...and relevance in operating historic machinery.

Looks like maybe I killed yet another thread, or maybe not, but since the thread was locked following my posting early this morning, I can only assume...

Anyway, as far as relevancy to steam-powered tourist railroads and operating museum trains, how can it not be relevant for us to consider what we burn and what the combustion byproducts are? I know it is easy for me to take the position of burning only fuels for which a boiler was designed (or more properly, for which the firebox was designed), especially since the museum I work with is a static exhibit, but if we as an industry are not careful how we fuel our steam locos, we are opening ourselves up to greater scrutiny by federal and state regulators, should they choose to scrutinize.

Imagine what could happen if an environmental regulatory person did come out and checked your fuel supply or stack emissions, and you were burning a fuel contaminated with elevated concentrations of regulated materials whose disposal was strictly regulated? How might that effect not only your operation, but other operations in the state or region? Not trying to be Chicken Little here, or to rile anybody, but shouldn't we at least try to avoid making ourselves targets any more that we already are becoming?

Getting back to the old cross ties issue (and I'm not picking on anybody here), here's a simple test you can do:

Call your state environmental regulatory agency and anonymously inquire about disposal of some old cross ties. Call from a cell phone or from a phone not associated in any way with your operation/museum. Say you have maybe 20 or 30 old landscaping cross ties that you want to get rid of. See what they say about proper disposal. Ask if open burning (which is effectively what you would be doing if burned in a firebox) is an acceptable means of disposal. When they say no, ask why. Then thank them for the information and hang up. Then decide if you want to burn them.

Moderators, lock or delete if you must. I will not reply nor post anything more on the subject. (I'd put a smiley face here, but I don't think we are supposed to use those, are we?:>) I do believe, however, that this is an appropriate discussion where public operations are concerned.

Thanks.

one of the things I have been researching is nat gas/ propane usage
Partially for the enviromental reasons, and that I feel that coal will be the new scapegoat of enviro woes. (read as freon 12) That could drive the price of coal up or outlaw its private use (power plants would probably be exempted during the transition)
this would give you a green(er) steam engine and eliminate lots of cleanup associated with coal and fuel oil
If late model control system/burner/feedwater was used, it would make it virtually impossible to cause a "reportable incident" safety wise

and we all know that a couple more of those and we won't need to worry about what the gov will let us burn,

dr

It was the 2nd. week of Jan.1985 and we aboard C&O 614 were hauling a 4300 ton coal drag Eastbound from Huntington,W.Va. to Hinton, W. Va. during the month long test runs to help make final engineering design decisions for the new ACE3000 locomotive.
On this particular day we were purposely burning very low grade Western coal (approx.7500 btu/pound) and lo and behold about 15 miles short of Hinton we ran completely out of coal. We started that morning 145 miles west of there with 55 tons of the stuff but it wasn't quite enough to get us to the finish line.
The ambient temp. was approx. 10 below zero F, with a steady NNW wind of 15-20 mph for a wind chill of about 30 below zero. What to do?????
Fortunatley as we rounded a curve just as we burned the very last of the coal we came upon a treasure trove of stacked up ties cut into thirds waiting to be picked up and taken to the EPA approved disposal site.
We formed a line of about 10 of us and passed them one to the next on up into 614 and her tender and by golly we went into Hinton with a full head of steam and all 4300 tons of revenue coal!!!!
Guess today, 22 years later,we'd have had to call the EPA and see if we could get permission in this emergency to be allowed to burn those old dirty sticks-- But then again at minus 30 F I don't think the cell phone would work in that gorgeous New River Gorge- so we'll just do it and say we tried to get through!!!
Yea, I like that a lot better!!!!
Ross Rowland

Stephen,

The thread was said to have been locked because it had turned into a debate over environmental policy. I perceived your post to be informed advice about the legal risks of inadvertently violating environmental laws by burning unknown waste fuels. I thought your post was quite pertinent to this forum, and I would be very surpised if it played a part in the decision to lock the thread.

