A way to reduce oil usage.

[ungern]

I was thinking about how the railroads can ssave on diesel fuel costs. Bring back steam and burn coal. Of course the evironmentalists who complain about big oil will start complaining about big coal.

Ungern

[Anonymous]

Sounds good to me, bring back the Hudsons!

One of the reasons that China/India have been so slow to convert is because of the fact that they will become/have now become so dependent on foreign oil (just like north america).

Don't think there are too many steam loco's left in China/India now though.

[Modelcar]

...US companies would not put up with the army of workers it would require to put steam back in charge again....Too costly. Infrastructure is not in place to support such efforts either....even down to requiring truntables...or building turning wye's...and many other reasons beyond that.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...US companies would not put up with the army of workers it would require to put steam back in charge again....Too costly. Infrastructure is not in place to support such efforts either....even down to requiring truntables...or building turning wye's...and many other reasons beyond that.

Well it will never happen with that attitude. [:(!]

[Modelcar]

....I'm not trying to present any attitude....just facts.

[Anonymous]

An attempt to build an advanced technology steam locomotive in the 80's failed because they tried to go directly from concept to serviceable locos. They were able to overcome most drawbacks to steam. In theory new steam could be comparably practical to diesel and cheaper where coal is plentiful. Britain is taking another crack at it. www.5at.co.uk

Wi***hem luck.

[Anonymous]

Remember the ACE3000? Never even built. (Besides, it just looked like a GE AC4400CW with a squari***ank car coupled to it, where's the steam locomotive in that?)

[TH&B]

You wi***he steam engine will come back, but if it did it would probably look and sound just like a diesel, a steam turbine electric.

[csxengineer98]

please see the thread on the other fourm i think it was trains mag. ..and look for the title futuer power... that would give you some more insight to the bring back steam issue
csx engineer

[csxengineer98]

oh yea....by the way....it would not help reduce oil usage...steam engins use a hell of alot of oil to lubricat the veriouse working mechanics.. such as side rods for an example.... so how do you think that not burning it to provide fuel.... but useing to lub up some metel is going to save oil? sounds like your just trading one use for another.... bottom line..NO SAVEINGS.....
csx engineer

[Modelcar]

...Well..even if we had a "modern" steam engine the trade off of "saving oil" would be erased by the many added expenses of labor and all sorts of railroad plant support to supply the daily routine needs of such machines....The diesel electric engine is just too much challenge for steam to be competitive. I suppose one could say it's fun to watch and hear running but not to pay for....and keep running. In the past when steam was all that was available...it did the job but now we have better ways of doing that job.

[Anonymous]

As long as automobiles and gasoline are such an important source of tax revenue for local, county and regional governments it's likely that they'll only go through the motions of attempting to reduce dependence on them. I'll believe they really mean it if they start prohibiting any new development that is not at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as it is for those who drive. The way we build now it seems that in many new communities the shortest and safest way to walk from one place to another is on the railway tracks, rather than a two- or four-lane hightway with no sidewalks. I wonder how many railfans live in places like that and don't complain.

[TH&B]

Aymen to L5390, it IS safer to walk on the tracks then those multi lane mini freeways all over the place. Maybe not completely safe, but safer non the less.

If you realy want to save on fuel oil, use hydro electric power and/or windmill power and string catenary up along the tracks. This may not be practical everywhere but it can be done in the mountains where trains use a high portion of fuel getting over. It may or may not cost more than oil, but it does save oil and it is not rocket science.
-Don't scrap all our diesels yet, just remove the prime mover and repalce with a transformer and power collecter. To save even more fuel send all the truck traffic by rail this way, now you're realy saving fuel.
-A traditional style steam engine would just use more coal than the oil it would save, and what about water? It consumes that too.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
The way we build now it seems that in many new communities the shortest and safest way to walk from one place to another is on the railway tracks, rather than a two- or four-lane hightway with no sidewalks. I wonder how many railfans live in places like that and don't complain.

What's the deal with places being so pedestrian un-friendly.

When I was out in Ontario about a year ago, I didn't have a car so I mostly walked everywhere, there were some places where I would try and go and there wasn't even a way to get there by foot!

I had to get a taxi in some areas so I could cross over highways that didn't have pedestrian overpasses.

You don't realize how dependent we have become with cars until you don't have one yourself, and try and get around!

[Anonymous]

With respect to the idea that coal fueled locomotives are a thing of the past, a good analogy to consider is the fuel debate regarding power generation for the nation's electricity grid. Just a few years ago it was thought that coal was a thing of the past, that all new generation would come primarily from natural gas, due to the efficiency of combined cycle technology and the fact that natural gas only cost around $2.00/mmBtu. For "clean coal" technology to compete, the price of natural gas would have to be over $3.50/mmBtu, and that just wasn't going to happen in our lifetimes, right?

