Trains.com

Could steam make a comeback?

64177 views
950 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Friday, April 25, 2008 2:28 PM

...If Challenger HP has {or is being}, increased by quite a large %....and T E is up to putting it on the rail....will the driving mechanicals...rods, pins, journal bearing, etc....need to be upped in capacity....? 

Quentin

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Friday, April 25, 2008 7:03 PM
 Modelcar wrote:

...If Challenger HP has {or is being}, increased by quite a large %....and T E is up to putting it on the rail....will the driving mechanicals...rods, pins, journal bearing, etc....need to be upped in capacity....? 

Along with the other work done on the engine, the running gear got a good overhaul as well so I guess they are anticipating the power increases to be realized.

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:29 AM
 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.

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 Wink [;)], etc.). Once the caternary is up, it would be relatively easy to switch from one primary energy source to another.

According to Rhodes in his recent paper, "The Economics of Coal as A Locomotive Fuel...."

The payback to reinvest in the support structure for steam would be at the most 10 years and if modern steam is invested in at 15% thermal efficiency then the payback would begin within 5 years of changing over from diesels.  M. Sol posted a link to this paper in the first page or so of this thread I believe so somebody can check and see if I got the numbers right.

The point is (again X 3) that there is no rational argument to pose against adopting modern steam for commercial use that can hold up against the vast cost difference between diesel and domestic coal. 

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:26 AM

When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.

Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.

If you truly want to increase the efficiency of the railroads what is needed is a national improvement of the 19th century rights of way. The twisting, turning, at grade crossing, steep hilled routes of the "old days" are holding back the 21st railroads of "today".

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:01 PM

....Many of those 19th century ROW's sure must have been pretty close to the money....Just observe how close many of them were mimicked by recent decades of Interstate highway building.

I'm sure some could be improved upon but the cost would be tremendous.

Quentin

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:24 PM
 Phoebe Vet wrote:

When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.

Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.

If you truly want to increase the efficiency of the railroads what is needed is a national improvement of the 19th century rights of way. The twisting, turning, at grade crossing, steep hilled routes of the "old days" are holding back the 21st railroads of "today".

Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved,"  choice.  I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking.  I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Good Old Germany
  • 159 posts
Posted by Flint Hills Tex on Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:06 PM
 wsherrick wrote:
 Phoebe Vet wrote:

When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.

Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.

Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved,"  choice.  I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking.  I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.

I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years? What about emmissions? It is much easier to filter emmissions from ONE coal fired power plant than from hundreds of coalfired locos. When coal gets too expensive, switch your source of electric power, keep your electric locomotives!

The short-sightedness of re-introducing steam powered locos can be seen in the transportation policies of former East Germany. The Central Commitee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany kept steam locomotives in service right up to the end in 1989. The original reason being that they could not afford to convert the entire fleet to diesel or electric all at once. The final phasing out of steam kept getting delayed from one five-year plan to the next. That didn't stop the CC from mandating (steam) rebuilds from coal to oil fired in the early 70's, only to convert them back to coal during the oil crisis. Then reconvert them to oil starting in the late 80's. Who knows how long this would have gone on had the Wall not fallen! In the long run, they would have saved money had they phased out steam as intended by the late 70's.

Railroads are in the business of making money. They would not have phased out steam if diesel had not been overall less expensive! And it is not just a matter of the cost of any certain type of fuel.

Out here we...pay no attention to titles or honors or whatever because we have found they don't measure a man.... A man is what he is, and what he is shows in his actions. I do not ask where a man came from or what he was...none of that is important. -Louis Lámour "Shalako"
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:28 PM
 Lee Koch wrote:
 wsherrick wrote:
 Phoebe Vet wrote:

When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.

Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.

Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved,"  choice.  I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking.  I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.

I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years? What about emmissions? It is much easier to filter emmissions from ONE coal fired power plant than from hundreds of coalfired locos. When coal gets too expensive, switch your source of electric power, keep your electric locomotives!

The short-sightedness of re-introducing steam powered locos can be seen in the transportation policies of former East Germany. The Central Commitee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany kept steam locomotives in service right up to the end in 1989. The original reason being that they could not afford to convert the entire fleet to diesel or electric all at once. The final phasing out of steam kept getting delayed from one five-year plan to the next. That didn't stop the CC from mandating (steam) rebuilds from coal to oil fired in the early 70's, only to convert them back to coal during the oil crisis. Then reconvert them to oil starting in the late 80's. Who knows how long this would have gone on had the Wall not fallen! In the long run, they would have saved money had they phased out steam as intended by the late 70's.

Railroads are in the business of making money. They would not have phased out steam if diesel had not been overall less expensive! And it is not just a matter of the cost of any certain type of fuel.

If your supposition is correct about the dieselization process here in the United States; why did the railroads LOSE so much money after they switched over?  I guess you haven't read the whole thread.

Why did the return on investment of the railroads fall to half in 1960 to what they had earned in 1945 when most railroads were steam powered.  Why did the ROI fall again and again each time the railroad industry had to upgrade their diesel fleets every few years?  Why is there no evidence in the statistical record to support your argument that diesels were so cost effective?

I am not opposed to electrification at all.  I just want to see some figures about how cost effective it would be to electrify the tens of thousands of miles of Class One Railroad in this country.  How much would it cost?  How long would it take the industry to recoup these costs?

How much would that save over burning coal directly in a firebox?  The United States has no lack of coal in all of its forms.  And why can't you burn these bio-fuels in the firebox as well. Why is it better to burn them in a power plant, then transmit the power through thousands of miles of catenary, then convert it to tractive effort at the rail?

I'm open to your case.  Let's see the numbers.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:00 PM

 Lee Koch wrote:
I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years?

Well, in fact, this is exactly what the railroads did when they dieselized.

And they did so primarily because of the cost differential in fuel.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:21 PM
 Lee Koch wrote:
 wsherrick wrote:
 Phoebe Vet wrote:

When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.

Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.

Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved,"  choice.  I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking.  I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.

I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years? What about emmissions? It is much easier to filter emmissions from ONE coal fired power plant than from hundreds of coalfired locos. When coal gets too expensive, switch your source of electric power, keep your electric locomotives!

The short-sightedness of re-introducing steam powered locos can be seen in the transportation policies of former East Germany. The Central Commitee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany kept steam locomotives in service right up to the end in 1989. The original reason being that they could not afford to convert the entire fleet to diesel or electric all at once. The final phasing out of steam kept getting delayed from one five-year plan to the next. That didn't stop the CC from mandating (steam) rebuilds from coal to oil fired in the early 70's, only to convert them back to coal during the oil crisis. Then reconvert them to oil starting in the late 80's. Who knows how long this would have gone on had the Wall not fallen! In the long run, they would have saved money had they phased out steam as intended by the late 70's.

Railroads are in the business of making money. They would not have phased out steam if diesel had not been overall less expensive! And it is not just a matter of the cost of any certain type of fuel.

Yes, but steam will not require an infrastructure change as large as that of electrification, nor will steam require an infrastructure change sized for a total commitment to a motive power change as electrification does.  It is true that coal represents a commitment to one fuel as opposed to electrification, which can substitute fuels.  However, how much of a drawback is that commitment?   The frequency and magnitude of fuel price fluctuations is not too likely to force a change in motive power before it wears out anyway.   And even though the choice to replace steam with diesels may have been economically correct, the economics are shifting in favor of coal as opposed to diesel. 

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Good Old Germany
  • 159 posts
Posted by Flint Hills Tex on Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:38 PM
 wsherrick wrote:

I am not opposed to electrification at all.  I just want to see some figures about how cost effective it would be to electrify the tens of thousands of miles of Class One Railroad in this country.  How much would it cost?  How long would it take the industry to recoup these costs?

How much would that save over burning coal directly in a firebox?  The United States has no lack of coal in all of its forms.  And why can't you burn these bio-fuels in the firebox as well. Why is it better to burn them in a power plant, then transmit the power through thousands of miles of catenary, then convert it to tractive effort at the rail?