RTK

Stephen, You were not the cause of the lock down… (but, this post may be a bit over the line) . The thread is appropriate, as long as it stays tied to railroad preservation and is not a rant… Your current post in this new thread is the poster child for staying on topic.

Ross, you scare me a bit. You have a background in big, federally regulated business. You were on the Amtrak board. I assume you have had at least some of the ethics and legal training which come with such a position. You should know about Federal regulators, and their powers to enforce law. While many of us may have thrown a tie or fragment of a tie into a firebox, we need to be careful not to make public statements about such practices in public.

We are (in the broad sense) via our 501c3 tax status public agencies. As such we need to be sensitive to the “rules”

So, how do we continue with our passion, which by definition is a old, dirty technology, and stay on the right side of public opinion as we do so.

So, (again) what are we collectively doing to assure we can continue to practice our hobby, operating historic railroad equipment?

By the way, my fellow moderators should look at this post. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up...

Ross, you scare me a bit. You have a background in big, federally regulated business. You were on the Amtrak board. I assume you have had at least some of the ethics and legal training which come with such a position. You should know about Federal regulators, and their powers to enforce law. While many of us may have thrown a tie or fragment of a tie into a firebox, we need to be careful not to make public statements about such practices in public.

By the way, my fellow moderators should look at this post. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up...


Thoughts:

1.) Mr. R is well known for being something of a controversial figure. In and of itself, it is a neutral characteristic. You read his posts (and mine) knowing there's a good chance you just bit into a habanero, not a spoon of cream of wheat.

2.) Taking issue with Ross's sentiments in the past has been considered flaming.

3.) The story described happened 23 years ago and was an isolated occurrence, within the isolated occurrence of an experimental use of steam to power revenue freight on one railroad, for a few weeks. Something to brag about? Maybe not. However to leap to the conclusion that its represents some great breach of protocol, with an inference that there is some collective danger to 501(c)(3)'s or that somehow federal agencies are going to take the time and effort to initiate some special prosecution is flatly unrealistic, assuming that there is no statute of limitations. This is a chatboard, so lets try to keep a sense of proportion here. You said that "we" need to be sensitive to the "rules", what "rules"?

4.) I'm not sure what to make of this sentence: "By the way, my fellow moderators should look at this post. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.... "From what I can see, this post violated no rules, so what makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up is a breach of taste-so why would (only) moderators need to review the post?

There seems to a tendency of late to apply the brakes with an extremely heavy foot and a little to much relish of late. I know the grand design was that this would be the record of consequence in railroad preservation, however I know from direct personal contact that many people of consequence (serious consequence) have passed or stopped posting because of zealousness. I realize everybody here thinks running old engines is a sigificant act, but we really are inconsequential. State and federal regulators are not going to exhibit increased based upon an unverifiable internet post.

Oh yes, I speak as former employee of a state regulator, albeit one without jurisdiction over transportation or environmental matters-still, a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, very much a creature of predictable habit.

In the previous thread there was a post about an inspector on the Georgetown Loop who insisted on putting his monitoring device on the stack of the locomotive. The exhaust blast destroyed the device. Does such a monitoring device exist that could survive in the exhaust blast of a hard working steam locomotive? It would be interesting to know just what is comming out of the stack. The information could be used to prove or disprove just how minimal the impact a few operating steam locomotives have on the environment.

John Bohon

I'd venture to suggest that many practices commonly accepted in the past are no longer accepted - burning ties 23 years ago probably falls into that category, assuming anybody actually noticed it was going on at the time. I don't find these posts scary, more nostalgic, as it harkens back to a time when individuals took responsibility for doing their personal bit to make things better rather than assuming government ought to provide it for them. Refreshing.

There is a lot of work being done now to make steam locomotives "greener". Nonetheless, they will never be entirely green due to their inefficiency and very widely ranging required rates of combustion. Efficiency isn't as hard to provide with a pretty constant output range such as in a ship or power plant.