Now look at what has changed. Natural gas now costs over $5.00/mmBtu. Coal has once again become the primary fuel feedstock of choice for electricity generation, even with the added costs of clean coal technology and the added capital costs, manpower costs, etc.

Whose to say that the same won't happen in the transportation field? It may not necessarily be rod driven steam, but some new form of coal powered prime movers. If oil prices are projected to stay high for the long term future, a new coversion back to coal may not only become a reality, it may become a necessity!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

With respect to the idea that coal fueled locomotives are a thing of the past, a good analogy to consider is the fuel debate regarding power generation for the nation's electricity grid. Just a few years ago it was thought that coal was a thing of the past, that all new generation would come primarily from natural gas, due to the efficiency of combined cycle technology and the fact that natural gas only cost around $2.00/mmBtu. For "clean coal" technology to compete, the price of natural gas would have to be over $3.50/mmBtu, and that just wasn't going to happen in our lifetimes, right?

Now look at what has changed. Natural gas now costs over $5.00/mmBtu. Coal has once again become the primary fuel feedstock of choice for electricity generation, even with the added costs of clean coal technology and the added capital costs, manpower costs, etc.

Whose to say that the same won't happen in the transportation field? It may not necessarily be rod driven steam, but some new form of coal powered prime movers. If oil prices are projected to stay high for the long term future, a new coversion back to coal may not only become a reality, it may become a necessity!

I remember when I was thinking of converting my car to natural gas a few years ago, still would be cool, but prices sure have skyrocketed since then! Not looking like as good a deal as it was back then.

In relation to steam powered loco's...never say never, ANYTHING can happen.

[Anonymous]

So what is "clean coal"? Is this simply polluter propaganda or is there real technology and verified data on how much cleaner it is? Links please.

[csxengineer98]

its like this....
steam is dead..... even if you where to use a turbin system... you still have to deal with all the suport issues that go with steam power.... ie water fusilitys.... coaling stations... and also..a turbin is a hell of alot more complicated power unit then a good old Desiel engin... useing a closed steam genoration system like the Navy uses on the subs would be impratical simply becouse of the size of the power plant needed ...it would be to big to use on the rail system we have today.... not to mention down time of how long it would take the locomotive from the start of being fired..up to ready for service status......and the big question.... range....how far will you be able to get on a coal fired steam engin.... vers the Desiel...how would you be able to MU the units together to get them to run as 1...like todays power....how are you going to fire them?with an auto stoker? that is only half of it... now you have to have a real fireman back on the trains to manage the firebox... and besides the rail roads will not buy power that if you have to have another engineer to run each engin in a multy unit consist...hell..they want to get ride of as many jobs as possable....
csx engineer

[co614]

In the exhaustive studies we did as part of the American Coal Enterprises effort(1980-1986) largely funded by BN and CSX we found that at 80 cents a gallon for #2 diesel fuel vs. $40/ton for 13,000 btu eastern coal that the Ace3000 would reduce the carriers fuel bills by approx. 60%! When you consider that fuel is the rr's second biggest expense item(just below labor) this is a HUGE savings!
Equally significant the same study showed that when ALL costs were included(cost to buy the ACE 3000vs. the diesel, expected usefull life before major rebuild,water treatment plants, fuel shipping and loading, maintenance steamvs.diesel, etc.,etc.,etc.) that the Ace3000 gave the buyer a 300% Better return on investment vs. the diesel.
If that's true then why didn't these two giant coal hauling rr's pony up the relatively small $5o million to build a first proto-type and prove in real service what the computer studies said would happen?? Very simple. On the eve of the go-no-go decision the world price of oil plummeted from $32/barrel to$9/barrel(#2 diesel fuel went from $1.25 to$.50) and all the near term urgency evaporated,AND it would have taken 4-5 years to build/de-bug and start producing new engines in quantity. For corporate leaders who are judged largely on next quarters earnings(and the price of the common stock) 4 to 5years is unthinkable!!!
The reason we stuck with the"old" reciprocating drive system was that we found that 1. it allowed us to get rid of the high voltage electrical system that to this day is the achilles heel of the diesel electric locomotive,(about 60% of all loco. maintenance $'s are spent on the electrical side) and 2. that it allowed the ACE3000 to develope it's peak horsepower output at speed thus giving a far better over the road performance vs. the diesel.
When the world price of oil gets to and stays above $40/barrel(equals about $1.10/#2 diesel fuel) someone will build a successfull coal fired modern steam locomotive for the railroads,the economic(and political) insentives are just too strong for it not to happen! You might not recognize it when it passes you but it will be getting its life energy from our most abundant energy source!
I look forward to the day! Ross Rowland.

