Could steam make a comeback?

[tattooguy67]

Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.

[chad thomas]

No, Way too labor intinsive.

And yes, we beat this topic to death way too often.

[Modelcar]

....Yes, the topic has been kicked around all over the place.

As an outsider, I believe a modern steam engine of value could be designed and built.  One that could provide 21th century performance.  But....at what cost....and who would pay for it....and how much labor and facilities would have to be available to support it....???

As mentioned above, we have more modern materials now and advanced production processes maybe not possible in the last century....and some of that might make a difference.

Might have to have it built {if design and testing were successful}, overseas somewhere.....We seem to have given up on most heavy manufacturing here in this country.

[blue streak 1]

Electric is probably much more efficient per BTU especially using regenerative braking.

[Modelcar]

.....I see the price of gasoline continues to escalate....Within the past several hours I noted gasoline has risen to $3.29 now.  And yes, I know it's higher in some parts of the country, but this is starting to reach up and onward.

By the spring traveling time, who knows how far it's headed up....Crude is again setting records today.  Perhaps it is time to really have some major talks in this country which direction we need to go....More oil....develop alternative sources of energy, but start getting serious and get the discussions rolling.

[Railway Man]

Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.

Absolutely not.  The labor, environmental, fuel, and operating costs are stratospheric.  There is no magic technology waiting in the wings that will make steam locomotives, reciprocating or turbine, cost-effective with either synthetic diesel fuel or electrification.  It is far cheaper to either burn the coal to generate steam in a generating station and electrify railroads, or gasify the coal to make diesel fuel in a Fischer-Tropsch process.  Several large-scale F-T plant to produce diesel fuel are in design at this time; they are competitive with conventional diesel fuel at $80/barrel.

RWM 

[Modelcar]

....We will, {this time}, have to see some change in energy type and sources.

Our far eastern "friends" don't seem to mind the escalating crude costs now....According to them, no use to pump more.

Something will have to be done different....Believe we might be entering an era when those thoughts will start to emerge as something we now have to do.

[MichaelSol]

The ... fuel ... costs are stratospheric.

Well, I don't know about fuel costs being stratospheric. At $60/ton 11,500 BTU coal, and at $3.65 per gallon diesel (last week's U.S. average), adjusted for 6% efficiency coal, 32% efficiency diesel, the current adjusted cost for 100,000 BTUs of coal is $4.35 and the equivalent cost of 100,000 BTUs of diesel is $8.21.

Wyoming coal, of course, sells for considerably less than $60/ton, running between $10 and $15 per ton. The U.S. average is only $25/ton. The average delivered price in the U.S. varies from $14/ton in Montana to $84/ton in Massachusetts, with the U.S. average at about $42. At power plants, it averages $35/ton; for other uses, about $52/ton.

At the U.S. average delivered cost, the BTU equivalent cost of coal is $3.04 vs. $8.21 for diesel fuel. In places like Montana, delivered cost would price equivalent coal at $1.01 compared to the $8.21 cost of diesel fuel.

The following is from a student paper which looks at the issue in some detail:

"A coal-fueled locomotive could achieve a 64.2% average cost savings over the current petroleum diesel-fueled locomotive. This comparison is based on ton-miles per dollar of fuel consumed in calendar year 2006. US Class I railroads burned 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2006, costing $8.1 billion. The dollar value of coal that would accomplish the same amount of "work" is only $3.0 billion, according to calculations. This is a cost savings of $5.1 billion in the single year of 2006. That is an incredible cost savings over the use of diesel fuel, which is largely imported, compared to coal, which is mined locally in the US. Those 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel comprise 6.6% of the nation's diesel fuel use. That quantity of diesel fuel could be replaced by 72.3 million tons of coal, equivalent to only 6.2% of the 1.16 billion ton yearly production of coal."

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/Coal%20Locomotive%20Final%20Paper.pdf

 

 

 

[CopCarSS]

Wyoming coal, of course, sells for considerably less than $60/ton, running between $9 and $12 per ton.

I don't think Wyoming coal would be very useful in a locomotive, though. IIRC, the Boone & Scenic Valley got a free load of Powder River coal several years back when the CNW had to empty a coal gon to repair it. I seem to recall that it wouldn't burn even when mixed with their standard coal.

Don't the power plants using Powder River coal have to grind it almost to a powdery consistency to use it?

As per the original question, another added cost would be track maintenance. When Ross Rowland did the ACE 3000 project back in the 80s, didn't they find out that steam locomotives really did beat up the track when compared to diesels?

[Modelcar]

.....Chris....a modern design may not include the "pounding" action of rods powering driving wheels with counter weights.

 

[MichaelSol]

I don't think Wyoming coal would be very useful in a locomotive, though.

The Northern Pacific Railway burned a lot of Powder River Basin coal in the long course of its eventful history.

