Tornado fails on ECML

[Titan]

On Tornado and kettles in general, one aspect that would prevent them ever becoming more than historical museum pieces with a bit of limited operation is their emissions, all that smoke isn't doing anybody's health (or the environment) any favours. With growing awareness of emissions issues and the move to phase out hydro-carbons (which I support) then at some point it may become more difficult to operate steam locomotives on those grounds.

 

It is something that is already starting to happen in the Steam Boating Association. Members are being asked to make sure they use smokeless coal and to minimise smoke production as there have been a growing number of complaints, and there is a real fear is that that they could lead to restrictions being imposed...

[Reorte]

On Tornado and kettles in general, one aspect that would prevent them ever becoming more than historical museum pieces with a bit of limited operation is their emissions, all that smoke isn't doing anybody's health (or the environment) any favours. With growing awareness of emissions issues and the move to phase out hydro-carbons (which I support) then at some point it may become more difficult to operate steam locomotives on those grounds.

Sounds like extreme tokenism. Going back to when everything was belching out smoke all the time the concern with burning coal was valid, and still is for power generation, but there's no point in trying to go for absolute zero. That's not awareness, it's blinkered "this is bad, don't think further!" The problem is too much, not any at all, and now that the contribution from steam locos is negligable there's no gain and some loss in pursuing it.

[jjb1970]

Sounds like extreme tokenism. Going back to when everything was belching out smoke all the time the concern with burning coal was valid, and still is for power generation, but there's no point in trying to go for absolute zero. That's not awareness, it's blinkered "this is bad, don't think further!" The problem is too much, not any at all, and now that the contribution from steam locos is negligable there's no gain and some loss in pursuing it.

 

Tokenism or not, the world has basically decided we need to have a zero carbon future and at some point the smaller emitters will be drawn into that net. I think that the market may do it anyway for the simple reason that if interested in supplying dirty fuels such as coal because there's not enough profit to make it worthwhile then you don't actually need to ban it's use for all things. I can already see the supply of certain fuels becoming more difficult simply because demand is dropping and suppliers see less profit to be made from them.

[Reorte]

Then the world's made a daft decision which will make it rather harder, not easier, to get enough of a reduction to make a good difference. It's like electric cars. Try to insist that they all are and you've got to make sure they can completely replace all other cars wherever they're used. That's very hard. Coming up with one that can replace 75% of current car usage, particularly where the problem is greatest, and you've done what needs doing, the remaining ones simply aren't enough to be an issue. The debate getting hijacked by people who can only see these things in black and white terms (not directing that at you!) are a hindrance to improvement.

 

If something isn't down to zero there's usually enough profit for a few specialised suppliers, although in the case of coal that probably requires easily worked mines, and they're the ones that'll have been worked out long ago.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Reorte

[jjb1970]

I'd certainly agree that parts of the environmentalist lobby are extremists who are not helping anybody with some of their arguments and rhetoric. I have to try and introduce a degree or pragmatism and sensibleness into their ideas on a regular basis but in principle I do think that eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and ending fossil fuel use is sensible. The questions are less about the principle than about how to achieve it.

[APOLLO]

Like it or lump it the transport world today mainly runs on diesel.

 

Ain't enough resource in power generation, storage (batteries, lithium etc) to completely go electric. (especially vehicles).

 

Anyway, our kids will find out.

 

Brit15

[Pacific231G]

 

 

On Tornado and kettles in general, one aspect that would prevent them ever becoming more than historical museum pieces with a bit of limited operation is their emissions, all that smoke isn't doing anybody's health (or the environment) any favours. With growing awareness of emissions issues and the move to phase out hydro-carbons (which I support) then at some point it may become more difficult to operate steam locomotives on those grounds.

The three foot gauge live steam locos used at several of Disney's theme parks - many of them originally working locos so not specially designed for the purpose- run on biodiesel which IS a renewable fuel.  I suspect though that objections to steam locos on emissions grounds are more likely to come from people who just don't want preserved railways anywhere near them than from genuine environmental concerns. The emissions from coal fired steam locomotives (plus the few stationary steam engines and historic ships that are still coal fired) operating even in Britain is so negligible as to be irrelevant. People driving to visit them are far more significant but they'd probably be driving to visit something else if they weren't. 

