Could steam make a comeback?

[carnej1]

....but the fact remains that you get a product that is cost competive(and getting more so day by day) with petroleum based fuels and is usable in any diesel engine.

But, it is not competitive with the cost of mineral coal which is far cheaper per applied BTU.

 Mineral coal which cannot be used "as is" in existing diesel powered vehicles/equipment. Thus mineral coal cannot replace petroleum refined fuel without replacing the vehicle itself(I am stating the obvious). We could discuss the possibility of converting diesels to dual fuel or spark initiated engines using producer gas from onboard solid fuel-to-gas converters but I think you'd agree that's not very feasible on a large scale (not to mention it might cost nearly as much as replacing the locomotive/machine, etc.)

 Your point raises an interesting question though. In the last couple of decades there have been a small number of new built coal fired cargo ships. IINM these have mostly been colliers(bulk transports for coal, kind of an obvious choice for this technology). Given that these vessels obviously share a lot of "off the shelf" propulsion technology (turbines, shafts, some of the steam plant) with other modern steamships using "conventional" fuels why has the shipping industry shifted (back) to this technology wholesale?

[carnej1]

Well and here's another angle to throw into this whole thing,( as if one was needed ) you can run trains on coal or diesel, as of right now you can run cars and light & heavy trucks on diesel but not on coal, at least not in a practical way, so given that we supposedly have only a finite amount of fossil fuel, would it not be more sensible to use it where it can't be substituted for some thing else?.

 ....Or you can run Cars, light & heavy trucks, trains, ships, planes and anything else with an engine on fuel produced from coal. Coal is after all a fossil fuel. There is nothing untried or unproven about the technology to convert it into other fuels suitable for transportation.

 

Can you please tell me where the refineries that make this fuel are located and who owns and operates them, and also what the cost per gallon is?, thanks.

As I stated in an earlier post simply google "coal-to-liquids" and you will get plenty of links to actual companies. The reason that this technology is still in it's infancy in North America is that historically the costs have not been competitive due to the (relatively) low cost of conventional diesel. Obviously this has started to change with soaring oil prices. We could also speculate that there may be some reluctance on the part of "big oil" to purchase product from sources other than their own refineries. This is why it seems to be the coal mining companies that are driving this development (and I am not aware that they are investing any money into modern steam locomotive development). Among the organizations investing in this are the United States Airforce(for Jet Fuel manufacture) And Norfolk Southern Corp. (whose primary business, IINM is railroad freight transportation). BNSF has also shown some interest. There are projects operating both in the westen coal producing regions as well as Appalachia.

 Mr. Sol is 100% correct that converting coal into synfuel increases the cost per BTU but the fact remains that you get a product that is cost competive(and getting more so day by day) with petroleum based fuels and is usable in any diesel engine.

These links have some good info:

http://www.syntroleum.com/Main.aspx

http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=600003&rootid=2

http://www.syntroleum.com/Main.aspx

[Anonymous]

I do not see Nimbyism as much of an issue on converting locomotive propulsion systems.

Hmmm...the resident NIMBY's saw fit to complain about the smoke output from the D&S -- enough that the D&S hired a firm to look into the issue, IIRC.

I could see NIMBYism being a real concern for any conversion back to steam locomotion, even if it is cleaner. The public perception could easily equate new steam to older, dirtier steam.

I would not be surprised if the mass conversion to coal combustion on the railroads would raise a few eyebrows in today's world where CO2 has become a pollutant.

Over the last 4-6 years, the D&S railroad in Colorado has been met with a rising tide of Durango residents objecting to the smell and soot of coal smoke that is produced by engines idling overnight.  Initially, this was classic NIMBYISM with people objecting to a nuisance created by a business, which had been there long before the complainers.  Often these nimbys were met with the argument that they should not have moved in there if they did not like smoke. 

But times have changed.  The self-interest of the nimbys complaining about the smell of smoke began to evolve into a consciousness of the smoke causing damage to the environment.  Now the issue has evolved further and is seen as the D&S having an excessive carbon footprint.  This infamy has led to a movement of people who are dedicated to correcting the problem by purchasing carbon credits to offset the damage done to the environment by the D&S.  The general sentiment behind this movement is the acceptance of the steam locomotive nostalgia and the benefit it brings to Durango in the form of tourist dollars, but with the recognition that the attraction is harmful to the planet.

Here's the story:

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=earth&article_path=/earth/08/earth080306_1.htm

 

[carnej1]

Could coal make a comeback without steam?

Wasn't there quite a bit of interest in gas turbine locomotives during the transition from steam to diesel?  If I understand it correctly, they burn coal in a firebox, and send the resulting expanding gas of combustion directly into a turbine.  I always heard that the main problem encountered was fly ash eroding the turbine blades.  That seems like such a specific problem that I would think there would be some way to solve it.  I don't know how it all shakes out in terms of power engineering, but the concept of burning coal and turning it directly into mechanical energy without making steam, seems intriguing in its simplicity.

Has anybody ever explored the possibility of directing a stream of pressurized combustion gas into a reciprocating engine rather than into a turbine?  This would be like an internal combustion engine, except the combustion would be external.

 Caterpillar holds several patents on solid fuel gas producer systems suitable for mobile (specifically locomotive)applications. These are meant to supply producer gas to dual fuel or spark initiated gas(cng) engines.I believe Tom Blasingame(modern Steam designer) was involved in these designs, according to his online bio worked on similiar systems with MK rail(he also holds a patent on a slug/tender which would house such a device). I don't believe a prototype was ever constructed.

  I also saw some documents online some years back that detailed an EMD engineering study for a gas turbine electric locomotive using a gasifier system (as opposed to burning pulverized caol in the turbine like the UP experiment). These dated from the late 80's/early 90's, the same time period when GE was trying to develop coal slurry fueled diesel engine. There were part of a research paper written by an enginnerring student who (IIRC) had intereed at EMD.

Links to patents:

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=sy8hAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PD4mAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22solid+fuel%22++%26+%22gasifier%22+%26+%22locomotive%22

[KCSfan]

"Could steam make a comeback?" In a word, Yes. Is steam likely to make a comeback? In a word, No, at least not reciprocating steam.

If I interpret some of Michael Sol's comments correctly he believes that the wholesale scrapping of the steam fleets and the rush to dieselize decades ago was a mistake. I respect his comments because he backs them up with references to studies in which he participated and/or researched. On the other hand this flies in the face of the prevaling decision made by all railroad managements. 

