Could steam make a comeback?

[tpatrick]

Michael, regarding the A-10, let me add that the Air Force really didn't want the ground support mission at all. However when a movement arose in DOD to give the planes and their mission to the Marines, the AF vigorously opposed it.

Meanwhile let me weigh in on the topic at hand. After reading this entire thread I conclude that a return to steam is not only practical, but actually possible. In our system, when an economic opportunity arises it is siezed. Today the return to steam is prevented by the expectation (or perhaps wishful thought) that crude oil prices will ultimately fall. If prices continue to be high that hope will fade and  someone will take advantage of the situation. Steam will return when someone is willing to make the investment in hopes if reaping the considerable profit that will come to the company that brings it back. And the railroad(s) will make the cold business calculation that modern steam works better for them. It may well happen that it is a railroad (NS or UP?) that upgrades some existing power and builds their own. 3985, 1216, 844, 614 and 611 could be readily upgraded (and 3985 is apparently already in the process) to prove and refine the concepts.

[MichaelSol]

At least this is an antidote to the curse of modernism. Sometimes the older, less fashionable ways are better.

There are many analogies. After 50 years, the B-52 remains the preferred heavy bomber primarily because of cost effectiveness and the fact that, ultimately, after four or five successors, it still does the best job, and has functionally returned to being the backbone of the heavy bomber fleet. Fortunately, they kept enough around to make "going back" feasible.

The A-10 is a more modern example. It wasn't sexy, it wasn't fast, and the services didn't want it. During the first week of the Gulf War, 100% of the battlefield requests for air support were for "air support"; during the second week, as commanders began to see A-10's in action and it's superiority over far more "modern" and "advanced" aircraft, 90% of the requests became for "A-10 support". They had to see it work first, but then it's ability to do the job was paramount, even as the executive class wanted to buy something else and had been engaged on an active program to scrap the planes because they were "too old". Once again, a fortuitous set of circumstances permitted the services to "go back" to using that tough little plane as the primary front line support aircraft.

 

[Anonymous]

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

That pretty well sums it up.

Could steam make a comeback?
A better question would be "When are the mainlines going to be electrified?"

Never.

Electrification advocacy is pointless without addressing the problems in Pinkepank's July 1970

article. I have not see that here.  

Figure a capital shortage is less debatable over the forseeable future than an oil shortage.

The essential problems of electrification are high capital cost and peak period loads.

[Anonymous]

 
You also completely ignored the fact that fluid bed combustion of coal INCREASES the CO2 output (the politicians will love you for that when they pass carbon taxes), mercury, and PAH's.

The spector of CO2 taxation is hardly a drawback to the clear economic favorability of burning coal externally rather than flash burning diesel.  Even with those costs passed on to the shipper, coal wins by a landslide.  Options abound....... 

http://www.examiner.com/a-1374241~Coal_fired_Colo__tourist_train_plants_trees_to_offset_carbon.html

Only a hard cap on CO2 emissions could stymie the use of coal when stacked up against toxic baby killing diesel fuel.  And what kind of Earth-hating monster would be willing to hard cap CO2 if the alternative is more of those diesel toxins?  Like I said before, if it was up to me I'd take the increased CO2 over increased diesel toxins any day.  As would most reasoned people.

 

See Durning and Bauman, Tax Shift, published by a north coast environmental group about ten years

ago. The idea is to tax "bads" such as pollution, congestion, use of natural resources, instead

of "goods" such as profits and payrolls. It seems to me this is a pretty good way to clear up 

a lot of economic and envirnomental pollution without a lot of stifling regulation.

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

[Anonymous]

According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively

Oh, brother please show me the actual statistics. I want hard numbers, not giddy cheerleading from two unknowns.

Okay, Porta is the guy who invented the firebox.  Let's see you produce some numbers. Otherwise go argue with yourself. It's time for you to put up or shut up. I have produced plenty of them as have others and told you where to go look.

I was pretty mad at the railfan press after reading Porta's death notice. If he were still alive 

I certainly would have wanted to get in touch with him. That bio could have been printed a

good twenty years earlier.  

[Anonymous]

When there is a 5:1 cost advantage in fuel, railroads are smart enough to figure out how to solve "the water problem", and plenty of financial incentive to do so.

