ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2020, 12:54:35 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the photo gallery link above or >click here< to see photos of recently announced products!
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  smoke engines
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: smoke engines  (Read 6111 times)
smf

View Profile
« on: September 15, 2008, 02:55:32 PM »


    I was wondering if anyone out there knows if they make an engine(dcc) that has sound and smokes....I called a few companies and I'm told that they are no longer available....
Logged
Dr EMD

Founded 1922 as Electro-Motive Engineering Company


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2008, 04:15:45 PM »

Do our really want a smoker?

I was raised in a home in which my parents stir fried our dinner 95% of the time. The oil from the stir frying got on EVERYTHING in the kitchen and in the dinning room. Just think of what the oil smoke from a steam locomotive can do to your layout.

Now Rapido has a steam generator car that is said does not use oil to make smoke.
Logged

Electro-Motive Historical Research
(Never employed by EMD at any time)

Jhanecker2

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 06:39:00 PM »

I am curious as to why there is this fascination with smoke generation . I realize that the original steam engines generated enormous amounts of pollutants , steam & smoke ,due to burning coal and oil , but is this really either necessary or wise in an indoor environment ?  Proto-type railroads would have loved not to deal with all the problems smoke caused . With current environmental laws steam engines would be illegal to operate in any large amount .
Logged
pdlethbridge
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 07:33:11 PM »

Don't forget, a lot of us started out with Lionel or American flyer. My AF steamer had smoke and sound. Sound was produced by a small bellows.
Logged
ebtbob


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2008, 01:04:12 PM »

Good Afternoon all,

       Not knowing who you contacted,   MTH(Mike's Train House) offered a Pennsy K4 in HO scale with a smoke unit.   Also,  I think,  BLI offered an SP cab forward with a smoke unit.
        Why you would want one is beyond me.   Smoke units are nothing like the smoke from a real engine.   At best,  they resemble a smoldering cigarette.  Besides,  the amount of additional maintenence you will have to keep track clean is not worth it.
Logged

Bob Rule, Jr.
Hatboro, Pa
In God We Trust
Not so much in Congress
GATSME MRRC - www.gatsme.org
SteamGene

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2008, 03:22:51 PM »

I agree that smoke units, especially in HO or smaller are bad news.  However,  I have tdo agree with Jhanecker.  The smoke and steam from a steam locomotive, especially a wood or coal burner did not produce a lot of pollution.  Unlike today's high chimneys, the low smokestack of a steamer didn't allow the smoke to go very far from the track.  It settled on the track and acted as a major fertilizer, making it necessary to tame the wilderness with some regularity. 
It did get on the family wash if the wash was out to dry at the wrong time, but I'm not sure that is pollution, per se. 
I would suggest that diesels probably pollute more than steamers. 
Gene. 
Logged

Chief Brass Hat
Virginia Tidewater and Piedmont Railroad
"Only coal fired steam locomotives"
John Ramsden

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2008, 08:13:40 PM »

Hi:

I think most large scale smoke is created by heating propylene glycol, not oil.

This stuff is used every where,  food, cosmetics and medicinal products.

Look it up,  it is interesting trivia.
Logged

John
Santa Fe buff

N&W


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2008, 11:21:04 PM »

Factory Direct Trains has a deal on some smoke units, if anybody cares... Undecided
http://factorydirecttrains.com/smokeunits.aspx?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=laborday2008 I'm sure some one is bound to care! Smiley
Logged

- Joshua Bauer
Jhanecker2

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2008, 03:46:53 PM »

I would consider the particulates , the sulfur and the mercury found in coal as pollution .  Add to that the water mixing with  sulfur dioxides from the combustion to form sulfuric acid .    Smoke was biological as well as visual hazard .
Logged
Yampa Bob

Y.V.R.R.


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2008, 08:32:13 PM »

A couple of western steam excursion lines are under heavy criticism today regarding the smoke and pollution, law suits are imminent.

The Georgetown Loop is now using a diesel switcher to pull the excursion cars.  As we watched it pull away from the Silver Plume Station, we could detect the heat vapors, but hardly a trace of smoke.