GM's EMD probably had 10 times the R&D capabilities and funding of Baldwin, ALCO and Lima combined. The latter three failed to explore the innovations in reciprocating steam that Porta and a few others later pioneered. I can understand such railroads as the KCS and GM&O, whose worn out steamers needed to be replaced anyway, "falling for" EMD's promises of the diesels advantages of MU capability, operating and maintenance cost savings, etc. But if reciprocating steam was really superior I am hard pressed to understand why say the N&W, with its fleet of largely modern Roanoke built engines and its ties to the coal industry, finally went for diesel electrics. To me at least, this seems to offer empirical evidence that, all things considered, diesels in fact were superior to the reciprocating steam engines of the 1950's.

The increasing cost of diesel fuel comes up time and again in the replies on this thread as an argument to support the return to coal fired steam. It just ain't so guys! The higher diesel prices are merely passed along to the shippers as a fuel surcharge. Both the railroads and the trucking industry do this. Fuel costs are a higher percentage of the total cost of highway transport than they are for rail so in fact the higher diesel prices go, the greater shipping cost advantage the railroads have over their truck competetion. I'll repeat what I've said in earlier replies; as long as the railroads can tack a fuel surcharge onto the rates charged the shippers there is little or no incentive to scrap their diesel engine fleets and take on the heavy debt burden of new engines such as steam and the support infrastructure that would be required! 

If and when the railroads seriously consider another form of motive power I am convinced it will be full electric. An argument can easily be made for the electrification of heavily trafficed main lines and I think Michael Sol's case study of the Milwaukee Road supports this conclusion. Of course the financial benefits wouldn't be realized until some years in the future when the initial cost of electrification is fully recovered through operating cost savings. In the meantime the debt service charges would depress both railroad profits and stock prices. For this reason alone I don't see any major electrification projects coming on stream any time in the near future.

Of course electrification is not the topic of this thread which originally related only to a comeback by steam. Likewise gas turbines and the conversion of coal to diesel fuel which has been much discussed in preceding replies has nothing to do with the original question.  

Mark

     

[MichaelSol]

....but the fact remains that you get a product that is cost competive(and getting more so day by day) with petroleum based fuels and is usable in any diesel engine.

But, it is not competitive with the cost of mineral coal which is far cheaper per applied BTU.

 Mineral coal which cannot be used "as is" in existing diesel powered vehicles/equipment. Thus mineral coal cannot replace petroleum refined fuel without replacing the vehicle itself(I am stating the obvious).

Neither the cheaper coal nor the more expensive synfuel can be used in a diesel electric; the former at all, the latter because it doesn't exist -- without expensive and massive new infrastructure in conversion facilities.

The diesel-electric is inherently a short-lived machine. That would allow conversion over time without expensive write downs. Steam would be a cheaper motive power with much longer service life. Synfuels generally cost as much as diesel; the price differential has never been sufficient to promote commercial production and for so long as there is a reasonable link between mineral coal and oil costs, it never will. PRB coal was $6 a ton; now its in the $14 range -- it has doubled in price but continues to maintain almost a lock step advantage over oil. But that cost will continue to drive synfuel prices up even as the cost advantage of mineral coal will exist compared to the price of oil.

Synfuel is a mirage that cannot be compared to the economic efficiency of mineral coal for those applications that have the good fortune to be able to use mineral coal.

 

[wsherrick]

 But if reciprocating steam was really superior I am hard pressed to understand why say the N&W, with its fleet of largely modern Roanoke built engines and its ties to the coal industry, finally went for diesel electrics. To me at least, this seems to offer empirical evidence that, all things considered, diesels in fact were superior to the reciprocating steam engines of the 1950's.

The increasing cost of diesel fuel comes up time and again in the replies on this thread as an argument to support the return to coal fired steam. It just ain't so guys! The higher diesel prices are merely passed along to the shippers as a fuel surcharge. Both the railroads and the trucking industry do this. Fuel costs are a higher percentage of the total cost of highway transport than they are for rail so in fact the higher diesel prices go, the greater shipping cost advantage the railroads have over their truck competition. I'll repeat what I've said in earlier replies; as long as the railroads can tack a fuel surcharge onto the rates charged the shippers there is little or no incentive to scrap their diesel engine fleets and take on the heavy debt burden of new engines such as steam and the support infrastructure that would be required! 

Once again I'll repeat what was stated earlier in the thread.  The N&W had the highest locomotive productivity at the lowest cost over all the other railroads in its class.  This included the ALL DIESEL RAILROADS the N&W was compared against. (See Jefferies, "N&W Giant Of Steam.")  H.F. Brown debated a Mr. McClean who was a salesman for EMD over this very issue. McClean like yourself pointed out the N&W dieselization as proof of his point.  H.F. Brown easily refuted that claim. See H.F. Brown's report on the subject.  This debate is in the report.  The N&W did not CHOOSE to dieselize, they were FORCED to dieselize.  They had no other option.  The supporting industry for Steam was gone, they no longer could build new steam locomotives to replace the older ones that were coming due.  To dieselize the N&W went into debt for a whopping 86 MILLION dollars.  That's million with a M. That was the first time in its history that the N&W had to go into debt other than some bond interest payments that were taken out of gross earnings. The payment to service this debt was in excess of 7 million per year.   

Now as one who is in the Railroad Industry I am constantly exposed to current and future possible trends in the business.  Yes, the Class Ones can charge fuel surcharges, but if you haven't heard our good folks up in Congress are in the process of setting up further caps on how much the railroads can charge.  In fact, they found that the fuel surcharges are excessive and soon this windfall will not be nearly so large. Restrictions on fuel surcharges have been already put in place over a year ago by the Surface Transportation Board. The spectre of re-regulation is rearing its ugly head as well.  I own stock in UP and CN and in my quarterly reports I get to read how many millions these and other railroads are spending up on Capitol Hill to lobby against these upcoming changes which could very well recreate the situation that existed in the 1970's.

[Anonymous]

Could coal make a comeback without steam?

