My grandfather made steam engines, my father made a scale steam locomotive for taking children on rides in the park and at the fair. Some of my happiest memories as a child were of sitting behind my father in the coal tender, chugging down the tracks, so any picture of a steam engine brings back fond memories.
[ UPDATE: I hadn’t realized it from the photo above until later, but the 4-6-4 “Hudson” locomotive above is the one my dad modeled for the 1/8th scale train of my youth, except his had the feedwater tank over the front like this one. Our family had to sell the train due to financial hardship after his death to somebody in Lebanon Ohio (probably the saddest day of my life). I’ve since lost track of it and would give anything to get it back, but I fear it has been scrapped. I hadn’t thought about this in a long time but the image provoked some long repressed memories. On the plus side, I’ve located a Lionel model Hudson 4-6-4 Steam Locomotive 665 with 736W Tender on Ebay, and exact match to the engine and tender my dad constructed, which I hope to buy so that I can show it to my children, and pass on the story with something to show them, along with the family photographs. I never thought this topic would come up on my blog, but here it is, serendipitously hitting me with emotion. – Anthony ]
When I saw this, all I could think of is how silly this idea is. All the greens seem fascinated with high speed rail due to Euro-envy, and in California they are ramming it down our throat at an anticipated huge loss, even worse than Solyndra. With a forecast price tag in the tens of billions and growing, it is just nuts given the economic climate right now, not to mention we don’t have people clamoring to climb aboard.
In retrospect however, anything that would put a steam locomotive back on the tracks is music to my ears, even if they ran it on used McDonald’s french fry oil like some of those hippie buses we see here in California.
Here’s the strange part, they are converting an oil burning locomotive to run “biocoal”, and somehow they magically think the production process and the burning of it won’t produce any net CO2, saying the process is “carbon neutral”. I think they’ve left out some parts, like the energy needed to produce and transport the biocoal fuel in the first place. Excerpts from the MSNBC story:
A steam train built in 1937 is getting a makeover that will turn it into a “higher-speed” locomotive that runs on biocoal, a coal-like fuel made with woody plant material.
When finished, the train will be able chug along existing tracks at speeds up to 130 miles per hour without contributing to the greenhouse gas pollution blamed for global warming.
…
“Computer simulations already show that the locomotive is about as powerful as two modern passenger diesel locomotives,” Davidson Ward, president of the Coalition for Sustainable Rail, told me Thursday.
“But it will burn carbon neutral fuel.”
The biocoal is based on a so-called torrefaction process pioneered at the University of Minnesota in Duluth. To make it, woody material — in this case trees — are heated in the absence of oxygen. The resulting flaky matter is then rammed together under high pressure to create coal-like bricks.
The charcoal briquettes aka “biocoal”
Biocoal has the same energy density as regular coal, but is cleaner burning, and since trees (the fuel source) sequester carbon as they grow, the system is considered carbon neutral, according to Ward.
…
Today, most higher-speed passenger trains are diesel-electric locomotives, which generate their peak horsepower at low speeds — about 25 miles per hour. Steam locomotives, by contrast, get their peak horsepower at higher speeds — about 40 miles per hour.
“Initial computer simulations suggest that the CSR’s modern steam engine will significantly out-accelerate a modern diesel-electric locomotive to 110 mph,” according to the coalition’s website.
…
I got a big chuckle out of this part though:
If all goes according to plan, they might build a new steam locomotive from scratch, which will have some modern looks.
For example, “no cowcatcher,” Ward said. “You don’t need a cowcatcher today unless you are a ‘Back to the Future’ fan.”
Just wait until they plow into some green gawker driving a Prius, you know it is going to happen.
From the “Coalition for Sustainable Rail” website:
Once its modernization is complete, CSR 3463 will have little in common with the smoke-belching steam engine it once was. Featuring a gas-producer combustion system, improved steam circuit, modernized boiler, low-maintenance running gear and steam-powered electric generator (to power the passenger train), CSR anticipates 3463 will be able to pull a passenger train with electric-like performance for less than the cost of diesel-electric locomotives. In order to further prove the viability of biocoal and modern steam technology, CSR plans to test the locomotive in excess of 130 miles per hour, out-performing any existing diesel-electric on the market and breaking the world steam speed record. In light of this achievement, CSR has named this endeavor: “Project 130.”
Historical 3463 Tech Specs
Locomotive 3463, acquired by CSR through the generosity of its former owner, the Great Overland Station of Topeka, Kansas, is the largest locomotive of its type left in the world and features the largest wheels of any engine in North America. CSR will completely rebuild and modernize the locomotive, doubling its thermal efficiency, converting it to burn biocoal and more. When done, locomotive 3463 will share only the most fundamental resemblance to the engine it once was.
The table below outlines characteristics of locomotive 3463 as built in 1937 by the Baldwin Locomotive Works:
Let me get this straight. I’m assuming here that a ‘farm’ raised tree doesn’t grow to maturity in the same time period that one is cut, turned into biocoal, transported to the train and burned completely in the engine. If the use of this stuff becomes widespread aren’t we going to end up with a net loss of trees and we’ll end up stripping away our forests? If that happens what are the climactic effects of the loss of forest cover?
Steve in SC
June 1, 2012 5:16 am
Several Things.
First, these people will never get the locomotive rebuilt. They have no idea what they are getting into.
There are a lot of specialty valves and such that nobody makes anymore. These will have to be engineered and made from scratch. A 1938 steam engine get real. about all you could expect to use would be the chassis even if the beast had been maintained perfectly for all those years. Guarantee you that every bearing on it will have flats.
Charcoal! Years ago the company I was with developed a process for making activated carbon from coal. It worked pretty good too. Lots of energy requirements. We also made briquettes from petroleum coke.
A former colleague of mine’s grandfather was an engineer on the Norfolk and Western Cincinnati to Norfolk run. They had the Class J which was one of the fastest locomotives ever built. Anyway, the old gentleman said that they were often late getting out of Cincinnati and once they got through the mountains they laid their ears back and let it rip. He said they routinely hit 125 + mph for extended periods and were never late. The Class J was engineered and built in Norfolk and Western’s Roanoke shops. They were retired in 1958/1960 era not because of efficiency or any of that it was simply a matter of all the little specialty components that nobody made anymore. Spare parts killed it.
They have one on display at the transportation museum in Roanoke, Va. If any of you are able to get there I would encourage you to go see it.
Pull My Finger
June 1, 2012 5:19 am
So why is tree sequestered CO2 any different than animal/plant sequestered CO2 (coal, oil)? As I recall wood creates quite a bit of particulate pollution, no?
But, still a cool train.
renminbi says:
May 31, 2012 at 9:33 pm
> Any idea that you will get 130 MPH is also a pipe dream. A two cylinder loco will wreck the track at that speed.
Maybe they can replace that part of the locomotive with a steam turbine driving an electric generator. I assume that addresses your concerns.
Or, they could add a gear box to step up the RPM between engine and wheels. The cog railroad up Mount Washington has a fixed step down gearing to be able to handle the grade. It’s a bit weird seeing the fly wheel turn at a useful speed but the locomotive move so slowly.
Rob
June 1, 2012 5:30 am
We need a Union of Unconcerned Scientists, or if not that, then a Union of Indifferent Scientists, where scientific results are accepted on a non-emotional basis.
The “concerned” guys just don’t sound like they are fit to do science, they are simply paralyzed by fear, doomsday is everywhere, every study is panic and worse than the study before that.
What is the difference between a bed wetter and a climate scientist?
A bed wetter wees alone.
Steam locomotives… My heart sings when I see one actually running. Wonderful machines. Interesting, when the UK had one of their worse “global warming” snow storms that crippled their modern train system stranding a train load of people, what did they bring out to rescue the passengers and bring the train into London? A brand new steam locomotive!! Oh, and coal fired too 🙂
“Steve in SC says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:16 am
Several Things. First, these people will never get the locomotive rebuilt. They have no idea what they are getting into. There are a lot of specialty valves and such that nobody makes anymore. These will have to be engineered and made from scratch. ”
Quite correct, but it can be done… for a price. The Canadian Pacific Railroad rebuilt CPR 2816, which they still run, but it cost some $3M to rebuild. Worth every penny to see running.
Gail Combs
June 1, 2012 5:57 am
Jim Z says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:07 pm
………….I don’t want them to bugger-up a Baldwin Hudson, so I hope they fail before they get their mitts on the locomotive. It’s not nice, but I hope they drop dead before they mess-up the locomotive.
____________________________
I agree. I hope they keep their darn mitts off the historic Baldwin Hudson.
