Even if they are runnig at capacity, railroad have an interest in cutting costs because the rates they can quote do not depend on the costs they have to cover but on demand for their services (and of course of the prices competitors quote). There is only one connection between production-costs and the rates. If the costs are constantly higher than the rates you get, you have to susidize the railroad from other sources of revenue (mining, for example) or on the long run, the company faces bankcruptcy.
For coal-mines, the situation is not so different although you can import coal (unlike transportation services). Because it takes years to develop new mines, higher demand translates into higher prices.
MichaelSol wrote:Why would the rail industry invest in a new motive power type when it can pass through costs to customers? It would make the investment if it meant that it could lower its operating costs, lower rates, become more competitive against its peers, and attract more traffic. But, for an industry pretty much maxed out, there is no ability to raise profits by attracting more traffic because there is nowhere to put that traffic: there is absolutely zero competitive advantage in making an investment in lowering costs at this point in time when those costs are already simply passed through.Similarly, the coal industry is pretty much running at capacity. Where is the competitive advantage, then, to creating new uses for coal for an industry already scrambling to keep up?Is Exxon financing studies for new ways to use oil?<>
Why would the rail industry invest in a new motive power type when it can pass through costs to customers? It would make the investment if it meant that it could lower its operating costs, lower rates, become more competitive against its peers, and attract more traffic. But, for an industry pretty much maxed out, there is no ability to raise profits by attracting more traffic because there is nowhere to put that traffic: there is absolutely zero competitive advantage in making an investment in lowering costs at this point in time when those costs are already simply passed through.
Similarly, the coal industry is pretty much running at capacity. Where is the competitive advantage, then, to creating new uses for coal for an industry already scrambling to keep up?
Is Exxon financing studies for new ways to use oil?
<>
When supply exceeds demand, promote demand. When demand exceeds supply, promote capacity. Unless government gets involved. Econ 101.
martin.knoepfel wrote: If the coal-industry does not act this way, my conclusion is they see better business opportunities elsewhere (coal-fired power-plants, conversion from coal to fuel, investing their profits from mining operations in new nuclear power-plants etc.)
If the coal-industry does not act this way, my conclusion is they see better business opportunities elsewhere (coal-fired power-plants, conversion from coal to fuel, investing their profits from mining operations in new nuclear power-plants etc.)
Well, now, think about this for a second. The key to unlocking motive is "competitive advantage."
If there is a real possibility for steam to make a comeback in railroading on a larger scale, why does the coal-industry not finance designing, building and testing of a modern steam-engine? Not a remake of a 1950s design, of course, a really modern state-of-the-art steam-engine. Profiting of the work of Porta, Wardale and other engineers (if there patents have already expired).
If the coal-industry does not act this way, my conclusion is they see better business opportunities elsewhere (coal-fired power-plants, conversion from coal to fuel, investing their profits from mining operations in new nuclear power-plants etc.) As a railfan, I would like to see big steam on regular trains, but in life, not all dreams come true. :-(
BTW: Forget nuclear-power-engines for the next few-decades. Shielding the reactors from the environment is too heavy and too large for any locomotive. Besides, a reactor does not propel anything. You need in addition a steam-turbine to drive the axles or a generator, and steam-turbines work best at continuous full-rating, not the typical load on a railroad.
MichaelSol wrote:And yes, in engineering "defining the results first" happens to be how its done. That's the first step: define what you want.
And yes, in engineering "defining the results first" happens to be how its done. That's the first step: define what you want.
Leading to my favorite, albeit astonishingly accurate buzzword: top-down-design.
Even though it is an accurate concept, it rates as a buzzword because most people using it are clueless to its real meaning. etc.
I don't have a big SUV anymore, but maybe a desert roadtrip (to chase trains) in my 4x4 F-250 would suffice.
I'm ready!
edblysard wrote: And just to let the rest of you guys know, the ACE 6000 experiment was underwritten by the coal industry, as were most of the "studies" quoted elseware...not the most un-biased source of documentation...in the case of the ACE 6000, it was a matter of defining the results wanted, then reverse engineering the design and concept...back when it was first purposed, the major player countries seemed to be headed full bore towards nuclear power for their electricity needs, and the coal industry was simply trying to invent a new need and new customers for its product.
