Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
wallyworldIf you are interested in steam development ( history and possible future), this paper is a good read. John Rhode's presentation titled "Economics of Coal as a Locomotive Fuel on US Class 1 Railroads" was given to a luncheon meeting of the National Capital Land Transportation Committee of the Institute of Electrical/Electronic Engineers and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Washington DC, this past September.
wallyworldHaving just read these two comments, I have to admit having second thoughts about posting it. Not that expertise is required for an opinion, otherwise these threads would be barren, as I have no idea ( nor do I care) as to the level of expertise the respondents themselves have. It also regretfully managed to inject politics into the subject although whenever you have more than two people in a room there are personal politics involved. I simply enjoyed reading it as a reader. I have over thirty years of engineering experience and am retired, and don't have a horse, personal or otherwise, in this race. I was hopeful that the material itself would prompt an interesting discussion I could follow as steam development is an interesting topic, not others personal opinions of one another. Live and learn.
I took no offense because none was intended. The disheartenening response I have is that the messenger rather than the content of the piece became the subject. As far as expertise, while your points are well taken, I personally found through experience in my profession, more than one consultant or expert I have worked with on a project actually was an uninformed theorist who had no real working knowledge of how theory is or is not applied to reality. Some of the best "out of the box" solutions to real problems came from those who were not formally taught what is or what is not possible, as they looked at specific issues with fresh eyes. In hindsight some of these insights were so obvious I was embarrassed that we had overlooked them as "experts" I used to tell my employees on the first day on the job, that I did not know everything and I did not expect them to. However, if I dont know the answer to a question, I will say so, and all I ask is the same of others. I worked with many peers on countless projects who more often than not found that the correct technical solution did not work in the field. My working life taught me that expertise is not in a degree, but in finding solutions to complex problems especially when some one else's money was being spent...I suppose my response is "lighten up"...what you dont hear about is when the "experts" are wrong.... or even counter productive..we used to patiently listen to some fellow drone on and on and then take him to the field and he would instantly develop a severe reaction to reality like a deer caught in the high beams. Everything is to be taken with several grains of salt.
I had no strong feelings either way as far as the material itself as reality map..but what is interesting ( at least to me) that someone takes this position in the 21st century as well as the fact that what you infer is true, that the real dialog as far as the further development of steam has been left largely ( outside of Wardale and Nigel Day, etc) has been passed along to enthuisiasts since the passing of Porta....Perhaps I have a propensity to root for lost causes.
Okay, I'll bite. What was stated in the presentation that is factually incorrect, or that is not supported by the facts? I ask this not as a goad, but because the first response sounds a great deal like an argumentam ad hominem...it takes the argument to the man, and not to what his meaning or intent is.
So, in good faith, and leaving aside his marital status, his religion, his education, his work experience, the choice he makes in automobile purchases, and his surfing habits on the web late at night, what is it about his message, and the supporting arguments/facts, that is patently wrong? I believe the answer to that question will help me to make sense of both of the first two posts in this thread from the perspective of each author.
-Crandell
selectorOkay, I'll bite. What was stated in the presentation that is factually incorrect, or that is not supported by the facts? I ask this not as a goad, but because the first response sounds a great deal like an argumentam ad hominem...it takes the argument to the man, and not to what his meaning or intent is. So, in good faith, and leaving aside his marital status, his religion, his education, his work experience, the choice he makes in automobile purchases, and his surfing habits on the web late at night, what is it about his message, and the supporting arguments/facts, that is patently wrong? I believe the answer to that question will help me to make sense of both of the first two posts in this thread from the perspective of each author. -Crandell
If a person has no intention "to get involved in a 10,000 page 'steam vs diesel debacle'" then don't get involved in it. Don't click into the thread and don't post any replies.
As to the cost comparisons between coal and oil, these things vary. When Diesels took hold in the late 1940s and early 1950s, oil was cheap and plentiful and coal was subject to supply disruptions related to strikes conducted on behalf of the workers in then mainly underground mines. When the ACE 3000 studies were conducted in the early 1970s, oil was expensive and subject to supply disruptions owing to political turmoil in lands producing it, and strip-mined coal was comparatively inexpensive. The price of oil could come down again to wipe out the cost advantage of coal.
