Forums

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

Hour-for-hour, steamers ran much longer as a unit than diesels have done for the most part. It wasn't unusual to see 30-year old steam on the rails in 1945, but few similarly aged prime movers reach that age nowadays. Switchers, maybe, but not the big guns.

I'd have to disagree. GP/SD-40 are 40 years old now and there are still plenty on the Class 1's. Even the -2's came out back in 1972. If your point was that the 645 prime mover don't last 30 years then you remember that 30 year steam engine had been overhauled heavily more than once by then.

RH

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Herbert Schwarz

Comparing a ES44DC, SD70ACE etc.etc. with any steamer?
Just think abbout the time lap between the last steamer beeing built and the time id did
need to get advanced diesels like the newest types!.
Could there be a way to build "modern" steamers?.
Probably nobody got enough money to try this.
But this means, nobody can tell whether a modern diesel and a modern
steamer is better, since "time stood still" for steamers.
Means there is is no "modern" steamer around to compare with the newest diesels.
"Lord Atmo" wrote, that he was quite glad to climb inside the cab of a
BIG BOY in Green Bay. Well, I stood also in this cab and wondered
what would safety oriented bureaus (=Goverment) say about the working
conditiones of yesterday in todays world??.
It's a bit like comparing an old car with a new car. Old cars are nice to see
or even to own. However for everyday use you would choose the new car.
Or not???.
Herby from DA

It's not true that "time stood still for steamers". There have been a number of studies over the decades since steam fell out use. Even after using every trick in the book to modernize steam, you may get overall efficiency up to 13%-14% at max, and this is making an aleady complex system absurdly complex. Contrary to many railfan's romantic notions, steam locomotives were not simple devices, and any attempt to make them economically viable now would add an incredible amout of complexity in addition to being a huge waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Well, steam is far more labour intensive, and requires far more skill and team work to achieve results. Steam also creates far more noise, vibration, and doesn't usually have all of its weight on its wheels. Diesels are the more economical, faster, smoother, and more simpler. Refering to an issue of classic trains magazine, diesel locomotives were the boost railway needed, to overcome the downfall in revenue etc, created by cars and airplanes. By the way, what is the difference between a diesel locomotive, and a steam locomotive? One is internal combustion, and one is external combustion. In my opinion, where i come from, operating steam locomotives is in a small concentrated area, and the sight, sound smell, and everything else, is think, makes steam far more interesting. I am involved with model engineering, and a diesel outline locomotive, is nothing compared to driving a steam locomotive. It is also interesting to note, that people who have worked on steam locomotives, all say that each locomotive acts differently, even though they can be the exact same. How strange?

[Anonymous]

The other thing you need to realiase with steam is if you cra***hen with steam, well fire is hot. Keep that in mind.
Nuclear powered steam might work, but it would be dangerous
Diesel is a clear winner except for heritage uses
Alexnader

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP

QUOTE: Originally posted by David_Telesha

I'm gonna say niether.

A New Haven electric had more HP, and tractive effort than steamers or diesels. Electrics are PURE POWER.

I agree with you.

The Milwaukee was smart to go to electrification. The box cabs (locomotives to the left in my sig) put out more horse power than four AC4400CW!
They could put out more than 20,000 horse power. But usually never made that high since it wasn't needed. Those locomotives put out about 15000 HP when hauling a train over the mountains. Tractive effort was also help full with the electrics. They had more tractive effort than AC4400CWs But the electrics were more efficient than diesel and steam combined.
[^] All of it is explained in my sig![:p]

James

So if electrification was so smart then why isnt the Milwaukee still around

[coborn35]

OoOoOoO BURN! haha jk James. But please explain?[;)]