IMO the best way to use steam is thru power plants to electric motors. Fixed necular plants have about a 25% (?) energy recovery to the locos. Coal power plants (?). Standby turbine natural gas generators with recuperation can have energy recovery of ~ 50% +.
Tree68- Yes, had thought that but did not want to bring it up ...remember the "Atomic Powered Locomotives" craze in the fifties from publications like Popular Science. Ships, military, are one thing but locomotives with a nuclear core will not happen for a multitude of reasons, primarily the public safety. I think it was Toshiba developed a nuclear fuel reactor the size of a shoe box that could go into every home and provide all the power requirements for peanuts. Their plan was to remove and replace each box after 4 years or something like that...a cost of $700 bucks! That will never happen either. I work closely with the uranium mines in my profession. Nuclear is really the only "green" energy and has a great future except that every mishap sets it back years with the public and there would be plenty of mishaps out on the railroad. You are definitely on the right track though..don't know what it is but it exists...can't see the forest for the trees!
MiningmanIf we can find some way to boil water without carbon being involved and in sufficient quantities to handle a modern freight train it just may doom the diesel.
Such a method exists, and is in daily use in nuclear power plants, both fixed, and on board ships.
It's possible fission could be used to do the job, but it would be a difficult sale for many factions of our society.
That assumes that it could be done economically, too. I suspect a reactor-based locomotive would be far more expensive than a comparable Diesel-electric, and would introduce the need for providing water at suitable intervals.
As for the time it takes to get a steamer running - when I rode a "steam in the snow" expedition out of North Conway, we were told that the crew firing up the locomotive had started the day before. We no longer have facilities with large steam plants capable of keeping a locomotive "warmed up."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD- thank you for the response..and the reality check....so now we need a lot of heat energy to get water boiling in sufficient quantities for rail transportation without anything carbon involved...how about giant mirrors in space in synchronous orbit reflecting incredible amounts of it down to earth. Instead of flues we have superconductive and super heated elements in the boiler producing zero emissions except water vapour. 200 years from now I suppose. Just don't think we are done with steam in the very long term.
Carnegf1- Thank you and wow! Fascinating. Something tells me we are not done yet with steam for the future. There is an awful lot of power in the expansion properties of producing steam. If we can find some way to boil water without carbon being involved and in sufficient quantities to handle a modern freight train it just may doom the diesel.
Miningman BaltACD ..agree and concede to that point..however,....development of steam continued in this scenario and there is nothing to say the firebox could have evolved beyond burning anything carbon based be it coal or oil or wood for that matter...is an electric firebox a doable concept? ..like my whistling tea kettle at home it uses a heated element from the stove...how about wires or third rail providing heat to an enormous element in the firebox...or something else entirely non carbon based...this would produce only pure steam, water vapour only,,,like the whistle, safety valves and cylinder cocks. It's probably pie in the sky and likely I deserve one in the face but greater minds than me should be able to come up with some way to boil water.
BaltACD ..agree and concede to that point..however,....development of steam continued in this scenario and there is nothing to say the firebox could have evolved beyond burning anything carbon based be it coal or oil or wood for that matter...is an electric firebox a doable concept? ..like my whistling tea kettle at home it uses a heated element from the stove...how about wires or third rail providing heat to an enormous element in the firebox...or something else entirely non carbon based...this would produce only pure steam, water vapour only,,,like the whistle, safety valves and cylinder cocks. It's probably pie in the sky and likely I deserve one in the face but greater minds than me should be able to come up with some way to boil water.
Each change in the form of energy creates loss in the transformation. Economics would not support such a transformation except for emergency situations. Boiling water, in the quantities needed for rail trainsportation is not a 'on/off' situation like an internal compustion engine - it takes a lot of heat energy to get the water boiling - without performing any productive labor.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There were some Swiss Steam locomotives that were modified during the Second World War to use overhead wire electricity to power the boilers but this was due to fuel shortages rather than any mechanical advantage to such an arrangement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-steam_locomotive
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Johnny
The Sou RR CNO&TP electrification was also proposed and to be paid for by the TVA. However TVA wanted to provide electric motors to both L&N and SOU RR for operation between Cincinnati and Atlanta. Guess that was for economies of scale and power needs different on each line north and south.
An aside note SOU for a long while required any new bridges over the route to have ~ 24 foot clearances.
With regenerative braking what it is today we might have found it very interesting if it were in electrified operation now.