[pmsteamman]

Mr Rowland, why not press it now with all that is going on in the Middle East? Oil is only going to go up and up and up and we dont seem to be making any friends over there. Off the topic though, I grew up watching the Chessie Steam Specials and in my opinion 614 has the best sounding whistle in the world, I have been trying to get that sound for my Live Steamers for a while now.Thank you for letting a little kid see one of the best shows on earth.

[DSchmitt]

Th US has huge coal reserves, but choosing to use coal instead of oil requires careful consideration of the environmental consequences.

Coal does not burn as cleanly as oil. Burning Coal may leave solid residue (ashes) which are a hazardous waste. Both these problems can be solved by technology and at a increased monetary cost.

Less easily solved are the environmental damage caused by mining operations. Both open pit and underground mining have devastating effects on an area.

More use of electricity will work only if vastly increased generation capacity is available. The choises are oil (and natural gas), coal, hydro-electric, wind, solar, nuclear.

Use of oil to generate electricty of course will not save our oil resources. It would actually use more due to the loses in power transmission from the central plant to the user.

Transmission loses are dependent an the distance of the sourse from the user, but of course, not dependent on the method of power generation.

Coal: see above

Most good locations for hydroelectric dams in the US are already being used, and there is strong pressure from the Environmental Movement to not allow any more dams and to remove many existing dams.

Wind generation has so far not proven to be reliable enough and there are only a limited number of places where it is really feasible.. Improved technology will improve the situation someday, but it is still unlikely wind power would be able to supply any significant percentage of even our current need in the foreseeable future if ever.

Solar generation requires expensive somewhat rare elements, is not with current techcnology: reliable enough. It works in the daytime only and in a limited number of areas. The evironmental damage caused by shading large areas with solar collectors must be considered.

Nuclear is probably the least expensive, cleanest , and safest method of power generation currently available, but I am sure may of you disagree. It may not be politically feasible in the US, although it is widely used by both Japan and France.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Th US has huge coal reserves, but choosing to use coal instead of oil requires careful consideration of the environmental consequences.

Coal does not burn as cleanly as oil. Burning Coal may leave solid residue (ashes) which are a hazardous waste. Both these problems can be solved by technology and at a increased monetary cost.

Less easily solved are the environmental damage caused by mining operations. Both open pit and underground mining have devastating effects on an area.

More use of electricity will work only if vastly increased generation capacity is available. The choises are oil (and natural gas), coal, hydro-electric, wind, solar, nuclear.

Use of oil to generate electricty of course will not save our oil resources. It would actually use more due to the loses in power transmission from the central plant to the user.

Transmission loses are dependent an the distance of the sourse from the user, but of course, not dependent on the method of power generation.

Coal: see above

Most good locations for hydroelectric dams in the US are already being used, and there is strong pressure from the Environmental Movement to not allow any more dams and to remove many existing dams.

Wind generation has so far not proven to be reliable enough and there are only a limited number of places where it is really feasible.. Improved technology will improve the situation someday, but it is still unlikely wind power would be able to supply any significant percentage of even our current need in the foreseeable future if ever.

Solar generation requires expensive somewhat rare elements, is not with current techcnology: reliable enough. It works in the daytime only and in a limited number of areas. The evironmental damage caused by shading large areas with solar collectors must be considered.

Nuclear is probably the least expensive, cleanest and safest method of power generation currently available, but I am sure may of you disagree. It may not be politically feasible in the US, although it is widely used by both Japan and France.

Cheer up, D -- at least one us us (me!) agrees with you!

[Big_Boy_4005]

Why is everyone so hell bent on STEAM. Yeah it is nostalgic, but it is very dirty and impractical too. If the railroads want or need to move forward and away from diesel, I would have to think that electricity would be the way to go. There so many ways to generate electricity, and some are very CLEAN. The secret is the infrastructure, and this would take a large capital investment, but as oil prices get higher, this may become a very realistic option.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I still say that rather than dragging coal around and burning it in a bunch of small dirty locomotives, take that same coal and convert it to much more flexible electricity. The polution control equipment is better used in a large generating plant. Heck, if the railroads built their own power plants, they could connect to the grid and sell excess to local utilities. New source of revenue to fund electrification of the railroads.

[vsmith]

Lets all remember that Coal is 10 times more polluting than diesel ever was. The solution is simple, more efficient diesel motors, more efficient generators, and more efficient traction motors.

Or go even further, electrify the ROW's and use electric engines. This is a very feasable option in most urban and suburban areas. If we are faced with reduced oil consumption and the possible increase in Nuke or Coal power plants, then it is to me logical that we should utilize the power in the most efficient way possible, that to me is to ge electric, with centralized powerplants where pollution can be easiest to control.