And just to let the rest of you guys know, the ACE 6000 experiment was underwritten by the coal industry, as were most of the "studies" quoted elseware...not the most un-biased source of documentation...in the case of the ACE 6000, it was a matter of defining the results wanted, then reverse engineering the design and concept...back when it was first purposed, the major player countries seemed to be headed full bore towards nuclear power for their electricity needs, and the coal industry was simply trying to invent a new need and new customers for its product.
I suppose it actually is a revelation to some that the coal industry finances studies that relate to coal. I suppose the poster would be shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that GM financed dieselization studies. Does that mean those were wrong, too?
This isn't news: studies are financed by people or organizations interested in the outcomes. Who in the h*** would put up cold hard cash to finance a study they had absolutely zero interest in? Odd to some, apparently, but this exactly how corporations do research to advance their businesses. All of them. It's part of the concept of investment.
garyla wrote: Tell us about "Carbon Belch Day"!
Tell us about "Carbon Belch Day"!
http://www.carbonbelchday.com/
Would I be doing my part if, for that one day, my household electric meter ran as fast as that of a certain former Vice President?
As far as electricity use goes, that's probably more significant in the Midwest and East Coast where we burn mostly coal for generation. You guys out West get most of your electricity from hydropower, right?
My take is that we should all do what we enjoy for that one day without being guilt-tripped into activity reductions by the National Socialists of Environmentalism. Take a long drive in your biggest SUV and enjoy railfanning in the countryside. Have a backyard BBQ using a charcoal grill. Drink some beer and have a belching contest.
But keep the Prius in the garage.
MichaelSol wrote: Norman Saxon wrote: The ironic thing about this coal vs diesel fuel debate is that we may end up having to keep far dirtier diesel engines as status quo rather than evolve into coal fired engines simply because the coal fired engine emits more CO2.Well, as evidence begins to accumulate that we may, in fact, actually be entering period of global cooling, I am wondering if the same people who declared "we need to take action" to prevent warming will turn around and advocate putting more CO2 into the air to "prevent" cooling.
Norman Saxon wrote: The ironic thing about this coal vs diesel fuel debate is that we may end up having to keep far dirtier diesel engines as status quo rather than evolve into coal fired engines simply because the coal fired engine emits more CO2.
Well, as evidence begins to accumulate that we may, in fact, actually be entering period of global cooling, I am wondering if the same people who declared "we need to take action" to prevent warming will turn around and advocate putting more CO2 into the air to "prevent" cooling.
Nah, they'll just start claiming that CO2 is causing the cooling too. Probably they'll claim that CO2 is causing more percipitation, thus causing more floods, hurricanes, etc. Remember, it's all about climate "change" now caused by man's CO2, not just global warming.
The point is, none of this has anything to do with science. Science fiction, maybe, but not science.
MichaelSol wrote: beaulieu wrote: A final point not yet mentioned is the coal supply, while there is an abundance of coal in the US, miners are in short supply, and coal prices have roughly doubled in the past year.On 3/19, I wrote:"Synfuels generally cost as much as diesel; the price differential has never been sufficient to promote commercial production and for so long as there is a reasonable link between mineral coal and oil costs, it never will. PRB coal was $6 a ton; now its in the $14 range -- it has doubled in price but continues to maintain almost a lock step advantage over oil. But that cost will continue to drive synfuel prices up even as the cost advantage of mineral coal will continue to exist compared to the price of oil."
beaulieu wrote: A final point not yet mentioned is the coal supply, while there is an abundance of coal in the US, miners are in short supply, and coal prices have roughly doubled in the past year.
On 3/19, I wrote:
"Synfuels generally cost as much as diesel; the price differential has never been sufficient to promote commercial production and for so long as there is a reasonable link between mineral coal and oil costs, it never will. PRB coal was $6 a ton; now its in the $14 range -- it has doubled in price but continues to maintain almost a lock step advantage over oil. But that cost will continue to drive synfuel prices up even as the cost advantage of mineral coal will continue to exist compared to the price of oil."