IFthe original question was meant to mean, could railroads today being operating steam engines TODAY in revenue service as their main means of locomotion. The answer is a resounding NO; they would be out of business today. The clean air movement, begining in the 60's and continuing to today would have put them out of business had not diesels been invented and commercially successful.
daveklepper Suppose GM's policy toward street railroads and interurban lines have been paralleled by a similar policy to favor trucking over freight railroads. (There were tendencies in that direction, but that is a subject for a different posting.) They would probably have not been the leader in streamlined passenger train power and probably would not have barnstormed the FT and done the research that made road freight locomotives possible. And Alco and Baldwin and Lima probably would have been more than content to continue supplying steam locomotives. What would have happened? I have some ideas, but I would like to learn yours before presenting (and possibly modifying) mine.
Suppose GM's policy toward street railroads and interurban lines have been paralleled by a similar policy to favor trucking over freight railroads. (There were tendencies in that direction, but that is a subject for a different posting.) They would probably have not been the leader in streamlined passenger train power and probably would not have barnstormed the FT and done the research that made road freight locomotives possible. And Alco and Baldwin and Lima probably would have been more than content to continue supplying steam locomotives. What would have happened?
I have some ideas, but I would like to learn yours before presenting (and possibly modifying) mine.
The Pennsylvania electrification was made possible with a federal loan (repaid) in 1934 of $77 million. Of course that would be worth a lot more now, but it was also in the depths of our worst depression. Perhaps the price tag for that today is not realistic since most other countries seem to be capable of doing so.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
carnej1I realize that the expense makes it unlikely now but would it have been more feasible during the transition era?
I found out yesterday, quite by accident, that the Southern considered electrifying the Rathole (CNO&TP) seriously enough to build a number of new tunnels with 30' height. I have not seen this discussed here or in anything else I have read. Who has the details on what they were considering, how it would operate, etc.?
I would think this might be a good place to utilize those 'dual-mode' adaptations that Conrail was looking at in the early '80s, basically something that would allow the diesel engines to be cut back or perhaps shut down with the train in tunnels but not taking 'full advantage' of much higher horsepower per unit of straight electric power to run longer trains. Admittedly the Rathole is a very special case, but there are other places a dual-mode engine might be valuable, most notably where 'electric boost' on grades would supplement the constant power from the engines and thereby reduce or eliminate the need for helpers, strategic train-factor reduction, or having to 'double'.
carnej1 I'm thinking that another possible extension to this question might be "Could the freight railroads have survived by going directly to electrification from steam traction for mainline service". I realize that the expense makes it unlikely now but would it have been more feasible during the transition era? The other thing I've always wonderered is what form Steam locomotive development would have taken had the Great Depression not occured (or at least been "only" a recession).
I'm thinking that another possible extension to this question might be "Could the freight railroads have survived by going directly to electrification from steam traction for mainline service".
I realize that the expense makes it unlikely now but would it have been more feasible during the transition era?
The other thing I've always wonderered is what form Steam locomotive development would have taken had the Great Depression not occured (or at least been "only" a recession).
Electrification requires massive investment before you ever get near turning a wheel with it. Railroads were not in position to make such a investment in the 30's, the War bespoke the 40's .
Part of the problem lay with the steam builders, who were hedging their bets by building diesel locomotives while continuing to research improvements to the steam locomotive. Many of their proposals seemed to be overly complicated, attempting to make several advances with one proposal.
Another part of the problem was the inherent conservatism of many railroad mechanical departments, who often did not learn how to properly maintain or operate more advanced steam designs.
This has been a great thread to read through and sure gets one thinking about what could, or maybe should have been. It always remained a mystery to me how technologically advanced steam locomotives build right up to 1950 could disappear so quickly with some barely starting their service lives. If the onset of dieselization was delayed a decade or so a natural progression in steam from the builders at Alco, Baldwin and Lima would not have been so severely and completly terminated. Advances would have continued especially in more complete combustion resulting in less smoke and more simple water vapour exhaust, perhaps a revolutionary new firebox altogether. I'm quite familiar with all the other reasons diesel was displacing steam but the steam builders were going in the right direction and it's quite possible that a delayed entry could have resulted in a far less impact than what actually occured. If deregulation came much earlier, say as far back as 1950 when the railroad brass could see the writing on the wall, that coupled with a GM diversion resulting in no barnstorming the FT and the steam builders moving on to the next giant leap then I would say steam sticks around for a long time. Maybe in some parallel universe it happened.
carnej1 In my Extremely Humble opinion Mr. Sol's earlier contention the N&W (and some of the other coal hauling RR's) had dieselized too rapidly was compelling but his later argument that the Class 1's circa-2006 needed to scrap their motive power fleets and buy new built Y6B's (or Q2s, ACE3000s etc..) didn't seem to be much more than fantasy..
