Forums

[jsoderq]

If you do your homework you will find that coal is nowhere near the least harmful or cost effective. Why do you think they are converting power plants away from coal?

[BentnoseWillie]

QUOTE: It makes no sense, economic or strategic, to mortgage our future to the vagaries of an unstable Middle East

That would be true - if the majority of the US oil supply came from the Middle east. It does not. The largest foreign supplier of petroleum to the USA since 2001 has been Canada, at 17% of the supply, and increasing steadily. Mexico and Venezuela account for another 25%., and the total for the Middle east is 23%. While we're dreaming, a 25% cut in US demand for crude oil would in theory allow the US to drop the Middle East supply altogether. [:o]

(I wanna move to Theory...everything works In Theory!)

Coal-fired generation isn't dead, but it's declining, and in any case I don't see where the capital for the massive electrification you envision would come from, not to mention the additional MOW cost for overhead catenary.

What you're proposing is a reversal of the direction in which North American railway technology has been moving since the Second World War, a direction in which it has moved to suit the conditions under which those railways operate, the tonnages they must move, and the distances they must cover. Better to go forward by improving the technologies that won this decision half a century ago than to try and revisit that decision now.

[ndbprr]

The best way to harness the potential of coal for railroading is the way the PRR did it. Burn it in state of the art power plants with flue gas desuphurization units to prevent acid rain and use the power to run trains with electricity. BUT even the PRR preffered diesels to electric engines in the end due to their tremendous flexibility and availablity.

[kevikens]

The reason why new coal fired plants are not being built is because of the enviornmental movement. These people cannot stand the sight of a smokestack with smoke coming out of it. They would have us rely on wind and and sun and it's not going to work. There is no effective substitute for burning fossil fuels and since we cannot put coal driectly into our gas tanks let's save the petroleum for that and burn the coal to generate the electricity to power rail transport. What it comes down to is we burn either our coal or their petroleum. I know this flies in the face of the "Green" Movement and anyone who espouses this position is apt to be labelled " insensitive" to Bambi, Mother Nature and other living creatures. Buliding nuclear powered plants would help, but in this country, (but notice not others, like France), the envornmentalist are even opposed to the nuclear family. As for that 20% we get from the Middle East, yes, that statistic is correct but that "just 20%" makes all the difference between energy sufficiency and disaster and keep in mind that much of the rest of the petroleum and natural gas that we import comes from regions of the world equally unstable, West Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Who knows, maybe even Canada would get so upset over US foreign policy that it would threaten its exports to the US. As for the battle between electric and diessel powerd railroads being fought and won by the petroleum industry keep in mind that the outcome in Europe was much different. They tended to go from steam to electrics and they have not regreted the initial high costs of electrifying. Unless we reduce our reliance on petroleum as a fuel increased transportation costs will drive up the costs of doing business to the point that it will decrease our standard of living and possibly threaten our security. One way we can control costs is to go to coal fired electrical power for our railroads. Lastly, as for the cost, this is precisely why we have a federal government. If the US could subsidize the First Transcontinental railroad it could certainly. subsidize the cost of the needed infrastructure. Again it's either our coal or their petroleum

[Anonymous]

The United States is heavily dependant on tankers coming in full of oil every day. I suspect we are importing more oil in post 2000 than we did in 1975.

Today I watched a number of Pickups and SUV's fill gasoline at 2.25 a gallon. Truckers have paid higher prices for a long time. I have a feeling there is going to be a sea change in the way we supply petroleum before the USA will consider (Or forced) to change to a different form of energy.

France gets 75% of her energy from Nuclear Plants. We once had the position of providing alot of power via Nuke plants however the people put a halt to that concept. We have a little bit of everything from Hydro to Wind power.

Wait until we cannot get the oil in to satisfy the commuters. Then they will be happy to ride trains to work instead of the interstate at 80 mph.

[csxengineer98]

what some of you people fail to see..or dont know is...that the 2 main reaons for the prices of oil (gasoline) to go up are....
1...increased demaind for crude...not just in the US..but on the world market....and the number 1 reason is china... it is haveing an economic boom (thanks to walmart and eveyone that buys anything made in china from walmart)...with china buying more oil for its own uses...it drives the market value of oil up since thier is more demand across the board then thier is oil being produced.....
2.... lack of oil refiners here in the US... thier hasnt been any new oil refiners build here in the US since the 70s... (thanks to the tree hunggers once agin).....and the ones we do have still running are falling part... its not so much an issue of not getting enough oil here in the US...its the fact that we dont have the capasity to refine it here to keep up with the demainds for gas....
also..someone mentioned above that trend is to shift from coal fired power plants to oil isnt true... the shift is from coal to naturel gas fired power plants in the 70s 80s and 90s..but the same thing with oil has happend to natural gas...the need for it is greater then the amount of production can keep up...so what was cheeper to burn then coal a few decands earlier is just about as much burning coal if not more....
and on one last note.. on coal..coal is cheeper and more economical to burn..the costs that make coal unattractive is the costs of the emmistions scrubbing equipment... the emmitions controlls are exensive to put in and that is an investment that alot of power comanys dont want to make since it will take for ever for them to ever get a return on the investment of building a new one...
and now one note on electification.... it sounds good on paper... but the capital investments to build the infostructor would bankrup evey railroad in this country... and then the added costs for upkeep..and down time due to down catinary from storms and other unforseen problems that take the grid off line for how ever long...
so in short... even with the cost of fuel oil going up..it is still CHEAPER to burn it in the long run when you look at the current alternitives that are out thier at this moment...
csx engineer

[selector]

Hmmm. Steam driven trains powered by nuclear reactors. I like it!!! A small reactor heats on-board water and converts it to steam. Steam drives turbines that generate power sent to either DC motors or AC motors in the trucks. So, you'd have nuclear/steam powered locos that look like modern diesels, and that work like them from the deckplate down. Just for fun, we could even fashion some like the steamers of old with all the rods and cylinders......Hey, I said just for fun!!