[jchnhtfd]

It is certainly possible to build a steam power system with an efficiency equal to that of a diesel engine.  It is simply a matter of getting the steam pressure high enough so the temperatures are high enough, and then off you go.  Do it all the time in big central power stations.  However... in a railroad environment?  Well, in a sense, yes: both the Delaware & Hudson in the US and the French (Chapelon) built steam locomotives with amazingly high efficiencies.  In both cases, the maintenance question ended the experiment rather abruptly: you have to get upwards of 900 psi to get the efficiency you are looking for, and that means compounding -- at least double and preferably triple expansion or turbines (and NOT gas turbines; steam turbines -- there is a world of difference).

So... probably not.  On an overall cost basis, the diesel is going to win.  In fact, it is not possible to justify the cost of electrification these days, either, even on really heavily travelled freight lines (the Sunset or Transcon come to mind).  The electrification cost balance could change, though, as the cost of oil goes up -- provided the cost of electricity does not.  But that is a whole 'nother ball game.

The question, though, seems to be getting confused with the question of could coal replace oil and make a comeback?  Different question.  Same answer, though, but with somewhat different reasons.  Coal can't be burned directly in a gas turbine (it's been tried, and the results were lamentable).  It can be burned in a gas turbine or combined cycle if it's gassified first, but that is not practical, in my judgement, on a railway locomotive.  Thus it has to be in a steam boiler, and see above.  Second, even if you could, the emissions from coal burning are much harder to clean up than those from oil -- and carting the necessary anti-pollution equipment around just isn't feasible.

So... Sorry guys, I don't think so.

[chad thomas]

Didn't they require special fireboxes for burning the low BTU stuff (Belpair fireboxes ?)

[CopCarSS]

.....Chris....a modern design may not include the "pounding" action of rods powering driving wheels with counter weights.

True, but would we really be witnessing the "return of steam?" If we were to see steam driven turbine locomotives or steam turbine electrics, would it be steam as railfans know it?

On that note, wouldn't coal gassification as RWM brought up be a better route for such locomotives? It seems like adding the step of boiling water to the process of converting chemical energy into mechanical energy is just a way to lessen efficiencies to me...

[CopCarSS]

The Northern Pacific Railway burned a lot of Power River Basin coal in the long course of its eventful history.

Interesting. Were there special fireboxes or other changes made to accomodate the PRB coal?

[Modelcar]

.....I suppose that would be the job of experts, that is...to design a powering unit, with some different energy source other than oil to do a 21st century job of powering our railroads.  Whether of steam or other designs.  Guess that would be the question at hand.

And you are probably right....A "new" steam engine you and I would like as "fans" may not be the end result of the designers.

[MichaelSol]

As per the original question, another added cost would be track maintenance. When Ross Rowland did the ACE 3000 project back in the 80s, didn't they find out that steam locomotives really did beat up the track when compared to diesels?

Virtually all of the studies I have seen from the transition era show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization; even as investment in track maintenance declined as a result of the costs of dieselization.

[MichaelSol]

It is certainly possible to build a steam power system with an efficiency equal to that of a diesel engine. 

But why?

At the current U.S. average delivered cost, coal already would enjoy a 2.7:1 price advantage over the current cost of diesel fuel, adjusted to the same BTU output at 6% efficiency.

If a company could justify the cost of the technology, at 32% efficiency coal would enjoy an adjusted 14:1 advantage in price.

Take your pick, I guess.

 

[MichaelSol]

The Northern Pacific Railway burned a lot of Power River Basin coal in the long course of its eventful history.

Interesting. Were there special fireboxes or other changes made to accomodate the PRB coal?

Larger fireboxes. What else they might have done, I do not know.

[CopCarSS]

Virtually all of the studies I have seen from the transition era show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization; even as investment in track maintenance declined as a result of the costs of dieselization.

What would cause an increase in track maintenance for dieselization? In addition to the pounding that a reciprocating steam locomotive can deliver, later steam locomotives featured some very long wheelbases that must have been real rail straighteners. Is it a result of higher weight per axle, or something along those lines?

[MichaelSol]

Second, even if you could, the emissions from coal burning are much harder to clean up than those from oil -- and carting the necessary anti-pollution equipment around just isn't feasible.

I disagree with this. External combustion of coal isn't pretty from a chemical byproduct perspective, but the emissions are mostly particulate or attached to the particulates and therefore relatively easy to control. Complete combustion, that is, producing just CO2 and H2O, is theoretically possible and interesting work has been done for small scale installations similar to a railroad application using catalysts effectively.

Internal combustion of hydrocarbons under pressure produces an astonishing variety of byproducts, many highly toxic and even carcinogenic, and many in a strictly gaseous state and extremely difficult to control. More money has been spent with less success attempting to develop a diesel engine which can meet serious emissions standards than for any other power source; which is why emissions controls for diesel engines lag far, far behind any other pollution source in our economy and why implementation of significant emission standards for diesel engines has been continually delayed by regulators -- because the solutions are incredibly difficult and expensive.

