Could steam make a comeback?

[GP40-2]

So you object to the term "clean coal"

So do the majority of the American people.

Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it..

Not according to MIT, private investors, and other companies willing to spend hundreds of millions in investment in algae derived fuel oil.

...it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices...

15,000 gallons fuel oil produced per acre of algae sounds pretty appreciable to me... and I don't think algae is considered a food source for most Americans.

...Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt.

Downsized perhaps, but not bankrupt. This is plenty of other cargo that generates more profit for the RR's than hauling dirty coal. So are you saying we should blindly support coal mining, an industry that produces massive environmental destruction, just because the RR make some revenue off it?

The only fraud here is after 28 pages, you are still arguing the absurd idea of clean coal and coal mining.

[erikem]

Diesel made from biomass is the most costly to produce - their is no base hydrocarbon to start from, rather just a seed and soil.  The hydrocarbon potential must first be formed from the plant's growth spectrum, drawing it's basic energy elements from water in the soil, CO2 from the air, etc.  And of course, one must first till the soil, fertilize it, plant the seeds, spread chemicals to prevent weeds and pests, in some cases irrigate the fields, harvest the oil seeds, crush the oil seeds, and then and only then can you start with a basic hydrocarbon that is refined (actually transesterified) into the useful product.

Add to that the fact that using farmland to grow fuel is causing our food prices to rise, and biodiesel is a lose-lose all the way around.

An idea that intrigues me is producing diesel from oils found in algae - and growing the algae in the CO2 rich environment of te stack gases from a coal fired power plant. Not sure of the burning qualities relative to petroleum based or CTL based diesel fuel, but it does sound a lot more sane than dedicating farmland to diesel fuel production. 

[selector]

Fifteen thousand gallons of bio-fuel?  I wonder how much CO2 that would yield when oxidized?

[GP40-2]

 
Bio-diesel is win-win. Minimal pollutants in diesels with the new exhaust converters, and minimal pollution in an external combustion boiler.

This is an absurd statement, but typical from this individual who seems to have no ability to read and confirm what has been provided here as reference.

Of the three basic types of diesel fuel - #2 diesel, synthetic diesel aka CTL, and biodiesel - biodiesel is by far the worst, both in terms of pollution and energy costs.  As per the ethanol promoters, they do not take into account the amount of energy needed in the full production lifespan of biofuels.  Again, for the benefit of this particular individual, I'll make it as simple as possible:

In terms of total energy costs per production lifespan, diesel made from petroleum has the lowest energy costs - this is because the hydrocarbon is already in liquid form, needing only refinement.

Diesel made from coal is the next lowest in terms of energy production costs - the hydrocarbon is a solid, thus must be synthesized with h2o to form the usable liquid.

Diesel made from biomass is the most costly to produce - their is no base hydrocarbon to start from, rather just a seed and soil.  The hydrocarbon potential must first be formed from the plant's growth spectrum, drawing it's basic energy elements from water in the soil, CO2 from the air, etc.  And of course, one must first till the soil, fertilize it, plant the seeds, spread chemicals to prevent weeds and pests, in some cases irrigate the fields, harvest the oil seeds, crush the oil seeds, and then and only then can you start with a basic hydrocarbon that is refined (actually transesterified) into the useful product.

Add to that the fact that using farmland to grow fuel is causing our food prices to rise, and biodiesel is a lose-lose all the way around.

Compared to synthetic diesel made from coal, biodiesel is much dirtier all the way around.  Biodiesel produces higher NOX than synthetic diesel or #2 diesel, and still possesses those aromatics that produce the deadliest pollution.  Synthetic diesel made from coal has virtually no aromatics.

