I've always made the point if the oil is recycled, it's been used once already. No more drilling is required to run a locomotive burning recycled fuel. And the water is simply being changed from one form to another. Where is the waste in that?

Obviously they can only put so much information in a graph on their webpage. They have published all the details- see "Lectures on Steam Locomotive Operation in the 21st Century" which can be downloaded here:

http://www.fedecrail.org/en/dowload/bar ... 1998v2.pdf

In particular, read presentation 3, "Modern Steam in Revenue Service" by Roger Waller (head of DLM), and presentation 4, "Modern Steam Traction and the Protection of the Environment" by Reinhard W. Serchinger.

The presentations provide details of the tests, methods used, findings, fuel used, operating scheme, etc. that should answer all the questions raised here.

Ron Travis wrote:

I cannot understand this widespread denial that green is the true reason for ending steam.

In my case, I've worked at enough businesses to understand money is ALWAYS the reason for any action.

Yes, I'd have heard #29 working hard along the run, but for me, it would have been drowned out by the sound of my wife complaining that we could have been riding in a car with AC. Going to the canyon at all was her idea and getting to ride the train out to it was something I had to push (even though she admitted afterward that it was a really neat thing to do and made it less of a hassle). I think my experience wasn't that unusual for most of the "normal" (non-train buff) public. Her take on this was since this was likely a "once in a lifetime" trip for us and we don't go nuts with spending on vacations, we could afford to do it right and ride in the 'nicer' cars. That was my experience as well. I only saw one other person taking pictures of the train getting ready at Williams for the morning run. I was pleasantly surprised at taking photos at the Grand Canyon end of the engine and train. I expected to be fighting for position with other tourists but found hardly anyone was even paying attention at all. Getting shots of the head end was easy.

Thanks for the pointer - it was an interesting read.

Unfortunately I think that paper was of very low quality - about that of a second year engineering student. Lots of sparkle, but not much substance.

--
Will

Well, remember the target audience was a bunch of tourist railway operators, not engineers. I suspect if you'd e-mail DLM, they'd be willing to provide additional details if you ask.

Sorry I forgot to add the part that nox either comes from nitrogen in the fuel or nitrogen in the air. This actually can be quite the issue when it comes to burning some of these bioveggie fuels that some may want to label as biomass. I remember being told about a I think it was a cashew nut processing plant that had a huge need for steam at their plant and had a lot of waste oil that they wanted to burn. The problem was that the veggie oil was so high in nitrates in the fuel that no matter what they did they couldn't get the NOx formation down with in reason. Fuel oils and Coal all have some level of nitrates in the fuel .

But the point I was trying to make looking at their data was that considering same fuel the lower NOx number meant lower combustion temperatures in the steam engine than diesel as same fuel lower temperature= lower NOx from the nitrogen in the air.

As far as I know the more CO from combustion and less CO2 the less complete the combustion process is hence the steam engine is doing a better job than the diesel.

The tell tale sign once again is the higher sulfur output seems to tell me that the steam engine is burning more than twice the amount of fuel. Am I wrong here?

Adam

I believe that's correct but that's something like a 100% improvement compared to a classic steam locomotive.

One big advantage in this application is that they're using what's basically home heating fuel. It is taxed at a much lower rate than vehicle fuel so IIRC the overall fuel costs were approximately equal. Admittedly this wouldn't be the case in most places.

I've heard that diesels rely on some minimum amount of sulfur for lubrication of the fuel pump and injectors. The oil burner in the steamer wouldn't have this restriction.

It appears that the links cited in several postings in this discussion are no longer functioning. Similar discussions to this one about Grand Canyon's decision have since surfaced on several other websites. I am still looking forward to seeing a comprehensive study (one that will pass EPA muster) that comparatively addresses the emissions issues, total cost of operation, and carbon footprint of typical North American steam vs. diesels.

