This situation had to develop sooner or later:
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/ar ... 0411_1.htm

Dave (real name) who prefers 60 year old Alco road freight locomotives to steam...

It's an ongoing squabble. In 2004 we stayed at the motel adjacent to the station and yard and I really enjoyed the smell of coal smoke when I took my morning coffee outside. But, like fine whisky, it's too strong for most folks. We can say all we want about who was there first, the railroad or the complainers, but in the modern era, clean air initiatives usually win in the long run.

The problem in Durango is again the Not In My Backyard Group of transplanets from the West Coast. If they had their way they would move the railroad out to the edge of town so they dont have to be bothered by the whistle or being stopped at a grade crossing.

Guys, this isn't the first nor will it be the last time this will be turned into an issue by the media in Durango.

I got into a telephone debate with a reporter from their paper, probably over a decade ago, when I was MM at the Loop. She wanted me to join her crusade to convert the D&S to oil! After I rebuffed all her arguments for it with facts as opposed to her emotional pitches, she asked me for a quote - I told her the pollution in the area would be reduced many times more if all the Californians would move back home, and take their SUVs with them. She asked me if she could quote me on that, I told her she didn't have the ovaries to do so, and, sure enough, she didn't.

If you don't like coal smoke, why would you chose of your own free will to live in Durango? If you don't like hurricanes why would you choose to live on the Gulf Coast? If you hate cold weather, would Siberia be a good choice?

I think what we are missing here is the responsibility people must take for the consequences of their choices, which includes choosing to move to a town full of coal fired locomotives. They weren't snuck in and fired up in the middle of the night, they were there long before the whiners moved in, and they deserve to outlast the whiners.

dave

In a typical NIMBY dispute such as airport noise for example, the NIMBYS are outgunned by the scale of operation that they oppose. But compared to the scale of an international air terminal and its commerce, the D&S is small potatoes. Conversely, while the complainers may be the classic, small, vocal NIMBYs, they are backed in this dispute by environmental activists who have the sympathy of, and the affiliation with all levels of government. Their funding and resources are practically unlimited.

Furthermore, these environmental activists probably can countenance the idea of a scenic railway, but not coal fired locomotives. Hardly any machine could be more sacrilegious to their belief system. It would be foolish to underestimate them.

RTK

as a former Air Quality Supervisor (enforcement) and a Steam Locomotive Fireman and Engineer since 1968, I must concede there is an Air Quality issue in Durango. I believe there also has been a bit of bad feeling toward the Railroad as a result of the devastating fires several years ago that were blamed partly on the D&S. The management could have been a bit more proactive on those and these issues now brought up.

There is no question Coal is common to most Colorado Steam Locomotives, and for the most part the particulate emission from an operating locomotive usually falls to the ground within 150' to 200'. However in a Roundhouse setting the smoke is concentrated, and the engines are not working. The scrubber installed on the enginehouse is dubious technology in my opinion, and will never solve the problem.

As I see it, the only real solution to keep the complaints down and mitigate the problem is to convert to oil. The more western Steam Engines used oil and the smoke, save sanding soot, could be controlled by a competent Fireman. Also the chance of starting fires in the forested parts of the ride would be greatly reduced. I mentioned this point to Tom Sluis(?) of the Herald during the time of the forest fires, but nothing happened. There must be some 490 class engines left there and perhaps one could be converted to oil and some testing done. Those engines were the most difficult to hand fire anyway. While there will be some initial conversion cost, and perhaps some additional operating cost, reclaimed and light crude oil are not too expensive, and perhaps this would end the issue.

It has been my experience in issues as we have here, the citizens will never give up, and the Railroad will only create more problems for themselves, and ultimately be forced to comply. I do not believe the proposed government exemption will succeed, as the citizens will go to court and eventually prevail. It would be a shame to see the D&S have to curtail the steam operations, as that is the heart of the Railroad.

M.K.Tackett
CEO and General Manager
Feather River Short Line Railroad

Air Quality Supervisor (retired)
Division Of Air Quality
Washoe County District Health Department
Reno, Nevada

Are changes in the mix of fuel a possibility? How about a different coal mix, anthracite (for steam raising), or petroleum coke? How about using natural gas for steam raising?

If we are playing "what if" there is a lot that can be done to reduce emissions as well as enhance reliability / efficiency / availability of steam locomotives, but some pretty heavy alterations would have to be made to the historic D&RG locomotives to install them. Apart from D&S, CATS, EBT, Mt Washington, and what is planned to eventuate at Georgetown, where else can we see several original locomotives running on their native tracks? Is this a road we want to go down from a preservationists POV?

Mt Washington is interesting, given the experimentation Nigel Day is carrying out there, which has reduced emissions 50% by halving coal consumption on one of their cog engines. Many alterations were necessary to achieve this victory, which might not be appropriate at D&S. Green steam is a subject near to Nigel's heart, and he is pursuing it actively.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if i did one idea which may be worth considering is new steam built with all the modern innovations, such as SLM / Sulzer has produced for some steam lines in Switzerland. Their steamers emit less than the diesels they have replaced. They burn light oil, and are kept warm electrically overnight. They may have gone further, this intelligence is several years old, haven't had any updates from Andreas recently. They reckoned what with better durability, availability, etc. they could replace 2 old steamers with one new one, which could effect greater savings, assuming the operating plan allows for it.

