Soaring Gas Prices and an abundance of Coal. Do you think steam will ever make a come back?!

[twhite]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edo1039

I voted no,because if you cant smoke in public in California the liberals wont want coal smoke in the air either,and they are the biggest consumers of gasoline in the world,one day the big one will hit there and they can become there own country.

Enough about California, already. the only problem with California is the idiots that moved here from every other state in the Union and screwed over we natives. Oh, uh--by the way, how are the Las Vegas Symphony and the Las Vegas Opera and Ballet companies doing?
SHEESH!!

Tom [soapbox]

[Anonymous]

If steam ever does come back to the rails, it means the world is compleatly out of oil.

[espeefoamer]

Grab your shotgun and huntin' dawgs,and take potshots at flying pigs.Grab your skis and head for the tallest mountain in hell,because it would be frozen over.

[AltonFan]

The benefits of electric transmission and control are too great to be abandoned. What I think will happen is that prime movers will be developed that use petroleum-based fuels more efficient, prime movers will be developed that use non-petroleum-based fuels, and if the costs can be justified, more consideration will be given to installing catenary and running pure electric locomotives.

It needs to be remembered that the railroads abandoned steam not only because of fuel cause, but also for other reasons. Steam requires a lot of labor, and highly skilled and expensive labor, for maintainance. Also, the mechanical problems and limitations of modern railroad service tell against it.

[jondrd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Foster

[
Maybe someone could come up with a way to pick up water while running at speed. [;)]

Jon

Someone did... they were called water troughs... a mile or more of troughs dead flat between the rails and a scoop on the tender. The train had to be running fast enough to collect the water but not so fast the scoop couldn't be lifted clear. The former meant that only fast passenger services and things like mails and express reefers used them... everything else stopped. The latter meant that the end could be smashed out of the trough / the scoop damaged. this could require a loco change and would require everything following to stop for water. troughs would also ice up.
I heard a talk by a Great Western Driver who had fired during WW2. Hauling a troop train of GIs up from Plymouth without a blanking plate on the leading passenger car's corridor diaphragm he misjudged the fill of the tank... It over-topped at speed and flooded the first two cars...FAST. When they arrived at their destination he and the driver did an extremely fast disappearing act.

[Anonymous]

Probably not as what they were...I think the best way to make it work would be to make a steam over electric, kind of like the diesel over electrics now. Water isn't particularly an issue--it can be condensed and re-used in the same system. Coal might or might not be the fuel of choice, however with good air injection most any fossil fuel can burn clean. Using the take-offs of natural gas would also be good possibility, they have to be used too, so that opens up propane, butane, ethane, and probably a couple anes I'm forgetting. Possibly grain power? Corn has a lot more btu's per unit than most fossil fuels or wood, wheat and milo also are good in that department. With the steam pressure and condenser, there'd be no need for a heater or a/c. It's not commonly known among city people, but among a lot of farmers corn is becoming a major alternative fuel.

Greg

[warhammerdriver]

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

Just as bio waste can be used to make producer gas......you can use coal to make a gas that can be used to fuel an internal combustion engine. Heating coal in a sealed vessel will produce gas that can be bottled and used for fuel......the remainder being coke....to fuel the electric plants. This is already done to produce coke, but I don't know what they do with the gas.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I think they just flare it off.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by janbouli

No is what I voted.
BTW you think gas is expensive, wait till you come to Europe and see what we're paying, now if some of the inhabitants of the US would drive cars like we do ( small, fuel eficient ) maybe the demand for oil would go down ( what am I saying maybe for ) and prices would go down. This not meant as a troll remark. In Holland we pay 1,40 euro a liter, aprox $ 7,- a gallon[:(]. Luckily my Honda drives about 40 miles on a gallon[;)]

Somehow I think you'd have a hard time pulling 10,000 pounds of tractor or hauling a 1,500 hay bale around with that...Of course I'm the guy that gets 4 mpg (propane) and nearly 6 on gas. Actually my run-around pickup gets 14-15 on the interstate, but I still carry a lot more and regularly haul enough to weigh half (or more) of that Honda. And I'd rather be in a tank than a go-cart running up and down dirt roads or on icy roads.

Greg

[underworld]

QUOTE: Originally posted by warhammerdriver

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

Just as bio waste can be used to make producer gas......you can use coal to make a gas that can be used to fuel an internal combustion engine. Heating coal in a sealed vessel will produce gas that can be bottled and used for fuel......the remainder being coke....to fuel the electric plants. This is already done to produce coke, but I don't know what they do with the gas.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I think they just flare it off.