I'm open to your case.  Let's see the numbers.

This topic has been discusse in great detail in several other threads (enter "electrification"). One of the more recent threads being "Electrification, Why not tax incentives?". I'll leave it to you to check it out, but there were quite a few educated posts with concrete figures based on actual feasability studies done by freight railroads.

Interestingly, said studies showed diesel traction to be superior economically to any other form of traction. I'm still in favor of widespread electrification in North America.

Out here we...pay no attention to titles or honors or whatever because we have found they don't measure a man.... A man is what he is, and what he is shows in his actions. I do not ask where a man came from or what he was...none of that is important. -Louis Lámour "Shalako"
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, April 27, 2008 2:42 PM
 Lee Koch wrote:

This topic has been discusse in great detail in several other threads (enter "electrification").

I did. It shows 1,625 entries. Could you please be more specific?

One of the more recent threads being "Electrification, Why not tax incentives?".

Because tax incentives distort markets and legitimate investment decision making.

 

I'll leave it to you to check it out ...

This is kind of a "I disagree with you but I'll leave it up to you to do my homework for me to find out why" kind of an answer.

... there were quite a few educated posts with concrete figures based on actual feasability studies done by freight railroads. Interestingly, said studies showed diesel traction to be superior economically to any other form of traction. I'm still in favor of widespread electrification in North America.

Could you please identify the specific studies?

 

  • Member since
    August 2007
  • From: Missouri
  • 103 posts
Posted by Alex V. on Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:39 PM
It seems to me that if a modern day steam locomotive was well insulated it would retain more of the heat, therefore be more efficient.  Yes?
Alex - Engineer, brakeman, conductor, hostler, railfan, railroad historian, and model railroader
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:25 PM

 Alex V. wrote:
It seems to me that if a modern day steam locomotive was well insulated it would retain more of the heat, therefore be more efficient.  Yes?

You are absolutely correct about that.  In fact, insulation is one of the characteristics that seperate modern steam from those of tradition.  The new rack locomotives built for the Swiss cog railroad go all night without a fire in them and they keep a working pressure on the gauge all night. 

 

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:28 PM

....That's a subject I've wondered about since we now have space age insulation that could be put in place under the boiler jacket and as just stated above, make the unit much more efficient.  Especially in the colder weather times.  Surely, the material we have now would make a difference to what was used 50 plus years ago.

Quentin

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:40 PM

 

Mr. Koch:

I took a look and, sorry, didn't find any studies that show diesel to be superior to anything.

The only objective comparison to steam and diesel costs ever done was by H.F Brown and his study showed clearly that modern steam of the 1950's was cheaper to buy, operate and maintain than any compared diesel. His report came out in 1960 I believe. There is another study done by Thomas Thelander a contemporary of Brown which supports Brown's conclusion,however; I have not read it so I can't quote from it.  I believe Thelander studied the Santa Fe as they dieselized and found similiar results as Brown. 

Now fast forward to today.  The study quoted by M. Sol and myself,(The Economics of Coal as a Locomotive Fuel on US Class One Railroads) published in February of this year has these figures which I'll restate even though they are stated earlier in the thread here.  The US Railroad Industry spent $8.1 BILLION dollars on diesel fuel in 2006.  If the railroads were still steam powered and burned the equivalent amount in coal the cost would be $3.0 Billion.  A savings of 62%. That's a $5.1 Billion dollars worth of savings. I believe he figured this at the old steam thermal efficiency average of 6%.  Reciprocating Steam Locomotives built today with available technology would have thermal efficiencies of 12 to15% leading to a futher reducing of the cost of coal.  A cost ratio of 14:1 coal vs. diesel at today's costs.  So I guess that serves up a whole plate full of food for thought.

Now it's your turn.  I asked you a question a few posts back and you still haven't responded to it yet.  I'll repeat it for you.

Why did the US Railroad Industry LOSE money after it dieselized? Or more specifically why did the Return On Investment fall by 1960 to half of what it was in 1945?

