I was there two years ago. One steamer and three diesels operate each day during the summer.
These steamers are very old and rebuilt a lot. Times are changing. Old timers have problems with that.
Probably one will be kept operating as long as there are parts.
The diesel requires about fifteen gallons of fuel to do a trip. The steamer, about a thousand gallons of water I believe and a ton of coal. The fireman has to go around the loco with a wrench to check many fasteners at the water stop and at the top.
Keep looking at the cog railway website. I look at the website a few times a year.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Interesting numbers.
15 gallons of #2 Diesel is 105 pounds of fuel. The steamer is then using 2000 pounds of fuel, or 19 times as much. Coal varies a lot in BTU content, but let's say 14,000 BTU/pound vs about 20,000 BTU/pound for a wide range of liquid oil-based fuels -- this puts the steamer at about 13 times as much equivalent fuel.
The Diesel is what, 35% efficient? This puts the steamer at 2.7 percent efficient?
Of they are evaporating a thousand gallons of water with a ton of coal, they are evaporating 8000 pounds of water with 2000 pounds of coal or 4 pounds of water per pound of coal. This means they are using 3500 BTU to evaporate a pound of water, which in vapor state has a heat value of anywhere from 1000-1400 BTU, depending on the boiler pressure and amount of superheat. This tells me that their combustion efficiency is in the range of 29-40 percent. That is, they burn 2-3 BTU's of coal to get a BTU of steam.
Maybe the full Chapelon-Porta-Wardale (Gas Producer fire box, superheat and a lot of it, low-restriction steam circuits, saturated-steam cooling of valves, low-restriction exhaust system, compound expansion) treatment is misplaced on this one tourist steam engine. But suppose they reduced coal usage from 2000 pounds to 700 pounds per trip (8 percent thermal efficiency -- I believe that some of the mainline steam engines -- T1, Niagara, J-class could do as well)? Would this make a difference?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
With all due respects to the engineering that would be applied in upgrading the efficiency of these locomotives, part of the appeal of the steam locomotives on Mt. Washington Cog Railway was that they were operating museum pieces. The efficiency issue may have been a cover for the fact that new parts were getting expensive and the locomotives were just plain worn out.
By comparison, Manitou & Pikes Peak got rid of its steam locomotives in the 1950's and has managed to keep up-to-date with its equipment. It also still draws a fairly substantial ridership.
Doesn't Pikes Peak have one operating steamer that is used on occasion?
When I rode on M&PP back in 1968, they had one steam locomotive on display but all of the operating railcars were diesel-powered.
1 if not of these cog locomotives have John Deere Powertech diesel engine powering them
Three, I believe.
Here's an article with some details {PDF download)
There was also an article in Design News, September 17, 2008.
Note however that these aren't intended to look at all like the 'legacy' steam engines, and in fact (although you might not suspect it) they aren't the first attempt at using biodiesel fuel on the Mt. Washington Cog Railway. Nigel Day converted engine #9 (Waumbek) in 2003, with a Lempor and some other Rankine-cycle-efficiency-increasing modifications -- the locomotive has since been converted back to 'historical' state and the whole experiment kinda downplayed in the Cog Railway's official communications...
At least one of their steam locomotives was sold off to a salvage company. This whole thing is related to the environmentalist complaining about the smoke! Same thing goes with the Grand Canyon Railroad...
This is just the beginning!
I remember a sibling taking "the kids" on the Mount Washington cog railway and then later complaining about the rain of cinders.
This is kind of like going to Yellowstone and complaining about the mists of steam. That is the point of the Mount Washington railway besides the cinders? What is next, plugging the geysers at Yellowstone because they are too dangerous to the tourists?
That said, there is a question about whether the attaction is a cog railway and Diesel is OK or whether it should be steam and if light-oil fired is OK or you need to burn coal to get the Full Experience.
Is a thermally efficient steamer with a Porta Gas Producer fire box OK, or does it have to rain cinders to be properly old-time steam railroading? Because tourist railroads are probably the last frontier for building new (thermally efficient) steam engines on account of steam engines being part of the entertainment?
Wardale alluded to this in The Red Devil and Other Tales of the Age of Steam. If you make a steam engine efficient, it won't rain cinders, make a ton of smoke, and its exhaust won't make a racket. Does this ruin some of the thrill?
Isn't Grand Canyon's steamer now "environmentally clean," and have not they adopted the same approach with converting their diesels to natural or compressed gas?
Only the geezers complain about the bio diesel and lack of more steam on the Cog Railway. The mountain is the draw.
I made a video of me putting my left arm out of the passenger car window with the the loco stack about ten feet behind me. In about 12 seconds my arm was covered with soot.