Wasn't there quite a bit of interest in gas turbine locomotives during the transition from steam to diesel?  If I understand it correctly, they burn coal in a firebox, and send the resulting expanding gas of combustion directly into a turbine.  I always heard that the main problem encountered was fly ash eroding the turbine blades.  That seems like such a specific problem that I would think there would be some way to solve it.  I don't know how it all shakes out in terms of power engineering, but the concept of burning coal and turning it directly into mechanical energy without making steam, seems intriguing in its simplicity.

Has anybody ever explored the possibility of directing a stream of pressurized combustion gas into a reciprocating engine rather than into a turbine?  This would be like an internal combustion engine, except the combustion would be external.

 Caterpillar holds several patents on solid fuel gas producer systems suitable for mobile (specifically locomotive)applications. These are meant to supply producer gas to dual fuel or spark initiated gas(cng) engines.I believe Tom Blasingame(modern Steam designer) was involved in these designs, according to his online bio worked on similiar systems with MK rail(he also holds a patent on a slug/tender which would house such a device). I don't believe a prototype was ever constructed.

  I also saw some documents online some years back that detailed an EMD engineering study for a gas turbine electric locomotive using a gasifier system (as opposed to burning pulverized caol in the turbine like the UP experiment). These dated from the late 80's/early 90's, the same time period when GE was trying to develop coal slurry fueled diesel engine. There were part of a research paper written by an enginnerring student who (IIRC) had intereed at EMD.

Links to patents:

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=sy8hAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PD4mAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22solid+fuel%22++%26+%22gasifier%22+%26+%22locomotive%22

carnej1,

Thanks for posting those patents on coal gasification.  I want to learn more about that process.  But I want to clarify a point about the distinction between two different methods of combusting coal; the gas producer and the gas turbine.  I am not suggesting that one is better than the other for railroad application, but only want to clarify the difference between them because the labels make them sound the same. 

Back on page 5, I posted some possible variations of a coal burning locomotive drive train including this variation:

5)        Some version of a coal fired gas producer that would drive either a turbine or a reciprocating engine, which in turn would drive an alternator, which would produce electric current to drive conventional traction motors.

I should not have used the term gas producer because that designates a specific type of combustor that is not a part of what I was suggesting by this alternative #5.  The gas producer or gasifier process produces fuel gas that can then be burned either directly in the firebox where the gasification process is taking place, or it can be piped to fuel an internal combustion engine such as a diesel. 

What I intended in alternative #5 is a combustion chamber where coal is fully burned for power, rather than being cooked to drive off flammable gas that can be used for fuel to produce power in a second combustion process.   The process of alternative #5 does produce gas, but it is the expansive gas of full combustion that can be used to drive a turbine.  This gas is not a fuel gas, but rather, a hot, expanding gas that produces physical pressure like that of an explosion.  It could drive a turbine or a reciprocating engine just like pressurized steam does.

I am not sure what the proper name for this system is, but it is the basis of what is referred to as a gas turbine engine.  I assume that this was the basis of the early U.P. gas turbine locomotive experiments.  But I am curious to know if it has ever been used to drive a reciprocating engine rather than a turbine.

I know there have been experiments to burn coal in diesel engines with combustion occurring within the cylinders just like petroleum fuel is burned.  What happens if you burn coal outside of the engine in a larger combustion chamber and conduct the expanding gas into the engine through admission valves?  I am looking for information on this approach.

[rrandb]

Steam already has made a come back in rubber tire teck. BMW has an engine recycles exhaust heat for booster engine to supplement petrol. Improves milage by 25%. works even better with constant RPM diesels. A petro/steam hybrid anyone? Stay happy RMRx2

[carnej1]

Could coal make a comeback without steam?

Wasn't there quite a bit of interest in gas turbine locomotives during the transition from steam to diesel?  If I understand it correctly, they burn coal in a firebox, and send the resulting expanding gas of combustion directly into a turbine.  I always heard that the main problem encountered was fly ash eroding the turbine blades.  That seems like such a specific problem that I would think there would be some way to solve it.  I don't know how it all shakes out in terms of power engineering, but the concept of burning coal and turning it directly into mechanical energy without making steam, seems intriguing in its simplicity.

Has anybody ever explored the possibility of directing a stream of pressurized combustion gas into a reciprocating engine rather than into a turbine?  This would be like an internal combustion engine, except the combustion would be external.

 Caterpillar holds several patents on solid fuel gas producer systems suitable for mobile (specifically locomotive)applications. These are meant to supply producer gas to dual fuel or spark initiated gas(cng) engines.I believe Tom Blasingame(modern Steam designer) was involved in these designs, according to his online bio worked on similiar systems with MK rail(he also holds a patent on a slug/tender which would house such a device). I don't believe a prototype was ever constructed.

  I also saw some documents online some years back that detailed an EMD engineering study for a gas turbine electric locomotive using a gasifier system (as opposed to burning pulverized caol in the turbine like the UP experiment). These dated from the late 80's/early 90's, the same time period when GE was trying to develop coal slurry fueled diesel engine. There were part of a research paper written by an enginnerring student who (IIRC) had intereed at EMD.

Links to patents:

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=sy8hAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PD4mAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22solid+fuel%22++%26+%22gasifier%22+%26+%22locomotive%22

carnej1,

Thanks for posting those patents on coal gasification.  I want to learn more about that process.  But I want to clarify a point about the distinction between two different methods of combusting coal; the gas producer and the gas turbine.  I am not suggesting that one is better than the other for railroad application, but only want to clarify the difference between them because the labels make them sound the same. 

Back on page 5, I posted some possible variations of a coal burning locomotive drive train including this variation:

5)        Some version of a coal fired gas producer that would drive either a turbine or a reciprocating engine, which in turn would drive an alternator, which would produce electric current to drive conventional traction motors.

I should not have used the term gas producer because that designates a specific type of combustor that is not a part of what I was suggesting by this alternative #5.  The gas producer or gasifier process produces fuel gas that can then be burned either directly in the firebox where the gasification process is taking place, or it can be piped to fuel an internal combustion engine such as a diesel. 

What I intended in alternative #5 is a combustion chamber where coal is fully burned for power, rather than being cooked to drive off flammable gas that can be used for fuel to produce power in a second combustion process.   The process of alternative #5 does produce gas, but it is the expansive gas of full combustion that can be used to drive a turbine.  This gas is not a fuel gas, but rather, a hot, expanding gas that produces physical pressure like that of an explosion.  It could drive a turbine or a reciprocating engine just like pressurized steam does.