Diesel will still rule most of the wide open spaces where electrification would be more problematic, but why there hasnt been more elctrification on the east coast south, and midwest is a surprise to me. Guess everyone just got too used to those low oil prices for the last few years..

[Modelcar]

.....On the "clean coal" question....go to: www.askjeeves.com and give that a try. Simply as the question of "what is clean coal"....It's not polluter propaganda. Hopefully the web site can provide a better answer than I can. I've been around "coal" enough to know there is fact to it.

[csxengineer98]

electrifing the right of ways would be a major cost to the carriers....look at that amount of money it would cost to build the power plants to make the electricity.... the cost to build sub stations along the right of way.... the cost to put up suport structers that hold the wires...just stringing the wires.... and the BIG ONE.... haveing to buy an all new fleet of just electric locomotives...or spend big bucks to convert existing power over to all electric power.... the over all costs would be astromoical.... the only way the rail roads would bite on that idea would be if the goverment where to put up the capital for the eletrifcation prosses.... not to mention the cost that would be lost profits in haveing to buy and ship coal to the power genorating stations...... and the added costs of haveing to have people out to repair the wires....it be reguler maintances...or in the case of bad weather....trees and what not bringing down the lines....along with the reguler day to day maintances expences with just keeping the rails maintained....
so bottom line....
eletrifcation.....cost to much to impliment.....
possable solution...... an all together differnt approch..... possably the fuel cell?
but untill their is a major brakethough in some form of power genoration system that you would be able to use on a singal locomotive unit... the deseil will be king...even if the price of fuel keeps climeing....in short..the carriers are pushing for more fuel conservation efferts from the engineers..... like useing the dynamic brakes more and strech braking less.... shutting down units that are not needed for power....and if your stoped someplace for a while..shutting down units untill your ready to go.....
csx engineer

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Lets all remember that Coal is 10 times more polluting than diesel ever was. The solution is simple, more efficient diesel motors, more efficient generators, and more efficient traction motors.

Or go even further, electrify the ROW's and use electric engines. This is a very feasable option in most urban and suburban areas. If we are faced with reduced oil consumption and the possible increase in Nuke or Coal power plants, then it is to me logical that we should utilize the power in the most efficient way possible, that to me is to ge electric, with centralized powerplants where pollution can be easiest to control.

Diesel will still rule most of the wide open spaces where electrification would be more problematic, but why there hasnt been more elctrification on the east coast south, and midwest is a surprise to me. Guess everyone just got too used to those low oil prices for the last few years..

Yes, centralized power plants, would be the most efficient way to use coal. The best place for the plant would be at the mine, which is already being done in some cases, provided it is close enough to the user to minimnize power loss in transmission. You still have the environmental problems from the mining operations, however.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
shutting down units that are not needed for power....and if your stoped someplace for a while..shutting down units untill your ready to go.....

That's something that I have noticed at roberts bank where I go train watching.
They used to leave the yard engines and run-through power running ALL THE TIME, lately (especially in the warmer months) I notice that they seem to be shutting down everything when it isn't in use (except the BNSF units for some reason? - they don't come around to often anyway).

Lots of times now I see the yard engine start-up and go, with no warm up or anything, it certainly is a big difference even from just a few years ago when nothing was shut down, ever.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

electrifing the right of ways would be a major cost to the carriers....look at that amount of money it would cost to build the power plants to make the electricity.... the cost to build sub stations along the right of way.... the cost to put up suport structers that hold the wires...just stringing the wires.... and the BIG ONE.... haveing to buy an all new fleet of just electric locomotives...or spend big bucks to convert existing power over to all electric power.... the over all costs would be astromoical.... the only way the rail roads would bite on that idea would be if the goverment where to put up the capital for the eletrifcation prosses.... not to mention the cost that would be lost profits in haveing to buy and ship coal to the power genorating stations...... and the added costs of haveing to have people out to repair the wires....it be reguler maintances...or in the case of bad weather....trees and what not bringing down the lines....along with the reguler day to day maintances expences with just keeping the rails maintained....
so bottom line....
eletrifcation.....cost to much to impliment.....
possable solution...... an all together differnt approch..... possably the fuel cell?
but untill their is a major brakethough in some form of power genoration system that you would be able to use on a singal locomotive unit... the deseil will be king...even if the price of fuel keeps climeing....in short..the carriers are pushing for more fuel conservation efferts from the engineers..... like useing the dynamic brakes more and strech braking less.... shutting down units that are not needed for power....and if your stoped someplace for a while..shutting down units untill your ready to go.....
csx engineer

True, and you also have the environmental costs of the mining operations needed to supply the materials needed for the electrification.