Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Could steam make a comeback?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>Hi Michael,</p><p>as I reread the later part of this thread and postings several times again, the discussion turned to became out what transition-system is better: </p><p>A mechanical / reciprocating against an electric one.</p><p>The later one does not care if the power-plant / prime-mover of a locomotive is</p><p>- a diesel,</p><p>- gas</p><p>- coal</p><p>- hydrogen</p><p>or...whatever fueled engine, independent they are internal combustions, approach as a turbine or jet engine. </p><p>The last steam-engines were built with 10-15% machine losses (from the Cylinders), new diesels have less than 10%. This should be done with actual engineering, too, but better? No.</p><p>'Cause other transition-systems, e.g. hydraulic, never really widely approached, I hardly believe there is a better transition than the electric.</p><p>Now, you could have the benefit of a:</p><p>- computer-controlled,</p><p>- high availability,</p><p>- rugged and stable system,</p><p>and even could use the braking energy. Electric-engines turn their energy into the power-net back again (commonly used in Europe and other), why not keep the energy into batteries (which also have become better now), placed into a "Tank-car" as Mr. Modelcar suggested?</p><p>Steam-engines keep a high potential energy in their boilers, but it takes some time to produce it. With a combustion-engine just start it and off you go...</p><p>Turbines work in a small frame of load efficiently. Not saying there would not be an application for this, but a limited one.</p><p>Nowadays, even cars (hybrid) are partly driven with electric-motors, to make them more efficient.</p><p>Regarding the last posts about TE curves Steam vs. Diesel that:</p><p><strong>... Indeed, for locomotives of the same maximum horsepower, the Steam engine has nearly 40% more Tractive Effort continuously available between 0 and 40 mph than the Diesel-electric (the area under the respective Tractive Effort curves) ...</strong></p><p>If both engines have same HP they will deliver same HP.</p><p>I think there is a lot of confusion about particular engine-Types from both sides, the diesel (First Gen., Second Gen., DC/AC) ones vs. the 4-8-4s, 2-6-6-4 and so far. It is pointless to compare them. Yes, steam-engines were magnified machines, sometimes more powerful than that what we have now, but please have a look at my post earlier: The 5600DBHP Y6B N&W engine will just half win against a 4000DBHP GE-4400AC engine, given a speed range of 0-60mph.</p><p>I did not calculate the area beyond their TE-Curves exactly, nevertheless, we compare technology 50 years apart.</p><p>Yes, one point is true, with the arrivals of the first and second generation diesels, the railroads were not happy with the speed capabilities of their diesel-engines, because the had to buy many, expensive units to beat steam-locomotives delivering 5000-6000 or more HP. Quite possible that the steamers also had some extra-reserves.</p><p>Having a lot of respect, that people achieved many years ago, erecting power plants more than 500tons and running about 70mph, anything else than awesome would be totally inappropriate to describe them, but some must wonder, is there really a need to built more than 4000-6000DBHP freight engines? Even the U.P. ( = U.nlimited P.ower) came to the economic conclusion that smaller, but less powerful units than their 5000-6600HP Double-diesel engines are enough. And no, it was not the reason that if one prime-mover fails, the whole locomotive was out of service, it were just rising maintenance costs (frame cracking).</p><p>As far as I know, most RR nowadays are quite happy with their 4000HP engines. The benefit nowadays is: The better transition of energy.</p><p>What makes me really think is, how we can use steam as a efficient transition-system? As a turbine? Limited use. Reciprocating/Classic design? The transition-system goes lost while using it.</p><p>Condensing concepts are also of limited use.</p><p>While we can debate about various kinds of fuel, burning processes, in my opinion, the electric-transition is the best and there is still place to refine it in future. Lets use Cables near superconductor capabilities and maybe we have transmission systems near 99%. Hard to beat with mechanic.</p><p>Excitingly waiting your replies!</p><p>Kind regards</p><p>Lars</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy