Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Pentecost steam

by DoDo Thu May 23rd, 2013 at 03:13:09 AM EST

I visited the Kismaros–Királyrét narrow-gauge railway again today [Monday 20 May]. I showed a diesel railcar in mid-April and a solar-powered railcar in early May, but today, the spectacle was steam traction.


The train is at capacity as it arrives in Morgó station. The blob on the lower left is a dog of the Puli breed who rushed out of a weekend home's garden to bark at the train.

The locomotive was 490 2004 "Morgó" (formerly CFF 764 375), a tender locomotive with wheel arrangement D (for Americans: 0-8-0T) built by Rešica Works in Romania 60 years ago and brought here ten years ago.

Road crossing at Hártókút station. This railway used to be a pioneers'children's railway, and the original station name was Krónikás (Chronicler), referring to a function in patrols (pioneers' units), which of course had to go in the post-1990 iconoclasm.

Between Szokolya and Paphegy, the valley bottom is wider.

Steam locos may be romantic, but let's not forget the biggest negative of regular steam traction: air pollution.

A diesel loco came from Paphegy with a single car (it would pick up three more for another full train on its return trip).

The same train on the edge of Szokolya.

40 minutes later, the returning steam train leaves Szokolya. The mountains in the distance are the highest peaks of the Börzsöny mountains and used to form the rim of the third and final central crater of a Mount-Vesuvius-size volcano active until 13.7 million years ago.

I close it with another view of the train and Szokolya.

:: :: :: :: ::

Check the Train Blogging index page for a (hopefully) complete list of ET diaries and stories related to railways and trains.

Display:
As a counter-point, here is some modern mainline air pollution: Czech private operator METRANS's 761 002 (a Siemens EuroRunner) at station Biatorbágy along the (electrified) Budapest–Vienna line. They use a diesel because the train traverses a non-electrified line between the Slovakian capital Bratislava and the border station.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 01:17:31 PM EST
That pollution  is a result of poor combustion brought about by bad firing and poor firebox design.

The latter was only really addressed by Chapelon before WWII and afterwards steam was phased out rather than improved. Only La Porta and Wardale were able to do anything and both faced funding issues which hindered their attempts at development.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 03:20:13 PM EST
Then again, a steam loco without visible smoke and steam is less romantic.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 03:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then again, is Wardale's "Red Devil" in original condition? Plenty of smoke and steam here (cold weather helps though):



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 03:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As you can see, it's hauling a freight train. The downgrading of steam on SAR by that time meant that the engine was off fast express duties and was, like the rest of the SAR steam fleet, being run into the ground. As can be seen by the bad steam leak from the left hand piston.

Even so, in most of the shots, there is very little smoke and a lot of steam. the only smoky bits are when it's obviously running up hill.

Equally, to return to my first point, the engine is being fired excessively, as you can see from the safety valve constantly and vigorously venting. Good firing would avoid that almost completely.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 04:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Should have looked at the video comments:

SAR Class 26 3450 Red Devil Ashton May 27 2002 - YouTube

3450 was not running in peak condition - the left-hand cylinder packing was blowing, and the secondary air inlets had been sealed off, which seemed to cause combustion and steaming issues.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 05:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yea, the 25-C (condensing) class from SAR are "disappointing" due to the lack of steam exhaust.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 04:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Back in the good old days, the fireman would be in trouble if there were that much black smoke. Wasting precious coal.

Funny thing is that with external combustion, you've got more opportunities to control the firing, so in theory at least, a steam engine should be cleaner than an internal combustion engine. Modern coal-fired power plants are pretty good, except for the CO2 and mercury...

by asdf on Mon May 20th, 2013 at 10:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Pentecost steam" gives a whole new meaning to the expression "holy roller".
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 01:43:28 AM EST
I made a comment to a steam locomotive engineer one time about the uneven exhaust pulses on his engine. I was just wondering why they were sounding that way; it was a curiosity question. He launched into a tirade about how the shop was screwed up and couldn't bother to adjust the valve gear right and they were a bunch of idiots and didn't know the first thing about timing and that he was tempted to take a wrench to it himself...

