BBC reporting that heritage railways will run out of coal in 2021

[WAO]

No, because coal fired power stations recycle the water that is boiled. The cooling towers are just to cool the condenser water. My comment was meant to be tongue in the cheek though - always difficult on-line......

Not quite. Cooling towers use a lot of water once through, to provide natural draught, evaporative cooling of the coils at their base, to condense the turbines' exit steam at high vacuum. That's why they are usually next to watercourses.

We will miss them.

WAO

 

[Flying Phil]

True WAO...but in the context of the thread, the cooling towers are not burning coal and creating CO2 leading to Global Warming.

 

[WAO]

Yes, I imagine the marginal reflectivity will have many zeros after the decimal point.

I do think that 26kt of coal is also insignificant compared to the carbon cycle in nature and oppose the obsession with "zero carbon", when low or sustainable carbon would be a better mantra. We would be better getting China to insulate its HP steam mains and use back pressure turbines so that the waste heat could be used rather than rejected.

One day,

WAO

 

[randyrippley]

Kinda defeats the point of railway preservation, and it's not a viable long term solution considering the government want to rid us of diesel and petrol engines asap. The Swanage has been importing coal from Poland and Russia for years now and contrary to popular belief you can get high quality anthracite coal from the east.

Anthracite isn't a lot of use in most locomotives, it burns too hot and destroys the grate, firebox and tubes

But back to the substance of your post: the imports. I would have thought it unlikely that they do the imports themselves, but are actually buying from an importer who ships the stuff in bulk, which brings us back to the original problem: most of that importers demand will be for household use, take that demand away and there's nothing to piggyback onto the small needs of the railway

 

[Flying Phil]

Despite the negativity displayed here, I'm quite sure that those groups who are running heritage railways, those groups building new steam locomotives, those people who want to run their steam locomotives on the main line will work together to ensure a steady supply of suitable coal.....somehow!

 

[Titfield]

I think there are a number of issues here:
1) The supply of suitable coal. The key to this will be working together. (as Flying Phil states) Will the interested parties possibly through the HRA manage to do this achieving a stable supply at an affordable price?
2) The general move away from Fossil Fuels instigated by Governments. No one is doubting that the amount of coal used by Heritage Railways and similar users is very very small in the grand scheme of things. The All Parliamentary Report says that. However if, and we sincerely hope, that Heritage Railways are given some form of dispensation / derogation then the HRs must act very sensibly, not abuse this very great privilege, and take as many steps as possible to ensure that their total operations are net zero. This may mean a carbon surcharge on tickets, it may mean offsets. Whatever it means we should do it as the price that has to be paid for keeping what we love operating.

 

[Richard Scott]

If we are to blame (In part) heritage Railways for global warming, is there not a counter argument that the steam emission (white when condensed) causes greater reflectivity on earth and less solar warming?

Unfortunately water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

 

[Lloyds siding]

Unfortunately water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

But one with a good feedback mechanism, so that it doesn't overcome natural cycles ability to keep it at a relatively stable proportion of the earth's atmosphere. (It's working overtime feeding it back to earth in this area of Merseyside/Lancashire at the moment).

 

[DorkingMain]

The problem is each locomotive would need to be treated as a one-off - with the numerous different designs of grate, firebox, boiler and smokebox in existence, what works on one loco may well not work on another. Almost every one is different.
I suspect every individual loco is going to need research work to discover the needed configuration of firebox and smokebox - to the point where the modded locos won't be representative of the historic reality. And who's got the money to carry out the research and mods on every loco? And who's prepared to compromise the locos historic authenticity?

There's also potentially some extremely dangerous consequences if you get it wrong and the boiler blows up.

Unfortunately water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

Yes and no.

The global warming potential of water vapour from human activity is pretty much negligible for various reasons.

But one with a good feedback mechanism, so that it doesn't overcome natural cycles ability to keep it at a relatively stable proportion of the earth's atmosphere. (It's working overtime feeding it back to earth in this area of Merseyside/Lancashire at the moment).

It's a positive feedback mechanism, which is not a good thing in global warming terms - increased water vapour in the atmosphere can encourage more water vapour in the atmosphere. However, the amount of water vapour we're dealing with in this scenario is unlikely to make much difference.

 

[trebor79]

Yes, I imagine the marginal reflectivity will have many zeros after the decimal point.

I do think that 26kt of coal is also insignificant compared to the carbon cycle in nature and oppose the obsession with "zero carbon", when low or sustainable carbon would be a better mantra.

Indeed. Actually in the context of the discussion, it doesn't really matter whether what you burn was sucked out of the atmosphere 10,000,000 years ago or 1 year ago - you're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere. A lot of people don't understand this, and think there's no need to be concerned about burning biomass. It depends what that biomass is - wastes such as straw, agricultural residues and plantation wood are OK. Peat, ancient wood etc are worse than burning coal as not only are you releasing carbon, but you're actively destroying a carbon sink to do so,

There's also potentially some extremely dangerous consequences if you get it wrong and the boiler blows up.

Given the firebox reaches blast furnace temperatures when on the move I don't really see how this is even a remote possibility unless you did something really stupid like try to burn gas or petrol and got the fuel/air mixture wrong. The most damage you could possibly do is melt the firebars, but that's possible anyway with a misfired steam loco.

 

[randyrippley]

.........Given the firebox reaches blast furnace temperatures when on the move I don't really see how this is even a remote possibility unless you did something really stupid like try to burn gas or petrol and got the fuel/air mixture wrong. The most damage you could possibly do is melt the firebars, but that's possible anyway with a misfired steam loco.

Melting or otherwise overheating the firebox crown is a real risk with the wrong fuel, as would be weakening/dislodging the fire tubes

 

[HSTEd]

Out of interest, has anyone know if anyone has tried firing petcoke in a steam locomotive?

Ultimately I expect a conversion to oil or similar firing is what will happen.

 

[trebor79]

Melting or otherwise overheating the firebox crown is a real risk with the wrong fuel, as would be weakening/dislodging the fire tubes

Melting the crown can only happen if the water level is allowed to drop too low. It's impossible to melt steel or copper that is in direct contact with water, I mean perhaps if you shoved hundreds or thousands of megawatts into it, but it's just not possible to do it in a loco firebox. Unless you're firing it with Emmett Brown's special logs from Back to the Future 3 of course.
Warping of the tubeplate or failure of the interference fit between tubes and tubeplate could be an issue if a temperatures rise too quickly or a very hot fire is dropped. That's also the case with coal, but could be easier to get wrong with some other fuels.
All of this is likely to be very manageable with some modification to grate and operating practices.

 

[WAO]

Ultimately I expect a conversion to oil or similar firing is what will happen.

I would favour LNG/CNG (i.e. methane, or bio-methane, c60% of the cost of oil) firing, from a tender tank. The controls are all industry standard and the lower combustion temperature would be much kinder to the boiler, increasing its life and reducing the enormous repair costs. Its controllability (waiting for time, between workings etc) would save energy and combustion is clean. The boiler could be lit from a time switch, (even wifi!), not a 4am visit to the shed. Carbon emissions would be much lower as much of the energy would come from the four hydrogen atoms' oxidation. It is possible that forced draught (i. a fan) might be needed.

Bye bye shovel...

WAO

 

[2392]

I would favour LNG/CNG (i.e. methane, or bio-methane, c60% of the cost of oil) firing, from a tender tank. The controls are all industry standard and the lower combustion temperature would be much kinder to the boiler, increasing its life and reducing the enormous repair costs. Its controllability (waiting for time, between workings etc) would save energy and combustion is clean. The boiler could be lit from a time switch, (even wifi!), not a 4am visit to the shed. Carbon emissions would be much lower as much of the energy would come from the four hydrogen atoms' oxidation. It is possible that forced draught (i. a fan) might be needed.

Bye bye shovel...

WAO

IIRC about 30 years ago 1989-90+/- the Swiss built a new batch of narrow gauge rack and pinion steam engines for use in the Alps. These engine had an electric heating element incorporated into the boiler like that in an electric kettle [admitted it was larger]. At the end of the day/shift when the engine went on shed, the crew would top up [as necessary] the boiler and plug it in. It had a timer so that it switch on at a set time and warmed the boiler up prior to the crew coming in, in the morning.

 

[paul1609]

IIRC about 30 years ago 1989-90+/- the Swiss built a new batch of narrow gauge rack and pinion steam engines for use in the Alps. These engine had an electric heating element incorporated into the boiler like that in an electric kettle [admitted it was larger]. At the end of the day/shift when the engine went on shed, the crew would top up [as necessary] the boiler and plug it in. It had a timer so that it switch on at a set time and warmed the boiler up prior to the crew coming in, in the morning.

Weve looked at preheating our steam locos both by electric and and a biomass boiler utilising a thermal store. Unfortunately the costs outweighed the benefits by a considerable margin. You wouldnt want historic boilers heating up unmanned either. The number of times Ive failed an engine before lighting up is considerable.

 

[2392]

I'm not sure off hand the full ins and outs of how these "new" Swiss locos with their preheating elements worked. Like as not there would be all-sorts of electronic and other gadgets fitted to forestall any accidental incidents. I don't think the heating elements brought it to the boil rather just warm it up. After all these locomotives were new, whilst having the classical look.Rather like the replicas of Locomotion, Rocket, Puffing Billy, they look the part but are built to modernish standards........

 

[eldomtom2]

Ultimately I expect a conversion to oil or similar firing is what will happen.

Oil will eventually suffer from the same fate that coal is currently - the American experiments with biomass seem to me the most practical way forward, assuming a way to cheaply synthesize coal isn't found...

 

[HSTEd]

Oil will eventually suffer from the same fate that coal is currently - the American experiments with biomass seem to me the most practical way forward, assuming a way to cheaply synthesize coal isn't found...

There are a lot more niche uses for oil in the post carbon future than coal.
There will be all the classic cars, boats and planes and such.

 

[WAO]

Swiss electricity is derived I believe from hydroelectric (water turbines) not thermal sources. These have only a fraction of the first's thermodynamic efficiency and are therefore only suitable for heating water for the teapot.

WAO

 

[trebor79]

Swiss electricity is derived I believe from hydroelectric (water turbines) not thermal sources. These have only a fraction of the first's thermodynamic efficiency and are therefore only suitable for heating water for the teapot.

?
Hydroelectric power stations are very efficient indeed. Pelton wheels easily achieve over 98% efficiency. Sure there are generation, transformer and transmission losses, but those are common the thermal plants too.
Coal plants are doing well to achieve high 30's efficiency. Most biomass is less than 35% efficient. Open cycle gas turbine is around 50% efficiency and CCGT (the most efficient fossil fuelled electricity - gas turbine with the exhaust gases into a boiler hooked up to a steam turbine) around 80% efficient.
Hydro blows them all away.

 

[Speed43125]

?
Hydroelectric power stations are very efficient indeed. Pelton wheels easily achieve over 98% efficiency. Sure there are generation, transformer and transmission losses, but those are common the thermal plants too.
Coal plants are doing well to achieve high 30's efficiency. Most biomass is less than 35% efficient. Open cycle gas turbine is around 50% efficiency and CCGT (the most efficient fossil fuelled electricity - gas turbine with the exhaust gases into a boiler hooked up to a steam turbine) around 80% efficient.
Hydro blows them all away.

I think that comment was meant to say 'these' (ie. thermal sources) only have a fraction of the "first's" (ie. the former's - Hydro electric's) thermodynamic efficiency.

I think that was the intended meaning, pretty difficult to understand at any rate.

 

[Flying Phil]

I think we are all suffering from lockdown and lack of any good news ..... or any news, about our heritage railways!

 

[WAO]

Perfect diagnosis, FP! Point taken about pronouns.
Next to the death toll, the new tragedy is empty trains.

WAO

 

[trebor79]

Ah yes, perhaps I misread. Apologies @WAO .

 

[WAO]

No need. Your post was much more informative.

Think the CCGT figure might be 60 - 64%.

Regards,

WAO

 

[jfowkes]

Get Vivarail to fit a battery pack and electric traction package in place of the boiler. They like doing that sort of thing.

 

[Jozhua]

The Welsh Government have announced a plan to ban coal burning in home fires. Is this going to affect heritage lines and any possible small scale mining ventures?

Clean air: Coal burning ban and wet wood restrictions planned

A new clean air law could see burning house coal banned in Wales, and stricter rules on using wood fires.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ugh. I don't understand these really inconsequential moves. There are so many more larger pollutants than a few people using coal domestically. Climate change only became a significant concern once the oil age came and our use of fossil fuels skyrocketed.

Giving out more grants for heatpumps, insulation and investment in public transport will make significantly more difference. But this involves significantly more effort on the part of a governing authority instead of simply "banning" things.

Mothball the steam locos as static museum pieces, and use Pacers on the line, with the marketing priority being given to sightseeing the countryside in comfort, rather than riding old trains

Oh no, this is not a good take. Most people go to ride the railways for the trains, they like the old steam locomotives, even if they don't know much about trains in general.
No-one will want to ride Pacers except for enthusiasts.

Let’s be honest, the contribution of heritage railways to climate change is so infinitesimally small as to be an utter irrelevance.

Well, I guess I didn't need to make that point!

Very true. It's like going after Scout campfires while at the same time doing nothing about road vehicles.

I feel like some of these special "edge cases" should be looked at last, as a last resort. But right now, the heritage railways would save much more carbon encouraging people to take a national rail, or bus service to the railway instead of driving, rather than changing fuels.

Nevermind the absolute ton of diesels belting up and down the various mainlines at 125mph all day every day.

Get Vivarail to fit a battery pack and electric traction package in place of the boiler. They like doing that sort of thing.

Lmao I was gonna make a joke about that!

Like an even worse version of those swiss steam engines which used OLE to boil the water.

 

[XAM2175]

Ugh. I don't understand these really inconsequential moves. There are so many more larger pollutants than a few people using coal domestically. Climate change only became a significant concern once the oil age came and our use of fossil fuels skyrocketed.

The article is fairly clear in stating that the measure is aimed at reducing pollution (and thus improving local air quality), rather than being related to climate change.

 

[dgl]

Get Vivarail to fit a battery pack and electric traction package in place of the boiler. They like doing that sort of thing.

Add a smoke machine, and some large speakers playing steam train noises and you might have something, I wonder if you can get essence of steam engine/coal fire for smoke machines
Sell it as some sort of "green" initiative and watch the eco types come flooding in!