In my Extremely Humble opinion Mr. Sol's earlier contention the N&W (and some of the other coal hauling RR's) had dieselized too rapidly was compelling but his later argument that the Class 1's circa-2006 needed to scrap their motive power fleets and buy new built Y6B's (or Q2s, ACE3000s etc..) didn't seem to be much more than fantasy..
2006 was before the frac'ing revolution took off, with many people believing that US oil production was headed for an inexorable decline. Under those circumstances the idea of building new steam locomotives wasn't quite as absurd as it is now. I do think it would have made more sense to burn coal in stationary power plants and deliver the energy via a wire.
Getting back to Dave Klepper's original question, not having GM in the diesel locomotive market would only have slowed down dieselization for a bit, might have given Alco, Baldwin and FM a bit more time to get their houses in order. OTOH, I'd wonder what would have happened to GM if the oil shortages projected in the early 1920's had turned out to be accurate rather than wildly off (much the way that predictions of US oil production were far off the mark in 2006).
- Erik
The question really is not could railroads have existed without diselization; it is could the world have gotten to what exists today, without the technology of diesel electric locomotives (and all the underlying technologies) having been commercially viable at the time it was. There was a whole technological revolution taking place at the time diesel became commercially viable, a revolution that expanded with the technologies required to be invented and developed during the course of WW II.
A better question is what would the world look like if Hitler had not come to power in Germany? Would there have been a WW II? History is! It can't be rewritten.
The Y7 drawing looked a lot more like a Great Northern R-2 from the line drawings I have seen. The fire box was more substantial as evidenced by the longer Delta trailing truck, and it was proposed to have the same pilot as the A-J-K, all employed as passenger power in their careers. The Y6 class was used on manifest on occasion - it is likely the Y7 would have seen similar use. Knowing the prowess of the engineers at Roanoke, the Y7 would likely not have disappointed in its performance.
"Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as....Camelot"
DeggestyThe Y7 may not have been considered essential to the war effort?
There is another thing that might be considered. The Y7 was impossibly large to run on many Eastern railroads, and most Western railroads that needed large articulated power already had 'Western prototypes' like the Challengers that were perhaps better suited to conditions out there as built.
This came up when comparing the dimensions of N&W 611 with the T1, particularly in discussing why the testing wasn't done either east of Pittsburgh or all the way into Chicago. If anything the Y7 would have required even more clearance addressing -- the adapted PRR J1s had some 'contact trouble' with each other even as it was, and those were designed to fit the more restricted loading gauge...
I have had the impression that the use of steel for non-military purposes was greatly restricted. The Y7 may not have been considered essential to the war effort?
carnej1Was the Y-7 really a fast freight design? My understanding was that the reason N&W worked on the Simplex 2-8-8-2 concept was that the ICC abolished it's previous rule limiting the total number of cars in a freight train and the road wanted to run these longer trains without as many helpers and pushers. "Longer train" in this case makes me believe they were thinking of coal gondolas.
I think you have this backward -- the development of the simple 2-8-8-2 was shelved because of a proposed limitation on the length of freight trains (at least according to Ed King).
The practical limitation on speed of the later compound Y classes was limited much more by water rate and inertial mass in the running gear than by driver diameter -- in my opinion, the development of the 'booster valve' (which increased the thermodynamic efficiency of the LP engine essentially by reheating the steam rather than increasing pressure) made up for some of the 'advantage' of the Y7, and a better version (that equalized effective torque between HP and LP at speed, similar to what Chapelon proposed with IP injection) would most probably have allowed road speed up to what the locomotive chassis would permit, while retaining the fundamental efficiency of compounding at slow speeds and heavy loads.
In my opinion, N&W had no need for a heavy intermediate-speed freight engine; the A class (especially with the lightweight rodwork) was as good a time-freight engine as needed. Further indication of this is that the Y7 was not produced, even though many of the drawings for it were made, after the proposed train-length restriction was given up ... or during wartime. (Someone tell me, because I find I don't know, whether N&W was 'bound' by the WPB restrictions on new-design construction... even though they owned their own shops)
Euclid There sure was never a dull moment when Michael Sole started a thread. It’s too bad we don’t have a search function on the forum, so we could review Michael’s analysis of why dieselization was a mistake.
