What if? Steam vs Diesel

[Anonymous]

This may have already been beat to death here but I am new to the forum and was wondering what others thought. What if the railroads had stayed with steam what do you think the Locos would be like today?

I have heard all the reasons that were given for going to the diesels, but my thoughts are the biggest one was the railroad seen a way they could get by with less workers, even if it took four or five of the new locos to pull as much as one steamer. I know there were alot of other factors, but if the steamers could have been doubleheaded by one crew I don't think they would have jumped ship as fast as some did. With todays controls this would not be a big deal but I guess in the 30's , 40's it was. Oh well what do some of you think?   

[S&G Rute of the Silver River]

Persionally I love steam. Its mans most strongest sorce of power. but man has never been able to draw out all the power. A steamer needs a highly trained crue that is in tune to that loco and changing anything in that is dazasterous. A diesal is fairly simple to operate in you move the throdle and its going to give you all that power almost instantly. Yes they are less powerfull but can be MU'ed together by one crew. Steam uses fire which is almost alive, so you need someone to keep it alive and working. I think the roads would have pushed for diesal no matter how good steam was, its just cheeper, easer, and more versital.

[jimrice4449]

I have a 3 letter answer to the question of how viable steam engines would be today...EPA~!   I'm suprised (and grateful) that some envirozealot hasn't tried to shut down current steam operations.

[JonathanS]

I agree with the comment on the EPA.  Another reason large steam locomotive could not survive in regular service today is liability lawsuits.  Do a little digging as to what happened to neighboring houses when a large steam locomotive exploded.  When a boiler full of water that is boiling at 200 PSI is suddenly brought to atmospheric pressure due to a collision, derailment, or crown sheet failure, the entire boiler full of water instantly turns to steam and expands 1000 times its own volume in a few seconds.  There are numerous reports of large sections of the boilers being thrown over a half mile.  Today's public would not stand for such a hazard in thier backyards.

[jimmac28]

The biggest problem would be just keeping water around, think of the size of the tender on some of the 200 or more mile divisions.

[Leon Silverman]

I agree with the comment on the EPA.  Another reason large steam locomotive could not survive in regular service today is liability lawsuits.  Do a little digging as to what happened to neighboring houses when a large steam locomotive exploded.  When a boiler full of water that is boiling at 200 PSI is suddenly brought to atmospheric pressure due to a collision, derailment, or crown sheet failure, the entire boiler full of water instantly turns to steam and expands 1000 times its own volume in a few seconds.  There are numerous reports of large sections of the boilers being thrown over a half mile.  Today's public would not stand for such a hazard in thier backyards.

The 200 PSI boiler pressure was obsolete by the time diesels came around, If you look at the specs for engines developed during the 30's and 40's you will see operating pressures in the neighborhood of 300 psi plus superheat (which raised the temperature of the steam above the saturation temperature, about 420 degrees Farenheit).  Thus, working steam temperature could easily be over 500 degrees versis the 380 degrees for saturated 200 psi steam.   This provides a lot more energy to "launch" those exploding boilers.

  The real reason the diesel supplanted steam was operating economics.  Ignoring the fact that you could add engines without having to add crewmembers, while there might have been questions regarding fuel economy, the big advantage of diesels were their availability and lack of required maintenance costs.  This enabled the diesels to far outstrip the steam engines in terms of revenue miles generated in any given period of time, particularly since they did not have to stop  so frequently to refill their water tanks (which had to heated in the colder climates to prevent freezing.

Consider this, you know how effective steam cleaning is on the grease accumulated on you automobile engines, what effect do you think that steam had on all of those exposed lubricated joints on the steam engine.  Every time the steam engine stopped, the fireman would have walk around the engine with an oil can. 

 

[jimrice4449]

The NYC ran a series of tests shortly after WWII.   They were uniquely set up to do do since they had one of the better classes of modern steam engines (Niagaras), FT and E-7 diesels and straight electrics.   The results of the test were, the straight electrics won hands down until the cost of establishing the infrastrucure was considered.   In comparisons between the diesels and the 4-8-4s it was pretty much a wash since the 3 unit psgr diesels were more powerful than the steam engine but the steam engine was (slightly) cheaper to run.   Comparing the Niagara w/ a 2 unit psgr diesel,the steam engine out performed the diesel but at a higher cost to operate.   The two things that decided the issue were the ability of the diesel to exert full horsepower at any speed while the steam engine had to get up into the 45MPH and higher range before it put out full  HP and the really decisive factors, the terrific infrastructure costs of steam and far greater availbility of the diesels.

