Does steam and diesel have a future?

Yes, yes, very good... but what about this "...conversion of steamers [sic] to run on LPG and then hydrogen" in the screenshot I posted. Has anyone actually done this?

 

Don't think there's too much new about LPG firing, though that term specifically applies to a fossil derived product, hence in the same category as MKI coal.

Firing with fuels created from hydrogen, assuming the gas isn't produced from fossil fuel in the first place, is technically feasible, but a hell of a long way from economically viable. In point of fact, there's been a lot of research into the economics of hydrogen combustion (in equipment fitted with comparatively modern burners) for space heating, which has returned the same conclusion. That's the bad news ......

Over the longer term, the best bet for keeping our beasties combusting in an acceptable fashion comes fron 'Carbon Capture & Storage' tech, more precisely that CCS installed in industrial production plant. This is due to atmospheric carbon capture still being most readily achieved with straightforward biological processes.

Reformed solid and liquid fuels from CCS would be 'carbon neutral', by definition and (more especially if our movement is seem to be doing it's part elsewhere) it seeks unlikely there are / will be enough of our old steamers and diesels to really worry anyone in the grand scheme of things. This isn't as leftfield as it may sound, as the same basic considerations apply to off-mains heating systems which are fuelled up by tankers .... and there are too many of those to replace overnight.

As well as 'manufactured' bydrocarbons being 'carbon neutral', there's the added bonus that bespoke recipes could be developed to mimic the most desirable qualities of the best steam coal, rather than the crap which vitrifies in firebox grate or bungs the ashpan up in half a shift.

Nowt there is going to happen by itself, but if our movement has representation to the right administrative and legislative ears, we could even come out of this in better fettle than at practically any other point in locomotive development.

..... or we could go for the "dog in a manger" approach, with it's fine track record of outstanding achievement and see where that lands us.

 

Dont you want to join The Order of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

 

Haven't seen any of them in years. S'pose they'll be on electric skates by now and moving even more spookily.

Rather liked Terry Pratchett's "Chattering Order of St.Beryl"

 

They were actually mentioned on the Daily Service on Radio 4 this morning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001dnb8 - at 07:00 onwards!

 

Never heard of them so had to Google them and wish I hadn't

 

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a way of reducing carbon emissions, which could be key to helping to tackle global warming. It’s a three-step process, involving: capturing the carbon dioxide produced by power generation or industrial activity, such as steel or cement making; transporting it; and then storing it deep underground. Any carbon captured would be derived from fossil fuels and therefore there is nothing green about such carbon even if it could be used for manufacturing some sort of fuel.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-is-ccs-how-does-it-work

 

Kindly note I didn't say "green" and deliberately so. It's actually a term I increasingly try to avoid, as it's become meaningless media clickbait to mean 'magic bullet' or 'free lunch' .... and there simply ain't no such things.

The term in my OP "carbon nuetral", which I'm happy to justify on the basis that no fresh extraction of carbon from the ground is involved, the fuel envisaged being recycled from atmospheric carbon supplied via CCS tech. Given it's still early days for the whole notion of carbon capture, probably best to point out that many uses are envisaged, beyond merely reloading worked out coal mines.

The link you posted is a most useful one, as National Grid are (mercifully) one British organisation who are some way ahead of the curve and world leaders in their field. If only the rest of UKPlc's industrial and political sectors were similarly up to speed, we'd be both better informed and well past the point of paying heed to quite so much disinformation, from wherever it comes.

 

But CCS is not used to extract carbon from the atmosphere. Given the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it wouldn't be cost or energy effective to extract carbon in this way. The only efficient way to do so is with photosynthesis, using the power of the Sun. Carbon extracted using CCS is from underground sources; CCS returns it to the ground. Using CCS-sourced carbon to make fuel to burn in a steam engine is therefore no different to using coal for that purpose.

 

I know that I'm talking about road steam but I understand that American T.V. presenter Jay Leno has a propane fired (Peerless?) Traction Engine, I'm sure that it's on Utube somewhere whilst over here there is a propane fired Sentinel steam waggon, with the burner cotrolled by a smart phone, thinking on it, it may be in Scotland.