I guess there are frustrations in any business.

by asdf on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 01:59:04 PM EST
The great thing about steam engines is that a wrench probably would have done it

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 02:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, that's what the old time steam guys said. Steam engines are easy to fix, and diesels are hard to fix. But the diesel guys pointed out that their engines didn't break every day like the steam locomotives did.

In December 1937, locomotive #3461 set a world record for the longest single run by a steam locomotive by completing the 2227 miles from Los Angeles, California to Chicago without maintenance other than five refuelling stops en route, hauling Train #8, the Fast Mail Express. An average speed of 45 mph was attained, including stops; maximum speed during the run was 90 mph. During steeply graded portions of the run it was, of course, assisted by helper locomotives. Such long distance runs were a goal of railway operating departments, enabling a reduction in locomotive numbers and through increased locomotive utilization, reduce overall costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSF_3460_class

A modern diesel engine can go roughly 1000 miles before refueling (depending on many factors), and goes about six months between scheduled services.

by asdf on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 04:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, steam locomotives were always capable of long periods of service like that.

A resting engine, even for  few hours will cool down by a hundred degrees C. Repeat that a few times and it will cause considerable stress to the engine.  If they're kept working, then they don't cool down and so there's no stress.

The trick is to keep them working 24/7.

Proof of that is that engine failures during WWII were lower than during peace time, despite the lack of maintenance (shed staff were drafted) and the lousy coal. The thing was that they were being thrashed 24 hours a day moving freight and troops. so they never got cold.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 05:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Reminds a problem for Egyptian pyramids.
by das monde on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 01:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You make me cry. I want to see a speed competition between a Milwaukee F7, an ATSF 3460, a CNW E-4, a SP GS-5, a NYC S-1b "Niagara" and a PRR T1... (How many of all of these classes have a survivor? One?)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 05:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How about a LNER Class A4 (i.e., Mallard), too? We can arrange the course so it slopes downhill, and so that there is a repair shop at the bottom of the hill...
by asdf on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 05:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An A4 is a permanent resident in the US somewhere.

But in all out power a US engine is always going to out-perform a British engine. They're large and have far greater steaming capacities. UK engines were severely limited by the constraints of British loading gauge.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:46:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the uninitiated:

Milwaukee F7 (my favourite and bet on winner):

ATSF 3460:

CNW E-4:

SP GS-5:

NYC S-1b "Niagara":

Finally the monstrous PRR T1:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 06:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, surely a Niagara would beat all comers

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In maximum power and efficiency, surely, but maximum speed, I'm not so sure. Consider:
  • the Niagara has the smallest driver diameter among the contenders (DRG 05 002: 90.55", the three Hudsons: 84", the Duplex, the SP Northern and the Mallard: 80", the Niagara: 79");
  • more coupled wheels mean higher inertial forces,
  • the Niagara lacked streamlining, which counts at higher speeds.

I recall a claim in some forum I read through yesterday that the T1 produced higher power in tests at the highest test speeds than the Niagara, but can't find it now.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 10:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hm. Now I found two forum discussions which indicate that the T1 wasn't actually that well suited for the highest speeds. One source reports on top speed in bench tests:

Railway Preservation News * View topic - T1 Oh Yes !!!

The highest test speed at Altoona for the T1 was 420 rpm, about 100 mph. This was achieved during test nos. 1420, 1421, 1448 and 1467 (from Test Report, 8/23/44).

In the other forum discussion, user "Juniatha" (who I suspect is the British proprietor of the German Steam page) pours cold water on other users' speculation, praises the 05 002, the Niagara and the F7, and makes these points about the T1's limitation:

Forums - General Discussion - Trains Magazine - Trains.com online community

As concerns the T1 Duplex , the class , having four smaller cylinders and lighter rods , lighter hammer blow effects , should have been a natural winner over Northerns as concerns speed or , precisely :  rotational speed .   Yet , I'm afraid the oscillating poppet valve gear was not up to demands of such very high mechanical stresses as with mass forces around 500 rpm or over .   I have come to think it would have went self-destructing at around some 450 .. 470 rpm , i e 100 - 110 mph would be a limit as by mechanical integrity of drive - not regarding vehicle comporting on track at such speeds .


