New Cog = Stupid

I've seen the new "Diesel" Cog a few times now and have come to the conclusion that it's stupid. First, the 10 trillion or so cars driving around in the area nullify any perceived benefit to the environment that running a diesel vs. belching coal engine a few times a day up a mountain has. It's like subtracting .01 from 10 million. Second, it's lame: There's already a train and track infrastructure up the mountain.... don't get me wrong, I'd never want them to build more of those cog things in the mountains. But, the one we got is here to stay and the silly little engine chugging along at 2mph with it's black, disgusting smoke visible (and smellable) from miles away is both quaint, cool and unique and it always reminds me that yes, I'm in the Presidentials. The whistle is cool too -- the new one sounds like a horn on a semi. The new one isn't noisy, dirty or smelly: no charm. I hope they abandon it or retrofit it with a nice coal stove before they start to lose customers. Nobody wants to ride that geek mobile when you can ride the real thing. Just saying. I hope the new cog goes away...

-Dr. Wu

I'm not generally a fan of dirty and smelly, but there is 1 way in which the old cog is useful to hikers: wind speed forecaster.

I snapped this pic on August 24th 2008 on my way up the Ammonoosuc Ravine Trail. I knew before I reached treeline that I was going to be treated to a rare, wind-free day on Mt. Washington.

Barkingcat said:

Ya know, I'm not sure I would call the diesel cog engine "stupid" (mebbe "characterless") but I am certainly with you on keeping the old, smelly, quaint cog engines.

I like 'em.

Click to expand...

I didn't necessarily mean that the new Cog has low intelligence -- didn't want to give the impression that I felt it was sentient or would bother calling it not-sentient even.... I just don't like the diesel cog concept. Every time I see it I think it's Jason tooling around in the mountains in his old VW diesel.

-Dr. Wu

The new Cog is a lot cheaper to operate than the old ones. For that reason alone it makes sense.

David Metsky said:

The new Cog is a lot cheaper to operate than the old ones. For that reason alone it makes sense.

Click to expand...

Did they lower the price?

Tom Rankin said:

Did they lower the price?

Click to expand...

Silly question.

David Metsky said:

The new Cog is a lot cheaper to operate than the old ones. For that reason alone it makes sense.

Click to expand...

It's a gamble that could lose them customers though. If enough people feel that for a lot less $$ they can drive their own diesel (or gas powered) car up Mt. Washington, then it was a bad decision on their part.

I wonder how much the diesel cog was a reaction to A) customer demands or B) political pressure or C) pressure from outside groups that felt the cog was some sort of environmental catastrophe tooling around the mountain. Or, I wonder how much of a combination of B/C it was. Doubt they'll lower their prices because of the new engine (although maybe when they start losing customers...)

My guess is they succumbed to outside pressures from (probably non-customers) people that felt the coal-fired cog was some kind of environmental holocaust. That sentiment has certainly been felt here on this website. And now -- victory -- because the diesel cog gives some sort of perception of "improved" and "more clean" and "better" but most likely is statistically insignificant compared to what we already got. In other words, window dressing, and, unfortunately, a hollow victory for environmentalism. I'd never want to see a new Cog go up somewhere, say Franconia Ridge -- diesel or coal -- but changing the existing one kills character for something that is not even marginally better. But the character issue, it's sort of like the old man falling.... something else iconic to the White Mountains gone.

-Dr. Wu

http://www.thecog.com/cog_technology.php

A source of pride to the Cog Railway is that the design and construction of the new locomotives were accomplished on site, in workshops near Marshfield Station. The accomplishment culminates over 30 years of experimentation with diesel locomotives at the Cog. The dream had to wait until 21st century technology made the feat possible. For example, the new locomotives have a computer package on board that serves both to govern the engine and to monitor the engine's exact position on the track. The development of biodiesel surged world-wide since 2000, making it feasible as a major source of energy. Finally, the arrival of the Cog mechanical engineer Al LaPrade, a recent retiree from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, brought up-to-date expertise to the project. Al worked with John Deere and several New Hampshire-based manufacturers in designing the drive train and assuring that the electronics were state-of-the-art.

Click to expand...

They run one steam train a day for the steam buffs, but otherwise they pretty much have switched over completely to bio-diesel. It doesn't seem to be affecting their ridership, and I'm sure it's helping their bottom line.

There are so many advantages of bio-diesel over coal, from ease of use, cheaper price, less maintenance, and better PR, that it's a no brainer. I believe they still run

When I was in the 5th grade (1969) I helped build a scale model of the Cog railway, as part of a class project. There has always been a soft spot in my heart for the Cog.

Another thing I think about is that Thomas the Tank Engine is so much nicer than Diesel!

Thanks Frank, you now make me want to come back to a real fun and smart hiking forum.

I think the last whistle is a very good turnaround time.

dr_wu002 said:

I wonder how much the diesel cog was a reaction to A) customer demands or B) political pressure or C) pressure from outside groups that felt the cog was some sort of environmental catastrophe tooling around the mountain. Or, I wonder how much of a combination of B/C it was. Doubt they'll lower their prices because of the new engine (although maybe when they start losing customers...)

My guess is they succumbed to outside pressures

Click to expand...

Doubt it. It about saving money. It's always about economics. Business go green when it saves them money or it makes them look good so they can make more money.

David Metsky said:

The new Cog is a lot cheaper to operate than the old ones. For that reason alone it makes sense.

Click to expand...

Specifically, around $60/trip vs. $225 for the over-a-ton of coal required, with the cog estimating that coal price to double or triple. The 17 gallons of bio-diesel fuel weighs a lot less than a ton, plus they don't need the 1000+ gallons of water, so even more efficiency is realized there. The new trains have computer-controlled drivetrains in them, too, and won't require a (claimed) $100,000/year cost in boiler inspections. From the railway's perspective, it's a huge financial win regardless of the environmental issues.

So what about those environmental issues? I found some statistics that claim the coal engines produce 1,500 pounds of carbon pollution per trip, while the bio-diesel only 89 pounds per trip. That's a little over 16 bio-diesel trips compared to one coal trip.

The EPA says that a gallon of gasoline represents 19.4 pounds of carbon emissions. That makes the change of cog engine over just one trip the approximate equivalent of around 72 less vehicle-gallons of gasoline. Pulling out of the air an average of 20mpg, and the Kanc's length of 26.5 miles, that's like taking 52 cars off the Kanc for each trip the cog runs bio-diesel instead of coal.

Okay, probably a bogus statistic, but still, it was amusing to try to figure out.

The big question will be what the train engineers will throw at Wu's moon now that they won't have the coal chunks available.

MichaelJ said:

The big question will be what the train engineers will throw at Wu's moon now that they won't have the coal chunks available.

Click to expand...

I never moon the Cog. I like the train, the engineers and even the tchotchke lovers on board!

Little Rickie said:

Doubt it. It about saving money. It's always about economics. Business go green when it saves them money or it makes them look good so they can make more money.

Click to expand...

Or when they can find some of kind government subsidy...

MichaelJ said:

Specifically, around $60/trip vs. $225 for the over-a-ton of coal required, with the cog estimating that coal price to double or triple. The 17 gallons of bio-diesel fuel weighs a lot less than a ton, plus they don't need the 1000+ gallons of water, so even more efficiency is realized there. The new trains have computer-controlled drivetrains in them, too, and won't require a (claimed) $100,000/year cost in boiler inspections. From the railway's perspective, it's a huge financial win regardless of the environmental issues.

So what about those environmental issues? I found some statistics that claim the coal engines produce 1,500 pounds of carbon pollution per trip, while the bio-diesel only 89 pounds per trip. That's a little over 16 bio-diesel trips compared to one coal trip.

Click to expand...

Ok. And thanks for the numbers. Now we'll all have to see if over the long run the customers like it or not... they may want to get something better than that semi-horn.

-Dr. Wu

cog me once

I did the cog once and won't do it again. It is just too annoying getting covered in soot and going slow as molasses.

It should be human powered. Make it out of carbon fiber and make the bottom part a sweat shop with plexiglass viewing area of the 'cyclists'

Brambor said:

I did the cog onceand won't do it again. It is just too annoying getting covered in soot and going slow as molasses.

Click to expand...

Agreed. We went once about 17 years ago on a hot summer day with my two year old daughter. Everyone started the trip with the windows open and then noticed a fine layer of coal soot on our clothing. They complained. All then started shutting windows and then they complained of the heat.

I would assume that using diesel would probably improve the customer experience for most, except for those longing for a taste of history or a taste of soot.

Marty

Among my mixed feelings on this topic, I note with ironic, Faustian, Hunter-Thompson-esque glee that the coal used to power the Cog could maybe even come from a "mountaintop removal" mine in West Virginia; wouldn't that be delicious? If I were a resident of such an Appalachian community, I think I'd be durned proud that the Cog got to run because I didn't need that pesky watershed anymore.

All in good fun....

and yet just last week that effing nasty, soot casting, environmentally filthy, moneysucking , tourist raping, environment trashing cog railway was able to power up a biodeisel engine on short notice, late at night, LONG after the business/tourist day was over, to enable a hiker rescue from the west side. NH F&G and SAR were pretty happy they didn't have to do another carry-out, they were all used up from the day before

Breeze

dr_wu002 said:

But the character issue, it's sort of like the old man falling.... something else iconic to the White Mountains gone.

-Dr. Wu

Click to expand...

I agree. Thank God we still have Gary Moody!

Wow! I never thought I'd see a thread defending those old engines!

Breeze said:

and yet just last week that effing nasty, soot casting, environmentally filthy, moneysucking , tourist raping, environment trashing cog railway was able to power up a biodeisel engine on short notice, late at night, LONG after the business/tourist day was over, to enable a hiker rescue from the west side. NH F&G and SAR were pretty happy they didn't have to do another carry-out, they were all used up from the day before

Breeze

Click to expand...

If a resource is available then not availing oneself to it, for whatever reason, is maladaptive (nicer word than Wu's ).