Who wouldn't want to ride behind 150 mph steam?

To quote - "...Steam is as steam was..."   Morgan I believe.  I think he had it right on the money.  I would want steam just as it was in its hayday. 

One-hundred and fifty miles per hour isn't fast enough to bring it back.   Make it 300mph and we'll talk.

-Crandell

  The T1 had problems with adheasion on uneven rail and tended to slip at speed. I believe if they would have articulated the front engine it would have been a great loco. The Q2 had 6000 HP. More than the Big boy. But even the mighty keystone parked them on the deadline and ran the old reliable 2 cylinder power decades older than the modern steam. As it stands steam no matter how modern would not be cost effective in the least. High maintenance cost and down time for maintenance and inspection would outweigh the cost of fuel. I would love to see a comeback of steam power but the economy would not let that be viable. Anyway there is no way this country can produce in numbers that was done in the heyday of steam. A K4 new would cost $400,000. Now we cant restore one already built for less than 3 million dollars and going on a decade. Im afraid the Steam loco building trade has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

  If you realy want to move people hang wires and bring back the GG1. 60 plus years of service and billions of miles under the frames.

       Pete
 

.....I'm unaware of any production steam engine back when they were the norm, that could come close to a sustained 150 mph.  And I am with the poster above with the comment of all those heavy rods and linkages, wheel assy's., etc....whirling around loading their supporting journals / bearings at that speed....!!

Designers would need a clean sheet of paper to create a new monster to perform like that.

Modelcar wrote:

.....I'm unaware of any production steam engine back when they were the norm, that could come close to a sustained 150 mph.

The New York Central "J" Class was static tested to 139 mph. Engineers (M.E.) felt that the Milwaukee Road's larger version, the "Baltic", would test out at 159 mph or so, and be capable of sustained operation. The problem was/is, they would be out of horsepower at those speeds because of air resistance as would production Diesel-electrics today. Could specialized Steam be produced that reaches those speeds and still pull a reasonably sized train? Sure. The inherent single-unit power plant design continues to exceed the capabilities of the modern Diesel-electric.

wisandsouthernkid wrote:

oh and a few other things. I sure wouldnt want to ride behind a 2000 lb (or more) reciprocating mass at 150mph that could be dangerous even being modernized that is alot of metal flying too quickly for my taste. Also i want to see steam wheels handle that speed.  i dont think that there is no way it would work. Just my two cents

Yeah, remember that article in TRAINS about a MILW Hiawatha locomotive that got some part of the wheel linkage jammed around 70-something MPH? Boom...

On a modernized locomotive, that would be less likely to happen, but still, many modern locos still have teething problemswhen they're introduced...

The C&O Historical Society Magazine, May 2006, carried an article about poppet valves which addresses the case in point. PRR was having a problem with their T1s suffering failures of their Franklin poppet valves. Franklin sent a technician to determine the cause of the failures. Here is a quote from the magazine:

"The technician returned to Baltimore and simply handed his supervisor his notebook and stopwatch, telling him to check the mile-post timings. The trains were taking longer than scheduled station stops and the PRR enginmen were running at speeds up to 140 mph between stops to make up the time. The poppet valves were simply not designed to be strong enough to stand up to that kind of service."

So don't say it can't be done.

....My comment was of not knowing of any production steam engine capable of sustained 150 mph.  I am aware of certain instances of "flash" speed that occured just like most railfans are...

Remember the prototype German steam engine put together before the "war" had reported flash speeds of between the 120's and 30's mph and maybe a bit higher.  That was the "V-8" cylinder arrangement with extreme streamlining over the engine itself.  For any interested, list that description in Google to learn more....

Norman Saxon wrote:

After a quick revue of the infamous steam page and the calculations of coal fired steam vs diesel electric, the following occured to me: A modernized version of the Pennsy T1 traveling at 150 mph and burning coal or some coal derivative for passenger service would have LOWER FUEL COSTS than Amtrak's current 79 mph LD offerrings. This takes into consideration coal fired steam's 13 to 1 cost advantage over diesel electric locomotives.  But it does bring to light a qualification to the notion that fuel costs will be lower as speed is reduced. Comments?

