Could steam make a comeback?

[Modelcar]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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]

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.

[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.

 

[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.

[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]

 

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.   

[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

[CNW 6000]

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

Activated link.

[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.  

[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]

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]

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]

 
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]

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.

[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.

 

[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.

[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

[MichaelSol]

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

Interesting.

[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?

[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

[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.

 

[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

 

 

[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]

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.