5AT - 21st century steam loco

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I presume the Duke and the Earl are reciprocating British steam locomotives from their golden age and that's why they are mentioned.

Development of a really modern steam locomotive, using all technology possible and thus probably a "steam-electric", probably micro-turbine, would be a great step toward USA energy independence. But then so would railway electrification and that doesn't need technical research, only important economic research. Undo the FDR Justice Department Consent Decree and put power companies back into the transportation business!

It is probably less costly to develop new locomotives that run on coal or coal derivatives than it is to string catenary over the North American rail grid. But I detect from your last sentence that there might be a "market" of sorts for power companies to transmit electricity over said lines, thus paying for there erection?

[csxengineer98]

PIPE DREAM for the USA.... steam is dead for main line carriers...no matter what new idea they come up with..... i responded to a thread not to long about bringing back steam power...and why its not practical ...i just wish i can remember what it was titled...if anyone can find it...feel free to read it... i have a hunch it was in the trains.com part of this sight
csx engineer

[daveklepper]

I presume the Duke and the Earl are reciprocating British steam locomotives from their golden age and that's why they are mentioned.

Development of a really modern steam locomotive, using all technology possible and thus probably a "steam-electric", probably micro-turbine, would be a great step toward USA energy independence. But then so would railway electrification and that doesn't need technical research, only important economic research. Undo the FDR Justice Department Consent Decree and put power companies back into the transportation business!

[Anonymous]

The 5AT kind of defeats the purpose of "modern" steam. As Paul points out, why run a reciprocating locomotive on diesel which is a less efficient use than plain ol diesel-electric?

Two points: If you are going to build a modern steam locomotive, you will try and incorporate coal as your primary fuel in some form. And instead of reciprocating power, you will burn that coal to produce electricity to run traction motors.

Regarding coal, there are several examples of "synthetic coal". The Rosebud clean coal project thermally and mechanically produced a coal with lower moisture and reduced ash/non-volatiles, but it had a tendency to spontaneous combust so had to be transported in closed hoppers, still could work in a normal tender. The CENFuel project produced a nearly pure carbon product by using chemical alteration to remove the moisture/ash/metals, but they are now focused on the higher price carbon black markets. Other synthetic coal products include producing liquid fuels such as coal-water slurry, methanol, and even a form of diesel. Whether they can do so at lower cost than standard petroleum-based liquid fuels remains to be seen. At this point, the micronized solid syncoals represent the lowest cost items and most practical.

Regarding the engine, probably the best solution is to either gasifiy the coal on board or liquify it beforehand and then burn it through an array of microturbines to produce electricity for traction. The use of the microturbine array allows for adjustable power settings rather than a single constant (and thus wasteful) full power output such as was experienced in the older UP turbines. The micorturbines can be turned on and off at will.

I guess it is also possible to develop a reciprocating/electric traction hybrid with a dual-phase steam system, with part of the steam going to produce electricity for traction motors on the lead and trailing trucks and/or fuel tender trucks, and the other part going directly into steam cylinders. This dual mode would allow maximum tractive effort at lower speeds with the traction motors, and higher efficiency at higher speeds with the reciprocating drivers. Air adjustable suspensions would allow some transfer of locomotive weight onto or off either the drivers or the traction wheels as needed to allow maximum tractive effort.

With micronized synthetic coals you wouldn't need a very large firebox, so you might be able to replace the usual trailing truck with a set of drivers. Some kind of Garrett like set up would be likely, with an engine-tender-engine configuration in a B+4+4+B+B+4+4+B is the first logical wheel configuration that comes to mind.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by captainclack

Steam is Cool.

That is pretty funny. No pun intended I am sure.

[tpatrick]

I am interested to know just how much it costs to run a typical diesel, say an SD-70, at full power per mile at today's cost of diesel fuel. And, btw, just how much is diesel fuel per gallon these days? Then take the projected cost of operation for the ACE-3000 at the current price of coal and see if it could compete. I understand there is more to it than just fuel cost, but that is the area where the ACE makes at least some sense. Also, what are the projected numbers for the 5AT?

[Paul Milenkovic]

To build a steam locomotive, the question comes up, what is it supposed to do? The ACE 3000 was supposed to burn coal, which is important if you think the price of oil will become unaffordable.

Upon browsing the Web site you reference, what I gather the 5AT and its German, Swiss, and Austrian cousins is supposed to do is entertain people by being a reciprocating steam engine, which is an important component of trains that supply entertainment to tourist passengers. There is no attempt to burn coal, and by burning Diesel, they are a somewhat less-efficient Diesel locomotive than the regular kind if the goal is strictly utilitarean in getting from point A to point B.

I think the argument is that if it is important to run steam engines for excursions, tourist railroads, "New Orient Express" trains, the running of preserved locomotives from the days of steam is becoming uneconomic and that new steam locomotives based on improved designs is required to keep those operations going.

As to the age old discussion of bringing back steam because it is better than Diesel (such as the ACE 3000), for a while there I had some hopes and inspiration from ACE 3000 and the like, but I have been asking myself, what do they use on river boats and what do they use in electric power stations. The Mississippi River tow boats are all Diesels (Alcos and other Diesels used or once used in locomotives!). Coal-fired steam (although watertube boilers, high pressures, and steam turbines) still rule in power stations, but I am thinking the future there is gas-producer coal combustion and gas turbines with steam maybe as a bottoming cycle for the larger power stations.

[Anonymous]

All for it, on the basis that Steam is Cool. But what's the point, if not steam for steam's sake?

[athelney]

Just a thought - since joining the forum - have not seen or heard any reference to the UK plans for a 21st century advanced steam loco -- 5AT -- what do you think of the plan -- for or against ? - would like some input from North Americam fans . Gentlemen or ladies comments welcomed. the web site is www.5at.co.uk