Gail Combs
June 1, 2012 6:14 am
Bruce Cobb says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:25 am
In honor of all of the other fantasies they have about this proposed charcoal briquettes-powered train, I suggest they number the platform from which it will be boarded 9 3/4.
___________________________________
A good one. Here is the sign for the platform link
Gail Combs
June 1, 2012 6:29 am
North Carolina also has some historic locomotives. There is a commercial enterprise up near Blowing Rock/Boone area and some hobbyists in Moncure NC
Gail Combs
June 1, 2012 6:32 am
Talk of wood burning locomotives would not be complete with out mentioning The General starring Buster Keeten
Pamela Gray
June 1, 2012 6:34 am
Great idea. They could install a world class BBQ kitchen in the engine room and serve up some tasty treats for passengers taking a ride on the rails. Now that’s what I call being railroaded.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that this train produces a ton of CO2 per day. If it burns trees, this one ton was {“sequestered”}removed from the atmosphere, absorbed by the trees. If we burn this tree and release this ton of CO2, then we are said to be “Carbon neutral”, one ton absorbed, one ton released.
If we leave the tree un-burnt and burn coal instead. We release one ton of coal CO2, The tree’s one ton remains “sequestered” (and the tree remains alive to sequester more CO2)
Six of one half-dozen of the other. There is no net difference in CO2 release or absorption.
The atmospheric CO2 will be the same; But the Bio-Coal world would be tough on forests.
Certainly there are advantages. On a long trip, a small pile of the hockey pucks (coincidence that they look like that?) could be fired up in the Weber grill to toast some sausages. And if fuel runs short, a quick trip to WalMart for a few hundred bags of Kingsford charcoal briquets (or your favorite brand), and you’re back on the road! Er, rather, back on the tracks.
A few comments:
1. Steve in SC says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:16 am
“They have one [Class J steam locomotive] on display at the transportation museum in Roanoke, Va. If any of you are able to get there I would encourage you to go see it.”
I’ve seen it, it’s a beautiful thing.
2. Maybe this could be a project that a certain railroad engineer could turn to when he gets fired from his current job?
3. US EPA has given itself 3 years to study whether biomass is carbon neutral or not. A study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts (called the Manomet Study) determined that energy from biomass in the form of trees was worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions. It seems the trees take a while to grow, so the released CO2 will not be re-sequestered until all of the trees re-grow. They are, of course, focussed on the back end of the process, not the front end. When Massachusetts got this study, they immediately pulled back from biomass projects.
Bob W in NC
June 1, 2012 7:11 am
I grew up a block from the Central Railroad of New Jersey (Jersey Central) and have wonderful memories of steam engines—alll coal fired (talk about cinders!). So, the 3463 was oil fired originally? Here is a hobbyist’s description of the many hour procedure to start from scratch and get an oil-fired museum specimen up to steam. Whew! http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/hostling.html. Anybody good for it?
Pull My Finger
June 1, 2012 7:15 am
I wonder where else one would get woody material if not from trees? Woody Woodpecker, Woody Allen, Woody the Cowboy, a morning Woody?
—-
“To make it, woody material — in this case trees — are heated in the absence of oxygen. The resulting flaky matter is then rammed together under high pressure to create coal-like bricks. “
Wow!
What alternate universe have these people been living in? In our (i.e. yours and mine) universe, charcoal has been in use for some 30,000 years. It became widely used 2,000 years ago. http://www.originalcharcoal.com/story_history.asp
As for the “biocoal” idea, it was developed in the 1920’s (at least the popular one) as the ultimate “green” concept. Henry Ford had parts delivered to his factories on wooden pallets. The idea was to recycle the wood from the pallets. The company was originally called Ford Charcoal, but the concept was implemented by a relative by the name of Kingsford. Hence the name of today’s company: http://www.kingsford.com/our-heritage/
The unfortunate truth is that the forests of the north east were clear cut to use as lumber, fuel and to clear farm land. The westward expansion and the introduction of coal saved the forests of New England. And now “they” want to go back! http://greenanswers.com/blog/248778/old-growth-forests-new-england-where-they-went-and-where-they-are-now
(Not really, You and I both know that it is about money and publicity. This idea of having a significant number of steam trains is only a Progressive Ma——-ory Fantasy.)