According to most CTL websites, synthetic diesel fuel made from coal can compete with petroleum-derived diesel at $40 - $50 bbl equivalent, inclusive of carbon capture at the plant site. That means synthetic diesel could be sold for $2.25 - $2.50 a gallon at 15% ROI, if they wanted to sell it that cheap. Of course, they would sell it for the highest price they could recieve, so although there would be downward pressure on the commercial diesel fuel market with a significant introduction of CTL fuels, we'd still see prices over $3.00 a gallon. But that's way better than $5.00 or more a gallon.
So you are correct in that synfuels that enter the market will sell at the market price, but if a railroad decided to produce their own CTL fuel internally (an idea BNSF toyed with recently), that's where the savings would come in terms of operating costs of diesel fleets.
That does not in any way diminish the advantages of reciprocating steam over diesel traction. Remember, the hydrocracking process is just about at it's limit in terms of reducing sufleric compounds. In order for diesel fuel makers to reduce sulfer below 15 ppm, say if the EPA requires 5 ppm sometime in the near future, even petroleum refiners will have to shift to a synthesis process such as FT in order to meet that requirement. Because coal will almost assuredly have a significant price advantage over petroleum for the next few eons, that would mean CTL will be cheaper than petroleum synthesis in producing ultra-low (5 ppm) sulfer diesel fuel.
However, because of the inherent advantages of external combustion over internal combustion with regards to fuel flexibility, a reciprocating steam locomotive could concievably burn a mixture of pulverized coal and synthetic fuel oil (say, 50/50), and still be both cleaner in terms of emissions and less costly to fuel up than a diesel locomotive that burned only CTL fuel.
Or, if all forms of transportation are required to include a certain percentage of renewables in the fuel mix, a steamer could mix CTL fuel with sawdust, pulverized straw, pulverized wood waste, e.g. just about anything that can be micronized into small particles, blended with liquid fuel, and then injected into a boiler.
Try that with a compression ingnition engine and see how far you'd get!
For an internal combustion engine to meet that same renewables requirement, it'd have to have it's renewable component liquified first into an alcohol or into biodiesel, a very expensive process as we are experiencing today with this stupid ethanol mandate.
As for potential upward pricing pressure on coal, remember also that nuclear power is now favorable again in regards to electricity generation (a no-brainer in my view), which means coal may see reduced demand from the generation sector sometime in the future. Thus, it is unlikely we'll ever see coal prices spike even with significant development in the CTL sector............... unless world demand for US coal somehow changes that - it is likely that most developing nations will jump off the global warming bandwagon once the US and Europe have put the final nail in their own coffins vis-a-vis carbon caps, and thus those nations will have no qualms about burning coal for energy needs.
In summary, the external combustion engine's ability to burn liquid and solid concurrently will allow it to maintain lowest fuel cost advantage over internal combustion which requires 100% liquid. And diesel fuel made from coal will always be cheaper than diesel made from petroleum as long as petroleum prices stay above $50 bbl and/or the EPA lowers allowable sulfer content to the point of requiring synthesis for the production of diesel fuel.
http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/technology.asp
http://www.coalcandothat.com/energy_security_liquids.asp
greyhounds wrote: Norman Saxon wrote: It's a rhetorical question, in that we can ask the same thing about other "obvious" situations:Why isn't the US building more nuclear power plants?Why isn't the US building CTL plants?Why isn't the US offering financial aid for new transcon railroads?Why isn't the new WTC building up yet?The answer, such as one exists for all these questions, is that such new projects take time, lots of time - decades in some cases, just to get off the drawing board, out of the public hearing rooms, through the voter initiative process, past the frivolous lawsuits, etc etc etc. The question them becomes "is it worth going through all this BS?"Maybe you should revist this thread in ten years, maybe by then something might have happened on the steam locomotive front!Nope. People move pretty fast when there's money to be made.The examples you cite involve government medling. Building a freaking steamboat to push barges on the Mississippi would be done toot suite if'n somebody could make some money doing it. It's not being done because it doesn't make economic sense at this time.Ten years out, who knows.