Had there been a production capacity of steam locomotives in 1980 as emission controls were tightening up, and both types had been required to meet stringent emission controls as the single test of viability, we would have steam engines today, and no diesel-electrics.

 

[MichaelSol]

What would cause an increase in track maintenance for dieselization? In addition to the pounding that a reciprocating steam locomotive can deliver, later steam locomotives featured some very long wheelbases that must have been real rail straighteners. Is it a result of higher weight per axle, or something along those lines?

That's beyond my background or experience. The engineering papers I have reviewed refer to the effects of the lower center of gravity creating higher lateral forces on the rail and that this would be particularly troublesome on curves whereas the higher center of gravity of the steam engine had acted to keep the rail in place; the diesel-electric acted to force the rail out.

In that era, there didn't seem to be a disagreement among engineers that the new diesels would be slightly harder on the track, but it is since that time that people look back and declare that steam engines must have been "harder" on the track.

 

[Ulrich]

I believe the external combustion engine could make a comeback although I'm not so sure that steam would be the best option. Burning coal to generate electricity to feed traction motors might be more efficient. In any event a modern version of  the steam locomotive that makes optimum use of modern materials and technology would be quite different from those beloved polluting kettles that were finally replaced in the 50s.

[wjstix]

If it were going to happen, it probably would have happened back with the ACE 3000 project of the early eighties. At that time the price of coal was very low compared to oil, and desinging and building a super-insulated effiecient steam engine to burn a slurry of coal might have been feasible.

However, that price gap was caused largely by a temporary situation: the Iran-Iraq war, which started with both sides destroying the other's pipelines and oil shipping ports. This made something like 40% of the world's oil unavailable so the price of oil skyrocketed and caused massive inflation and a recession c. 1979-80. However within a few years both countries had found alternate ways to ship out oil, and were selling it as quickly and cheaply as possible to get money for weapons, causing prices to fall (and the economy to pick up) c.1984.

[Modelcar]

.....If a "new" steam powered unit would ever become reality I believe the final drive would be traction motors.  Too much advantage with them to ignore....including dynamic braking.

[Anonymous]

.....If a "new" steam powered unit would ever become reality I believe the final drive would be traction motors.  Too much advantage with them to ignore....including dynamic braking.

So you're talking a miniature steam power plant generating electricity for traction motors?  I guess the question is: What will that power plant burn?

[Modelcar]

.....That seems to be the question at hand. 

Today's crude prices should head us in some direction.

[tattooguy67]

You will pardon me for the pun i hope but HOLY SMOKE, i seem to have asked a bit of a touchy ? here, lot of passion in these answers, and all i can say is good to see it! i am glad i could get some debate going, even if the ? had been asked before, and to interject some thoughts here as far as some of the posts go, first off i would love to see the modern version of a big boy or challenger running freights but i doubt that the new era steam locomotive would look much like that, as far as the emmisions go from burning coal, i am far more worried about our economy going south because of rising fuel prices then i am about what the anti capitalist greens think about some black smoke, we have the coal right here, well we have the oil to but thats another story for anothe day, as far as rail maintenance goes i have no clue, and for coal gasification, isn't that like ethenol as far as taking more energy to produce less energy?, and as far as electrification goes isn't that going to be more expensive becuase of the soaring price of copper and other metals needed, also i would think the upkeep costs would be huge in comparison! and yes i would think that a coal fired steam plant producing electrical power would work just fine, and again thanks for all the good responces here.

[Modelcar]

....Your correct, it did spark quite a bit of conversation.  I believe that's good.  Think we should get to "talking" about a lot of problems in America and see what we could do to overcome them.

Edit:  By "we", I refer to people involved in said problem{s}.

[TomDiehl]

If it were going to happen, it probably would have happened back with the ACE 3000 project of the early eighties. At that time the price of coal was very low compared to oil, and desinging and building a super-insulated effiecient steam engine to burn a slurry of coal might have been feasible.

However, that price gap was caused largely by a temporary situation: the Iran-Iraq war, which started with both sides destroying the other's pipelines and oil shipping ports. This made something like 40% of the world's oil unavailable so the price of oil skyrocketed and caused massive inflation and a recession c. 1979-80. However within a few years both countries had found alternate ways to ship out oil, and were selling it as quickly and cheaply as possible to get money for weapons, causing prices to fall (and the economy to pick up) c.1984.

And also a good timeline to follow the rise and fall of the original ACE 3000 project. When the oil prices fell, so did support for the project.

To add to what others have stated above, a 21st century steam locomotive most likely will not look anything like the ones built in the 1950's and earlier. The proposed ACE 3000 design would give the most likely look at what you'll see on the rails if this gets to the prototype stage. A lot of engineering data and research was done with the project, and to develop this 21st century steam locomotive, this would provide the best starting point, since a lot of the ground work is already done.