From a thermal efficiency standpoint, the best use of coal would be to generate electric power and then string wires over the rail lines. If those catenary wires are too expensive, it is said that the next best thing would be to convert coal into a liquid fuel and power Diesels. It needs to be considered that converting coal into a liquid fuel requires a source of hydrogen, and if the hydrogen is obtained from by breaking the oxygen bond in water by using coal in a water gas reaction, the efficiency of converting coal to liquid fuel is about 50 percent owing to the coal energy required to reduce hydrogen from water. What this means is that from the standpoint of ultimate thermal efficiency and hence carbon dioxide emissions to power trains with coal, a steam locomotive with a thermal efficiency in the mid teens is probably roughly comparable to a system of converting coal to liquids and a Diesel of overall (not peak) efficiency in the 30's.
With regard to the 1970s ACE 3000 program, it probably needs to be considered that in the 1970's, we were only 20 years out from the end of steam. Even though all of the steam infrastructure was gone, you probably had a lot of the people still around. We are now more than 50 years out from the end of steam, and a program to bring steam back even on a pilot program basis faces many obstacles.
Also with regard to the ACE 3000 program, Livio Dante Porta was contributing to the project, and his idea was of successive "generations" of steam engines, a talking point of the article generating so much heat from people right now. I think he had the right idea of going from Generation 1 -- Super Power steam -- to a Generation 2 -- largely Porta-developed ideas for improved ejectors and fire boxes, was probably a good one. The ACE 3000 idea -- were they going to go condensing with fan-driven boiler draft? -- would have run up against a lot of the same issues as Jawn Henry and other experiments that tried to change too many things all at once.
If we had $140/barrel oil prices going on as far as the eye could see, what would be wrong with a major US railroad attempting to build Porta-style steam locomotives for use in some major type of "captive" service, say, the unit trains from the Powder River Basin, unit trains also connected to a low-cost supply of the fuel? The issue with building coal-fired steam engines in response to $140/barrel oil is the same as the issue of building coal-fired anything in response to $140/barrel oil -- oil at that price was not sustainable as it brought about a world-wide economic collapse. The US mortgage crisis may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back", but the recession is world wide and the collapse in oil price has been rapid.
The other issue is that coal-fired anything doesn't get much support these days, from the question of mercury pollution in the fly ash to the question of emitting more CO2. We can argue whether the CO2-induced climate scenario is real or not, but the people in charge buy that argument, and with all of the talk of cap-and-trade and other systems to limit CO2, people are holding off on coal-fired electric plants let alone starting up coal-fired railroad locomotives or even coal-to-liquid fuel plants.
As an aside to these comments, it is probably still fair to say that there is too much focus on the use of fuel in railroad operations compared to maintenance costs, although $140/barrel oil was hurting everyone, even the comparatively fuel-efficient railroads. I am reading the steam locomotive book of Brian Hollingsworth, and his remarks on the NYC Niagara and the NW J-class are interesting. The focus on each of those locomotive programs in attempting to build a business case for retaining steam was on maintenance and availability. Hollingsworth writes of the NW maintenance facilities contributing to high availability along with the comprehensive automatic lubrication system on the J-class locomotive. With respect to the Niagara, he writes that the NYC put workers into asbestos suits to enter hot fireboxes -- after the fire was dropped but without waiting for the boiler to cool -- to perform preventative maintenance on the firebrick arch and on the flues between runs.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul
I enjoyed reading your comments which I think brings a historical leavening to the once and future use of coal. I think in all of these alternatives... manufacturing scale up and the reinvestment in support infrastructure is the real devil's detail when the rubber meets the road. I think the issue is a overly conservative approach which has usually been the bane of the railroads historically. Another issue is the bane of all industry short term market gains versus reinvestment. I personally know of companies in the early era of reductions in force wherein it was used to drive corporate insider trading on dividends from stock options.
Short term goals just in time planning..,lack of field work in relation to experimental trials with prototypes..we seem to be lodged in circular arguments as a alternative to any experimentation outside of retrofitting existing designs...much as in the late steam era with some notable exceptions granted. It took a working F unit to evaluate, not tabletop politics, that turned the tide for the diesel.
