I have enjoyed and learned a lot of new information related to coal and solid fuels. While I understand there is a tendancy to want to preserve as much of the experience of the ride as it was 100 years ago, many changes have already been made to the operation. Many of the cars have been rebuilt and have had much of the wood structure replaced by metal. The original brake systems of the cars, while being retained as a backup system, have been replaced by a "straight air" system, or it was last time I visited. Hand radios, self contained toilets, public address systems, and snack bars with exotic items are recent additions to the ride. However, the issue of a thriving, high capacity railroad brings prosperity, and all the resutant detritus that comes with it. The main objections being the complaints of smoke, soot, and probably the smell of the combustion of coal.

It is my opinion based on years in the regulatory industry, solid fuel will not work in this situation. Larger locomotives used stokers, over fire devices and many other technology to increase efficiency and reduce pollution. One must realize these D&S engines are much smaller, and are needed to perform at maximum tonnage ratings much of the time. That, compared with the need to have so many engines ready at one time, the location of the roundhouse, and the topography dictate a cleaner burning fuel. Atomized oil has a much greater surface area per gram than does coal and will inherently burn faster and cleaner than coal. I do not feel there is any other choice than to switch to oil, and retrain the fireman and hostlers on proper operation with the new fuel. I am convinced the citizen complaints will go away.

M.K.Tackett

M.K.Tackett wrote, "I do not feel there is any choice than to switch to oil, retrain the fireman and hostlers on proper operation with the new fuel, and the citizen complaints will go away."


Hi,

There is one other technical consideration - $. The D&S is a private business, run by full-time, part-time & seasonal employees and part-time/seasonal volunteers.

While the employees, on the whole, appear to enjoy their work, I suggest that they and their families depend on the income and would seek other employment in lieu of no or lower pay.

If less smoke means less net income for the D&S, as it will, at what point does the operation scale back or cease? There would be interest to be paid on the loans used to change the engines to an alternate fuel. In the railfan community, there would be fewer folks making annual trips to ride behind the coal fired, smoke-belching, iron-dragons of the narrow gauge. There might be some loss of ridership due to the higher fares needed to cover the increased costs, etc.

Fuel matters on both sides of the equation, it's the balance, if any, that will make or break the D&S!

Good Luck, Roger, no deep pockets here

As it stands right now, in my opinion, the citizens are in the best position to force some sort of environmental sanction on the D&S. All of this is now costing the D&S as well as the citizen complaintants money. However, the Environmental law and court actions favor the rights of the citizens over the D&S, regardless of any "Grandfather Status" that should exist in this case. The State of Colorado is poised to take action in this case. Something about a "Big Hammer" was mentioned. This is not good. If the citizens win, then the railroad looses. That is why the railroad is trying to resolve the issue. Remember, most of the citizens are not concerned about the future of the D&S or this action would have not been taken. If the feeling smoke is related to income, then I think things are over for the D&S.

The cost of conversion should not be that prohibitive, and WMC can do the work. As I said before, solid fuel will continue to be the problem. When I have ridden the D&S, and the D&RG before that, except for special railfan runs, most riders were tourists, not railfans. If that still is the case, then one would think the ridership should not significantly change. Our locomotive was converted from wood in 1924, and the work required was easily done by the folks at the Hobart Mills lumber mill. The locomotive fires and steams well and has little or no smoke when fired properly. We have had no complaints about smoke, and no problems with the conversion. I guess the resistance to change is just difficult. However, don't think for a minute I have not gotten covered with smoke, soot, and water on railfan trips, and loved every minute of it. I just want the operation to be there when I next have the occasion to visit Colorado again.

M.K.Tackett

I think you are correct when you say that converting to oil will satisfy the smoke complainers and solve the problem. However, I am not sure that converting to a cleaner solid fuel for overnight use could not also solve the problem. As the problem is presently defined, it only applies to the overnight smoke, not smoke on the road. So oil conversion would be solving more of a problem than currently exists. This might not be overkill, though, since the regulatory goalposts are moving, and it might be wise to get ahead of them.

There was a question as to whether the D&S was exempt from certain regulations, and the state said they were going to dig into it and find out for sure. What they found was that D&S is not exempt, but the point is moot because they already are in compliance with the standards. So the D&S is not breaking any laws, but now the state has found some standards on visible smoke and air opacity that they believe could be newly applied to the D&S. There is a lot of clamor for a fix, but apparently, nobody has yet quantified the problem or the intended result of its solution. The objective is dynamic and nebulous.

So, with such an unpredictable and changing criteria, I would not be surprised if, even after a full conversion to oil, the D&S were deemed to be in violation of air emission regulations.

If it were my choice, I would start with experimenting with cleaner solid fuel. There are plenty of options to explore with that approach, and it does not cost that much to experiment. I would look for results in the smoke, and I would also look for results in the complaint department. It is true that alternative fuels will cost more, both for the fuel, and probably for the transportation. What if it were $200 per ton? How many tons would be needed for just overnight idling per year? What happens when you factor in the higher heat values in some of these premium alternate fuels? Could a D&S engine be converted to burn oil for $50,000? What would be the difference in operating cost for full-time oil burning compared to regular coal on the road with premium coal overnight?

RTK

You know, this is exactly the same story as was reported about the Western Maryland Scenic a couple of years ago, where the smoke from engines laying over was so bad that the a neighboring state was going to sue the Sate of Maryland on behalf of the local residents. That story then disappeared when the news hit that the WMS was going to lose most of their run.

So, what ever happened? Did they change fuel? Did it work, and end the complaints? Is there something to be learned from their experience that could be applied here? Does anyone know?

Conversion to oil would also solve the forest fire problem. Remember when D&SNG had to close due to drought and fire risk?

I think a comparison to Roaring Camp or the Skunk train would be appropriate, both operations being moutain scenery/forest/tourist centered.

Among the things they did was install overfire jets, and switch to doing all hostling and switching south of Cumberland into West Virginia with diesels; 734 is now pushed/dragged into and out of Maryland by diesel helpers.

Some confusion here, WM Scenic operates wholly within Maryland.

No, it doesn't. The WMSR has shop facilities across the Potomac River in Ridgeley, West Va. This is an area where some of the same railroad tracks pop in and out of neighboring states several times in the span of a few miles or less.

To add a bit to Sandy's reply, immediately south of Cumberland station the line crosses the Potomac into Ridgeley, West Virginia, where the WMSRR shops and yard are located (the main shop building is the former WM carshop). It was complaints from the residents of Ridgeley, WV, about smoke during fire-up and yard switching that prompted the inquiries from the West Virginia envirnomental authorities.

There have not been any smoke issues raised by Maryland residents or authorities that I am aware of.

To my knowledge, the changes in operating practice have apparently resolved the situation to the State of W. Va's satisfaction.

Some feel that ancient state rivalries played into the whole situation--West Virginia was perceived by some as bearing all the environmental costs of a Maryland-government supported operation that benefitted only Maryland. Not endorsing this interpretation, just relaying it for clarification.