The time is rite for the return of the steam locomotive , a throughly moderm steam loco makes economic since It could use as fuel any number of eco friendly fuels (green) or coal ethanol , vegtable oil ,left over dried waste from ethanol production . Powdered Coal blown in to a firebox / combustion chamber would combust almost 100% with little emissions , Norfolk & Western proved the superior effency of steam over diesel electric in the 1950s with the A class & the Y6b over EMD lack of component support from suppliers is all that prompted the N&W to switch to diesel . With 21st century technology steam would be superior , economical & cost effective Ross Roland's ACE should be re examined Norfolk Southern with it's vast asteam expertise would be the logical one to take the initiave on this . Robert H. Harrison
First of all coal scoup Welcome!
And then, not to be a wet blanket, but I suspect that you may be
guilty of "whistling past the graveyard!" The English have a brand new Steamer n the "Tornado"
Beautiful engine! But for a total of somewhere between 5 and 6Million American dollars.
Steam locomotives take infrastructure and skilled tradesmen to maintain that fleet.
The reestablishment of such an infrastructure would take most likely years and untold amounts of monies. But it is a heck of an idea to ponder!
With modern technology such as metalurgy ,synthetic lubricants & etc infrastructure could be reduced to a fraction of what it took in the steam era Robert H. Harrison
"makes economic since It could use as fuel any number of eco friendly fuels (green) or coal ethanol , vegetable oil ,left over dried waste from ethanol production"
Maybe you had not heard but there is already a market for these items. Corn ethanol is a loser energy wise any way you use it. Vegetable oil? How will you compete with the "bio diesel" market, where it only has to be 2% vegetable oil to be considered "bio diesel"? "Left over dried waste from ethanol production" is known as "distillers dried grains" and a premium animal feed. These "green" fuels are a pipe dream. They will never compete with coal which will never be acceptable as a locomotive fuel other than for historic preservation purposes.
Search "Union Pacific turbine coal". That base has already been covered. Wish you were even half right but that how it is.
Lack of component support from suppliers? N&W built those machines in their Roanoke shops.
samfp1943 The English have a brand new Steamer n the "Tornado" Beautiful engine! But for a total of somewhere between 5 and 6Million American dollars. Steam locomotives take infrastructure and skilled tradesmen to maintain that fleet.
The English have a brand new Steamer n the "Tornado"
The Brits went to Germany to get their boiler built. I speculate that was because the skill set necessary to construct a locomotive boiler is getting extremely rare.
There is also the lack of supporting infrastructure. For example, I have seen local fire departments rewatering Milwaukee 261.
coal scoup Powdered Coal blown in to a firebox / combustion chamber would combust almost 100% with little emissions ,
Powdered Coal blown in to a firebox / combustion chamber would combust almost 100% with little emissions ,
Once upon a time, 100% complete combustion = zero emissions. Now that CO2, which is a natural product of complete combustion, is considered an emission, the more carbon in the fuel, the higher the CO2 emissions. Coal has the highest percentage of carbon of all fuels. NS takes it's carbon footprint pretty seriously, so you won't see them switching to coal any time soon. (and there isn't anyone still around at NS who know much at all about steam...)
Secondly, burning coal (or another fuel) to make steam to propel a locomotive will result in a thermal efficiency far below that of a modern diesel electric, so it will take more fuel to generate the same output - once again, more CO2.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
That is just not true. N&W, it self, realized that the diesel was superior to steam because of the
diesel could m.u. and thus they could have any amount of power with just ONE crew and labor is
the biggest cost in railroading. The N&W also realized that the low torque electric traction motor
was a superior method of delivering tractive effort when compared to the reciprocating steam
locomotive. That is why the N&W tried the "Jawn Henry" steam turbine experiment. They wanted
a locomotive with the diesel's traction superiority but at the same time could burn on-line coal.
then there's the Fischer-Tropse process of making synthetic diesel fuel from coal (and steam-the source of hydrogen atoms for hydro carbons) where it can be used in existing locomotives.