Did not the English Steam engine "Mallard) set the record for steam power at 126 MPH and that was for a very short distance?  I believe the record still stands.

Happy Railroading.

Lee

Modelcar wrote:

....My comment was of not knowing of any production steam engine capable of sustained 150 mph.  I am aware of certain instances of "flash" speed that occured just like most railfans are...

Well, "sustained" would imply that the stations are an awfully long ways apart at 150 mph -- and probably explains "flash" speeds ...

How many angels on a pinhead are we talking about?

Sorry guys, I love steam but short of a nuclear war in the middle east, steam aint gonna make any sort of comeback here any more so than getting your Great Great Grandfathers back from the dead, let it go...we all know what killed steam wasn't efficiency, it was maintanence and labor costs....you want reliable 150mph train service ...???

...then burn all the coal in an efficient emmisions controlable powerplant (how the hell you control emissions on a locomotive?), hang catenary, and buy some HST sets from either France, Germany or Japan, its far more energy efficient, why continue knocking heads trying to re-sell what essentially remains Edsel-era technology?

yankee flyer wrote:

Norman Saxon wrote: After a quick revue of the infamous steam page and the calculations of coal fired steam vs diesel electric, the following occured to me: A modernized version of the Pennsy T1 traveling at 150 mph and burning coal or some coal derivative for passenger service would have LOWER FUEL COSTS than Amtrak's current 79 mph LD offerrings. This takes into consideration coal fired steam's 13 to 1 cost advantage over diesel electric locomotives.  But it does bring to light a qualification to the notion that fuel costs will be lower as speed is reduced. Comments? Did not the English Steam engine "Mallard) set the record for steam power at 126 MPH and that was for a very short distance?  I believe the record still stands. Happy Railroading. Lee

Mallard holds the records simply because it was the only one "officially" timed for so. My understanding is that PRR managemnt threatened to fire any engineer that attempted to file any kind of speed record claim, but yes the T1s and the S1s were reportetly routinely smashing the Mallards record in daily service.

Hi

Yes I agree, my uncle was an engineer and he told me he could exceed 100 mph but was not comfortable doing it because the track was not smooth enough.

Lee

Crandell - how many 300 mph trains are there now? 

I believe that when folks think of high speed rail travel, anything over 100 mph qualifies.  150 mph is roughly double the highest Interstate Highway speeds, that should count for something quatifiable.  Getting there in half the time it takes to drive would have travelers banging on Amtrak's door.

The point I was making is in the fuel cost analysis.  Coal fired 150 mph steam - apparently well within the realm of actuality given the past "static" tests Michael alluded to - would (at current coal vs diesel prices) have lower overall fuel costs than diesel powered 79 mph Amtrak/Intermodal trains.

Twice as fast and half the fuel costs.  Think about it.  That reality runs counter to conventional wisdom that slower speeds = lower fuel costs.  All it takes is a shift in fuel type.

I guess the larger question is whether the current rail infrastructure could handle 150 mph trains.  Is it just a question of signalling?  Crossing safety?  Or is there an inherent higher track maintenance cost factor of high speeds vs lower relative speeds, one that is exponential in it's impact?

PS - the reason I am using the T1 as the poster child for high speed steam is a Gil Reid reproduction wherein the T1 is alleged to be running at 120 mph.  Whether a 4-4-4-4 with four cylinders is superior to a 4-8-4 with two cylinders I cannot say.  I am only assuming the four cylinder is superior to the two cylinder. 

Wasn't N&W's J rumored to have run up to 120 mph?

Norman, I am thinking of it from the point of view of psychology.  All the significant advances we take for granted came about from a competitive spirit or bent.  The French TGV-type run much faster than 150 mph, so selling something less to the generally proud and accomplished American populace is, I think, unlikely to appeal to many would-be users.   There has to be a vote-getting Wow! factor in such things.  AMTRAK must do most of 100 mph or more often enough that adding a notional 40-50 mph to the mix will have to promise a much speedier delivery than is currently the case...with tickets, waiting, all the security arrangements...yada yada.

-Crandell

....I'd say the N&W J's were as "modern" and capable as any of that era generally and capable of 100 mph plus running for a lengthy time if track conditions were available.  But 150 mph "normal" running back then here in America is just pie in the sky.

Gentlemen:

 There is still more here to be vetted. 

To remove all doubt, the most advanced steam in North America had automatic stokers which would direct feed coal from the tender to the firebox. This became standard with many railroads by the mid to late 1920s.

If steam makes a high-speed comeback it will be a turbine, gear or other form which eliminates rail pounding common with rod locomotives. 

The faster wheels spin and drive rods fly, the "heavier" they become because of centripital force. The force of the drive rods literally pounded stick rail with every movement. There was no way around it.

 When you think of maintanence, you have to remember the locomotive as well as what the locomotive does to the property.

And half the fuel costs are at today's prices and exactly what coal are you getting?

Some eastern roads used hard clean burning anthracite which is now relatively expensive and less common. Most roads used a common bituminous coal in the day.

Much more of the bituminous coal used in the US today is coming from places like Powder River, which often need to be coked before use or are just to darned explosive to handle in a small furnace or firebox.

PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant.

Right? 

~Ignatius 

The reason the T1 4-4-4-4 was built was to reduce the amount of mass on those wheels and cut down on the hammering of the rails.

It worked well enough to get into a 4-4-6-4 or other engines.

There is one little problem, getting to 150 is not a problem. STAYING at 150 is the problem.

Ive been at 150+ in cars (In another lifetime) and frankly at those speeds you need to plan your stopping several miles before your destination. The maintaince was a headache at those speeds.

Steam is dead.

Now you want to see a show? Try one of those French trains that recently showed a video at 300+ or was it 350? for that record try they did last year.

Last Chance wrote:

The reason the T1 4-4-4-4 was built was to reduce the amount of mass on those wheels and cut down on the hammering of the rails. It worked well enough to get into a 4-4-6-4 or other engines. There is one little problem, getting to 150 is not a problem. STAYING at 150 is the problem. Ive been at 150+ in cars (In another lifetime) and frankly at those speeds you need to plan your stopping several miles before your destination. The maintaince was a headache at those speeds.

OK, I'll nitpick a little now too. 

Even the T1 pounded on the rails to some extent. The difference between the rod locomotives and diesel-electrics is that the pounding is ELIMINATED and offers steady, even traction.

I will agree too, though, that staying at high speeds with steam would be a challenge if only for steaming capacity.

Could a re-vamped "modernized" steamer keep a full head for six hours running at 150mph? I'd sure like to see it. One of the P.E.s or M.E.s out there could give a better idea, but I believe the steam volume required for that kind of operation would be huge.

Another thought... Steam is not dead, just buried alive in history. The problem with energy ineffiency is the inefficiency of heat transfer and retention. You can't tell me every single practical possibility to solve that problem has been thought of and discared.

Well, I will accept the nitpicking.

Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen, however much the people will fight such a idea of a nuclear train on the railroad track.

6 hours at 150 will probably encompass NYC, Akron OH, and close to Toledo... What about all those people in between? Dont they deserve 150+ service?

Steam is something that I have always enjoyed but it is a reality that it may never come back in the form as we understood it.

I go back to HST a little. Why are we peeing in the wading pool at 150 when we can build and run 300+ in regional corridors.

Last Chance wrote:

Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen, however much the people will fight such a idea of a nuclear train on the railroad track. 6 hours at 150 will probably encompass NYC, Akron OH, and close to Toledo... What about all those people in between? Dont they deserve 150+ service? Steam is something that I have always enjoyed but it is a reality that it may never come back in the form as we understood it. I go back to HST a little. Why are we peeing in the wading pool at 150 when we can build and run 300+ in regional corridors.

Well said!!

Dreaming is fun. Let's get passenger trains to run on time, then make them run fast.

As a first link, I propose Erie, PA become the new hub of fast regional service with straight runs to Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Cleveland. 

~Ignatius 

ignatius wrote:

Much more of the bituminous coal used in the US today is coming from places like Powder River, which often need to be coked before use or are just to darned explosive to handle in a small furnace or firebox. PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant. Right?

No.

The Northern Pacific Railroad relied on Powder River Basin coal through the end of the Steam era.

Last Chance wrote:

Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen,

Why?  Why not coal?  After all, that's the whole point of going back to steam:  Coal is relatively cheap, and getting cheaper (relative to petroleum and for that matter nuke) all the time.  Coal fired steam is also very simple even with the modernization.

Remember - subs have to use nuke for ideal operations.  There's a reason subs are nuke while surface ships are mostly fossil-fueled. 

6 hours at 150 will probably encompass NYC, Akron OH, and close to Toledo... What about all those people in between? Dont they deserve 150+ service?

Not sure what you are driving at here.  And the 150 mph is theoretical sustained speed, not point to point average speed which would be lower.

I go back to HST a little. Why are we peeing in the wading pool at 150 when we can build and run 300+ in regional corridors.

My understanding is that 150 mph to 200 mph give or take is the theoretical upper limit for non-electrified speed e.g. steam or diesel e.g. self propelled locomotion.  Above that and you have to have catenary.  With catenary comes exponentially increasing costs.  Have you checked the price of copper wire lately?  Concrete?  Steel?  About the only infrastructural commodity that isn't skyrocketing in price is wood, so one could use wooden catenary support structure like the Milwaukee PCE, but do you want to use wood for high speed service?

The second point is that 150 mph takes you twice as fast as posted highway speeds (and for that matter Amtrak LD speeds).  If the point is to get folks out of autos, trucks, and buses then 150 will suffice for garnering that market.  If however the point is to compete with airlines, is 300 mph even enough?  300 gets you even with a slow turboprop, maybe.

Lastly, is it even in the realm of (fuel and infrastructural) efficiency to try and run surface transport at 300+ mph even with nuke powered catenary?  That's a lot of expensive capital being thrown at a relatively pedestrian 300 mph, when planes can fly twice that speed with minimized infrastructural needs.  In other words it gets to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you're trying to facilitate airplane-speed surface transport. 

It makes more economical sense for HSR proponents to focus on siphoning off highway traffic, not airline traffic.

Speak of the devil!

Here's a link to an article in the U.K. Guardian from July 16, 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/16/automotive.railtravel

"Full steam again"

Exerpts:

"In 1946 Paul Kiefer, chief mechanical engineer of the New York Central Railroad, set his latest steam locomotive, the potent, coal-burning 6,700hp Niagara class 4-8-4, against General Motors' brand new diesel-electrics. The Niagara could generate more power than three of the latest diesel-electrics coupled together. It could run the wheels off them while accelerating passenger trains as long as 30 modern British InterCity carriages with the alacrity of an electric.

The detailed report that followed revealed total annual running costs of $350,095 for Kiefer's finest and $359,478 for a twin-set of 4,000hp GM diesels capable of maintaining existing NYC schedules."

Apparently the author Jonathan Glancey stumbled across the "Steam vs Diesel" thread?!

MichaelSol wrote:

ignatius wrote: Much more of the bituminous coal used in the US today is coming from places like Powder River, which often need to be coked before use or are just to darned explosive to handle in a small furnace or firebox. PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant. Right?  No. The Northern Pacific Railroad relied on Powder River Basin coal through the end of the Steam era.

Albeit with somewhat larger grate areas than would be needed with higher grade coal - the NP Yellowstones had the largest grate area of any production US steam locomotive.

If I recall correctly, the Powder River Basin coal boom started with coal mined from the NP's old mine at Colstrip - and this was pre-BN. As of 1971, the Western Energy mine was still using the 9 cu yd dragline built in 1923 and the 27 cu yd shovel built in the early 1940's.

I first saw a PRB coal train in August 1969 - hauled by NP F units.