 

Of the fossil fuels, coal IS worse for CO2  emissions than hydrocarbons simply because it is mostly carbon. In a pure hydrocarbon  the products of  emission are C02 from the carbon, which is a problem,  and water from the hydrogen which by and large isn't.

You can have renewable fuels that make little or no net contribution to greenhouse warming by either making them from plants (or plant waste) or by breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen (there are a few other minor sources of renewable fuel as well) . In both cases it's a renewable cycle. The real problem with fossil fuels is that in a few hundred years we're discharging into the atmosphere tens (or even hundreds) of millions of years worth of the carbon forming plants that didn't make it back into the atmosphere because they were trapped in sediments . Effectively, we're reversing the natural terraforming that made our planet a perfect environment for animals like us that evolved in that environment.

. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

Sorry its gone off topic, but once it starts people pick up on a point made and it goes further off topic! Very hard to avoid in practice. I believe my posts off topic, were at least on British locos (or safety) and not on fake US diesels! 

 

But a few pages back, some people were complaining about speculation, without any facts. Which is worse?

 

If we didn't have discussion on threads, without 'full facts', then I suspect many threads would be very short!

There is no mechanism for starting sub-threads from existing topics and starting a completely new topic loses the thread . In this case that was Tornado's specific failure leading to a wider discussion of its future, leading in turn to a more general discussion of the future of heritage steam. I'm not sure how you could better manage that inevitable gradual evolution but skipping over posts that don't interest you is not exactly difficult. Perhaps we need a "slightly diverting from the OP" header. 

[AndyID]

There is a full story on what happened in the latest issue of steam railway magazine.

 

If it doesn't explain why the lubrication failed (assuming it really did fail) it's not a full report.

[jjb1970]

On environmentalism, I'm a bit of a tree hugger myself and I do support efforts to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think making such a transition will be a huge challenge but I also think it is achievable and I am optimistic that we will make the transition. The technologies are there, even if work is needed to commercialise them and scale them up in many cases. I think we'll see both new fuels and new forms of energy conversion and hydrogen may finally have its moment after several decades of people telling us a hydrogen economy was just around the corner. Some are talking about ammonia as a hydrogen carrier. To be honest I'm not as positive about some of the bio-oils being promoted as depending on how you model life cycle GHG emissions and there is some pretty well argued analysis which claims that not only are some bio-oils no better than fossil fuels but may even be worse. And don't get me started on palm oil and such like.

 

For all that I find some of the attitudes in certain parts of the eco lobby reprehensible and in some cases I really do wonder if it is about saving the world or about political ideology. Life is about compromise, particularly if you think about de-carbonising the world people have to recognise that different parts of the world have different resources, capabilities and even sensibilities and that a transition this big will not happen overnight. There are also some quite big issues in understanding life cycle impacts and consequential implications for local emissions, risk management etc, or as you might say it is not as simple as spouting the right sound bytes. By reducing complex arguments to sound bytes and pretending that the transition will be simple, denouncing compromise as betrayal, claiming that reservations about some of their proposals are just climate change denial may play well politically but really infuriates many of those who are doing the work of analysis and technology development. And that's before I get onto some of the ghastly attitudes to other people. However, I mustn't grumble.

 

To return to steam locomotives, I think it'd be tragic to ban them on the basis of emissions, but I really wouldn't be at all surprised if such an eventuality comes to pass. On the other hand, the idea of a general return to coal fuelled steam locomotives would be an absurdity.

[jamie92208]

To return to steam locomotives, I think it'd be tragic to ban them on the basis of emissions, but I really wouldn't be at all surprised if such an eventuality comes to pass. On the other hand, the idea of a general return to coal fuelled steam locomotives would be an absurdity.

Does that mean that I can't write a cheque for a new fleet of Duchesses when my numbers come up on the Euromillions then.

 

Jamie

[newbryford]

Does that mean that I can't write a cheque for a new fleet of Duchesses when my numbers come up on the Euromillions then.

 

Jamie

 

Only if they are fitted with a pantograph on the tender and a transformer inside it......

 

Cheers,

MIck

[royaloak]

You can have renewable fuels that make little or no net contribution to greenhouse warming by either making them from plants (or plant waste) or by breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen (there are a few other minor sources of renewable fuel as well) . In both cases it's a renewable cycle. The real problem with fossil fuels is that in a few hundred years we're discharging into the atmosphere tens (or even hundreds) of millions of years worth of the carbon forming plants that didn't make it back into the atmosphere because they were trapped in sediments . Effectively, we're reversing the natural terraforming that made our planet a perfect environment for animals like us that evolved in that environment.