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Good Old Germany
  • 159 posts
Posted by Flint Hills Tex on Monday, April 28, 2008 1:38 AM
 wsherrick wrote:

Now it's your turn.  I asked you a question a few posts back and you still haven't responded to it yet.  I'll repeat it for you.

Why did the US Railroad Industry LOSE money after it dieselized? Or more specifically why did the Return On Investment fall by 1960 to half of what it was in 1945?

Simple: competition from the trucking industry, which did not have to pay for the upkeep of it's infrastructure. And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?

Out here we...pay no attention to titles or honors or whatever because we have found they don't measure a man.... A man is what he is, and what he is shows in his actions. I do not ask where a man came from or what he was...none of that is important. -Louis Lámour "Shalako"
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, April 28, 2008 6:41 AM

Another question that needs to be addressed in this matter is financing.  I doubt that anything like a return to steam locomotion could be internally financed.  Any consortium of banks or other lenders would ask a lot of pointed questions about why any railroad would want to spend that much money on what is commonly perceived to be an obsolescent technology.  These questions would need to be answered to the lender's satisfaction before any money could be obtained.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, April 28, 2008 7:20 AM
It would not be obsolescent technology.   Power distribution to the wheel would be via state-of-the-art electricals as on modern diesels.  Conversion of steam presssure into volts and amps would be by staged turbines, at least two in one locomotive for three efficient throttle positions, and perhaps three for eight efficient throttle positions.  Inlcuding insulation. high pressure steam, etc, all advances in steam power plant design, including pollution control, sojlg be included.   It would be as up-to-date as the newest coal-fired power plant.   I believe GE is working on this right now, and I would not be surprised if EMD is also.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 28, 2008 7:36 AM
 Lee Koch wrote:

 

 

And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?

Because the switch to diesel was at least perceived to be cost effective, and likewise with the potential switch back to coal, which is being pushed by the rising cost of oil.  The reason the switch is not happening now is because it has not arrived yet.  If the bottom somehow fell out of oil prices, it probably would not arrive. 

  • Member since
    August 2001
  • From: US
  • 261 posts
Posted by JonathanS on Monday, April 28, 2008 9:23 AM
 Bucyrus wrote:
 Lee Koch wrote:

 

 

And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?

Because the switch to diesel was at least perceived to be cost effective, and likewise with the potential switch back to coal, which is being pushed by the rising cost of oil.  The reason the switch is not happening now is because it has not arrived yet.  If the bottom somehow fell out of oil prices, it probably would not arrive. 

Railroads didn't just look at the cost of maintenance of the locomotives.  There was and is a much larger picture.  Because diesels are much easier on the track than were the large steam locomotives of the day the size of the rail could be reduced at the next replacement.  And the number of people needed to maintain the track could be reduced.  Both yield savings which do not show up in locomotive operations and maintenance costs.

Additionally, since the diesel locomotive develops higher TE than does steam at low speeds the railroads were able to eliminate many helper districts.  Not only the operating crews of the helpers were eliminated, but the hostlers, night watchmen, maintenance crews, roundhouses, coaling towers, and everything else needed to support the helpers.  Some 2nd tracks and passing sidings were eliminated because of the elimination of the helper moves.  So additional savings in crews, building maintenance, local property tax, etc.  None of which shows up as locomotive operations and maintenance costs.

There also was a movement in many citys to prohibit, or highly regulate steam locomotives.  New York City is the most known example of that. Chicago prohibited steam locomotives that stayed in the city, that is switchers and transfer locomotives, and was headed toward an outright ban in the NY City mold.  Detroit didn't have a ban, but heavily fined railroads if there was visible smoke from a steam locomotive, and had a force of officers that monitored the railroads for compliance.  Many other cities were threatening to follow.  It didn't make sense to make up a train, drag it 5 miles with a diesel, turn it over to steam until the next town, turn it over to a diesel through that town, turn it back over to steam again until another town with a ban was encountered, etc. etc. etc.

The change was made becuse a lot of factors came together at that time to make diesels much more attractive to railroads.  It wasn't a simple comparison of the cost of operation and maintenance of one locomotive versus the other.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, April 28, 2008 10:42 AM
 JonathanS wrote:

Railroads didn't just look at the cost of maintenance of the locomotives.  There was and is a much larger picture.  Because diesels are much easier on the track than were the large steam locomotives of the day the size of the rail could be reduced at the next replacement.

The knowledgeable studies expected that diesel-electrics would be harder on track than steam engines. Your comment is something that has arisen since that time and is parroted, but I've never seen a study that supports it.

And the number of people needed to maintain the track could be reduced.  Both yield savings which do not show up in locomotive operations and maintenance costs.

Do you believe this? The 79 mph rule had more to do with reduced investment -- that, and the desperate attempt to keep operating ratios from deteriorating -- which led to huge deferred maintenance and capital investment deficits. "Normalized" maintenance requirements, according to at least one study, increased slightly as the result of dieselization.

Additionally, since the diesel locomotive develops higher TE than does steam at low speeds the railroads were able to eliminate many helper districts.

Baloney. Never happened. The diesel-electrics overheated at slow speeds and generally could operate only in the range where Steam power developed superior TE. And that points to an advantage for Steam. For units of equivalent weight on the drivers, the Steam engine could move equivalent tonnage faster on grades than a Diesel-electric locomotive which could not develop the TE, and which therefore slowed down to get on the point of the TE curve where it could continue to move the train, which either burned up the traction motors or ... required helpers where the Steam engine did not in order to maintain the speed and TE of the Steam engine.

Not only the operating crews of the helpers were eliminated, but the hostlers, night watchmen, maintenance crews, roundhouses, coaling towers, and everything else needed to support the helpers.  Some 2nd tracks and passing sidings were eliminated because of the elimination of the helper moves.  So additional savings in crews, building maintenance, local property tax, etc.  None of which shows up as locomotive operations and maintenance costs.

Except that the net financial investment in engine facilities doubled during the period of dieselization. Property taxes likely went up. As a percentage of total costs, engine crew costs were higher in 1957 than at any time prior to that in the 20th Century.

The change was made becuse a lot of factors came together at that time to make diesels much more attractive to railroads.  It wasn't a simple comparison of the cost of operation and maintenance of one locomotive versus the other.

Yet, most people who argue this point make very simple comparisons. And it isn't good enough to simply offer that there were "a lot" of factors. Those studies which have, in fact, examined the determinative factors in detail, including the effect of financing charges and economic service lives, came to different conclusions, but also allowed that, if certain factors were left out of the examination, the diesel-electric was the clear winner based on fuel cost savings.

It cannot be gainsaid that the cost of fuel was the primary motivating factor behind dieselization. Anything else was ancillary. The supposed cost savings in many of those ancillary areas were the natural result of post-War economic changes, not the change-over in motive power. That included shut-down of many branch line facilities as the growth of highways and the rapid decline of many branch lines permitted/compelled consolidation of facilities. That happened irrespective of motive power type, and the economic record on that point is reinforced by the decline in carloadings resulting in fewer trains, fewer locomotives in general, and an overall need to consolidate facilities as a result. Even at that, the cost of consolidation of facilities was high; and as noted above the total cost of such facilities more than doubled the cost of such facilities during the Steam era.

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Monday, April 28, 2008 11:06 AM

Like diesel electrics in the 30's, if steam is to make a come back it will take a prototype to sell the program.

Assuming pistons and driving rods, do you rework an existing museum piece? Do you start from scratch using all available advances in technology through out? Is the industrial capacity still there and knowlegeable to cast huge frames etc. as manufacturing procedure?  

If more exotic technology such as turbines hooked to generators, does prototype price rise beyond justification?

This thread relates stories of past trials with veteran conventional steam equipment during the oil crunch of 25 - 30 years ago. The results did not end the diesel's reign.

Does anybody have an educated guess how high oil must go to make a prototype a serious proposition?

