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

[Anonymous]

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

Jon

[selector]

Steam is dead....long live steam!!

Even if the price of gasoline were to surpass the costs of mining coal to such an extent that coal became much cheaper, and even if no other fuels could be derived/mined in economies of scale, designing and building steam locomotives that would meet with existing regulations would put the cost right up there with diesels. Then, even with automation, there is the infrastructure to go with it. Even if we could get them 100% more efficient, we'd still need the water and fueling facilities.

But, who knows, maybe a super-efficient steam turbine could be made that would do what we need..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

I would be looking at producer gas (gas made from plant waste, garbage, etc) it's far from a new technology and any gasoline engine can run on it (at reduced power)
and diesels can be made to run on it with modification.

underworld

aka The Violet

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

Then again... if they went back to running (live)stock trains they could plumb in the produced gas... Some sources reckon that the cattle that make ronald's burgers produce more greenhouse emmisions than all our cars and trucks put together.
This got me thinking...
Most dinosaurs were herbivors... and a bit bigger than the average steer...
So I asked a paleontologist friend who works at the Natural history Museum in London. He reckoned that most departments have worked it out (but would never admit it) and that, yes, the dinosaurs could have produced their own downfall. Which could explain why no one's ever found the crater from the meteor that is supposed to have caused all the trouble.
That is, of course, if Dinosaurs really existed... but I'd better not go there.
[;)]

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by warhammerdriver

Between the tree huggers and the EPA, I regret to say that steam as we knew it is gone for good.

You'd need the frame of a Big Boy or a Challenger to carry all the pollution controls and only get the power of a Mike out of it.

Apparently, you've never heard of L.D. Porta, David Wardale and the gas producer firebox.

Check out The Ultimate Steam Page. http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/

Andre

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by whitman500

1 gallon of water weighs 8 pounds (1 pint = 1 pound; 8 pints in a gallon).

But the weight of the steam has nothing to do with the pressure steam exerts on the walls of a pressure vessel, although Chuck's post seemed to infer that it did. That's why I asked. You can take a very small amount of water and get over a thousand pounds of pressure in a boiler pretty easily (if your boiler can handle that pressure)......

[Anonymous]

NO!

[beegle55]

I would like to see the Ethenol or Flex fuel or corn oil, whatever work good and catch on so we can all live normally again, and I doubt steam will come back entirely, but a steam based something, maybe!

[cacole]

Back in the late 1980s or early '90s, Ross Rowland conducted an experiment with a highly modified Chessie System steam engine that was documented in a Machines of Iron video entitled, "The ACE of Diamonds." ACE stood for American Coal Enterprise. The goal was to design a more efficient steam engine. Nothing ever came of this.

Railroads today would be very reluctant to switch back to steam power because of the need to rebuild coaling and water facilities and the number of employees required to maintain a steam fleet and crew.

At Cheyenne, Wyoming, for example, the swtichover from steam to diesel power eliminated nearly 2,000 railroad jobs. When you multiply that times the number of steam facilities there used to be throughout the United States, you're talking about close to a million more employees that would be required -- plus the additional people who would have to be hired to build steam engines. So economically, there's no way this will ever happen in our lifetime.

[DigitalGriffin]

It so turns out that they are now experimenting with cars that take the exhaust heat to turn water to steam. This HP steam is then sent to a piston. The additional power was modest (on the order of 12%) But still, it is recovered energy of waste heat.

So who knows, one day a diesel, electric, steam hybrid will rear it's head!

[cwclark]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

.it takes 1 gallon of water to make 8 pounds of steam ... chuck

I'm really curious where you came up with that, Chuck. Can you explain, please?

it's the way we calculate a boiler's water usage rate...i work in a power plant that produces steam as a by-product that we sell to different customers...it produces on average of 1,300,000 lbs. of steam an hour between 4 boilers so, 1,300,000 / 60 = 21,666 pounds of steam produced per minute ..21,666 pounds of steam per minute / 8.34 (8.34 is how much a gallon of water weighs) = 2,598 gallons of water and that is how much water we are putting in the boilers per minute...and if i look at all 4 of my feed water pump output flows, they are putting out at a rate of between 580 g.p.m and 750 g.p.m. respectively, add them up and it equals 2,600 gallons a minute of feedwater going to the boilers....so it takes 1gallon of water to produce 8.34 lbs. of steam ....and yes that is the way it is calculated and has everything to do with the pressure exerted against the walls of a vessel...it takes fire and water to produce the steam that produces the pressure...chuck

[vsmith]

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.

Dont hold your breathe waiting for Sin City to become beachfront property[8D].

