Trains.com

Why so long to convert to electrical from steam heat on Passenger Trains?

8801 views
37 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Why so long to convert to electrical from steam heat on Passenger Trains?
Posted by BLS53 on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:41 PM

I recall steam being used for heat and other utilities on passenger trains into the 1970's and Amtrak era. I never understood why the conversion to electricity wasn't made when the diesels took over. Was there something complicated or expensive about doing this that prevented the RR's from making the change?

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:59 AM

1.   Dieselization did not take place overnight on almost all railroads.  A particular car could be behind diesels on day and steam on another.

2.   Money

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:37 AM

BLS53
Was there something complicated or expensive about doing this that prevented the RR's from making the change?

Lots of money and time required, complicated by the requirement that all cars in a consist would need to be converted for the approach to work. 

Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements (to make cars somewhat autonomous of trainline requirements).  This was often true for the 'modern' fleets of streamlined cars in the '40s and early '50s.   You can see a result of this in the graphs in Kiefer's 1947 report on motive power; the energy that would have been used in trainlined HEP shows up quite clearly in the acceleration graphs as the various cars in a consist 'cut in'.

Steam heat is also very effective for physical reasons, and electrical resistance heat is recognized as much more expensive for the same degree of heat.  

As passenger trains became less and less profitable in the '50s and '60s, some of the nominal advantages of steam generation became very small along with consist size.  Didn't make much sense to maintain coil monotube steam generation for one or two coaches ... but made even less sense to contemplate expensive technical conversions when cash flow from operations was already negative.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:59 AM

RME

 

 
BLS53
Was there something complicated or expensive about doing this that prevented the RR's from making the change?

 

Lots of money and time required, complicated by the requirement that all cars in a consist would need to be converted for the approach to work. 

Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements (to make cars somewhat autonomous of trainline requirements).  This was often true for the 'modern' fleets of streamlined cars in the '40s and early '50s.   You can see a result of this in the graphs in Kiefer's 1947 report on motive power; the energy that would have been used in trainlined HEP shows up quite clearly in the acceleration graphs as the various cars in a consist 'cut in'.

Steam heat is also very effective for physical reasons, and electrical resistance heat is recognized as much more expensive for the same degree of heat.  

As passenger trains became less and less profitable in the '50s and '60s, some of the nominal advantages of steam generation became very small along with consist size.  Didn't make much sense to maintain coil monotube steam generation for one or two coaches ... but made even less sense to contemplate expensive technical conversions when cash flow from operations was already negative.

 

Well said, RME.Thumbs Up

Johnny

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 225 posts
Posted by DS4-4-1000 on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:06 AM

RME
Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements

Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets.  Both are very reliable.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:10 AM

I had two experiences with the individual car electical supplies.

In February of 1967, I rode from Tampa to St. Pete in the combine on the Silver Meteor, and it was warm in the car. The flagman explained that with the car running just between Wildwood and St. Pete there was not enough time to build the batteries up so there would be enough power to cool the car.

The other experience was my going to sleep in a roomette on the way from Washington to St. Louis in July of 1971. I went to sleep with electricity in the car--and when I woke in the morning, there was no electricity in the car, for the generator had failed. Whenn the train came back from Kansas City the next day, the car had a good generator.

Johnny

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:13 AM

DS4-4-1000

 

 
RME
Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements

 

Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets.  Both are very reliable.

 

According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:29 AM

The first long-distance trains with (sort of) conventional equipment that used HEP were C&NW's bilevel 400s, introduced in 1958.  They had the advantage of being in a small, controlled pool.  Even that use required converting diners and lounges, which could no longer be used in C&NW's conventional trains.  Cars could be pulled from the commuter pool if necessary to add train capacity.  HEP engines were converted E8s or ex-freight F7s with Cummings generator sets. C&NW retained steam heat on other trains, the last being the single-level "Kate Shelley 400" from Chicago to Clinton IA, until April 30, 1971.

PRR's Keystone train was electrically heated from its own power car.  The Keystone cars still had steam lines so additional conventional cars could be added to the train.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:25 AM

Deggesty

 

 
DS4-4-1000

 

 
RME
Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements

 

Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets.  Both are very reliable.

 

 

 

According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.

 

 

Addenda: I believe that the publication was The Railway Pasenger Equipment Register (I am not sure that I have my copies here; it is difficult to look for them). Also, in the sixties, very, very few cars were listed as having ice activated air conditioning. Waukesha or electrical were far, far more common systems.

Johnny

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:13 AM

FM's Speed Merchants (P12-42, two each for NH and B&M) were equipped for HEP drawn off the main generator in the same manner as F40PH's many years later.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:50 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
FM's Speed Merchants (P12-42, two each for NH and B&M) were equipped for HEP drawn off the main generator in the same manner as F40PH's many years later.

And the Baldwin RP-210s for "Train X" had auxiliary engines with generators providing 480V HEP.  (Note that neither of these types of locomotive were expected to pull anything but their special consists, though, nor were the lightweight trains intended to be hauled by conventional power.)

The LRC trains needed HEP-equipped locomotives to run properly ... but a conventional consist that didn't require steam could be pulled by one of the LRC locomotives, and if it did require steam, the lightweight unit could be MUed with an F-unit...

 

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:29 PM

daveklepper

1.   Dieselization did not take place overnight on almost all railroads.  A particular car could be behind diesels on day and steam on another.

2.   Money

 

I should've clarified after diesels took over completely. Mainly 1960 forward.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:45 PM

I recall as a child of the 60's, in a small town where daily, a dining car was removed from a passenger train for the remaining journey. From a railfan perspective this was an event my Father enjoyed watching for whatever reason. A workman would pound away with a hammer on the metal connection to break it loose, with steam flying everywhere. From a kid's perspective it seemed so archaic with jet airliners flying around and men going into space.

Many years later when electrical power became commonplace, my thought was, what was so hard about implementing this earlier? Thanks for the thoughtful answers.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, September 1, 2016 7:53 AM

BLS53

I recall as a child of the 60's, in a small town where daily, a dining car was removed from a passenger train for the remaining journey. From a railfan perspective this was an event my Father enjoyed watching for whatever reason. A workman would pound away with a hammer on the metal connection to break it loose, with steam flying everywhere. From a kid's perspective it seemed so archaic with jet airliners flying around and men going into space.

Many years later when electrical power became commonplace, my thought was, what was so hard about implementing this earlier? Thanks for the thoughtful answers.

 

Steam flying everywhere? On the IC, when a passenger train was to be worked In Jackson, Mississippi, the steam to the cars would be cut off and the valve in the line at the rear of the last car would be opened before the train reached Jackson--thus leaving no pressure in the line so that it would be safe to disconnect whatever cars needed to be disconected. I assisted in the operation at least once, when headend cars were to be added.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 1, 2016 8:55 PM

Steam heating/cooling was the accepted standard for all passenger equipment constructed during the age of steam and even the age of the GG1's as they handed their trains off to steam power in some cases and other carriers in other cases.  Some of the early Streamliners were steam powered and thus followed the existing standard.  When the post war equipment was built it also followed the existing standards. The last NEW train that was purchased and put in service was the Denver Zephyr in about 1956 and it followed the standards.  The standards applied to ALL the railroads the provided passenger service and whose cars were used in interchange service amongst the various carriers.

It wasn't until the creation of Amtrak in 1971 that you had a single organization providing most of the passenger service in the country and thus had the power to change the standards for the cars it would operate.

While I expect steam powered electrical generators could have been developed to allow HEP power from steam engines, the size of electrical equipment in the 20's to the 60's was physcially much larger than what we have come to accept as normal today.  The diesel locomotives used for passenger service in the 50's and 60's didn't have excess horsepower to oprerate HEP as they only had 2400 HP (E-9's) or less per unit. (E6 & E7 = 2000 HP; E8 = 2250 HP; FP3 & FP7 1500 HP; FP9 1750 HP)  To use HEP before Amtrak would have required the establishment of a HEP standard for all carriers to comply with and considering the declining state of passenger revenues from the late 40's onward no carriers wanted to increase their investment in passenger equipment by updating their fleet to HEP standards if they had been made and adopted.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, September 1, 2016 9:08 PM

I do not know how difference there was between the Waukesha-powered and electrically-powered AC sytems--but the steam-powered system gave repairmen fits when one went bad while on a road that had not used the system (Amtrak liked to move its inheritance around all ove the country). And, after the Southern gave its train to Amtrak, there could have been problems when cars from other roads had troubles while on the Southern. The same situation may have prevailed on the Santa Fe, though I believe that Amtrak continued using former Santa Fe cars on the trains that it operated on the Santa Fe.

I think it was in 1982 when I rode from Birmingham to New Orleans in the spring--and the cooling system had to be cut completely off before everybody in the car was chilled.

Johnny

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Friday, September 2, 2016 9:56 AM

Deggesty

 

 
BLS53

I recall as a child of the 60's, in a small town where daily, a dining car was removed from a passenger train for the remaining journey. From a railfan perspective this was an event my Father enjoyed watching for whatever reason. A workman would pound away with a hammer on the metal connection to break it loose, with steam flying everywhere. From a kid's perspective it seemed so archaic with jet airliners flying around and men going into space.

Many years later when electrical power became commonplace, my thought was, what was so hard about implementing this earlier? Thanks for the thoughtful answers.

 

 

 

Steam flying everywhere? On the IC, when a passenger train was to be worked In Jackson, Mississippi, the steam to the cars would be cut off and the valve in the line at the rear of the last car would be opened before the train reached Jackson--thus leaving no pressure in the line so that it would be safe to disconnect whatever cars needed to be disconected. I assisted in the operation at least once, when headend cars were to be added.

 

 

And there's no possibility of residual steam being left in the line, that would be visible in winter, in Illinois? 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 9, 2016 5:45 PM

Because I don't know - What was the pressure of the steam line on passenger equipment.  I know steam engines used between 150 and 350 psi depending upon their design, however I am sure the steam heating line was operated at a much lower pressure - I just don't know what the pressure is.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:29 PM

White's book on American RR Pasnger car stated that the steam line was typically run at boiler pressure. The "vapor" system reduce steam pressure to a few ounces per square inch above atmospheric.

As for the original topic, some of the pre-war UP streamliners had head end power for A/C and auxiliary heat along with Vapor-Clarkson boilers for normal steam heat. Interesting upshot was that providing resistance heat from the dedicated HEP engines used less fuel for a given amount of useful heat in the passnger car than steam heat.

The Butte, Anaconda and Pacific used 2400VDC for heating the passenger cars when the electrification was opened, lighting was from a 600V line running off a dynamotor in the locomotive. Ironically, the BA&P went back to coal stove heat for the passenger car on thier mixed trains after they stopped running dedicated passenger trains.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, September 12, 2016 6:57 AM

Early steam connections used hoses that were adequate for the relatively low pressures found prior to superheating.  As boiler pressures rose reducers were applied, keeping the inlet pressure below about 150 lb, which prevented hose burst until the later pipe connections became widespread.  Boilers used on diesels and electrics were "flash" type, with steam production dependant on use more than on pressure - in fact most roads allowed some steam to leak out the end of the train so the lines didn't freeze up.  The key rating for train boilers was "pounds per hour" which was both a measurement of steam production and water use - a gallon of water produces around 8 pounds of steam.  EMD B-B units were generally equipped with model 4625 units (2500 lbs/hr), with E-units often equipped with model 4740 (4000 lbs/hr).  Amtrak's SDP40Fs were equipped with a pair of 4625s each. Water capacity was a big problem since it cut into fuel capacity.  F units in passenger service were often paired with the boiler only in the "B" unit, since it was difficult to provide enough water capacity in the "A".  The FP7 was a partial answer.  In any case water use was greater than fuel use in the winter.  Many western roads, and some eastern ones, built steam generator cars out of anything from old tenders to ex-Army troop sleepers, or set up steam generators in part of a baggage car.  UP's "City of Everywhere" often rolled into Chicago with nearly 30 cars in the late 1960s, trailing a baggage boiler car.

Except for B-units and FP7s, most units with boilers stowed water in a partitioned fuel tank under the frame.  Amtrak and EMD's decision to use above-frame tanks on SDP40Fs probably doomed them, as sloshing water on curves as the tanks emptied could quickly overwhelm the lateral stiffness of the trucks.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Sunday, October 9, 2016 12:14 AM

Deggesty

 According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.

Perusing through Wright's book on the Espee Daylight, ran across a notation that the first trainsets used steam ejector A/C. Later trainsets used the Waukesha engine driven A/C.

One of the 1901's issue of The Electric Journal had an article on steam ejector cooling, stating it was good for a maximum of 50 degrees F between the "cold" side and "hot" side. Big advantage of steam ejector technology is that it did not use toxic gases that were the refrigerants available at that time.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 9, 2016 2:15 PM

and could rapidly change from cooling to heating and heating to cooling if required.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, October 9, 2016 2:23 PM

Deggesty

 

 
DS4-4-1000

 

 
RME
Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements

 

Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets.  Both are very reliable.

 

 

 

According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.

 

 

I should have added that my information came from a Register that was published in the seventies. By then only two roads used steam-powered air conditioning.

If you walked by a car with steam-powered air conditioning, you could get a light shower of water. 

