Forums

[TrainFreak409]

Your best bet would probably be a coal turbine.

But I wouldn't mind seeing a concept similar to the ACE3000.

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

[Mark300]

Interesting thread.....however I'm not seeing another important consideration the RR's hold very dear; the condition of their track (& those maintenance costs).

JIm Boyd's book 'The Steam Locomotive' has an interesting side bar on pg 103 concerning Ross Rowland's (the producer of the Freedom Train) and American Coal Enterprises experiments to determine whether there was a viable 'alternative fuel' locomotive in the wake of the 1970's oil crisis. These tests were run in the early 1980s.

They used the N&W's steam turbine as will as the C&O's 4-8-4 #614 running tests between Huntingdon & Hinton W.Va. Needless to say....the 614 never missed any of it's assignments.

However....The data proved that a 1948 vintage steam locomotive really does POUND the daylights out the track and cannot match the performance of a modern diesel-electric (The author points out 'It is much more spectacular to watch, however.').

If we do anything with alternative fuels, it will be to power the electrical generators on board existing traction designs.

My[2c] in keeping to the facts.

Happy Railroading...

Mark

[AltonFan]

Another thing about the labor required to keep a steam engine maintained: we are talking about boiler makers, machinists, blacksmiths, i.e., skilled, high priced, talent. And not just any welder is qualified to work on the type of pressure cylinder required for a locomotive boiler. (And that was using technology from 50 years ago. Use of high tech materials and systems are going to add to the costs as well.)

It is no coincidence that steam lasted longest in countries with lots of inexpensive labor.

Water is another issue. A lot of railroads were happy not only to eliminate water stops, but also water treatment plants, and having to ship good water to bad water districts. I'm sure railroads are also grateful not to have to be involved in the legal disputes over access to water sources that exist in some regions.

I tend to believe electric transmission will continue to be the norm. Any change will likely be what fuel the prime mover will use.

I remember an article in an issue of the R&LHS Bulletin, discussing the failure of the ACE-3000 project. When oil prices dropped in the 1980s, apparently the managments of EMD and GE approached the railroads supporting the ACE-3000 project, and pointed out that they (EMD & GE) were already doing research and development on alternative power, and that they would have suitable offerings when the railroads needed something different, and that it made no sense for the railroads to invest in the R&D for new motive power technology.

From a purely railfan standpoint, I'm not sure a steam turbine would really seem all that different from the high-horsepower diesel-electrics currently in use. I doubt such an engine would have anything like the appeal of the old steam locomotives.

[Anonymous]

Greetings from UK. Glad you have heard of David Wardale's new design for an oil-fired steam ten-wheeler that looks like a real possibility - for main-line tourist trains, which still have a kind of marginal existence in the UK. As for environmental concerns, the new oil-fired Swiss steam locomotives and lake steamboats have lower emissions and are quieter than the diesels they have replaced. All that says nothing, of course, about burning coal or hauling 10,000 tons of freight. There is a place for new steam but I believe it is only in the tourist sector and at the small-scale end of that sector. Even Wardale's 4-6-0 is not quite the most practical project, which would be a small modern 2-6-0 or 2-6-2T built to UK loading gauge. Such a locomotive could go anywhere in the world on standard gauge. The tourist lines in UK and USA could get together and order a batch of such engines at a very attractive unit cost. As the Swiss have shown, this pays off in tourist numbers. People want to ride behind steam! Better forget it for those big freight trains, however. As for electrification - that has come to a halt in the UK, where conditions suit it far better than the US situation. Your distances and your weather extremes are not electric-friendly. Enjoy your wonderful diesels (as I did in PA in June) and look into those forgotten processes whereby Nazi Germany produced liquid fuel from coal.

[Anonymous]

One way to cut costs of energy is to push more freight from trucks to railroad.
Two things are accomplished. Highway congestion and polution from trucks is reduced. i know this dosn't answer the steam question, but heh.

[dinwitty]

There were oil fired Steam you know...

Essentially we're trying to find a way to turn the wheels on a locomotive in some fitting fashion.

So far the electric motor using oil engine electric generator fashion is the stage at the moment.

Sideroded lokies had counterbalances to negate the weight of the siderods.
I recall however a recent fantrip I watched NKP 517 and another engine and the ground shook like an earthquake.

There may need to be some kind of shift away from oil as a major energy producer
to service needs. We may need to go back into that experimentation phase to find out, and steam is one of those proven ideas. You have to iron out the problems and make it work.

[Anonymous]

The future is not in the past, and never will be. Steam will remain for tourist lines, not main lines. Coal is too dirty, inneficient, and combined with extra maintanence, etc, not cost effective. The future lies in ever more efficient diesel engines, like the new GE locomotives, that use the braking power of the engine to recharge the batteries to power the motors that drive the trains. Creating diesels that run on less gas, harness what up untill recently was wasted energy, and looking for certain fuel alternatives like biodiesel is where the industry is headed.

