You can't compare the coal consumption of a 1920's steam locomotive to a modern commercial power plant.

The power plant burns coal that has been pulverized to a "Flour-Like" consistency and is blown into the boiler; each boiler probably has 24 burners; thus the 1000 tons.

Paul J.

Funny how things go around. There's a T1 listed causing comments about a RDG T-1 or a PRR T1 (The Strasburg T1 is Thomas). Then last year Strasburg ran an N&W J!!! Which is bigger than a Thomas or a PRR T1, or a RDG T-1. (RDG used a hyphen; PRR didn't)

As to power plant coal, a local RR got a deal on some of the fine coal crushed for power generation; it wouldn't stay on the grate, went right up the stack and set some lineside fires.

One note on the J. Did anybody else notice 611 had a Golden Glow headlight for part of its stay?

Phil Mulligan

L.O.&S. #10 burns diesel fuel not gas.....

A stupid question -- how is the mileage data acquired? Are the locomotives equipped with odometers, are they counting trips, or something else (counting chuffs, dividing by 4, then multiplying by diameter circumference?)

I'm wondering why heating surface and not GA was used as the 'criterion' for a DEP study. They'd almost certainly be concerned more with various indices of air pollution than with horsepower per pound or ton of fuel burned ... and would likely need more than just the aggregate heating surface to determine that. Whereas the GA combined with relative depth of fire is a primary index of 'coal' consumption...

Once the GA is determined for one of the engines, knowing the fire-up and idling characteristics plus firing per run will give you a fairly accurate estimate of the lb of coal burned in that engine for a given year... which again is the metric of interest for a DEP study concerned with individual locomotives in the first place. Sum across the engines for which you have good data for an 'enterprise' estimate, although be prepared for political sandbagging based on 'relative' emissions and perhaps Too Much Political Correctness Prejudice inherent in the study or its prospective readers ... ;-}

(You could then go back and do a little analysis to determine which of the locomotives was most efficient per lb. of fuel, which provided the most effective service, get some stack emission data via Orsat or whatever to figure out things like average CO, HC, or nitrogen oxides, etc. But the first consideration would have been to see what the purpose of the original DEP-related study actually was ... and figure out what to provide or obtain relative to that.)

IMHO

And the above, folks, is a terrific demonstration of how a statistician, scientist, or bureaucrat turns a short-term assignment into a career............ >;-D

Ironically enough, what I was saying is the exact opposite of technical complication:

We never did learn precisely what the original person wanted the information from Kelly for.

In the absence of that particular knowledge, we're all answering the Trivial Pursuit questions in the dark.

Were they doing some sort of BAT (best available technology) analysis? Ridiculous for a preserved system like Strasburg, which is intentionally using "obsolete technology". But I have always thought BAT analysis would be the best way to go on apportioning greenhouse gas emissions allowances if we end up needing to buy them on the market for say cars, a 15mpg big SUV carrying one well dressed blonde lady with a golden retriever (as one of my German friends noted was ubiquitous in Denver twenty years ago) is not the BAT, for example.

Thank you for posting the data.
I've copied your numbers and saved them in my files. I have no doubt, despite the insignificance of steam locomotive exhausts compared to, say a toll booth on I-95 on a Friday evening in July, this is going to be raised as an issue. It's not a matter of politics, but of people seriously concerned about where carbon pollutants come from and how they weigh on the global stage. Sooner or later, somebody is going to make an issue of this, not merely at Strasburg, but everywhere. I believe it's begun in Europe.
Do we ignore it? Do we all switch to used vegetable oil? How will this be addressed by the government?

It would be interesting to compare Kelly's numbers to other coal fired operations, like D&S, C&T, and then some of the less frequent operations. Also would be interesting to compare diesel fuel useage (or fuel oi, WVO, etc in steam) in diesel operations.

When I was involved with a tourist railroad running an EMD switcher, I was curious about the different fuel useage over the same route. We kept good records of fuel consumption and I could narrow all egineers down into 3 groups just by looking at the fuel used on a given day. Out of curiosity, is there big differences in coal/water consumption between engineers/firemen?

I think the choice was entirely logical, and likely intentional on Kelly's part. Nobody burns coal on grates anymore, at least not in an industrial setting, so giving the regulatory agency grate area isn't particularity meaningful. Heating surface, on the other hand, is directly comparable to the boilers run by the major user of coal these days, power plants, and can only serve to show how minuscule or industry's share really is. Just another way of saying what Kelly pointed out; that Strasburg burns less coal in a year than a typical power plant burns in one shift.

But remember that we're dealing with bureaucrats who, as far as I can see intentionally, set the Tier 4 final standard for NOx just outside what EMD could cost-effectively reach at the outside of the test cycle. With the announced intent when they started of driving forced SCR/DEF adoption by large portions of the railroad industry.

You cannot compare either the thermal efficiency (combustion or Rankine) of a modern coal powerplant with any locomotive ... nor can you compare almost any level of emission. Absolute tpd is not the issue for reformers: relative pollution is. And I would not be surprised to see punitive levels of control applied even to preserved locomotives should the wrong kind of 'reformers' come to authority -- either in the policy-making part of a government or in the dedicated warriors in the line and staff of pertinent agencies.

I well remember that the T1 Trust lost its early publicist when he discovered the emissions from the coal-fired locomotive, and found them ridiculously high over what he had been 'led to expect' from a discussion of external-combustion firing in other steam contexts. And it is difficult to imagine a modern locomotive, let alone an older one, with that great a level of effective combustion per developed hp in relevant excursion service.

.

Kelly - Well stated. Thank you. Any interesting news from the shop? Shop tour when 611 was on the SRR was great. The whole event was very well run. I love a place where every aspect of product quality is everyone's job. Personal accountability and organizational pride put you guys head and shoulders above a lot of other organizations.

Kelly, Regardless of where the conversation went, thank you for posting the information that you did. It was very interesting and thought provoking. I have recorded the numbers and keep them in my copy of The Steam Locomotive from 1941. I hope that others don't shy away from posting valuble info like this because of the tendency for people with like interests to speculate and redirect the conversations. It happens to the best of us. Just sit around a coffee table with anybody with like interests.