Okay guys and gals, new discussion and new questions.

First of all, our four man team arrived in Durango late Sunday night. The railroad has been very good to us and we have successfully tested one locomotive thus far. On Wednesday we will test again. Our testing equipment is working well and we have gathered some fine data.

Here are some new questions for all of you.

In regard to alternative fuels for over-night hostling. The issue is; When you convert the locomotive (s) back to coal (after using an alternative fuel all night) for the daily run, they will produce large amounts of black smoke. This would occur during the early morning hours between 6-8 o’clock a.m. The issue at hand is the quality of air during the same time frame. So, how do you burn natural gas, wood or oil over night and then convert to coal without producing large amounts of smoke?

That my friend- is the question.

I have had a very nice ongoing discussion with Ron Keagle. I accused the railfan’s in one of my notes of not “stepping up to the plate in terms of technology.” Ron questioned my intentions with that comment. In clarifying my words, may I present them in an invitational manner.

In short; Technology. What have we done as railfan’s to present new technology that will mitigate the problem? I thank you for suggesting new coal, or alternative fuels, but what do we have to say about technology and the use there-of?

Some thoughts that I want you to consider. The D&SNG locomotives are not 100% original. They have welded stay bolts, new brakes, mechanical lubricators and other more modern advances. We have not criticized the RR for making these improvements as they are “prototypical”. My point is, the locomotives have evolved and it appears that further evolution may be needed. So, what evolution is acceptable and what is not?

Oil as a fuel…..maybe. More modern front ends and fire boxes…..maybe. Combinations of alternative fuels….maybe.

I invited Ron to share his ideas as he told me that he had technological ideas to share.

And so I invite all of you, as I have before to share with us your technological ideas in regard to the further evolution of the steam locomotive. By all means, remain steadfast in your convictions to maintain history.

In regard to our last discussion; we were overwhelmed by the responses we received. We have kept all of them and will present them as public opinion. Further thoughts are welcome.

Contact me at jrimmasch@wasatch-rr-contractors.com or from our web page at www.wasatch-rr-contractors.com

Thanks for the help!

John E. Rimmasch

Railfans have adapted to digital photography pretty well.

Probably doesn't help with the fuel situation, but then that isn't a railfans perogative.

How about anthracite, coke, or smokeless coal (as has been suggested) for use around Durango, with the usual butiminous shoveled in as the train leaves town? Return trip, start shoveling the clean coal in at about the wye.

You may be surprised by the ability of Anthracite to hold a bank cleanly overnight - and how much mileage you get from it. Pioneer Coal Mine in PA carries no fuel with the lokie - the anthracite fire pretty much holds out all day with a little added now and again at the station.

dave

I sometimes think we are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Accepting the fact that the smoke must be reduced from its present level at specific times of the day, the terminal complex is not going to be moved, and the residential area affected is here to stay, means that the fuel needs to be changed. We went through this whole thing with our state environmental agency 15 years ago. Bottom line – our coal fired power plants are just too small to be equipped with pollution controls that will bring them into compliance.

That being said, there are two solutions and a maybe. The maybe is “smoke-eaters”. They were used “back in the day” and evidently they met with some success. They are noisy and there may be some wear and tear issues on the boiler, but they will reduce the smoke of a standing locomotive, but probably not to a compliance level.

Antracite. We burn anthracite in our Cagney, and we have a camelback that is designed to burn anthracite. The coal works great in the Cagney and there is no smoke – people are amazed. You might be able to use this in a K-37 with the large firebox, but I am not sure about the K-36’s. I don’t believe they will have sufficient grate area. For about a decade, we burned a mixture of bituminous and metallurgical anthracite. This did reduce the smoke. Switching to the “smokeless” bituminous used by various roads today – I think Dave Conrad uses it at Valley – and mixing in anthracite would produce a significant reduction in smoke. It would not be inexpensive, but neither is fighting NIMBY’s.

