This was due to corrosion caused by feedwater. Porta Treatment for feedwater is proven to reduce boiler maintenance to twice a year washouts, with replacements only necessary after several decades. This is a non-existent problem.

2: The costs associated with running this will be high…water tanks, fuel depots, etc.

Very good point indeed. However, water tanks and fuel depots are a fixed cost, i.e., the railway has to bear them only once. Someone named John T. Rhodes actually worked out this cost in his PhD thesis (really) and found out that coal-fired locomotives can recover this cost in ~15 years, which is low compared to the life of an average locomotive, and nothing on a railco’s timescale (several decades/centuries). How? Because coal is cheaper than diesel. Very, very cheap. Biocoal is only slightly more expensive, but still very much cheaper than diesel. The same John Rhodes is now a key person in CSR. That study did not take into account gains in efficiency to be had from the modern engineering side, which should *reduce* coal consumption.

I was doubtful about the project too, but seeing John Rhodes and Shaun McMahon’s names on the roster in key positions gives me hope. Of course, there is no money there yet, so it may still fail, and that is a perpetual problem. But the other old problems are no more.

The ones I’ve ridden in China and India leave one filthy. And the particulates can’t be good for ones lungs….

I don’t agree with the hopelessness suggested in Stephen’s tone but he makes his point and so I defend his right to express an opinion.

The Trans-Siberian railway runs 9,288km/5,771miles, barely less than two complete trips from New Jersey to California on Interstate 80. Trains run 24 hours a day with only 5 to 10 minutes between trains.

It’s 100% electric.

While using an old locomotive suggests a nice proof of concept, using an external combustion engine, there are more advanced engines like the quasi turbine that offers more efficiency with fewer moving parts.

There have been some challenges to the carbon benefits of biofuel where land must be cleared of existing vegetation or it is grown as a substitute for other crops. Essentially you would have to grow biofuel crops where nothing was growing before to reap the full benefits.

Certainly biofuel is an “answer” but a limited bridge solution.

While using an old locomotive suggests a nice proof of concept, using an external combustion engine, there are more advanced engines like the quasi turbine that offers more efficiency with fewer moving parts.

There have been some challenges to the carbon benefits of biofuel where land must be cleared of existing vegetation or it is grown as a substitute for other crops. Essentially you would have to grow biofuel crops where nothing was growing before to reap the full benefits.

Certainly biofuel is an “answer” but a limited bridge solution.

1. First of all, where did the iron/steel come from? Perhaps some naturally occurring iron source that will use a concert of wind, solar, geothermal, and/or hydroelectric energy to transform the raw ore to a useful steel. This is obviously just a minor oversight.
2. It is still on the drawing board. how can it be the World’s first? Oops. UM thought of it first. My most-sincere apologies to the author.
3. Next, outside of an altered picture, how will the old paint (possibly toxic) be removed (sand blasting or chemically removed) and how will the new paint be manufactured. Just another toxic sacrifice that is necessary for the progession of novel idea.
4. What is to be accomplished if the product or technology is never or highly-unlikely to be used. Simply put, there is a risk/reward calculation that needs to be calculated. That would be a better article to publish. Else, just another exercise to spew more of that deadly carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
5. The only useful outcome that will be the knowledge obtained by the graduates.

“The locomotive is set to run on torrefied biomass (biocoal) — a biofuel created through an energy-efficient processing of cellulosic biomass”

The only animals that produce cellulose are urochordates – sea squirts, salps and larvaceans.

No carbon is taken out of sequestration.

The hybred tank engines cost one million dollars more for each tank and she said the bio fuel for the jets is ten times more expensive.

When asked if this was about a green agenda that might interfer with military capacity, she said “oh no, it’s all about saving money”.

So they will save money with a tank engine that cost one million more per tank and jet fuel that cost ten times as much as current jet fuel………

Once agian, probably that same funky Washington math!

I think Carbon Neutral translates into someones funky math. Probably a version of the same math politicans use to create “savings” and spending cuts, that really do not exist!

They will say they planned to spend $200 million, then decide to only spend $100 million and declare they just cut the deficit by $100 million……..

I am betting “carbon neutral” is probably in this same realm of funky math!