Norman Saxon wrote: It's a rhetorical question, in that we can ask the same thing about other "obvious" situations:Why isn't the US building more nuclear power plants?Why isn't the US building CTL plants?Why isn't the US offering financial aid for new transcon railroads?Why isn't the new WTC building up yet?The answer, such as one exists for all these questions, is that such new projects take time, lots of time - decades in some cases, just to get off the drawing board, out of the public hearing rooms, through the voter initiative process, past the frivolous lawsuits, etc etc etc. The question them becomes "is it worth going through all this BS?"Maybe you should revist this thread in ten years, maybe by then something might have happened on the steam locomotive front!
It's a rhetorical question, in that we can ask the same thing about other "obvious" situations:
Why isn't the US building more nuclear power plants?
Why isn't the US building CTL plants?
Why isn't the US offering financial aid for new transcon railroads?
Why isn't the new WTC building up yet?
The answer, such as one exists for all these questions, is that such new projects take time, lots of time - decades in some cases, just to get off the drawing board, out of the public hearing rooms, through the voter initiative process, past the frivolous lawsuits, etc etc etc. The question them becomes "is it worth going through all this BS?"
Maybe you should revist this thread in ten years, maybe by then something might have happened on the steam locomotive front!
Nope. People move pretty fast when there's money to be made.
The examples you cite involve government medling. Building a freaking steamboat to push barges on the Mississippi would be done toot suite if'n somebody could make some money doing it. It's not being done because it doesn't make economic sense at this time.
Ten years out, who knows.
Well, it does make economic sense at this time. It's not being done because it takes time to do so, as I cited. If long term price trends hold out, someone somewhere will begin offering some type of coal fired powerplant for transportation, at least in the railroad and watercraft arenas. That is, unless the US government doesn't do something incredibly stupid to shut down such enterprise. The ironic thing about this coal vs diesel fuel debate is that we may end up having to keep far dirtier diesel engines as status quo rather than evolve into coal fired engines simply because the coal fired engine emits more CO2.
PS - June 12 is "Carbon Belch Day". We should all make sure to make our carbon footprint as gigantic as possible, if only to send a message to the Flat Earthers that dominate our US Senate.
Modelcar wrote: .....Regarding the possibilities of boiler explosions....That release of power is way beyond control and when it happens.....anything in it's way will be in trouble.
.....Regarding the possibilities of boiler explosions....That release of power is way beyond control and when it happens.....anything in it's way will be in trouble.
Well, we've punished ourselves enough over nuclear reactor "accidents" that had little, and now have less, likelihood of ever happening, and hamstrung our energy "policy" or lack thereof. This is a different day and age.
daveklepper wrote: So why isn't steam replacing diesel now? Because four or five years ago there was no economic incentive to start the research and engineering required.
So why isn't steam replacing diesel now? Because four or five years ago there was no economic incentive to start the research and engineering required.
And that's pretty much it. It is a surprisingly hard concept to grasp, particulary for those for whom all answers are self evident without any need to think at all about anything. Markets change, and there have been few changes in the economy as dramatic as the recent run-up in the price of oil. The question is, will it last?
There has to be a pretty long lead time on major technological changes involving entire industries, and while an analyst might reach one answer at $130 a barrel, he may reach a different answer at $40 a barrel. And both costs are within recent historical experience. I think a rational manager necessarily errs on the conservative side in terms of contemplating changes since change costs money and capital is dear at a time when capital budgets are insufficient to meet current challenges.
The discussion itself offers a different perspective; on the nature of how people think and what they use to make decisions. And here, it covers the gamut from near complete idiocy to some pretty sharp stuff.
My interest stems strictly from the perspective of financing, and how an industry really hamstrung itself in terms of utilizing debt, rather than ongoing income, to finance change. Had nothing to do with Steam or Diesel-electrics per se as motive power types, except that the short economic service life combined with the high debt service payments incurred really bolloxed the rail industry at a critical time.