Norm Saxon, I will keep this simple. You are so biased towards dirty, environmentally destructive coal and coal mining it is sad. The only thing that has been proven here is that coal mining destroys the environment. There has not been ONE post by you or the other snake oil salesmen defending coal mining. That's because IT HAS NO DEFENSE. If YOU bothered to read the post, I never said making bio-diesel from food stocks or seed and soil. I said use algae, which is more than happy to grow in saline water or fresh water unsuitable for human or livestock use. Algae will even grow in sewage at wastewater treatment plants. Algae, is naturally 50%-60% oil by weight and is relatively easy to refine. Bio-diesel via algae produces far more energy than it takes to grow and refine. I repeat: fuel oil derived from algae is both biodegradable and NON TOXIC. I stated in a previous post, if one does not like the thought of a compression engine, then fine, use it as external combustion. The technology exists today to burn fuel oil as clean as natural gas in a boiler--a sort of fluid bed combustion chamber for liquid fuels.

A single acre of pond algae can produce 15,000 gallons of fuel oil. This has been proven by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who uses this method at a generation plant on campus. Besides the hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment capital pumped into algae derived fuel oil in the past 12 months alone, companies such as Exxon, BP, Shell and Chevron are currently investing massive amounts of their own money into this technology. Why is it that private investors are willing to spend their own money on this and not "clean" coal technology? Why is it that oil companies are willing to spend massive amounts of their stock holders money on algae bio-fuel and not "clean" coal technology. Why?, because coal is a liability today, not an asset. If it wasn't for the federal government wasting millions of taxpayers dollars on "clean" coal, the absurd thought of "clean" coal would not even exist. Even the Feds are now questioning the benefits of "clean" and "cheap" coal. They just cancelled plans to build an "advanced" "clean coal" plant in IL, because the COST was too high, and the "benefits" were dubious at best.

Coal is ancient history at this point (pun intended). If you assume the majority of the American people are going to support increased coal use and mining, you are really out of touch with the current political reality. Personally, I do not know why you and others are wasting your time arguing for more coal use. It is not something you are going to win with the majority of this country or with private investors.

[Norman Saxon]

For what it's worth, Lehman Brothers are predicting oil will fall in price to $83 a barrel in 2009 and $70 by 2010.

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/st/2008/4/25/175710.cfm?s=al&promo_code=6231-1

That's still around $20 a barrel higher than the $50 a barrel equivalent price needed to help CTL be viable without subsidy, and $30 a barrel higher than that needed for external coal combustion viabiltiy.

[Norman Saxon]

Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover. 

External combustion is not more efficient. It needs more fuel to produce the same power as internal combustion. Regardless, I never said in any of my posts that I was against a return to external combustion if the maintenance costs claimed can be documented. My issue is with certain people who want to combine a return to the less efficient external combustion locomotive with the absurd argument that there is such a thing as "clean" coal and we should be using it only because it is "cheap".

So now the cat is out of the bag.  It's not external combustion you object to, it's coal.  Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt.  Ironic for a supposedly "pro-rail" individual.

So you object to the term "clean coal".  I suppose you bathe regularly in tubs of "clean" petroleum.  The production of any usable hydrocarbon will result in some forms of uncleanliness.  Taking coal out of context in this manner is rather odd. 

Well, for all practical purposes, unless the railroads electrify they are stuck with using either coal or petroleum.  Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it (thus it's production results in more pollution than the production of #2 diesel or synthetic CTL diesel), it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices.

Other than publicity stunts, no investor-owned railroad is going to go with biodiesel anytime soon.

So the real choices are:

• stick with petroleum-based diesel-electric and eat/pass on the ever increasing costs
• develop CTL diesel for use in diesel-electrics, and hope OPEC doesn't flood the market
• develop coal-fired external combustion - reciprocating or turbine
• build megamiles of catenary and go all electric for mainline service

As per the data provided in this thread, coal-fired external combustion is the most cost effective, CTL probably second, electrification third, and retaining the status quo last.  Since railroads have oligarchy power and can thus pass on fuel costs to customers, it looks like the status quo will be retained.