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 10:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would guess that if they wanted to build a locomotive dedicated only to getting the highest speed, then the design would be significantly different. But these are meant to be production engines with reliability, efficiency, and power suitable for the specific conditions of each line. There are plenty of compromises that would detract from absolute top speed.

For example, you could put on 120" drivers, but then you would never start a practical train. Or you could put in four cylinders, which would greatly reduce the balance problem, but make maintenance completely impractical. I suppose that there improvements you could make to the tread geometry if you don't have to handle sharp curves in a yard. Etc...

That's probably why the Mallard is allowed to retain the top speed record. In reality, absolute top speed is not hugely important when the average is only 45 MPH due to other issues.

by asdf on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 11:16:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I think you are placing the bar too high with building for highest speed: that doesn't apply to any of the steam-age record holders, including the Mallard (which was merely modified). Thus, to answer the question of why the Mallard was allowed to retain the top speed record, IMHO you have to look at why a railway would stage a record run in the first place.

I think the lesser motivation is testing the limits of a new technology for further R&D, and the bigger motivation is PR. The first didn't really apply because steam in the thirties was just trying to keep up by pushing the established technology to its limits. As for the second, you had to factor the high cost of a record run against its effect on public consciousness, with the length of time over which you could hope to retain the record as a factor of uncertainty. But fact is, most top railways were trying to look modern with diesel trains in that era, and could easily beat steam. This includes the German DRG: the 05 002 record run turned from high-speed test run into a record run upon the initiative of the locomotive engineer (who heard of a diesel train speed record), and the train still had power to accelerate further than the symbolic 200 km/h barrier but there never was a later attempt to reach the balanced speed.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...you had to weigh the high cost of a record run against its effect on public consciousness...

...But fact is, in that era most top railways were trying to look modern with diesel trains, which could easily beat steam. This includes the German DRG...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Diesels in the 30s couldn't beat steam on a long express run. The only advantage electric and diesel had were in acceleration which was a factor with multiple stop journeys.

The big advantage steam had was that it could store power, so that it could attack hills more aggressively than the diesels of that period could do. Whether this is a specific UK difference brought about by the restrictions of loading gauge I don't know

Even now, it is noted that some preserved locos from the 30s can climb up the Settle and Carlisle route from Settle to the summit at Ais gill faster than all but the most modern diesels.

Of course, modern traction absolutely creams steam, but in the UK, that absolute power gap only became apparent in the 80s, long after steam was gone.

Modern traction's attraction back then was that it was "cleaner" and offered better acceleration and greater reliability over distance.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu May 23rd, 2013 at 02:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Diesels in the 30s couldn't beat steam on a long express run.

Do you mean capacity or travel speed, too? The Pioneer Zephyr made its Denver to Chicago record run over a distance of 1,015 miles, the UP M-10001 made coast-to-coast and Portland-Chicago record runs. The Flying Hamburger's initial scheduled 138-minute Hamburg–Berlin time made it the world's fastest service back then, and the DMUs maintained a few minute advantage even after the class 05 started regular service (later both kinds of trains were slowed down due to the track damage caused by the fast steam locos). AFAIK the advantage of the streamlined steam locos was that they could pull much longer trains, not that they were faster.

At any rate, I was specifically talking about speed records. Here are the DMU records I'm aware of:

  • (21 June 1931: 230.2 km/h, rail zeppelin)
  • ? May 1933: 172 km/h, Bugatti/l'État "Présidentiel"
  • 26 May 1934: 181 km/h, CB&Q "[Pioneer ]Zephyr"
  • 23? October 1934: 193 km/h (120 mph), UP M-10001 (this one is rather dubious for the same reason most other US records are: 9 miles in 4m 30s, hardly a precise measurement)
  • 24 October 1934: 192 km/h, Bugatti/l'État "Présidentiel"
  • 17 February 1936: 205 km/h, DRG class "Leipzig" (the aforementioned record run of the 05 002 three months later was in response to this)
  • 23 June 1939: 215 km/h, DRG class "Kruckenberg"

IMHO throughout the thirties, the diesel train speed record was just ahead of what the then best steam engine could do.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat May 25th, 2013 at 12:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've heard these complaints about poppet valve gear before, they've been blamed for just about every perceived problem with Duke of Gloucester, both under BR and in preservation.

