Before I'm ragged at for not using the search feature, yes, I did.

Has any occasional trip, or restoration been stymied by "Do-Gooders" trying to interject their argument? I agree, carbon emissions are changing the world, but I'd guess the gases emitted at the toll booths entering or leaving NY City at rush hour, greatly outweigh the emissions from a steam locomotive being fired properly. Now, I'm all for reducing junk in the air, but has this ever been brought up as an argument to stop operations? If so, how has it been answered?

Go seek out "Pollution(?) Defended," by Robert A. Le Massena in the April 1978 Trains, page 51. There is the rudimentary construct of a defense, slightly satirical.

I've seen more serious analyses that purport that the byproducts of steam locomotive combustion are "safer" for the environment than those of diesel locomotives, which are themselves "cleaner" than gasoline engine exhaust. Of those, however, extrapolate the inherent inefficiency, thermal and otherwise, of steam propulsion against diesel-electric, and it's likely a wash, if not badly tilted towards efficiency over exact chemical/gaseous content.

There was a healthy debate over whether the "dieselization" of the Grand Canyon Railway's operations a few years ago was actually due to "green" concerns or simply a fiscal decision. I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that somebody in Xanterra or the GCRY is doing preliminary number-crunching on conversion of a set of F40PHs or Alco FAs to hybrids/gensets, or at the very least Tier 4 "super-clean" diesels. But remember, the neutralization of as much air pollution as possible is absolutely critical to the entire Grand Canyon experience--ask anyone who showed up at the "wrong day" when smog, haze, or other conditions muted the spectacular vistas. There were serious proposals to ban cars from some parts of the South Rim and build a Light Rail shuttle into the most popular part of the park from outside some years back. This is decidedly NOT your "normal" tourist/railroad environment by any means.

I remember a few years ago when the future of the WMSRR was uncertain due to expansion of the Great Allegheny Passage. The greenies were pulling at strings, and one of them decided to grease the rails coming into Frostburg and take a photo of the results. Of course if they would have done their homework they would know that grease was unnecessary.

Perhaps it is already out there, but I would be interested in seeing a scientific comparison between freight rail pollution in the 1920-30's and freight rail pollution today.

We had a study done by the son of one of our founders, who for his thesis project in mechanical engineering discussed the carbon footprint of a steam locomotive versus, say a 747 jet.

Needless to say that the 765 has a smaller footprint than a 747 jet, and there is only one 765 in the world...and how many 747s?

The simplest and most direct response is just what has been published by the FRA and other entities in regard to Tier 3 and 4 emissions requirements: the operation of steam locomotives and their carbon output are too infrequent to be regulated.

There was a controlled scientific experiment done, an area of trees/shrubs were contained and engorged with carbon dioxide and etc you expect from the usual pollution. The trees etc simply absorbed more of the carbon dioxide into its plantage and rings, IE grew even more, bigger tree rings.

This doesnt change mans responsibility about emissions but a barking steam engine is barely a drop in this huge world.

But its why the IC in chicago electrified, all them steam engines and smoke!

Some people around some roads have complained about smoke and smell, and in some cases the railroad in question has gone to oil firing or diesel power partially because of that (i.e, Mount Washington, Grand Canyon), though never entirely for that as far as I know.

Having said that, it should be remembered that there are so few steam locomotives running so irregularly that they shouldn't even be thought of in pollution terms:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24663&p=109561

The post mentioned above has a reference to a power plant not to far from Strasburg that burns more coal in four hours than Strasburg does for its entire locomotive fleet in a year. Someone else in another thread, which I couldn't immediately locate, actually put Strasburg's total consumption for a year at about 750 tons. That's less than eight modern hopper cars for a whole year, and I think No. 90 would be able to haul it from Paradise all on one trip, unassisted!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31711

I very much appreciate this input, and the short synopsis from Kelly Lynch. Thank you all.