At $60/ton 11,500 BTU coal, and at $3.65 per gallon diesel, adjusted for 13% efficiency coal, 32% efficiency diesel, the current adjusted cost for 100,000 BTUs of coal is $2.01 and the equivalent cost of 100,000 BTUs of diesel is $8.21.

The coal costs 3 cents per pound. Bulk Water costs between 0.1 and 0.5 cents per gallon. Historically, steam locomotives used 0.7 gallon per pound of coal used, so, the cost of water for each ton of coal used would be about $1.00-$2.20. Desalinated water would cost about $3.50-$5.00. That compares to the cost of lubricant saved over diesel operation of $10.21.

The "water problem" is more of a "water excuse" that has little relevance to the overall cost of operation in comparing Diesel-electric with reciprocating Steam.

 

We had an extensive discussion on [e-mail] recently about using water

not suitable for other purposes. If we can do that we can kill two birds with one stone. 

[Anonymous]

Phoebe,

If you missed my point, a similar sized jet burns more fuel than one with props.  Their block to block times on short to medium stage lengths are within minutes of each other.  Even if it is a regional jet, it is less efficient.  The only reason the airlines are buying them is the flying public has a perception that jets are better, right or wrong.  Mostly wrong.  They will take an out of the way routing to avoid prop flights.  Airlines live and die by the load factor, so they buy jets to sell tickets.  Their big problem is they can't pass these increased costs on to the consumers.

Block to block times is a misleading statistic.

On very short routes so much time is spent in the circling low speed approach and departure paths that faster aircraft are not able to take advantage of their higher cruise speeds.  Of course flying faster burns more fuel.  If a fanjet slows down 200 mph to turboprop speeds, the fuel economy is similar.

If your point was valid then freight airlines would all be turboprop since the packages don't care about "sexy".  But if you look you will see that turboprops are used only on very short routes with very small payloads, or into small airports where the jets just don't have enough runway.

FedEx uses Cessna Caravans for short routes, not because they have propellers, but because they are single engine.  Now THAT saves money, but the Feds won't permit single engine planes for scheduled transportation of passengers.

Incidentally, short or unimproved field capability is the turboprops primary strong suit.  The one thing that propellers do better is acceleration from stop.  Fanjets need to get some motion induced airflow through them before they can make full power.

It is slightly off topic, but turboprops are almost as fast as jets, consume a lot less fuel, land and take-off at about two-thirds the speed, and make much less noise. See June(?) 2003 Airpower article on the Lockheed Electra, or Jon Lake, The Great Book of Bombers, on the Russian TU-95 Bear.

At least this is an antidote to the curse of modernism. Sometimes the older, less fashionable ways are better.

[Anonymous]

Is there a parallel in the railroad industry?  Were diesel-electrics bought because they were percieved to be "sexy"?  How many railroads boasted they weren't modern?  Not a one.  It doesn't stroke the ego if you're not thought of as the best.  The real advantage of diesel-electrics at the time was the cost of fuel and they were "sexy".  Now after time has passed, that situation has reversed itself. 

I think your observation has a lot of validity.  After the war ended and we entered the 1950s, it seemed to me that the country was suddenly swept up in the need to be modern.  One might think that such an important decision as all railroads making a sea change in motive power would have been driven solely by engineering and economics, but I think emotion also played a sizable role as you suggest.  The collective psyche of the railroad industry may have even felt a bit of an inferiority complex as it entered this suddenly modern marketing era with dirty, black steam locomotives.

See King's article, Sept 2004, that the railroads bought a lot of high wheel articulateds for work better perfomed by the Y-6b.  Compounds just were not fashionable then.

Now it is the other way around, drag freight locomotives (diesels) being bought for fast, heavy trains.  

[CNW 6000]

http://www.google.com/patents?id=J8syAAAAEBAJ&dq=fluidized+bed+locomotive

Activated link.

[carnej1]

 

My thinking, or rambling, is to have the 'car' be about the size of an exhisting locomotive.    Boiler, turbine and a generator.  A mini powerplant, if you will.   

 

I think what your describing is something like this:

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=J8syAAAAEBAJ&dq=fluidized+bed+locomotive

[doghouse]

 

My thinking, or rambling, is to have the 'car' be about the size of an exhisting locomotive.    Boiler, turbine and a generator.  A mini powerplant, if you will.   