I am not sure what the proper name for this system is, but it is the basis of what is referred to as a gas turbine engine.  I assume that this was the basis of the early U.P. gas turbine locomotive experiments.  But I am curious to know if it has ever been used to drive a reciprocating engine rather than a turbine.

I know there have been experiments to burn coal in diesel engines with combustion occurring within the cylinders just like petroleum fuel is burned.  What happens if you burn coal outside of the engine in a larger combustion chamber and conduct the expanding gas into the engine through admission valves?  I am looking for information on this approach.

 Oh, sorry I misunderstood. The only thing I've seen that is a little like that (but different) was a proposal to modify existing diesel electric locomotive engines to use expanding steam (produced by an external coal fired boiler) for compression rather than exploding gases.I believe this is on the "modern steam developments" section of the ultimate steam page.

[carnej1]

 Although I am not changing my position I do think it might be interesting for all in this discussion to read the bio/prospectus I found online for TW BlasingameCompany. I find this germane in that they are the only established engineering/manufacturing firm in the US right now(they do build truck trailer and freight car equipment(parts) IINM) trying to market modern mainline steam power. There is another company called Vapor locomotive (they have a website) which is seeking to build a biomass fueled steam electric loocomotive for switching work.

 The major question I have in reading is why do the steam designs use a rotary steam expander based on the rand cam engine technology (which is being marketed mostly for compact high RPM applications as an internal combustion engine)? They have not built any prototypes (of either the locomotive or the rotary steam engine) as far as I know but I do see that Tom Blasingame has done a fair amount of industry presentations on the concept and has applied for development grants(there's a State of California document where he proposed alternate fueled/natural gas fired versions).

 Anyway, here it is(I believe it's also been posted in older threads on this forum):

 

T. W. BLASINGAME COMPANY, INC. In 1979, Tom Blasingame, a former plans production manager and equipment designer for Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. of Boise, Idaho, formed an independent concrete and steel detailing company. The new company provided these services as a subcontractor to M-K and other large contractors and steel fabricators, and also supplied draftsmen and computer operators to M-K Rail, for that company's Boise and Australian locomotive manufacturing operations. When its personnel were not assigned to outside projects, they were assigned to design and detail the company's own equipment designs. That company, T. W. Blasingame & Associates, was later incorporated as T. W. Blasingame Company, Inc. The first in-house locomotive project was a Solid Fuel Gasifier Tractive Effort Booster Unit (TEBU) which would gasify coal or other solid fuels and make producer gas available to two adjacent Diesel-electric locomotives. At the time, Burlington Northern was trying to perfect modified EMD locomotives to run on LNG. The railroads were not interested in the Blasingame gasifier because of the possibility of a grade crossing accident with resulting fire. Another factor was the unavailability of Diesel engines capable of readily using the gaseous fuels. After a considerable amount of research into previous steam-turbine-electric and steam-electric locomotive designs, the Blasingame company began preliminary designs for its own concepts of this type of motive power. A long single unit locomotive capable of producing 6000 HP and utilizing coal or other solid fuels was designed. This locomotive design was reviewed by a number of railroads. The length was objectionable, as were the multi-axle trucks with integral draft gear, although provision had been made in the design for lateral motion devices and blind flanges on the middle axles. Because the long locomotive would have been applicable only to main line operations, the concept was altered to provide a 6000 HP locomotive on two six-axle chassis units. A smaller locomotive of 4000 HP was designed on two four axle chassis units. These were intended to be medium range locomotives for freight service. To avoid having to turn the locomotives, cabs were provided on each unit, making them equivalent of a Diesel-electric back-to-back consist. For the above locomotive designs, the Blasingame company had worked up large piston-type steam expander engines. However, the requirement to locate these reciprocating engines over the trucks limited the space available for them, and the company designed an axial-piston engine capable of producing 7000 HP at 500 RPM and 300 PSI steam pressure. This engine was intended to replace the large vertical or V-Type piston engines previously used in the TWBCO steam-electric locomotive designs. About this time, Boise-based M-K Rail was busily developing LNG fueled switcher locomotives using spark-ignition Caterpillar engines. The Blasingame company made arrangements with a manufacturer of large opposed-piston engines to use their engines in locomotives. These were true dual-fuel Diesel engines, capable of operating either on Diesel fuel or on 1% Diesel fuel and 99% LNG. The locomotives designed were an 1800 HP switcher, a 3000 HP road switcher, a 4200 HP road freight locomotive, and a larger twin-engined locomotive of either 6000 or 8400 HP for long haul service. These locomotives were not built, due to the rise in LNG prices, lack of LNG fueling infrastructure, and failure of the engine manufacturer to provide any assistance monetarily or in the form of a demonstrator engine. Concurrently with the design of the above Diesel-electric locomotives, the Blasingame company was refining its earlier steam-electric locomotive designs. The design of a new rotary steam expander engine was under way. This new engine had no valves, no pistons, no cylinders, no crankshaft, no camshaft, and only two main bearings. It would turn at 1200 RPM and develop 6395 HP at 300 PSI steam pressure. The estimated weight was 13,500 Lbs., and it would fit in a space envelope of 60" cubed. After reviewing the engine design, the late Dante Porta called it "The Atomic Bomb for Steam". Because of its small size and light weight, this new rotary engine would allow a much more compact locomotive to be designed. Due to its speed of 1200 RPM, it 1