Could a steam engine be converted from coal to natural gas to offset the pollution?
I assume lots of conversion problems but interesting thought.

You don't "offset" the pollution; you simply change its nature. Natural gas (unless you concentrate methane from a landfill or cattle or something) is still a "fossil fuel" and produces carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxides upon combustion, just like coal or oil. What you eliminate is soot, cinders, ash, and particulates. You still have exhaust steam either way, although in broad theory you could go to a condenser tender since you don't need the draft to keep the fire going.....

A NG steamer would be ideal for, say, an amusement park ride or open cars (part of the reason so many Crown park steamers ran on propane), or for the extremely-pollution-sensitive Grand Canyon Railway. But the latter already has diesel/"French Fry oil" fired steamers. The bigger worry, as with all steamers, is thermal efficiency. If you're going to use CNG, you might as well refit a diesel than build a new water-tube boiler for a steamer.

I agree with the points about steam locomotives being so rare these days that the point is moot.

The ideal steam locomotive fuel from a "green" standpoint is wood; it's considered "carbon neutral". Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere while they're growing. Either they grow old, eventually die, and rot in the forest (releasing the carbon back to the atmosphere) or they're cut down and burned (releasing the same amount of carbon to the atmosphere). There are a few wood-burning steamers in operation, but they're pretty rare.

I imagine the real problem with coal firing will come in a couple of hundred years or so when no commercial enterprises are using it. Unless steam operators (hopefully assuming there still are some) are going to mine their own fuel, they'll have to find something else. It would be interesting to see if "torified biomass", which can be made from wood (and which is the planned fuel for the CSR 130 project), can be directly substituted for coal in a locomotive. If this fuel becomes common in the future it might be a viable substitute for coal at some point.

It's not the miniscule contribution of a few steam locomotives to the overall pollution problem that will do-in steam operations. It's the overall perception of the problem by the general public, who have an increasing intolerance for such pollution.

I can see the day coming when there will be no more "historic exemptions" for coal or wood-fired steam locomotives, when the bill comes due for our (everyone's) willful ignorance of all of the warnings we were given about the need to drastically change our ways to avoid climatic catastrophe - the first instances of which we have been seeing over the past year. Humans tend not to want to acknowledge problems until they become untenable. We in railroading have heard this over the years in the old saying that "every rule in the book was written in blood". In other words, people who know can point out problems all they want, but nothing ever gets done until people start dying, usually in large and spectacular numbers - like the industry's drug and alcohol problems before the Chase wreck. A lot of us have heard outrageous stories of how practically entire crews worked "faced" for years and years with nothing being done about it. It took 16 people dying on an Amtrak train for things to change. I knew people who were on that train that day. I watched that train leave WUS from my train.

I think that any proposed or current steam locomotive restoration project needs to seriously consider making their engine capable of burning some kind of bio-fuel as part of their plan. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - it is a responsible and forward thinking position to take. Don't give the NIMBY's one more reason to object to your project.

We (as an industry) need to be very conscious of the public's opinion of coal, and their reaction to heavy smoke...

It's incredibly important that we train our firemen how to maintain a good fire with minimal smoke- whether it's coal or oil fired, as the public doesn't know the difference.

Enough of those god-awful palls of black smoke, laid on for the railfans! These displays could be our undoing. I know I have disappointed an awful lot of railfans in the past, by not granting their wish for smoke.

Likewise, it's very important to buy good, reasonably clean- burning coal so our crews have a fighting chance of maintaining a reasonably clear stack- even if it costs more.

Steve Hunter

From what I understand from the EPA, steam locomotives are exempt fro any emission requirements, but we still must make sure we do as much as possible to keep unnecessary smoke to a minimum. These days, perception is reality....

Perspective is a beautiful thing.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... ntech_0826

I think you will find the concern is carbon dioxide, not carbon. If steam locomotives had produced more carbon dioxide and less carbon they might still be around today.