 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, April 28, 2008 12:02 PM

 daveklepper wrote:
It would not be obsolescent technology.   Power distribution to the wheel would be via state-of-the-art electricals as on modern diesels.  Conversion of steam presssure into volts and amps would be by staged turbines, at least two in one locomotive for three efficient throttle positions, and perhaps three for eight efficient throttle positions.  Inlcuding insulation. high pressure steam, etc, all advances in steam power plant design, including pollution control, sojlg be included.   It would be as up-to-date as the newest coal-fired power plant.   I believe GE is working on this right now, and I would not be surprised if EMD is also.

 

 It's interesting that many of the people posting on this thread seem to be accepting the following 2 prepositions:

1. A diesel engine can only be economically and efficiently operated on fuel derived from Petroleum.

and

2. There is no economical way to produce fuels suitable for use in a diesel engine from sources other than petroleum.

 I would also point out that there is a fairly strong possibility that the federal goverment may start regulating the CO2 outputs of transportation engines (BTW Note that I am not advocating for that, merely stating a fact) and that would further complicate the prospects of using mineral coal directly in mobile power units.

 Regarding General Electric it is interesting to note that the company invested some substantial R&D in trying to develop a coal fired (in this case Coal Water fueled) diesel engine in the late 80's/early 90's). At the time the gentleman managing the program stated that he felt it made more sense to invest in using coal to produce fuels suitable for standard diesels than trying to make the engine run on coal slurry.....

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 146 posts
Posted by wsherrick on Monday, April 28, 2008 12:44 PM
 Lee Koch wrote:
 wsherrick wrote:

Now it's your turn.  I asked you a question a few posts back and you still haven't responded to it yet.  I'll repeat it for you.

Why did the US Railroad Industry LOSE money after it dieselized? Or more specifically why did the Return On Investment fall by 1960 to half of what it was in 1945?

Simple: competition from the trucking industry, which did not have to pay for the upkeep of it's infrastructure. And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?

Sorry, you don't win the trip to Disney World. Your answer is incorrect.

First, the Interstate Highway system wasn't built yet during the period of dieselization.

Two, the Statistical Record indicates that the Trucking Industry at the time was ACTUALLY HELPING the railroad's operating ratios because the truckers were taking away the unprofitable short haul traffic that the railroad industry was losing money on anyway.  This decline in traffic started LONG before dieselization.  This loss of unprofitable traffic allowed resources to be concentrated on the more profitable long haul traffic, and as a result caused the railroads to need fewer actual locomotives for the remaining traffic.  Yet the railroad's return on investment continued to fall drastically as they dieselized.  So competition from trucking wasn't the reason for the fall. So, it had to be from something else.

Try again.

I looked in your posts and I didnt see you pose the question as to why there aren't any new steam engines yet. But, I'll try to answer it anyway.  I have been in railroading for 30 years off and on.  Railroad management isn't the most progressive group of people and at the present time there is no alternative to EMD or GE.  It doesn't change the facts stated above that diesel electric power has been, is and always will be the most expensive form of motive power ever invented.  This bitter fact was discovered after the railroad industry had no other choice. The steam builders had thrown in the towel.  Today they don't have any other choice at present and the railroad industry isn't going to spend any money on developing any new designs of any kind.  They forfeited their economic destiny years ago to outside forces.

NOW, you said you had seen some studies that showed that diesels are the most economical form of power.  I have cited figures and studies that support a pro steam point of view.  Let's see some actual figures that support your point of view.  Let's see those instead of an anti steam bias displayed in generalized remarks. Where are the studies?

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, April 28, 2008 1:45 PM
 carnej1 wrote:

 It's interesting that many of the people posting on this thread seem to be accepting the following 2 prepositions:

1. A diesel engine can only be economically and efficiently operated on fuel derived from Petroleum.

and

2. There is no economical way to produce fuels suitable for use in a diesel engine from sources other than petroleum.

 

On March 11, I posted as follows:

"... if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel. At those prices, arguments about the evolution of the Diesel-electric start to give way entirely to the fundamental economics of the cost of fuel: Steam wins.

"Now, conversion of mineral coal, at delivered cost to a conversion plant, to a liquefaction or gasification process, plus delivered costs of the resulting product to the user?