---

Page 2

could be directly coupled to the main generator without any requirement for quill drives or other gearboxes. Previous Blasingame locomotives had used modifications of Lima's proposed "Double Belpaire" boiler, which had been proposed for Lima's 4-8-6 "Dual Service" (freight & passenger) locomotive. The steam generating unit was redesigned as an all-welded, segmented firebox fire-tube boiler which would eliminate over 5000 staybolts and greatly reduce the maintenance requirements for the steam-generating units. Other design changes were adopted to reduce the maintenance requirements for the new family of Blasingame steam-electric locomotives. A Zero-Weight-Transfer steering truck design was adopted, as well as DC traction motors without brushes or windings on the rotors. Every effort was made to simplify and eliminate maintenance requirements on all systems. In 1993, the Blasingame company designed a family of liquid-fueled steam-electric locomotives which could operate on Diesel fuel, unrefined crude oil, or other similar fuels. However, since the cost of these liquid fuels was substantially higher than for solid fuels, these locomotive designs were at a competitive cost disadvantage with solid fueled locomotives. In 1996, a new single-unit 6000 HP solid fueled steam-electric locomotive was designed by the T. W. Blasingame Company. This new locomotive would have been four feet longer than the N&W's Jawn Henry, and it would fit on a 100' turntable or transfer table. With the cab in front and the fuel bunker in the rear, two units could operate back-to-back with a consist horsepower of 12,000 in fast freight service. With a long haul tender of the same length feeding both locomotives, the operating range would be over 1000 miles. Fully condensing, the locomotives would use treated boiler water as proposed by Dante Porta for reduced boiler maintenance, and would not have been required to make frequent water stops for the long haul operations. Capable of using coal instead of Diesel fuel, these 6000 HP locomotives would not be dependent on foreign crude oil production or Diesel fuel. A fuel cost reduction of 75% would be possible, and would net a user railroad a 6.5% better bottom line compared with modern Diesel-electric locomotives. In conjunction with these upgraded locomotive designs, the Blasingame company also included refinements such as oxygen-enhanced combustion to insure that all combustible materials would be completely consumed in the firebox. A special scrubber was designed to precipitate all particles that were not combustible within the smokebox. These systems were designed to insure that the new family of steam-electric locomotives would operate cleaner, cooler and quieter than Diesel-electric locomotives. Subsequently, the two-unit solid fueled locomotives were redesigned with the new rotary steam- expander engines and the new all-welded segmented firebox boilers. The 4000 HP locomotive was upgraded to 4500 HP, and the two-cab version would compete with two 2250 HP Diesel- electric locomotives in heavy hump yard or branch line service. The 6000 HP two-unit locomotives were upgraded to 9000 HP, and would compete in medium range freight service with two 4500 HP Diesel-electrics. The 4500 HP steam-electric locomotive could also operate as a 3.2 MW mobile electric generating plant for standby, emergency or industrial power generation. The 9000 HP steam-electric locomotive could generate 6.4 MW of electric power in these services. In 2001, the Blasingame Company designed a new heavy haul single unit solid fueled locomotive of 7500 HP. Using the same basic upper unit, but with steam pressure increased to 360 PSI, the new unit would have 2 more axles than the 6000 HP fast freight locomotive. The wheelbase was increased by one foot. Again designed to operate back-to-back, with or without a long distance solid fuel tender, these locomotives were designed specifically for long haul drag freight or helper service on mountain railroads. With the additional carrying capability, a BTU Recovery System can be provided to utilize the electric power generated during Dynamic Braking to generate additional steam rather than dissipating the energy into the atmosphere as is done on many Diesel-electric locomotives. 2

---

Page 3

Fueling of these solid fueled steam-electric locomotives can be accomplished using the same equipment that is used to load unit-train coal cars. The largest bulk materials handling company in the United States has stated that they would build, own and operate the solid fuel dispensing stations at no capital cost to the railroads if suitable long-term fuel supply contracts can be arranged. The T. W. Blasingame Company has designed solid fueled semi-tractors which can deliver the solid fuels to locomotives in the field when such services are requested by the railroads. The cost of these domestic solid fuels is approximately 25% the cost of Diesel fuel. The T. W. Blasingame Company has a program of licensing the manufacture of its locomotive designs on a non-exclusive basis. This program includes the supplying of its proprietary components through its subsidiary Neutral Vender marketing company, DST Special Products Group, Inc. These components are available to the manufacturing licensees and to the railroad industry worldwide. T. W. Blasingame Company, Inc., and its licensees will provide these locomotives, long distance tenders and other equipment on a full service lease in which all maintenance services will be provided. This eliminates any requirement for a railroad to stock special parts for the steam- electric locomotives or retrain its maintenance personnel, since all maintenance services are provided through the full service lease program. The steam-electric locomotives designed by the Blasingame company have not been built to date. The company has requested funding from the federal government to build and test the prototypes, but has been advised that such funding is not available. The T. W. Blasingame Company continues to seek funding for its alternate fueled locomotive development project through grants, strategic alliances or joint ventures. With the prospect of worldwide crude oil production peaking, increased crude oil demand from China, India and other emerging countries rising, and the prospect of loss of crude oil processing capability in the United States, the factors encouraging such funding are increasing. The current practice of US railroads to add fuel surcharges to their freight bills to recover the high cost of fuel for Diesel-electric locomotives removes the incentive for these railroads to adopt solid fuels as a replacement for Diesel fuel. The railroads have stated that they will continue to add these fuel surcharges regardless of how high the cost of Diesel fuel may go. When asked what they would do if Diesel fuel was not available at any cost, these US railroads have no contingency plan. Only when Diesel fuel is no longer available, or until required to do so by the federal government, will the US railroads become interested in leasing alternate fueled motive power. In the interim, the T. W. Blasingame Company is adapting its alternate fueled locomotive designs to meet the requirements of railroads in other countries that do not wish to pay excessive prices for petroleum based fuels. These foreign railroads have access to low cost solid fuels which allow them to avoid the high fuel costs of imported petroleum fuels. For additional information, contact T. W. BLASINGAME COMPANY, INC. Post Office Box 1532 Boise, Idaho 83701-1532 208-345-5457 208-342-6879 Fax [e-mail] 3

[tattooguy67]

Ok in answer to the coal to liquids and coal gasification comments posted here i have this to say. First off i did not find much in the way of hard "this is what it costs to produce a gallon of this fuel " type facts, i found no pictures of refineries currently producing coal to liquid fuel in this country, i did find one article from 2006 saying their is going to be one in Pennsylvania in 2009 but nothing newer, and some articles about power plants that are using coal gasification now to produce power. Second off i did see a whole lot of words like can, maybe, might, could,possibly,theoreticaly, and the like, also saw phrases like "in the future"," with advancments in technology it could","with new co2 capture techniques it might" ect ect, and frankly i found a lot of really negative stuff about both of the above mentioned. So i will state again my thoughts, if some thing really bad happened to our supply of oil or our ability to refine it into diesel fuel we could  i think produce a new generation coal burning steam locomotive in a relativly short amount of time, whereas it to me looks like we are years from producing enough diesel fuel from coal to matter much, and i will ask again, are there right now in operation in this country any refineries producing coal to liquid fuels, if so how much are they producing, and what is the cost per gallon to produce it?.

[carnej1]

Ok in answer to the coal to liquids and coal gasification comments posted here i have this to say. First off i did not find much in the way of hard "this is what it costs to produce a gallon of this fuel " type facts, i found no pictures of refineries currently producing coal to liquid fuel in this country, i did find one article from 2006 saying their is going to be one in Pennsylvania in 2009 but nothing newer, and some articles about power plants that are using coal gasification now to produce power. Second off i did see a whole lot of words like can, maybe, might, could,possibly,theoreticaly, and the like, also saw phrases like "in the future"," with advancments in technology it could","with new co2 capture techniques it might" ect ect, and frankly i found a lot of really negative stuff about both of the above mentioned. So i will state again my thoughts, if some thing really bad happened to our supply of oil or our ability to refine it into diesel fuel we could  i think produce a new generation coal burning steam locomotive in a relativly short amount of time, whereas it to me looks like we are years from producing enough diesel fuel from coal to matter much, and i will ask again, are there right now in operation in this country any refineries producing coal to liquid fuels, if so how much are they producing, and what is the cost per gallon to produce it?.

 To directly answer your question there are some pilot projects to produce transportation fuel but there are not yet large scale commercial plants in North America. There is a commercial coal to "natural"  gas plant in operation in the northern Powder River Basin.However I would ask that if this is such a crazy, impractical idea why is it that the coal industry is actively promoting and developing it and companies such as Norfolk Southern (a railroad which hauls lots of coal) are investing in it? SASOL in South Africa produces plenty of commercial Synfuel (from coal and natural gas) and sells it prices competitive with petroleum diesel. There was a country called Germany that back in the 1940's had someting very bad happen to their oil supply(a crisis of their own doing, O.C) and they succesfully developed a synthetic fuels industry (which unfortunately allowed them to continue fighting WWII for a few more years). Of course the Axis used mostly steam railroad traction but they still wanted to keep the trucks and tanks rolling and the planes flying.

 Of course it is possible to build modern steam locomotives which would operate economically but there is the small problem of convincing the railroads to purchase them. There have been a number of serious attempts but so far no takers.... 

 

[carnej1]

Ok in answer to the coal to liquids and coal gasification comments posted here i have this to say. First off i did not find much in the way of hard "this is what it costs to produce a gallon of this fuel " type facts, i found no pictures of refineries currently producing coal to liquid fuel in this country, i did find one article from 2006 saying their is going to be one in Pennsylvania in 2009 but nothing newer, and some articles about power plants that are using coal gasification now to produce power. Second off i did see a whole lot of words like can, maybe, might, could,possibly,theoreticaly, and the like, also saw phrases like "in the future"," with advancments in technology it could","with new co2 capture techniques it might" ect ect, and frankly i found a lot of really negative stuff about both of the above mentioned. So i will state again my thoughts, if some thing really bad happened to our supply of oil or our ability to refine it into diesel fuel we could  i think produce a new generation coal burning steam locomotive in a relativly short amount of time, whereas it to me looks like we are years from producing enough diesel fuel from coal to matter much, and i will ask again, are there right now in operation in this country any refineries producing coal to liquid fuels, if so how much are they producing, and what is the cost per gallon to produce it?.

Another linf to an actual company with estimates and projections:

 

http://www.rentechinc.com/rentech-projects.htm

[wsherrick]

 

 When asked what they would do if Diesel fuel was not available at any cost, these US railroads have no contingency plan.

This is taken out of the report posted above.  This statement should reveal the innovative, creative, forward thinking that goes on in typical railroad management.  To me, baby, it says it ALL!!!  Need anymore be said?

[KCSfan]

 

 When asked what they would do if Diesel fuel was not available at any cost, these US railroads have no contingency plan.

This is taken out of the report posted above.  This statement should reveal the innovative, creative, forward thinking that goes on in typical railroad management.  To me, baby, it says it ALL!!!  Need anymore be said?

That's kind of a doomsday scenario isn't it?

To expand on your topic, what contingency plans do the trucking and barge transport industries have in place? They after all are just as dependent on diesel fuel as are the railroads. I'll answer my own question: they have NONE either! The management of the entire transportation industry are not fools. They simply have better and more productive issues to think about than address such a hypothetical scenario.

Mark

[tattooguy67]

Thanks for the info Carnej1, i checked out that site, and while it has some interesting info the thing i took away from it mostly was we are not there yet, they have not even built the little pilot project that would produce 10 barrels a day, and all the rest was expected to do this and agreement to do that. Look i am not trying to pick on you here guy, not at all, you are very informed about this subject and have a passion for it, and i do not think it crazy in the least!, we do need to do some things like this for the long term, but again what i am talking about is here and now, we are at the point where if 1 or 2 refineries shut down for an extended period it would more then likely double the price of fuel. And the German example you give is good except for one thing, if i am remembering right that program never did produce that much fuel, and it was'nt just because of our bombing.As far as the railroads not wanting to use steam i have 2 thoughts on that, 1. if i had spent that much on one type of locomotive i would not want to scrap the whole kit and kaboodle either, and please remember i am not trying to make the argument that steam is better, i am saying its an alternative if diesel dries up, and 2. does any one know how much railroad stock the oil companies own?.

[wsherrick]

 

 When asked what they would do if Diesel fuel was not available at any cost, these US railroads have no contingency plan.

This is taken out of the report posted above.  This statement should reveal the innovative, creative, forward thinking that goes on in typical railroad management.  To me, baby, it says it ALL!!!  Need anymore be said?

That's kind of a doomsday scenario isn't it?

To expand on your topic, what contingency plans do the trucking and barge transport industries have in place? They after all are just as dependent on diesel fuel as are the railroads. I'll answer my own question: they have NONE either! The management of the entire transportation industry are not fools. They simply have better and more productive issues to think about than address such a hypothetical scenario.

Mark

I have worked for four different railroads and a trucking company during my travels.  I know first hand about the transportation industry.  The issues they are concerned with are how to make a buck today,looking over one's shoulder to see what somebody else is doing, wondering why one wasn't invited to the bosses poker game after work; and the hell with tomorrow if, "we," don't have to think about it.  Who is the smartest Lemming?  The first one to jump off the cliff or the last one.  I think the end result is the same either way.