And, for an industry that historically focused on the ratio of revenue to fixed charges, and then increased the fixed charges by a good 40% in most cases to finance Dieselization, there is a current generation of clueless wonders that gets positively agitated at any suggestion that there was a problem there that caused a long, dry harvest of barren regrets ...
Like credit card debt, it became self-perpetuating and the industry groaned and sagged as each ratchet of interest rate -- 1%, 5%, 10%, finally 14% -- escalated the financial burden of Dieselization over the following 20 years even as the original operating savings obtained not only vanished with rising fuel costs, but now represents a substantial operating cost penalty over the replaced Steam system even as the substantially higher financing charges incurred with Dieselization became a permanent feature of railroad expense.
And for those points most strongly favoring Dieselization at the time -- operating cost savings -- the fact that those points are now factually flipped upside down has an odd effect on the clueless wonders: the very arguments that favored dieselization then, are not valid arguments for a change now!
And you know the debate is thoroughly corrupted when you ask for actual facts to back up a broad assertion, and all you get back, as demonstrated on this thread, is the little boy posture with the chin stuck out and the defiant retort: "I don' hafta!" or "He don' hafta'!" Those conversations raise psychological questions, frankly, rather than contribute to any actual ideas as to where the industry or markets may be heading. And rest assured, yesterday's "market" will answer little about tomorrow's "market", and the circumstances of 50 years ago will provide little assistance in determining the best course of action ten years from now. You can't answer tomorrow's questions with yesterday's answers, but that's the best that some folks here can muster.
Well, if these forums can be useful case studies, where the knowledgeable contributions of many can truly educate, the cause will surely be lost when clowns like that try and take charge of the debate, so as to shut it down because it offends their deepest prejudices about steam or diesel or rowboats or some such stuff.
As you point out, there is quite a lead time on technological research, and the incentive simply wasn't there five years ago, and perhaps not even two years ago. The "incentive" is certainly here now because the numbers, all across the board, work so strongly in favor the Steam technology as frozen at 50 years ago, compared to the Diesel-electric of today, that there can be little doubt that "modern" Steam -- or coal-fired power -- whatever it looks like, would be head and shoulders above current systems from both a capital and an operating cost perspective.
But the industry went through this before, when oil prices had a similar bubble, 1978-1980. Young people might get excited about it, but the greybeards are not going to get too worked up about it until the market stabilizes at prices that can be confidently apprised as "permanent."
That hasn't happened yet, and it may not happen in the forseeable future.
MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote:Perhaps the Chinese could help us for once <---sarcasm. They're a country whose been holding on to steam with mainline steam dying within the last year or two. Even though oil wasn't as expensive as it is today, they decided to switch to diesel instead of sticking to coal. Considering some of China's sketchy labor practices, they could mine the coal and run the trains at "slave" wages yet they decided to purchase diesels (some from EMD). I believe they have just as much coal as we do yet as far as I know, they don't seem to be pushing new steam locomotive technology. They seem to be looking at investing in high speed electrified trains and some maglev technology. Based on what I have read, there are still a few mainline steam enginers deadlined around the country and I'm sure there are still some steam servicing facilities that haven't been dismantled yet. They probably could easily relight the fireboxes again but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that. I'm not much of a fan of their government, but perhaps they could shed some light as to why they have moved away from steam.
The thought of China occurred to me as well. I would not be surprised if China is the first to develop high tech steam locomotives. In the meantime, they had nothing to lose by dieselizing. They probably intend to build all our diesel locomotives one day soon, so dieselizing their railroads would be valuable experience for that manufacturing objective. For transportation, China probably wants to use as much oil as they can get their hands on while saving their coal for their exploding electrical demand. I have heard that they are in the process of building 562 new coal fired power plants at the rate on one every five days.
.....Regarding the possibilities of boiler explosions....That release of power is way beyond control and when it happens.....anything in it's way will be in trouble. I have been right to the site of a large steam engine {B&O}, that had a boiler explosion just a few hours before. What destruction...! What was left was the massive frame, cylinders, wheels and rod assemblies, etc....That's all...!! No boiler or cab in sight.