I think that train steam engines are really cool and there may be niche markets in which they could be economically viable. The Skunk train, for instance. http://www.skunktrain.com/
One route would be from Oakland, CA via Sacramento, CA, Donner Summit, CA, and on to Reno, NV. A Gamblers Express Back to the Future, so to speak. And there are probably remote locations that have coal or wood chip byproduct to use as fuel. But to think that it is practical to go back to steam trains is to display an incredible naiveté.
As an aside, I spent my professional life working on steam power plants but they were steam turbines (the last one was a modest 27,000 SHP). My license was also good for reciprocating steam engines, but the only ones I can think of are a few nostalga oriented river boats. http://www.lakegeorgesteamboat.com/ http://www.islesofshoals.com/ http://www.heritagesteamers.co.uk/
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Pull My Finger
June 1, 2012 7:33 am
One of those local treats I’ve never managed to visit, must do it sometime soon. http://www.ebtrr.com/
East Broadtop Railroad.
No steam engine could satisfy the EPA on particulate emissions. I grew up in the last stages of steam. These monsters were noisy, smelly and gritty. Starting in the 1930s they were banned from entering NYC because of their emissions, only electrics could.
If you have watched the movie “Sound of Music” they make mention of traveling clothes. They were clothes people wore that could be easily cleansed of the coal dust and grit. Often we romanticize the past and forget how difficult things really were. Steam locomotives went the way of the dinosaurs because railroads and the traveling public wanted cleaner, quieter and more efficient transportation.
Nippy
June 1, 2012 7:40 am
Euro-envy is the High Speed train in France (TGV =Train à Grande Vitesse ). It is electric powered, capable of 300 mph, service speed 200 mph (ish). The electricity is made with nuclear power. ergo its a nuclear powered train.
Skiphil
June 1, 2012 7:42 am
I LOVE steam engines, but most of the ones that survive are in museums or operated on a local, limited scale for scenic and historic purposes. There are excellent reasons that our rails are not full of steam engines. But if anyone is ever near Scranton, PA I highly recommend the huge collection of train history there: http://www.nps.gov/stea/photosmultimedia/Excursions.htm
Locomotive 3463, acquired by CSR through the generosity of its former owner, the Great Overland Station of Topeka, Kansas, is the largest locomotive of its type left in the world and features the largest wheels of any engine in North America. CSR will completely rebuild and modernize the locomotive, doubling its thermal efficiency, converting it to burn biocoal and more. When done, locomotive 3463 will share only the most fundamental resemblance to the engine it once was.
Let me get this straight. I’m assuming here that a ‘farm’ raised tree doesn’t grow to maturity in the same time period that one is cut, turned into biocoal, transported to the train and burned completely in the engine. If the use of this stuff becomes widespread aren’t we going to end up with a net loss of trees and we’ll end up stripping away our forests? If that happens what are the climactic effects of the loss of forest cover?
Several Things.
First, these people will never get the locomotive rebuilt. They have no idea what they are getting into.
There are a lot of specialty valves and such that nobody makes anymore. These will have to be engineered and made from scratch. A 1938 steam engine get real. about all you could expect to use would be the chassis even if the beast had been maintained perfectly for all those years. Guarantee you that every bearing on it will have flats.
Charcoal! Years ago the company I was with developed a process for making activated carbon from coal. It worked pretty good too. Lots of energy requirements. We also made briquettes from petroleum coke.
A former colleague of mine’s grandfather was an engineer on the Norfolk and Western Cincinnati to Norfolk run. They had the Class J which was one of the fastest locomotives ever built. Anyway, the old gentleman said that they were often late getting out of Cincinnati and once they got through the mountains they laid their ears back and let it rip. He said they routinely hit 125 + mph for extended periods and were never late. The Class J was engineered and built in Norfolk and Western’s Roanoke shops. They were retired in 1958/1960 era not because of efficiency or any of that it was simply a matter of all the little specialty components that nobody made anymore. Spare parts killed it.
They have one on display at the transportation museum in Roanoke, Va. If any of you are able to get there I would encourage you to go see it.
So why is tree sequestered CO2 any different than animal/plant sequestered CO2 (coal, oil)? As I recall wood creates quite a bit of particulate pollution, no?
But, still a cool train.
renminbi says:
May 31, 2012 at 9:33 pm
> Any idea that you will get 130 MPH is also a pipe dream. A two cylinder loco will wreck the track at that speed.
Maybe they can replace that part of the locomotive with a steam turbine driving an electric generator. I assume that addresses your concerns.