[AltonFan]

I think the one development in railroading that is here for a long time to come is the traction motor geared to a truck axel. There are just too many problems with the reciprocating piston transmission, too many ways that electric transmission makes maintenance, control, and life in general easier.

[Anonymous]

America is the Saudi Arabia of Coal. The biggest complaint about using COAL for steam generation is the smoke and pollution. South Africa is using a steam locomotive that actually runs CLEAN, over long distances and is very efficient.

Another big problem is the number of man hours needed to maintain a steam loco. Norfolk and Western was extremely close to even solving that problem when they built the last new American Steam design in the early 50s. Part were built to be self lubricating. The loco didn't have to go down every Sunday for maintanence. Combining the low maintanence of N&W's design with the South African clean burning engine, and we'd have it. I would love to see what today's design technology can come up with for steam. Now let's get the passengers back on the rails to save airline fuel, and we'd be in great shape.

[switch7frg]

The theory of coal over oil is a good thought . But the oil patch gang &EPA nuts would really kill the whole grand scheme. Switch8frg.

[dinwitty]

despite anything, oil and coal is going to be somewhat finite resource of energy, no matter how much is in reserve, it may not go on forever.
So the alternative fuels are a must.

what makes me wonder is the Tesla theory, he was going to make a huge electric generator, it was in fact under construction, and it was meant to deliver free electricity....by electromagnetic radiation...

guess why it was torn down...

you couldnt meter the power use....

the final issue was about money...greed...power....

[Anonymous]

Steam has a very good chance of making a come-back and in at least one country is already doing so - but it is likely to succeed only in one specific sector and is unlikely to be coal-fired. Have forgotten the name of the Swiss mountain railway which has replaced diesel with modern oil-fired steam but their new locomotives attract more tourists and emit fewer pollutants despite slightly lower thermal efficiency than that of diesels. (Have a look at GreenLoco.com) People definitely want to ride behind steam on tourist lines and do not particularly care how old the loco is. I was in Pennsylvania in June and was impressed by the enthusiasm of the families riding the Strasburg Railroad and by the numbers who turned up at East Broad Top on June 4 hoping (vainly, as it turned out) for a ride behind a Mikado. A new batch of modestly-sized steam locomotives (2-6-0? 2-6-2T?) ordered jointly by a consortium of tourist lines could be cheap, clean and profitable. In the UK we certainly need some new ones if we intend to carry on with our many steam operations on short lines for any length of time. As for coal- fired 2-10-4s hauling heavy freight - sounds unlikely. Maybe one day there really will be no oil left and we shall turn back to steam burning bio-mass fuels? The great L.D. Porta thought so. Electrification works fairly well with dense traffic over short distances in mild climates but even in the UK electrification has come to a halt as electrification by diesel-electric requires far less capital up front and is more weather-proof. We get power lines down every week and we are not facing your winters, your storms or your distances. Didn't the Germans make liquid fuel from coal in WW2? Maybe there is hope in that direction. Hine.J - Birmingham UK

[Tulyar15]

I dont think steam will make a come back, because as long ago as 1909 the New York and New Haven RR found it was more efficient to burn coal in power stations to generate electricity.

Having said that, conditions in North America do not favour electrification. So I think diesels are here to stay. As for the issue of importing oil from the middle east, I think the US should do more to develop bio-diesel. Diesel fuel can be made from vegetable. In Britain not only do a growing number of people make it from used cooking oil, but now commercial scale plants to do this have opened in Scotland and on Teesside. I read recently in "The Economist" that if the US were to make a serious effort to develop these fuels it could become self sufficient in energy. Some of the smarter members of the Republican party are waking up to the political and economic advantages this would bring so hopefully it will happen in time.

As I said on the gas turbine thred, back in the 1940's it was found that diesel locos were more fuel efficient than steam. That was when fuel (and labour) was cheap. Now that they're both more expensive I cant see a future for steam.

[alstom]

Steam is gone for good. With all the new electrical equiptment etc., they will keep advancing and not returning back to the obselete. If you are talking about a country from Asia or Europe, they are also advancing. The only use steamers might still have is to run train excursions and thats it. I doubt that we will ever see them back out there on the main line. Steamers were also more work than diesels will ever be. In fact , diesels are becoming even more simplified which enables diesels to enhance and not return to the obselete steamers. I'm not saying steamers are bad, but they would never survive in today's railroading.

[AltonFan]

How big does a boiler have to be to be able to generate power for say, eighteen traction motors on a modern, high-horsepower locomotive?

I was thinking about what if we had a unit that was basically a boiler and electric power plant, capable of powering itself, and two units consisting of basically some batteries and ballast riding around on a pair of three axle locomotive trucks.

Anybody have any ideas on how this might or might not be feasible?