In general, which kind of locomotives generated more polution, steamers or diesels?
On first sight, it would seem steamers, because of so much smoke, but, I wonder if that smoke is as destructive to the ozone and nature as diesel smoke is.
So, which one is worse?
I would say both. It would depend on what type of air polution. Steamers tend to release more Sulpher Oxides, than a diesel would due to the nature of the coal being burned. More smog would be present thus more ground level ozone woud be present, which isn’t too good.
Diesels tend to emit more particulate matter, CO, NOx, COx, and some SOx but not as much as steamers. In turn you could say that diesels are cleaner burning engines than steamers.
I don’t know. Steam locos put out more visible pollution and put out more particulates. Areas near the tracks were often filthy from the smoke.
There’s no comparison. The “wrong side of the tracks” in any city was the side made less desirable by being downwind from the locomotive exhaust. And locomotives never had to live through the restrictions on sulfur content of coal, etc. I’ve been rained on by cinders, too, once or twice.
Current diesel technology makes for very low pollution. Especially on a ton-mile of freight moved.
As recouinted in the excellent book of the New Haven Railroad Historical Society, “Diesels to Park Avenue”, in the Penn Central days and the early Conrail days, maintenance was cut to the bone, and this meant that often third rail shoes had been knocked off because of improper maintanance of either the shoes or the third rails or both (like putting gaps in the third rail to permit track maintanance without the absolutely necessary ramps at gap ends), and the manufacturer of the changvoer switches was out of business and EMD had to search for a new supplier, etc., so diesels ran into GCT on diesel power. My late cousin Lester Klepper was the lawyer for Restaurant Associates, who ran the Waldorf Astoria’s restaurants. Patrons complained about the diesel smoke. By that time Metro North just had taken over (I wonder if Walter Zulig reads this thread, he was their general counsil and is still a good railfan), but the management said to the Waldorf people: “We only run electric trains into Grand Central.” I told my cousin otherwise, but the Metro North train personel found out who ratted and my comutes became a trifle less pleasant at times. One result of my ratting on Metro North was the wonderful sight of a P-motor coupling up to a string of lightweight coaches ----at North White Plains, not just Croton Harmon! Soon the problems were fixed, the FL-9’s returned to using electric power into GCT (with simpler third rail shoes that then prevented their operation into Penn Station) and then the electrification was extended to Brewster, opening up a new set of problems for people boarding expressed heading to Manhattan thinking they were locals and could get off at lower Westchester or Bronx stops.
No comparison at all – diesels create far less pollution. Even old Alcos! Oil fired steam was a lot better than coal fired, but the geometries of the fire boxes and the changes in load made it almost impossible to maintain an optimum air/fuel ratio even with oil burners – and coal, despite the best efforts of the firemen, was hopeless.
I agree with Sara with two exceptions. A steam loco will emit much more CO2 (not really a “pollutant” in the traditional sense) because coal contains much more carbon than diesel fuel and the steam locomotives is at least 5x less efficient than a diesel engine.
Also, diesels are worse at fine particulates, but a steam locomotive can be just lousy with “bite sized” pariculates!
Ladies and gentlemen we present you with the lovely and intelligent Sara…yep! That’s a chick coming across with some diesel facts…she can also run the rack on your big rig and tell you if Rotella T or Delo 400 is the preferred oil to use. I’m impressed!
Dis-easels produce more. [:D] There’s no comparison between diesel fumes and coal smoke. One turns your stomach, and the other is perfume to the steam enthusiast.
I met a man who lived near the Nickel Plate yard in Buffalo. Every morning he would get up and find a layer of soot and cinders on his car, which took a little time to dust off. After the diesels took over, the soot was gone but the car was covered with an oily film that would not wipe off. Or even wash off. He missed steam.
Yea, I remember that when I posted a question about oils used in diesels, she was the one who explained it all to me
If you look at old photos and film footage back in the early industrial era… the amount of pollution in the area around cities was unreal… It makes present day L.A. air look like paradise. I have to think things were worse back then. Though, the proponents of the green house effect would probably disagree.
Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/
I agree with you here. We had a little incident over here in PA back in 1948 It’s a little place called Donora, PA. It has been recoarded as one of the deadliest smogs ever. Fourty precent of the population became ill and twenty percent died from the constant exposure. Donora was filled with tons of industry, mainly steel mills (a whole bunch of them). Anyway, the smog from the use of blast furnaces and other types of steam operated machinery caused the area to fill up with smog. Literaly, when it was 12 noon, it looked like it was 10 o’ clock at night outside. It got to the point that authorities wouldn’t let certain people leave their homes due to the conditions, if they wanted to leave home they would have to be carried away via ambulance. Some of the people that went outside in the smog died. Many people overlooked the danger of the steel mill’s smog because those steel mills gave people jobs, and was the heart and soul of the economy in Donora, but that all changed wen people couldn’t breath.
What many people don not realize is that the Greenhouse Effect is what many scientiets consider today as a good thing, we need the Greenhouse Effect to happen in order to survive. What the Greenhouse effect is, involves gases being transformed into heat energy, if it weren’t for this the Earth would be a very cold and misrable place. However too many greenhouse gases like methane, CO2, and NOx may lead to what I like to call “Over heating” thus resulting in global warming, which is tak
Before we get all that ‘shocked’ by the term Global Warming, remember that the Earth has been experienceing recurring periods of Global Warming transforming into an Ice Age that eventually transforms into another period of Global Warming…this sequence has been repeating itself since time began…with or without man’s help.
True, but in the last 700,000 years there have been several cycles of glacial and non-glacial periods, however at no time in that 700,000 year period were the CO2 levels as high as they are now.
If you “believe” in gravity and sunrises/sunsets, you better believe in global climate change. It’s all based on physics.