If you are thinking of visiting the Durango & Silverton, you may not want to put it off for too long. The Forest Service is suing them for $25M in damages from a massive wildfire last summer that they say was started by the railroad. If that goes against them it might just be the end. This is in addition to other lawsuits in Colorado - heck even the legal costs might be enough to sink them.
Long, detailed story: https://durangoherald.com/articles/283967
Shorter story: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/02/416-fire-caused-durango-silverton-narrow-gauge-railroad/
I hope I'm just being a grouchy old pessimist!
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
One cloudy crystal ball is to look for a future owner to run mainly diesel with a smattering of oil-fred steam in the vein of White Pass & Yukon. It is a draw mainly because of the scenery. Rail fans go for the steam but it is likely most others go for the scenery and the ride and are agnostic about what is pulling the train. The Grand Canyon Railway is another similar operation in that regard.
I agree with you, kgbw, and in fact they have already begun that conversion.
https://durangoherald.com/articles/263817-durango-silverton-narrow-gauge-begins-era-of-oilburning-locomotives
My concern is that the lawsuits will either break their financial back, or their insurer will pay but then they will not be able to get affordable insurance after that.
If you read the letters to the editor in the Durango Hearald, it becomes obvious that the oppostion to D&S is not limited to the possibility of it starting fires. Any visible emissions including just steam will set off those who oppose D&S as being a carbon spewing relic from a bygone era that is best forgotten. And it is obvious that the Forest Service is part of that activist opposition. They all want D&S shut down, so the right of way can be used as a recreationsl trail.
The Forest Service claims that a D&S locomotive started the fire because coal cinders were found along the tracks. They also claim that the locomotives have started fires in the past. So they know for certain that the D&S locomotive started the "416 fire" last year.
What is the story with the apparently self-appointed volunteer fire fighters living along one location along the tracks as a group of neighbors? They say they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a D&S train started the fire. Yet they saw nothing that proves that connection other than the fact that a train passed shortly before the fire broke out. These people are set up with pumps and water tanks, and they patrol the D&S tracks near their homes to watch for fires. Do they have a contractual agreement with D&S to fight fires that may occur on D&S property?
The Forest Service publishes fire restrictions for various activities during condtions of high fire risk. These govern things such as camp fires and the use of internal combustion engines. They certainly are aware of the D&S operation and they have the authority to ban the use of coal-fired locomotives during fire danger. Yet the Forest Service allowed the D&S to operate coal-fired locomotives.
Having ridden the D&S I feel I should say something but I'd better wait until my blood pressure goes down.
Lady Firestorm loved the ride too, but before I can get a comment out of her I'll have to peel her off the ceiling!
A bad situation all around.
Colorado_Mac, I definitely agree that there will likely not be another insurer who gives them a policy at an economically-feasible price after the current one expires if they still have coal-burning (ember-producing) locomotives.
Remember how quicky UP wisely converted the Challenger to oil firing after coal embers started numerous small fires along the right-of-way on an excursion not too long after it was returned to service.
These dual lawsuits could result in financial difficulty for the current operator, unfortunately, which is why in my prior post I surmised that it may likely be a future operator.
I don’t think the railroad will go away - it does bring in substantial economic activity to this lightly-populated area of Colorado and can be operated successfully with improved fire safety, for sure.
But the economic fallout to the railroad of the 416 Fire could result in the end of coal-fired steam, more diesel power and limited oil-fired steam. (The last two of that list are already happening. Hopefully the K-37 works well and the cost of converting more locomotives is not cost prohibitive.)
Please notice I said “could” - one never knows for sure. This second lawsuit piled on the first, coupled with the likely future insurance issue is a heavy, heavy financial load to carry.
We all want the D&SNG to survive and thrive.
The Forest Service had the power and duty to prohibit the use of coal burning locomotives during high fire danger, and they failed to do that. I don’t believe that assessment is unfair to the Forest Service. Actually, I believe they are being grossly unfair to D&S.