I agree from experience that maintenance is unusually the X factor that foils the best laid plans and is usually the first necessity to get tossed overboard when the game gets rough.
Abit off topic but on the issues of scale up..you might find interesting is that I just read a great article in Esquire about Dean Kamen who has perfected a Stirling engine, which he has tied to a water purification device. The same fellow who built that invented the Segway, etc..He has developed a Stirling prototype that increases the range of electric cars, which he is currently shopping. The issue is to these as well are also the issues (read cost) of scale up..
I find the concept of "21st Century steam" fascinating but I do find that a lot of these discussions seem to break down over the question of why the railroad industry (I'm strictly referring to linehaul and passenger service in North America) does not seem to be interested....the last major discussion of the topic on this forum rapidly devolved from the initial "could/should steam make a comeback?" focus to a few railfan/steam enthusiasts trying to claim that professional railroaders (particularly mechanical/motive power management types) are fools for not "seeing the light"..........
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Things happen so quickly these days, it's a wonder any project expected to take more than two or three years ever gets off the ground.
Asbestos suits? I wonder what the footwear was like! Wow. I wouldn't mind a copy of that book, Paul. What is its title, please?
I think the simple answer to the reluctance of the railroad industry to reinvent the wheel is that a convincing case for coal\steam based on current economic conditions has not been made.Its as simple as that. It's a case of "show me" which is perfectly understandable. The only real demonstration I know of is pictured above,
"In late 1998, SLM completed the extensive modernization of 52 series German Kriegslokomotive 2-10-0 no. 8055 for use on the Orient Express in Europe. The locomotive was extensively tested prior to being modified so that the benefit of the modifications could be documented. Over 70 percent of the parts of the locomotive were replaced or modified. As a result of these modifications, the top speed of the engine was raised from 70 km/hr to 100 km/hr and the horsepower was increased from 1600 to 3000. The engine now burns light oil and features sealed roller bearings, a central lubrication system, light weight motion-work, and extensive thermal insulation. A side benefit of light oil firing in an external combustion engine (i.e.- steam) is very low exhaust emissions. This engine emits about 80 percent less toxic exhaust gases per kW than a state-of-the-art diesel. The modifications were performed to provide a steam locomotive which could keep tight schedules and "time windows" to be allowed to run on the main lines without causing interference with normal trains. Testing of the modified locomotive began in March 1999 and the locomotive pulled its first passenger trains in April 1999."
-Ultimate Steam Page
It's very hard to make a compelling case by projections or opinion when you are asking for an enormous reinvestment in technology, support industries, operating procedures while not having one demonstrable application.
Someone with deep pockets would have to invest money and take a well thought out risk to develop a product from the private sector to sell to the railroads, rather than the silly concept that railroads will willingly invest in an economic abstraction with a high price tag, which is putting the cart before the horse.
Porta's concept of incremental ( read lower cost) demonstrations make more economic sense versus the one size fits all ACE as, at best, I think there could be niche applications as in the transport of long coal drags as Paul suggested.
However building a prototype and scaling up production and supporting that product are two different things. It would take a real locomotive to demonstrate once and for all, in hard numbers whether this is an economic boon as this is the only reason this technology would be accepted..otherwise as they say..."it's all academic..".I seriously doubt the railroad industry would have converted to diesel power based solely on abstractions in lieu of a FT utilized in trial demonstrations. Would you buy a product that is yet to be built, based solely on mathematical potentials?
At best a low cost shared test bed seems like a reasonable field study with a consortium of equipment manufacturers, sponsoring roads, federal support etc financing a test of new steam technological innovations, ( gas producing firebox, lempor exhaust, improved insulation, better alloys etc)would be a worthwhile investment along with non steam alternatives, perhaps a international competitive challenge from DOE would be a better investment... However, all of these require an interest in reinventing the wheel, which I just dont see from the industry.It will take a screamingly dire crisis to change the status quo. it always does as it's simply more a case of human nature rather than seeking innovations for innovations sake which in a lot of fields is seen as a 19th century phenomenon in kick starting manufacturing, which in of itself, is nearly a lost art here.