[Anonymous]

Everybody seems to be thinking about 1920's tech, my line of thinking was a new engine built with todays tech. Flue tube boilers were outdated before railroads went to diesel, auto lubing engines were not a big deal a lot of the last steamers had these features, the EPA thats a whole nother ball of wax. I think that with computter controled firing and modren tech that emissions could be handled, heck let's burn alcohol 

[wjstix]

Well that was the idea of the ACE 3000 concept in the early eighties, that steam engine technology stopped being improved upon c.1950, what could you do with modern space-age technology?? One change was to try to hold in the heat better, make the firebox and boiler more like a giant thermos. Also, instead of burning chunks of coal, it would have used replaceable tender modules filled with coal slurry (coal mixed with water to create a liquid, kinda like what an oil-burner would use.)

During the early 1980's "Reagan Recession" some tests were done on Ross Rowland's Reading 4-8-4 hauling coal to get some data for the project but I think that's about as far as it got. Too bad, at that time it was calculated that since coal prices were so low at that time compared to oil, that the cost savings of switching to coal were several times better than the coal to diesel savings of the transition era.

I'm sure there are drawings of the ACE 3000 steam engine on the web somewhere.

[wjstix]

p.s. Coal smoke is much more visible that diesel exhaust, I suspect they're pretty equal as to the amount of pollution they create in the long run though.

[Anonymous]

p.s. Coal smoke is much more visible that diesel exhaust, I suspect they're pretty equal as to the amount of pollution they create in the long run though.

 

I don't know about that, I saw a CSX diesel about two weeks ago that would have put 1218 to shame. It was blowing so much smoke the first few cars couldn't be seen!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

What was interesting about the NYC tests is that the report was written by Paul Kiefer, who was NYC's Chief Mechanical Officer and about as pro-steam as anybody outside of Roanoke might be.  A three-unit E7 set was roughly equal to a Niagara in horsepower and costs but a two-unit E7 set could handle the same trains as the Niagara at a lower cost, which suggests that the Niagara, while being an excellent locomotive, was too big for the job.  It also shows that diesel locomotives in multiple could be better tailored for a particular job than a steam locomotive.

[Anonymous]

I have a 3 letter answer to the question of how viable steam engines would be today...EPA~!   I'm suprised (and grateful) that some envirozealot hasn't tried to shut down current steam operations.

I agree 100% with the above. I've seen a few steamers on excursions through the years and wondered how long until some enviro-nazi shuts them down. It'll be a sad day when that happens. Wasn't there an issue with a restored steam locomotive in Washington State being shut down by the local city because of asbestos fears?

[GP40-2]

Well that was the idea of the ACE 3000 concept in the early eighties, that steam engine technology stopped being improved upon c.1950, what could you do with modern space-age technology?? One change was to try to hold in the heat better, make the firebox and boiler more like a giant thermos. Also, instead of burning chunks of coal, it would have used replaceable tender modules filled with coal slurry (coal mixed with water to create a liquid, kinda like what an oil-burner would use.)

During the early 1980's "Reagan Recession" some tests were done on Ross Rowland's Reading 4-8-4 hauling coal to get some data for the project but I think that's about as far as it got. Too bad, at that time it was calculated that since coal prices were so low at that time compared to oil, that the cost savings of switching to coal were several times better than the coal to diesel savings of the transition era.

I'm sure there are drawings of the ACE 3000 steam engine on the web somewhere.

I witnessed the entire test. The tests were not done on the Reading locomotive. Ross used the more modern and far more powerful C&O 4-8-4 #614. What the tests showed was that even a "modern" superpower steam locomotive design was only around 4% efficient, and at times only 2% efficient. Tonnage wise, a 4-8-4 is about equivalent to a GP40-2, which is what the ACE 3000 was designed to compete against. Ross & company never considered more powerful locomotives such as the SD50 that we were getting at the time. Granted, the 645F3 engine sucked, but the 50's had a far more robust and powerful electrical system than the 40s (including the SD40-2). The 50's had a far more advanced traction control system, and along with  the more powerful main alternator/traction motors no 4-8-4 could compete with them in tonage rating. Even if you could bring a steam locomotive's efficiency up to 13%-14% (probably the max), it still would have trouble competing with a 30 year old 50 series. Compete with a new GEVO? Forget about it.