Here's the longest thread in all it's ragged glory....
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/121073.aspx?PageIndex=44&page=1
kgbw49 It would have been something to see steam developed even for another 10 years, to 1955 or so. There were some interesting locomotives on the drawing boards that never made it to production. Four that come to mind are the N-W Y7 fast freight 2-8-8-2, the Great Northern fast freight 2-6-6-4 with 73 inch drivers, the UP "Super 800s", and perhaps on C&O and SP some Lima-designed 4-8-6 passenger locomotives. (Could you imagine a Daylight 4-8-6?) I am sure there are others out there. With another 10-15 years of steam development and good old American ingenuity, there would have been some magnificent machines coming out of Schenectady, Eddystone, Lima, Roanoke, Altoona, and Hillyard Shops in Spokane.
It would have been something to see steam developed even for another 10 years, to 1955 or so. There were some interesting locomotives on the drawing boards that never made it to production. Four that come to mind are the N-W Y7 fast freight 2-8-8-2, the Great Northern fast freight 2-6-6-4 with 73 inch drivers, the UP "Super 800s", and perhaps on C&O and SP some Lima-designed 4-8-6 passenger locomotives. (Could you imagine a Daylight 4-8-6?) I am sure there are others out there. With another 10-15 years of steam development and good old American ingenuity, there would have been some magnificent machines coming out of Schenectady, Eddystone, Lima, Roanoke, Altoona, and Hillyard Shops in Spokane.
Was the Y-7 really a fast freight design?
My understanding was that the reason N&W worked on the Simplex 2-8-8-2 concept was that the ICC abolished it's previous rule limiting the total number of cars in a freight train and the road wanted to run these longer trains without as many helpers and pushers. "Longer train" in this case makes me believe they were thinking of coal gondolas.
However, the locomotive would have used 63" drivers rather then the Y6b's 57" wheels (and not the high speed A class 2-6-6-4 70" drivers) so they probably were looking for a mid-speed articulated that would do well both in Drag and Merchandise service.
Murphy Siding dakotafred Fascinating discussion for one, me, who is an old goat but still too young to remember much about steam. It makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.) ...and proved that the grass is blue and the sky is green and anybody who disagrees with him is obviously wrong...
dakotafred Fascinating discussion for one, me, who is an old goat but still too young to remember much about steam. It makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.)
Fascinating discussion for one, me, who is an old goat but still too young to remember much about steam. It makes me remember, without special fondness, the days on here of Michael Sol, who "proved" in his lawyerly way the economic superiority of steam over diesel. (In the same manner he proved the Milwaukee Road was kicking the butts of the Hill Lines out West and was done in only by a conspiracy of its directors.)
...and proved that the grass is blue and the sky is green and anybody who disagrees with him is obviously wrong...
I feel like stirring the pot, if anyone cares.
I think M Sol may have been right in some respects. I think the MILW made more off traffic that was transcontinental. That for a while they were, if not eating completely, eating out of BN's picnic basket. This from the opening of MILW access to new traffic.
What I think is that the increase of business came too late to save the PCE. That the increase actually hurt because the line wasn't in shape to handle the business. Not being able to finance the rehab of the line, the increase just hastened it's falling apart. The business than goes away and the decline worsens.
I don't remember, but was Sol comparing steam to diesel or the MILW electrification to diesel? The electrification suffered sort of the same problem as the tracks itself, no money to modernize. By the early 70's the system was obsolete. GE proposed a modernization, including new locomotives, but MILW didn't have the money.
If MILW management's finger prints are on the knife in the MILW's back, it's due to the policy of deferred maintenance early on that snowballed until it became too much. That problem wasn't just something that happened to them back then. Other railroads had the same problem.
With the upheavel in coal and other easy and lucrative freight, could we see a return to deferred maintenance and outright abandonment of railroad trackage?
Jeff
Another question is how well steam might have adapted to other technological developments of the time - specifically electronics. Could a steam engine be "flown by wire," as modern Diesels are?
Where is it?
Oh I found it. Nevermind.
Euclid A lack of search function speaks volumes.
A search function does exist - you just have to know where to look for it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.