"If there is a 40% loss in the conversion process, then the ultimate efficiency of the mineral coal is brought back down to 7.2% rather than 12% at the locomotive. If the delivered cost of coal was $42, and the delivered cost of the end product of liquefaction incurred a similar delivery cost, the resulting cost of 100,000 BTUs of liquefied or gassified coal is about $6.82, compared to the equivalent power derived from burning mineral coal directly at $1.52. What's the point of that if the whole purpose is to achieve maximum economic efficiency?"

You can convert coal to liquid fuel at a cost cheaper than diesel fuel, at a given minimum, permanent, cost of oil. When the cost of conversion yields a product higher than the cost of oil, the investment in liquified conversion facilities is entirely at risk. Below that level, it is cost effective for those uses that require diesel fuel. But, that doesn't mean it is cost effective compared to mineral coal, and it isn't.

This discussion is a little like ethanol -- what's the point of taking significant energy content out of coal, and increasing the cost of the resulting energy over the cost of coal, if you can use the coal directly? Most diesel fuel applications can't use coal directly and so there is a logic behind the proposition, but that specifically isn't true with railroads which have more experience than any other mode with steam operation and used steam with great success and for which there is a well-developed statistical record that offers a genuine comparison, rather than speculative analysis.

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, April 28, 2008 4:04 PM
BTU content of what coal? Does any one have the average BTU content of the various coals. I"ve heard powder river coal is much less than West Va. coal. 
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, April 28, 2008 4:32 PM

 blue streak 1 wrote:
BTU content of what coal? Does any one have the average BTU content of the various coals. I"ve heard powder river coal is much less than West Va. coal. 

For the calculation used, the coal was 11,900 BTU/lb, approximately Power River Basin quality; Diesel fuel was 18,900 BTU per gallon.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 2,535 posts
Posted by KCSfan on Monday, April 28, 2008 10:03 PM

I'll prerface my remarks by stating they are OPINIONS and are not in any way intended to be statements of fact. I'll use the Santa Fe (AT&SF that is) which I consider to be one of the most progressive and innovative railroads ca. 1930-50 as an example. I have always thought that they were so impressed with the performance of their few freight diesel electric road engines during WW2 that they decided on full scale dieselization in the post war period. It's difficult for me to reconcile this decision with the studies referenced in this thread that show reciprocating steam's superiority. Weren't these studies available to Santa Fe management or, if they were considered, did they disbelieve their validity? Did GM's EMD distort the facts to convince Santa Fe management of steam's inferiority akin to their National City Lines strategy which led to municipalities scrapping their streetcar lines in favor of GM busses? If railroad management was so stodgy and slow to accept change will someone please explain their almost universal headlong rush to dieselize.

With respect to the railroads deteriorating financials in the 1960 time frame, I seriously doubt that much of this can be attributed to their prior investment in dieselization. I won't dispute that this was a factor but I think it was way overshadowed by other issues. Contrary to what has been said previously, much of the Interstate Highway system was in place by 1960 resulting in significant loss of long haul freight traffic to trucking. The profitable LCL and produce (fruits and vegetables) had virtually all gone to OTR trucking by that time. The railroads were saddled with increasingly unprofitable branch lines, passenger and commuter services. Their ability to adjust rates either up to be compensatory, or down to be competetive was severely restricted. In short I believe the ICC was much more responsible for the railroads financial woes of the time than was their investment in dieselization.

I'm not at all able to present any factual arguments to dispute the studies that purport to show the advantages of steam over diesel but, and it's a very big BUT, I simply can not reconcile them with the historical fact that steam is long gone and diesels are at the head of our trains today.

Mark

buisness was virtually gone

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:46 AM
 KCSfan wrote:

I'll prerface my remarks by stating they are OPINIONS and are not in any way intended to be statements of fact. I'll use the Santa Fe (AT&SF that is) which I consider to be one of the most progressive and innovative railroads ca. 1930-50 as an example. 

Santa Fe may have had the best 4-6-4, 4-8-4 and 2-10-4 steam locomotives built, with which to compare to the early diesels. They would also seem to be one of the best managed railroads post-war as well.

Dale

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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