Or, they could add a gear box to step up the RPM between engine and wheels. The cog railroad up Mount Washington has a fixed step down gearing to be able to handle the grade. It’s a bit weird seeing the fly wheel turn at a useful speed but the locomotive move so slowly.
We need a Union of Unconcerned Scientists, or if not that, then a Union of Indifferent Scientists, where scientific results are accepted on a non-emotional basis.
The “concerned” guys just don’t sound like they are fit to do science, they are simply paralyzed by fear, doomsday is everywhere, every study is panic and worse than the study before that.
What is the difference between a bed wetter and a climate scientist?
A bed wetter wees alone.
earthdog says:
May 31, 2012 at 9:15 pm
To make it, woody material — in this case trees — are heated in the absence of oxygen. The resulting flaky matter is then rammed together under high pressure to create coal-like bricks.
So… It runs on charcoal?
Yup. No CO2 there.
_____________________________
That was my first thought.
These people are determine that we will go back to living in the 17-1800’s. They are Luddites.
If you want carbon neutral put a darned mini nuclear plant on the locamotive!!!
Mininuclear: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-ithems-business-plan-from-dr.html
Mr. Fukushima stated that IThEMS is negotiating with Korean Shipbuilders over the potential sale of Mini-Fujis for ship propulsion systems. According to Mr.Fukushima the Korean shipbuilders are in competition with the Chinese, and view mini-Fuji power as potentially offering a competitive advantage.
Steam locomotives… My heart sings when I see one actually running. Wonderful machines. Interesting, when the UK had one of their worse “global warming” snow storms that crippled their modern train system stranding a train load of people, what did they bring out to rescue the passengers and bring the train into London? A brand new steam locomotive!! Oh, and coal fired too 🙂
“Steve in SC says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:16 am
Several Things. First, these people will never get the locomotive rebuilt. They have no idea what they are getting into. There are a lot of specialty valves and such that nobody makes anymore. These will have to be engineered and made from scratch. ”
Quite correct, but it can be done… for a price. The Canadian Pacific Railroad rebuilt CPR 2816, which they still run, but it cost some $3M to rebuild. Worth every penny to see running.
Jim Z says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:07 pm
………….I don’t want them to bugger-up a Baldwin Hudson, so I hope they fail before they get their mitts on the locomotive. It’s not nice, but I hope they drop dead before they mess-up the locomotive.
____________________________
I agree. I hope they keep their darn mitts off the historic Baldwin Hudson.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:25 am
In honor of all of the other fantasies they have about this proposed charcoal briquettes-powered train, I suggest they number the platform from which it will be boarded 9 3/4.
___________________________________
A good one. Here is the sign for the platform link
North Carolina also has some historic locomotives. There is a commercial enterprise up near Blowing Rock/Boone area and some hobbyists in Moncure NC
Talk of wood burning locomotives would not be complete with out mentioning The General starring Buster Keeten
Great idea. They could install a world class BBQ kitchen in the engine room and serve up some tasty treats for passengers taking a ride on the rails. Now that’s what I call being railroaded.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that this train produces a ton of CO2 per day. If it burns trees, this one ton was {“sequestered”}removed from the atmosphere, absorbed by the trees. If we burn this tree and release this ton of CO2, then we are said to be “Carbon neutral”, one ton absorbed, one ton released.
If we leave the tree un-burnt and burn coal instead. We release one ton of coal CO2, The tree’s one ton remains “sequestered” (and the tree remains alive to sequester more CO2)
Six of one half-dozen of the other. There is no net difference in CO2 release or absorption.
The atmospheric CO2 will be the same; But the Bio-Coal world would be tough on forests.
“Computer simulations already show….”????
Nuff said.
Certainly there are advantages. On a long trip, a small pile of the hockey pucks (coincidence that they look like that?) could be fired up in the Weber grill to toast some sausages. And if fuel runs short, a quick trip to WalMart for a few hundred bags of Kingsford charcoal briquets (or your favorite brand), and you’re back on the road! Er, rather, back on the tracks.
If anyone is interested in a modern steam engine, there is one being developed by a company in Florida.
http://www.cyclonepower.com/technical_information2.html
A prototype is supposed to be delivered to Raytheon to power a submarine.
http://www.raytheon.com/technology_today/2011_i1/engine.html
A few comments:
1. Steve in SC says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:16 am
“They have one [Class J steam locomotive] on display at the transportation museum in Roanoke, Va. If any of you are able to get there I would encourage you to go see it.”
I’ve seen it, it’s a beautiful thing.
2. Maybe this could be a project that a certain railroad engineer could turn to when he gets fired from his current job?
3. US EPA has given itself 3 years to study whether biomass is carbon neutral or not. A study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts (called the Manomet Study) determined that energy from biomass in the form of trees was worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions. It seems the trees take a while to grow, so the released CO2 will not be re-sequestered until all of the trees re-grow. They are, of course, focussed on the back end of the process, not the front end. When Massachusetts got this study, they immediately pulled back from biomass projects.
I grew up a block from the Central Railroad of New Jersey (Jersey Central) and have wonderful memories of steam engines—alll coal fired (talk about cinders!). So, the 3463 was oil fired originally? Here is a hobbyist’s description of the many hour procedure to start from scratch and get an oil-fired museum specimen up to steam. Whew! http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/hostling.html. Anybody good for it?
I wonder where else one would get woody material if not from trees? Woody Woodpecker, Woody Allen, Woody the Cowboy, a morning Woody?
—-
“To make it, woody material — in this case trees — are heated in the absence of oxygen. The resulting flaky matter is then rammed together under high pressure to create coal-like bricks. “
Wow!
What alternate universe have these people been living in? In our (i.e. yours and mine) universe, charcoal has been in use for some 30,000 years. It became widely used 2,000 years ago.
http://www.originalcharcoal.com/story_history.asp
As for the “biocoal” idea, it was developed in the 1920’s (at least the popular one) as the ultimate “green” concept. Henry Ford had parts delivered to his factories on wooden pallets. The idea was to recycle the wood from the pallets. The company was originally called Ford Charcoal, but the concept was implemented by a relative by the name of Kingsford. Hence the name of today’s company:
http://www.kingsford.com/our-heritage/
The unfortunate truth is that the forests of the north east were clear cut to use as lumber, fuel and to clear farm land. The westward expansion and the introduction of coal saved the forests of New England. And now “they” want to go back!
http://greenanswers.com/blog/248778/old-growth-forests-new-england-where-they-went-and-where-they-are-now
(Not really, You and I both know that it is about money and publicity. This idea of having a significant number of steam trains is only a Progressive Ma——-ory Fantasy.)
I think that train steam engines are really cool and there may be niche markets in which they could be economically viable. The Skunk train, for instance. http://www.skunktrain.com/
One route would be from Oakland, CA via Sacramento, CA, Donner Summit, CA, and on to Reno, NV. A Gamblers Express Back to the Future, so to speak. And there are probably remote locations that have coal or wood chip byproduct to use as fuel. But to think that it is practical to go back to steam trains is to display an incredible naiveté.
As an aside, I spent my professional life working on steam power plants but they were steam turbines (the last one was a modest 27,000 SHP). My license was also good for reciprocating steam engines, but the only ones I can think of are a few nostalga oriented river boats.
http://www.lakegeorgesteamboat.com/
http://www.islesofshoals.com/
http://www.heritagesteamers.co.uk/
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
One of those local treats I’ve never managed to visit, must do it sometime soon.
http://www.ebtrr.com/
East Broadtop Railroad.
No steam engine could satisfy the EPA on particulate emissions. I grew up in the last stages of steam. These monsters were noisy, smelly and gritty. Starting in the 1930s they were banned from entering NYC because of their emissions, only electrics could.
If you have watched the movie “Sound of Music” they make mention of traveling clothes. They were clothes people wore that could be easily cleansed of the coal dust and grit. Often we romanticize the past and forget how difficult things really were. Steam locomotives went the way of the dinosaurs because railroads and the traveling public wanted cleaner, quieter and more efficient transportation.
Euro-envy is the High Speed train in France (TGV =Train à Grande Vitesse ). It is electric powered, capable of 300 mph, service speed 200 mph (ish). The electricity is made with nuclear power. ergo its a nuclear powered train.
I LOVE steam engines, but most of the ones that survive are in museums or operated on a local, limited scale for scenic and historic purposes. There are excellent reasons that our rails are not full of steam engines. But if anyone is ever near Scranton, PA I highly recommend the huge collection of train history there:
http://www.nps.gov/stea/photosmultimedia/Excursions.htm