Jump to content
 

How might we plan for the sustainability of steam powered heritage rail, while being friendly to the climate?


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

but felt the need to keep knocking home the point that you can't burn carbon-based stuff without creating CO2

 

But that is a red herring.  The problem is not CO2 emissions but nett CO2 emissions and releasing  carbon by burning material that was itself recently synthesised from atmospheric CO2 is not at all the same as releasing carbon out of long term stores like peat bogs or coal measures.  Of course the side effects of producing biofuels may be very undesirable, but that isn't an inherent feature of burning the fuel itself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

Compare the number of WW2 aircraft flying to those from the 1960s onwards for example. The higher-tech planes just can't be kept airworthy at a reasonable cost leaving them grounded.

 

 

That's precisely why the Lancaster is still flying (with another on the way), but the Vulcan has been grounded.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

The problem is not CO2 emissions but nett CO2 emissions


I get that too.

 

But, we are such a long way from being ‘net zero’ overall, and so far along the road of having created too much CO2, too quickly for our own good, that right now adding any more C and O together, even if it they have only been separate for a short time, isn’t the best option (better than combing C and O that have been separate for ages, but not the best).

 

Where I readily admit to getting mildly confused is with fast-growing plants, those with a naturally rapid ‘lock and release’ cycle ……. I think that the normal release of carbon is into the soil, with slow conversion into CO2 by soil bacteria, whereas burning those same plants causes rapid release and conversion to CO2. Correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the supply of coal will be a problem. China produces 38% of the worlds green house gases ( the U.K. produces 1%) and is continuing to burn coal to the extent that it is building another 40 coal fired power stations and are reopening closed coal mines. They also import coal, places like Columbia and Russia will continue to mine coal for many years.

I agree however that the cost will rise over the years.

How ironic when we are sitting on massive quantities of coal but we are not allowed to dig it out of the ground despite the fact that the U.K. hardly registers on the scale of CO2 producers.

 

David

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, brianthesnail96 said:

Hydrogen has a lot of potential both for I/C (although it's not exactly flawless- it doesn't ignite under compression so forces you down less efficient combustion strategies)

In fairness, neither does LNG - you need either a tiny injector (which, interestingly, is fed via a Common Rail HP MGO line and solenoids, a concept last really seen on marine engines when Doxfords still sailed the seas, although the control valves were mechanical) to start the ignition process like a conventional diesel, or a spark plug.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MarkC said:

In fairness, neither does LNG - you need either a tiny injector (which, interestingly, is fed via a Common Rail HP MGO line and solenoids, a concept last really seen on marine engines when Doxfords still sailed the seas, although the control valves were mechanical) to start the ignition process like a conventional diesel, or a spark plug.

 

Indeed- a lot of natural gas injection stuff should read right across to hydrogen. 

 

I was on the development team for the dual fuel injectors used in the Volvo LNG trucks that were launched a couple of years back (concentric nozzles for LNG and diesel, each with it's own actuator) and seem to be pretty successful- I believe the main company behind that project has run them on hydrogen with very good results, just as a proof of concept so far but we'll see what happens.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
On 15/09/2021 at 16:22, Wickham Green too said:

Nuclear waste, unfortunately, is a problem that already exists

Here's a daft suggestion. Some nuclear waste generates a lot of heat and has to be stored in cooled tanks and as I understand it the cooling water also acts as a moderator. Could some form of boiler be designed that used nuclear waste pellets (that already exist) as heat source, with suitable protection. The pellets to be installed in cartridges that can be removed to secure safe storage when not required to generate steam? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

Here's a daft suggestion. Some nuclear waste generates a lot of heat and has to be stored in cooled tanks and as I understand it the cooling water also acts as a moderator. Could some form of boiler be designed that used nuclear waste pellets (that already exist) as heat source, with suitable protection. The pellets to be installed in cartridges that can be removed to secure safe storage when not required to generate steam? 

 

Hmmm.

