If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
....Paul M. mentioning the B-36.....Remember them and also remember the very unusual sound they made as they passed over many years ago. Sort of a resonating, pulsating deep bass sound.
Quentin
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I guess I don't have a problem with the Lempor ejector nozzle on the UP Challenger.These locomotives are antiques yes, and they are historical recreations of the heydey of steam, yes as well, but the alternate history in which steam stayed around another 10 years and locomotives got fitted with those ejectors is also part of the history.Try this analogy. Suppose there was some group of wealthy EAA types who somehow got ahold and restored to flight status a B-36, complete with those monster R-4460 radial piston engines driving pusher props and those outboard jet engines. Suppose some maniacs with time on their hands actually built the Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) upgrade to the turbo-charging system of those engines that had been planned but never done. Not quite sure what the VDT was, but it seems to be a kind of turbocharger that used the engine exhaust for supplemental jet thrust to the propulsive force of the engine.If there were some maniacs with enough time and money to do this, I would say, more power to them rather than complain that they are corrupting a one-of-a-kind antique aircraft. Likewise with putting fancy ejectors or firebox systems on the Colorado narrow gauge of the UP Northern or Challenger locomotives. Those systems are all part of the history of steam as they were conceptualized in many cases but not applied.This is almost like saying, no, don't hot-rod a 1932 flat-head V-8 Ford with chromed carbs, manifold headers, and other performance parts. The 1932 Ford is a priceless antique and the Beach Boys committed sacriledge by memorializing the highly modified Deuce Couple in song.
I guess I don't have a problem with the Lempor ejector nozzle on the UP Challenger.
These locomotives are antiques yes, and they are historical recreations of the heydey of steam, yes as well, but the alternate history in which steam stayed around another 10 years and locomotives got fitted with those ejectors is also part of the history.
Try this analogy. Suppose there was some group of wealthy EAA types who somehow got ahold and restored to flight status a B-36, complete with those monster R-4460 radial piston engines driving pusher props and those outboard jet engines. Suppose some maniacs with time on their hands actually built the Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) upgrade to the turbo-charging system of those engines that had been planned but never done. Not quite sure what the VDT was, but it seems to be a kind of turbocharger that used the engine exhaust for supplemental jet thrust to the propulsive force of the engine.
If there were some maniacs with enough time and money to do this, I would say, more power to them rather than complain that they are corrupting a one-of-a-kind antique aircraft. Likewise with putting fancy ejectors or firebox systems on the Colorado narrow gauge of the UP Northern or Challenger locomotives. Those systems are all part of the history of steam as they were conceptualized in many cases but not applied.
This is almost like saying, no, don't hot-rod a 1932 flat-head V-8 Ford with chromed carbs, manifold headers, and other performance parts. The 1932 Ford is a priceless antique and the Beach Boys committed sacriledge by memorializing the highly modified Deuce Couple in song.
I know this can be like splitting hairs. Certainly locomotive owners can do anything they want with their locomotives. But if they are using them to attract the public for an experience that is something other than transportation, then I think it pays to analyze what that experience is and what most of the public want it to be. I am only offering my one vote in the matter. I want the experience to be historically authentic as if frozen in time. Others may want only the thrill of the ride, and may not ever care whether is it steam, no matter if modern steam or original antique.
Wasatch Railroad Contractors made the argument that railroads continuously upgraded their operations over their entire history, so this continual upgrading is a part of railroad history and should be preserved as well. Therefore, they argued, rail preservationists were being hypocrites for refusing to embrace the practice on continual upgrades to their equipment. But how do you preserve something if you upgrade it into something else?
Railroad preservation and railroad industry are two different businesses with two completely different missions. It makes perfect sense to upgrade locomotives if you are using them for the purpose of transportation of passengers or freight. But the customers of D&S are not buying transportation. They are buying an experience preserved in a time capsule. If D&S were to emulate railroad practice of continual upgrade, they would dieselize.
Bucyrus wrote: This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency---and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency. Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me.
This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.
I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency---and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.
