This issue was discussed before from April 13-17, 2006 under the topic
"D&S Narrow Guage in Trouble." there were some interesting comments, however coal will continue to be a dirty fuel, and the "Yuppies" will never give up, and the court cases are on their side. I still maintain one locomotive should properly be converted to oil and tests should be done. The results might be very interesting. An oil burner can be made to keep the boilers hot all night, and the fire can quickly be made with oil when the "automatic fireman" is removed. This has been successfully used on our engine, Feather River Short Line # 8 for several seasons and there was no watchman, and no problems. If anyone cares, I can explain the process to them. It is not much different than the methods used in an oil fired stationary boiler.

Mike Tackett m.k.tackett tacketts@autumnix.com

I have been following this issue for some time, and have observed that, while the Durango residents and Colorado officials have demanded that the D&S solve the smoke problem, nobody has stated a specific objective. Nobody has even quantified the problem. Apparently no laws are being violated. How can the D&S fix a problem that has not been defined?

As I see it, here is the problem in a nutshell:

1) There is the distinct odor of burning coal in the air on a prolonged basis overnight.
2) There are conspicuous plumes of smoke and steam sporadically displayed during daytime operation.
3) There is hypersensitivity and zero tolerance attitudes toward air pollution.

Regarding the prolonged, overnight coal smoke, I don’t doubt that this sometimes becomes repressive, but even when it is not, the continuous nature of the odor draws attention to the underlying problem and keeps it in the forefront. Also, it is a well known phenomenon that a toxic or allergic exposure of any kind that is sufficient to cause an adverse reaction can produce a sensitization, which causes the subject to have the same reaction to far less amounts of exposure to the same toxic substance in the future. Therefore, the prolonged overnight smoke, even though at a level that would not bother most people, might be a considerably greater irritant to those who have been sensitized by previous sporadic episodes of much larger exposure.

With regard to item #2, the conspicuous emissions and sometimes lavish displays of smoke visually remind of the problem of the overnight smoke. Even the visible steam will be likely perceived as a component of the objectionable emissions as it is often mixed with the smoke and serves to enhance the visual appearance of the overall stack emission.

With regard to #3, this society currently splits hairs and counts particles when determining what is acceptable when it comes to fossil fuel emissions. We are told every day that nothing less than the fate of the planet is at stake unless we take drastic measures to curtail emissions. People believe that clean air is a right. In this context, coal is seen as the worst offender of all fossil fuels. Progress in this battle against air pollution is associated with modern, cutting-edge technology.

It is no wonder that, against this backdrop, the D&S locomotives may be perceived by non-railfans as pollution bullies; technologically outdated dinosaurs, brutishly and flagrantly violating the modern, enlightened, zero-tolerance attitude toward air pollution

RTK ~ ~ ~

I still believe that if they were simply taught to fire, and maybe paid fireman enough so that they would stick around for more than a year or two it could be THE solution............That aside(since reality has no place in the world of steam operation), what about simply using coke? I challenge anyone to make a notable amount of smoke using coke.

When did the D&S have 7 locomotives fired up?

Like most complex problems, the solution isn't likely to be simple either.

Probably to truly, effectively address the issue (assuming there is an issue) more than one variable will need to be altered.

Perhaps D&S could take a page from Mt Washington, and choose one locomotive to be a test case for alterations designed to not only clean up overnight smoke, but operate more economically and cleanly and reliably?

Chosen coal, engineered combuston and draft systems, overfire air and feedwater heating combined with actual rigorous operator training is one possible combination worth considering for a start.

dave

We had much success with metalurgical coal...We obtained several truckload from a company called Jewel Smokeless coal and for all intent and purposes it was.. It burned extremely hot as well..The coal worked well except for the fact it made such little ash and was hard on the grates..

The actual scope of the D&S smoke problem is focused on the smoke produced during overnight hot standby. This is the basis of the residents’ complaints. However, as the unsolved problem continues to draw attention, Colorado health officials are broadening the focus to include the entire D&S operation, examining their total coal consumption and emissions and drawing comparisons to the operations of coal fired power plants, for example.

From what I have read about the issue, the general consensus seems to call for a technological remedy, either as a technological improvement of the locomotives, or the installation of supplementary locomotive heating devices in the engine house. The heating devices would either be firebox burners using oil or gas, or a central boiler heated by oil, gas, or electricity, and connected to the locomotives.

