Looking over the D&S in Danger thread, and Matt's post, and in consideration of some work being done in other parts of the world, I am moved to bring an item to the table for our consideration.

A few months ago, I was involved in an email exchange with Martyn Bane, who is one of the foremost experts on the Porta water treatment application. I broached the idea of his presenting, perhaps with Nigel Day and Shaun McMahon, at the upcoming TRAIN convention in Sacramento, an overview of the work being done which could help us all better react to pressures being put on us, both economic and environmental, by themselves and others in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.

Martyn's response, and he chatted about it with Shaun, was a qualified yes - provided their transportation and other expenses would be covered.

I trotted the idea past TRAIN, and got a qualified willingness to run it up the flagpole, provided I could document adequate interest.

Here's our chance. Anybody who believes it is in our best interest as an industry to learn about the work being done in other parts of the world, which will help us run better, cheaper, and cleaner, feel free to chime in and drop a note to Dan Ranger at TRAIN in support of the idea of subsidizing costs to bring these experts in. Further, if anybody with deep pockets wishes to earmark a donation for the purpose, so much the better.

There are other international developments which could make our operating lives easier which are not necessarily related to Porta, or these gentlemen's developments of his lifes work, which we might also wish to pursue - for example, the German standards for staybolt installation uses a fillet weld rather than full penetration (I am told Strasburg is testing this out to see whether the laws of physics change while crossing the Atlantic. If I am misinformed, please correct me.) Our new law accepts a "national or industry standard" but doesn't specify which nation, so there may be other very useful ideas in foreign standards worth examining.

An expression of interest to TRAIN asking that this topic be included, with experts like Gary Bensman and Linn Moedinger as presenters, might get it included, and at no cost, since they are likely to be there anyhow.

My gut feeling is we are not likely to see less bureaucratic and institutional interference in our operations in the next few years, and the more tricks we have up our sleeves, the better we will be able to deal with them as they occur. If you agree, please post here as well as to TRAIN. If you think I'm wrong, I'd be happy to know why, so i can stop worrying.

dave

Dave,

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would certainly be interested in attending such a presentation and would contribute towards it. If enough folks step up with money, a deep-pockets person wouldn't necessarily be needed.

Wolf F.

Dave,

It seems to me that this advanced technology approach you are suggesting offers two distinct advantages; increased operating economy and less air pollution. However, both would come at the expense of departing from a purely historical locomotive. I realize that there have been degrees of such departure that have been acceptable, but I wonder what it would take in terms of a technological modification to satisfy the objecting residents in Durango.

In order to minimize the historical departure, and since the issue with the D&S is only the emissions, say you set aside the pursuit of increased fuel economy and only seek a reduction in emissions. If that were the only objective, what would be the advanced technological approach to eliminate most, if not all, visible smoke, and all of the odor of combustion?

Could this be done to one locomotive with say a $250,000 modification? How would it alter the external appearance if at all?

RTK

In the case of the technology I proposed, the reduction of emissions is an increase in fuel economy. The particulate you see out the stack is unburned fuel.

I think what you are asking is can improvements be made without substantially altering the exterior of the locomotive. – Yes, some can be invisible form the outside such as improved piston/ring assemblies.

You have to remember that a locomotive is a machine of various sub-assemblies. It is possible to remove the original ones for preservation and replace them with new ones that function more effectively. Imagine putting a performance intake & exhaust system on your car. Can you change it back? You bet. The residual from this exchange of parts varies from nothing to a few patches in all but the most aggressive modifications. These ‘marks’ are no different from the repair/replacement of original components; it is simply a matter of using the equipment. In time, only the cylinders and mainframes remain original in aggressive rebuilding programs such as the D&S’s.

I met Martyn at the 2002 World Congress on Steam, and communicate with him on a regular basis. He has done an excellent job pooling a lot of difficult to find information out there. Martyn has also been to Argentina, seen the locomotives, and brought back a lot of physical evidence of the results. I believe he is on track in his development of the Porta Water Treatment System to where he can present a proven system and method of implementation. It will be necessary to have such in order to present to the FRA a convincing argument to lengthen boiler wash intervals.

