The Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado, in cooperation with the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad, has embarked on a Smoke Mitigation Feasibility Study. For some time now the citizens of Durango, CO have complained about excess smoke in the southern reaches of the valley as a result of locomotives sitting idle over night. The City, County, and Railroad formed a task force to evaluate the situation and present possible solutions to the problem.


Photo by John Cletheroe of Norwich, England

In June 2006, the Economic District in cooperation with the Smoke Mitigation Task Force, requested proposals from contractors who felt they could find feasible solutions to the problem. In July 2006, Wasatch Railroad Contractors, based in Cheyenne, WY, was awarded a contract in answer to the community’s plea for assistance.

The Task Force has asked that the contractor to review a number of possible solutions. As part of the scope of work, Wasatch Railroad Contractors will review the current operation of the “smoke scrubber” currently used by the railroad to minimize smoke problems. Additionally, Wasatch Railroad Contractors will evaluate the possible use of alternative fuels for overnight storage as well as alternative procedures for overnight storage of the locomotives while at the Durango Roundhouse.

Under the direction of Matthew A. Janssen, the Wasatch Railroad Contractors team will review and study a number of options that will mitigate the smoke problem. Mr. Janssen done in-depth studies of such problems and is a leading industry expert on solutions for coal-burning steam locomotives. Additionally, the team will consider such options as alterations in crew procedures for handling the locomotives, as well as the use of alternative fuels and further mechanical improvements to the facility to alleviate the problem.

Wasatch Railroad Contractors plans on completing an on-site evaluation of the locomotives and facility by the first of September. Within weeks of the evaluation, Wasatch Railroad Contractors will present a formal report which will include all findings and recommendations as a result of the study. The report will be presented in public forum sometime in late September or early October.

Additional details and updates may be found at wasatch-rr-contractors.com.

I've heard that the SP long ago used some natural gas "torches" that they stuck into the firebox of engines to keep them hot while in storage. I presume these were attached to a hose from a main gas line in the roundhouse. Anyone know more about that?

Ok, I have held my tongue for several years about making this point...the time has come. Why need there be anything more than just an economy haze coming from those stacks? I have brought a coal burning mike up from nothing never having made a bit of smoke(save the first 20 minutes of initial fireup). There is no need for these engines to smoke the way they do! Wether the fires are being kept up all night or if they are banked....there is simply no reason this kind of smoke needs to be made. It is all in firing practice......Simple as that. No need for a study, just a matter of proper firing practice.
And, I will admit....this assumes that the operator is not buying coal that is mostly comprised of dirt.......

Is the problem just poor quality coal?

What I've never seen mentioned is to keep the boilers connected to a steam line connection with a central boiler. Many railroads used a systems like that to keep the boilers hot (avoiding cold start stresses) with a minimal or no fire at all (and to bring boilers up to temperature after shopwork.
I also agree that firing practices have much to do with the smoke issue. I don't know how many engines are kept up at once, but it might be a challenge for the night watchman.

We have considered and will continue to consider stationary steam as an option. The problem is; you still need to bring the locomotive from house steam back to coal. This conversion can cause considerable smoke if not handled properly. The other problem we face with house steam is that often locomotives are moved during the night. Hooking them up then unhooking them and moving them in and out and then hooking them up again is time consuming. Really, we have to remember, there are up to 7 locomotives fired-up and serviceable over night and all of them need to be serviced, there is not much time for additional procedures during the night. Thanks for the thoughts. We are cataloging these answers and suggestions.

Respectfully,

John E. Rimmasch

www.wasatch-rr-contractors.com

Bob and Jason,

Alternative fuels will be considered. As with stationary steam, you have to consider what happens when the locomotives are converted back to coal. Again, you could face a smoke problem. Along with Natural Gas, we will look at fuels that can be burned on grates which may include pelletized wood, and even Bio fuels.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, we will log your comments for future review.