I'm interested in biomass fuels combined with efficient combustion engineering, which might be useful in smaller engines in light museum service, but certainly insufficient for powering a 4--8-4 down the main at high speed hauling 24 cars. Sugar mills used bagasse (waste from cane) for many years in their little lokies successfully.

dave

First off I am a very “green” person, drive a roller skate that gets 40MPG and only has a 12 mile commute, recycle everything etc.
However I think you guys are making way too much of this.
The local building supply here sells old ties for landscape timbers. I have seen people use them for playgrounds, even sand boxes. Local inspectors here haven’t said anything.
As for CO2 they don’t care about antique cars poor emission control because of how few there are operating. Same thigh with steam.
The IRM is the only active steam in probably a hundred miles of here. When they do run it’s only on summer weekends. Do the math, may be 50 tons of CO2 per week of steam operation vs. the 7,000 tons/week produced by motor vehicles on just 10 miles of I-90 (using a light 250 cars/min estimate).
Also the only “Green” that the Federal regulatory agencies of this administration are concerned about, is the stuff in your wallet.

Just to set the record straight the ACE program was conducted in partnership with the Foster Wheeler Corporation (boiler makers),the CSX Corp. (railroad), the BNSF Corp. (railroad) and American Coal Enterprises,Inc. (prototype developer). None of the partners were 501c3 organizations.
I must say that it seems to me that our decision to make use of the scrap ties in order to get to Hinton (and off the mainline) was a prudent one when you consider that it was about 30 below zero outside and a potentially injury avoiding one. I'd do it again given the same parameters as I believe any sensible person would???
I agree with Mr. Superheaters general comments about our relative importance AND about allowing us to have some reasonable latitude hereon regarding our exchanges of ideas/experiences and thoughts.
Thought we had hashed that out pretty well not too long ago?????
IMHO-Ross Rowland

At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I humbly suggest that one answer to environmental issues in operating antique railway equipment is to electrify. Trolley operation has many advantages, including extremely low operating cost and almost instantaneous startup. We can afford to run a trip for one visitor. While the upfront effort and cost is substantial, it is not insurmountable. Come to ARM this October to learn more about how to do it.

Would Biomass have anywhere near the energy density of coal?

I would suggest that unless you are replicating Hawaiin or Cuban sugar cane- biomass lacks historical authenticity.

Lets be honest, there's NOTHING we can do with regard to combustion that will please some groups-since some advocate widespread culling of cattle herds to reduce bovine flatulence.

Any suggestion otherwise is foolish. The worst part about this theme is the apparent mass hysteria that afflicts parts of this "community" and the desire of some individuals to foment it in an effort to be sensitive or alert. We all have a desire to alert and aware, but every bump in the night isn't the sound of the war drums of the barbarians scaling the gates.

The increase in insurance premiums and making old trains relevant to future generations who have no direct experience with a world in which railroads were ubiquitious are far greater threats than mass boycotts or adverse legislation arising from eco concerns. In short, we're more likely to see fires dropped because of some litigation entrepreneur than because of ecopolice. The dry cleaning business is now having the "hair on its collective neck stand up" because the lost suit that belonged to a some lower level state judge resulted in a 60 MILLION dollar lawsuit. In a just world, that judge would be impeached, disbarred for a acts unbecoming. You are one slip and fall case away from closure.

Now I must take out the recyclables and shut off this cadmium infused machine.

artschwartz wrote, "I suggest that one answer to environmental issues in operating antique railway equipment is to electrify."


Surely you jest?

[quote="superheater"]Would Biomass have anywhere near the energy density of coal?quote]

Coal is biomass that has been pretty much buried and ignored for a bunch of millennia. The challenge is to make it useful faster. Pellet fuel heating stoves are now readily available - but the source for the fuel isn't ubiquitous yet, just as an example. On the other hand, you can have pelletized hops delivered to your door for home brewing. Odd universe, isn't it?

dave