Could steam make a comeback?

[MichaelSol]

And let's not even get started on the environmental nightmare of mining the coal itself...

The environmental effects of that last "coal spill" were really something ...

Yes, but the trillions of gallons of acid mine drainage laced with heavy metals that is filling up the old mines in western PA is something. And you want to know something else--it is getting ready to burst into the entire Ohio River/ Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. And guess what--the Feds admitted they don't have any freaking idea how to stop it. And want to to know something else--you and every other American better get ready to get out your check book to pay Uncle Sam hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money to clean up the damage when it does happen. Enjoy your "cheap" coal. LOL

A weird "LOL". Are you looking forward to the catastrophe?

Not that railroad diesel fuel contamination of aquifers has been a cheap cleanup, but the bills for past mistakes have to be paid whether or not we use coal mined under stringent standards today or not. It will be easier to pay the bill with cheaper energy ...

 

[GP40-2]

And let's not even get started on the environmental nightmare of mining the coal itself...

The environmental effects of that last "coal spill" were really something ...

Yes, but the trillions of gallons of acid mine drainage laced with heavy metals that is filling up the old mines in western PA is something. And you want to know something else--it is getting ready to burst into the entire Ohio River/ Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. And guess what--the Feds admitted they don't have any freaking idea how to stop it. And want to to know something else--you and every other American better get ready to get out your check book to pay Uncle Sam hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money to clean up the damage when it does happen. Enjoy your "cheap" coal. LOL

[YoHo1975]

Well, that and Oil Refineries. It's funny, during the Oil price rise following katrina, Ca was initially protected, because the state does it's refining locally.

Ca has a lot of natural gas power and of course Wind and Hydro.

 

[GP40-2]

Also, someone above mentioned that Pittsburgh is now dirtier then LA. This is not entirely surprising. LA has spent the last 30 years struggling to improve it's air quality. It's not simply that pitt is dirtier, but also that LA is that much cleaner. Air Action days are significantly reduced, smog is still here but reduced. In fact, the LA basin doesn't even rank as the worst Air quality in the state of California. That distinction is heald by the Central valley. Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield.

 

Which is not to take away from the point that was being made. Just giving...the rest of the story as it were.  

Pittsburgh and Allegheny County enacted pollution control laws in 1946. They have been cleaning the air up far longer than LA. LA doesn't have to contend with coal fired power plants from 5 states raining their pollutants and heavy metals down on you 24/7/365 like Pittsburgh does. I could be wrong, but the last time I was in CA, I didn't recall any coal to coke plants operating there either.


Pittsburgh is no longer a manufacturing center. They all closed up shop and moved to China. The biggest employers in Pittsburgh are health care/biotech, higher education (the City of Pittsburgh alone has nearly 100,000 college students), legal and financial services. If you want to work in Pittsburgh, you better have some sort of professional degree. Blue Collar labor need not apply any more. Unlike the past, the air quality in Pittsburgh has very little to do with Pittsburgh, but all the crap that blows in from the coal powered Mid-West (Pittsburgh gets virtually all its electricity from nuclear power).

The only thing LA has is more gas and diesel powered vehicles on the highways than Pittsburgh--apparently they are easier to make clean than the power plants and coke works. LOL.

[GP40-2]

The only emission of note wherein the coal engine produces more than the diesel is CO2, and CO2 is not a pollutant, it is not toxic, it is not dirty, and it is preferable to the emissions of diesel engines.

Oh, I forgot this is trains.com. A fantasy world where mercury and PAHs from burning coal are not major pollutants. Silly me. I guess the EPA is fooled too. I must of imagined all the dead streams in PA, WVA, OH, and KY from acid mine drainage. No way mining could ever hurt the environment. And what about all the farmers in southwestern PA who lost their water supplies permanently due to aquifer damage from long wall mining. I guess they are just imagining that also. And all those historical structures destroyed from underground mining- ah, who needs history anyway.

The other thing interesting about this thread--how many "new" posters popped up who sound like the same parrot.


I guess somebody forgot to tell Honda that the technology to make super clean diesels is years away:


HONDA DIESEL 2009

[YoHo1975]

I just started reading this thread on the last page, so pardon me if this has been addressed, but wouldn't a return to steam also put stresses on water sources? One of the reasons railroads like say the Western Pacific were quick to dieselize was that they lacked good sources of water in Nevada. That was 70-80 years ago when water concerns didn't exist. Now adays fresh water is a constant issue in particular for California and the south west. Plus the additional costs both in labor and energy expended to prep less then stellar water sources for use in a steam enginer or Turbine.