BTW we'd love to be our own country, but we dont want to be resposible for turning the rest of the lower 48 economicly into a third-world country [:0] plus it would only be a matter of months before a Civil War broke out between Los Angeles and San Francisco[;)], and we'd only seriously consider doing it if soemone else, anyone, will take Ahh-noold in return...we'd be better off with Jay Leno as Governator[:D][}:)][:o)]

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

.it takes 1 gallon of water to make 8 pounds of steam ... chuck

I'm really curious where you came up with that, Chuck. Can you explain, please?

it's the way we calculate a boiler's water usage rate...i work in a power plant that produces steam as a by-product that we sell to different customers...it produces on average of 1,300,000 lbs. of steam an hour between 4 boilers so, 1,300,000 / 60 = 21,666 pounds of steam produced per minute ..21,666 pounds of steam per minute / 8.34 (8.34 is how much a gallon of water weighs) = 2,598 gallons of water and that is how much water we are putting in the boilers per minute...and if i look at all 4 of my feed water pump output flows, they are putting out at a rate of between 580 g.p.m and 750 g.p.m. respectively, add them up and it equals 2,600 gallons a minute of feedwater going to the boilers....so it takes 1gallon of water to produce 8.34 lbs. of steam ....and yes that is the way it is calculated and has everything to do with the pressure exerted against the walls of a vessel...it takes fire and water to produce the steam that produces the pressure...chuck

Thanks, Chuck.

If you know that a gallon of water weight 8.34 pounds, then getting 8.34 gallons of steam from it is kind of a no-brainer.

I thought you were implying that one gallon of water provides 8 psi of steam pressure. But of course pressure is related to boiler size (in terms of volume), as well as amount of water or steam, so while a pound of steam in a power plant boiler is really a very small amount, in a small locomotive it takes on much greater significance. Your eight pounds of steam may equate to very low to very high boiler pressure, depending on the size of the boiler. Sorry for my mis-interpretation.[*^_^*]

But now you're raised another question - how do you sell steam as a by-product? Do you pack it in UPS boxes and ship it overnight? [:D]
I suppose it must be delivered to facilities adjacent to your power plant, since packaging and shipping live steam might be somewhat impractical?

[Anonymous]

Soon we'll be the "hydrogen nation".
Water Anyone?

[cwclark]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

.it takes 1 gallon of water to make 8 pounds of steam ... chuck

I'm really curious where you came up with that, Chuck. Can you explain, please?

it's the way we calculate a boiler's water usage rate...i work in a power plant that produces steam as a by-product that we sell to different customers...it produces on average of 1,300,000 lbs. of steam an hour between 4 boilers so, 1,300,000 / 60 = 21,666 pounds of steam produced per minute ..21,666 pounds of steam per minute / 8.34 (8.34 is how much a gallon of water weighs) = 2,598 gallons of water and that is how much water we are putting in the boilers per minute...and if i look at all 4 of my feed water pump output flows, they are putting out at a rate of between 580 g.p.m and 750 g.p.m. respectively, add them up and it equals 2,600 gallons a minute of feedwater going to the boilers....so it takes 1gallon of water to produce 8.34 lbs. of steam ....and yes that is the way it is calculated and has everything to do with the pressure exerted against the walls of a vessel...it takes fire and water to produce the steam that produces the pressure...chuck

Thanks, Chuck.

If you know that a gallon of water weight 8.34 pounds, then getting 8.34 gallons of steam from it is kind of a no-brainer.

I thought you were implying that one gallon of water provides 8 psi of steam pressure. But of course pressure is related to boiler size (in terms of volume), as well as amount of water or steam, so while a pound of steam in a power plant boiler is really a very small amount, in a small locomotive it takes on much greater significance. Your eight pounds of steam may equate to very low to very high boiler pressure, depending on the size of the boiler. Sorry for my mis-interpretation.[*^_^*]

But now you're raised another question - how do you sell steam as a by-product? Do you pack it in UPS boxes and ship it overnight? [:D]
I suppose it must be delivered to facilities adjacent to your power plant, since packaging and shipping live steam might be somewhat impractical?

LOL...no..no UPS delivery..it's a frame 7 GE gas turbine / generator that produces electrical power and in turn, the heat from the turbine that drives the generator goes thru a duct and boils the water...it leaves the plant via a pipeline to the customers around our plant...we send it out in 850 p.s.i. superheated steam and our plant and others use it to drive steam turbine compressors to pump specialty gases down a pipeline from corpus christi, Tx. to lake charles La. which in turn reduces the steam pressure to 175 P.S.I. in which we sell that also... it's a spagetti bowl of piping in this area for about 4 square miles of different plants in the area...we're sort of an industrial utility supplier that sells steam, treated and demineralized water, electricity, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and soon hydrogen...the gas of the future...chuck

[wjstix]

Back to the original question - I think it's much more likely we'd see coal used (along with other sources) to produce electricity to be used to power trains with.