Nuclear waste generally doesn't produce much heat if at all. The water in the ponds is there to act as a shield for the radiation being emitted. Its why the Cherenkov effect exists.

Missy.   

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2021 at 19:51, phil-b259 said:

As for more preserved electric locos / EMUs - that will need to overcome the hostility from the safety lobby who dislike 'amateurs' using stuff above 110V.

 

 

On 15/09/2021 at 21:34, Nearholmer said:

Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of electrifying preserved railways, which has been done to death as a topic here before, more of main-line running, where the infrastructure is NR's problem, and the challenge for a "preserved" item of motive power gets a lot tougher in terms of distance and load to be hauled, which probably takes any currently available stored-energy system out of the equation, whereas it plays to the strengths of a straight electric. Pursuing that line of thinking: if a traction unit can be certified safe for main-line running from a mechanical point of view, achieving the same from electrical point of view ought to be possible. Any diesel-electric has a fair bit of electric in it, after all.

 

A lot would depend, I think, on how truly Edwardian it was, because some locos and EMUs were truly horrendous in terms of lack of protection from exposed circuit conductors, circuit-breaker blast etc for the crew, and some had either winding configurations or control circuity that might cause them to fail EMC compliance. 

 

There are some pretty ancient electric locos used on high days and holidays in Europe of course, and things like the Crocodiles have a solid following among enthusiasts. 

 

Anyway, getting the Brighton Belle back into service is proving challenging enough for those involved, lets see how that turns out.

 

E5001 isn't Edwardian by any means, but it is part of the national collection, and really ought to have as much claim to be kept in main-line condition as any of their steamers. There are two Tyneside locos, and a motor parcel van presrrved as well, aren't there? All "open goals" for low-emmission excursions. I'm rambling (you noticed that), but my point is that there are opportunities for interesting things to happen beyond steam.

 

Having been reading the cost of heritage railways and sustainability threads and searching for others I came here, having mis-spent time musing on wild ideas for electrifying heritage traction*.

 

Presumably if owned and operated by companies like West Coast, and the appropriate competencies and safety cases are employed (as for steam),  then 'preserved' electrics should be no worse than those in current commercial use, provided the actual equipment is not the old open contact stuff that Nearholmer cites. Sarah Siddons has been used beyond the LT system I think, does that loco have internals like the one in the LT museum, or has it been updated or maybe just fitted with safety cages?

 

Refering to sustainability of heritage lines, WHR has been mentioned elsewhere. As a tourist rather than enthusiast line, perhaps that could be electrified, considering parts were originally promoted as an electric railway (PB&SSR). Using locally generated hydroelectriciy (Dolgarrog power station still functions).The NG Garratts underpinings would make the basis of a nice crocodile. Think a north Wales version of RhB or MOB.

 

Ffestiniog started with gravity and horses, but I cannot imagine a safety case for gravity operation of passenger trains being accepted - though modern emergency braking systems for funiculars might be adapted.

 

Daft suggestion for main line steam (considering the Swiss electro-steam locos had to brew up for 1 hour to do 20 minutes of shunting) would be to apply model railway technology. Using redundant class 91 motors and cardan shafts, replace the original boiler with a cosmetic shell containing the motor and drive shaft. Install ultrasound vapour generator coupled to the cylinders for steam effect, vape technology for the smell of coal smoke and hot oil. Transformer and pantograph in the tender (or use a recycled 319 emu vehicle as support coach) - and lastly a DCC type sound chip and speakers. Would many of the general public notice? 

 

As an aside, one of the Jubilees passed our office in Overton on an excursion a few years ago, some of the staff thought it could not be a real steam loco as it didn't 'chuff', so they clearly would probably think the 1:1 Hornby above was more authentic.

 

*Years ago the paper mill I worked in still had some machinery driven by variable speed 400V DC motors, and there was quite a bit of redundant kit around, which led me to imagine fitting 2 motors in series (so it could use the 750V 3rd rail passing the site) in the tender, with other redundant equipment such as line shafting and right angle drive gearboxes off agitators to power a steam loco. Pure fantasy of course but we had a Graham Farish King in the works' model engineering club with something not so different.