With that, I'm done with this thread. Good Day.

Not likely.

[Norman Saxon]

 
Bio-diesel is win-win. Minimal pollutants in diesels with the new exhaust converters, and minimal pollution in an external combustion boiler.

This is an absurd statement, but typical from this individual who seems to have no ability to read and confirm what has been provided here as reference.

Of the three basic types of diesel fuel - #2 diesel, synthetic diesel aka CTL, and biodiesel - biodiesel is by far the worst, both in terms of pollution and energy costs.  As per the ethanol promoters, they do not take into account the amount of energy needed in the full production lifespan of biofuels.  Again, for the benefit of this particular individual, I'll make it as simple as possible:

In terms of total energy costs per production lifespan, diesel made from petroleum has the lowest energy costs - this is because the hydrocarbon is already in liquid form, needing only refinement.

Diesel made from coal is the next lowest in terms of energy production costs - the hydrocarbon is a solid, thus must be synthesized with h2o to form the usable liquid.

Diesel made from biomass is the most costly to produce - their is no base hydrocarbon to start from, rather just a seed and soil.  The hydrocarbon potential must first be formed from the plant's growth spectrum, drawing it's basic energy elements from water in the soil, CO2 from the air, etc.  And of course, one must first till the soil, fertilize it, plant the seeds, spread chemicals to prevent weeds and pests, in some cases irrigate the fields, harvest the oil seeds, crush the oil seeds, and then and only then can you start with a basic hydrocarbon that is refined (actually transesterified) into the useful product.

Add to that the fact that using farmland to grow fuel is causing our food prices to rise, and biodiesel is a lose-lose all the way around.

Compared to synthetic diesel made from coal, biodiesel is much dirtier all the way around.  Biodiesel produces higher NOX than synthetic diesel or #2 diesel, and still possesses those aromatics that produce the deadliest pollution.  Synthetic diesel made from coal has virtually no aromatics.

[wsherrick]

I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2. My Peer Reviewed crack was more a general comment on the level of "Fact" being asserted in the thread versus the relative value of any comment on this board. It applies to everyone. There is no review of stated facts, ergo, there are no facts.  

 

 

That's a rather smug statement indeed. A statement made without any, "facts," to support it. The facts that you supposedly dispute are from peer reviewed studies, published statistics from reliable sources and from designers who have applied and tested these concepts sucessfully to locomotives around the World.  Which statements do you have an issue with in regard to ther validity?  Please be specific.

[GP40-2]

I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2...

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you.

[GP40-2]

I haven't been keeping up on all the different Bio-Diesel stories, does Alga based bio-Diesel still have the higher NOx issues that current Bio has? I remember there was some shortline up in the Central Valley somewhere that was ordered to use Bio-Diesel, but couldn't because it raised their NOx emissions above the limits imposed in the Valley.

 Hmm, now I'm gonna have to do some research. 

Yes, it does have slightly higher NOx than dino-diesel, but all the nasty organics produced in combustion are eliminated. Honda has developed an new converter that converts the NOx into nitrogen, thus eliminating the NOx problem.

NOx is produced mainly in a high temperature/high compression operation, and it would not be produced in any large amounts in an external combustion situation.

Bio-diesel is win-win. Minimal pollutants in diesels with the new exhaust converters, and minimal pollution in an external combustion boiler.

[YoHo1975]

I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2. My Peer Reviewed crack was more a general comment on the level of "Fact" being asserted in the thread versus the relative value of any comment on this board. It applies to everyone. There is no review of stated facts, ergo, there are no facts.  

 

I haven't been keeping up on all the different Bio-Diesel stories, does Alga based bio-Diesel still have the higher NOx issues that current Bio has? I remember there was some shortline up in the Central Valley somewhere that was ordered to use Bio-Diesel, but couldn't because it raised their NOx emissions above the limits imposed in the Valley.

 Hmm, now I'm gonna have to do some research. 

[GP40-2]

Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover. 

External combustion is not more efficient. It needs more fuel to produce the same power as internal combustion. Regardless, I never said in any of my posts that I was against a return to external combustion if the maintenance costs claimed can be documented. My issue is with certain people who want to combine a return to the less efficient external combustion locomotive with the absurd argument that there is such a thing as "clean" coal and we should be using it only because it is "cheap".

I would have no issue what so ever with a low maintenance (if proven) modern steam locomotive with an improved efficiency boiler and steam circuit running on something like algae derived fuel oil. This may be a win-win situation for everyone. Railroads (may) get a lower cost to maintain/longer economic life locomotive. The anti-CO2 freaks get a CO2 neutral fuel. Bio-diesel eliminates almost all the nasty stuff associated with dino-diesel (Bio-diesel is 10 times safer than table salt). Our dependance of foreign oil would be eliminated along with our dependence on domestic coal and coal mining that will never be "clean".

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick recently made a speech declaring "The age of fossil fuels is over". You can take it as a rant from a governor of an overly Democratic state, or you can take it as an observation from a person who has a vision of the energy future. I take it as the later. I know a lot of people in PA, WVA, and OH who are not liberals, but are sick and tired of the coal industry, coal mines, and coal fired power plants. I'm hearing more of the same from people from all over the country. Good luck in trying to get these people and the politicians they vote for to allow a massive conversion to coal fired locomotives regardless of the technology.

With that, I'm done with this thread. Good Day.

[wsherrick]

I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...

I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.  

The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually.  Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

No, but they do have to do with the transmission.

How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?

I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors. 

It's fairly simple.  If you had an electronic throttle control on the steam engine, then you would have sensors that measured cylinder pressure, RPM,s, ect. when the conditions were right for slipping then the computer would close the throttle valve enough to stop the slip.

That's really primitive compared to what railroads can do today where wheel slip is on a per axle basis. By ganging the drivers together, you're forced into an all or nothing situation.  

 

Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover. 

It's okay to be biased-at least you admit it.

Guess what those modern motors can go into synchronized slip and thus stall or burn big divots in the rail and flatten their wheels.  I'm a locomotive engineer who has experience with both types of power.  If and when steam locomotives return, all the required modernization will take out a lot of the skill and experience required to operate them, thus removing much of the pride and the great feeling of accomplishment one gets by learning to run them well.

[YoHo1975]

I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...

I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.  

The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually.  Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

No, but they do have to do with the transmission.

How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?

I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors. 

It's fairly simple.  If you had an electronic throttle control on the steam engine, then you would have sensors that measured cylinder pressure, RPM,s, ect. when the conditions were right for slipping then the computer would close the throttle valve enough to stop the slip.

That's really primitive compared to what railroads can do today where wheel slip is on a per axle basis. By ganging the drivers together, you're forced into an all or nothing situation.  

 

Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover. 

[GP40-2]

I believe what GP40-2 is referring to is mountain top removal in the Appalachian mountains which is a fairly modern process (since the 1970's). Basically a mining company builds a road up to the top of a mountain and then surface mines the coal from that area (literally removing the top). The problem is that rainfall will wash sediment and acidic run off down into the valley below. This is a very cost effective way to mine coal as you don't need to do all the underground engineering used in traditional mining and it requires a much smaller workforce. Unfortunately it seems to be extremely difficult to control the run off issues (which are the result of water flowing under gravity) and when the mine tailings get into bodies of water there are very real pollution problems (keep in mind that in many cases these are sources of drinking water).

 These type of issues are far easier to mitigate in more arid areas like the Powder River basin .

I was referring to Long Wall Mining, but thanks for bringing up the absolutely despicable practice of Mountain Top Removal Mining. You described it pretty well, and it is turning once scenic portions of the Allegheny Mountains into a barren moonscape. But hey man, we just got to have that "cheap" coal.

Here's some pictures of the wonderful process: MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL MINING

In Long Wall Mining, a mining machine the length of a football field mines a coal panel up 12,000 feet long at a time. As the machine tunnels underground, the surface subsides behind it. If you are mining an 8 foot thick panel, the surface drops 8 feet the instant the machine passes underneath. Here's the kicker: The coal company will undermine anything and everything in its path. Private homes, schools, shopping malls, highways, railroad track, historic structures, water wells, natural gas transmission lines, high tension power lines, etc. You name it, nothing is protected on the surface. The surface owners have minimal rights, while the coal company has maximum rights to its "cheap" coal. After the panel is mined, the rock strata is permanently cracked. Aquifers and ground water are forever lost, and better yet, the cracking often exposes acid bearing rock formations, so whatever ground water does accumulate is acidic. The coal companies are only required to make repairs on private homes, and only to the point of making the house "livable" again. They do not have to restore the house to "original" condition.

Regardless of what certain snake oil salesmen here are trying to convince you all of, there is no such thing as "cheap" or "clean" coal. Never will be either.

[wsherrick]

I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...

I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.  

The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually.  Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

No, but they do have to do with the transmission.

How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?

I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors. 

It's fairly simple.  If you had an electronic throttle control on the steam engine, then you would have sensors that measured cylinder pressure, RPM,s, ect. when the conditions were right for slipping then the computer would close the throttle valve enough to stop the slip.

[YoHo1975]

I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...

I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.  

The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually.  Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

No, but they do have to do with the transmission.

How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?

I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors. 

[erikem]

The problem with diesel electric locomotives is the axle hung traction motors. These motors rest directly on bearings on the driven axle and the motor mass was effectively unsprung and capable of inflicting severe impact forces at rail joints.

This and the overall lower center of gravity of the Diesel-electric, which acted to spread the rail on curves. Steam, because of the higher center of gravity, exerted a substantial downward force or vector on the outer rail on a curve. This acted to hold the rail in place against the angular momentum acting in the horizontal direction; the higher the speed, the greater the force holding the rail in position, and that was also the direction in which the ties and substructure are best designed to absorb that force. The Diesel-electric put a greater percentage of the force vector horizontally against the rail -- the direction most likely to produce movement in the rail.

When the Pennsy was testing locomotive designs for the Penn Station electric operations, they found that a high center of gravity reduced lateral loads. The engineers termed it an inverted pendulum. See Middleton's Manhattan Gateway or When the Steam Railroads Electrified.

[wsherrick]

I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...

I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.  

The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually.  Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

[YoHo1975]

I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...

I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.  

[wsherrick]

How do you gain water efficency? I would think a Steam Boiler Starves with less water?

 

Also,on the discussion of what amounts to a steam/electric.

Maybe it was addressed pages back, but it seems to me that this would have advantages in particular in drag operations that currently rate AC power. It would also have advantages in that you could perhaps MU Steam units and legacy diesel units and/or better utilize tools like Locotrol/DPU.

 

I've often wondered why Diesel electrics don't simply treat the electrical interface as a transmission line and unify that transmission line through all units in a consist. 

Then, if you add units that produce the power a different way, you load balance as needed.

Also, in this scenario, you would probably have smalled steam engines.

I don't know, seems like a possibility though I don't know enough to judge. 

You can already MU steam and diesels if the steam engine is the lead engine.  The steam locomotives on the Grand Canyon Railroad have MU ability as well as the Challenger. If I understand what you're saying.

The reason a modern locomotive would use less water is simply because it is more efficient by more than 100% over traditional steam.  It gets more bang for the fuel and water buck so to speak,therefore; a smaller more efficient boiler, firebox, steam circut, valves and cylinders, exhaust system and low friction moving parts would need far less fuel and water to do the same job.

[YoHo1975]

How do you gain water efficency? I would think a Steam Boiler Starves with less water?

