Update on New Steam Design and Testing

[wallyworld]

That’s true inasmuch American designs were comparatively more robust in the late steam era in that, for example, they had cast frames with integral cylinders versus riveted frames. The capability to produce such a large casting now in America, at least to my knowledge, is a “lost art” and that’s why many late era American engines can not be reproduced, unlike the A1 they are recreating in England from the frame on up.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Another point of consideration when comparing the USA and Europe regarding steam locomotives is the amount of time the operator is willing to let the locomotive sit while it undergoes routine maintenance.
As a rule of thumb, European locomotives were much more fuel-efficient and much more labor intensive than American locomotives but American locomotives spent more time working and producing ton-miles.
After all, a deGlehn compound may get more out of a ton of coal than a simple American locomotive but it isn't producing any ton-miles or passenger-miles while it is sitting in the shop being maintained.

[wallyworld]

I have to qualify that while I am using the ACE 3000 as an example of new steam technology, common sense tells me that that additional advances in technology may have rendered some of these points as moot. Microprocessor control would be utilized which is another technology that was not available some 50 years ago. Could these units have multiple control and be used in a modular set up like diesel motive power and also provide mid train helpers? The answer as in the case of the ACE 3000 is yes as well as having the capability of being bi-directional.
Another advantage is the capability (dependant on the adhesion factor) of these units is that they have the capability to operate continuously at full power at both low and high speeds and are not limited by amp-hour limitations that can burn out traction motors. There has been a lot of discussion within the engineering ranks of the advantages of using micronized coal. There has been some experimentation of diesel engines running on this material as well. The fascinating thing about the potential of new steam is the potential capability to use alternative fuels. There was or is a engineering firm on the West Coast that was proposing new steam that would burn landfill waste. Then again, there are some successful but preliminary developments in manufacturing synthetic oil. As far as electrification, while I agree that this is far and away the best solution if ….and that’s a enormous if… money is available as in the case of the government underwriting the loans as it did for the Pennsylvania RR as a depression era project which produced The Northeast Corridor. Railroads unfortunately cannot afford this. One interesting variation is a dual fuel diesel like the one proposed by Baldwin for the DRG&W in 1947 which would run on both a direct electrical feed and fuel oil. This was again looked at in 1980 by the FRA which asked for 3.5 million to develop a prototype over a six year period. These would be capable of a 100% increase in horsepower while under wire. Electrification could proceed in segments rather than all at once. Common sense tells me that looking at alternatives now in order to allow enough development time makes sense rather than later which always seems to be the case with human nature, when we are faced with a another oil crisis. It will happen sooner or later and more likely, sooner.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ptt100

No way a steam locomotive could develop that much TE. It just would be impossible. It is a simple matter of adhesion. Using an advanced steam design would have no effect on the adhesion. The sole reason a diesel electric can develop so much tractive effort in relationship to its total weight IS because it has electric motors.

Not Impossible, there are advances in steam that would allow for higher TE without making the thing super big or cumbersome as you are imagining.

Everyones thinking in terms of 1950's steam, big, cumbersome and not very efficiant. in the last 60 years there's been advances in almost every aspect of mechanical engineering, and many of the new advances could be applied tio a steam locomotive that can produce a very high TE, possibly retaining the size of a modern deisel and just as powerful, if not more powerful.

Another advantage of using a modern Steam Loco, using the electrical generator method I mentioned above, is fuel costs. a deisel is consumming mass amounts to keep those large generators going, where-as the steam ones could burn relatively little to heat the water, thus the overall fuel ratio could be an advantage in itself.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Can the modern steam loco's be MU'd like a diesel or is an Engineer needed in each unit? One of the advantages of diesels and electrics over steam 50 years ago was multi-unit operation.

As far as i can tell, they're only using steam loco's for short passenger trains and aren't MUing them. but that being said, advances in control and one man operations sure make it sound like they'd easily be MU'd and controlled by one operator.

[DSchmitt]

Can the modern steam loco's be MU'd like a diesel or is an Engineer needed in each unit? One of the advantages of diesels and electrics over steam 50 years ago was multi-unit operation.

I did not see any mention about MU operation on the Modern Steam site. It did however mention remote control of ship engines.

The thread below is about MU steam

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8259

[Anonymous]

Ok Ptt100 caught my error, i meant first or second gen deisels. An SD90MAC pulls 170,000 lbs. continuous TE, while an Allegheny Pulls 110,200 lbs. now taking into account advances in technology that would eb applied to a newer steam locaomotive, that 110,200 lbs could be doubled easily, possibly even trippled.

Now look at the Allegheny , with a F7 with a traction of 57,500lbs and there is the 2:1 ratio. if the deisels have advanced on a 3:1 ratio, it is not improbable that a new steam locomotive could be designed to exceed the 3:1 ratio, thus allowing a traction effort of 300,000+.

On other notes, any new steam locomotives bult will probably be either designed to burn oil, or more probable, burn Deisel fuel. Since deisel fuel would allow a New Steamer to ustalize the same fueling depots as deisels. Also, the deisel fuel could be used to power an electrical generator in the tender that would then supply power to an electrical heater on the boiler, thus removing the firebox allowing for more weight on the drivers. Speaking of weight, new technologies in metalogy have produced heavier metals that could be placed over the drivers in less space than before, thus allowing more force on the drivers.

There are many other advances as well that could be utilized, so in realiity, if a Manufactier was to make a New steamer for the US market, it is highly likely that it could out perform a deisel and we all know Steam attracts morepeople than deisels, so maybe Amtrak should look into this idea.

