Kelly, Then the estimated average of 9 gals./mile would have to be wrong as I know full well what we burned in coal.

In any event there's zero question in my mind that we will convert the 614 to oil when she gets her 1472 day drill as it's clearly the way of the future for any kind of long distance mainline running.

And, with perhaps some rare exceptions where there are not a lot of nearby neighbors, even the tourist short lines will be forced to convert to placate the ever more vigorous environmental activists.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

55 tons over 210 miles sounds like it could be an anomaly. Is there an average coal consumption for 614 for its entire excursion career? Average consumption for a 4-8-4 is usually around 6-10 miles per ton or 10-15 gallons oil per mile. Comparing cost per BTU makes coal much less expensive than oil. Of course there are other costs and factors in play as well.

As a reference, our 82 ton soak 2-8-0, running a 7.5 mile round trip with a total of 30 minutes of cumulative spot time each 7.5 miles, and a max speed of 20 mph, burns an average of 21.5 gals/mile of used motor oil. A 4-8-4 is going to burn far more than that with a 24 car train at 79 mph.

It is all about the BTU's. Per Ross's numbers, his Port Jervis trips required 1,430,000,000 BTU's, based on the 13,000 btu/POUND coal, and a consumption of 210 tons. The equivalent BTU's in used motor oil would roughly be 6,050 gallons. Being charitable with a price of used oil (which I haven't looked at in two years now) of $2.00/gal., that would be $12,100.00. When we looked at what fuel we were going to burn in our loco, we based the decision on cost/btu, and convenience/availability. We found the cost per BTU in 2008 was nearly a wash (energy is energy, after all) but it was the added issue of handling the coal, and the ash, was what swayed the decision to oil.

Kent

So it would appear that some understand there is an issue facing us this year but the original question is whether any operation is going to assess and adjust their operations by doing less during the week for example. Keep in mind that small GE and other locomotives of their type aren’t the best at building air so it’s not exactly like the big railroads where they shutdown to conserve.

Been a lot of topic drift here as it was how it would effect bigger steam which is not for most, a yes I do see there are operations like Strasburg, the question at hand when diesel has pushed pass $5/gal. The bigger stuff will cost more to operate but it’s not frequent and tends to have a more devoted group of patrons than say ABC Railway Museum in Anytown, USA.

I would imagine it would be wise for any operator to watch carefully and adjust to the need balance rather than just running trains because it’s what they do. Sure would be nice if life in general could get to and stay in some normalcy but that discussion would again cause all kind of topic drift. It just an overall musing.

.

My COO has corrected my numbers on coal. He tells me we took coal in Hoboken on Wed. and filled her " to the brim and then some", usually loading 55 tons. Then the engine was fired up on Thursdays and brought slowly up to working pressure ( 255) on Fridays.

NJ Transit used the 614 to assemble the 24 car long excursion consist on Friday evenings after the rush hour and to wye the consist on Saturday nights getting ready for the Sunday trip. Net of it all he says between the fire-up and all the drilling we'd consume approx. 12 tons of coal which means that on average we'd use about 40 tons for the roundtrip to Port Jervis with the 24 car long train at track speed ( max. 79mph).

Therefore if you adjust my numbers to 40 tons @ $ 250/ton =$ 10,000 per trip.

IMHO the major factor in switching from coal to oil is not the cost/btu but with shortline tourist roads it's all about living with your neighbors. With mainline operators it's more a case of practicality in addition to pleasing the greenies.

That's how I see it. Ross Rowland

Ross,

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense. 40 tons over 210 miles still seems like a lot but that size train at 79mph certainly isn't an average excursion. Assuming that 110 gallons approximately equals the BTU of a ton of coal, I suspect an oil equivalent on those runs might be closer to 20 gallons per mile rather than 9.

I agree that the decision to convert is going to be more about pleasing your neighbors and ease of servicing as well as future coal availability which is anyone's guess. I suspect we will just have to accept that most of our steam locomotives will be burning oil sooner rather than later. Maybe someone can figure out how to "flavor" oil so we can still get our fix of coal smoke smell and taste. I'll take the smell of burning coal over french fry oil any day!

Burn Coal Oil?

Somewhere I have a set of drawings and specs for a powdered coal firing system. I don't think it worked too well but could be worth another look.

For those who can afford electric cars, of course. 65% of all americans live from paycheck to paycheck.


Oh, by the way, as california is a major electricity importer, these cars will most probably be charged by coal from the Intermountain power plant in red state Utah. :-)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156

Anyway, I feel there is an overall tendency to concentrate on the more wealthy customers with some tourist RR's.

Mike

You could well be right Mike. The poor ones sure don't pay the bills.

Ross Rowland

Well, in my case it was because it became nearly impossible to find a decent compact station wagon. They don't sell them in the U. S. anymore (but make them in other parts of the world). I kept my last car, a Toyota Corolla wagon for over 20 years because of that. And yes, VW and maybe one or two other mfg. do sell a wagon here, but get lousy overall ratings for reliability and longevity, or are something like an unaffordable Mercedes.

Check out consumer reports for the Legacy or Outback.

I agree they are very good, which is why one can't get a decent used one under 50K miles for less than an arm and leg. I looked at a couple of Outbacks, the dealers would not budge on price, because they are so desirable. Also, I really have never needed AWD or 4WD, and that does increase maintenance costs and things like tire replacement. Subaru has also gone to continuously variable transmissions, which I am not fond of.

Getting back to the original question, no, the rising gas prices will not affect my travel plans this year. Even at say a 2,000 mile round trip drive in my 15mpg pick up truck at $5/gal gas you are only looking at about $266 in additional fuel over 2021 prices. No, I don't like it, but if $266 is going to break the bank then you really don't have the means to be traveling for recreation to begin with.

I believe during the great recession many tourist railroads saw an uptick in patronage. Rising costs prompted many consumers to forgo their expensive Disney vacations and the like and focused their traveling on the long weekend & closer to home activities which is the market most tourist railroads play to. It will be interesting to see.

Thank you BM 765 for getting us back on topic.

Seems to me that from a tourist railroads perspective the rising price of fuels ( and the Russian invasion causing a lot of the rise except on the FNC) should be carefully watched as it is an immediate drain on disposable income and thus can impact ridership for sure.

The other worrisome aspect is how badly will all the measures being taken against Russia slow down the world economy?? If Putin carries through with his threats to cut off all Russian energy exports ( except to India, N.Korea,China) what will that do to the world price of crude?? If Putin uses battlefield low yield nuclear weapons what will be the repercussions of that?? Bottom line is there's a real chance that things could get a lot worse before they get better.

Let's all pray for peace. Ross Rowland