PC

There is an easy way to test this issue. Steam a locomotive to the DOT test track in Pueblo and put her through her paces there. Plenty of room to have a locomotive do what she does and all the testing equipment you would need. You could test the variety of fuels used in a steam locomotive (diesel,recycled oil,veggie fuel down to just regular fuel oil). The 844 is closest, but I'm sure there are other candidates which would perform well there. Steam locomotives are currently exempt from EPA regulations, so all results would be from a performance standpoint.

When I visited the GCRR operation late last summer just before the end of steam operations they showed me the fuel consumption #'s for each type of power. If I recall correctly they were able to do a roundtrip to the Canyon with the diesels for about 1/2 the fuel oil required to do the same trip with a steamer and one diesel helper. IIRC the net difference was in the magnitude of a savings of 500-700 gallons per roundtrip.

PLUS, they can maintain the needed diesel fleet with a small fraction of the men needed to keep the steamers road worthy.

When you add it all up, and assuming that the vast majority of the customers could care less, the economic decision to go all diesel was a no-brainer!! The environmental cover is a convenient excuse...nothing more!!

The good news is that the shop has been given instructions to keep the steamers in condition for "occassional" use in 2010 on special events!!

Ross Rowland

I think that the decision to end steam should have been made on that objective, scientific basis, but I doubt that it was. Fuel consumption and emissions are certainly quantifiable, but a carbon footprint is another matter. I doubt that anyone can objectively calculate the entire life-cycle carbon footprint of a complex machine or mechanical system.

And too much of what I see being promoted as components of green building, for example, seems trivial and immeasurable. Therefore, I conclude that these items are merely symbolic and intended to encourage of a way of thinking or a belief system rather than to actually make a direct and measurable difference. I thus conclude that the steam preservation movement should work symbolically on getting accepted in the belief system. Otherwise the symbolism of visible emissions from locomotives will raise objections that will simply be insurmountable, no matter what the science says.

Let's look at this COMPLETELY objectively.

Assume that the fuel consumption figures are correct. Let's assume that each trainload hauled by steam averaged 500 passengers (and that's a high-balling estimate). That means that each trip behind steam has an incremental cost of a gallon of fuel per passenger. More likely, the real figure is two gallons per passenger--say $2-5 per passenger extra cost for steam. Factor in the (very real and not trivial) expense of extra water consumption--easily another dollar or so per passenger in the desert. Now, furthermore, these steamers operated but four months a year at most, during the "high season." So you're now adding in the extra cost of a full-time steam crew, assuming that said crew can stay busy all year repairing and maintaining the locos when they're not running the heck out of them. A quick Post-it note calculation estimates that, unless said crew/shop takes on additional outside work like Strasburg does, and they're being paid wages commensurate with their work and skill, they're probably adding an additional $8-10 per passenger fare.

So, not counting the actual cost of the locomotives, wear and tear of unusual parts, etc. (call it comparable to an F40 or FPA4), we're talking an additional $10-15 a ticket to offer steam haulage. AND THEY WERE STILL DOUBLE-HEADING THE STEAMERS WITH A DIESEL OR TWO!!!

Now. I'm a bit of a crazy railfan. Would I pay an extra $10-15 for steam? Well, the only time I tried, the steam wasn't an option that last day, and I had extended my vacation just to try for GCRY steam. And would I feel cheated that they had to add a diesel as well as the steamer? Dang tootin'. So what do you think Joe Family Man and the wife and 2.2 kids, or the bus tour group from South Korea, is going to think?

I have no idea whether the market would support the extra cost of steam. Did the GC RY ever say that it would not? For that matter, did the GC RY ever say that their decision to end steam was based on the cost of operation?

I don't know about Grand Canyon, but American Heritage uses this differential pricing between steam and diesel at Texas State Railroad. The steam trips sell better than the diesel trips but they both sold more seats when the prices were lower under State control, with steam being the place most passengers wanted to be pulled by.