Oil. As an alternative fuel, oil has the advantage of being safe – as compared to natural gas or propane – and you have much better control of the combustion process. It is not perfect – I created a total eclipse of the sun one time after being a tad late on the oil valve – but it is relatively easy to control smoke if the firing apparatus is in proper order. The myth about it being harder on fireboxes is only true if the fireman abuses the privilege of having an “on/off” switch for the fire. Historically, there is precedent for this conversion – I think the C&S converted one of their 2-8-0’s (70?) – and this probably has the least impact on the historical integrity of the locomotive. Economically, this makes the most sense, and with good oil and proper set up, it will reduce the smoke to a “non-issue” level.

I believe the Rio Grande was fooling around with the idea of a nuclear powered locomotive after WWII, but I really don’t think we need to go there.

The answer we've been waiting for -- a thoughtful and well-reasoned solution from one who's been there, done that, got the T-shirt. As Linn pointed out, a blend of good bituminous and anthracite coals yeilds almost no smoke and oil is certainly a viable solution as well. Either one is probably less expensive than litigation.

I just want to throw this out for review as response to John Rimmasch’s request for input on solving the D&S smoke problem. I welcome feedback from all, especially on the technical points of combustion that I mention. The details and purpose of the D&S overnight, hot standby firing, and how this may differ from other overnight fire maintaining techniques would be helpful to know. Perhaps someone could explain the purpose and mechanical details of over-fire jets.

I do not have the expertise to provide the specific solution to this problem without experimentation. As has been pointed out, the problem is complex and the solution will likely be complex as well. But as I think about the complexity of the problem, it seems to me that the remedy can be broken down to the following basic options:



1) Rebuild the locomotives with the latest technological improvements to reduce emissions. The question needs to be answered as to whether these efficiency improvements can provide the specific objective of reducing smoke from fires of overnight hot standby. The issue pertains to locomotives not working, and therefore, consuming the lowest rate of coal.

2) Equip the engine house with external heating devices to keep the locomotives hot overnight. These devices would burn a cleaner fuel than coal. Modifications to the engine house facility do not as directly impact the historical authenticity, as do the modifications to the locomotives. There is therefore, more leeway in the considerations of modifications to the engine house. However, this freedom is likely to lead to the consideration of the most extravagant inventions and methods to solve the problem.

These solutions take the dirty fire out of the locomotives and replace it with a
cleaner fire supplied from outside of the locomotive, but this creates the
following problem:

If you replace the coal fire by external heating, the coal fire dies and you must
rebuild it in the morning when the external heating is withdrawn. This build-up
phase of coal fires produces the most amount of unburned volatiles. This build-
up must be performed in the morning when the locomotives are standing in
downtown Durango.

3) Convert the locomotives to burn oil for full time operation. Not a severe departure from historical authenticity. Proven technology. Ability to burn multiple types of liquid fuel, such as heavy oil, fuel oil, and bio-fuels. Oil firing is flexible enough to accommodate the demands of working on the road as well as maintaining overnight, hot standby. Cost of conversion and cost of fuel must be factored.

4) Use a cleaner solid fuel for full time operation. Assumes minimal, if any, departure from historical authenticity. Low volatile coal: higher BTU, lower ash, lower sulfur, Southern West Virginia Bituminous coal. Anthracite, coke, wood, and charcoal or some combination of these may also be considered. Cost of fuel and transportation must be factored

5) Use the alternative solid fuel of option #4, but only for overnight hot standby instead of for full time operation. Assumes minimal, if any, departure from historical authenticity. The beauty of this approach is that, after overnight idling, the premium fuel can be built up without smoke, and take the train out of town where a seamless, hot transition from the premium fuel back to the regular coal can be made without producing the smoke that would result if the regular coal fire needed to be built up before leaving the engine house. Moreover, it would not produce excess smoke during the transition out on the road.