I kinda figured that....maybe one day they'll realize that their garbage is $$$.

underworld

aka The Violet

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[janbouli]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainwreck100

QUOTE: Originally posted by janbouli

No is what I voted.
BTW you think gas is expensive, wait till you come to Europe and see what we're paying, now if some of the inhabitants of the US would drive cars like we do ( small, fuel eficient ) maybe the demand for oil would go down ( what am I saying maybe for ) and prices would go down. This not meant as a troll remark. In Holland we pay 1,40 euro a liter, aprox $ 7,- a gallon[:(]. Luckily my Honda drives about 40 miles on a gallon[;)]

Somehow I think you'd have a hard time pulling 10,000 pounds of tractor or hauling a 1,500 hay bale around with that...Of course I'm the guy that gets 4 mpg (propane) and nearly 6 on gas. Actually my run-around pickup gets 14-15 on the interstate, but I still carry a lot more and regularly haul enough to weigh half (or more) of that Honda. And I'd rather be in a tank than a go-cart running up and down dirt roads or on icy roads.

Greg

I agree with you Greg, but its not tractors or pick-ups that are actually used for hauling anything that I meant. Its more the millions of SUV's , Pick-ups, and 8 cilinder big blocks that are only used to pick up girls [:)] or the Hummies that are supposed to be so safe ( not for the person that runs in to one of them ) , you know all those cars that could easily be replaced by more fuel economic ones that I was talking about.

Grtz Jan

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by janbouli

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainwreck100

Somehow I think you'd have a hard time pulling 10,000 pounds of tractor or hauling a 1,500 hay bale around with that...Of course I'm the guy that gets 4 mpg (propane) and nearly 6 on gas. Actually my run-around pickup gets 14-15 on the interstate, but I still carry a lot more and regularly haul enough to weigh half (or more) of that Honda. And I'd rather be in a tank than a go-cart running up and down dirt roads or on icy roads.

Greg

I agree with you Greg, but its not tractors or pick-ups that are actually used for hauling anything that I meant. Its more the millions of SUV's , Pick-ups, and 8 cilinder big blocks that are only used to pick up girls [:)] or the Hummies that are supposed to be so safe ( not for the person that runs in to one of them ) , you know all those cars that could easily be replaced by more fuel economic ones that I was talking about.

Grtz Jan

I know exactly the ones you're talking about, and there's a whole slew of diesel Volkswagen bugs and Touaregs just waiting to show someone what mileage is. Hondas too, but they're not diesel.

Greg

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, I don't think steam will ever come back [:(]. I am only 25 and except for Disneyland and a few summertime excursion trains, I have never seen steam engines in person (what a tragedy). Of course I doubt the 'steam engine' at Disney land was real, probably a diesel made up to look like a steam engine with theatrical smoke (they like to do that sort of thing, what you see is not always what you get). Anyway, while I agree that steam will never make a comeback I disagree with several of the posts on here. Everyone is assuming that a steam engine by todays standards would be just like the engines of the 30's and 40's. I personally think that engineers would come up with a more efficient means of creating more steam with less coal. For example, I think the boilers would be sealed up more and would also be more airtight, allowing more of the preassure that is generated to be used to propell the engine. I also think they would be more evironmentally friendly as the 'soot scrubers' can be mounted in the stack. While I may be wrong in my thinking, I just felt like pointing out that we shouldn't base our opinions on what steam of the past was like. Gas and diesel engines of today are better, why not steam?

[Bill H.]

Mainline Steam? No, I really don't think so. I remember it from my youth, and it's too bad it will never come again.

http://www.retroweb.com/611lastrun.html THIS site is worth a look.

One VERY large problem associated with a steam locomotive is the brutal pounding of the rail by the reciprocating drive mechanism. Heavier locomotives = harder pounding. Also:

http://exotic.railfan.net/dieselfaq.htm

QUOTE: 11. Exactly why did the diesel-electric locomotive replace the steam locomotive?
A. Thermal efficiency of a diesel is about 30%, compared to 6-7% for a steam locomotive. The diesel is therefore much more fuel efficient.
B. Diesels develop maximum horsepower and efficiency over a wide range of speeds. Steamers have a very narrow speed range in which they reach full efficiency.
C. Diesels can be operated in multiple units(MU) under only one set of controls. This means that 1 unit can control many other units. This allows once crew per train and greatly reduces labor costs.
D. Dynamic Braking allows good speed control on downgrades and reduces brake repairs. Longer trains are also allowed with better speed control.
E. Maintenance costs are very low in comparison to steamer. Diesel locomotives have an availability of 90% or better, compared to 30-40% for the average steamer. Standardized and modular design played a major role in the diesel's advantage over steam. A diesel could replace about 10 steam locomotives.
F. Fewer fuel and water stops.A diesel requires little water. Diesels allowed the retirement of $50,000,000 worth of equipment to supply water to very thirsty steamers.
G. A low center of gravity enables higher train speeds on curves.
H. Unlike steam locomotives, diesels do not stress the track with the pounding force of reciprocating components. Track maintenance is reduced as a result.
I. Since diesel locomotives were standardized, they made good collateral on bank loans. This meant that railroads could borrow money easier and upgrade to diesels even if the financial condition of the road was not good.
J. The average steamer after World War II was 20 years old and out of date. Although modern steam was able to get within striking distance of the diesel in terms of availability and efficiency, (but they were still more expensive to operate than diesels) it was logical to replace aging steamers with diesels.
K. The rising cost of coal and inability to find spare parts also hastened the demise of the steam locomotive.