These engine house installations seem pretty straight forward, but what are the technological improvements that can be applied to the locomotives themselves that would eliminate the excessive smoke generated during overnight hot standby?

RTK

Dave wrote, "... assuming there is an issue, more than one variable will need to be altered."


Hi Dave,

Assuming that limiting the number of daily trains or the number of days of operation would be an issue, then there is one.

There is now an active, organized, group of detractors and railfans in Durango who agree there is a serious health problem produced by the D&SNGRR steam locomotives in the southern end of Main Avenue (downtown) where the enginehouse is located. There is zero chance this group will go away or settle for a "we tried" response.

The railroad has made some progress with the air polution problems and knows that it *must* do more or the state of Colorado will impose regulations on them that will require limited operation or an end to the use of coal.

I would guess that the voluntary-solution-window is less than 4 years in duration and could be as little as 1 year, as in next year or else!

Cheers, Roger, 45 miles west of Durango

No point having it appear twice.

dave

Perhaps so Roger, but I have seen this same situation at least twice previously. From a distance the hyperbole seems awfully familiar. I will gladly take your word for it, being in your backyard and all.

The solution I proposed when the newspaper called and interviewed me back about 1990 was to gather up all the complainants, and deport them (back?) to Southern California, where this sort of whining is a cultural requirement. That proposal never got published, much less the attention it deserved. But I digress.......

D&S is a lot like D&RG 50 years ago in terms of technology, apart from the RH smokejack scrubbers. Locomotive combustion systems have been dramatically improved by Waller, Porta, McMahon, Day, etc. Certainly retrofits for cleanliness and efficiency are possible which will not drastically alter the existing fleet, and pay additional dividends in terms of lower operating cost and greater reliability / availability, depending on what is done and how.

When Nigel Day did some work on theCog, his test locomotive cut its fuel comsumption in half. Half the fuel burned reduced emissions by half. Burning more of the consumed fuel as part of the reduction in quantity provides less particulate and gaseous matter in the exhaust as well.

All this stuff (and more) is out there and simply needs to be adapted to the specific situation.

I also have to wonder about the political / tourism / steam railroad situation in Colorado. The State itself is now actively participating in two operating steam lines, with varying degrees of success. At least one nonprofit museum and one other privately owned steam line also generate tourist dollars. Do these state departments ever actually talk to each other? One hand cuts its own throat while the other reaches for bandaids.....

dave

Interesting that the detractors include railfans. Do they offer a solution?

I have mentioned this problem and how it will grow to be a bureaucratic nightmare. Remember the legal rulings indicate, to me, the complainants will most likely prevail if something significant is not done to mitigate the problem. My 23 or so years in Environmental and Air Quality issues supports this feeling. I am not opposed to the Durango and Silverton, and ride it as often as I can. I have friends that work there and consider them among the finest railroaders I know. Again I will reiterate the solution I feel will solve the problem in Durango.

With the need to keep as many coal burning engines hot all night for use the next day, smoke and soot will always be a problem. A locomotive needs a good draft to burn clean, and a roundhouse is not a place where that condition is usually found. In order to resolve the problem, I propose the locomotives be converted to oil. The Union Pacific folks did it with the 3985 and trackside fires were all but eliminated, and the passing deluge of smoke, cinders and ash were reduced. If there are any 490 class locomotives in Durango, they could be converted as a test. They were horrible to fire as the firebox door was on the floor anyway. The conversion is not that difficult and WRC could easily perform the task if asked. Since an oil fire is more controllable in a locomotive situation, the smoke and soot issue could be eliminated. It is my belief this change would end the problem, and the locomotives would operate just fine. However is seems my comments continue to fall on deaf ears. I hate to see money wasted on a protracted and expensive court battle that will further harden the positions of everyone involved. Thanks for your time.

M.K.Tackett
Air Quality Supervisor (retired)
Washoe County District Health Department
Reno, Nevada

CEO and General Manager
Feather River Short Line Railroad
www.steamforever.com

I wonder if anyone has thought down as simple as using hardwood blocks. Smells like the neighbour's fireplace, renewable resource, burns hot and reasonably clean, compatable with grates and subsequent addition of coal...Just thinking out loud from the land of steam traction engines.

Why do the old firemen call their job "shoveling real estate"?

One time we had a load of coal that didnt show up on time and we were running low.. i had a several hour layover between trips, I threw many small square oak blocks and banked the engine on that.. A few minutes later the pops started to sing. It worked really well kept the steam up and we didnt make a lot of smoke and used less coal.. Good point.