[Philcal]

At the end of the day, it's going to comedown to cost. Steam locomotives required a huge infrastructure in which to operate. That infrastucture was extremely costly in terms of facilities, fueling and water, as well as engine houses, shops, and crews. The argument has often made that steam engines in general,are more powerful than diesels. There is much truth to that assertion, but it is equally true that the diesel is far more versatile.  It's interesting, even fun to speculate on what form the steam locomotive would have taken had it been allowed to develop into the present day. Had diesels not taken over,it is quite likely that the railroads would have gone into far greater electrification than they actually did, at least in North America.

[JanOlov]

Just think if diesels hadn't showed up for another 10 years then, and that the railroads had dieselized 10 years later, do you think that railroading would have been much different today??

[wallyworld]

In my alternate universe, these would be roller bearing equipped garratts equipped with condensors, burning micronised coal in a gas producing combustion chamber with a tuned lempor exhaust from a high pressure boiler. Tenders would be prepackaged with fuel for easy reload. I thnk the fireman could be eliminated rather easily rather than MU capability being made reliable.

[Anonymous]

Everybody is still trying to think of steam in a 1920's era tech, that is not what I was thinking about. What if steam had had the benefit of the last 60 years of new tech the way the diesels have what would they be today?

 Comparing an old 30's era steamer to a new MAC just ain't fair, But I will have to disagree with the statement that at the time there were no 4-8-4's that could compete with the diesels of the era, N&W,  J's for example, and there was no diesel in the 50's that had anywhere close to the HP or tractive effort of a single J, when in an era that a lot  of diesels had around 1200 horses the J had over 5000 at the drawbar . The thing that always got me was this, taken one on one a 50's era diesel would run cheaper than about any steamer this is no doubt true,  but when they had to hook six of them together to pull the same load that one steamer was pulling I think economics went out the window

 

[JanOlov]

Didn't N&W modify a Class A 2-6-6-4 (1238?) and a Class Y-6b 2-8-8-2 (2197?) and beat a 4 unit F-7 and in "house" call those A-1 and Y-6c?? I think that it was in1957.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The Great Depression and World War 2 were major factors in why steam technology barely advanced from the beginning of the Super Power era in the 1920's.  During the Depression, nobody had any money for research and the WPB clamped down on research and development of steam technology during WW2.  Aside from Lima and the Pocahontas coal roads, nobody was interested in advancing steam design after WW2.

The ability of individual diesel units to operate in multiple was an equalizer in the steam-vs-diesel debate and gave diesels a flexibility in service that steam rarely had.  The five-unit GP9 set that equalled a Y6b on the road could be split up and equal five S-class switchers in the yard.

[GP40-2]

Everybody is still trying to think of steam in a 1920's era tech, that is not what I was thinking about. What if steam had had the benefit of the last 60 years of new tech the way the diesels have what would they be today?

 Comparing an old 30's era steamer to a new MAC just ain't fair, But I will have to disagree with the statement that at the time there were no 4-8-4's that could compete with the diesels of the era, N&W,  J's for example, and there was no diesel in the 50's that had anywhere close to the HP or tractive effort of a single J, when in an era that a lot  of diesels had around 1200 horses the J had over 5000 at the drawbar . The thing that always got me was this, taken one on one a 50's era diesel would run cheaper than about any steamer this is no doubt true,  but when they had to hook six of them together to pull the same load that one steamer was pulling I think economics went out the window

 

If you are refering to my post, I am talking about the EMD 50 series (SD50) we received in the early 1980's, not 1950's era diesel-electrics.

I am not thinking about steam in 1920 era tech either. What I am saying is that if you updated a steam locomotive with every bit of 2006 technology, you would be very lucky to get up to 13%-14% efficiency. Our newest GEVO's are around 40% efficient.

A four unit F7 lash up from the 1950's would have about the same drawbar power as the Class J. Hooking the 4 F7s together (25%-30% efficiency each) would still be cheaper that running a 4% to 5% efficient Class J.