Jay

[Puckdropper]

Why not burn something other than coal? There's landfills of garbage, nice combustable stuff... Find some way to trap the smells, and you kill a few birds with one steam engine.

There's been some wood-burners out there, how do they run?

[Big_Boy_4005]

So, you have the most efficient steam engine known to man, that's nice. The question is: Is it practical for use in the real world as a railroad locomotive? Maybe in Europe, maybe not in the US. Does it really make sense to drag and distribute coal to fuel these engines, or would it be better in the long run to make electricity with the coal and run the trains with that? Remember you still have to carry and stop for both water and coal.

As for 1 steam engine replacing 3 diesels, I seriously doubt that the tractive efforts would be close to those levels.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying stay with diesel, I'm saying go to elecrtic. The fuel possibilities are in it's favor, including COAL.

[Anonymous]

Steam engines are not a steap backwards, deisels were. By far, the last Steam engine inbuilt in the US could outpull any modern deisel by almost 3 to 1 (3 deisels to 1 steam). Unfortunatly, costs is what killed the steam engine here, Deisels could be Multi'd without crews, steams needed crews, and paying people was expensive.

Cost of fuels was not the cause, Deisels and Oil Steamers basically refueled at about the same distance and for roughly the same cost (oil being cheaper).

If this New technology in steam takes hold in europe and proves worthwhile, i can forsee a resurge in steam intrests here. Cost factors will be the deciding issue, if one of these new high tech steamers can replace 3 deisels cheaply and still maintain the crew requirements, then you'll start seeing them again.

Jay

[wallyworld]

I think there’s additional information you may not be aware of when you state the development of new steam designed motive power would be a giant step backwards. If we were comparing a state of the art diesel to the last steam locomotive designs produced in this country some fifty plus years ago, I would agree with you without hesitation. However now state of the art steam design incorporates new technology that was not utilized in that long ago era in two important
areas of combustion and exhaust pressure. The Lempor exhaust system and the Gas Producer Combustion system. In total there are an additional some 34 other areas of improved design implementations. In addition, Burlington Northern and the Chesapeake & Ohio along with Babcock and Wilson did not consider this redesign process a step backwards when they joined forces with American Coal Enterprises. I agree with Ross Rowland in when the cost of oil reaches a threshold when it is no longer cost effective with coal, these efforts will return.
As of October 2, 2003, it has been known but under-reported that the world’s oil reserves are up to 80% less than previously predicted and that production will peak sometime after 2010.
See CNN news report: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/
So whether you view it as a step backward, or a necessary precaution to avoid a economic dilemma, the comparatively small investment required to explore this alternative to oil, is a fiscally sound and conservative hedge against ones strategic pants falling down

[Big_Boy_4005]

Steam in this country would be a GIANT step BACKWARDS. Europe can do what they want. Their needs and ours are very difiierent because of the distances and geography involved.

The problem with steam is you have to carry the fuel and the water, and constantly stopping for both. More moving parts, and greater manpower will add up to much higher costs and wipe out any cost savings that the cheaper fuel would give.

[Anonymous]

Who knows? It could be anything.

[wallyworld]

Ross,
I followed your suggestion and read your post. Another important advantage that I think is equally undervalued about steam motive power is its inherent capability to potentially utilize anything that is combustible for its fuel. While you are more than likely to be following developments in this under-reported subject, I don’t believe most folks are aware of Porta’s work in Cuba that produced motive power that utilized the remnants of sugar cane production which one would think would be an important development in emerging third world countries where natural resources are at a premium or non-existent. To my way of thinking unless some radically to date unknown energy source appears we ought to be preparing now ,in the developments stage, an alternative to using the end product of prehistoric vegetation. Where is the Department of Energy in all this. never mind, forget I even brought up the subject…..politics are not my cup of tea.

[pmsteamman]

wallyworld, Im sorry I didnt see that they were supposed to be operated by one person. Thanks for clueing me in.

[co614]

Please see my post under the "a way to reduce oil usage" thread. Thank you, Ross Rowland

[wallyworld]

I should have mentioned that these are meant to be operated by one man and do not require a fireman. They utilize an electric pre-heating device to bring up steam which also eliminates labor. They are very favorable as far as their combustion gas output. when compared to diesel motive power. I don't expect any favorable response from roads in this country unless you there was a drastic change in oil supplies or cost as in the situation which led to the ACE
project. But it is interesting none the less.

[Modelcar]

...Yes, as for steam in this country...I doubt if any investment money would be available for such a project. I also have serious doubts if it is possible for the reality of changing steam energy to mechanical energy can compete with state of the art designs we have now in diesel electric prime movers. And again the expense of the labor factor and much railroad plant...not in place anymore that would be needed....

[wallyworld]

Here is the full story, at least as it is in Germany. This is going on elsewhere as well.

http://www.dlm-ag.ch/default2.htm

[pmsteamman]

As sad as it may be it is dead in this country anyway. The railroads are getting rid of people why would they want to hire hundreds of new fireman that have no clue what a steam locomotive is? Also the cost of servicing facilities ( that have been gone for years ) would be through the roof. Dont get me wrong i would LOVE to take my call to work and climb the ladder of a 2-10-4 and drag a train across the southeastern Michigan country side.

[joseph2]

I wonder if this new steam locomotive is a 2-10-0 ? Thanks for any answers. Joe G.

[wallyworld]

Once again Europe is far and away ahead of the curve when it comes to exploring and developing their motive power options, rail networks and high speed rail. Think steam development is dead? Think again. Whether you think it is futile, or interesting, it has been continuing although largely unnoticed in this country.


http://www.dlm-ag.ch/news/Press_Release_52_8055_2003_09_17.pdf