John E. Rimmasch

www.wasatch-rr-contractors.com

John, what is the fuel for the central source of steam? Coal? From what I have read about the influx of yuppies there in Durango, nothing will satisfy them unless you figure out how to operate by solar power. Just move the locomotives at night while the yuppies are sleeping.

Petroleum coke is available from China. I know because I shopped around for my live steam engine. For some reason China was eager to sell it, cheap. Of course, they only wanted to sell it in industrial quantities. They wanted to ship it in containers.

When coke was easily available, we used to use it in our engines all the time, for many years. In really small engines, coke was used alone. In larger engines, we burned half and half coke and bituminous. Some people groan about burned grates, but we never had that problem. I suspect the burned grate crowd was running with a really deep fire (filling the firebox at the station before running around the loop, or just zealous firing). The coke will burn well in a thin fire.

It burns white hot, and smokeless.

Bob-
Yes, the SP did use natural gas for laying over, but only in oil burning locomotives. There was a fitting between the firing valve and the burner for hooking the engine up to the shop gas main. I don't think this is a viable alternative for the D&SNG due to the differences between coal and oil burning drafting appliances.
Chris Zahrt

You might want to check out this thread. There are quite a few steam operations who have switched to the coal outined, and having just got off two days firing,I will attest to the fact that it is great stuff. It ain't cheap,especially if your using local suppiers in your area,but it burns with very little smoke,most times just a slight gray haze while firing. After it cokes off the stack goes clear, it burns hot with little ash and no clinkering and is very consistant in quality as far as firing.
Check it out @ http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18343&highlight=

Natural gas or any type of gas can be very dangerous unless all the safety monitoring systems are included in the system. Gone are the days of just sticking a gas burner through the door and letting the locomotive simmer all night.

This is an interesting topic and I expect it will be one that comes up more and more.

As we approach/pass the point of peak oil and deal with the Greenhouse effect, I can see a day in the future where recreational use of fossil fuels is either banned or extremely expensive. As I consider what adjustments I would need to make, I often wonder how these two crises would impact railroading in general and the preservation sector in particular. I am not convinced this day will come soon, but I am convinced it will come, probably in our children’s lifetime.

Speculation would lead us to believe that if we were just dealing with peak oil, then heritage locomotives consuming coal or natural gas would have an edge. And I suspect they will short-term. However, Global Warming may accelerate the limitations upon carbon fuels, and at that point we’ll have to address the tourist line steam locomotive, the 1969 GTO, the old John Deere and any other non-essential carbon burners. Will these never run again except on air? Perhaps only the fireless cooker will have a heritage operation future, if there is a way to make steam from a solar or nuclear source.

Maybe the trolley museums will be the ultimate successors to the operation rail museum?

Rob

PS: And, yes, I readily admit to the the difficulty of wanting to move off an oil economy and solve Global Warming, while being an unabashed fan of consuming fossil fuels for fun.

That day will come the minute the U.S. signs the latest version of the Kyoto protocol.

RTK

I won't argue or debate your premise, but the more immediate threat is "nuisance smoke" - what Durango appears to be dealing with now. Urban development will continue to pressure many tourist railroads and museums formerly in rural areas, and younger generations are growing up in an age of environmentalism, where smokestacks of any kind are a sign of pollution, not prosperity. If we don't find positive ways to deal with this situation, tourist lines and operating rail museums won't be around to worry about the more theoretical long term issues.

The concerns are not just limited to areas of residential development - I was photographing an excursion steamer in a pretty remote and very rural area just the other day when a woman fishing in a nearby creek complained about the coal smoke. She thought it was wrong that "they are still using that stuff in this day and age", or words like that. It may seem like a silly complaint to us, but that mindset is out there and will become more and more common as time goes on.

Of course some of this is history repeating itself . . . in the age of steam railroads had to deal with smoke regulations and their enforcement by city inspectors. It was one reason diesel switchers were first assigned to work in urban areas.

Alan Maples