Yet somehow, the Duke continues to be the most reliable and powerful ex-BR engine in preservation.

I don't see why rotation speeds of 500 rpm are seen as a problem.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 01:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Methinks vulnerability as a function of rotational speed depends on the exact design of the valve (dimensions that determine maximum accelerations, structural strength). This is a strength limit, it doesn't mean that there would be problems at lower speeds already.

At any rate, 500 rpm would be 177 km/h (110 mph), far beyond the loco's 75 mph max (which is equivalent to 340 rpm).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 02:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know about the valves, but the overall driver wheel balance is really horrible in a two cylinder engine with quartered cranks. It seems almost miraculous that they didn't just fly off the tracks.

Interesting info about balancing issues at http://bnsf-modellbahn.ch/popup_BALDWIN4-8-4Mountain_3751ATSF.html#top

by asdf on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed both the DRG 05 and the LNER A4 had three cylinders.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat May 25th, 2013 at 12:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wheel size doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as steam circuit efficiency. The improvements to both Castle and King class engines in the 50s, with the 6 ft driver wheeled kings becoming capable of sustained running at 110 shows that wheel size was more in the minds of the prewar designers than in engineering reality

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 01:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Upon checking, the Castle class had 80.5" drivers and the highest speed attained post-upgrade as claimed on Wikipedia is 100 mph; the King class had 78" drivers, and I found no high speed data. But could it be that the wheel size thing you remember is something earlier and pertaining to lesser high speeds, this:

Four Cylinder Locomotives

Collett opted for smaller wheels on the King than his Castles, after casting aside the conventional wisdom that large wheel diameter was needed for the greatest speed. He had observed an express train being overhauled by a mineral train hauled by a close-coupled GWR 4-8-0 with small wheels. When compared with the Castle class, the slightly smaller wheels adopted for the King Class allowed more space above them for a fatter boiler to be built, as little extra engine height was available for expansion.

I would argue that wheel size was a factor, but a factor that is a function of other parameters and not the only factor. For example, a big American loco with the same wheel diameter and piston stroke would probably have much more massive rods than an European loco, meaning larger inertial forces at the same speed.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 02:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My grandfather said that the rule was that the top sped was the same as the driver diameter in inches. That was obviously wrong!
by asdf on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Kings had a wheel diameter of 6' 6" in order to push the tractive effort over 40,000 lb. A purely PR stunt. They were originally intended to have the same size wheels as the Castles cos it was cheaper to use the same castings, but 40,000 lb was what it was about and the maths didn't work except with smaller driving wheels.

A lot of the speeds noted were in the early 60s when the Western Region of BR were still developing steam (intending to run it into the 80s)

The 2-8-0 47xx class freight locos were probably the best engines that the GWR ever built (no British company ever used 4-8-0, although Riddles admitted that the Clan class BR standards should have been that instead of 4-6-2 pacifics). Designed to run 1000 ton coal trains at high speed, they were simply beautifully free steaming beasts of engines. One operations manager was heard to say that a fleet of just 47xx and Granges and he could cover every duty on the Western Region, sadly examples of neither class made it into preservation.


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
1000 ton coal train is about ten cars. Just for comparison, typical coal trains here are over 100 cars at 120 tons net each. Pulled by three SD70MAC locomotives and pushed by two.
by asdf on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 11:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Might be in the US, back then over here it was 50 loose coupled wagons.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu May 23rd, 2013 at 02:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And being loose coupled, the biggest problem wasn't starting, it was stopping. That was where the skill lay. In fact going over the top of a hill on a long train would cause problems.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu May 23rd, 2013 at 02:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why there's no cabooses any more. The brakemen got tired of being thrown from one end of the car to the other as the coupling slack got taken up and released.

