From the Yahoo Alcodiesels list:

There is a message in the actual ST&E Alco mass scrapping, however...I think the time is drawing near where owners of locomotives with "non-conforming" diesel engines are going to have to REALLY destroy at least the engines themselves, due to anti-pollution regulations.

Case in point: Tamco, a steel re-melter not far from the old Kaiser Steel operation in Fontana, California, had a former SP Alco S-6 that was targeted for replacement by the local Air Quality Management District. They (the AQMD) have the legal power to finance replacement machinery in a case like this and AQMD helped Tamco buy a trackmobile.

Send the locomotive to be "stuffed and mounted" at a museum? NO! The
Orange Empire Railway Museum removed many parts (including the engine) which they trucked down to their facility at Perris. Tamco cut up the shell of the locomotive--but Orange Empire kept the six-cylinder prime mover only long enough to remove parts, and then had the truck the engine block back to Tamco, where it was physically broken up and fed into the furnace under the watchful eye of an AQMD inspector. Both the folks at Perris and at the Pacific Locomotive Association obtained useful parts, but the engine at least had to go.

I wonder if similar constraints drove the ST&E to cut up their fleet of
Alco switchers?

It's not simply the issue of old locomotives with brakes, couplers,
wheels, bearings, etc., that can no longer pass inspection by the FRA, but the main line railroads don't want to have anything to do with them. So if the ST&E was to donate their Alcos, they'd have to leave the property on low-bed trucks or flatcars as inert freight, rather than on their own wheels. Ergo, a ton of money--and there might still be a government agency demanding that the engine blocks be destroyed.

This may be a red flag for diesel preservation, at least in urban areas
with strict anti-pollution laws. And smoke this in your pipe: diesel engines are "internal combustion" machines that emit complex compounds from combustion.

Steam locomotives are "external combustion," suggesting that their
less-complex effluents are a lot less polluting (simple soot vs. oxides of
nitrogen, etc.) in the long run. Down the road a generation or two, we may not see ANY 567 or 244 powered locomotives running, simply because there is no technology that can clean up their exhausts.

Arrgh.

Joe Strapac

BTW, the ST&E units mentioned in the post were a group of former WP units that the WPRM (supposedly) tried to preserve.

In order to put this post in context, remember that California has the mostradicalenvironmental laws in the nation. They are very much influenced by European practice-and in turn influence any number of localities within the US.

As for coal, I hardly think it is a clean fuel based upon the heavy metals, organic hydrocarbons and other effluvia contained within its structure.

Comments ??

DPK

We have seen from several discussion strings on this forum that very little information is being offered on the chemical emissions of steam locomotives. This in itself is a reason for concern, when people are talking about saving money burning alternate fuels, they should at least have some idea what is likely to be coming out the stack.

MX

The Tamco case that is at the root of this story is not about constraints, but about a private company entering into an agreement with the Air Quality Management District that helped pay for a new piece of railroad equipment. Tamco sold the S-6 to the AQMD. They do the same things with cars in California. Older cars and rail equipment are exempt from emissions requirements. The state basically buys your car if it is an exempt gross-polluter. I do not think that the owners of classic cars, or diesel locomotives, would consider this "pressure," or a "constraint."

I think it is too bad the S-6 is not with us, but the owner sold it on their own so that they could buy a new piece of equipment. This is not some weird tree-hugging totalitarianism, it is the state using the market to improve air quality. I think it is actually rather encouraging that OERM and PLA were able to part it out given this situation. OERM has preserved an SP S-4, and the PLA has an S-6 which is in the process of being carefully restored.

I would be surprised if the ST&E scrapping was the result of anything more than one of the many decisions that private property owners make everyday on how to improve their bottom line. Trying to blame environmentalism for the loss of those locomotives is tortured at best, creative, but tortured.

Interesting article. If true, doesn't the collective exhaust of diesel semi's greatly exceed the total of all rail locomotives? Hard to say I suppose, but since I have asthma, I have for years closed my windows and set my car's heater/air conditioner to recirculate when following behind diesel trucks. No scientific data led me to do this. Just watching the exhaust and knowing if I can see it, it probably ain't good for me. I had asthma long before the proliferation of diesel locomotives or trucks, but if it can potentially cause asthma, why antagonize my health further?

dan

This is not some weird tree-hugging totalitarianism, it is the state using the market to improve air quality.

Sorry but I beg to differ. A good many "green" initiatives are thinly veiled state funding of speculative technologies. Read "corporate welfare".

One has to wonder how much exhaust is removed by replacing an one old Alco with a Trackmobile and the relative efficiency of this action. Markets search for two things: efficiency and effectiveness. The state searches for conspicuous ways to curry voters and donors. In any case, there was no reason the locomotive couldn't have been donated to a museum rather than being destroyed

Responding to Dan's earlier question, I would suspect based on the proportion of the freight carried in this country now by trucks, and the relative fuel efficiency of trucks compared with diesel locomotive hauled trains, that all the diesel trucks in total produce substantially more pollution than the total for all the diesel locomotives. And when you are surrounded by trucks stuck in a traffic jam in one of our highway tunnels, there is no way to get away from inhaling the pollutants unless you carry a scuba tank in the seat next to you.

On the question of burning alternative fuels without knowing what is coming out the stack, I can only observe that if the local steam power plant tried this, they would be shut down almost instantly when the word got out, as well as being dragged into court by an army of lawyers and regulators, the officers of the company would be indicted and prosecuted, and it would be all over the television news for months.

MX (Obviously Not My Real Name)

I've just been reading a book 'Beyond Oil & Gas: the Methanol Economy' which discusses the use of Dimethyl Ether (DME) as an outstanding alternative for conventional diesel fuel. DME is clean-burning, produces no soot, black smoke, and very low amounts of sulfur and nitrous oxides. It is a gas at normal temperatures and is normally stored in pressurized tanks (75 psi).

I wonder how difficult it would be to convert the fuel tank of your museum's recently-acquired diesel locomotive to DME? Just install pressure caps & seals?

Converting to this fuel would be similar to converting to LPG as far as the hardware is concerned. The fuel tank would be a pressure rated tank.
Another consideration is the energy value of DME compared diesel. To make economic sense to convert, DME's cost needs to be close on a BTU/gallon basis.

Are you sure that this is true? Nitrogen oxides (NOx) forms as a product of very hot combustion and is a brown hazy gas. This is what you see going up the stack of a steam locomotive even when the fireman is doing a good job. Nitrous oxide forms at high temperature when either nitrogen in the fuel or in the air gets heated to hot enough temperatures it bonds with the nitrogen in the air to form NOx. I wonder how much less NOx a steam locomotive really produces then diesel I wouldn't think that much. The bigger thing I think steam locomotives have working against them is the black smoke and the whole coal is "dirty" and "bad" thing today. When you see the news talking about global warming, more often then not you see them standing in front of a cooling tower pointing to the cloud behind them of steam being released, and not the smoke stack where the CO2 is coming out of for the simple fact that people see the steam, not CO2! Now perhaps the scariest color to people I would think is black, so I wonder if it is a matter of time before locomotives burning "evil" coal and making black smoke become a target. When environmental hysterias occur I think more often history shows that the first things to get targeted are the little guys who can't defend themselves. It is far easier for neighbors to shut down a steam locomotive then it is for them to reduce their electricity use and shut down the local power plant. I really wonder when or if steam railroads will get targeted by this crowd.

Environmentalists can be a weird crowd that can often do more harm than good. I currently am taking a class on history of the north American environment here in university it is amazing what people can do out of fear. Often it is the little guy they go for. One interesting dynamic is Alaska's Inuit people vs. Greenpeace. Greenpeace through out the years, composed of a lot of city goer type people, few of whom live in Alaska nor have been to Alaska, have long fought to "protect" first seals and now whales from the Inuit people. It is crazy as the Inuit people have lived a relatively sheltered life up their, where their diet comes almost 100% from Animals be them usually Caribou, Seal, or Whale depending on the season. Well when Greenpeace bans a particular food source of theirs now the Inuit people need outside funds, if they can't hunt food they must buy it. Well in walks the Oil industry who is able to provide the Inuits with jobs drilling oil, 80% of them support drilling the ANWR. Of course Greenpeace doesn't like that either!!!! Mean while with all of this going on, the Inuit people have never had a need for the oil unlike the environmentalists, or the oil companies.

The point is from my observations in this class and this is only one example, is environmental groups often pick on the little guy first, mostly out of their own ignorance to the more complicated environmental interactions. Often and it can be even on a neighborhood basis, and not just in the Arctic, people want to fight a battle that they know they stand a good chance of winning, and for people who are desperate to say the have made "Change!" regardless of quality, may find that the little engine that could running near by their neighborhood is also the little engine who CAN'T defend herself!

Adam

I think people are overreacting to concerns that historic diesels will be suppressed. That's not the precedent in law.

The operating principle is "grandfathering", which is consistent with the 5th Amendment. An old thing can keep running forever, but the laws of attrition say it won't. It'll get replaced or substantially rebuilt, at which point the law considers it a "new thing" and it must comply with new standards.

California has been a proving ground in smog law, putting them in conflict with a very hardcore car-loving population. Here's what has shaken out:

* Cars' smog systems have to work as-built, with allowances for ordinary deterioration. But the systems must be maintained as functional.

* Cars over 30 years aren't regulated at all. There are simply too few of them left to have any appreciable effect on air quality. The old clunkers wear out, and restored masterpieces aren't driven many miles.

* The government uses voluntary incentives to speed attrition, paying $500-$1000 for old clunkers. The program isn't intended for collector cars. Lists of cars bought by the programs are published, and anyone can buy any car back out of the program, so collector cars tend to get grabbed back out.

How would these principles apply for railway preservation? First, the government would tend to leave museums alone, under the "too small to matter" doctrine, and consistent with Federal treatment (e.g. how ADA exempts historic railways.)

Second, at large, they might use voluntary incentives to take old locomotives off the road, but they would never target museums. They will not solicit Niles Canyon Railway to trade Robert Dollar #2 for a Trackmobile. If they were buying out an old locomotive and a museum wanted it, they'd let them have it.

Now let's talk about anomalies.

The scrapped California Alco -- this was a voluntary incentive. The company agreed to sell it to the government. Why wasn't it preserved? I'll bet because no museum asked. (which means stepping up with the money to move it, not going "gee I wish".)

The Mt. Washington Scenic -- I personally think the N.H. government was out of line trying to regulate Mt. Washington, and this could have been fought successfully with enough lawyers.

Durango and various other towns with smoke ordinances -- towns have always been allowed to regulate nuisance smoke. That's been a fact of life for steam operators for well over 100 years. New York City made them electrify the steam roads!

San Francisco's F Market line replaced its 8 Market line, which was not ADA compliant (grandfathered due to old trolleybuses). They could have run old PCC cars on the worn out Market Street tracks and dodged ADA. But they substantially rebuilt both the PCCs and the railroad, meaning ADA now applied. I believe if they were a railway museum they would have had an exemption - for instance WRM is not making SN 1005 ADA compliant.

I just wanted to point out that nothing is "exempt" from the ADA. It is true that some amount of grandfathering applies, and there are different requirements for historic structures, but they are not exempt. They have to meet a different, more permissive set of standards. A railcar, such as an old wood interurban that could not be modified to ADA standards without destroying its integrity does not have to be modified, but the institution that operates such a car is required to provide an accessible alternate experience such as an audio-visual program that provides the same educational benefit.

If it is not "historic" there is no excuse for not providing all of the ramps, handrails, tactile warning strips, and alternate accommodations that any other enterprise is required to provide.

Museums need to be careful about this stuff, because ADA is enforced through civil lawsuits where plaintiffs seek damages for the violation of their civil-rights. Any disabled individual can file if your group has failed to follow ADA guidelines. Please look at how the ADA is handled at historic buildings.

Oh, and it is Robert Dollar #3.

Thanks.

Maybe grandfathering is done in most cases but not all. Working at a few power plants this summer, they had these 2 EMD diesel locomotive engines that sat in these trailers. They were 1960's vintage units, I believe that they were 5MW each, or maybe 2.5MW each I can't remember off hand. I never really cared for diesel too much. Anyhow these units log maybe 10hrs a year total run time, yet they are sitting there for times when the grid needs a quick boost. The company usually earns more money just having them sit there then they do running them. Well they will each be getting a $250,000 SCR (selective catalytic reducer) for the NOx they produce. Give me a break!

I am not saying that a large number of the air pollution laws we have, lack merit, but many are just plain stupid. Some times I think common sense is a little lacking from the rules. Maybe a museum will fall into compliance differently but I wouldn't be surprised to see them challenged by do gooders. I think that the private car owners do have a far bigger voice.

One other question with this grandfathering that comes up, is if we ever get a crowd of people enthusiastic like the British, will the building of a steam locomotive be allowed?

Adam

this was a voluntary incentive. The company agreed to sell it to the government. Why wasn't it preserved?

It may be "voluntary", but is it effective and efficient- or was the conspicuous destruction the equivalent of those over-sized novelty checks politicians love? I think I know the answer-it was done as a way to curry favor among zealots.

Nor is this always rational as grandfathering a limted number of individually egregious but collectively insignificant and diminishing subset of a regulated item. In my state (PA), because the federal Clean Air Act empowered private (read "activists") groups to sue states-which they did. So nowpost'94 (or is it '96?) cars which were all equippped with "on board diagnostics" OBD-have to pay to get a tailpipe inspection.

Funny how a mechanical aid was installed by all makers the same year and provided a way to test emissions, when there was no legal requirement or even a standard.

I once again return to my suspicion that a lot of environmental law is being used very cleverly to cloak very private interests in the veneer of the most noble public purpose. The problem isn't that people lose perspective and in the name of "the environment" and assemble a pitchfork posse to come after that filthy engine-even as they finish dinner at Boston Market and toss that nice indestructible black dish in the trash.

Ok this is off topic. The EMD units in a box are MP36's (16 cylinder, and no relation to the MotivePower commuter locomotive) or MP45's (20 cylinder). They may use them as peakers at times of high load demand, but if they are sitting in an existing power plant they are probably black start units and are there to re-start the plant in case of an emergency protective shutdown. The same type units are sometimes installed in "peaking" plants on their own (all diesel) but those are usually located out at the end of a transmission line, not in an existing power plant.

MX