[MichaelSol]

The problem is risk. The success of synfuels depends entirely on the price of oil. The cost to produce synfuels to market is well within the recent variation of the price of oil. What does that mean? When the cost of oil drops below the cost of synfuel, synfuel goes broke. And the cost to produce and market oil, ultimately, always "can" be below the cost of synfuel. That will be in the back of every synfuel investor's mind. And every Oil Minister's mind. The oil brokers will always control the synfuel market by periodic drops in the price of oil and wipe out synfuel on a periodic basis. Projections are that oil will collapse to $50 a barrel. That is far below the cost to produce synfuel. Who wants to take the risk when you know there are governments out there that intend to destroy your investment to protect their political ambitions and the leverage that oil gives them?

That can't happen with mineral coal. Oil can't beat that price.

Trucks have no back-up plan because there is no reasonable alternative. Railroads have the alternative. Unfortunately, given the current structure of the rail industry, in which 4-6 people ultimately control its direction, as the low cost alternative operating at capacity there is no competitive incentive to lower costs by conversion to mineral coal.

.

[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. 

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?    

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. 

[Anonymous]

 

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. 

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?    

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. 

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 Force

Meeting Minutes

July 12, 2007 3:00-5:00pm

Anasazi Room, La Plata County Courthouse

 

V.  Discussions with Nigel Day

Steve 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:

• 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.
• Two designs would need to be done for the engines
• 1 design would need to be done for the spark arrester (Nigel was doubtful it would work with the existing spark arresters)
• DSNGRR could perform all the necessary machining and improvements except they would need rolled steel.
• Have to do the improvements in winter
• 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.
• 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.
• Jessey said she would contact the N. Hampshire Railroad about what they do.
• Nigel stated that he would remain as part of the Wasatch team and working with him would require going through Wasatch.
• 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.

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?

[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. 

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?    

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. 

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 Force

Meeting Minutes

July 12, 2007 3:00-5:00pm

Anasazi Room, La Plata County Courthouse

 

V.  Discussions with Nigel Day

Steve 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:

• 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.
• Two designs would need to be done for the engines
• 1 design would need to be done for the spark arrester (Nigel was doubtful it would work with the existing spark arresters)
• DSNGRR could perform all the necessary machining and improvements except they would need rolled steel.
• Have to do the improvements in winter
• 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.
• 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.
• Jessey said she would contact the N. Hampshire Railroad about what they do.
• Nigel stated that he would remain as part of the Wasatch team and working with him would require going through Wasatch.
• 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.

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?

I don't know if they would as the engine is not operating, however; it doesn't mean that a conversion for testing purposes shouldn't be done to learn from it and move forward.  The locomotives appearance wouldn't be altered very much if at all.

From what I can gather from your post the D&S has a combination of problems.  From the legal standpoint; if Colorado is like where I live the Railroad is a public utility regulated by the FRA and thus is exempt from most if not all State and Local ordinances if push came to shove.  I've been there, however; taking that stand is only the last resort if the issues with the community can't be solved otherwise.  It is useless to go over why the towns of Durango and Silverton exist as they do and why the Railroad is the historic reason for it unless it has to be used as a bargaining chip. No railroad= no tourist dollars.  A significantly altered railroad=far less tourist dollars for the communities the railroad serves.  I trust the D&S has a few good lawyers in its employ. 

First of all I don't understand why you have an ash pit that smolders as it is described.  When you shake the grates you are supposed to shake the ashes out, not live fire or coals. I have never seen an ash pit that, "smoked," unless there was a careless or a student fireman shaking the grates.  Without knowing any of the details it seems the ash pit problems are due to bad training or management.  This should not be too hard to solve. Even if you have several engines that visit the ash pit daily.

I don't know what the procedure is when the engines are put to bed.  Do you keep a live, ready fire in the engine with working pressure up overnight?  If so, this is highly unnecessary and wasteful, plus you have to have a baby sitter. Or is the fire banked, that is, do you fill up the boiler, allow the fire to burn down to almost dead then bank the fire with a mound in the center of the firebox?  Banking a fire produces lots of smoke as the coal is sitting there all night cooking out the gasses without enough heat to burn them off, but this is the traditional way to keep the engine warm and have a fire to start out with the next morning. 

Over fire air will not help in this situation since there is not enough heat in the firebox to burn the gasses and you don't want that anyway. One solution that I have heard of is to hyper-insulate the boiler and firebox to reduce heat loss during standby. If the job is done right the fire can almost burn out without the boiler cooling down to the point where there is no pressure on the gauge the next morning.  Electric heating elements can be placed in the firebox or installed at the bottom of the boiler to be plugged in after the engine is put to bed. It is best if the elements are installed into the boiler to heat the water directly and keep it circulating.  The locomotive becomes a big hot water heater overnight and if the insulation job is done right there will be steam on the gauge the next morning.  Of course electric power is costly, but it might be comparable to the cost of coal spent in keeping the engine hot, plus you've solved your smoke problem and your public relations.

Another solution is like having a house boiler but much less expensive.  The D&S doesn't have an entire division of 100 engines running 24/7 to justify having the engines on house steam.  A small hot water heater much like a home boiler with a circulator can be hooked up to the engines and it would keep the engine warm as well. It can run off of propane or some similar fuel.

Another way to mitigate smoke during steaming up is to use pallet wood from ordinary skids. Used pallets are quite cheap and burn hot enough to raise steam and burn fairly clean.  Coal is gradually introduced to the fire to slowly transition from a wood fire to a coal fire.  If I had the choice, I indeed would rebuild one locomotive with the lempor exhaust and the gas combuster firebox.  The Grand Canyon has fitted lempors with firebox mods on their locomotives with good results; locomotives with more horsepower and lowered fuel costs. I'm sure you are aware that the Union Pacific has extensively modified the Challenger with a double lempor, firebox modifications and other significant changes. I am anxiously awaiting the test results of seeing the Challenger with greatly increased horsepower for a lot less fuel. The UP has been very secretive about this project I understand. These improvements have universally worked elsewhere there is no reason not to equip one locomotive and learn from it. Its not that experimental. It would probably start a trend in this country. Anyway I hope I have given you some ideas to start with.  Good Luck.

[Anonymous]

wsherrick,

The D&S locomotives are not banked overnight.  They are fired at a level they call hot standby.  In this mode, each locomotive burns 500 pounds of coal overnight.  They are perodically fired, but I do not know how often.  They are currently experimenting with wood pellet fuel for overnight firing.  Each locomotive is fired with 1000 pounds of wood pellets during overnight hot standby. 

How much of the smoke emitted from the coal fire during this overnight hot standby phase are combustible volatiles?  Why is that combustible portion not being burned in the firebox?

[wsherrick]

Bucyrus:

All of the smoke is from unburnt volatile gasses.  The reason for this is the air/fuel combination is not proper and cannot be so while the engines are not working steam.  The air in the firebox must be at the right temperature also to burn the hydrocarbons, around 1700-1800 degrees F.  That is virtually impossible to achieve while the locomotive is not working steam. 

What I can't understand is why the railroad would keep the locomotives steamed up all night in ready condition.  This is terribly wasteful and unnecessary.  If they do this by feeding the engines overnight and do it properly there should not be that much smoke.  The qualilty of the coal is also a factor in the smoke issue, but I don't see how gradually firing the engine overnight would make that much smoke if care is taken with the firing.  Is the Railroad producing great clouds of smoke from this or are residents over reacting to any smoke period? If after the Railroad did all in their power to mitigate the smoke as much as possible and the whacko crowd still complains, then its time to draw a line in the sand I hate to say. 

[rrandb]

If you can have fireless steam engines you can hot bank engines overnight from central steam plant. cost of plant can be financed thru sale of excess heat to central business district i.e. selling cheaper heat than oil, electric, or natural gas heating to downtown. make the heat source partially solar or geo thermal and the nimbies will get on board. Should for State and Federal programs either grants or loans up to 100% if you contract the right designer. Then no one will complain about those puppies blowing smoke as high as the mountains. If you have never been to Silverton CO by rail make this a must do. words and pictures can not descibe the vibrations when you stand at the front vestibule and a narrow gauge mikado is wide open an feels like is going to come apart at any second. It makes the top every time but it always has to give everything it was made to do. ts a dam shane that only the chineas can make steam engines. Build the next gen steam engine in america buy amercans with 21st century common sense. I miss when ford was building thunderbirds. Start yesterday. Stay happy!!! RMR

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus:

All of the smoke is from unburnt volatile gasses.  The reason for this is the air/fuel combination is not proper and cannot be so while the engines are not working steam.  The air in the firebox must be at the right temperature also to burn the hydrocarbons, around 1700-1800 degrees F.  That is virtually impossible to achieve while the locomotive is not working steam. 

What I can't understand is why the railroad would keep the locomotives steamed up all night in ready condition.  This is terribly wasteful and unnecessary.  If they do this by feeding the engines overnight and do it properly there should not be that much smoke.  The qualilty of the coal is also a factor in the smoke issue, but I don't see how gradually firing the engine overnight would make that much smoke if care is taken with the firing.  Is the Railroad producing great clouds of smoke from this or are residents over reacting to any smoke period? If after the Railroad did all in their power to mitigate the smoke as much as possible and the whacko crowd still complains, then its time to draw a line in the sand I hate to say. 

I do not know why the D&S keeps the locomotives in hot standby overnight instead of banking the fires.

I understand your point about the volatiles escaping unburned because the flames quench due to the firebox temperature not being high enough, and also your point that the engine is not working, so the firebox temperature is less than its maximum potential.  But if the locomotive is being fired at the rate of 500 pounds of coal overnight, is it not possible to make this fire burn efficiently?  After all, the coal bed is burning, so there is certainly sufficient temperature at the origination of the flames.  I would think that if the proper draft, both primary and secondary, were provided (by an external system not part of the locomotive), and the draft were pre-heated to a temperature that was at least as hot as the firebox interior, the fire would burn up all the volatiles, and thus be smoke-free. 

I suppose another factor contributing to the smoke is the cool temperature of the coal being stoked.  Getting around that problem implies continuous stoking at a rate that perfectly matches the rate of consumption, as opposed to putting in an overcharge every few hours or so.  The remedy of continuous stoking suggests a portable automatic micro stoker that would continuously feed the low power fire of hot standby.

Apparently the D&S intends to solve the overnight smoke problem by expanding their current engine house scrubbers.  There has been some discussion indicating that these current scrubbers are not as effective as was expected or desired.  The plan is to improve the scrubber system, including adding a scrubber to the ash pit.  The cost for this improvement is estimated at $500,000.  There is concern about the operating cost of this new expansion of the system since the present, more limited system already costs $15,000 per month for electricity.  

In my opinion, if D&S drew a line in the sand over this smoke issue, they would lose. 

[Anonymous]

It wont ever happen.

With every major shipper getting a tax cut on fuel and shipping having a fuel surcharge that is past on to the consumers, there is no reason why they would care. Haven't you ever wondered why diesel is higher than unleaded now? It is what is supporting the US economy every time you go by a candy bar. 99% of the US market relies on products that are shipped on diesel surcharge. No reason for corporate to make a move for another fuel. The only thing that is hitting them now is the EPA and California for polution.

[Modelcar]

 

....Guess that shouldn't be a surprise to any of us....But the thought has entered my mind of the higher price of diesel compared to non leaded gasoline.

[MichaelSol]

The only area of significant difference that I was able to see a measureable improvement in during the transition from Steam to Diesel-Electric during the period 1940-1960 was in overall fuel cost per 1000 hp miles. While I have seen nothing to contradict H.F. Brown's contention that, overall, the combination of additional financing costs incurred as a result of Dieselization overwhelmed fuel and maintenance savings, it strikes me that if relative fuel costs have changed significantly since that time period, we would have to look at, based on 1955 technology, which would be more cost effective at today's fuel prices, steam or diesel, and from there, the argument can ensue as to which has enjoyed greater technological innovation since that time which might either enhance the advantage of one over the other, or mitigate the advantage.

Today, a Northern might well win the economic battle against equivalent hp EMD F Units, purely on operating costs. Click on the graph to enlarge.

[Anonymous]

My gut instinct says that steam will make a comeback as railroad motive power.  The first hint was the ACE project.  Although it seemed to have died, these things do move slowly.  It did represent a reconsideration of a trend that the mainstream dared not question.  Surely the rising price of oil is sowing the seeds of another reconsideration.  Stranger things have happened.  Caterpillar has just unveiled their latest innovation:  A diesel-electric D7 dozer.