diesel vs steam

[Anonymous]

Just think about it look how long steam was around
and some of the engines are still operating after
being rebuilt. Why would you want to rebuild a
diesel engine. Think about all of success of the
steam engine. All of the different types of
engines from the little 0-4-0 to the 4-8-8-4. No
diesels will ever match these engines. Ross

[Anonymous]

Wow. that's tough. Me, I can't decide, so my layout includes deisel and steam. However, I do like the Norfolk and Western 2-8-8-2 and the UP's DDA40X

[EvanWerkema]

Steam engines weren't always changed at every
terminal. Santa Fe managed to achieve some
very long runs with their 4-8-4's in passenger
service. I need to dig out the reference, but
one extended run I recall was La Junta, CO to Los
Angeles, CA, 1234 miles, with one engine. This
wasn't a one-time deal, but a routine operation.
The engines were often able to turn quickly and
head back east after only minor tinkering and
lubrication at L.A.

Yeah, there was a lot that steam could do,
and yeah, there was still room for improvement
when the fires were snuffed by diesels. Santa Fe
outfitted one 4-8-4 with Franklin Rotary Cam
Poppet Valve Gear, which resulted in a very
smooth, efficient locomotive. The advancement
came too late, though, and it didn't solve enough
of steam's inherent weaknesses (maintenance,
personnel, facilities) to make them competitive
with diesels.

On top of all the other strikes against steam,
one that really did it in on Santa Fe was water.
With lots of dry desert mileage and long distances
between reliable water sources, the railroad was
forced to run non-revenue trains of boiler water
out to remote locations to keep traffic flowing.
It's little wonder that Santa Fe went whole-hog
for the FT.

[Anonymous]

In the 1950's N&W compared modern steam to first generation diesles. They found a properly mathched steam engine(HP to train size) was cheaper to operate than diesles.
Diesels were not sold on the basis of cheaper operating costs, but there maintinance cost.
You could fire 2/3 of your shop people and stock standard replacement parts off the shelf.
Then remove excess facilities, coal towers, water tanks, roundhouses, ect.
In the 1970's a company tried to create a fully modern coal fired steam locamotive but they could not justify the investment in facilities.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I agree with all the points you make and as a railfan, I really enjoy seeing and hearing a lash-up of diesels pounding up a the hills or speeding along the flat with a long train. I also suspect there may be more to the Acelas problems than the catenary but its hard to know. Not only that but I guess I've been responsible for taking this off topic into a Diesel vs electric debate.

[thirdrail1]

You and I paid taxes for that catenary. It is owned by Amtrak, which gets all of its capital expenditures by appropriation from Congress. And I don't know that it is the catenary that is the problem.

[Anonymous]

I take your point and also not that the use of electric traction in the US only seems viable in short runs, suburban, runs betweeen relatively close big cities and also on enclosed industrial lines, but the one about taxpayers I'm not so sure of. Who is paying for the catenary causing problems withe the Acela.

[thirdrail1]

Because Diesel efficiency is a moving target. Locomotives have continued to improve in efficiency, so much so that replacement of older but still serviceable units is justified in fuel and maintenance savings. The railroads are well aware of electric traction and are capable of using it as a threat should Diesel fuel prices rise too high. Both UP and CSX have extensively studied the potential, with UP even erecting 10 miles of catenary to test its longevity. Remember though, rail distances in Europe are about a fifth of those in the US, so the cost of catenary is not as much as it would be here. Besides, over there the taxpayers pay for it. As a railfan, you might want to pay taxes to watch electified railroads, but I'll guarantee the vast majority of taxpayers would not!

[Anonymous]

While I would agree with the reasons given for Diesels supremacy over steam in the main, Does anyone know of comparative emmissions and polluting effects. While the steam loco throws out its clouds of smoke, is it not the case that the smoke looks so dense because the particles are larger and therefore fall to the ground, whereas diesel exhaust is made of smaller particles which remain airborne and are breathed in by us all.

[Anonymous]

What about electric traction ? Even in the 60's, Germany produced the 103 class with extreemly high horsepower and a 10 munuite rating of 12,000hp for accelerating from a stand. What about the US going electric over a much wider area ?