Also consider the eastern coal the Class J ran on in the 1950's is now selling for $70 to $100 dollars per ton. Still want to run a steam locomotive?

[feltonhill]

The steam vs. diesel tests on  N&W were run in 1952.  N&W did not modify either 1238 or 1297 for the tests.  This story appeared in Nov 1991 Trains, contained errors of fact, and lacked  supporting evidence.  It was apparent that the author had not done adequate research on locomotive performance capapabilities on both N&W and on other roads, nor did he have adequate understanding of N&W's physical plant or operations at the time.  It rebutted in part by a participant in the tests in the May 1992 issue of Trains.  Full rebuttals appeared in N&WHS magazine, The Arrow in the May/June 1994 and  Jan/Feb 1998 issues.  Both available as back issues AFAIK.  It' a good idea to read all four of these sources before arriving at a conclusion.

[Anonymous]

I am not thinking about steam in 1920 era tech either. What I am saying is that if you updated a steam locomotive with every bit of 2006 technology, you would be very lucky to get up to 13%-14% efficiency. Our newest GEVO's are around 40% efficient.

 You are 100% correct if you stay with an old flue tube boiler with stoker feed and hand fired but, there are a lot better ways of doing things with todays tech I think you would see efficiency ratings much higher. and not to dispute your word 40% for a diesel is a little high when the best internal combustion engine is somewhere in the high 20% percent range. A loco can only be as good as its prime mover, and them old F units throwed out more pollution than the J's with their detroits slobbering motor oil all down the sides and out the bottom.  Coal 70 bucks a ton or diesel 3 bucks a gallon ain't much difference, which ever way it costs heap mucho money to run something that big.   

[GP40-2]

 ...and not to dispute your word 40% for a diesel is a little high when the best internal combustion engine is somewhere in the high 20% percent range...

Really? I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. Pehaps you can quote me some source such as an engineering journal that states that a modern turbocharged/intercooled/computer controlled diesel such as GE's GEVO has an efficiency only "in the high 20% range"

I await your reply.

[Anonymous]

Ley's not start a bitching match but you show me one that says it is, GE advertises the evo to be 3% more than the current crop of locos, and even this is achieved with a reduction in cylinders ( 12 from 16 ). I have worked in the steam generation of electricity industry, so I also have some background in what I speak, by the way 82% of all the electric power in the US is brought to you by coal fired boilers

[cabbage]

My father has read this thread and would like to reply -however I am the one doing the typing.

Ok Pop -take it away:

"Gentlemen, the debate about Steam versus Diesel is an old one and (at the age of 88) is one that I had to sit and work with. I appreciate the gentlemans response about the Garratts -however tests by myself and others of Messrs Beyer Peacock of Gorton Manchester have shown that the Garratt concept while interesting (and I spent the whole of my time in Bulawayo shop with them) -the main problem remains in the length of the steam pipes and the control system for the individual steam bogies. The gentlemans comment about the infrastructure required to operate steam over that of diesel is a good one. However as has been proved (regretably) a diesal system requires a level of technology not found with a steam locomotive. It requires a pure DERV of reliable Cetane rating -rather than a blend of coal oil and cane alcohol as used by Zimbabwe National Railways. This has lead to the use of restored coal burning class 15s being used to rescue the Canadian sourced diesals.

The two Leader experiments by Bulleid showed promise -although Leader 01 was the only one every fired -the turf burner operated more than 4 years in the CIE rail system.

As to presumed ecomonical benefits of burning coal over oil in a locomotive -both the GWR and the LMS proved that oil could be ruinously expensive. Our own experiments with coal oil and gas producer fireboxes during the period of sanctions proved that in very few instances does diesal not prove to be more cheaper and economical to run.

Currently I am helping my son build his first steam engine, the source books used are (by my standards) old and most of the techniques and technologies revealed in them date from my apprenticeship days. This is probably a dying art -afterall how many courses on flint knapping do you see nowadays?"

Your Faithfully

Horace W Brades esq"

regards

ralph

[wjstix]

Mea culpa, those tests were with C&O 614 - I still have the video somewhere - in very very cold conditions !!

BTW if steam had continued to develop, I'm sure with computers and electronics you could work out a way to have 2 or more engines "m.u.'ed" like you can with diesels.