Truly smokeless fuels such as coke or charcoal might completely solve the overnight smoke problem alone. However, the intermediate fuels, which still contain volatiles, may require some firebox combustion engineering to fully solve the problem. Such engineering would culminate in the addition of air draft for primary and secondary combustion stages. The secondary combustion air, entering the gas flow downstream from the primary combustion bed, would be superheated as it passes through a distribution manifold.

It would have to be determined whether this secondary combustion air distribution manifold could be an integral part of the locomotive, or a portable accessory that is inserted through the fire door overnight.

Cost of fuel and transportation must be factored. A plan for fuel handling and fuel staging in locomotive tenders must be developed.

6) Move the engine house to a location out of downtown Durango, and enter Durango only to load and unload passengers. An expanding Durango drives up land values within and all around it. The value of the city’s core is the highest. Weigh the cost of new land versus the value of existing land used by the D&S. A plan for the logistics of loading passengers must be developed.

7) Dieselize and modernize the railroad, place the steam locomotives on high quality, static display, and use them for special excursions a few times per year. Change the marketing emphasis from an historical operating steam railroad to a light rail, mountain sightseeing excursion with amenities. This is the likely vision of the Colorado Department of Health.


Perhaps there are other solutions to the problem, and possibly some of the above solutions can be combined with good effect. From what I know about the nature of the problem, one of these options clearly stands out as the obvious one to pursue. That would be option number 5. However, depending on the exact type of alternate solid fuel, some technological improvements might also be needed. If these technological improvements are successful enough, they alone, may completely solve the overnight smoke problem without the use of alternative fuels. Conversely, if the alternative fuels are clean enough, they may completely solve the smoke problem without any technological improvement. The likely resolution, however, will be a combination of cleaner fuel and improved combustion for idling fires.

Ron Travis Keagle

The idea of using alternative fuels is certainly viable but the correct answer to this problem lies in an economic comparison of which has the less expensive life cycle: a different fuel in the existing locomotives or modified locomotives which can burn the existing fuel.

I'm sure a few of you remember the Teresa Christina Railway in Brazil, which used U.S. built meter gauge 2-10-4's well into the 1970's. Before they ceased operation completely, (I don't think they got around to dieselizing) Ing. L. D. Porta was called in to see if something could be done about the smoke. Believe it or not, they had the same complaints as the D&S. Local housewives were complaining of fresh laundry being ruined, etc. (I doubt you get THAT exact complaint in Durango, but you get the idea.)

He converted several locomotives to use his Gas Producer Combustion System, allied with Lempor exhausts and was able to dramatically reduce smoke production while using the same fuel. As far as I know, the conversions achieved all that was asked of them but reduced demand for coal lead to the closure of the railway shortly afterwards. Read here for more info:

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/sergio/ter ... stina.html

Note in particular the photo at the bottom of the article showing a modified locomotive on the left and a standard on the right and the difference in what the stack's emitting.

The GPCS has mainly been touted for reducing smoke during full-bore operation, but with recent refinements this smoke reduction applies to standing and starting as well.

I believe Phil Girdlestone assisted Porta on this project and he's still around (in South Africa) so the info is out there if someone wants it. I totally agree with Linn that we don't need "rocket science" technology to fix this problem, but we don't have to limit the discussion to pre-1950 U.S. steam practice either.

We switched to one of these coals after having the pleasure of using the remains of what was left in the 614's tender two years ago. We bought it thru Tower (now Tartan I think) and it is about smokeless as you can get. It cost us $150/ton delivered from the mine by truck (W.VA to eastern PA). The specs on it have been discussed before, but as a user I can recommend it. It also has low ash, high fuse point and is easy to fire and I think even a novice fireman (fire person?) could make enough smoke to be objectionable.

All the discussion of super efficiency modifications are way wide of the mark. As I recall, the original problem was defined as excessive smoke while the engine's fire is banked at night, and while getting it ready for the run in the morning. Super combustion efficiency isn't going to help much in a stationary engine with a firebox full of green coal.

And, the point has been made that while either coke, or a better grade of "smokeless" coal will help alleviate the problem, this fuel is going to considerably more expensive than the local coal, given the distance it will need to be trucked.

