Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[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?
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