As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency.
Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me.
Don't be depressed. There are several Challengers sitting in parks, rusting away, perfectly authentic, useful only to the birds perching on their steam domes.
From your posts, I think you are a good man who really cares about steam engines and history and I respect that. But if a railroad ever has the misfortune of being run by railfans, it will soon be broke. If a railroad ever gave any credence to railfans, that railroad would soon be bankrupt.
What depresses me are museums. They really do. I've been to several and it makes me sad to see all of those locomotives standing out a pasture, solemnly rusting away, dead and cold never to function again. How interesting is that? What's the point of having all of them like the Illinois Museum for example, one stuffed and mounted engine is enough to show how big they are.
Something that is designed to be functional is only interesting to me if it is functioning. Perhaps it is because my point of view is different. I don't look at the Challenger as an antique, but a living, viable piece of equipment, just like the people who built it did. I see the D&S locomotives in the same light. They are functioning to perform the service of transportation. That's what they were built to do. Yes they are historic and they serve in that function as well. They perform their task very well, but since we have been talking about the D&S's problems with the town and the eviro-whacko's they need to invest in the best option to insure their existence or the railroad could BECOME history. I did a lot of investigation and read back issues of the Durango Herald, etc. and there it said that the owner of the D&S is going to spend over a million dollars to address the smoke issue. A scrubber in the roundhouse isn't historically accurate either. I can't understand for the life of me why this man can't try changing the way he operates his railroad (such as banking the fires instead of keeping them steamed up all night for example) before he blows such a big wad of cash which could put the viability of the Railroad in jeopardy. Modernizing the locomotives and examining ways to improve methods is in my mind the only logical, prudent (and cheaper) course of action. Go ahead spend the 250 grand each to modify the locomotives if this man decides to do that he'll never look back. It doesn't make them any less historic or change their character-it makes them more viable. Should an engine operating today that was built without a superheater but got one later in its life, be put back to running on wet steam? If it later got an electric headlight and piston valves, should it be rebuilt with slide valves and an oil lamp. The answer is obviously no.
I believe that the UP is a different case than the D&S altogether. They have spent a car load of money doing these modifications to the Challenger and I can't believe it is just for the occasional excursion. If so, why not modify the 844? It is the first engine in the excursion roster and it hasn't been modified. So why do it to the Challenger and why the clamp down on the publicity about it?
Maybe, just maybe somebody at Union Pacific has got a clue. The Challenger might become even more historic in its future role, whatever that may be.
I know it's really hard not to think of steam as a historic thing and not look at in any future light other than excursion service. That is the status quo mind set and it is hard to break out of that box.
David Wardale with the 5at project is getting hassled in England by the, "Preservation Set," because he is building on something totally new. Since steam is only viewed by the common person at present as an excursion tool, he is building it in that context with the full intention of once the World sees just how superior this new engine will be, the foundation will be set to sell steam for everyday use. Incidentally they have a freight version of the 5at hiding behind the curtain. I find it astounding that he has to take this approach, but he does and I understand it.