[Modelcar]

....Interesting.  But wouldn't the "small rail car" have to have an equivalent power plant in HP as the diesel it replaces.  That wouldn't be too small.....

[doghouse]

 

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.

[Norman Saxon]

 
You also completely ignored the fact that fluid bed combustion of coal INCREASES the CO2 output (the politicians will love you for that when they pass carbon taxes), mercury, and PAH's.

The spector of CO2 taxation is hardly a drawback to the clear economic favorability of burning coal externally rather than flash burning diesel.  Even with those costs passed on to the shipper, coal wins by a landslide.  Options abound....... 

http://www.examiner.com/a-1374241~Coal_fired_Colo__tourist_train_plants_trees_to_offset_carbon.html

Only a hard cap on CO2 emissions could stymie the use of coal when stacked up against toxic baby killing diesel fuel.  And what kind of Earth-hating monster would be willing to hard cap CO2 if the alternative is more of those diesel toxins?  Like I said before, if it was up to me I'd take the increased CO2 over increased diesel toxins any day.  As would most reasoned people.

 

[MichaelSol]

Interesting.

Would that still be true on BNSF's LA-Chicago Transcon if it reaches 150 trains per day?

The busier the line, the higher the transition costs. On the other hand, an advantage that electrification has over both alternatives is the approximately 20% increase in line capacity that results. Where capacity is an issue, that clearly adds an additional economic consideration that favors electrification. Given the cost of adding capacity these days, that consideration could be significant. Somebody would have to run some numbers to know what it means.

[nanaimo73]

When are the mainlines going to be electrified?

The answer still has to make sense. Compared to dieselization, electrification would more than double the capital investment required and the capital would have to be invested substantialy "up front" to obtain the savings. The financing cost of the capitalization required would substantially mitigate the operating savings obtained. The transition costs are high. 

Compared to dieselization, steam power would reduce the capital investment substantially, there is a significantly greater ability to meet environmental concerns, the transition costs are low, and the investment could be made gradually while cutting operating costs by as much as 60%.

As much as I "prefer" electrification, as a new installation it remains difficult to justify economically, and it may well be -- that is, the numbers too strongly resolve in one direction on this -- that modern steam power will mitigate, entirely, any economic advantages that electrification might have.

Interesting.

Would that still be true on BNSF's LA-Chicago Transcon if it reaches 150 trains per day?

[MichaelSol]

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

That pretty well sums it up.

Could steam make a comeback?
A better question would be "When are the mainlines going to be electrified?"

The answer still has to make sense. Compared to dieselization, electrification would more than double the capital investment required and the capital would have to be invested substantialy "up front" to obtain the savings. The financing cost of the capitalization required would substantially mitigate the operating savings obtained. The transition costs are high. 

Compared to dieselization, steam power would reduce the capital investment substantially, there is a significantly greater ability to meet environmental concerns, the transition costs are low, and the investment could be made gradually while cutting operating costs by as much as 60%.

As much as I "prefer" electrification, as a new installation it remains difficult to justify economically, and it may well be -- that is, the numbers too strongly resolve in one direction on this -- that modern steam power will mitigate, entirely, any economic advantages that electrification might have.

I once did a calculation that suggested that railroad electrification would become economically viable when railroad diesel fuel costs reached a permanent benchmark of $6.60 per gallon. With the equivalent cost of coal at $1.69 (per gallon of equivalent useful BTUs at 13% efficiency), someone would have to generate a powerful argument to overcome the current substantial cost advantage that lies with coal and the fact is, there is no economic argument that electrification is superior to coal-fired technologies.

One of the strong points favoring electrification was its very long economic service life of 30 years, and that presented a decisive element favoring investment in electrification in comparison with the Diesel-electric. The problem in comparing electrification with steam in particular -- and not necessarily all coal-sourced technologies -- is that reciprocating steam power shared the same lengthy economic service life as an electric: 30 years.

Since that economic service life is one of the key advantages favoring electrification over the Diesel-electric, Steam has a significant advantage compared to the Diesel-electric when compared to electrification from that particular standpoint.

And Steam could do better on its economic service life. Hidden within that economic service life is the fact that the economic service life of steam is based on maintenance cost plus purchase cost, and the purchase cost was low. If modern steam cost something comparable to a modern electric, the economic service life would be extended beyond that of the electric, and so steam wins that one, no matter what, because the technology involved is inherently -- as a matter of fundamental design -- low maintenance and long-lived.