There is bitter opposition to the D&S, and without any evidence, they write letters to the editor claiming it to be a fact that D&S started the fire. Obviously, the Forest Service shares their attitude. They have presented no facts that prove D&S started the fire, and yet they use their unlimited legal resources to wage a legal battle that D&S cannot win. The honest conclusion on the part of the Forest Service would have been that they could not determine the cause of the fire.
Even those railfan neighborhood volunteer fire fighters claim it to be a fact that the fire was ignited by a D&S train. They offer no direct evidence, just that they know it to be true. If they don’t know for sure, why is it so important to have a position on the matter that they are willing to unfairly reach that conclusion? There is something wrong when a person claims something has to be true because they just know it.
EuclidThe Forest Service had the power and duty to prohibit the use of coal burning locomotives during high fire danger, and they failed to do that.
This is an interesting legal argument. There is adequate established precedent for restricting the use of this vintage of coal-burning locomotive in 'high fire danger' conditions, most notably the use by NYC ... not a road known for its oil-burning locomotives ... in the Adirondacks nearly as early as effective locomotive oil burners were developed. This being California, the great domain of 'what is not required is forbidden', perhaps a good case could be made for it.
I frankly fail to understand why any coal-burning locomotive with the propensity to shower live coals or 'sparks' would be allowed to operate in a known fire-danger region -- regardless of whether the conditions are chronic or on-going and would constitute 'business interruption' past any insurance coverage therefor. Good methods of oil firing that are reasonably 'reversible' when necessary, or in fact dual-fuel systems that use a light solid-fuel bed as flameholder, are well known in the art. It is long past time D&S did that conversion.
I do wonder whether, as an accommodation, the Forest Service would allow the railroad to include the full costs of the oil conversion as part of the nominal settlement or award, whatever it remains at after appeals are exhausted.
Unless there is video or eye-witness sworn testimony showing definitively that the locomotive or one of the cars caused the fire, I don't see how the State can prevail. Are there no other forest/grassland fires in the State except those caused by passing excursion steam trains? Did the railroad not take reasonable and required precautions to reduce the risk? Was the railroad operating per their permits, and under the auspices of any of the State agencies or departments meant to police, regulate, supervise, oversee, or otherwise mitigate public and environmental risks? Perhaps the 'accident' is that it didn't happen the previous year, or the one before that, for all the years the State has been in a condition of drought and during which the State happily allowed the railroad to run precisely the same way it did during the fire.
I would make the case that it is a frivolous and vexatious undertaking to sue the railroad for this accident.
Note that it is the USFS (a federal agency) that is filing suit, not the state of Colorado.
After the debacle of the start of the 2003 Cedar fire in San Diego county, I'm taking anything the USFS with a large grain of salt.
selectorI would make the case that it is a frivolous and vexatious undertaking to sue the railroad for this accident.
Except there's that, you know, $25 million-odd in cost paid by the taxpayers, and, you know, government minions who need a villain they can soak ... and here's a convenient smoky, unpopular-with-local-voters target that looks like easy judgment (or settlement) fodder.
My guess is it won't be difficult to find the railroad 'guilty and liable' in the original court proceeding, and any letting them off the deep-pockets hook would only come on appeal, and therefore involve careful review of what is 'settled' during the trial ... which is a crapshoot at best, and probably lethally expensive to an outfit the size of D&S if their insurance doesn't give them the best defense money can buy. Which remains to be seen -- it's also possible the insurer will throw them under the bus based on the Federal and state evidence that has been amassed and will be certainly and loudly prosecuted to the best of government ability.
I wouldn't worry about the attraction going away: it will just change ownership in some transaction of convenience; perhaps this has already happened or is well underway to be triggered depending on how the ball bounces. The important consideration is that the new operating entity, whatever it is, operate as strictly as possible on "emberless" firing (which does include no von Boden-Ingles dribble onto the ties, as well as no plugs of flaming soot buildup)
You're right on Overmod, the same thought's crossed my mind as well, but you put it a bit more eloquently.
A government entity with (almost) unlimited "deep pockets" going after a private organization, with the ultimate aim being a plea-bargain plus a fine to end the whole sordid mess.