[howmus]

As much as I love Steam Locos (they are are dirty, smelly, and represent old time raw power - absolutely gorgeous!), they are terribly ineffecient, highly polluting beasts. Traditional steam engines at best were only about 15% efficient as compared to say a new gas furnace in your home that is over 90% efficient. Yep, I'm one of those awful environmentalists who likes to breath clean air and thinks that all creatures have a right to habitat and stuff like that! Steam as we know it will never come back as a working system on the railroads. While coal is plentiful (the US has over 25% of all the coal reserves in the world) it is also a fuel with some major drawbacks including the problems of stripmining, sulfur emissions, and the high levels of carbon dioxide produced when burnt to name a few. Companies are working on reducing these problems to an acceptable level, and new technologies are already in place to make coal a much cleaner fuel. I'm sure coal will become a more prevalent source of energy in the years to come. As far as the Railroads are concerned, it would be much more efficient and environmentally friendly to use Electricity from various types of generating facilities to move trains than bring back the steam loco.

So, as much as I love the smell, sounds, and looks of the Steam Locomotive, I hope (and pray) that it does not make a comeback on the railroad!

[gmcrail]

. Steam power on the rails? Unfortunately, no way. The infrastructure no longer exists to support it, and it is way too inefficient to be cost-effective. Railroads are a business, and driven by the bottom line like all businesses. Then there are the environmental concerns: while I love the smell of good high-sulphur coal smoke (it really clears out your sinuses! [:)]), I'm in the minority. And oil-fired locomotives are not only just as dirty, the smoke is greasy to boot. Sadly, the only steam locomotives we'll see will be the preserved old ones used in excursion service or sitting in museums. And one day they'll all be gone, too.

[tomikawaTT]

vsmith - your fellow citizens voted for him. Now you're stuck with him. My sympathy.

The reason I moved to Sin City is that it isn't beachfront property. I'd rather have the folks in (fill in your favorite coastal California city) enjoy the tsunami when Mauna Loa collapses into the Pacific.

Back to the original subject. There is one way coal burning steam could take over a significant percentage of the rail traffic in the United States. All we need to do is string catenary over all of the busiest traffic arteries and power it with electricity generated in coal-burning power plants. Every other country with significant rail traffic either has done this already or is pushing on with it as quickly as possible.

So what was done in the US? We took down what catenary we had. Go figure.

Chuck.

[steveblackledge]

They are building this, the first mainline STEAM locomotive in 40 years,,, it's a start
http://www.a1steam.com/prarchive.html

[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[;)]

[SOU Fan]

Strasheim1023
How do you get those trains in your signature???

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wjstix

Back to the original question - I think it's much more likely we'd see coal used (along with other sources) to produce electricity to be used to power trains with.

Bingo!! There is no way that mobile boilers are going to meet environmental standards. Add to that watering stops, and it would be an impossible step backwards for the railroads.

Coal is best used to produce electricity. Hydrogen fits into the grand scheme as a storage medium for energy. It removes the need for a large electrical infrastructure to power transportation, including trains.

[jfallon]

No, there are too many disadvantages environmentally and economically for the railroads to go back to steam locomotives. I think it would be best for them to switch to bio-fuels such as ethanol or bio-diesel. Since they would be produced from domestic crops that would need to be transported to a fuel producing facility, the railroads would be generating more business for themselves.

[waltersrails]

it would be nice but i think they will make something new. But like the gas companys they would buy the new product and then never make it. so you have to buy more gas.

[TrainFreak409]

Well, I was one of those who voted YES.

I've been doing research on the subject of new steam for an Engli***erm paper, and I do believe it would be plausable to design and produce a steamer that's comparable to modern day diesels. Now, these would be designed not to entirely replace the disel workforce, but to at least aid it.

[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]

[Anonymous]

Yeah right!!! They would never bring back polluting steam engines. Although it is a neat idea they would never do it.

[underworld]

QUOTE: Yeah right!!! They would never bring back polluting steam engines. Although it is a neat idea they would never do it.

Actually they might.....depending upon who is invested heavily enough in coal! [:p]

underworld

aka The Violet

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

[tatans]

Like natural gas, which was much cheaper to produce , the oil boys thought that if they equate the heat value from a bbl of oil to natural gas they will be able to charge the same for natural gas as oil -wait until some genius comes up with equating the heat value of a ton of coal to a barrel of oil, eveything will be equal to the price of a barrel of oil. Maybe if North Americans spent more research on exploration and clean burning coal plants rather than millions designing a Buick door handle we might come out ahead, As for European gas prices, has anyone ever questioned why you pay so much??maybe you should, North sea oil (and there is alot of it) plus you are available to mid east oil, if anyone should have cheap oil it should be Europe. Just where are the profits going from $7.00/liter oil ? ?

[Anonymous]

If any of you modelers are friends with a tool and die maker (or have an extra $20,000 to spend) you can join the wonderful branch of the hobby called live steam. There are clubs whose layouts are measured in acres instead of square feet. Operations involve riding on your train. And you don't need coal. Charcoal works well enough.