 

[MichaelSol]

When there is a 5:1 cost advantage in fuel, railroads are smart enough to figure out how to solve "the water problem", and plenty of financial incentive to do so.

At $60/ton 11,500 BTU coal, and at $3.65 per gallon diesel, adjusted for 13% efficiency coal, 32% efficiency diesel, the current adjusted cost for 100,000 BTUs of coal is $2.01 and the equivalent cost of 100,000 BTUs of diesel is $8.21.

The coal costs 3 cents per pound. Bulk Water costs between 0.1 and 0.5 cents per gallon. Historically, steam locomotives used 0.7 gallon per pound of coal used, so, the cost of water for each ton of coal used would be about $1.00-$2.20. Desalinated water would cost about $3.50-$5.00. That compares to the cost of lubricant saved over diesel operation of $10.21.

The "water problem" is more of a "water excuse" that has little relevance to the overall cost of operation in comparing Diesel-electric with reciprocating Steam.

 

[tattooguy67]

I would think that the manufacturing capabilities for steam locomotives in this country would have to be revived, virtually from scratch.  It has been pointed out in another thread that there is only one firm that even has the capability to produce large castings, such as for a steam locomotive frame, main and side rods, driving wheel centers, etc.  I'm not sure if there are any firms that could produce any of the other appliances that would be needed. 

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

So your saying that we can build aircraft carriers, power plants,nuclear reactors, and a whole host of really impressive heavy machinery and diesel locomotives but the ability to produce a steam loco is some how beyond us?, heck i know some BT's and MM's from my days in the navy that with the proper materials could have built one on board ship, while at sea, and in rough weather, and still not spilled their coffee!, lol.

[tattooguy67]

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.

Actually this has been covered in this thread before, desalinaization (sic) is one method,  plus as was pointed out to you not to many posts back if you can get diesel to those spots why not water?and are you really suggesting that because of water problems in one part of the country we should just forget the whole thing?, how about this, in areas where there is water we run steam and in others we run something else.

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

That pretty well sums it up.

Could steam make a comeback?
A better question would be "When are the mainlines going to be electrified?"

Never.

[Modelcar]

.....That really seems to make more good common sense than some of the many thousands of words before it have.

[YoHo1975]

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.

[MichaelSol]

I would think that the manufacturing capabilities for steam locomotives in this country would have to be revived, virtually from scratch.  It has been pointed out in another thread that there is only one firm that even has the capability to produce large castings, such as for a steam locomotive frame, main and side rods, driving wheel centers, etc.  I'm not sure if there are any firms that could produce any of the other appliances that would be needed. 

A locomotive, steam or otherwise, is a pretty small piece of equipment compared to the scale of  construction equipment being built these days, and which do, in fact, include the parts named. As to there being only "one firm" capable of making large castings, there are likely more manufacturers with the specific capability of building such machines today than there were during the so-called "Steam Age", and I am thinking of Caterpillar, Komatsu, Terex, CNH Global, Volvo Construction Equipment, Deere & Company, Doosan Group, Hitachi Construction Machinery (Euclid), Bell Equipment, Hyundai, Bucyrus, among others. These are companies routinely making castings up to ten times the size of those required for locomotive-sized machines. Some of these companies routinely make single gears for their big machines that are taller than the largest railroad locomotive.

However, the likely company remains GE because that is a company that retains the idea of "competitive advantage" and the dollars are falling on the side of steam, or at least coal, and at such point in time -- and a few months rise in the price of fuel isn't it -- when the cost differential becomes reasonably permanent, there is no good reason why GE wouldn't begin testing prototypes.

 

 

[carnej1]

[...but let me ask you this, do you think it would be better to try and use modern technology in mining and the manufacture of a new generation steam locomotive to move goods around the country using a cheap abundant source of fuel...

All the nasty stuff I mentioned, such as farmers permanently losing their ground water supply, collapse of historical structures, streams and creeks simply vanishing due to bedrock strata, aquifers poisoned by acid bearing rock, etc is due to the MOST MODERN of mining techniques--Long Wall Mining. Coal is only "cheap" now because all the environmental issues are simply ignored for future generations to deal with.

You have a good point there.....