 

[Last two paragraphs are completely on-topic ..... promise! ]

I'm going to argue that first point, as CCS simply means 'Carbon Capture and Storage'. Though you're perfectly correct about photosynthesis, there's nothing in the term CCS to exclude that portion of capture being done by plants, or the storage being in the form of useful raw materials made from those plants, any more than from some kit bolted on to a concrete production line, which could as readily be a raw material in it's own right and yes, likely most will land up back underground. Worth noting that natural photosynthesis is the inspiration for quite a bit of current experimental work, across several fields.

In absolute terms, or expressed as a percentage of the planet's atmosphere, CO2 levels aren't one of the bigger numbers, but they don't need to be to cause those climate issues which have been demonstrated beyond doubt to be the result of human activity. I realise from context you weren't suggesting otherwise, but as evidenced by my own need to clarify an earlier post, you've certainly convinced me it's important to avoid as much cause for misunderstanding as possible.

The "where" of the source of future solid and liquid fuels from captured carbon is only relevant in terms of how it affects production and I freely admit the specifics of those processes are well beyond me. The reason I feel it's unlikely to be a serious issue in the longer term is simply down to how increasingly insignificant exhausts from our old locos will become in the grand scheme of things.

I could, of course, be wrong and there are those for whom the 'stop burning stuff' mantra is an absolute, to be obeyed with a quasi-religious zeal. Whilst the imperative to act is unarguable, that action needs to be as sustainable as the desired outcome, so no .. I'm not about to superglue myself to any engine shed doors and would seek to talk sense into those who might, to convince them it's not a good idea.

 

One solution, for preserved lines, would be to use wood. Harvesting would have to be done sustainably though, with harvesting rates equaling growth rates.

 

You'd probably get away with it in a Bullied or Riddles boiler, as both have been claimed to steam when burning old boots!

If current experiments are owt to go by, the only thing it's safe to say is we've not stumbled on any satisfactory coal replacement yet.

 

There’s plenty of greener fuels beyond coal. Some are renewable or waste products. That I don’t see as the issue. What I do see is that people need to modify thier combustion systems to burn the fuels properly.

Beyond that the locomotives need to be made both fuel and steam consumption efficient. This to me seams the hardest part in convince operators that such work is both viable and well proven.

 

I've seen lots of videos over the years of American 15,18 and 20 inch gauge locos running on propane so it's a possibility.

 

There's also the issue of consistency though and if reports we've read on here by folks working with alternatives, ash content sounds a major bane, certainly on locos with less than generous ashpans and draughting arrangements.

I've lost count of the number of locos which have been the subject of front end improvements over the years, only for those to be removed subsequently. As, mechanical wear on Giesl ejectors aside, I never once recall any solid reason why they've reverted, it's hard to escape the conclusion it's no more than conservatism/luddism (stands back to await furious elliptical denials)

Not that it's much help right now, but in the longer term, I can see "recycled" carbon fuels and of a quality better than the best of MKI steam coal (or diesel, for that matter). We need people from our movement with a bent for organic chemistry having input to folk in the emerging CCS industry, as it's likely there'll be a lot more of a "stop burning stuff" persuasion than steam nuts on the CCS side.

While we're here, has anyone yet considered the several grades of lubricating oil we can't do without?

 

The only issue is cost. We could make a green fuel now for steam locomotives if we wanted. Probably plant based. We simply wouldn't be able to afford it. It will happen, my guess would be as a result of people wanting to enjoy a real fire.

 

Reliability of steaming can be improved with the correct combustion technology for a given fuel.

By improving the fuel efficiency you are also limiting the cost of the fuel.

Making fuel savings by re draughting is a very cost efficient practice.

 

Do you have the data for fuel saving on a loco on a typical duty cycle, i.e. including lighting up, laying over, coasting etc? For example, our line is pretty hilly (11 miles one way, with probably 8 of those miles at 1 in 75 or steeper) but even so, a loco will spend most of the day with the regulator shut, but still burning fuel. As an example, a daily duty of preparation + 3 round trips (66 miles) + dispose can be done inside 12 hours, but during all that time, the loco is only working really hard for less than 2 hours in total (*). For most of the day, the regulator is shut (steam raising, waiting at stations, coasting downhill) and drafting makes no difference.

I'd love to see figures, but they need to be whole duty cycle figures for a realistic duty, not just an efficiency gain in a performance regime that is only encountered for a small part of the day.

(*) Say 30 minutes out of 40 in the uphill direction, and less than 10 working easily up a 1 in 122 gradient on the return, repeated three times).

Tom