Baldwin #12 (originally running in Hawaii) is being rebuilt, and scrubbers will be added to reduce pollutants.  I have pictures of it in the engine house with the boiler stripped down.  They let me get a close up view of the innards, the cab is sitting on a flatbed. 

We visit Denver often, I plan to take a lot of pictures as the renovation progresses.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 08:49:26 PM by Yampa Bob » Logged

I know what I wrote, I don't need a quote
Rule Number One: It's Our Railroad.  Rule Number Two: Refer to Rule Number One.
James in FL

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2008, 09:54:43 PM »

“The smoke and steam from a steam locomotive, especially a wood or coal burner did not produce a lot of pollution.”

Gene are you speculating/dreaming or do you have actual fact to support this?
I am presuming you’re speaking of as delivered?

AFAIK There is no currently operating re-built/re-furbished from the “Glory Days of Steam” locomotives that do not require a special EPA permit to operate. If I’m wrong, which I am known to have been, please enlighten me as to which and when.
 
None that I am aware of will even pass 1980 Federal EPA standards. Did I miss something?
All, AFAIK, have been granted exceptions strictly specific to place/date/ and time.

“Unlike today's high chimneys, the low smokestack of a steamer didn't allow the smoke to go very far from the track.  It settled on the track and acted as a major fertilizer, making it necessary to tame the wilderness with some regularity.”

This statement is just simply mis-information, or possibly ignorance.
You younger folks may regard this as misspeaking.
We older folks refer to this as a blatant BS.

The early railroads burnt untold tens of thousands of acres of forests and homes due to embers from steam locomotives.
Do a bit of research Gene
Please post the chemical composition of both wood and coal burning waste byproducts as they directly relate to “fertilizer”.
Shame on you, especially posing as a former educator on this site.

“It did get on the family wash if the wash was out to dry at the wrong time, but I'm not sure that is pollution, per se. “
What was the right time to hang the laundry?
Is soot, whatever the source, not pollution?
Again, please post reference regarding chemical composition of said “soot”.

If you have nothing to counter-challenge me on, I would suggest a challenge on my sentence structure or maybe spelling.

Maybe you can save a bit of face.

I’m disappointed with you on this Gene.
Logged
Yampa Bob

Y.V.R.R.


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2008, 03:30:14 AM »

I'm certainly no expert on steam locomotives, or the pollution factors. They made a lot of smoke, that's about all I know.

If the EPA had its way, I couldn't use my outdoor barbeque. They even tried to shut down our cattle feedlots which would have put us out of business.

I think the matter of any steamer pollution is a moot issue. I think they are only used in excursion applications, preserving a bit of our heritage can't be too bad a thing. 

Heck, I'm an old timer too, but I wasn't upset by anything Gene said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Anyway, I'm an engineer not a chemist, so I can't really comment.

Can't we all just agree to disagree and get back to having fun?  Cheesy   
Logged

I know what I wrote, I don't need a quote
Rule Number One: It's Our Railroad.  Rule Number Two: Refer to Rule Number One.
pdlethbridge
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2008, 03:27:07 PM »

what fun, I'd rather pick on you! Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Logged
James in FL

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2008, 04:24:14 PM »

Yes, Bob you are right everyone in entitled to their own opinion.
Its part of what makes each of us individual, and “That’s a good thing”.

Sorry, but it’s hard for me to cut anybody any slack when they consistently attempt to force their will on, and belittle, others.

The poster, I directed my reply to, appears to feel it’s his/her duty/obligation to correct others publicly on this site.
I was just giving him/her a dose of  their own medicine.

I know I know, I shouldn’t have, and that by doing so it lowered me to that same level.
My apologies.

Yes, let’s have some fun and go lay some more tracks.

Cease fire in effect  ; )


« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 05:27:11 PM by James in FL » Logged
Yampa Bob

Y.V.R.R.


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2008, 08:20:16 PM »

In life, I cut everyone a lot of slack (except for PD) in the hope they will do the same for me.  Everyone "blows smoke" occasionally. Hey I made a funny. HAHA

Pardon me while I reply to PD.  Angry  STOMP!  Ah, I feel much better.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 08:23:26 PM by Yampa Bob » Logged

I know what I wrote, I don't need a quote
Rule Number One: It's Our Railroad.  Rule Number Two: Refer to Rule Number One.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!