[Anonymous]

But, surely you are all missing the point. The fact is that no railway (railroad) company put R&D into steam. The fact is that is pressures and superheat had been increased efficiency would have increased. In the UK steam ran non stop London to Edinburgh picking up water from troughs was very normal. In 1903 Paddington to Plymouth 'City of Bath' pulled the Royal train (130Tons) 246 miles (top speed 87.4 MPH) over severe gradients of 1 in 43 in 233 minutes. Coal consumption got down to 2.0 lbs per HP per Hour. In the 1930's speeds rose with streamlining. But, returning to the original point when Fury blew up in Derby station killing 2 people the high-pressure trails ended. Given the money and time, who says that a new breed of steam engine could not beat diesel?

[Anonymous]

This is the reason terminals were located every 100 to 200 miles or so, and steam locos were changed at every terminal. They nearly always needed something fixed or adjusted and spent a lot more time in the shop than on the road.

[Anonymous]

speaking of spending time in the backshop. the Big Boys availability rate was fairly low,because the larger the steam locomotive,the larger the parts which meant more hours spent working on them instead of lugging freights over Sherman.

[thirdrail1]

On another forum, an employee of the Yreka Western, which still uses a steam locomotive (a 2-8-2) in excursion service, defined the reason steam perished. YW spends three hours maintaining the steamer for every hour it operates!

[Anonymous]

Eric, in addition to all those other reasons, steam is generally most efficient at higher running speeds-lots of power strokes per minute with relatively little steam. Unfortunately, the realities of railroading require a locomotive that develops a better operating efficiency at lower speeds -which is the diesel-electric.

[cprted]

Steam Locomotives do have a few things on diesels. First of all when steam engines were being mass produced they costed much less to buy/build than diesels. Also with a bit of TLC (tender loving care) steam engines are more reliable than diesels and you can truley beat the living snot out of a steam engine and it will still run whereas diesels are know to occasionaly die in the middle of nowhere without any warning. From a train crew persepective an oil fired steam engine is much cleaner than the deisels (I don't know how the modern ones are (AC4400, SD 90)). First and second generation deisels leak oil and many other things from every hole where a steam engine's cab is uasually fairly clean with the exception of maybe a leaky water fitting that drips some water on to the floor.

In reply to Gregg, steam only need to fill up on water every 80 - 150 miles depending on the type of engine, how hard it's working and how big the tender is. Also the fact that diesel is cheaper then coal is irrelevent. If coal were half the price of deisel it would be more economical to run the diesels, in fact some preserved steamers do run off of diesel. It is the nature in which the fuel is used that makes it more economical. In internal combustion you used small amouts of fuel burnt in a small cylinder to move a piston. In a steam engine you pouring (atomizing) or soveling the fuel into a large fire box to heat water to make steam. It is a matter of fuel effiency.

[Anonymous]

Probably steam is more powerful per engine and they sure can lug down and pull. They are very manpower intensive to operate and maintain however so diesel will always win in modern railroading.

Dave

[Anonymous]

To me it first depends on what you mean by “better”. If all that matters is economics then the diesel is better for all the reasons Gregg itemized. But, if esthetic valve is the criteria then steam wins hands down.
A steam engine not only walks, it talks. They all have fire in their bellies and a trail of smoke. Whether it’s a Shay heading a log train down to the mill or a high stepping northern charging down a double track main with the hot varnish, there is nothing like a steam train. No! There is nothing close.

Railman28

[thirdrail1]

Unfortunately for us railfans, the Diesel locomotive is superior to the steam locomotive ibn every aspect. It consumes less fuel. It emits far fewer pollutants. It can operate more than 100 miles without requiring repairs. Its tractive effort curve is far better for hauling freight. In 1950, the number of people employed just to maintain the railroads' steam locomotives exceeded the total number employed in the industry today by a significant amount, yet today's railroads move far more freight than those of 1950. The Diesel locomotive does not require an extensive system of massive coaling towers and water tanks throughout the land. it can go hundreds of miles between refuelings, whereas the steam locomotive had to have water every 25 miles or so. Therefore, even if the price of Diesel fuel far exceeded that of coal, the maintenance and infrastructure costs inherent in steam locomotive operation would render the Diesel cheaper to own and operate.

[Anonymous]

Which better and why.