Which then opens a question about how trains work with engines at both ends...somewhere in the middle there is a car bouncing back and forth, I would think...

by asdf on Thu May 23rd, 2013 at 03:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Loose coupled is very rare these days. I once saw a marvelous picture of a freight train being banked where the exact middle of the train was where the pushed wagons from the back met the pulled wagons at the front, so that the middle wagon was on a loose chain at the back and taut at the front.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri May 24th, 2013 at 09:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was just looking up Mallard again and it turns out that 2013 is the 75th anniversary of it's record speed run. There's a celebration, but unfortunately no re-creation of the event itself...
http://www.nrm.org.uk/PlanaVisit/Events/mallard75.aspx
by asdf on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 11:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ooooh, didn't know that. thanks

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:33:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the book "The Santa Fe's Big Three" by S. Kip Farrington,
there are eleven pages of the engineering report of the operation of
3461 from when they received it on October 29, 1937, to the end of
the report on Run 28 on December 19, 1937, covering all of it's
problems. One is left with the thought that it's no wonder they went
to diesels!! It's too long to quote here but it includes hot rod
bearings ( like 750 degrees! ) because the rods weren't in tram, the
boiler leaking from two 7/16" holes drilled in the mud ring by
mistake, the right cylinder head having a groove in it from a chip
that was shaved off when they pressed the cylinder head on out of
line, more siderod problems, leaks in the lubricator and fuel oil
lines, "firing valves sticking on account of long red connection to
the valves binding on the pan", "steam leaks developed in the boiler
check, foam-meter blowoff fittings, and pop valve, and the whistle
valve rod was binding so that the whistle didn't shut off readily",
steam leaks on both boiler checks and at the cylinder cock nipples,
more siderod bushings found loose, siderod bushing seized the crank
pin and spun in the rod ( note that on a lot of these runs the speed
was kept down to 20 to 30 mph because of these problems -- on
passenger trains! because at any speed over that the bushings got up
around 700 degrees F!! ), back flue sheet seams leaking and welded,
burner raised, siderods removed and new bushings and Alemite fittings
applied, nine crown sheet staybolts leaking and two firebox rivets
leaking, oil apparently leaking from the roller bearing boxes, nozzle
bushings blowing out of the exhaust nozzle, "steam throttle valve to
the air pump cracked and leaking badly", more oil leaking from the
roller bearing boxes, air leaks in the draft pan caulked with
asbestos, defective brickwork in the firebox -- bricks falling out
during numerous runs, having to add oil to the roller bearing boxes
at Needles when they were full up when it left Los Angeles(!), piston
rod packing started blowing between Needles and Seligman and
continuing to Chicago, when it got to Chicago there were 90 staybolts
that were leaking(!), two days later there were 90 MORE leaking(!),
"a leak in reinforcing patch around washout hole in throat sheet",
and ( FINALLY at the end of the report ) five days later 150 MORE
staybolts leaking!!!

This is the first 52 days of service for a brand new steam locomotive!!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steam_tech/message/70515

by asdf on Tue May 21st, 2013 at 11:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LNER engines weren't built well and their service records were poor. Only the Bulleid designs on the SR were more maintenance heavy.

 There have even been reports that the boiler designs Gresley sent in were ignored because the boiler shop "knew better". I once read a fascinating account which suggested that "bosses" were prevented from banned by the union from entering the boiler shop while they were at work. The only time Gresley went in was when the place was on show and so no actual work was being done.

the big end problem was solved by adopting the GWR design and a lot of other issues were gradually sorted out during the 50s.

The best manufacturer in the UK was Swindon, whose engineering excellence was widely recognised. According to OS Nock, a GWR King, 6014 King John, was re-designed in the late 50s using chapelon's ideas about steam passages. A block had to be inserted in the exhaust as the frames weren't capable of taking the full power of which the engine was now capable. Such was the improvement that on a test drive the engine smoothly accelerated to 110 and the driver suggested to E els, principal engineer, that he felt that 130 was well within its reach. Els declined the offer

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed May 22nd, 2013 at 03:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aaaaarghhh !!! Coal is running out in UK, the age of steam may be coming to an end

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 27th, 2013 at 03:39:31 PM EST
Oh come on. The stone age didn't come to an end because of a shortage of stones.

(tee hee)

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue May 28th, 2013 at 09:52:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nor do I think that coal is actually imminently running out. But relatively cheap high calorific coal may not be available for much longer and that's definitely going to impact the UK heritage steam railways.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue May 28th, 2013 at 11:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries