I know the plant in question. It scaled back consumption as it aged, and was burning a mixture of anthracite and bituminous, everything from mine-run sub-bituminous to high-grade "river coal" dredged from the Susquehanna.

It was a classic case of building the power plant "next to" the coal mines, then shifting consumption as the anthracite got mined out/too expensive.

Oh, and they used fireless Porter steamers, too.

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Anderson, how much coal DOES Strasburg burn a year, and where are they sourcing it from?

As for the cinders from steam is concerned, Would fitting GPCS and revised front end arrangements not help reduce the cinders as there would be better combustion?

Robert

I think it is obvious that D&S is buying diesels for a much larger purpose than reducing fire danger; and that they are no longer branding the company exclusively as an historic steam railroad. The transition strikes me more as moving toward placating shrill criticism as opposed to satisfying the true market demand. Mr. Harper refers to the need to modify his railroad operations due to changing climate patterns. That sounds like a change that involves sacrifice.

https://www.prlog.org/12721479-dsngrr-p ... llion.html

Here are some of details provided by D&SNGRR:

The multimillion-dollar acquisition further diversifies the D&SNGRR's fleet of vintage and modern locomotives, and fulfills its previously-stated promise to use a broad spectrum of motive power and conveyances to transport guests on beautiful experiential excursions through the scenic wilderness of Southwestern Colorado. In addition, the acquisition demonstrates the D&SNGRR's ongoing evolution of its business model, and its ability to safely offer passengers trips all year round amidst a wide variety of weather, drought, and fire conditions.

"Because of long-term drought conditions and changing climate patterns in Southwestern Colorado, the D&SNGRR must constantly evaluate and modify its business strategy and operations to ensure it can safely run all year round and in a variety of seasons and weather conditions," said Allen C. Harper, co-owner, chairman, and chief executive officer of the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad.

The purchase of these two new MP2000NG repowered diesel locomotives is just one component of a much larger long-range operational plan that includes the conversion of one coal-fired steam locomotive to oil-fired steam, and the ongoing assessment of alternative power sources and technologies which the railroad can potentially utilize in the future."

Watching CSX coal drags on the Popes Creek Branch feed two power plants (Chalk Point (720 MW via coal) and Morgantown (1,477 MW)) suggest they each burn about one hopper (~130 tons?) worth of coal per hour when they are running a load.

Bob

We burn about 900 tons per year. I had heard that the plant in question burned about 250 tons per hour.

Kelly ,
Before I divert this conversation back to its original digression - Do you have a mine which will ship you the ten or so carloads of coal by rail or is it delivered by that other type of conveyance (which tends to disproportionately damage the highways thereby negatively impacting the number of tourists who drive to Strasburg).
GME

You bet. Ain't America great?

A year on, is there any news on these? Weren't they slated to arrive last spring?

I haven't heard anything more, it occurred to me that the D&SNG might have caught wind of the WP&Y buying new NRE/EMDs and retiring all their GEs and Alcos and either decided to wait to pick them up used or to see how WP&Y's new units worked..

As an "oh, by the way", I was the freight engineer today, and noted the scars of two different line side fires within a couple of hundred yards of each other. My conductor noted that our SW8, not one of our steam engines started those fires a few days earlier when dragging a heavy train up to Strasburg. We are not in a dry climate, or in the middle of a drought.

Just sayin'.

Diesels will definitely throw sparks occassionally:

To clarify my earlier post, apparently the Mount Washington Cog Railway did not add a second mid-day steam trip but an end of day trip. This means steam is the first up and the last up on the days 2 steam trains run.

I’d love to know more details, including the economics of having a locomotive under steam for just one or two trips per day. (And, no, I am not suggesting the Cog management should share that info on web.

Rob

Back in the late 90's, when we were running our ex SP 10-wheeler at Campo, we had an 89 year-old retired SP engineer showing us how to run it. His seniority date as fireman was 1925, and as engineer, 1943. He'd been through the steam to diesel transition. The local fire department was concerned about the (oil burning) steam engine starting fires. The old head laughed, "I started lots and lots more fires with diesels that I ever started with a steam engine!" (And he'd run steam a lot longer than he'd run diesels)

In all honesty this was proposed originally when the D&S first bought the mill switchers and it was decided against due to cost. Now after owning them and understanding there limitations and increasing costs it's probably a more independent session from the fire than the news articles let on to. Keep in mine they traded one for the Georgetown Loops 1203 before the fires to try and help get off of the mill switchers but good 3ft gauge diesels for long hilly roads are hard to find. Their either taken, worn out or, cost almost as much as new builds. This is probably something that should have happened back then from the start.

The problem, stated in various news items, and clear from analysis, is that the steam loco is slower than the diesel, and can not keep the same time, and thus the meets at the sidings are all wrong. So keeping it on first and last trip avoids the timetable conflict.