. 

How much energy is required to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen?

How is that energy produced?

 

If you get more energy out than you put in then they are 'renewable', if not then they are not!

[AndyID]

If you get more energy out than you put in then they are 'renewable',

 

If you get more energy out than you put in it's called a !@#$%^& miracle

[rodent279]

Only if they are fitted with a pantograph on the tender and a transformer inside it......

 

Cheers,

MIck

Now there's a thought. Replace the tubes with electric heating elements and we might just be on to a winner....

[Oldddudders]

Talk about a case study in thread drift.....

[Reorte]

How much energy is required to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen?

How is that energy produced?

 

If you get more energy out than you put in then they are 'renewable', if not then they are not!

Since hydrogen doesn't exist on Earth on its own some other source of energy is required to do that, the hydrogen itself is better thought of as a storage medium rather than an energy source (unless someone has a working fusion reactor design down the back of the sofa). So how renewable it is depends upon the source of the energy used to produce it rather than the hydrogen itself.

Now there's a thought. Replace the tubes with electric heating elements and we might just be on to a winner....

DIdn't the Swiss do that once, or something similar, as a stopgap measure due to having lots of electric lines but not enough locos? Sounds a bit odd but I could swear I read something about it once.

[jjb1970]

The Swiss did indeed run kettles from the overhead lines.

 

On hydrogen, the thing that has killed hydrogen (apart from the cost of developing a hydrogen infrastructure) is the cost and environmental impact of producing hydrogen. There isn't much benefit in using hydrogen if you have to use an inordinate amount of fossil fuelled energy and/or reforming from fossil hydrocarbons to make the stuff. The rise of renewable energy has changed that, and hydrogen carriers are increasingly attractive.

[Titan]

Cars running on methane would be a good compromise. Not only does it have the highest proportion of Hydrogen atoms to Carbon atoms, so releasing the least amount of carbon/greatest amount of water, but in its raw state it is also a greenhouse gas so burning it reduces that problem too. Collecting sufficient might be a problem, although siphoning it off old landfill is an option. As far as it being a renewable resource....

[royaloak]

If you get more energy out than you put in it's called a !@#$%^& miracle

I know, I was being facecio fasetio fscecio awkward!

[royaloak]

The rise of renewable energy has changed that, and hydrogen carriers are increasingly attractive.

By what I have seen renewable energy doesnt provide much of our daily supply, its nearly all gas or nuclear except on the occasional day when its sunny and windy at the same time, so about 10 days a year.

[chris p bacon]

Cars running on methane would be a good compromise. Not only does it have the highest proportion of Hydrogen atoms to Carbon atoms, so releasing the least amount of carbon/greatest amount of water, but in its raw state it is also a greenhouse gas so burning it reduces that problem too. Collecting sufficient might be a problem, although siphoning it off old landfill is an option. As far as it being a renewable resource....

 

 

At Stewartby landfill the gas is already siphoned off and used for power generation.

[Bernard Lamb]

Cars running on methane would be a good compromise. Not only does it have the highest proportion of Hydrogen atoms to Carbon atoms, so releasing the least amount of carbon/greatest amount of water, but in its raw state it is also a greenhouse gas so burning it reduces that problem too. Collecting sufficient might be a problem, although siphoning it off old landfill is an option. As far as it being a renewable resource....

 

Brilliant.

In place of a petrol tank you have a trailer with a cow.

Bernard 

[chris p bacon]

Brilliant.

In place of a petrol tank you have a trailer with a cow.

Bernard 

 

In days gone by, I've had one in the passenger seat......

[kevinlms]

Since hydrogen doesn't exist on Earth on its own some other source of energy is required to do that, the hydrogen itself is better thought of as a storage medium rather than an energy source (unless someone has a working fusion reactor design down the back of the sofa). So how renewable it is depends upon the source of the energy used to produce it rather than the hydrogen itself.

DIdn't the Swiss do that once, or something similar, as a stopgap measure due to having lots of electric lines but not enough locos? Sounds a bit odd but I could swear I read something about it once.

Yes, they did.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-steam_locomotive

 

As the article reminds, Hornby did it too with their live steam A4's!