 

Apologies - I still miss the brainstorming (i.e. daft idea) sessions we had at my last employer even now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we even discussing this ?

 

The tiny, tiny amount of pollution from preserved lines/locomotives will make no difference at all in the real world, especially when you consider the carbon footprints of India, China & the results of Rasputins ego trip.

 

Whilst admitting that we do need to cut down on our environmental impact all round sometimes, I feel that the zero emmission lot ought to be told to get stuffed.

 

 

  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Why are we even discussing this ?

 

The tiny, tiny amount of pollution from preserved lines/locomotives will make no difference at all in the real world, especially when you consider the carbon footprints of India, China & the results of Rasputins ego trip.

 

Whilst admitting that we do need to cut down on our environmental impact all round sometimes, I feel that the zero emmission lot ought to be told to get stuffed.

 

 

 

Because things like coal and oil are either (1) extremely difficult to get hold of and / or (2) very expensive!

 

Its a bit pointless letting heritage railways produce all the emissions they want if they cannot get / afford the fossil fuels to burn in the first place.

 

Its something the HRA have spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to get the Politicians to understand - merely saying 'Heritage operations are exempt' in legislation makes no difference as the heritage market is simply too small to sustain fossil fuel production on its own and has to piggyback on other things like power generations, steel and cement production - all of which ARE covered by laws designed to drive down fossil fuel use. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 16/09/2021 at 16:46, Norton961 said:

I don’t think the supply of coal will be a problem.

 

You miss the point - not all coal is equal!

 

The coal used for power stations is ground into a very fine powder so there is no need for the mines to worry about the size of what they produce. Power station boilers also run much hotter and can deal with very poor quality coal due to advanced computer control systems which can increase oxygen flow and help keep combustion at optimum levels regardless of the make up of the coal.

 

Coal for use in a manually fired steam loco by contrasts needs to consist of fist sized lumps and have a certain chemical make up if you are going to get it to burn properly.

 

However to separate out good quality coal from the dross which power stations will quite happily use requires the running of washing plants which adds a lot of cost to mine processing operations - particularly if you are not going to cause environmental damage with all the polluted water they generate.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2021 at 15:42, kevinlms said:

Nothing nuclear, as it presents terrible problems with long term storage of waste.

 

Put the waste in the tender (instead of the coal). Or tow one of these behind the train.

image.png.57cbe258fe9232a2f709adda369bb126.png

Might even be able to use it for steam heating the coaches. 😉

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Would wood be a substitute alternative?

 

You need to burn a lot of it to create much in the way of heat and energy.

 

At Steamport we often used to burn old pallets and cut up sleepers in with the coal, but we were only going up and down a few times a day with a couple of coaches or brake vans. I doubt we would have got very far on a proper railway line.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

You need to burn a lot of it to create much in the way of heat and energy.

 

At Steamport we often used to burn old pallets and cut up sleepers in with the coal, but we were only going up and down a few times a day with a couple of coaches or brake vans. I doubt we would have got very far on a proper railway line.

Fair point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Would wood be a substitute alternative?

 

Technically, thats already being done - as in coal dust mixed with biomass to create 'Ovoids'

 

Still burns faster than regular coal mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2022 at 15:50, Artless Bodger said:

Ffestiniog started with gravity and horses, but I cannot imagine a safety case for gravity operation of passenger trains being accepted - though modern emergency braking systems for funiculars might be adapted.

Well, a roller coaster's basically a gravity-operated passenger train, and from what I understand they're fine legally as long as they use track brakes and don't rely solely on a brakeman.

 

Of course, I suspect none of these proposed solutions would work out cheaper than just using biomass for fuel.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

Well, a roller coaster's basically a gravity-operated passenger train, and from what I understand they're fine legally as long as they use track brakes and don't rely solely on a brakeman.

AFAIK the "Scenic Railway" at Dreamland Margate relies solely on a brakeperson and no track brakes.

 

I stand to be corrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...