On the other hand...I've always wondered when viewing photos of a steam engine that has derailed and rolled down an embankment and it might be laying on it's side and no explosion....?? It makes me wonder why when the crown sheet is possibly exposed in such a maneuver the boiler doesn't fail and explode....
Quentin
It is not enough that fuel costs for steam are lower than those for diesel. There are also the following factors: maintenance, infrastructure, and the investment and planning and lead time required. Again, possibly GE and even EMD and Motive Power, may be doing behind-the-scenes engineering right now. And you and I may not know anything about it. So why isn't steam replacing diesel now? Because four or five years ago there was no economic incentive to start the research and engineering required. Is there now? I think you would get the usual public relations answer from all major builders. something like:
Our research people are always exploring different technologies, but for the forseeable future we are commited to the manufacture, sales, and service of diesel-electric locomotives.
Independent of what ever they are doing and plan to do.
The June 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics discusses saving the SS United States, billed as the world's fastest ship. Her original steam turbines could generate 240,000 shaft horsepower, but one of the difficulties cited with restoration is "swapping the ship's steam turbines for diesel engines." I can accept that steam turbines are probably the best way to use the energy from a nuclear reactor, and we have seen reference in earlier posts to existing nuclear submarine power plants. But there must be something we are missing that dictates that diesel engines should replace steam turbines for non-nuclear installations. Somewhere along the way someone has decided that even a modern steam turbine is not as good as a modern diesel engine, at least for ships.
All modern steam engines are closed cycle with respect to the water, so water usage is not an issue.
I offer that steam won't work well for locomotives if it doesn't work well for ships. That seems to close the case.
edblysard wrote:There is, right now, a tremendously efficient steam turbine/electric power plant in use...it re-condenses both sides of the heat exchange loop, has a proven track record, and is in daily use, 24/7.The US Navy uses these GE power plants in the Seawolf and the Los Angeles class attack submarines.They are compact, engineered to run over 6 months in continuous service, able to distill raw water into usable water for the clean side of the loop, and can propel a huge vessel through a dense medium at 28 knots submerged.The reactor, heat exchanger, turbine and alternator would fit easily on the frame of a SD70. Here is why this type, and any other steam powered locomotive will not run on US main line.Ask anyone who ever wore the Dolphins what the most closely guarded and secure room in the boat is...you might guess the reactor chambers, but you would be mistaken...it is the steam room.Not because of the fear of sabotage, but because when a steam boiler/heat exchanger or steam turbine fail, they often fail catastrophically.
There is, right now, a tremendously efficient steam turbine/electric power plant in use...it re-condenses both sides of the heat exchange loop, has a proven track record, and is in daily use, 24/7.
The US Navy uses these GE power plants in the Seawolf and the Los Angeles class attack submarines.
They are compact, engineered to run over 6 months in continuous service, able to distill raw water into usable water for the clean side of the loop, and can propel a huge vessel through a dense medium at 28 knots submerged.
The reactor, heat exchanger, turbine and alternator would fit easily on the frame of a SD70.
Here is why this type, and any other steam powered locomotive will not run on US main line.
Ask anyone who ever wore the Dolphins what the most closely guarded and secure room in the boat is...you might guess the reactor chambers, but you would be mistaken...it is the steam room.
Not because of the fear of sabotage, but because when a steam boiler/heat exchanger or steam turbine fail, they often fail catastrophically.
A couple of points:
I've read enough reports about how far a boiler can travel after a boiler explosion to seriously question running large numbers of steam powered trains per day in an urban environment. One workaround would be redesigning the boiler to be more like a Vapor-Clarkson steam generator - FWIW, the steam generator design for the High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors looked very much like a scaled up Vapor-Clarkson steam generator.
I do think you have a good point about considering the safety aspects.
edblysard wrote: Fact...trains derail, have head on and rear end collisions, and generally make a pretty big mess when these things happen.Have a steam boiler fail, and the results can kill people.
Fact...trains derail, have head on and rear end collisions, and generally make a pretty big mess when these things happen.
Have a steam boiler fail, and the results can kill people.
I have read of quite a few steam locomotive derailments where the boiler did not fail. However, the crew was scalded to death by escaping steam.
I'm not sure a steam locomotive could be produced which would be as safe to operate as a diesel.
Ok,
If I read the original question correctly...the poster was asking why steam locomotives are not being currently evaluated for general use by railroads.
He did not specify that the locomotives had to be fueled by coal, but simply be "steam" locomotives.
Fact...when a diesel engine fails, the failure rarely causes catastrophic results...a thrown rod or blown piston is not such a horrendous event, and can be repaired at almost any shop on any railroad.
Note the reluctance of most railroads to allow steam excursions on their property, because the liability insurance is out of sight...it is not because they doubt the expertise of the crews running the locomotive, but because insurance companies recognize that accidents do happen, and when a steam boiler is involved, people often get killed, so they refuse to underwrite the trip, or set rates no one can or will pay.
That is not to say every steam failure is lethal, but the risk is greater than that of a failure in a diesel engine.
So, we have a steam system that is proven to function under the most extreme conditions, but let's assume that the primary fuel for any of the proposed locomotive is coal.
To address the posters original question as to why these locomotive are not being produced and running rings around the current motive power.
1: The infrastructure to supply the fuel no longer exist, is cost prohibitive to rebuild, and would require a railroad to run way too many non revenue "fuel trains" to supply the need, even with the "efficient" steam locomotives discussed in the other thread.
2: Even with all the most modern techniques and materials, advanced computers and all that, steam plants require constant watch and maintenance, and the skills required to provide that no longer are common, the labor cost to retrain or hire new would be phenomenal.
You can't just stop, tie it down and flip it over to isolate, then get in the cab and drive away from a steam locomotive, no matter how modern it is.
3: Again, even with the modern materials and engineering, steam locomotives would require many purpose built or specialized parts, unique to each individual locomotive...there would be no shake the box and parts swapping, which is quite common with diesels, so a force of machinist and the associated shops and re tooling would be required, again, the cost to re-train, train new or hire out would be out of sight.
Same applies to spare or replacement parts, I doubt if GE or GM plans on re-tooling a plant or two to produce crank pins or boiler flues, so ....
4: From the operational point of view, you would have to revamp the entire system...not going to happen anytime soon, way too much invested in the current system, which, if profits are used as a benchmark, seems to function quite well.
5: No matter how efficient you make it, a steam locomotive will smoke...imagine a ACE 6000 running through yuppieville...all the tree huggers would leap into their bio diesel Volvos, head down to the Whole Earth Grocery/Deli for a all bran muffin and a cup of real herbal tea, and have a group hissy fit about the dirty locomotives...if whistle bans seem silly, let your imagination run with this one!
It boils down to this...like the flying car, the personal hover craft, the Segway personal transporter, the Jet Pack and the computer controlled highway...you can accomplish the concept, but it really has no serious end user or real world application.
Last, if a steam locomotive, be it coal fired, nuclear powered, solar or bio diesel fired, was so cost efficient and powerful as purported, then railroads would be crawling all over the idea...trust me, every railroad management team I have ever dealt with are so cheap and tight with money that their pocket change squeaks when they walk...if steam was all of that, I would be shoveling coal instead of lining switches.
Railroads are pretty happy with what they have, it works, and can be tweeked as needed to keep the EPA happy, so the odds of any Class 1 swapping to steam as a motive power are about the same as my winning the up coming presidential election.
23 17 46 11
Have fun with your trains
This talk about a steam comeback is a waste of time.
Never going to happen.No savings for the railways.
Andrew Falconer wrote: Steam Turbines in power plants generate electricity.The electricity is sent through power lines to centenaries.The centenaries send the electricity down the pantographs to the traction motors The traction motors move the trains. That is the only economically feasible way to use steam for a railroad.Andrew
Steam Turbines in power plants generate electricity.
The electricity is sent through power lines to centenaries.
The centenaries send the electricity down the pantographs to the traction motors
The traction motors move the trains.
That is the only economically feasible way to use steam for a railroad.
Andrew
I think not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.