So, I enter my suggestion to the discussion; only use the "smokeless coal in the terminal. The K class engine tenders hold, I believe, nine tons, and a complete trip is made on a single tender of coal. What if, when the engine came in for service, a half ton of coke or "smokeless" coal were to be dropped just behind the coal doors before the coal bunker was topped off with the local coal. Now, the expensive coal would be the first to be shoveled out of the tender, used both to bank the fire and bring it up again in the morning. That's what would be on the grates as the train left town, but the local coal would start to mix in shortly after. The custom fuel would only have to replace 5% - 6% of the total coal used, so it would have a relatively small effect on the fuel budget.

Only problem I foresee (in that I am admittedly not a trained fireman) is that the firemen would need to learn to adapt their firing technique as the type of coal coming from the bunker changed, but by calculating the proper amount to load, this could be assured to happen far out of town.

I still vote for oil. Also you can make an "automatic fireman" for overnight use and have the locomotive at a predetermined pressure for switchover in the morning. We have used this practice on our locomotive and it worked fine. Also there is not as much expansion and contraction in the boiler due to pressure changes and that helps prevent expensive and time consuming boiler repairs. The D&S should convert one locomotive to oil, work out the bugs,and test and evaluate the whole process. I feel oil, especially reclaimed oil, will prove to be the answer. However, some serious retraining of the Hostlers and Enginemen would be needed to make things work right and achieve the desired effect.

M.K.Tackett

My understanding is that the "current" problem is the smoke produced by idle locomotives. Even if the smoke is eliminated while the locomotives are idle in the house, I dare say the problem will shift to the running locomotives.

Even oil burners blow smoke. All you have to do is get a rookie fireman and/or a bad load of oil and it is going to smoke. I agree with Lynn that oil is a viable fuel for locomotives, but it takes, in my opinion, a more seasoned fireman to take care of the firebox than a coal fireman. Fireman turn over pretty fast out there I believe. You can turn the heat on and off so fast with an oil burner. I wonder sometimes about overfiring an oil burner. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's good to do it, or that you should do it. Tell that to a fireman that is behind on the hill. It's about the same as telling them not to hang the firedoor on the hook when it is too hot in station. . . What is the cost of oil going to be in the next few years??

At any rate, the coal we use here is a Pocahontas #2 or #4. It burns HOT, and it burns really clean compared to some of the other we have burnt. I have often wondered it I might have beenable to stay ahead of the pressure gauge better if I had been shoveling this stuff rather than the stuff that cam out of King Coal in Hesperus (not sure if is spelled that right). There are two downsides, that is a larger amount of ash content, and it is more than a few miles from the Four Corners. It does tend to clinker, too. I wonder if the nimbys would be interested in putting their money where their mouth is and subsidize the additional freight costs? Opps, just laid off more locals working for King Coal.

I'm not sure that changing the front end is going to change the amount of smoke during idling much. I think updating the exhaust system might reduce the overall load of the boiler, thus reducing the amount of coal in the firebox under load, and I also wonder if it would reduce the locomotives tendency to throw sparks. It sounds like the Lempor exhaust is a more even flow rather than more pleasing "bark" of a traditional system.

I think it is going be a fuel game. I like the hardwood or coke idea, but the railroad should not have to eat all the additional costs.

Ryan

For overnight, use hardwood. Fix the ashpans, firedoor and drafting appliances where they'll seal up good and tight, and just fire on hard wood til you get out of town. Simple, effective, and won't materially change the engines.

I know from experience that you fill a firebox with hardwood and control your air, you can keep up steam with little, if any, offensive smoke, and maintain a good bed of coals.

If you could get some boisd' arc wood (orange osage to those up north), you might just want to quit coal...it burns every bit as hot and smokeless as coke.

Some of the best firing material we have used was offal from pallet mills, all untreated oak. This would have the additional sex appeal of utilizing renewable and recycled fuel.

..... but one that may have to be investigated long-term anyway.......