wallyworld I think the simple answer to the reluctance of the railroad industry to reinvent the wheel is that a convincing case for coal\steam based on current economic conditions has not been made.Its as simple as that. It's a case of "show me" which is perfectly understandable. The only real demonstration I know of is pictured above, "In late 1998, SLM completed the extensive modernization of 52 series German Kriegslokomotive 2-10-0 no. 8055 for use on the Orient Express in Europe. The locomotive was extensively tested prior to being modified so that the benefit of the modifications could be documented. Over 70 percent of the parts of the locomotive were replaced or modified. As a result of these modifications, the top speed of the engine was raised from 70 km/hr to 100 km/hr and the horsepower was increased from 1600 to 3000. The engine now burns light oil and features sealed roller bearings, a central lubrication system, light weight motion-work, and extensive thermal insulation. A side benefit of light oil firing in an external combustion engine (i.e.- steam) is very low exhaust emissions. This engine emits about 80 percent less toxic exhaust gases per kW than a state-of-the-art diesel. The modifications were performed to provide a steam locomotive which could keep tight schedules and "time windows" to be allowed to run on the main lines without causing interference with normal trains. Testing of the modified locomotive began in March 1999 and the locomotive pulled its first passenger trains in April 1999." -Ultimate Steam Page It's very hard to make a compelling case by projections or opinion when you are asking for an enormous reinvestment in technology, support industries, operating procedures while not having one demonstrable application. Someone with deep pockets would have to invest money and take a well thought out risk to develop a product from the private sector to sell to the railroads, rather than the silly concept that railroads will willingly invest in an economic abstraction with a high price tag, which is putting the cart before the horse. Porta's concept of incremental ( read lower cost) demonstrations make more economic sense versus the one size fits all ACE as, at best, I think there could be niche applications as in the transport of long coal drags as Paul suggested. However building a prototype and scaling up production and supporting that product are two different things. It would take a real locomotive to demonstrate once and for all, in hard numbers whether this is an economic boon as this is the only reason this technology would be accepted..otherwise as they say..."it's all academic..".I seriously doubt the railroad industry would have converted to diesel power based solely on abstractions in lieu of a FT utilized in trial demonstrations. Would you buy a product that is yet to be built, based solely on mathematical potentials? At best a low cost shared test bed seems like a reasonable field study with a consortium of equipment manufacturers, sponsoring roads, federal support etc financing a test of new steam technological innovations, ( gas producing firebox, lempor exhaust, improved insulation, better alloys etc)would be a worthwhile investment along with non steam alternatives, perhaps a international competitive challenge from DOE would be a better investment... However, all of these require an interest in reinventing the wheel, which I just dont see from the industry.It will take a screamingly dire crisis to change the status quo. it always does as it's simply more a case of human nature rather than seeking innovations for innovations sake which in a lot of fields is seen as a 19th century phenomenon in kick starting manufacturing, which in of itself, is nearly a lost art here.
It would have been interesting if the ACE3000 project had made it to the prototype construction stage as at that time ACE had assembled the consortium you outlined above, but as engineering issues and delays increased t fell apart..one of the great "what ifs" in modern US rail history.
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Steam Passenger Locomotives, Brian Hollingsworth, Crescent Books, New York. A heavy representation of British locomotives, but the key American and French ones (Andre Chapelon's work) are in there too.
Anyone with any kind of interest in steam should have this book in their collection, in my opinion. It has pictures yes, but cool drawings as well. It is kind of the like the Diesel Spotter's Guide, only for steam.