 

Also, someone above mentioned that Pittsburgh is now dirtier then LA. This is not entirely surprising. LA has spent the last 30 years struggling to improve it's air quality. It's not simply that pitt is dirtier, but also that LA is that much cleaner. Air Action days are significantly reduced, smog is still here but reduced. In fact, the LA basin doesn't even rank as the worst Air quality in the state of California. That distinction is heald by the Central valley. Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield.

 

Which is not to take away from the point that was being made. Just giving...the rest of the story as it were.  

[MichaelSol]

And let's not even get started on the environmental nightmare of mining the coal itself...

The environmental effects of that last "coal spill" were really something ...

[Norman Saxon]

...I brought this post forward to remind all that the enviromental issue of coal burning steam has been well covered already.  This just keeps me from writing this all over again.

How about covering the issue that fluid bed combustion greatly increases the CO2, mercury emissions, and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydocarbons) produced per unit of coal burned vs. "conventional" coal combustion.

We can argue all we want about the scientific reality that CO2 promotes global warming, but the political reality is that excessive CO2 production is "evil" and must be clamped down on. That political reality is not going to go away.

No need to comment much on the mercury content of coal- it is a well established fact- and the EPA has the emissions of mercury right in its crosshairs.

PAH's are produced at lower combustion temperature, and include a number of carcinogenic and mutagenic nasties that you really do not want in the environment in large numbers. PAHs emissions are also in the EPA's crosshairs for strict regulation. There is currently no easy way to remove them from fluid bed combustion exhaust.

I'm amused that you would link fluid bed combustion to the process that occurs in a coke oven. Coke Works are among the single largest polluters left in the U.S. Pittsburgh just passed Los Angles as the region with the worst air quality. It's not that all of Western PA is that bad--that distinction comes from just one measuring station. That station is located in the same river valley as U.S. Steel's Clairiton Coke Works. Think about it--the Clairiton Works in and by itself, (even with U.S. Steel spending Billions (with a B) in modern pollution controls) produces enough pollution to bump the Pittsburgh region (which wouldn't even be in the top 20 worst air quality without it) ahead of LA, a region that has 4 times the population of Pittsburgh.

And let's not even get started on the environmental nightmare of mining the coal itself...

Is this to say I'm against your ideas--not at all. I'm open to all new ideas. But please don't insult our collective intelligence by trying to pass fluid bed combustion off as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I think you misunderstand, perhaps with intention, the key comparative point of order.  A modern compression ignition engine burning low sulfer diesel fuel is much dirtier than a modern external combustion engine burning ROM coal for the same work output.  The only emission of note wherein the coal engine produces more than the diesel is CO2, and CO2 is not a pollutant, it is not toxic, it is not dirty, and it is preferable to the emissions of diesel engines.

[Norman Saxon]

1. The essence of the turbine is its very simplicity. All the compounding and valving is built right in and continuous. It is also highly efficient, certainly for continuous, high horsepower applications. Thus the Q-3 for pulling a 5,000 ton train at 80 mph.

It is my understanding that the one drawback of the Q2 was the inherent drawback of all such single turbines, which of course is that turbines either run full out or not at all, thus the locomotive also runs best full out but not so well in intermediate speed ranges.  That's why modern steam proponents have endorsed the multiple turbine concept, to allow for the most efficient output at variable speed requirements.  The Q2 was direct drive, which allowed it to retain the high speed horsepower advantage as in reciprocating steam.  Otherwise, the turbine runs a generator to power traction motors, and then you've got the same drawbacks as the diesels.

So what I question is this:  How can one incorporate the multiple turbine concept with the direct drive concept to allow steam to maintain it's high speed horsepower advantage?  Or did you have another idea in mind for a Q-3 concept?

2. Can we trot out 1218 on a straight, level railroad somewhere and see what it can do with a 7500 ton train?

True, but we're still talking the added complexity of articulation.  Pennsy used a straight frame on it's T1's for a reason, and the result (with a few tweaks here and there) was a locomotive which was essentially a Northern on steriods!  Wish someone would have tried the same thing on a Berkshire, a 2-4-4-4 might have been even better.

