I have been informed that that locos ARE NOT up for sale.

It seems odd for a railroad that wants to conserve fuel to be using EMD's at any time rather than the Alco FPA-4's which are more fuel efficient. Remember that the fuel hog F40's are 16 cylinder while the FPA-4's are 12 cylinder which makes a difference right away.

And F-40's have to run wide open to power the HEP, unless they changed something.

The only time the HEP was used on the F40's were when AOE was their. For the normal train, they used the power cars for the power for the train.

Listen gents, here's the thing. You can bet any company wrapping themselves in a "green" flag are thinking with green eyeshades.

We all know steam is expensive and there's really no nice way to put out the fires and not look like you are what you are (interested in having more green slips of paper with pictures of dead national leaders on them) without saying your very bottom line orientation is somehow noble because you're "green".

Look, if money wasn't the issue, they'd go zero emissions. Geothermal/Hydroelectric powered electric or no trains at all. (yes, I realize that's not feasible-but that's the point-feasibility is measured in dollars)

I rather enjoy when big companies think they "know better" and takeover something that has a unique character, assuming their vast management skills and spin machines can makeover their attempt to turn something unique into a cookie-cutter operation. It'll be easy to argue "the economy" for a while, but sooner or later somebody's going to understand a portion of the ridership ISN'T indifferent to what's on the head end. As a purely petty observation-having the steam around just reminds people that it isn't running anymore.

I'll make a bet-they'll get pounded on this deal, because they don't understand the difference between cost and value. I won't be looking for their stock anytime soon.

Don't laugh. As far as I know/understand, there's STILL a dead serious proposal on the books (by the NPS, not the GCRY) to electrify and possibly expand the last few miles of track into the park and convert it into a light-rail shuttle, as part of the long-range plan to reduce/eliminate vehicle presence around the rim. It's not impossible that the GCRY will be reduced to the equivalent of a transfer station several miles to the south, in the middle of a park-and-ride lot, rather than chugging up to El Tovar. The motivation is pollution reduction, and if you've ever seen the Grand Canyon on a smoggy day, you get an idea what drives that--as spectacular as it may be, you feel like demanding a refund.

The F40PH has 3 modes of operateing
-HEP and motive power
-motive power only
-HEP only

I have followed this topic on other threads here and on other forums, and clearly there is this majority consensus: GCRY has discontinued steam purely for economic reasons, but in order to avoid admitting that reason, they are saying that the reason is to be green.

Other than the possibility that green itself is misunderstood, I cannot understand this widespread denial that green is the true reason for ending steam. It fits the situation perfectly. The Grand Canyon is green. Steam locomotives are not green. Automobiles are not green. Rail is green, and LRT is the greenest form or rail. And LRT powered by wind and/or solar is the epitome of green. Surely this is where this is headed.

I think the best possible outcome of this is that the steam locomotives are sold to someone who can own or operate them without a guilty green conscience. But if green is Xanterras’ reason, I don’t see how they can countenance a sale that results in the locomotives running somewhere else. Even as static displays, steam locomotives are symbols of anti-green. The only proper green resolution would be to recycle the locomotives.

Ron- It seems pretty clear you're a green "enthusiast" while many of us are green skeptics. I have no problem with minimizing energy waste, minimizing pollution, recycling where appropriate, etc. OTOH it seems readily apparent to most of us that attributing GCR's new management's anti-steam attitude to pure environmental altruism is horse manure. These 2 or 3 steamers represent a negligible impact on the environment.

I don't believe a thorough analysis of motive power would support the statement "steam locomotives are not green". Remember that true "green thinking" considers the big picture, not just the pollutants emitted by the locomotive itself. I'd venture to say far more and far more toxic pollutants are produced in the fabrication of a diesel, or a light rail vehicle for that matter (both of which involve a lot of electrical gear and electronics), than were produced in the fabrication of any of these steamers.

Production of replacement parts for more modern motive power requires large manufacturing facilities and involves parts being shipped long distances. All of these produce environmental impacts not associated with steam power, which can be maintained with mostly locally fabricated parts.

The pollutants and energy consumed during the fabrication and maintenance of new motive power would have to be weighed against the pollutants produced and energy used during the operation of new or existing motive power over the lifetime of the locomotives or LR units.

Steam locomotives are inherently less thermally efficient and therefore burn more fuel per passenger mile than other forms of motive power. This results in the production of more CO2 which may or may not be a significant problem. OTOH they have the ability to burn a wider variety of fuels (several of which are eco-friendly). Burning biomass is basically "solar power". Steamers also produce significantly less emissions of oxides of nitrogen, a significant atmospheric pollutant.

An important concept in modern environmental thinking is "sustainability". I'd venture to say that existing steam power is more sustainable than diesels or LR.

Sure the steamers put out more CO2 and burn more resources in general, but as I understand it, they produce much less of the really bad for us fine particulate air pollution produced by other, more modern, internal combustion engines.

This is a very important consideration that never seems to be mentioned.

The conversion of the locos to liquid bio could be done very simply. The problems with solid bio fuels is logistics of handling and 'the fire hazzard' which is why they use liquid fuel.

The rest of the arguments are political so I won't ever go into that but it still hurts that these engines are not working and they are some of the best around in the USA. I just hope they find work for them soon so they can show thier true worth and value.

I would like very much to see a properly measured and documented analysis of chemical emissions for steam and diesel power in equivalent service and duty cycles on the same operating territory, including the effect of standing idle and layovers, and including estimates of the total "carbon footprint" generated by the transportation of fuel to the site as well as the railroad's normal operations. Does anyone have such an analysis?

PC

The only ones I know of are for the DLM rack locos....... The steamer was best!

DLM's data is on their website. Go to http://www.dlm-ag.ch/index2_nonjava-en.htm

At the left side of the page, click on "Modern Steam" and then "Exhaust Gas Analysis".

Those are definitely some pretty nice charts and graphs they have drawn there. Seems like a few things are missing though. No explanation of testing process, instrumentation used, or methodology for the emissions testing. No definitions of what is and is not included in the operating expense comparisons. Also no explanation of the heat values of the fuels used or the comparative overall efficiencies of the locomotives. I don't think the folks at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (the EPA) would be persuaded by it.

PC