Oh, the "unpopular-with-local-voters" thing? That more than likely a minority of local noise-buckets who haven't stopped to think of the money the D&S brings to the local economy. I'm sure a majority of Durango residents are sharp enough to know what side their bread's buttered on.
What could replace it in that neck of the woods that would bring the money in? Legalized gambling? Well, if that's what they want they'd do well to remember the old saying "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"
I've been to Colorado several times, and one town that went the legalized gambling route was Cripple Creek. Sure, the town's making tons of money, but now property costs are so high no-one can afford to live there! Got it straight from some disgusted locals.
Video of the D&S of recent vintage.
Note the 'water cooled' stack devices being used to eliminate high temperature cinders escaping from the locomotive's stack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gby0PywaDIw
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDVideo of the D&S of recent vintage. Note the 'water cooled' stack devices being used to eliminate high temperature cinders escaping from the locomotive's stack.
Fascinating video. Thanks, Balt. I've long been curious about the odd looking stacks.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Should not some Colorado residents who do care to see the raiilroad survive write the Director of the National Park Service and ask:
Is the intent of the law suite to shut down the railroad so the RoW can become a trail? With part of the proceeds from the suite used to convert the RoW to a trail?
If so, what is the expected usage of the trail annually. Will it be more than 1/10th of the number of people viewing Animas Canyon from the trains? And how many will be able to hike the entire length of the trail?
Won't the conversion prevent the portion of the USA population and foreign visitors who are old, or infirm, or handicapped from enjoying the spectacular scenery?
Is such a result in line with the stated goals of the National Park Service?
If I were to write the letter (should I?), I probably would want copy the Mayors of both Silvereton and Durango, and Colorado's Governor and two Senators.
Possibly I am making a mistake. Is the Forest Service part of the Nstional Parks Administration or separate?
The Forest Service and National Park Service are separate entities.
The potheads in Denver who run Colorado don't give a damn about what happens West of the Rockies, IMHO
USFS is a part of the Ag Dept.
How do the water-cooled stack work?
Many years ago I saw the DRGW narrow-gauge steam-powered train. Is the D&S the exact same line?
The Durango and Silverton is the Silverton branch, from Durango to Silverton, of the Denver and Rio Grande Western. The other narrow gauge lines of the D&RGW that were still running after WWII were from Alamosa to Durango, with dual gauge, still operating as standard gauge, Alamosa to Antonito; plus the narrow-gauge Durangno - Farmington, NM. line. The other remnant of this post WWII narrow-gauge system is the Cumbres and Toltec, running between Antonito and Chama.
In a water-cooling smokestack the exhaust passes through a pipe surrounded by water that is continually circulated through cooling fins located elsewhere on the (usually a side) of the locomotive.
The Monarch Branch continued as an isolated narrow-gauge stub until it was converted to standard gauge in 1955.
My January 1953 copy of the OG also shows several other narrow-gauge lines in Rio Grande's entry although they may have been on the verge of abandonment.
daveklepper The Durango and Silverton is the Silverton branch, from Durango to Silverton, of the Denver and Rio Grande Western. The other narrow gauge lines of the D&RGW that were still running after WWII were from Alamosa to Durango, with dual gauge, still operating as standard gauge, Alamosa to Antonito; plus the narrow-gauge Durangno - Farmington, NM. line. The other remnant of this post WWII narrow-gauge system is the Cumbres and Toltec, running between Antonito and Chama. In a water-cooling smokestack the exhaust passes through a pipe surrounded by water that is continually circulated through cooling fins located elsewhere on the (usually a side) of the locomotive.
Thanks, Dave.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/08/ole-locomotive-no-476-back-in-service-durango-railroad-winter/
daveklepper In a water-cooling smokestack the exhaust passes through a pipe surrounded by water that is continually circulated through cooling fins located elsewhere on the (usually a side) of the locomotive.
That won't work worth a damn on actual 'sparks', and has been known not to since around the turn of the 20th Century.