 

Also,on the discussion of what amounts to a steam/electric.

Maybe it was addressed pages back, but it seems to me that this would have advantages in particular in drag operations that currently rate AC power. It would also have advantages in that you could perhaps MU Steam units and legacy diesel units and/or better utilize tools like Locotrol/DPU.

 

I've often wondered why Diesel electrics don't simply treat the electrical interface as a transmission line and unify that transmission line through all units in a consist. 

Then, if you add units that produce the power a different way, you load balance as needed.

Also, in this scenario, you would probably have smalled steam engines.

I don't know, seems like a possibility though I don't know enough to judge. 

[wsherrick]

So, I am to assume based on the dressing down that those costs include labor costs involved and the additional costs absorbed by the community?

The Santa Fe 3751 can go from LA to San Fransico on a single tank of Diesel #3, a distance of roughly 500 miles, but it can only go from LA to Oceanside Ca on a single tank of Water. A distance of about 80 miles. Now perhaps the efficency of water use has been addressed, but I would think that by it's very nature, a Steam engine can't be especially water thrifty.

So where does that water come from? Railroads had horrible problems maintaining usable water sources in the Southwest and elsewhere. Those poor water sources raised maintenence costs and reduced availability. We exist in a world where sprinklers are put on schedules and violators are sometimes fined. Southern California exists purely because of the water it steals from Northern California and Nevada a process that has had severe environmental impacts,

So you're suggesting that once we've found the water, cleaned it for use, placated those we're taking it from and insured limited impact, moved the water from source to processing to storage and created those storage points every what 100 miles? 150? staffed those points, adjusted train scheduling to accomodate rewatering which includes longer times for the train literally, but also longer times for the engineer including dead time, that after we've done all that, it's actually still better than an internal combustion/electric? Notice, I didn't say Diesel, because obviously as has been pointed out in this thread, Foreign purchased oil is merely convient, not the only possible source.

A similiar locomotive of equal capability of the Santa Fe 3751 built today would have a boiler of about 2/3rd's the size of the 3751. It would also consume on average about 30 to 35% less water and use up to half as much fuel to do the same job.

When I worked on the Southern Steam Program there was a simple solution to the lack of water tanks.  It's called an auxiliary water car.  With these improvements the modern 3751 would easily cover the 500 miles you spoke of with out multiple water stops.

[Modelcar]

From an above post of  "motor mass basically being unsprung".....Wouldn't at least part of the mass of the traction motor be "sprung".....2 bearings resting on the drive axle {unsprung}, and the 3rd mounting point being to the "sprung" chassis structure..... 

[wsherrick]

 

If I may... .

How about a rail car that has a small, coal fed, steam driven electric generator.  This car would power electric locomotives. 

Just a thought.

You might find this interesting.  A sucessful steam/electric locomotve designed and built in the 1890's.  Let's see if I can get the link to work.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/heilmann/heilmann.htm

 

 

[MichaelSol]

I am relying a published study that suggests that the railway civil engineers of the era, the gentlemen most familiar with steam and diesel, and who no doubt had done the math, believed that diesel-electrics would be slightly harder on track and structure than steam.

 In the study you mentioned, what was the cause for concern about diesel-electrics that might cause them to be harder on the track than steam?

The problem with diesel electric locomotives is the axle hung traction motors. These motors rest directly on bearings on the driven axle and the motor mass was effectively unsprung and capable of inflicting severe impact forces at rail joints.

This and the overall lower center of gravity of the Diesel-electric, which acted to spread the rail on curves. Steam, because of the higher center of gravity, exerted a substantial downward force or vector on the outer rail on a curve. This acted to hold the rail in place against the angular momentum acting in the horizontal direction; the higher the speed, the greater the force holding the rail in position, and that was also the direction in which the ties and substructure are best designed to absorb that force. The Diesel-electric put a greater percentage of the force vector horizontally against the rail -- the direction most likely to produce movement in the rail.

 

[M636C]

I am relying a published study that suggests that the railway civil engineers of the era, the gentlemen most familiar with steam and diesel, and who no doubt had done the math, believed that diesel-electrics would be slightly harder on track and structure than steam.

 In the study you mentioned, what was the cause for concern about diesel-electrics that might cause them to be harder on the track than steam?

The problem with diesel electric locomotives is the axle hung traction motors. These motors rest directly on bearings on the driven axle and the motor mass was effectively unsprung and capable of inflicting severe impact forces at rail joints.

This became a problem in both Britain and Germany with axle loads above 20 tons at speeds of 100 MPH or more in the 1970s. This was overcome by using six axle locomotives (the German 103 electric) or "resilient" (shock absorbing) wheels (the British class 86 electric). The ultimate example was the British class 91 electric which has frame mounted motors driving through cardan shafts to bevel gear drives on the axle.

Certainly there were increased track maintenance costs with extensive use of diesel and electric locomotives before continuous welded rail reduced the number of rail joints and concrete ties stiffened up the structure.

M636C

[Kevin C. Smith]

I am relying a published study that suggests that the railway civil engineers of the era, the gentlemen most familiar with steam and diesel, and who no doubt had done the math, believed that diesel-electrics would be slightly harder on track and structure than steam.

Something I had never heard of before-facinating (as so many of the tidbits from your files are, Michael)! The common wisdom (I know, I know-often a contradiction) is that the heavier weight of most mainline steam locomotives and/or the "hammer blow" effect of rods and counterwieghts made steam locomotives much harder on track than diesels with their lighter weight and smoother electric drive. In the study you mentioned, what was the cause for concern about diesel-electrics that might cause them to be harder on the track than steam?

[MichaelSol]

See the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, section 611, et. seq. on oil getting a 27% depletion allowance but coal 10%. 

Interesting.

[tomikawaTT]

After lurking in the weeds for a number of pages, I would like to weigh in with a number of psychological and semi-economic factors that drove the railroads to diesels, and then toss a few rocks into the well  of, "What do we do next?"

Things that impacted the decision to dieselize:

• Advertising policy.  The traditional locomotive builders, "Let their products sell themselves."  GM, especially, used car-selling tactics - aggressive salesmanship - that the Big Three of steam considered inappropriate.  (The Sierra Railroad, hardly a huge market, got a fancy hardcover book full of pretty pictures and optomistic statistics.  Imagine what hit the PRR or NYC.)
• "Everything has to be NEW!!!"  While WWII was going on the popular media were preparing the public (including people who made railroad decisions) for a great, sweeping change to a brave, new, art-deco-streamlined world where everything old would be tossed aside to make room for the latest in 'modern' developments.  (Just look at copies of magazines from the period - full of such dreamland ideas as suburbs built around runways and personal autogyros for everyman.  When nobody could actually get anything, that stuff fell on fertile ground.)
• Uncertain coal supplies and prices.  John L. Lewis' UMW was agitating for higher wages, and was staging strikes to make the point.  Oil supplies, OTOH, were adequate and relatively inexpensive once the Kriegsmarine U-Booten stopped sinking tankers.

And now, a potential deal-breaker for electrification.  Copper thieves have been going into substations, and taking feeder wires out of street lights, to get copper to sell as scrap.  Without going into details, I can think of several ways to kill a stretch of catenary so I could cut it down, chop it up and load it into my off-road truck.  I'm sure the metal thieves are equally inventive - and their families wouldn't hesitate to sue the railroad if their activities caused them to become part of the short circuit.

In addition to improved combustion technology, there are some simple things that Chapelon did to WWII era steamers to improve their efficiency - the equivalent of porting and polishing a car's intake and exhaust system.  The steam locomotive was never developed to anything like its full potential before the rather abrupt shift to internal combustion.

Chuck