Coal

Apologies for the unexpected post, im a long term lurker rather than poster, but despite being a lover of steam preservation, I'm also an Environmental Scientist (yes, I know, bear with me), so this topic is of interest for a couple of reasons. I work both with coal and power stations and also environmental legislation.

So I was just wondering, do you (as representatives of steam railways), suffer a lot of local authority Environmental Health interest in smoke emissions (especially due to poor coal)? One of the principal reasons for asking is that Railway Steam Locomotives are actually exempt from environmental / nuisance controls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so an EHO may well be powerless to prevent dark smoke emissions from steam locomotives. I'm just rather intruiged to hear what smoke queries local authorities may be raising (if any).

 

Im pretty sure around Bridgnorth there are emission monitors and there is certainly one within 500m of the station.
A clean light grey chimney looks much better than thick black smoke you can chew on!

 

May be exempted from (Section 79(1(b)) of the 1990 EPA as a statutory nuisance but not the Clean Air Act 1993, which states:

1 Prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys.
(1)Dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence.

3 Meaning of “dark smoke”.
(1) In this Act “dark smoke” means smoke which, if compared in the appropriate manner with a chart of the M1type known on 5th July 1956 (the date of the passing of the Clean Air Act 1956) as the Ringelmann Chart, would appear to be as dark as or darker than shade 2 on the chart.

43 Railway engines.
(1) Section 1(prohibition of emissions of dark smoke) shall apply in relation to railway locomotive engines as it applies in relation to buildings.
(2) In the application of section 1 to such engines, for the reference in subsection (1) of that section to the occupier of the building there shall be substituted a reference to the owner of the engine.
(3) The owner of any railway locomotive engine shall use any practicable means there may be for minimising the emission of smoke from the chimney on the engine and, if he fails to do so, he shall, if smoke is emitted from that chimney, be guilty of an offence.

 

Have never understood the appeal of thick clag - seems to be something just of interest to certain photographers, as far as I can see. Certainly not something that any self-respecting loco crew would deliberately want to produce, though occasionally it happens.

Tom

 

I too don't understand thick black smoke as an attraction from a photographer's point-of-view. A white exhaust is much more representative of a locomotive working hard and visually attractive.

 

I suppose (to play devil's advocate) the smoke is seen as either a more dramatic show of power or as evidence of working on hot days when steam may not condense at all... Not that I'm condoning excessive smoke emissions, on the contrary I would take every possible step to keep them to a minimum.

 

Interesting that the Clean Air Act 1993 puts the responsibility onto the owner of the locomotive rather than the operator, who, in the majority of cases, is more likely to be responsible on a day to day basis.

 

If you wanted to bring an action, it would probably be easier to do so against the owner (who could be unambiguously identified) than the operator (after all, hypothetically who is actually causing the black smoke - the novice 3rd man having his first firing trip? The fireman, who is supervising him but not actually physically wielding the shovel or operating the doors, blower, dampers etc? Or the driver, who is ultimately the "person in charge" on the footplate, but is also not actually doing anything physical?)

Whereas ultimately, the owner can be unambiguously identified and, in the final analysis, has a responsibility to ensure that before he lets his machine be used, that the people using it are competent to do so.

Tom

 

Yes, but there's a bit of a catch-all with Section 53

53 Offence due to act or default of another
(1) Where the commission by any person of an offence under this Act is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence.
(2) A person may be charged with and convicted of an offence by virtue of this section whether or not proceedings for the offence are taken against any other person.

That could put the fireman and probably the driver right in the firing line but it is all a grey area as I don't think there have been any prosecutions to act as a precedent.

 

Our posts have crossed but I think that it would be difficult to bring a successful prosecution against an owner who has no effective control of the operation of the loco, especially where is it subject to an agreement with a body corporate and Section 52 brings directors and managers (and even members, in some cases) into the firing line, as well!

52 Offences committed by bodies corporate
(1)Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2)Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members this section shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

 

Going back to sources of coal, for the last 12 months we at Swanage have been burning Ffos-y-Fran. We've found it pretty ideal for what we do down here, save for the fact it does seem to do a little damage to firebars. We've been told by our suppliers that the distributors of Ffos-y-Fran will still be honouring existing customers, but won't be able to take on new. However, certainly for us they have also said we need to give them one month's notice of needing a delivery; for the summer season when we have a lorry a week its not too bad, but if its still the case getting towards the quieter times then it will take a little careful guesstimating.

Unfortunately they told us about the one month's notice when we needed a delivery for the following week, so we're currently working our way through a load of Russian. It burns ok, but the sizes are more akin to house coal so it takes a fair bit of shovelling to make any sort of impact in a Bulleid.

 

The last few loads of welsh coal we've had are fist size or less, and you can crush it with your heel

 

surely you can calculate how many trains run over the period of a summer week and see how long it takes you to run that many trains in the shoulder season? or am I missing something?

cheers

 

I've usually found it to be pretty big rather than as small as fist size (very subjective size though!). The first time I came across it I was amazed how I could crush a lump to dust in my hands. Up until then I had fired with hard coals that had the texture of stone.

 

I understand that there is the possibility of a new Welsh opencast site being opened up near Blaenavon, although it is currently awaiting approval. I believe this is a good steam coal area, but it will take some time before it comes on stream (if ever).

 

It depends what you are meaning by 'good steam coal'. Coals are generally divided into caking and non-caking coals regarding their properties. Caking coals are further sub-divided into coking and non-coking coals. For classification purposes all coals that are not coking coals are referred to as steam coals. It has no regard to their suitability for use in a locomotive boiler, simply means that they aren't suitable for making coke.

 

It's a characteristic of Welsh coals from outside the anthracite belt that they are friable. When I was a fireman on the Tal-y-llyn the coal came from Bargoed and later Oakdale collieires. We always used forks for coaling the locos and there was a huge amount of slack (dust) remaining that was never used, except in the workshops stove. If you did try and burn it, you ended up with a badly clinkered fire.

 

I've always been informed that No.4 was the engine that could be fired on slack! I imagine No.7 could be fired on it too. On the WHR the Garratts don't seem to mind a lot of slack and clinker build-up depends on other factors (air-flow, heat changes) but it's very hard to fault the current supplies of Welsh coal on any grounds.

 

No.7 was before my time but even No.4 struggled with slack. Well, it did when I was firing it!
As for clinker, it is no more than molten ash but it is a eutectic mix and the melting temperature is a variable depending on the constituents. If you have a low melting point ash, you will get clinker whatever you do. If you have a high melting point ash, clinker formation is more a result of what the fireman does. Using fire-irons on a hot fire is one sure way to create clinker.

 

I mean that coal from pits in the area was used for locomotives by GWR/BR(WR) in steam days !