Thanks, Paul, I'll check it out...literally, I hope.
wallyworldI think the simple answer to the reluctance of the railroad industry to reinvent the wheel is that a convincing case for coal\steam based on current economic conditions has not been made.Its as simple as that. It's a case of "show me" which is perfectly understandable. The only real demonstration I know of is pictured above,"In late 1998, SLM completed the extensive modernization of 52 series German Kriegslokomotive 2-10-0 no. 8055 for use on the Orient Express in Europe. The locomotive was extensively tested prior to being modified so that the benefit of the modifications could be documented. Over 70 percent of the parts of the locomotive were replaced or modified. As a result of these modifications, the top speed of the engine was raised from 70 km/hr to 100 km/hr and the horsepower was increased from 1600 to 3000. The engine now burns light oil and features sealed roller bearings, a central lubrication system, light weight motion-work, and extensive thermal insulation. A side benefit of light oil firing in an external combustion engine (i.e.- steam) is very low exhaust emissions. This engine emits about 80 percent less toxic exhaust gases per kW than a state-of-the-art diesel. The modifications were performed to provide a steam locomotive which could keep tight schedules and "time windows" to be allowed to run on the main lines without causing interference with normal trains. Testing of the modified locomotive began in March 1999 and the locomotive pulled its first passenger trains in April 1999."-Ultimate Steam Page It's very hard to make a compelling case by projections or opinion when you are asking for an enormous reinvestment in technology, support industries, operating procedures while not having one demonstrable application. Someone with deep pockets would have to invest money and take a well thought out risk to develop a product from the private sector to sell to the railroads, rather than the silly concept that railroads will willingly invest in an economic abstraction with a high price tag, which is putting the cart before the horse. Porta's concept of incremental ( read lower cost) demonstrations make more economic sense versus the one size fits all ACE as, at best, I think there could be niche applications as in the transport of long coal drags as Paul suggested. However building a prototype and scaling up production and supporting that product are two different things. It would take a real locomotive to demonstrate once and for all, in hard numbers whether this is an economic boon as this is the only reason this technology would be accepted..otherwise as they say..."it's all academic..".I seriously doubt the railroad industry would have converted to diesel power based solely on abstractions in lieu of a FT utilized in trial demonstrations. Would you buy a product that is yet to be built, based solely on mathematical potentials?At best a low cost shared test bed seems like a reasonable field study with a consortium of equipment manufacturers, sponsoring roads, federal support etc financing a test of new steam technological innovations, ( gas producing firebox, lempor exhaust, improved insulation, better alloys etc)would be a worthwhile investment along with non steam alternatives, perhaps a international competitive challenge from DOE would be a better investment... However, all of these require an interest in reinventing the wheel, which I just dont see from the industry.It will take a screamingly dire crisis to change the status quo. it always does as it's simply more a case of human nature rather than seeking innovations for innovations sake which in a lot of fields is seen as a 19th century phenomenon in kick starting manufacturing, which in of itself, is nearly a lost art here.
Excellent essaying, Wallyworld, here and in previous posts, and astute insights. Been there, done that a few times, have you?
But to your original question and intent, I apologize I have nothing much to offer. I've twisted wrenches and busted knuckles for a living on the diesel-electric, which led me to develop a pathological dislike of all mechanical contrivances because they all break.
My present career in the railway industry is all in the commercial/strategic realm, and at that level we view locomotives as "support for the mission" just like finance, legal, environmental, and track. Railways are actually the last place that I think we will see innovation appearing from in the locomotive, and for a good reason. Since the locomotive is not the product of the railway but a tool to reach the product, we try to put our resources into thinking what our product could be. Asking a railway to invest its best management talent into locomotive innovation would be like asking a novelist to improve the typewriter. It's likely to be a very poor return on investment.
In my world we're concerned about things the locomotive has to accomplish in the future, and our biggest concern are regulatory changes. There is high probability that regulatory requirements for air emissions, noise emissions, fuel source (domestic vs. foreign), fuel economy, and operator safety will be drastically changed in the near future. The Railway Safety Act of 2008 drastically changed regulation on operator error, which will have significant ramifications on future locomotive design. If I was a betting man, I would bet that electrification of vast swaths of the network are in our near future. It will have very little to do with any alleged direct economic benefits of electrification, but a great deal to do with compliance with air and noise emissions.
I can't fathom how a self-contained, coal-burning locomotive appears in any possible future in any industrialized democratic state. The thought of trying to obtain permitting for the PM, NOX, CO2 emissions ... well, I'd rather try to see if I could make the sun come up in the West tomorrow morning.
RWM
Asking a railway to invest its best management talent into locomotive innovation would be like asking a novelist to improve the typewriter. It's likely to be a very poor return on investment.
Do a Google search on "Paige Compositor."
Mark Twain would have been a forgotten 19'th century novelist had he not sunk all of his money and a lot of borrowed money into an automatic type setting machine, which was a commercial failure. In order to pay his debts, he embarked on a world-wide speaking tour doing his Hal Holbrooke impressions. This made him internationally famous.
OK, OK, that one novelist lost his shirt on investing in not a typewriter but perhaps the steam-punk version of Microsoft Word. But it made him a famous person in the end.
Paul MilenkovicOK, OK, that one novelist lost his shirt on investing in not a typewriter but perhaps the steam-punk version of Microsoft Word.
OK, OK, that one novelist lost his shirt on investing in not a typewriter but perhaps the steam-punk version of Microsoft Word.
I like it!
Railway Man,
I couldn't agree with you more which is why I likened the idea that railroads themselves would "reinvent the wheel" to" putting the cart before the horse." Paul's comments apply as well as your own. To put it all in a nutshell, without the perspective of experience, it's all sophistry. If you dont have a product to evaluate in real world conditions, then it's like "pouring from the empty into the void."
Thomas Pynchon once said that if you start exploring an issue by asking the wrong questions, "you dont have to worry about about answers." Your comments remind me of the original idea behind the often misapplied philosophy of Continuous Quality Improvement, the folks who actually do the work know more about how to "improve" a process versus those who don't.
As far as my own experiences, the best management I worked with were comparible to those railroad managers who spent a reasonable amount of time out "on the road" and kicked the tires. A good question is worth a hundred answers. To use a metaphor, the "lowly" switch tender may know more about unclogging a yard than a fellow in some remote location ruminating over apparent abstractions. The problem I saw over and over again was the fear of simply saying "I don't know" as well as the same applied to asking questions as if asking them was a sign of weakness or ignorance. Again the cart before the horse.
The best managers had their subordinates actually invested in discussing a common solution rather than dictating one. The weakness of human psychology was often more at fault than the process itself.as far as derailing "the best laid plans." before they turned a wheel.
There is also another expression: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What are the compelling reasons to replace the Diesel-electric locomotive as the primary source of rail motive power?
Anthony V.
WW, it may sound trite, but culture, with the force of its customs and biased thinking, is really what makes or breaks the process of renewal or re-evaluation. I feel that well run businesses have learned this, and that is why good leaders know to bring in "fresh meat" once in a while, someone still keen and perspicacious who knows how to ask the right questions. Unfortunately, though, the newcomer is sometimes resented and mis-trusted. If an organization is bent on examining itself, then the current leadership, formal and informal ( ) must encourage frankness in the organization. They must give the nod to those who will be approached by the newcomer, giving them permission to tell it like it is.
It is almost always too much to ask, and certainly to rely upon.
I agree.Sometimes organizational cultures become so rigid that they lose their bones along the way. At times I have been placed in a position where even what is feasible versus what is not gets lodged between the people who do the work and upper management who wants to "improve" the work. Simply saying this or that is so does not mean what you are saying translates into feasibility. I met with one company who said we want to do so and so and we want Mr X, Yand Z to do it,,well these fellows in the field were barely keeping their heads above water through no fault of their own. As a result of management by priority (which had no idea how the work actually got done) the work was being made overly complex, with more focus on reporting the work done, than doing the actual work. When I went back and told them they either needed more resources in the field or a more autonomous regional organization, they looked at me as if I had three eyes and two heads. Entropy is a quantifiable number at times.
AnthonyV There is also another expression: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What are the compelling reasons to replace the Diesel-electric locomotive as the primary source of rail motive power?
$140+/barrel oil, $4+/gallon #2 Diesel fuel.
You might say that once a technology gets superceded that it never comes back. Kind of like jets replacing propellers on airplanes.
Only there had been a major initiative to bring propellers back into major-carrier airline operations. It went under names such as Prop Fan (United Technologies) and UDF (unducted fan -- General Electric). There was a lot of interest in this as a fuel saving technology around the time of the 1970's oil crisis. Perhaps nothing came of it because 1) the noise suppression technology was iffy, and to bring back the noise and vibration of props into the cabin would be a major setback, and 2) ducted turbofans were a moving target -- there were incremental improvement to fuel economy that closed the gap.