It's interesting that the ACE is mentioned, there was a lot of talk and research about this concept with a fair number of sponsors, but little to nothing was actually risked or accomplished.
NKP noted that the differences between the Berkshires and diesels were minimal and this was in service (high-speed freight) for which the Berks were tailored. While N&W was able to improve the efficiency of steam operations by borrowing some diesel practices, the A's, J's and Y-6's all lacked the flexibility of diesels, a GP9 working a coal drag one day could be used kicking cars at Lamberts Point or working a branchline turn the next day. I hardly think that an A would be as useful as an S-1 0-8-0 at Lamberts Point or an M-1 4-8-0 on some backwater branch.
Since it has been at least 50 years since the demise of steam operations in the United States, most of the expertise for building, operating and maintaining steam locomotives has retired or died.
coal scoup The time is rite for the return of the steam locomotive , a throughly moderm steam loco makes economic since It could use as fuel any number of eco friendly fuels (green) or coal ethanol , vegtable oil ,left over dried waste from ethanol production . Powdered Coal blown in to a firebox / combustion chamber would combust almost 100% with little emissions , Norfolk & Western proved the superior effency of steam over diesel electric in the 1950s with the A class & the Y6b over EMD lack of component support from suppliers is all that prompted the N&W to switch to diesel . With 21st century technology steam would be superior , economical & cost effective Ross Roland's ACE should be re examined Norfolk Southern with it's vast asteam expertise would be the logical one to take the initiave on this . Robert H. Harrison
Now you only have to convince the management of the North American Railroad industry that dieselization was a mistake...
Good luck with that....
I certainly think that N&W could have economically operated steam longer than they did due to their expertise in designing and building on their own locomotives (although the component suppliers they relied on for parts were exiting the steam locomotive business en masse) and the fact that they were largely a coal hauling RR. Much of the rest of the industry would have transitioned to diesels years earlier had it not been for WWII restricting locomotive production..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Coal Scoup: Since you are new to this forum a few items need consideration.
1. The depression and WW-2 intervened in the slow demise of steam and allowed EMD especially to work out bugs in the 567 engines.
2. Steam development on the other hand was not needed until 1942 and then was mostly frozen until the end of 1945 and the decline of RRs after WW-2 caused RRs to put the incremental approach of diesels into operation.
3. Many "experts" expected for there to be a slow electrification in the US but the diesels were able to overtake that process due to the perception that RRs were "dying".
4. Maintenance of even the best of steam engines has always been much more labor inensive and the out of service rate much higher.
5. Reference item 4 -- there had to be at least minor servicing facilities at almost every division point (read money).
6. With the present setup of diesel servicing and the common useage of all RRs and the ability to use each other's parts and repair facilities each RR is tied to every other RR.
7. The one fly in the ointment is if for some strange reason oil became very scarce then some of your arguments might have merit
EXCEPT::
8. Electrification of all major routes will cost less than a return to build steam locos and all the support facilities for steam. What; you may say; would then be done with all the diesels not worn out. There are many ways to use many components of a diesel in electric motors ( wheel sets, traction motors, inverters, rectifiers, cooling fans etc.).
9. But also present some diesels can possibly be converted to a cow and calf configuration to use the present diesels as maybe as dual mode equipment.
10. Electrification would also allow the use of coal, nuclear, water, wind, solar in a manner to be much more thermally efficient as was posted above.
Is there some sort of Internet law that says trains.com will have a "lets bring back steam" thread at least once a year?
Seriously, do a search on this topic, lots and lots and lots of information on this very board.
Only railfans would ever say that steam should come back. No professional railroader would ever
entertain such an idiotic thought!
YoHo1975 Is there some sort of Internet law that says trains.com will have a "lets bring back steam" thread at least once a year? Seriously, do a search on this topic, lots and lots and lots of information on this very board.
LOL.
I was just thinking the same thing a few days ago.
Forget steam, let's really be retro and just bring back horse drawn carriages.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.