Death to the coal train?

Discussion in 'Getting Started' started by COMBAT, Jul 15, 2007.


    COMBAT Member

    Soooo what about the trains? :)
  2. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Well its a fact that UP and BNSF is now hauling more coal then the 2 long time Eastern coal haulers NS and CSX!!!

    Some interesting facts.

    You can check other roads by using the list on the left side of the screen.
  3. MadHatter

    MadHatter Charging at full tilt.

    Spoornet via their "Coallink" is also hauling tons o' coal On the Ermelo- Richardsbay Coal line in excess of 200 wagons/ train- and that's on 3'6'' Cape Standard Gauge!

    Just a thought on the Nuclear powered trains, besides carrying extra water, the train would be moving, so maybe they can install fins (That are flush with the locomotive sides) like on a motorbike engine to be aircooled too, plus they'll still have the normal cooling fans.

    The idea could work, and is relativly safe, BUT, the following- YouTube - Train Wreck - might happen due to human error (which is always a factor in play)!
  4. nscaler711

    nscaler711 Member

    hmmm i wonder........a G-scale Locomotive (steam)......bieng powered by salt water......
  5. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    Anything is possible for models, even if it isn't in reality. The single greatest use for water in the US is as a heat sink...I believe its 99%+ of the total water usage. There are some thermodynamic reasons for that...and the greater the energy output, the greater the demand.

    BUT! The laws and principles of thermodynamics don't have to apply to models! My old Bachmann Plus 2-8-0 topped out around 154 scale miles per hour. I've also had an IHC 4-4-0 pulling a 10 car train up a 7% grade...Love to see a real 4-4-0 do that without 2 helpers.

    As far as the western vs. eastern railroad coal shipping...that's due to sulfur content.

    When you burn a ton of get a set ratio of CO2, SO2, etc...depending upon the C and S content of the coal. SO2 causes environmental problems, so therefore, you either have to have an expensive sulfur removal system or you burn low sulfur coal. Powder river basin coal is low sulfur coal while Appalachian varieties are a bit higher. So a typical powerplant would chose Powder River coal over WV coal to avoid expensive scrubber systems.

    There are also modern techniques of removing the sulfur from coal before it is burned...such as coal gasification which not only allows the coal to burn more efficiently (greater degree of combustion, less fly ash), but also allows the sulfur to be removed prior to burning.

    Hence, BNSF & the UP are shipping more coal.
  6. MasonJar

    MasonJar It's not rocket surgery

    Yes they do...!

    The thing is that our models are not "scale" weight or power, so they behave differently. Hence the need to program momentum, or "voluntarily" keep grades realistic, even if the model can power up a 10% climb.

  7. nkp174

    nkp174 Active Member

    Lol! I have to agree that I do "voluntarily" follow the laws of physics. I also try to somewhat mimic real trains in movements. I don't allow 2-8-0s to exceed 50smph...although I do allow all trains to accelerate faster than the real thing since I don't have several scale miles of track.

Share This Page