Soaring Gas Prices and an abundance of Coal. Do you think steam will ever make a come back?!

[Bill H.]

Mainline Steam? No, I really don't think so. I remember it from my youth, and it's too bad it will never come again.

http://www.retroweb.com/611lastrun.html THIS site is worth a look.

One VERY large problem associated with a steam locomotive is the brutal pounding of the rail by the reciprocating drive mechanism. Heavier locomotives = harder pounding. Also:

http://exotic.railfan.net/dieselfaq.htm

QUOTE: 11. Exactly why did the diesel-electric locomotive replace the steam locomotive?
A. Thermal efficiency of a diesel is about 30%, compared to 6-7% for a steam locomotive. The diesel is therefore much more fuel efficient.
B. Diesels develop maximum horsepower and efficiency over a wide range of speeds. Steamers have a very narrow speed range in which they reach full efficiency.
C. Diesels can be operated in multiple units(MU) under only one set of controls. This means that 1 unit can control many other units. This allows once crew per train and greatly reduces labor costs.
D. Dynamic Braking allows good speed control on downgrades and reduces brake repairs. Longer trains are also allowed with better speed control.
E. Maintenance costs are very low in comparison to steamer. Diesel locomotives have an availability of 90% or better, compared to 30-40% for the average steamer. Standardized and modular design played a major role in the diesel's advantage over steam. A diesel could replace about 10 steam locomotives.
F. Fewer fuel and water stops.A diesel requires little water. Diesels allowed the retirement of $50,000,000 worth of equipment to supply water to very thirsty steamers.
G. A low center of gravity enables higher train speeds on curves.
H. Unlike steam locomotives, diesels do not stress the track with the pounding force of reciprocating components. Track maintenance is reduced as a result.
I. Since diesel locomotives were standardized, they made good collateral on bank loans. This meant that railroads could borrow money easier and upgrade to diesels even if the financial condition of the road was not good.
J. The average steamer after World War II was 20 years old and out of date. Although modern steam was able to get within striking distance of the diesel in terms of availability and efficiency, (but they were still more expensive to operate than diesels) it was logical to replace aging steamers with diesels.
K. The rising cost of coal and inability to find spare parts also hastened the demise of the steam locomotive.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, I don't think steam will ever come back [:(]. I am only 25 and except for Disneyland and a few summertime excursion trains, I have never seen steam engines in person (what a tragedy). Of course I doubt the 'steam engine' at Disney land was real, probably a diesel made up to look like a steam engine with theatrical smoke (they like to do that sort of thing, what you see is not always what you get). Anyway, while I agree that steam will never make a comeback I disagree with several of the posts on here. Everyone is assuming that a steam engine by todays standards would be just like the engines of the 30's and 40's. I personally think that engineers would come up with a more efficient means of creating more steam with less coal. For example, I think the boilers would be sealed up more and would also be more airtight, allowing more of the preassure that is generated to be used to propell the engine. I also think they would be more evironmentally friendly as the 'soot scrubers' can be mounted in the stack. While I may be wrong in my thinking, I just felt like pointing out that we shouldn't base our opinions on what steam of the past was like. Gas and diesel engines of today are better, why not steam?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by janbouli

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainwreck100

Somehow I think you'd have a hard time pulling 10,000 pounds of tractor or hauling a 1,500 hay bale around with that...Of course I'm the guy that gets 4 mpg (propane) and nearly 6 on gas. Actually my run-around pickup gets 14-15 on the interstate, but I still carry a lot more and regularly haul enough to weigh half (or more) of that Honda. And I'd rather be in a tank than a go-cart running up and down dirt roads or on icy roads.

Greg

I agree with you Greg, but its not tractors or pick-ups that are actually used for hauling anything that I meant. Its more the millions of SUV's , Pick-ups, and 8 cilinder big blocks that are only used to pick up girls [:)] or the Hummies that are supposed to be so safe ( not for the person that runs in to one of them ) , you know all those cars that could easily be replaced by more fuel economic ones that I was talking about.