Shaun and I have also communicated for some years, and his working & personal experiences with Mr. Porta and his technology would make for a fascinating presentation. His work at The Train at the End of the World (in Argentina) is an example of how much can be accomplished with limited resources.

Nigel Day is part of our team at Wasatch Railroad Contractors. We have him on board to guide us through design improvements in our restoration projects. We offer this as an ‘option’ when we make a proposal to repair a locomotive. So far, no bites, but we are optimistic that this capability will be an asset to the company and the steam community in the future.

As for staybolts, I think that Tross’s work has been well received by the individuals his papers have been shared with so far. It is not a matter of convincing the leaders of the steam locomotive industry or the FRA that the technology works. Rather, the question being worked on is what general differences in exist in the German design and regulatory environment that might preclude this technology form being as successful here. Also, there are fundamental differences in the mission of the ASME and DIN/TRD (German) codes that need to be addressed. It is worth noting that many countries have overcome these hurdles and use a number of German practices including fillet-welded staybolts. I hope to share more on this in the future, but it takes a great deal of time and money to put this all together and I want to present a complete case.

I would of course like to see as many people as possible discuss improvements to steam in a forum. Strasburg’s use of modern materials in mechanical components, tanks, and jacketing is no less interesting or important than ring blow-by to me. I think the TRAIN convention would be a great place for it.

I forgot where I read some about the modifications being done out at the Grand Canyon, but very interesting and promising things are happening out there. I saw a modified burner contraption for the Polson #2 at Mid Continent RR Museum. All this should lead to cleaner stacks, more BTU's per gallon or ton. Common sense tells me that this is a good thing. The visible effects won't be known by the average person who goes for a train ride either. Even the avid railfan will have to look hard to notice anything, except a cleaner stack maybe.

While I have a major dislike for the folks who are looking for any reason to cause trouble for our passion of rail restoration, they are not to be ignored. They can cause a lot of trouble and they will not go away. The firearm industry is plagued with frivalous lawsuits by the same type of people who have the same kind of idiotic logic. So I do feel this is not only a senseable thing to do for dollars and cents, but to counter there junk science which they no doubt will come up with.

For Christmas a friend gave me a set of old films {on video cassette} from the late 50's and early 60's of late steam railroads and excursions. It was rather embarrassing to me to see the filthy smoke that the trains put out for the photo run-bys. Overkill is an understatement. When I see calendar photo's, many of the shots to me are "worsened" by the foul smoke they belch out. So stop doing it already, it doesn't give us a good image at all, and to the people who know a few things about steam know that the black smoke is nothing but wasted fuel.

I am afraid that none of this will make the "bunny huggers" go away, but there is no sense in making things worse then it has to be. Cutting our operating expenses at the same time should be reason enough to bring these ideas to the light. I hope this comes to be at the next convention.
There may be some fall out from some who don't agree with modifing a locomotive as it would detract from the historical aspect and I can see there point too, but I still feel if your going to operate a locomotive on a regular basis, these modifications would be a good thing. If your only going to run a locomotive 2 or 3 times a year, maybe it wouldn't hurt to leave it stay as inefficient as it was built. My 2cents.

Cheers, John.

I think Matt said it well, fuel economy is directly tied to emissions reduction. Less garbage in, less garbage out. The challenges in all energy using technologies today is extracting more of the energy inherent in the fuel, which as a by-product removes waste from the emissions, and then efficiently using the removed energy in actual useful work by having machines that don't lose so much of it in translation, which both cause less fuel to be expended to do the work.

GPCS design, better proportional consideration between varying parts of the boiler, enhanced exhaust design, correctly designed steam passages and valve flow, can all be built into traditionally appearing steam locomotives, as can roller bearings, enhanced lubrication systems, and modern materials. Retrofitting it to older designs is challenging in some cases and forces some serious compromises in some of it - not easy to change the cored passages in cylinder castings, for example, without creating new cylinder castings in the process. That isn't to say some very useful incremental alterations can be successful, as Nigel has done at Mt Washington. I wish I knew more about how his work at Grand Canyon is progressing, and with what result.

dave

Dave et al:

The latest update on Nigel's work at GCR is here:

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/nday/gc/oil.htm

Other work is on going and will become public knowledge when it is done, tested, tuned etc. It certainly is very exciting and important work - truly modern, high performance burner systems have not been applied to such large locos before. This work has significance for many different countries and projects.

Meanwhile at Mount Washington it won't be long before a loco burning a form of bio-diesel is out and about. Perhaps the days of smoke belching, coal fired locos up the hill are numbered?

Thanks Martyn for the links. Thanks also Matt for the update on foreign techniques.

I think you both underestimate the interest in work in progress and conceptual thought, and wish you wouldn't wait for a "finished product" to share your information - you may find some support and interest in helping you develop the technology further. Besides, there is no "finished" in innovation and improvement.

I count about 4 voices in the wilderness now - is there more interest among us?

dave

Greetings:
A good deal of this thread concerns smoke emmissions. There is a simple solution to controlling smoke from coal burners: burn coal with a low volitile content. Coal with a volitle content of less than 17% (what we burn at The Valley Railroad) produces almost no smoke. Low volitile coal that has a reasonable BTU level, low ash, etc. is expensive (we are currently paying over $100.00/ton at the mine) but we haven't had a smoke complaint from a neighbor in over ten years. When I first came to The Valley, we got complaints on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis.
Smoke from an oil fired locomotive ought to be a non-issue except when sanding the flues. I have never fired an oil burner on which turning up the steam to the atomizer and/or blower didn't prevent smoke emmissions. Typically you fire so there is just a light haze at the stack indicating nearly total combustion.
I have fired only one wood burner, it producted almost zero smoke.
J.David

To answer the original question,
I would love to hear more about experimentation going on in other countries. That might make the difference between going to Sacramento or staying in Michigan in November. Even for those of us who don't face smoke complaints (yet) and aren't contemplating making a new front end or oil conversion, foreign steam expertise would be a welcome addition to the usual convention fare, and I would judge it to be worth the expense. (Before I petition the management at T.R.A.In. to make the expenditure, I will have to apply to my management to see if I can make the trip - or find a way to bring the kids along.) Certainly Sacramento beats the notion of holding a world tourist-line conference in Tierra del Fuego, as was proposed a few years ago. I want to make the drive along the Sacramento River levee again.

For my two cents worth, this kind of stuff is exactly what TRAIN is supposed to be all about. I would have pulled whatever strings necessary to have had such a presentation at last year's convention.

I grant you that Tierra del Fuego isn't the most accessible part of the world but speaking from experience (2 trips in recent years) the effort involved in getting there is rewarded. What a place! And the people are lovely too. Not having more than a few words of Spanish just makes things a bit more interesting! Oh and if you like eating lamb you haven't tasted anything until you've had a Patagonian asado cooked lamb. Out of this world!

Dave,

You can certainly count me in. I'd do my best to make a cross-country trip to meet Shaun and Martyn and hear them first-hand.

I too would like to know more about Nigel Day's on-going work at the Grand Canyon and Mt. Washington. My impression is that his reluctance to release in-progress information comes from his previous unfavorable experience in other locations.

Nigel would be another great one to talk to first-hand.

Agreed Hugh - If Nigel attends but doesn't wish to be part of a formal presentation, I will personally buy the first pitcher of microbrew at an informal session. I have never met either Shaun or Martyn face to face, but would be very pleased should either or both attend - which, as I said, is dependent on continued support for the subsidizing of their travel expenses.

I can't imaging what better valued education could be provided by TRAIN and / or ARM.

Mark, it is customary for the previous years host to help the next years host assemble the program - might you be in a position to put in a good word?

dave