and brought ashore. Lady Firestorm and I were watching and I said "Want to see a REAL Civil War ghost? There it is."
Now this goes WAY back. Anyone out there remember a TV series from the early 60's called "The Great Adventure?" It was a weekly anthology series of stories from American history, one episode of which was the story of the "Hunley." Jackie Cooper played Lieutenant Dixon, the "Hunley" commanding officer. A great episode with a tragic end.
Unfortunately like most anthology series "The Great Adventure" failed to find an audience ("Twilight Zone" is a notable exception) and only lasted one season. Too bad, as a kid I loved that show!
Firelock76 Now this goes WAY back. Anyone out there remember a TV series from the early 60's called "The Great Adventure?" It was a weekly anthology series of stories from American history, one episode of which was the story of the "Hunley." Jackie Cooper played Lieutenant Dixon, the "Hunley" commanding officer. A great episode with a tragic end.
Not only I remember, and miss, "The Great Adventure", I also specifically remember watching the "Hunley" episode. One tidbit from that episode was where the "Hunley" was sailing by one of the "Davids", a small steam powered not quite submarines.
Firelock76,
Well if you are looking for the true Civil War ghost Monitor - Well!
One other boat still exists. Yes, one of the original second generation Canonicus-class Civil War monitors sank in less than 30 seconds in battle in full fighting condition with 94 of her crew aboard while bombarding the CSS Tennessee and Fort Morgan in Mobile Bay, Alabama. 10 crew managed to abandon ship in the 30 seconds before she sank.
The USS Tecumseh rests in 30 feet of water in excellent condition and may yet be salvaged as a Civil War relic! The Smithsonian Institution hopes to construct a museum and to surface the ship for an historic display in Moble harbor today.
----------------------
USS Tecumseh was sunk in battle while bombarding in Mobile harbor with her 15 inch cannons both firing. She hit a torpedo aka mine and went down in this condition with almost all hands.
In 1876 the US Congress declared her a war grave and prohibited the wreck from being salvaged. Relocated upside down in the mud in 1967 the remarkably preserved ship was entered by Smithsonian divers who removed her anchor, and dishes from the dining hall, also the engine room gong which is on display.
USS Tecumseh is protected by the US Coast Guard and considered a war grave which may not be disturbed without permission of the Secretary of the Navy.
The ship was built with a two cylinder horizontal vibrating-lever steam engine which drove one propeller 13 feet in diameter. Steam was provided by two Stimers horizontal fire-tube boilers. The engine was rated at 320 indiated horsepower and gave the Monitor a top speed of 8 knots. The ship carried 140-150 long tons of coal. The main armament were two smooth bore muzzle loading 15 inch Dahlgren cannon mounted in a single gun turret. The guns weighed 43,000 lbs and could fire 350 lb shells at a range of 2,100 yards with an elevation of 7 degrees - about half a mile. The sides of the ship were protected by five layers of 1 inch iron plates backed by wood. The gun turret and pilot house were ten layers of 1 inch iron plates. The deck was protected by 1.5 inches of iron plate making the ship unbarabley hot inside when exposed to the sun.
"Eternal Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep its own appointed limits keep; Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee, For those in peril on the sea!"
Interesting, Dr. D, very interesting indeed.
The old Marine in me says "Tecumseh" is a war grave, leave it alone and let those men rest in peace. However, the military historian in me says sure, salvage it, bring it up for all to enjoy and bury the remains of all found on board with full military honors in a national cemetary. Of course, this depends on just what kind of condition the ship's in. If an attempted salvage would cause it to go to pieces then the best thing to do is leave it alone. It's a quandary, but not an earth-shaking one as far as quandarys go.
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Brave words, but easier said than done. At least Admiral Farragut was leading from the front and was in as much danger as anyone, maybe more so, as I remember right he'd lashed himself to a high spot on the rigging so he could get a better idea of how the battle was going. That's a true leader, not asking his men to do something he wasn't willing to do.
On Becky's "submarine" joke, I think what got me confused was I remembered watching a History Channel show on the Monitor several years ago and one of the historians in all seriousness called the ship a "proto-submarine", or something like that. Huh? It wasn't a sub, nor did John Ericsson intend it to be.
I was so tired last night I'm amazed my brain was working at all. What a week I had!
BTW the local power company in Cumberland MD gets there coal trucked in from 20 miles away. So i assume that they might do the same.
Firelock76 Well, a "monitor" wan't a submarine, although with that low freeboard it was darn close to being one. It certainly wasn't an easy target to hit, although that turret must have rung like a bell whenever a Rebel shot hit it! The "Monitor" gave it's name to a whole class of riverine and harbor defense warships, and interestingly enough the class lasted right up to the early 20th Century. Here's another wrinkle: During the First World War the Royal Navy had a class of ships they referred to as "monitors." Essentially a one-turret baby battleship they were intended as shore bombardment vessels. Whether they were actually used as such is open to question, somehow I doubt it, I'm not sure where the RN may have had the opportunity to do so. Just a little more useless knowledge there.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.