wsherrick wrote: Bucyrus wrote: This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency---and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency. Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me. Don't be depressed. There are several Challengers sitting in parks, rusting away, perfectly authentic, useful only to the birds perching on their steam domes.From your posts, I think you are a good man who really cares about steam engines and history and I respect that. But if a railroad ever has the misfortune of being run by railfans, it will soon be broke. If a railroad ever gave any credence to railfans, that railroad would soon be bankrupt. What depresses me are museums. They really do. I've been to several and it makes me sad to see all of those locomotives standing out a pasture, solemnly rusting away, dead and cold never to function again. How interesting is that? What's the point of having all of them like the Illinois Museum for example, one stuffed and mounted engine is enough to show how big they are. Something that is designed to be functional is only interesting to me if it is functioning. Perhaps it is because my point of view is different. I don't look at the Challenger as an antique, but a living, viable piece of equipment, just like the people who built it did. I see the D&S locomotives in the same light. They are functioning to perform the service of transportation. That's what they were built to do. Yes they are historic and they serve in that function as well. They perform their task very well, but since we have been talking about the D&S's problems with the town and the eviro-whacko's they need to invest in the best option to insure their existence or the railroad could BECOME history. I did a lot of investigation and read back issues of the Durango Herald, etc. and there it said that the owner of the D&S is going to spend over a million dollars to address the smoke issue. A scrubber in the roundhouse isn't historically accurate either. I can't understand for the life of me why this man can't try changing the way he operates his railroad (such as banking the fires instead of keeping them steamed up all night for example) before he blows such a big wad of cash which could put the viability of the Railroad in jeopardy. Modernizing the locomotives and examining ways to improve methods is in my mind the only logical, prudent (and cheaper) course of action. Go ahead spend the 250 grand each to modify the locomotives if this man decides to do that he'll never look back. It doesn't make them any less historic or change their character-it makes them more viable. Should an engine operating today that was built without a superheater but got one later in its life, be put back to running on wet steam? If it later got an electric headlight and piston valves, should it be rebuilt with slide valves and an oil lamp. The answer is obviously no.I believe that the UP is a different case than the D&S altogether. They have spent a car load of money doing these modifications to the Challenger and I can't believe it is just for the occasional excursion. If so, why not modify the 844? It is the first engine in the excursion roster and it hasn't been modified. So why do it to the Challenger and why the clamp down on the publicity about it? Maybe, just maybe somebody at Union Pacific has got a clue. The Challenger might become even more historic in its future role, whatever that may be. I know it's really hard not to think of steam as a historic thing and not look at in any future light other than excursion service. That is the status quo mind set and it is hard to break out of that box.David Wardale with the 5at project is getting hassled in England by the, "Preservation Set," because he is building on something totally new. Since steam is only viewed by the common person at present as an excursion tool, he is building it in that context with the full intention of once the World sees just how superior this new engine will be, the foundation will be set to sell steam for everyday use. Incidentally they have a freight version of the 5at hiding behind the curtain. I find it astounding that he has to take this approach, but he does and I understand it.
I understand your point of view, but I believe you are mischaracterizing some of what I said. I don't see any analogy between those who want historical authenticity telling the D&S so, and railfans telling the railroads how to operate.
Also, I have no trouble at all breaking out of the box and looking at steam as a future development for applications other than excursion service. And at the same time, I can look at steam as an historical thing. I am not, however, able to reconcile the two opposing principles. In fact, it seems to me that those who believe they can reconcile them are actually dismissing the historical principle rather than reconciling it with modern steam. For example, you say that adding GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts to the D&S engines "doesn't make them any less historic or change their character-it makes them more viable." I disagree. It might make them more viable, but it also does indeed change their historic character. It does not completely destroy their historical character, but it destroys a lot of it.
I also disagree with your assertion that the D&S locomotives are functioning to perform the service of transportation. In a way it is true because people are being transported, but the objective is recreation, the fun of the ride, and the mountain scenery, not the need to get from point A to point B.
I too prefer seeing engines operating, as opposed to stuffed and mounted, however, I regard the fact that they were saved from scrap to be stuffed and mounted to be a major achievement even if the ultimate success of return to operation is not achieved. You suggested that one stuffed and mounted engine is all you need because just one would suffice to show how big steam locomotives are. A stuffed and mounted engine tells me a lot more than just how big locomotives are, and I think the more that were saved, the better off we were.
I never intended to suggest that all rebuilt locomotives be rebuilt to their as-manufactured configuration despite the fact that they were upgraded periodically by the railroad owner during their service lives. And I realize that some modern materials are typically used in even so-called historic restorations. I would not object to that kind of minor compromise.
If the case can be made for modern steam that can replace diesels, why not just go ahead and build it and prove the point? It seems like wishful thinking that the UP is going to bridge that gap by modernizing their Challenger.
On several of the points you make I can agree. My concern with the D&S is their future. I would hate them to get slapped with unsupportable restrictions which could ruin them.