[GP40-2]

Csx engineer is right on. The biggest problem is not the supply of oil, but the U.S. capacity to refine it into something useful like diesel or gasoline. Oil companies stopped building new refineries in the 70's because the peanut farmer we elected president decided to change the depreciation/tax rules to make building new refineries unprofitable. I guess he thought that would somehow reduce the demand for oil (????)

Bottom line is after inflation, fuel prices are really no more expensive than they were in the 1960's. We just got spoiled with really, really cheap fuel prices in the 80's & 90's. It is still cheaper, and considering the current alternatives, just to keep burning diesel/gasoline.

If diesel really does get expensve in relation to inflation, they will just convert coal into diesel. That doesn't solve the mining problems, but it still would be cheaper to do that than to have steam locomotives or large scale electrification.

[traintownofcowee]

Coal is good on tourist railroads. But coal being used on excursion trains could be pricey. Plus, how many coaling stations are there in America?

[Anonymous]

Coaling stations? Hah.. just a good backhoe or hydralic crane and a little time will do it.

Our family did reduce dependance on gasoline last several years by adjusting our lifestyle to be closer to home. I estimate we burn about 1500 gallons less a year of gasoline because we moved alot of things closer to our town instead of the big city far away.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Coaling stations? Hah.. just a good backhoe or hydralic crane and a little time will do it.

And how much time would need to be allowed to refill a tender with 10-15 tons of coal using that method? Coaling towers were designed to reload a tender relatively quickly by a gravity feed. Refilling the tower might take some time but that was not as important as getting the locomotive refueled promptly.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Coaling stations? Hah.. just a good backhoe or hydralic crane and a little time will do it.

And how much time would need to be allowed to refill a tender with 10-15 tons of coal using that method? Coaling towers were designed to reload a tender relatively quickly by a gravity feed. Refilling the tower might take some time but that was not as important as getting the locomotive refueled promptly.

You tempt me.

Let me just say that I have used a Cat 936 Front end loader and it might take 3 scoops to get that coal tender full. I just need two dump trucks to bring the coal. Thumpith-bang... coal dumped. Three scoops later, engine is good to go while I clean up the few tons that is left over.

=)

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Coaling stations? Hah.. just a good backhoe or hydralic crane and a little time will do it.

And how much time would need to be allowed to refill a tender with 10-15 tons of coal using that method? Coaling towers were designed to reload a tender relatively quickly by a gravity feed. Refilling the tower might take some time but that was not as important as getting the locomotive refueled promptly.

You tempt me.

Let me just say that I have used a Cat 936 Front end loader and it might take 3 scoops to get that coal tender full. I just need two dump trucks to bring the coal. Thumpith-bang... coal dumped. Three scoops later, engine is good to go while I clean up the few tons that is left over.

=)

loading coal has never been a real big time killer.... taking on water is where the real time killers are at with steam locomotives...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

I grew up on steam trains, My Father and my Grandfather both worked on the railroad. Seems that the basic problem about the lack of passenger rail service began way back in the 40's when General Motors (and the other automakers )lobbyed Congress to go the way of the bus (gas was cheap after the war ended). The buses were powered by gasoline engines. Then Eisenhower forced the creation of our great Interstate system of hiways, notice not one thing was created for railroading. We (the unwashed public) went along for the ride, after all it was easy to pop the kids in the back seat of the old jalopy and fill up the tank with 15 cents a gallon gasoline. Even in the 50's gas was at an all time high of 25 cents a gallon. A buck went further back then. Why don't we have more commuter rail systems? Ask your congressman or women, better yet, ask your neighbor. We probably won't see any increase in commuter rail systems until the "warp" engine has been perfected.
Oh I liked steam and my Grandfather hated diesels. Those days will never return.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kippster39

I grew up on steam trains, My Father and my Grandfather both worked on the railroad. Seems that the basic problem about the lack of passenger rail service began way back in the 40's when General Motors (and the other automakers )lobbyed Congress to go the way of the bus (gas was cheap after the war ended). The buses were powered by gasoline engines. Then Eisenhower forced the creation of our great Interstate system of hiways, notice not one thing was created for railroading. We (the unwashed public) went along for the ride, after all it was easy to pop the kids in the back seat of the old jalopy and fill up the tank with 15 cents a gallon gasoline. Even in the 50's gas was at an all time high of 25 cents a gallon. A buck went further back then. Why don't we have more commuter rail systems? Ask your congressman or women, better yet, ask your neighbor. We probably won't see any increase in commuter rail systems until the "warp" engine has been perfected.
Oh I liked steam and my Grandfather hated diesels. Those days will never return.

eisenhower created the interstate system for nation defence for cold war troop deployments if the old red russkies attacted...and for major metropoloten civilan evacuation routes should thier be a nuclear bomber strike from the soviets...(this all started befor the profection of the ICBM deliver system for nuclear warheads) when a long range bomber was the only way to deliver a nuclear bomb...with the ICBM evacuation is a moot point since after a launch of a ICBM was detected..it would only be about 30 mins befor the warhead reached its target...what started out as a cold war project now only is a way to get from point A to point B with no traffic lights...and higher speed....
csx engineer