Don't know if there are any initiatives to bring back piston prop planes. The Pennsy T1 of aviation engines was the Curtis-Wright R-3350 Turbo Compound -- powered the DC-7, Lockheed Constellation, the P-2 Neptune Navy sub hunter, and the Douglas Skyraider close air support plane of the Viet Nam War. It represented the peak of piston power and fuel economy (the P-2 Neptune set some distance records), but I understand that it needed inordinate amounts of maintenance.
On the other hand, Diesels are sort of like still running prop planes. With Diesels you have pistons and the need to replace pistons (changeout of "power assemblies"). You suppose those regenerative turbines discussed on another thread will finally make inroads into the Diesel market?
As I recall the Skyraider didn't use the Turbo Compound-- just the straight R3350.
The P2V distance record was in 1946, also with the R3350. (Perth to Columbus, which remained the unrefuelled straight-line distance record until 1986, or maybe later.)
Paul Milenkovic AnthonyV There is also another expression: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What are the compelling reasons to replace the Diesel-electric locomotive as the primary source of rail motive power? $140+/barrel oil, $4+/gallon #2 Diesel fuel. You might say that once a technology gets superceded that it never comes back. Kind of like jets replacing propellers on airplanes. Only there had been a major initiative to bring propellers back into major-carrier airline operations. It went under names such as Prop Fan (United Technologies) and UDF (unducted fan -- General Electric). There was a lot of interest in this as a fuel saving technology around the time of the 1970's oil crisis. Perhaps nothing came of it because 1) the noise suppression technology was iffy, and to bring back the noise and vibration of props into the cabin would be a major setback, and 2) ducted turbofans were a moving target -- there were incremental improvement to fuel economy that closed the gap. Don't know if there are any initiatives to bring back piston prop planes. The Pennsy T1 of aviation engines was the Curtis-Wright R-3350 Turbo Compound -- powered the DC-7, Lockheed Constellation, the P-2 Neptune Navy sub hunter, and the Douglas Skyraider close air support plane of the Viet Nam War. It represented the peak of piston power and fuel economy (the P-2 Neptune set some distance records), but I understand that it needed inordinate amounts of maintenance. On the other hand, Diesels are sort of like still running prop planes. With Diesels you have pistons and the need to replace pistons (changeout of "power assemblies"). You suppose those regenerative turbines discussed on another thread will finally make inroads into the Diesel market?
Paul:
According to the paper, modern steam would save the railroads billions of dollars in fuel, have no emission problems, and be no more expensive to maintain. It's a no-brainer.
What perplexes me is if it is such a no-brainer, why has non-nuclear steam propulsion technology been largely supplanted by Diesel-electric and gas turbine-electric propulsion technologies over the last half century?
What do the advocates of modern steam know that those responsible for the world's railroads and ships don't know?
I ask these questions as a casual observer.
Paul Milenkovic With regard to the 1970s ACE 3000 program, it probably needs to be considered that in the 1970's, we were only 20 years out from the end of steam. Even though all of the steam infrastructure was gone, you probably had a lot of the people still around. We are now more than 50 years out from the end of steam, and a program to bring steam back even on a pilot program basis faces many obstacles.
When I started with Conrail in the late 70's, some of the most vehement anti-steam guys around were the Mechanical guys who "cut their teeth" on steam. To quote on of them, "the only thing anybody should be doing with a steam locomotive is filling it's boiler with concrete". To be fair, I think part of his point of view was shaped by knowing exactly how much stored energy there is in a hot boiler and exactly how easily things can go wrong in a very bad way.
Consequently, when the ACE3000 dog and pony show came to town, they sent me to it. I still have the info and my write up somewhere.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
timz As I recall the Skyraider didn't use the Turbo Compound-- just the straight R3350. The P2V distance record was in 1946, also with the R3350. (Perth to Columbus, which remained the unrefuelled straight-line distance record until 1986, or maybe later.)
The record in question was broken sometime in the mid-1960's by a SAC B-52 which raised the record to around 12,500 miles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.