[GP40-2]

Ley's not start a bitching match but you show me one that says it is, GE advertises the evo to be 3% more than the current crop of locos, and even this is achieved with a reduction in cylinders ( 12 from 16 ). I have worked in the steam generation of electricity industry, so I also have some background in what I speak, by the way 82% of all the electric power in the US is brought to you by coal fired boilers

Ok, I'll show you why GE says the GEVO is 3% more efficient that its previous DASH 9 series of locomotives.

Our CW44AC locomotives (the AC traction version of the DASH 9) burn 207 gallons per hour at full throttle to produce 4600 crankshaft HP. Of that, 4400 HP is the nominal traction rating, and subtracting loss from the electrical system, 4100 HP ends up at the rail.

207 gallons per hour = 28.3 million BTU per hour

4600 crankshaft HP = 11.7 million BTU per hour

11.7 / 28.3 = 41.3%  The FDL engine is 41.3% efficient in converting the energy in diesel fuel into work.

4100 rail HP =  10.4 million BTU per hour

10.4 / 28.3 = 36.7% Overall, the CW44AC is 36.7% efficient in converting the energy of diesel fuel into pulling power.

Our new GEVOs only burn 196 gallons per hour to produce 4190 rail HP for a total locomotive efficiency of 40%.

40% - 36.7% = 3.3%

GE's ad was exactly right when it said the GEVO is 3% more efficient than its previous models.

Your orginal statement of internal combustion engines having an efficiency in the "high 20s" is pretty much right for a domestic non-turbocharged gasoline engine. Turbo diesels are a totally different (and much more efficient) animal.

Any more questions?

[cabbage]

(this is me)

Rhodesia Rails used to haul iron and coal trains with 3 class 15(A)s and communication between the cabs was via means of someone walking along the locos and banging on the next loco with a 2lb hammer in a homebrewed "morse". Later there was radio....

I have been privelidged to see and examine both "DELTIC" and "The Duke of Gloucester". Both of these were built in the 1950's. "DELTIC" was a twin 24 piston diesal locomotive with a rating of 3,300Hp while "The Duke" was Riddles last design and is still the UKs only working Super Pacific -it is rated at 4,500Hp.

The UK operates the worlds fastest Diesal locomotives (the type 43) wether it could still do with a steam based system I do not know. "Mallard" was very nearly completely wrecked by the high speed run and "The Duke" steaming capacity exceeds its feed water system capacity! There are still water troughs in parts of the UK and the problem of getting suitable TIA water into them was never really solved.

There are a group of enthusiasts planning on rebuilding a standard 5 locomotive -but the problems that they are facing are enormous.. Currently here in the Uk we are having worries about the BoxPok wheels that are the defining feature of one of our most loved class of locomotives -the "Merchant Navy" type as designed by Bulleid.

Whe the Big Four became British Rail in the late 1940's there were a series of trials of locomotives from each of the four companies in order to see which of the designs was the most successful. These were run over 2 years. The results were clear, each of the four companies had designed and built a locomotive that was successful in running on their tracks!!! Thus a GWR "Castles" was the most efficient whilst running on GWR metals.

However, the worlds largest user of locomotives, on the worlds largest rail network -had completely switched to diesals in under 30 years. The answer is simple. Diesal may not be as pleasing to the eye as steam. But it is more profitable to use.

regards

ralph

[JanOlov]

The steam vs. diesel tests on  N&W were run in 1952.  N&W did not modify either 1238 or 1297 for the tests.  This story appeared in Nov 1991 Trains, contained errors of fact, and lacked  supporting evidence.  It was apparent that the author had not done adequate research on locomotive performance capapabilities on both N&W and on other roads, nor did he have adequate understanding of N&W's physical plant or operations at the time.  It rebutted in part by a participant in the tests in the May 1992 issue of Trains.  Full rebuttals appeared in N&WHS magazine, The Arrow in the May/June 1994 and  Jan/Feb 1998 issues.  Both available as back issues AFAIK.  It' a good idea to read all four of these sources before arriving at a conclusion.

I've been informed that the F-7 tested on was 459 and also that they had their fuel racks 
and load regulators slightly adjusted so the total HP was close to 
6,800 hp for the diesels.

Maybe both sides cheated in one way or another.....lol!