As far as the Challenger goes. I don't know what they're doing with it. I'm certain that a big part of it is to gain data. I don't expect to see the Challenger out in regular service.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Are there some reasonable leads on how I might purchase The Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam by Wardale? I believe it is both out of print and a British publisher, but any leads on used book dealers would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. Wardale's book is going to be reissued this year. If you go to the 5at project site and look in the articles section there is a link to a publisher in England that you can order it from. They also have an excellent book on Dante Porta which I am looking foward to reading once it finally gets here.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Can anyone tell me of all of the high-tech exhaust systems, which one has the most street-cred? Is it Porta's Lempor? What about Giesel's oblong stack?
I hope you can read the graph it is rather fuzzy. The line on the left is the peformance of the Lempor and the line on the far right is the United States Master Mechanic standard exhaust. Chapelon's is in the middle. As you can see the Lempor is far more efficient than the others. The vacuum produced by each is the vertical line and cylinder back pressure in PSI is the horizontal line. The reduction in backpressure by over 11 pounds between a. "standard," exhaust and the Lempor yeilds a big increase in horsepower for the same steam used. Maybe one of our resident posters with engineering experience can calculate how much of an increase that would represent on a given locomotive. The Challenger would be a good example since it has just been fitted with a double Lempor.
With an 11 psi reduction in back pressure, I'd be surprised if the UP didn't get at least 5% more power out of the 3985. I would expect that under most operating conditions, the increase in power will come from less work needed to drive the steam out of piston during the 'exhaust' stroke. At the higher cut-offs, there would be some extra energy extracted due to increased expansion of the steam.
What would have been really interesting is to see the Lempor exhaust on a Y6b.
On the Red Devil the increase in horsepower was well over 20%. It is amazing that the Red Devil is about 2/3rds the size of the C&O 614 and after it's conversion had horsepower outputs up to 5000. This is for a engine on a 3',3" gauge!
Another thing to look at besides back pressure is the greatly increased vacuum produced by the Lempor in comparison with the old style nozzles. I'm sure that is also a large factor when it comes to boiler capacity.
I agree it would be interesting to see what would happen to a Y6b as well.
Point of order: SAR is 3'6" gauge, not meter gauge.
Shortly after WWII, Andre Chapelon increased the power of the SNCF 'Liberation' 2-8-2s about 10% with some minor valve re-timing and the equivalent of porting and polishing the exhaust system. The reciprocating steam locomotive was set aside long before it reached its full potential.
There has now been some 65 years since anybody in America did any serious design work on a locomotive-size boiler that could stand the stresses of rail application. Likewise, there have been improvements on the other end, in the machinery to use the boiler's output. I can't help wondering what kind of smooth-running, track-friendly superlocomotive could be developed if the funding was there.
OTOH, much as I like their looks, I just don't see reciprocating steam making a comeback. Electric drive is just too versatile.
Chuck
wsherrick wrote:Another thing to look at besides back pressure is the greatly increased vacuum produced by the Lempor in comparison with the old style nozzles. I'm sure that is also a large factor when it comes to boiler capacity.
Didn't think of that aspect, but it does make sense. Maybe the Lempor could have saved the Triplex design - which had huge problems with maintaining steam.
tomikawaTT wrote: Point of order: SAR is 3'6" gauge, not meter gauge.
Thanks for the correction.
Again, at some point there is going to have to be a different direction taken by the transportation industry as a whole. The price of oil is primary and the fact that oil is becoming a political pawn in World affairs is another serious issue regardless of the actual World supply. The price ber barrel not withstanding the supply is increasingly coming under the control of socialist and other collective governments. To me it is senseless not to develop our plentiful and secure domestic supply of coal.
Modelcar wrote: ...Michael, I believe the catalytic converters increased the efficiency of the automotive engines {gasoline}, back about 1975. Their use allowed other polution removing means to be lessened on engines promoting the ability to retune said engines for better performance and economy. Said polition was then "cleaned up" by the converters before passing out into the atmosphere.Wouldn't the effect on diesel engines be similar.....?
...Michael, I believe the catalytic converters increased the efficiency of the automotive engines {gasoline}, back about 1975. Their use allowed other polution removing means to be lessened on engines promoting the ability to retune said engines for better performance and economy. Said polition was then "cleaned up" by the converters before passing out into the atmosphere.
Wouldn't the effect on diesel engines be similar.....?
I'm coming late to this discussion, but let me give you some anecdotal evidence that at least initially, the catalytic converter, while aiding pollution control, had a detrimental effect on engine performance and fuel economy, although part of that may have been the requirement to run on fuel with lower octane. IOW, the engines had to be "detuned" for the switch to unleaded. All the cars listed below complied with whatever California emission standards were in effect at the time.
In late 1972, I bought a 1973 Ford Pinto station wagon (which, IIRC, didn't have the same problems as the 3 door hatchback in a rear end collision). Some of the specs are as follows:
Engine: 2000 CC (approximately 122 CID) inline 4, two barrel carburetor
Fuel required: 91 Octane leaded gasoline
Rated Horsepower: 86 (derated from 100 HP in the 1972 model) probably in preparation for engines of that design to burn unleaded fuel in 1975 and later.
Transmission: 4 speed manual
Observed highway MPG (from memory) 29-30
Five years later, I traded that car in for a 1977 Toyota Corolla SR-5 Liftback
Engine: 1600 CC (aproximately 97 CID) inline 4, two barrel carburetor
Fuel: 87 octane unleaded
Rated horsepower output: 73
Transmission: 5 speed manual
Observed highway MPG: 25-27
Smaller engine, lower horsepower and a significant decrease in fuel mileage.
Things, however have changed quite a bit since then.
2002 Honda Odyssey minivan (currently has 120K miles)
Engine: 3500 CC (approximately 215 CI) V6 , computer controlled fuel injection
Rated horsepower output: 240
Transmission: 5 speed automatic
Observed highway mileage: 24-25 (and this in a time when speed limits are back to where they were prior to the 1973 oil shortage).
More than 3 times the horsepower of the '77 Toyota, nearly 2.5 times the engine displacement and fuel mileage only about 10% worse. Carries up to 7 people vs. 4 and weighs probably 1500 lbs more than the Corolla.
My parents had a 1958 Chevy Brookwood station wagon, which was approximately the same weight as the 2002 Odyssey listed above.
Engine: 283 CID V-8 (approximately 4600 CC), 2 barrel carburetor
Fuel: 91 octane leaded
Rated horsepower: 195
Transmission: 2 speed Powerglide automatic
Observed highway mileage: 15-17
The Odyssey, by way of comparisin, has an approximately 24% smaller displacement, 23% more horsepower and about a 50% increase in fuel mileage.
All the vehicles mentioned above had/have the factory installed exhaust system.
It's conjecture on my part since I'm not an engineer, but it would appear that combustion technology has come a long way in the last 50 years probably driven in large part by the switch over in the last 20-25 years to precisely metered fuel injection into the cylinder coupled with computer controlled ignition. A carburetor is a brute force and ignorance method of getting fuel (and air) into a cylinder and when coupled with the old breaker-point ignition suffers in comparison. It works, but it's not the optimal solution. I don't know this for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me if engineers also figured out how to streamline the gas flow through the converter without sacrificing the converter's performance and thus reducing back-pressure. Layman that I am, I would ascribe the more efficient fuel use of the modern automobile to advances in combustion technology rather than the use of the catalytic converter.
And, just to keep this on topic, this thread was the first I'd heard that #3985 was being equipped with a double Lempor exhaust, probably because I hang out more on the MR forums. I'd sure like to see the performance and economy statistics for this engine when she's back on the road. I'd like to believe that the UP wouldn't spend so much money on modifying #3985 if they weren't going to use her as a test bed, but that remains to be seen.
Since Wardale did start a project on Chinese QJ #8001 back in the 80's, I wonder if the two in the US will be treated to at least some of the improvements he was going to make. I'm not that much of an historical purist. Anything that improves a steam locomotive and keeps it in service at lower overall cost is OK in my book.
BTW, did anyone here ever read Bill Withuhn's article in the June, 1974 (IIRC) Trains. I believe it was entitled "Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?".
Andre
....Andre:
I have no intention of disputing all the many examples and thoughts you have presented. Lots of them and interesting.
I will say, {again}, that automotive gasoline engines {in general}, right after the 1975 installation of the catalytic converters produced more performance and due at least in part {then}, for reasons I stated in my original post.
I'm sure, later...as you describe changes of various kinds were involved as well.
Pre converter models of Corvette deteriated so badly in HP readings they hardly reached 200 HP....! That figure started back up from that point on....{just as one example}.
Retuning made possible by the converter had an almost immediate effect in advertised HP.
I'm glad they went that route and allowed the engineering wing of producers to put performance back into engines and in many cases since, have surpassed previous HP figures {that were hi compression}, even with non leaded regular gasoline.
Edit: Sorry this comment is a bit OT. of the steam subject.
DLM in Switzerland has the capabilities to manufacture both parts and complete locomotives. I imagine that there are still companies in China manufacturing parts for the large number of industrial steamers used there.
As I mentioned in an earlier post T.W Blasingame and Vapour locomotive are two US based firms trying to market new steam (in this case steam/electric) designs. AFAIK neither company has built anything as of yet and in Blasingame's case the owner/designer seems to mainly be interested in licensing the designs to be built by someone else (maybe EMD?LOL).
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
According to their (newly updated)website, Vapor locomotive is remanufacturing steam equipment and is introducing their own line (so far all for stationary applications). It does appear that they are aggresively trying to get into the locomotive business and at least be an American competitor to DLM.
http://vaporlocomotive.com/
M636C wrote:I'm not sure but in at least one of the standard books on the late UP steam locomotives, there were illustrations of angled multiple jet nozzles arranged for double chimneys in locomotives of (at least some of) the UP 800, 3900 and 4000 classes. These appeared to be more or less of LeMaitre design with five nozzles in an annular arrangement. Since the Le Maitre is the "Lem" in Lempor (the "por" being for Porta, of course) there might not be as much room for improvement as expected if the UP were already using the LeMaitre in the late 1940s and 1950s. This is consistent with the large diameter stacks familiar from the HO scale models on the UP 4000 class and the slightly smaller stacks on the FEF-3 (rather than the simpler single nozzle). I knew about the LeMaitre from its use on the British Southern Railway and I was familiar with the resulting large diameter stacks, particularly on the Pacific locomotives. M636C
They had the right idea. So did the Santa Fe with their stack extensions. They got a couple of hundred extra horsepower that way. They were on the verge of putting all the pieces together, but didn't quite make it, before the diesel invasion. The large Sweeny stacks of the UP and the enlarged stacks of the N&W displayed an increasing understanding of the basic idea that the freer the gas flow, the better the engine. The Lempor is indeed a quantum leap from those designs. Porta was working on yet another refinement of the Lempor before he died. He called it the Lemprex. The calculations for it exist but it hasn't been built yet.
MichaelSol wrote: 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.
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.
But you can't just compare fuel price. There is no longer a sufficient infrastructure for steam power (coaling stations, water towers, backshops), not to mention the increased costs for retraining/hiring personnel. Even modern steam would be more labor intensive than diesel.
I have to agree that in the long run electrification would be a more realistic option. There are already myriad ways of generating electricity, and who knows what the future holds in store in the way of viable possibilities (hydrogen fuel cells, bio-gas, cold fusion , etc.). Once the caternary is up, it would be relatively easy to switch from one primary energy source to another.
Lee Koch wrote: MichaelSol wrote: 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.But you can't just compare fuel price. There is no longer a sufficient infrastructure for steam power (coaling stations, water towers, backshops), not to mention the increased costs for retraining/hiring personnel. Even modern steam would be more labor intensive than diesel.