Because of all the moving parts on the loco, the fireman has to do hardware checks with an adjustable wrench at every stop.
Not so with the bio diesel. I looked very carefully at the diesel and quite a piece of machinery. Warmer weather, the side panels are removed for a clear view of the insides of the prime mover and hydraulic pump setup.
Nothing Runs like A Deere
cat992c Nothing Runs like A Deere
You are so right. Diesel runs at a constant RPM since the power to the cogs are hydraulic motors.
http://thecog.com/pdf/power_source_john_deere_diesel.pdf
The cost of running the diesel is less than steam power but there's no question in my mind that steam propulsion was a major attraction. The fact that they continue to operate steam power on the first trip of the day tells me that the owners are well aware of its drawing power and are concerned about totally eliminating it.
The mountain is, indeed, the draw but a family of 2 adults and two children can drive up the auto road in the comfort of their own vehicle for $40 vs. $200 plus on the railroad. That certainly is a competitive issue for the railroad. Personally, I've taken the Cog several times over the past 50 years (I'm a geezer) but the ride behind a diesel has made that auto road just as attractive........unless I can wake up early enough to catch the 8:30 steam train.
I've never been up the Auto Road but I fired as a guest fireman on a trip in the early 1960's and have climbed the mountain many times, including in January 1963. There is a short fire arch and you have to spread the coal before entering the firebox door. It uses every single piece of coal and you'd better not make brown smoke or you will never make it!
I believe that #10 steamer was built new by The Cog but all the rest were either built or rebuilt (from vertical to horizontal boiler) by Manchester in the 1880's. They are old and tired and way beyond their continuous service design age. The quality of the water has kept the boilers alive. The owners have spent significant time looking for alternatives to continue steam but the economics are staggering.
I believe that the earliest foray into diesel was under Ed Clark's guidance when he managed The Cog.
daveklepper Doesn't Pikes Peak have one operating steamer that is used on occasion?
Supposably #4 is operational AND unrebuilt in one of the storage sheds near the depot, along with their original internal combustion car. There may still be a streamlined coach hidden back there...
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
richg1998 Only the geezers complain about the bio diesel and lack of more steam on the Cog Railway. The mountain is the draw.
Excuse me?!! I'm not even 18 and I hate that they switched to diesels! I was shocked when I heard! Now I won't be able to see steamers passing each other on the mountain!
BNSFandSP richg1998 Only the geezers complain about the bio diesel and lack of more steam on the Cog Railway. The mountain is the draw. Excuse me?!! I'm not even 18 and I hate that they switched to diesels! I was shocked when I heard! Now I won't be able to see steamers passing each other on the mountain!
For the vast majority of riders (hereinafter referred to as 'Mundanes,' the mountain and the ride are the big draw. Those people wouldn't care if the car was pulled up the hill by a hot air balloon.
We railfans (especially those with a nosalgia infection) miss the ancient way of doing things - completely disregarding that the ancient way probably isn't the best way and certainly isn't the only way. We have a tendency to revere the past. The majority of the Mundanes live in the present and don't give a whistle in a windstorm for what used to be.
I was fortunate enough to visit The Cog almost twenty years ago. At that time it was entirely steam - and the locos all looked, "Rid hard and put away wet." The slow and painful demise of steam on Mount Washington comes as no surprise to me. On the other hand, as long as the rails endure, some kind of machine will make the climb - and people will queue up to ride it.
Chuck (occasional science fiction writer)
puffyI believe that #10 steamer was built new by The Cog but all the rest were either built or rebuilt (from vertical to horizontal boiler) by Manchester in the 1880's. They are old and tired and way beyond their continuous service design age. The quality of the water has kept the boilers alive. The owners have spent significant time looking for alternatives to continue steam but the economics are staggering.
Their diesel investment hasn't been staggering, quite the opposite in fact. And their steam power was in decent shape and included one that dates to 1972 and another from 1983 that was in the middle of an overhaul before they decided to largely end the charm of steam on the mountain.
The overall condition of the steam roster was fine, they were simply seeking lower operating cost and power that could take more passengers up the mountain faster as crowds increased. It hasn't happened because the steamers were old and decrepit.
According to their website they still run one steamer. Don't count on it lasting forever though, make the trip this summer if you can! I've also hiked up the mountain ..if you're in fairly good shape you can walk up and down in a few hours..
I took a steam train up the mountain in 1976... seeing the little cog engines up close was quite an experience I'll always remember. Most likely they had to switch to diesel due to environmental factors and the age of the engines.
The reasons for the switch aren't hidden and have even been talked about in this publication. Didn't have anything to do with the condition of the steam fleet or environmental laws (Although they had some trouble there briefly back in the 70's).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.