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

[peanuts]

this may be of interest to the discussion  

 

[Colin_McLeod]

On 22/04/2022 at 15:46, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Would wood be a substitute alternative?

 

The North Borneo Railway is powered by a wood burning locomotive.

 

 

[AY Mod]

8 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

verbotant by the greta's.

 

Please refrain from insulting people who are considerate to the environment.

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

The North Borneo Railway is powered by a wood burning locomotive.

 

 

A variation on the lion and wheel!

[AY Mod]

4 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

However, my post was approved by a moderator.

"Your content will need to be approved by a moderator".

 

So that I could quote the post and tell you I didn't like it, then I remove it again.

 

I didn't approve your other earlier jibe either. You obviously thought you were being clever repeating your prejudices.

 

Oh, and I didn't approve your jibe about Traffic Officers in another topic earlier.

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

So that I could quote the post and tell you I didn't like it, then I remove it again.

 

I didn't approve your other earlier jibe either. You obviously thought you were being clever repeating your prejudices.

 

Oh, and I didn't approve your jibe about Traffic Officers in another topic earlier.

I made a mistake which stupidly contained something against site rules, on a recent posting which was deleted. I saw little point in arguing about and let it go.

I'll try harder next time.

[The Stationmaster]

Getting back, almost., on topic I attended a vintage transport rally yesterday - first time since 2019.  While there was an awful of various forms of motorised transport, including 108 agricultural tractors, there were also a good smattering of steam - 24 traction engines, steam rollers and steam lorries plus 25 'models' of such machines.  

 

So apart from a few of the stationary engines present there were getting on for 50 coal burners on site and they too will need a continuing supply of fuel for their occasional forays.  And there will be difficulty replacing coal in their relatively small fireboxes - especially on some of the smaller scale models.

 

This one is full size genuine Burrell  Showman's Engine (i.e. built as such, in 1904, and not a preservation era conversion from a road engine).  Note at least half a dozen bags of coal/smokeless fuel on the ground just behind her.  engines like this will either continue to need suitable fuel or just be left to rot away.

 

[KeithMacdonald]

On 22/04/2022 at 15:46, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Would wood be a substitute alternative?

 

I don't know, but Edward Woodward would.

[KingEdwardII]

I think that one or more UK coalmines should be opened to supply heritage railways and other coal users who have no practical alternative to the use of coal.

 

Yours, Mike.

[6990WitherslackHall]

I read in a Railway Magazine article that in the late 40s (around 1947 I think) five GWR 4-6-0s were converted to oil burning. 

 

I still have a few Railway Magazine issues so I'm going to have a look through them and see if I can find the article

[KingEdwardII]

5 hours ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

GWR 4-6-0s were converted to oil burning. 

12 GWR 28xx 2-8-0s were adapted to oil burning just after the second world war, due to a shortage of South Wales coal. This was extended to 5 Castle 4-6-0s and beyond until some 36 GWR locos had been adapted (93 in total across the whole of the UK). It was not a success due to high costs and the venture was abandoned in 1948 and the locos reverted to coal burning.

 

Yours, Mike.

[JeremyC]

12 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

I think that one or more UK coalmines should be opened to supply heritage railways and other coal users who have no practical alternative to the use of coal.

 

Yours, Mike.

The question is whether the heritage industry creates sufficient demand to make a mine viable, bearing in mind that other coal users might not have the same requirements.

A lot of people who blame environmentalists for the closure of British mines seem to forget the UK coal industry was massively declining on economic grounds long before environmental considerations became serious. In the end I think environmental concerns have only sped what was inevitable.

Edited June 13, 2022 by JeremyC

[RichardT]

13 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

I think that one or more UK coalmines should be opened to supply heritage railways and other coal users who have no practical alternative to the use of coal.

 

Yours, Mike.

I look forward to the flood of volunteers coming forward to staff this.

 

Richard

[34101]

I was privileged to descend Alveley colliery before it was closed in 1969 with a group from the then Worcester College of Education (now University).