These are particulates that are heated well above 'ignition' temperature but have passed through the tubes/flues and through the front end, not actively burning due to the effective reduction atmosphere in the gas space. If they pass through the screens in the 'self-cleaning' front end the particles may be triturated or broken to expose fresh surface or unevaporated volatile matter. When these are ejected and pass out of the steam blast, they mix freely with air and can quickly progress not just to incandescence but actual flame generation. The very short TOF through a putatively soot-insulated pipe on the other side of a boundary layer re-established at each 'chuff' will NOT have any effect worth noting.
What you have instead is a diamond-stack principle, where a screen over the exhaust quenches combustion in small particles (the same way a screen precludes gas ignition in a miner's lamp) while redirecting larger ones 'out and down' into the hopper represented by the 'balloon' or expanded shape of the stack. (The actual 'chimney', of normal stovepipe or tapered proportions, is hidden inside the outer casing just as a waist or legs gets concealed in forms of skirt.) If you look at the Isaac Dripps 'Monster' you can see some of the construction details involved in such a thing recognized at a very early stage of locomotive practice. This requires additional energy in the 'blast' to get the same combustion-gas flow characteristics, but that is relatively easily arranged through front-end design and willingness to adjust cutoff or tolerate higher back pressure.
Where the 'water cooling' comes in is that sparks separated into the hopper are still at elevated temperature, and can warp the metal of which the hopper is made 'enough' to allow air leaks at seams and hatches. This will rapidly introduce stack-like convection through the mass, reignite any unburned carbon, and cause more trouble than anyone would want. The effective place to implement water-cooling is here, in the stack bottom.
If you could adequately filter out the effect of any critical 'fines' having to pass through a circulating pump or radiating pipes, the easiest way to accomplish cooling is indeed to circulate water -- but through a water pool or adequate form of heat exchanger in direct contact with sparks that have come to rest after separation.
There is an alternative version that we've talked about in the past, which uses a 'ring manifold' and nozzles at the top rim of the stack to spray active water (probably not steam except in evaporation or entrainment) to quench actual radiant heat. I don't think that with the advent of better water quality or chemical treatment of feedwater -- or the growing recognition of decreasing a big or fast locomotive's effective water rate -- these things saw long service, although you will see them on unexpected locomotives sometimes.
azrail USFS is a part of the Ag Dept.
That's correct, but it's about time that is was moved under the Department of the Interior...you know, the agency responsible for all Federal lands and there use.
Also, as far as I know they really couldn't restrict the D&S from running their engines during high fire danger...and as someone else pointed out, the cinders are cooled off with a water spray anyways.
CSSHEGEWISCH The Monarch Branch continued as an isolated narrow-gauge stub until it was converted to standard gauge in 1955. My January 1953 copy of the OG also shows several other narrow-gauge lines in Rio Grande's entry although they may have been on the verge of abandonment.
The entire "Narrow Guage Circle" was intact after the end of WWII, includng Alamosa-Salida-Montrose-Ouray, Crested Butte and Baldwin branches, and the RGS. Most of this was gone between 1949 and 1954.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR..and as someone else pointed out, the cinders are cooled off with a water spray anyways.
Except for the ones they missed. Or the ones that smolder unnoticed, like the match heads Smokey Bear told us to be sure to 'hold 'til cold'.
One such, according to the Federal fact-finding, started the 416 Fire.
The idea of killing everything dangerous was behind the original Salk vaccine, too, and likewise it didn't always work. There are often better arrangements than that. In the case of steam locomotives, one such arrangement is to eliminate sparks from either the stack or the grate -- oil firing reduces much of the spark and crud danger, and pressurized-oil firing reduces any potential flaming dribble or droplets.
You're right that it isn't the Government's job to prevent operation during fire time. That's the job of plaintiff's bar in the courts once harm can be effectively (if not fairly or reasonably) established, and of course that's going to be where the judgments of concern to the current D&S operation will be. It's also a sure concern for any successor organization that thinks freedom is the same thing as liberty without reasonable regard for consequences.
I also agree that 'punitive damages' aren't really warranted here; it's a plea for political advantage at low effective cost. Those are for continued depraved indifference, not accidental omission of proven attempts at safe practice even when rooted in wrong ideas.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.