Start planning now for building the next generation of steam locomotives.

Somewhere down the line, no matter how hard one tries, those locos you are using are simply going to get too old to be either practical and/or safe. I will presume no one's going to Cuba to get old sugar cane locos for rebuild, and they probably have gerbil wheels in the boilers now anyway.

So while the experts who actually know something about it are still alive (David Wardale, Ross Rowland, etc.), begin planning for a new "Green Iron Horse" loco series, to be built, tested, and incrementally phased in to operation.

With a clean slate/drawing board/AutoCAD screen, you can build a locomotive with Lempor exhaust, overfire jets, custom oil-burning nozzles or geothermal coils for overnight heating, Timken/Teflon bearings, modern mettalurgy, and/or whatever your heart desires. Take time. Endow a university design project. See if SLM wants to do prototypes or development. Think a ten-year or fifteen-year plan--long term, the kind of long term planning noticeably absent in American business today.

Take this further. Share the results with other narrow-gauge lines with possible similar environmental or motive power problems--C&TS, EBT, Disney, Tweetsie, you name it. Make an all-purpose 2-8-2 frame that can be tweaked to demand--a D&RG style for Colorado, Baldwin style for EBT, the list goes on.

Yes, expensive. Yes, disrupts the history. But think of the publicity value of "remaining true to our roots with 50% fewer emissions" and "Steam Railroad Goes 21st Century"!

And by the way, what does Disney use, propane?

I have been watching the comments advocating the continued use of solid fuels, and how well they work. Aside from the cleaning up after a wood fire on our locomotive, we have found it to be an acceptable way to build steam in a cold locomotive where there is no way to atomize the fuel. If care is taken, little smoke is produced even with our oil burner's firebox arrangement. That really doesn't solve the problem. The cost of imported solid fuel will become prohibitive, especially with as many as 7 locomotives operating on a daily basis. Oil, especially recycled, is not terribly expensive, and the D&S can set up a recycling facility on their property and produce much of the fuel they would need. As I recall from some thermodynamic discussions, a ton of coal is about equal to 200 gallons of oil. There are a lot of factors to be considered, and I may be incorrect, and if so I am sure someone can research the topic and find better figures than I stated.

I mentioned the issue of firemen previously, and the change in training that would be needed. The use of oil requires greater cooperation between the engineer and the fireman, and that is not all bad. The D&S by all standards is a very professional operation, and their crews seem to be highly trained and qualified, and any extra training should not present a problem. The fact that the oil fire is more responsive, and can lead to "over firing" is a possibility, but should never be a problem with an experienced crew.

It is my opinion, based on 23 years working in Environmental and Air Qualit issues, the reduction of particulates (soot) as well as the reduction of the lingering smoke cloud around the engine facility will solve the problem. As I have stated many times in the past, I want the D&S to get these issues behind them and move on. They are spending money now to resolve the issue now and I don't want to see it wasted. Again I will say, it is my opinion the residents do have a valid complaint, and Environmental Rules and legal precedent are on their side. It has also been my experience the residents will never give up on this issue until they feel the problem is solved. Eventually the regulatory (government) agencies will be forced to take action, and we all know what this could mean for all concerned.

I still maintain oil is the solution to resolve the issues caused by the use of solid fuel. As soon as someone takes action and does some testing, I am sure the problem will, for the most part, be solved.

I believe that the west coast engines are oil fired, Diesel oil. I would suspect that for safety reasons the same would be true for the east engines.

propane or natural gas are not the solution as they are very dangerous in this application.

I really like Mr. Moedinger's idea of overfire jets. They were initially developed for this exact purpose (reducing smoke on engines laying over at terminals) and installation would be fairly straightforward and cheap.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the Lempor exhaust system. A Lempor exhaust will do absolutely nothing for an engine on layover. The purpose of a Lempor exhaust is to create higher smokebox vacuum with a lower back pressure than a conventional nozzle while the engine is working.
-Chris Zahrt