Grtz Jan

I know exactly the ones you're talking about, and there's a whole slew of diesel Volkswagen bugs and Touaregs just waiting to show someone what mileage is. Hondas too, but they're not diesel.

Greg

[janbouli]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainwreck100

QUOTE: Originally posted by janbouli

No is what I voted.
BTW you think gas is expensive, wait till you come to Europe and see what we're paying, now if some of the inhabitants of the US would drive cars like we do ( small, fuel eficient ) maybe the demand for oil would go down ( what am I saying maybe for ) and prices would go down. This not meant as a troll remark. In Holland we pay 1,40 euro a liter, aprox $ 7,- a gallon[:(]. Luckily my Honda drives about 40 miles on a gallon[;)]

Somehow I think you'd have a hard time pulling 10,000 pounds of tractor or hauling a 1,500 hay bale around with that...Of course I'm the guy that gets 4 mpg (propane) and nearly 6 on gas. Actually my run-around pickup gets 14-15 on the interstate, but I still carry a lot more and regularly haul enough to weigh half (or more) of that Honda. And I'd rather be in a tank than a go-cart running up and down dirt roads or on icy roads.

Greg

I agree with you Greg, but its not tractors or pick-ups that are actually used for hauling anything that I meant. Its more the millions of SUV's , Pick-ups, and 8 cilinder big blocks that are only used to pick up girls [:)] or the Hummies that are supposed to be so safe ( not for the person that runs in to one of them ) , you know all those cars that could easily be replaced by more fuel economic ones that I was talking about.

Grtz Jan

[underworld]

QUOTE: Originally posted by warhammerdriver

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

Just as bio waste can be used to make producer gas......you can use coal to make a gas that can be used to fuel an internal combustion engine. Heating coal in a sealed vessel will produce gas that can be bottled and used for fuel......the remainder being coke....to fuel the electric plants. This is already done to produce coke, but I don't know what they do with the gas.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I think they just flare it off.

I kinda figured that....maybe one day they'll realize that their garbage is $$$.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by janbouli

No is what I voted.
BTW you think gas is expensive, wait till you come to Europe and see what we're paying, now if some of the inhabitants of the US would drive cars like we do ( small, fuel eficient ) maybe the demand for oil would go down ( what am I saying maybe for ) and prices would go down. This not meant as a troll remark. In Holland we pay 1,40 euro a liter, aprox $ 7,- a gallon[:(]. Luckily my Honda drives about 40 miles on a gallon[;)]

Somehow I think you'd have a hard time pulling 10,000 pounds of tractor or hauling a 1,500 hay bale around with that...Of course I'm the guy that gets 4 mpg (propane) and nearly 6 on gas. Actually my run-around pickup gets 14-15 on the interstate, but I still carry a lot more and regularly haul enough to weigh half (or more) of that Honda. And I'd rather be in a tank than a go-cart running up and down dirt roads or on icy roads.

Greg

[warhammerdriver]

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

Just as bio waste can be used to make producer gas......you can use coal to make a gas that can be used to fuel an internal combustion engine. Heating coal in a sealed vessel will produce gas that can be bottled and used for fuel......the remainder being coke....to fuel the electric plants. This is already done to produce coke, but I don't know what they do with the gas.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I think they just flare it off.

[Anonymous]

Probably not as what they were...I think the best way to make it work would be to make a steam over electric, kind of like the diesel over electrics now. Water isn't particularly an issue--it can be condensed and re-used in the same system. Coal might or might not be the fuel of choice, however with good air injection most any fossil fuel can burn clean. Using the take-offs of natural gas would also be good possibility, they have to be used too, so that opens up propane, butane, ethane, and probably a couple anes I'm forgetting. Possibly grain power? Corn has a lot more btu's per unit than most fossil fuels or wood, wheat and milo also are good in that department. With the steam pressure and condenser, there'd be no need for a heater or a/c. It's not commonly known among city people, but among a lot of farmers corn is becoming a major alternative fuel.

Greg

[jondrd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Foster

[
Maybe someone could come up with a way to pick up water while running at speed. [;)]

Jon

Someone did... they were called water troughs... a mile or more of troughs dead flat between the rails and a scoop on the tender. The train had to be running fast enough to collect the water but not so fast the scoop couldn't be lifted clear. The former meant that only fast passenger services and things like mails and express reefers used them... everything else stopped. The latter meant that the end could be smashed out of the trough / the scoop damaged. this could require a loco change and would require everything following to stop for water. troughs would also ice up.
I heard a talk by a Great Western Driver who had fired during WW2. Hauling a troop train of GIs up from Plymouth without a blanking plate on the leading passenger car's corridor diaphragm he misjudged the fill of the tank... It over-topped at speed and flooded the first two cars...FAST. When they arrived at their destination he and the driver did an extremely fast disappearing act.

[AltonFan]

The benefits of electric transmission and control are too great to be abandoned. What I think will happen is that prime movers will be developed that use petroleum-based fuels more efficient, prime movers will be developed that use non-petroleum-based fuels, and if the costs can be justified, more consideration will be given to installing catenary and running pure electric locomotives.

It needs to be remembered that the railroads abandoned steam not only because of fuel cause, but also for other reasons. Steam requires a lot of labor, and highly skilled and expensive labor, for maintainance. Also, the mechanical problems and limitations of modern railroad service tell against it.

[espeefoamer]

Grab your shotgun and huntin' dawgs,and take potshots at flying pigs.Grab your skis and head for the tallest mountain in hell,because it would be frozen over.

[Anonymous]

If steam ever does come back to the rails, it means the world is compleatly out of oil.

[twhite]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edo1039

I voted no,because if you cant smoke in public in California the liberals wont want coal smoke in the air either,and they are the biggest consumers of gasoline in the world,one day the big one will hit there and they can become there own country.

Enough about California, already. the only problem with California is the idiots that moved here from every other state in the Union and screwed over we natives. Oh, uh--by the way, how are the Las Vegas Symphony and the Las Vegas Opera and Ballet companies doing?
SHEESH!!

Tom [soapbox]

[Anonymous]

If any of you modelers are friends with a tool and die maker (or have an extra $20,000 to spend) you can join the wonderful branch of the hobby called live steam. There are clubs whose layouts are measured in acres instead of square feet. Operations involve riding on your train. And you don't need coal. Charcoal works well enough.

[tatans]

Like natural gas, which was much cheaper to produce , the oil boys thought that if they equate the heat value from a bbl of oil to natural gas they will be able to charge the same for natural gas as oil -wait until some genius comes up with equating the heat value of a ton of coal to a barrel of oil, eveything will be equal to the price of a barrel of oil. Maybe if North Americans spent more research on exploration and clean burning coal plants rather than millions designing a Buick door handle we might come out ahead, As for European gas prices, has anyone ever questioned why you pay so much??maybe you should, North sea oil (and there is alot of it) plus you are available to mid east oil, if anyone should have cheap oil it should be Europe. Just where are the profits going from $7.00/liter oil ? ?

[underworld]

QUOTE: Yeah right!!! They would never bring back polluting steam engines. Although it is a neat idea they would never do it.

Actually they might.....depending upon who is invested heavily enough in coal! [:p]

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

Yeah right!!! They would never bring back polluting steam engines. Although it is a neat idea they would never do it.

[underworld]

Just as bio waste can be used to make producer gas......you can use coal to make a gas that can be used to fuel an internal combustion engine. Heating coal in a sealed vessel will produce gas that can be bottled and used for fuel......the remainder being coke....to fuel the electric plants. This is already done to produce coke, but I don't know what they do with the gas.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[TrainFreak409]

Well, I was one of those who voted YES.

I've been doing research on the subject of new steam for an Engli***erm paper, and I do believe it would be plausable to design and produce a steamer that's comparable to modern day diesels. Now, these would be designed not to entirely replace the disel workforce, but to at least aid it.

[waltersrails]

it would be nice but i think they will make something new. But like the gas companys they would buy the new product and then never make it. so you have to buy more gas.

[jfallon]

No, there are too many disadvantages environmentally and economically for the railroads to go back to steam locomotives. I think it would be best for them to switch to bio-fuels such as ethanol or bio-diesel. Since they would be produced from domestic crops that would need to be transported to a fuel producing facility, the railroads would be generating more business for themselves.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wjstix

Back to the original question - I think it's much more likely we'd see coal used (along with other sources) to produce electricity to be used to power trains with.

Bingo!! There is no way that mobile boilers are going to meet environmental standards. Add to that watering stops, and it would be an impossible step backwards for the railroads.

Coal is best used to produce electricity. Hydrogen fits into the grand scheme as a storage medium for energy. It removes the need for a large electrical infrastructure to power transportation, including trains.

[SOU Fan]

Strasheim1023
How do you get those trains in your signature???

[janbouli]

No is what I voted.
BTW you think gas is expensive, wait till you come to Europe and see what we're paying, now if some of the inhabitants of the US would drive cars like we do ( small, fuel eficient ) maybe the demand for oil would go down ( what am I saying maybe for ) and prices would go down. This not meant as a troll remark. In Holland we pay 1,40 euro a liter, aprox $ 7,- a gallon[:(]. Luckily my Honda drives about 40 miles on a gallon[;)]

[steveblackledge]

They are building this, the first mainline STEAM locomotive in 40 years,,, it's a start
http://www.a1steam.com/prarchive.html

[tomikawaTT]

vsmith - your fellow citizens voted for him. Now you're stuck with him. My sympathy.

The reason I moved to Sin City is that it isn't beachfront property. I'd rather have the folks in (fill in your favorite coastal California city) enjoy the tsunami when Mauna Loa collapses into the Pacific.

Back to the original subject. There is one way coal burning steam could take over a significant percentage of the rail traffic in the United States. All we need to do is string catenary over all of the busiest traffic arteries and power it with electricity generated in coal-burning power plants. Every other country with significant rail traffic either has done this already or is pushing on with it as quickly as possible.

So what was done in the US? We took down what catenary we had. Go figure.

Chuck.

[gmcrail]

. Steam power on the rails? Unfortunately, no way. The infrastructure no longer exists to support it, and it is way too inefficient to be cost-effective. Railroads are a business, and driven by the bottom line like all businesses. Then there are the environmental concerns: while I love the smell of good high-sulphur coal smoke (it really clears out your sinuses! [:)]), I'm in the minority. And oil-fired locomotives are not only just as dirty, the smoke is greasy to boot. Sadly, the only steam locomotives we'll see will be the preserved old ones used in excursion service or sitting in museums. And one day they'll all be gone, too.

[howmus]

As much as I love Steam Locos (they are are dirty, smelly, and represent old time raw power - absolutely gorgeous!), they are terribly ineffecient, highly polluting beasts. Traditional steam engines at best were only about 15% efficient as compared to say a new gas furnace in your home that is over 90% efficient. Yep, I'm one of those awful environmentalists who likes to breath clean air and thinks that all creatures have a right to habitat and stuff like that! Steam as we know it will never come back as a working system on the railroads. While coal is plentiful (the US has over 25% of all the coal reserves in the world) it is also a fuel with some major drawbacks including the problems of stripmining, sulfur emissions, and the high levels of carbon dioxide produced when burnt to name a few. Companies are working on reducing these problems to an acceptable level, and new technologies are already in place to make coal a much cleaner fuel. I'm sure coal will become a more prevalent source of energy in the years to come. As far as the Railroads are concerned, it would be much more efficient and environmentally friendly to use Electricity from various types of generating facilities to move trains than bring back the steam loco.

So, as much as I love the smell, sounds, and looks of the Steam Locomotive, I hope (and pray) that it does not make a comeback on the railroad!

[wjstix]

Back to the original question - I think it's much more likely we'd see coal used (along with other sources) to produce electricity to be used to power trains with.