With workings less than a meter high there is no way I would consider coal mining as a career.  I had total admiration for the men working down there.  it was dark, dusty, hot and claustrophic.

Of course the mine was beside the SVR.  Good luck finding anyone to do that job now, and voluteers would never be allowed.

 

[billbedford]

On 22/04/2022 at 15:46, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Would wood be a substitute alternative?

 

Hey, if it works for Drax....

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, 34101 said:

I was privileged to descend Alveley colliery before it was closed in 1969 with a group from the then Worcester College of Education (now University).

With workings less than a meter high there is no way I would consider coal mining as a career.  I had total admiration for the men working down there.  it was dark, dusty, hot and claustrophic.

Of course the mine was beside the SVR.  Good luck finding anyone to do that job now, and voluteers would never be allowed.

 

I'd be surprised if some of those more unpleasant aspects couldn't be mechanised these days. I'm generally not a fan of replacing human jobs with machines, but there are some that are just outright unpleasant. I've never been down any coal mines, only various old metal mines, but at least I could (more or less) stand up in those; I think I could tolerate working in them (and indeed have sort of done some, if you count digging through a collapse to find out what was on the other side), but coal? No thanks. The most unpleasant aspect I've found on underground trips isn't the physical (which frequently includes quite a lot of cold water) but going out in winter, when we come out not long before sunset, so barely get to see any daylight. And that was only one day a week.

 

On the environmental impact, well, even before recent reductions was the amount of coal being burnt these days worth worrying about? I don't really see any good case for worrying about it other than with the remaining coal-powered power generation.

[number6]

5 minutes ago, Pandora said:

The pollution by steam heritage is tiny, not worth bothering with, tobacco smokers combined produce far more pollution than the heritage railways.

We are also in charge of our destiny, we have a Parliament where Acts are introduced / debated / voted in by democratically elected MPs , we are no longer being "goose-stepped" by the EU Parliament where Acts are formulated by un-elected bureaucrats . Acts which are mainly rubber stamp voted in  by the Euro MPs , the latter having zero rights to contest the scope and content of such Acts.

Goosestepped? - by the peaceful organisation that grew out of the ruins of the war with goosestepping fascists?

 

Please take this talk elsewhere. 

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

I think that one or more UK coalmines should be opened to supply heritage railways and other coal users who have no practical alternative to the use of coal.

 

Yours, Mike.

Going back some years there was a private mine somewhere near Rhymney (and one of several then operating in England and Wales at that time) and it supplied coal for mainline steam operations.  But it was incredibly expensive although top notch stuff, especially for big Western engine,s and most people preferred to go for Daw Mill which wasn't too bad and was about two thirds the price.

 

Human cut coal - with subsequent mechanised clearance from the coal face etc is probably about the best for steam operation because mechanically cut coal tends to have a small lump size - more like what used to be called 'duff' than 'coal'.  I would think, if they were allowed to - that some of the Free Miners in the Forest of Dean would still be prepared to actually earn a living rather than life on benefits but the stuff won't be cheap.

 

No comparison of course with power station boilers where the fuel is mechanically fired and materials with lower calorific values than coal can be used because greater quantities can be handled to sustain combustion and keep the burn temperature high.  And to be honest I certainly wouldn't like to get too close to some of the stuff used as 'eco-fuels' in power stations; the solid remnants from olive oil crushing probably wouldn't work too well in a loco firebox and the rubbish imported from North American board mills is literally that - rubbish, and complete with the dried remnants of whatever adhesives were used in board manufacturing.  Heritage steam fired on MDF or plywood offcuts - somehow I think not.

Edited June 13, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[RJS1977]

Some of the e-coals being trialled on heritage lines are based on 50% solid remnants from olive oil crushing and appear to be working relatively well - the main disadvantage being that it takes longer for the fire to heat up.

[6990WitherslackHall]

Ok, so I've had a look through my  magazines and I've found the issue the picture was in.

 

It was in the April 2021 issue of The Railway Magazine in a section called Staff Perks in an article under the title of Swindon's Annual Train Trip. The 3 page long article, by Dene Bebbington, described how annual works staff trips began and how popular they became. 

 

The description beneath the picture states: "Swindon staff keep a watchful eye as Castle No. 5091 Cleeve Abbey is lowered and reunited with its front bogie. The loco was one of five Castle class locos converted in 1947 to burn oil, and the photograph is believed to date from that time". 

 

Also of note are the three locomotives also featured in the photo: GWR Hall 4975 Umberslade Hall, former Wantage Tramway No. 8, (which is now preserved at Didcot Railway Centre), and a BR Standard 2mt 2-6-0.

Edited June 13, 2022 by 6990WitherslackHall
Copyright image removed

[AMJ]

I envisage that given the age of many locomotive boilers that there will quite a few who decide to stuff and mount the locomotive.  

 

One possible way to have some steam still running will be to use fireless locos.  Depending upon the site they are located on there would be a steam generator powered by electricity.  Many sites are likely to have a wind turbine and some solar panels.  

 

There are a few Swiss steam locos that have an immersion heater in the boiler to pre warm the boiler before the fireman lights a fire.  This ensures the loco uses less fuel to get up to pressure.  

 

Figures are available indicating that locos, both road and rail, contribute only a small percentage of the overall carbon footprint.  I bet that the visitors have a bigger footprint by the transport they use.

[BR traction instructor]

If the order of play is to tackle the worst offenders by degree first and then work down the list in order to the point where it will cost more/cause the elimination of culturally significant minorities to continue, then most of the work that it is sensible to complete will already have been done.

 

BeRTIe

Edited June 13, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[KingEdwardII]

17 hours ago, JeremyC said:

The question is whether the heritage industry creates sufficient demand

Probably not, on its own - but there are plenty of other coal consumers in the UK.

 

17 hours ago, JeremyC said:

A lot of people who blame environmentalists for the closure of British mines

I do blame environmentalism for a) recent closures and b) recent refusals to grant new licences. The proposed new mine in Cumbria is the poster child here, but less well known and publicised are the actions of the Welsh government in refusing licences for mines, notably open cast mines. "climate change" was one of the grounds for refusal. This is in one sense beyond insane since there is nothing to stop coal imports, so the refusal simply kills employment in this country.

 

15 hours ago, RichardT said:

I look forward to the flood of volunteers coming forward to staff this.

Who needs volunteers? In recent years, there have been proposals for commercial mines, with real paid jobs associated with them. Given the current high prices for all forms of energy, coal included, it is certain that these proposals would be even more viable and profitable today.

 

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

there was a private mine somewhere near Rhymney

There were open cast pits in South Wales that were accessing some of the same seams that produced the fabled steam coal. These could be viable today, if given permits to operate, and have the potential to produce coal at a lower price point than deep mines.

 

Yours, Mike.

[billbedford]

10 hours ago, number6 said:

Goosestepped? - by the peaceful organisation that grew out of the ruins of the war with goosestepping fascists?

 

 

You mean the British Army? My Grandfather told us having to goose-step along Doncaster race course when he was a lad in the Yorkshire Light Infantry, any with the pace set at 160* per minute he reconded it was bl**dy hard work. 

 

*...or some such imposible number. 

[Reorte]

17 hours ago, BR traction instructor said:

If the order of play is to tackle the worst offenders by degree first and then work down the list in order to the point where it will cost more/cause the elimination of culturally significant minorities to continue, then most of the work that it is sensible to complete will already have been done.

When it comes to coal, very much so. Of course it's not just a case of ticking one off after the other; some are harder to do away with even if they're more significant contributors, some are easy targets even if their contribution is negligible. In the former category we still have some coal-fired power generation, even if it's not in constant use. Removing that would be worthwhile but you don't have to look very far to see why doing so poses problems right now. In the latter we have the attack on household coal use, which is very minor indeed (despite some people trying to point to the pre-Clear Air Acts days to justify it) so there's no good reason for eliminating it, but it ticks the right boxes with city-dwelling youngsters who've never seen a lump of coal in their life.