There are options which are theoretically possible, but the loss of the true historic atmosphere (no pun intended) would need to be carefully weighed against the marginal gains in air quality, given automobiles emit the greatest (by far) amount of pollutants in Durango and vicinity. How many of the whiners are willing to give up their cars?

dave

It is possible to have your cake and eat it too. The Gas Producer Combustion System, as developed by L.D. Porta is capable of burning low-grade coal efficiently. It does require some draught modifications to operate well. Furthermore, as Mr. Day has shown, each mechanical improvement to the locomotive reduces demand on the boiler and hence fuel and water consumed.

It is also possible to go down the line of the Brienz Railway in Switzerland, who preserved their historic steam locomotives as they were, and commissioned new highly efficient steam locomotives with higher power output, sealed lubrication (no mess!) and lower maintenance requirements.

All these technologies are out there and have been proven all over the world many times over. It is only the decision to be proactive rather than reactive that has to be made.

Matt Janssen
Portaist

It is interesting to note that Mr. Tackett starts his post out with his title and has to emphasize the enforcement aspect of his job. When I see that I become very leery of anything someone like this has to say. The situation in Durango is not as serious as he is eluding to and that the problem is more a vocal minority than a majority of the local population. Here is a link to a very well written article in the Durango Telegraph that will give the readers a good idea of what is going on over the coal smoke issue. http://www.durangotelegraph.com/telegra ... rstory.htm

IMHO Mr. Tackett has like a lot of others out on the Western edge of the real world (California) have bought into the idea that if you do this in California then you must do it everywhere. What is good for California is not always good for the rest of the USA. My apologizes to Al Capp for that last line. This is not a flame but is a request for all of you to read and research what is going on with historic preservation and some of the heavy handed laws that are being used against it.

Matt - apart from the fuel savings, and subsequent reduced emissions resulting from the less garbage in / less garbage out obvious relationship, has anybody studied and quantified the amount of emission reduction caused by the more complete consumption of the coal in a GPCS system using varying grades of coal? I've been looking, can't find any hard data.

Recent discussion concerning GPCS applicability to wood and biomass pellets as fuels on the SteamTech list, as well as some great stories from Down Under.

dave

I have enjoyed the comments about this issue. However, the issue of the locomotive smoke, and whether or not there is a violation of the pm10 EPA standard or not, and I feel there has been occasions when this has happened, is the issue. It has been my experience the vocal minority will probably stay vocal and never give up the fight.

While I have visited Colorado, the coal smoke never bothered me, but that is part of the experience, and I relish it. However, if I had to deal with it on a daily basis, I would probably move to an area of town where that is not a problem. It is too bad other people wouldn't consider this option, but my experience is they don't and want the "offender" to move.

The demographics of the area have changed considerably since the D&RG left the area in 1981, and the resultant shift in the lifestyle of the people has become evident. I feel the solution is to try to resolve the issue now, and hopefully permanently, so the Railroad can prosper for years to come. The proposal of exemption will only cause increases litigation and increase hard feelings, and that type of thinking only illustrates the local provincial attitude toward the issue.

The topography of the area contributes to this problem as well as the success of the Railroad, and again I feel the people (vocal minority) will be relentless in their pursuit of "clean air" whether the smoke was there firstor not. It is interesting to note there was some concern about the west, but the reason for that was due to the fuel difference, coal vs. oil. The Federal Clean Air Act has been around for over 30 years now, and what we feel about the provisions, or lack of provisions, the growing population in Durango will continue to place smoke as an issue, and resistance to change will only harden positions and make things worse. It is too bad the topography of Durango isn't as flat as Kansas, as the issue of smoke might not come up, but I think the train ride to Silverton is far better than a ride around Kansas, and I would like to see it continue.

M.K.Tackett
CEO and General Manager
Feather River Short Line Railroad

Air Quality Supervisor(enforcement) Retired
Air Quality Division
Washoe County District Health Department
Reno, Nevada

I am in sympathy with your position, MK, having seen what the demographic shift has occasioned there and elsewhere, probably should have considered how it has gotten even moreso since my last visit to 4 corners before posting my first response. For some reason, people move to escape disfavorable conditions, like a lot of regulations, only to recreate the conditions they moved to escape from in their new home.

The best outcome is it is a nuisance that goes away for now, but like the Hydra, you just know it will reappear sometime down the line again. Sooner or later, it will need to be dealt with in some way. The question is, how to deal with it now or then? D&S has already installed a very expensive scrubber, what more can they do to please these people that won't eliminate the historic character of the railroad? And if they do agree to more controls, will that satisfy them for the forseeable future, or will more demands pop up in another couple years?

dave

I am not an expert on solid fuels, but I wonder if locomotives can burn coke or something that is nearly smokeless as has been suggested by others. I know that there would be additional cost for the fuel and its transportation, but surely it would be insignificant compared to the alternatives. It would also seemingly produce the least departure in authenticity. Moreover, it could be used only during the hot standby period in Durango, and then replaced with their current coal out on the line.

What strikes me is how subjective this smoke problem really is. Apparently the D&S is not in violation of state regulations even if it were subjected to them. Yet the state and their technical consultant are ready to start reinventing the steam locomotive and the overnight standby system to solve the problem.

The most recent news suggests that the D&S will be safe from heavy-handed regulation by the new exemption from state regulation. That may be so, but it also boxes in the offended residents and their allies, leaving them only with the nuclear option if the D&S does not quickly end the smoke.

RTK