Ok yes again this is a good point, although i wish if you where going to quote me you would use the whole thing, you kind of left out the part about the rising cost of oil/diesel fuel which adds to the context a little, and also when you mention these ecological diasaters i  need a clarification here if you would, are we talking about mines that have been open for a short time, like say the last  5-10 years  causing this kind of trouble?, or are we talking about a mine that has been open for 40-50-60 or more years that is now useing modern technology but in the past used what is now considered bad practices? it makes a huge differance. Also just yesterday i heard one of the oil experts talking about $200 a barrel oil in as little as six months, right now around here diesel is selling for around $4.25 a gallon and gas was going for $3.69 the other day when i filled up, now as far as i can tell the cost of food lags behind the cost of fuel so even if things level out some the cost at the grocery store is still going to rise for a while, as of right now the cost of oil is around $110-$120 a barrel, add $80 or $90 to that and what do you have? are we talking $8-$9 a gallon diesel and $6-$7 a gallon gas?, whats that do to your food costs then? whats the cost of that loaf of bread going to run you then?. And one last thought here, whats the toxic waste output of an oil refinery and how does it compare to the coal mine?.

 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 .

[selector]

Paul, I feel you are discounting the forces of economics somewhat.  If diesel rises to $4.50/gal in short order, and if foodstuffs and other consumables rise concomitantly, someone offering to market much more efficient rail motive power (whatever it may be) is sure to have a sufficient interest to get some capitalization.  And capitalization has always been highly adept at innovation and progress, not to mention elbowing what existed before out of the way.

The funny thing is, in four generations we'll look at whatever solutions we took and shake our heads at our lack of insight.

Hindsight bias.

-Crandell

[nanaimo73]

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

That pretty well sums it up.

Could steam make a comeback?
A better question would be "When are the mainlines going to be electrified?"

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I would think that the manufacturing capabilities for steam locomotives in this country would have to be revived, virtually from scratch.  It has been pointed out in another thread that there is only one firm that even has the capability to produce large castings, such as for a steam locomotive frame, main and side rods, driving wheel centers, etc.  I'm not sure if there are any firms that could produce any of the other appliances that would be needed. 

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

[tattooguy67]

[...but let me ask you this, do you think it would be better to try and use modern technology in mining and the manufacture of a new generation steam locomotive to move goods around the country using a cheap abundant source of fuel...

All the nasty stuff I mentioned, such as farmers permanently losing their ground water supply, collapse of historical structures, streams and creeks simply vanishing due to bedrock strata, aquifers poisoned by acid bearing rock, etc is due to the MOST MODERN of mining techniques--Long Wall Mining. Coal is only "cheap" now because all the environmental issues are simply ignored for future generations to deal with.

You have a good point there.....

Ok yes again this is a good point, although i wish if you where going to quote me you would use the whole thing, you kind of left out the part about the rising cost of oil/diesel fuel which adds to the context a little, and also when you mention these ecological diasaters i  need a clarification here if you would, are we talking about mines that have been open for a short time, like say the last  5-10 years  causing this kind of trouble?, or are we talking about a mine that has been open for 40-50-60 or more years that is now useing modern technology but in the past used what is now considered bad practices? it makes a huge differance. Also just yesterday i heard one of the oil experts talking about $200 a barrel oil in as little as six months, right now around here diesel is selling for around $4.25 a gallon and gas was going for $3.69 the other day when i filled up, now as far as i can tell the cost of food lags behind the cost of fuel so even if things level out some the cost at the grocery store is still going to rise for a while, as of right now the cost of oil is around $110-$120 a barrel, add $80 or $90 to that and what do you have? are we talking $8-$9 a gallon diesel and $6-$7 a gallon gas?, whats that do to your food costs then? whats the cost of that loaf of bread going to run you then?. And one last thought here, whats the toxic waste output of an oil refinery and how does it compare to the coal mine?.

[KCSfan]

The question, "Could steam make a comeback?, has been answered and the answer is YES. After 500+ posted messages this thread has become just arguments and counter arguments ad naseum. Virtually all that could be said on the topic was said long ago and some recent replies have degenerated into emotionally charged personal attacks on those who have posted opinions and/or facts to support a contrary viewpoint. Neither the steam proponents or the diesel proponents are going to be swayed by arguments from the other camp. I think it's pointless to continue this thread and, like rrnut, I'm moving on to other interests.

Mark