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Sunday, October 9, 2016 3:56 PM

1950 Pullman car list shows the following with Steam Jet A/c:

Erie MKT Milw NYC Pullman SFe Sou StLSF UP

Pullmans were pool-service "Betterment" cars of various floor plans, along with a bunch of Tourist Sleepers.  Erie's, UP's and Sou's were heavyweights.  Milw's included the lightweight cars on the Olympian Hi, including Skytops. NYC had a couple of 10 sec ObsLg heavyweight cars.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, October 10, 2016 10:18 PM

Deggesty

 According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.

 

I should have added that my information came from a Register that was published in the seventies. By then only two roads used steam-powered air conditioning.

 

If you walked by a car with steam-powered air conditioning, you could get a light shower of water. 

 

John H White stated that the AT&SF and Seaboard were the only two long term users of steam ejector A/C, so the P.E.R appears to be validating White's statement (except for the Southern vs Seaboard). My mention of the Espee Daylight was to indicate other roads dabbling in steam ejector A/C but moving on to something else.

The UP seems to have settled on electrically driven A/C for their Streamliners, head end power for the Winton 201A powered trains, then axle-driven generator power for everything later. The HEP equipped trains also had steam heat, and the last of the HEP equipped trains were confiured to use a combination of steam and electric heating - funny thing was that electric heating was more efficient despite the losses (engine and alternator) in converting diesel fuel to electricity. The UP appeared to want at least 400lbs/hr of steam capacity per car, which translates to 100+KW of electric power. Given the extra efficiency of electric heating, they might have been able to get away with 30 to 50 KW per car. That's substantially more than the power needed by A/C and it probably didn't make economic sense to size the HEP to heating load, especially since they were powered by auxiliary diesel engines.

  • Member since
    October 2016
  • 1 posts
Posted by johnrr88 on Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:38 PM

Love this topic,  as my Uncle Tony was an old steam generator repair specialist. He worked on the California  Zephyr back when the WP ran it into Oakland and heated the train with steam generator cars. These were baggage-dorm conversions with two mounted steam gennys , all with their own water and fuel tanks. The SF Super Chief used the same type conversions later on too.Some of them went to Auto-Train.  The NY Central  also had some cool looking black steam gen cars too. Does anyone know if they were used on the 20th Century Limited? I'm looking for NYC consist lists in the 50's and 60's. Help! thanks all.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, October 24, 2016 12:08 PM

The NYC did have steam generator cars, but the Century was assigned the best E-unit power which had boilers of sufficient capacity in my experience.  However, there may have been times when one of these generator cars was added at times of extreme winter cold.  Never saw this, but it certainly was possible.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 8:35 AM

One thing I have never seen a discussion of - Steam generators on diesels.  How many cars could they supply acceptable steam volume and pressure for?

Was motive power assigned to trains based upon the number of engines necessary to maintain line speed or were the number of engines base upon the number of steam generators necessary to provide sufficent steam through the train?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:24 PM

BaltACD
Was motive power assigned to trains based upon the number of engines necessary to maintain line speed or were the number of engines base upon the number of steam generators necessary to provide sufficent steam through the train?

This is one of those "it depends" questions.  Assuming "normal" steam demand a Vapor 4625 steam generator (GPs, SDs, F7, FP7, FPA2, FPA4) could generate up to 2500 lbs of steam an hour, good for five or six average heating/cooling loads.  On many trains there were several head end cars that were entirely unheated or only minimally heated, so the train could be longer than 5 or 6 cars, making engine power more important.  A fairly common arrangement, especially on western railroads, was an A-B pair of F-units with a boiler in the B unit only, where there was room in the carbody to carry water.  E-units and some PAs were often fitted with the larger Vapor 4740 SG( ~4000 lbs/hr), which could heat 8 or 9 cars.  The point of no return was reached at about 18 cars, where steam could no longer be counted on to reach the rear of the train.  Many railroads, from the New York Central to the Great Northern, built steam generator cars out of everything from old B-units (Southern, D&RGW) to locomotive tenders (many examples). Amtrak built S/G cars out of E8s, leaving the cabs intact, at least on the outside, during the period of HEP conversion.  These were run in the winter to reduce the fuel load on the locomotives, to allow freight locomotives to be used in passenger service, or at the end of trains that were extremely long or ran in extreme condiditions.  Several railroads (UP) installed S/Gs in Baggage or Baggage-Dorm cars specifically for end-of-train use.  As far as I know only NP used water-baggage cars to allow more fuel to be carried on locomotives.  On very cold days the S/G could use a lot of fuel.

I guess the more direct answer to your question was that the size of the S/G and power of a typical engine more or less fit the same size train, as long as it wasn't too long.

 

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter