 |
Re: Eagle Mountain RR Baldwins versus U-30's?
Author: BOB2
Date: 09-20-2016 - 08:27
What make you think the U-30's were any better than the Baldwins? A less "visibly" smoking U-30 wasn't necessarily emitting less volumes of invisible NOx or fine particulates.
Nothing much had really changed much in the technologies for emission controls or emission levels on locomotives, until the 90's. This came after EPA was sued,, when they threatened to cut off CA's Highway Funds, because "we" had failed to achieve health standards. The State had no authority to regulate these emission source, and EPA left trucks and trains unregulated in any way, which were increasingly the only remaining major remaining completely unregulated on-road air pollution sources, while we had already reduced unhealthy auto emissions by over 95%.
Some of us who remember having to cover our cars at night so the nitric acid that formed in the fog at night from the locomotive emissions at Taylor wouldn't eat the paint. And some of us also remember our skins actually "burning" from this nitric acid, and we were breathing that crap, too. Ah, the "good old" days, right?
Nothing much had really changed much in the technologies for emission controls or emission levels on locomotives, until the 90's. This came after EPA was sued,, when they threatened to cut off CA's Highway Funds, because "we" had failed to achieve health standards. The State had no authority to regulate these emission source, and EPA left trucks and trains unregulated in any way, which were increasingly the only remaining major remaining completely unregulated on-road air pollution sources, while we had already reduced unhealthy auto emissions by over 95%.
Some of us who remember having to cover our cars at night so the nitric acid that formed in the fog at night from the locomotive emissions at Taylor wouldn't eat the paint. And some of us also remember our skins actually "burning" from this nitric acid, and we were breathing that crap, too. Ah, the "good old" days, right?
