Re: Fate of 85/86 class

["chris@enet21.com.au" <chris@enet21.com.au>]

I think diesel produces as much carbon as coal, but you can't see it.
Has there been any experiments (in Australia) running diesel locomotives on
liquidfied natural gas (LNG)? I know they run buses on it, and some heavy
vehicles were fitted.

chris

Ed wrote:

> Diesel engines produce very nasty carcinogenic 'dust particle' compounds in
> the 10 to 20 micron size range (ie very small), which the lungs have great
> difficulty in removing.  Petrol engines also produce noxious gasses, but
> much much less of these carcinogenic 'particles'.
>
> So the next time someone tells you that 'diesel fuel is more environmental
> because it takes less energy to refine, and only produces particulate
> smoke' - tell them their (lungs) are full of it!
>
> :-)
>
> Actually this would be a good joke if we weren't all choking in it.
>
> Ed
>
> Ben wrote in message <389D53D8.F42585D@yahoo.com>...
> >
> >
> >John McCandless wrote:
> >
> >>  > And also, whatever happened to environmental resposibility? The
> >> > electrics are much cleaner than any diesel will ever be. While cheaper,
> >> > diesel produces noxious gases and carcinogens aplenty and considering
> >> > the scale at which the diesels are used in Sydney (where electrics
> could
> >> > be used) that's a huge contribution to pollution levels.
> >>
> >> True, it's a lot easier to control the emissions out of 2 or 3
> smokestacks
> >> at the power station, than it is to control a fleet of diesels....
> >> BUT, what is a worse pollutant?  Is it diesel exhausts or
> common-or-garden
> >>  super and unleaded engines?
> >
> >I recall a statistic (put out by the NRMA or nsw gov. I think) that said
> >diesel motor vehicles were responsible for 75% of all motor vehicle
> pollution
> >in Sydney, despite there much smaller numberof these compared with the
> number
> >of petrol vehicles. Of course my memory could be completely or partially
> >faulty.
> >
> >
> >Ben Munro
> >
> >