QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Once you have your pressure up, if the power goes off, all you need to do is put the brakes on. With the positive pressure system, when you let the air out, the brakes go on. Then when power is restored, you just pump the brakes off.
Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton QUOTE: Originally posted by DigitalGriffin QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Not really, with modern switching gear and a decent power dispatch system like most of the major utilities have this would not be a problem. You could get more out of what you have. So what are you going to do when you have a loaded consist going down a mountain and you loose your juice? [:0] Put the brakes on if need be. Air brakes are a mechanical system and require no juice.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DigitalGriffin QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Not really, with modern switching gear and a decent power dispatch system like most of the major utilities have this would not be a problem. You could get more out of what you have. So what are you going to do when you have a loaded consist going down a mountain and you loose your juice? [:0]
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Not really, with modern switching gear and a decent power dispatch system like most of the major utilities have this would not be a problem. You could get more out of what you have.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
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...
Originally posted by DigitalGriffin Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Leon Silverman Member sinceJuly 2004 785 posts Posted by Leon Silverman on Thursday, April 7, 2005 1:02 PM Don: You haven't looked too closely at those boiler-fed cargo ships. They are still oil fired, just like your Union Pacific Challengers and Big Boys. Coal can be converted to fuel that can be used by diesels and possibly gasoline engines, but it is expensive to produce. When the cost of refined crude oil reaches a point where it relatively less expensive to refine coal rather than crude oil, then the cross-over will occur. A synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel can be distributed from the same infrastructure. Converting to gaseous fuels, like hydrogen or propane, requires the construction of an entirely different type distribution infrastructure along with installation of a high pressure, different type of fuel tank on the vehicles using these fuels. Boiler systems, regardless of the fuel used to fire them, have a distinct disadvantage over internal combustion engines. They cannot be quickly shut down or started up from a dead cold start. This is why the steam powered automobiles virtually disappeared at the start of the 20th century once the electric starter was invented. Also, a blown internal combustion engine is generally an inconvenience. A blown boiler usually results in fatalities and damage to surrounding structures in addition to the room or vehicle carrying the boiler. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:51 PM Fuel cell technology is not 100% dependant upon using hydrogen for fuel,...in fact there are municipal utioities coupled to city sewage plants that burn methane liberated from the solids. The biggest problem with the idea of using fuel cells for transportation is that in order for the maximum efficiency of the cycle to be exploited, you have to use the heat produced efficiently in addition to the use of the electricity produced... Last I checked, which was 3 years ago, the energy output of most conventional fuel cells was 40% electricity, and 60% heat. So, PERHAPS a steam fuel cell hybrid might make sense (some day) with the heat by product used to create steam to run turbine generators? Reply Edit lonewoof Member sinceApril 2004 From: SC 318 posts Posted by lonewoof on Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:27 PM Nice as it might be to dream about this, it ain't gonna happen, Infrastructure, maintenance, and manpower are still going to be a problem, just as they were 60 years ago (not to mention the EPA having a collective coronary). Besides, if oil prices rise that much, coal will suddenly become more popular and ITS price will go up too. What will likely happen is: electrification (even with ITS infrastructure costs), and coal gasification (which we should probably have been pursuing anyway). Maybe we'll get our heads out of the sand and do something with electricity from NUCLEAR (horrors!). We need to realize there's only SO MUCH fossil stuff to burn... Remember: In South Carolina, North is southeast of Due West... HIOAg /Bill Reply DigitalGriffin Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Pa. 3,361 posts Odd topic of the day: Return to steam possible? Posted by DigitalGriffin on Thursday, April 7, 2005 10:59 AM So my wife and I entered a rather long and protracted debate about the lack of oil and the future of cars last night. This is what we came to as a conclusion: The days of cheap petro is over. With China's industrialization, and entrance into the modern world, the oil demand will always exceed supply. If we continue to pump oil at the current rate, mathematical forcast predict that in 10 years, gas will be ~$15.00-$18.00/gallon (based on todays prices, not including predicted inflation) Then we started to think about alternative energy sources. Batteries don't have much energy life, take a long time to recharge, contain toxic chemicals, and have a finite life expectancy before they have to be replaced. Fuel cells are delicate, and the hydrogen to power them takes up more space than gasoline, and is a lot more dangerous to store. There really isn't enough farm land to supply every vehicle for alternative fuel substitutes (ie: bio-diesal) from common crops like soy. So what does this have to do with the return of steam trains? Following the predictions of fuel cost, transportation cost using diesel engines would skyrocket for both trucks and diesel engines. Could coal fed steam be the logical alternative? While not as cheap as diesal trains by a long shot today, what about 10 years from now when that diesel does cost $15/gallon? There are plenty of boiler fed cargo ships still around today. So it is still somewhat a viable option cost wise to operate this way. I'm not saying that it IS going to happen. Just an interesting "what could" happen. I usually sit in the MRR forums, but I thought this topic of better interest here. Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam! Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Remember: In South Carolina, North is southeast of Due West... HIOAg /Bill
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.