"Labor intensive" is a meaningless phrase without context. And there is a published, well known, statistical record that shows the comment is simply untrue -- it is a comment taken from picture captions and romantic notions of old steam engines shown in old Western movies. It has no statistical basis. The cost of maintenance per ton mile, in 1957, was cheaper for modern Steam than for equivalent Diesel-electric.
That included labor.
Unless Diesel-electrics have undergone a remarkable transformation themselves -- and the numbers I posted regarding GP40s suggests they haven't -- someone will have to explain how it would cost MORE to maintain Steam than it did in the 1950s.
Infrastructure is a problem. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1976. The diesel fuel infrastructure may well have reached its limit and consumption will now be determined by price rather than need.
Coal will be more generally available and at a substantially lower comparable cost and that will, indeed, be a direct result of infrastructure limitations and market price pressure.
....I know, everyone has a "take" on the no refineries built since....etc.}, but somewhere I've heard conversations on that subject, we {the refineries}, have increased capacity of various one's already in existense...True or not....?
Quentin: Domestic refining capacity grew at an average annual rate of 0.9% from 1998 to present. Gasoline imports are growing and are now more than 10% of U.S. consumption. Motiva has a major capacity expansion underway at Port Arthur, Texas, and Chevron is studying significant expansion at six refineries. At least one refinery in Canada has plans for significant expansion. Ethanol exports from Brazil are now at 3 million bbl/day and scheduled to grow to 10 mm bbl/day by 2018. New ethanol refining capacity under construction elsewhere in Latin America will take up much or all of the growth in Latin American motor fuels demand and pressure gasoline prices in Latin America.
Refining is a commodity business with few proprietary processes that enable the owner to charge high margins. Given the public opposition to constructing new refineries, uncertainty about likely new laws restricting CO2 emissions, and the very large investment needed, there isn't much enthusiasm for heavy investments to expand domestic capacity.
And there might not be any reason to, either. Globally, there's considerable doubt whether there will be any oil to fill the new refineries presently under construction or in planning in India, Asia, and the Middle East.
RWM
....RWM:
Thanks for the input on the subject.
Railway Man wrote: Gasoline imports are growing and are now more than 10% of U.S. consumption. ...Globally, there's considerable doubt whether there will be any oil to fill the new refineries presently under construction or in planning in India, Asia, and the Middle East.
...
Globally, there's considerable doubt whether there will be any oil to fill the new refineries presently under construction or in planning in India, Asia, and the Middle East.
"But there's another side to this story: A global diesel shortage is developing. While many assume that the US doesn't consume diesel, they're incorrect. While gasoline may be the fuel of choice for passenger cars, distillates power jet airplanes, trucks and railway locomotives. Diesel demand in America is actually growing more rapidly than demand for gasoline."
"To make demand even more difficult to meet, consider that more stringent environmental regulations are making it increasingly difficult to refine diesel fuels."
"For the US, the growing diesel fuel shortage won't be as easy to fix as the gasoline shortage. The US won't be able to import diesel fuel from Europe as it does with gasoline because Europe just doesn't have sufficient capacity to meet its own demand. This is good news for US refiners in the long term. Because of lack of capacity and little competition from imports, US refiners should earn high margins for processing the fuel."
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2006/0915.html
martin.knoepfel wrote:Does anyone know how much money UP is willing to invest to modify the Challenger? This could be the answer to the question whether they intend to save money on excursion trips or whether they have farther reaching plans.
The first set of modifications to the Challenger HAVE been done already. The firebox was extensively modified along with the double lempor installation. There have been other modifications as well. I don't know what those are.
The cost of doing this is obviously way beyond a standard overhaul. The UP has been super secret about the project. The only news about it has come from leaks and what little is on the WRC web page.
The finished result will probably end up with the Challenger's horsepower output greatly increased, perhaps in excess of 8000 HP if these modifications have the same results that have been consistently produced in other modified locomotives. I can't believe this is just for the occasional excursion, but that's only conjecture on my part.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.