I used the 5000 ton benchmark as a point of reference, not as an absolute.  Sure, we can use 7500 tons as a benchmark for argument's sake, but that still falls short of today's 10,000 + ton benchmark.  What we need to know is if we can use steam's advantage on those 16,000 ton trains, and given the relatively low value of such commodities do we really want to?  In other words, is it then more advantageous to run 16,000 tons at steam's horsepower speed advantage, or do we keep it at diesel's lugging advantage?

[GP40-2]

...I brought this post forward to remind all that the enviromental issue of coal burning steam has been well covered already.  This just keeps me from writing this all over again.

How about covering the issue that fluid bed combustion greatly increases the CO2, mercury emissions, and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydocarbons) produced per unit of coal burned vs. "conventional" coal combustion.

We can argue all we want about the scientific reality that CO2 promotes global warming, but the political reality is that excessive CO2 production is "evil" and must be clamped down on. That political reality is not going to go away.

No need to comment much on the mercury content of coal- it is a well established fact- and the EPA has the emissions of mercury right in its crosshairs.

PAH's are produced at lower combustion temperature, and include a number of carcinogenic and mutagenic nasties that you really do not want in the environment in large numbers. PAHs emissions are also in the EPA's crosshairs for strict regulation. There is currently no easy way to remove them from fluid bed combustion exhaust.

I'm amused that you would link fluid bed combustion to the process that occurs in a coke oven. Coke Works are among the single largest polluters left in the U.S. Pittsburgh just passed Los Angles as the region with the worst air quality. It's not that all of Western PA is that bad--that distinction comes from just one measuring station. That station is located in the same river valley as U.S. Steel's Clairiton Coke Works. Think about it--the Clairiton Works in and by itself, (even with U.S. Steel spending Billions (with a B) in modern pollution controls) produces enough pollution to bump the Pittsburgh region (which wouldn't even be in the top 20 worst air quality without it) ahead of LA, a region that has 4 times the population of Pittsburgh.

And let's not even get started on the environmental nightmare of mining the coal itself...

Is this to say I'm against your ideas--not at all. I'm open to all new ideas. But please don't insult our collective intelligence by trying to pass fluid bed combustion off as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[wsherrick]

   When discussing emissions one must consider that any hypothetical coal burning locomotive technology in the U.S would be forced to conform to the same stringent Tier II (and eventually Tier III)emissions standards that diesel engines must adhere too. Those EPA regulations will not change no matter which party is in charge. In other words any ACE3000 equivalent will be held to ES44/SD70ACE standards rather than coal burning powerplant standards(not to mention that an unmodified diesel locomotive using synthetic coal derived fuel meets the standards)..............

Don't count on it. Thead thread about truckers and one about teir 4 requirements. we all know steam would fall under teir 4

I am gathering you two gentlemen believe that railroad diesel locomotive requirements are "stringent".  Compared to what, if I can ask? To the contrary, modern coal combustion technology meets standards many times more rigorous than those set for the Diesel-electric locomotive, or ever will be set for the Diesel-electric locomotive, and has been meeting those genuinely stringent standards for years.

Coal-fired plants already utilize either catalytic technology or fluidized bed combustion technology to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions, as a "for instance". Compared to the current 4.1 g/kw-hr emission standard for Railroad Road Diesel locomotives, a coal-fired plant using existing control technology (not something maybe "out there" in 2017) currently has a 0.69 g/kw-hr capability -- a capability that the Diesel-electric locomotive will likely never attain.

Presumably, a steam locomotive could be held to the much more stringent powerplant standards, rather than the very weak ES44/SD70AC standards, although the standards issued Friday make it clear that such a locomotive would only have to meet the morally loose standards "proposed" for the Diesel-electric, rather than the far more rigorous standards currently being met, routinely every day, by existing coal combustion technologies.

 

 

The ability of a steam locomotive to burn low grade coal with emissions that are cleaner than a diesels IS ALREADY IN PLACE (I repeat myself here)  Again to those who refuse to comprehend that fact I will try to lay it out for you in more detail to see if it helps any. 

First you have to understand the nature of coal and the nature of basic combustion.  Coal is basically made up of three parts; 1 fixed carbon, 2 hydrocarbons, 3 inert matter (ash) and a small amount of moisture depending on the grade of coal.  Bituminous coal has a higher percent of hydrocarbon content than fixed carbon.  Hydrocarbons are what make up the gaseous content of the coal and is where most of the heat value is.  The fixed carbon burns at a steadier rate and at a much lower temperature than the hydrocarbons. The charcoal you burn in your backyard grill is almost pure fixed carbon.  In any fire the flame and much of the smoke you see in a fire are the hydrocarbons burning and being cooked out of the fuel.  To get the most heat out of the coal it is necessary to burn the hydrocarbons as much as possible.  The hydrocarbons of coal burn best at about 1500 to 1800 degrees F.  The fixed carbon produces much less heat and burns at a temperature between 500 and 800 degrees.  To get the hydrocarbons to burn you have to maintain the high temperature to do so and you MUST have the proper amount of air to combine with the hot gasses to cause ignition.  If the temperature or air mixture is not right then you get unburnt hydrocarbons which pass up the stack unused or they burn off to form carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide which produces much less heat. You get soot also which is the unburnt carbon portion of the hydrocarbon which is released in its almost pure form and that is what is visible to us as black smoke.

In a fireplace, parlor stove or locomotive firebox the air is introduced to the fire in two ways: Primary air and secondary air.  Primary air is the air that comes through the grates up to the fire from the bottom. Secondary air is what is drawn in over the top of the fire. Primary air burns the fixed carbon and secondary air burns the hydrocarbons in an ideal situation.

The traditional locomotive firebox allows only 10% of the air to come in as secondary air.  Any air to burn the hydrocarbons (remember this is what you want) must come through the fire bed first.  That is why a fireman is told to have his fire, "light, level and bright."  Needless to say this was only marginally effective in burning off the hydrocarbons in any satisfactory way.  Brick arches and combustion chambers are for the purpose of providing the space and time for everything to come together to burn the hydrocarbons successfully.  In order for the traditional firebox to pull in enough air to accomplish this, you have to have a tremendous forced draft. This forced draft is the least efficient way to burn the fuel as it is has to be heated to the right temperature and be in the correct proportion to burn the hydrocarbons and this all has to occur in a split second of time before the opportunity is lost and the gasses pass into the flues.  Plus this hard, forced draft pulls unburnt fuel out of the fire and out of the stack as cinders, a significant loss.  The third disadvantage to this as this method heats up the inert matter in the coal to a melting point and this causes clinkers in many cases and thermal stress on the firebox sheets.

The Porta, "Gas Producing Combustion System," cures ALL of the above problems without any extra expense or the needed technical advances that are postulated here in such a fuzzy manner.  How it works is this.  The firebox is modified to allow only 20 to 30% of the air to enter as primary air.  The rest is admitted as secondary air above the fire. A portion of exhaust steam is mixed in with the primary air to allow the fixed carbon to burn at a temperature lower than the fusing point of the ash, thus it burns completely without clinkers forming.  The fire bed is much thicker and the coal bed is hot enough to cook the hydrocarbons out of the coal (much like a coke oven.)  Once the gasses are cooked out they are burned completely in the secondary air admitted above the fire.  The secondary air ports are designed to create a cyclonic current in the firebox to insure the gasses and oxygen mix completely.  This cyclonic current also allows any cinders drawn up to be tossed out in a centripetal manner and burned before they can escape.  The needed draft to do this is MUCH lower than the ordinary locomotive and thus the thermal stresses on the boiler and firebox are virtually eliminated as well.  When this firebox is coupled with a LEMPOR exhaust, the draft is is evenly distributed across the fire bed and efficiency is increased much further.

This firebox is so efficient that the lowest grades of lignite can be perfectly burned in it.  This not any fictional, wanna be thing.  It has already been perfected and gives savings in fuel from 30 to 65% as displayed on the "Red Devil." 

What about emissions? It seems that to most here that there has to be some sort of Buck Rodgers advance in combustion techniques to control coal smoke.  According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively.  "CO and HC emissions virtually disappear and NOX emissions are close to their theoretical minimum".  Visible soot and cinder emission vanish as well.  Sulpher can be virtually eliminated by combining a calcite-dolomite mixture in with the fuel by mixing it on the coal pile or introducing it in with the undefire steam. 

This firebox can be retrofitted on any locomotive for a tiny, tiny cost and built into new ones at no additional cost, so that sort of blows away any argument that there has to be some sort of mystery technology procured at huge cost to achieve these results.  The GPCS firebox is only one of the many components of a second generation steam locomotive.  Perhaps these might be detailed in further posts.  Now I'm gonna see if this is fully read, comprehended and if somebody else is going to say something really stupid about liquid coal fuel as the only possible alternative.

I brought this post forward to remind all that the enviromental issue of coal burning steam has been well covered already.  This just keeps me from writing this all over again.

[wsherrick]

One underlying (and generally unsaid) theme that I've discerned throughout this thread is an oversupply of wishful thinking and the belief in the various postings that railroad management in the 1950's made a major mistake in dieselizing.  Steam traction has not been a significant part of American railroading for almost 50 years now and a return to it would be unlikely.  I've also noticed that the environmental factors that are more prominent now than they were in the past have still not been addressed.

Posts like this contuine to amaze me.  After all the hard proof, graphs, numbers and comparisons that have been provided from sources which withstand the most acid tests of scrutiny stating the true cost of diesels, then and TODAY.  These proofs have been provided over an over ad nauseum and still statements like the above are made.  I find it ostounding.

 

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

I've also noticed that the environmental factors that are more prominent now than they were in the past have still not been addressed.

Then you didn't read the whole thread. Michael Sol already provided a good explanation that pollution problems are much more prevalent in the Diesel industry as in coal burning steam producing things. Don't let you bluff on black smoke! 1. smoke is a sign of incomplete combustion and therefore is not the rule in steam locomotive operation. How serious the railroads did handle this is another question (N&W took great care that their crews were trained to run trains without smoke). 2. environmentally problematic is the stuff you can NOT see. And there is quite a selection of even toxic gases a diesel engine puts out.

[Anonymous]

 

There are major shifts in capital and fuel markets that will demand drastic changes, besides the long-standing need to economically increase freight train speed.

Besides the items I posted 5/2 on railroads not thinking for themselves, Rush Loving, The Men Who Loved Trains, has much discussion of railroads not being run in any sort of economical manner. That goes especially for Stuart Saunders, who dieselized the N&W, and the Penn Central.

Also see LeMassena's Turntable, April 1978, on "good" pollution. 

[selector]

One underlying (and generally unsaid) theme that I've discerned throughout this thread is an oversupply of wishful thinking and the belief in the various postings that railroad management in the 1950's made a major mistake in dieselizing.  Steam traction has not been a significant part of American railroading for almost 50 years now and a return to it would be unlikely.  I've also noticed that the environmental factors that are more prominent now than they were in the past have still not been addressed.

I have developed the impression that the thread is wondering if we are being shortsighted by not actively researching a return to steam and coal/other fuel in the event it is more economical and better overall for the environment...although I agree the latter hasn't gotten much discussion.  I had thought that many of us were accepting that reciprocal steam was probably not going to be returning, but that some form of turbine might be. 

I still find the whole idea of dieselization a bit of a puzzle, but it was done almost whosesale over about...what...8-10 years for the most part?   A lot of people holding a lot of money jumped on that bandwagon.   Could it have been only a soft sell?

[carnej1]

 Interestingly I note in another thread on this forum that word is that R.J Corman's QJ will be used to pull some revenue freights. I'm sure it's mostly for public relations but could it be an oppurtunity to test some of the hypothesis advnced on this forum? I realize that the locomotive probably doesn't qualify as "third generation modern steam" in it's present configuration but still..

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One underlying (and generally unsaid) theme that I've discerned throughout this thread is an oversupply of wishful thinking and the belief in the various postings that railroad management in the 1950's made a major mistake in dieselizing.  Steam traction has not been a significant part of American railroading for almost 50 years now and a return to it would be unlikely.  I've also noticed that the environmental factors that are more prominent now than they were in the past have still not been addressed.

[Anonymous]

If this hypothesis is correct and assuming no middle ground (aka no MU'ing of reciprocating steam, etc.), then reviving the Q2, Garrett, or N&W Class A designs would have less merit than reviving the Northern, Hudson, or even T1 designs.  Using reciprocating steam for drag freight operations (relatively speaking) plays right into the diesel's advantage, while using diesels for hot shot intermodals and Amtrak operations plays right into reciprocating steam's advantage.  Additionally, the more complex we have to make a modern steamer aka the suggested "Q-3", the more steam loses its advantage over diesels.

1. The essence of the turbine is its very simplicity. All the compounding and valving is built right in and continuous. It is also highly efficient, certainly for continuous, high horsepower applications. Thus the Q-3 for pulling a 5,000 ton train at 80 mph.

2. Can we trot out 1218 on a straight, level railroad somewhere and see what it can do with a 7500 ton train?

3. The pre-Lempor 3985 had a photo op on a double-stack. Can we see what the post-Lempor 3985 do with a double stack? (King, Mercedes of Steam, had an extensive contrast between the Class A and the Challenger, and a pointed one too.)

4. The advantage of steam is on fast, HEAVY trains. Still, I had to wonder why the Milwaukee dieselized the Hiawathas. The answer can be pretty well gleaned from Gruber and Solomon, The Hiawathas, which was due to competitive and regulatory problems which took the advantage out of high speed motive power. One problem was the subsidized competiton after the war. The other was the 79 mph ICC limit brought about after the !946 Naperville crash. (And I do not think duorail of any sort is the best technology for high speed ground transportation, passenger and express, but that is another subject. The market for not-quite-so-high speed heavy freight will be around for the forseeable future.)

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

edit: Here is the drawing for you.

Thanks, it must be hidden somewhere on Martyn's site...

[wsherrick]

There is a drawing of it on Martynbane's site in the Porta section.  There are no specs. provided for it however. If I'm not mistaken Wardale's design was for the Chinese railroads.

I did look but didn't find it. I won't doubt that Porta developed sketches for Garrats, but I did not find any for US service. But I did find one from Wardale in his great book.

I have to correct myself. Porta didn't design a 2-12-0, but a 2-10-0 triple expansion engine - with 6000hp.

 

edit: Here is the drawing for you.

I personally think the Garrat design has a lot of merit as it gives a high weight to power ratio and relatively light axle loadings at the same time.

Not only that, more important advantages are the large room for boiler design - restricted only by loading guage, and that they are truly bi-directional. As I recently wrote - and quoted - at the MR forum, the main reason leading to the end of steam locomotive service was the failure of the US designers to adopt the Garrat.

 

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

There is a drawing of it on Martynbane's site in the Porta section.  There are no specs. provided for it however. If I'm not mistaken Wardale's design was for the Chinese railroads.

I did look but didn't find it. I won't doubt that Porta developed sketches for Garrats, but I did not find any for US service. But I did find one from Wardale in his great book.

I have to correct myself. Porta didn't design a 2-12-0, but a 2-10-0 triple expansion engine - with 6000hp.

I personally think the Garrat design has a lot of merit as it gives a high weight to power ratio and relatively light axle loadings at the same time.

Not only that, more important advantages are the large room for boiler design - restricted only by loading guage, and that they are truly bi-directional. As I recently wrote - and quoted - at the MR forum, the main reason leading to the end of steam locomotive service was the failure of the US designers to adopt the Garrat.

[Norman Saxon]

The misbegotten ACE 3000 was a GP40 equivalent sent to do the diesel's job. Withuhn's otherwise superb June 1974 article barely mentioned steam's advantage at speed, but not divided drive's, and was oriented only toward drag freight performance, the diesel's forte.

There is a crying need today to increase freight train speed. Diesels can do it physically but not economically. As James McClellan was quoted in May 1986, they "crapped out" at speed.

After reading those 1945 Railway Mechanical Engineer pieces on the Pennsy steam turbine, it does seem to me that is the way to pull a 5000 ton train at 80 mph. Put a Q2/Class A size boiler, with the Porta/Wardale improvements, on 4-10-4 running gear, with a proper booster for under 20 mph, and we have it, the Q-3.

This is the irony of the steam vs diesel debate - that classic steam (reciprocating) is more economical at higher speeds than the best dieseldom has to offer even today.  That would suggest that were reciprocating modern steam to emerge in the here and now, it would first (and perhaps only) be applied to Amtrak and hot intermodals.  That would be the econometric application of practicality.  Whether modern steam (either reciprocating, traction, or some combintation of the two) could then be effectively employed to replace AC's on coal drags is where the whole debate gets fuzzy. 

Thus the potential ultimate irony of using "old fashioned" reciprocating steam on the varnish while using "state of the art" diesel-electric on the drags.  That'd make DPM turn over in his grave!

Based on what I've read so far it seems fair to suggest that:

• For the slower heavier tonnage freights (5,000 tons and up), it would be more economical to liquefy coal into synthetic diesel fuel and use that in modern AC traction diesel locomotives to offset ever rising petroleum costs.
• For faster lighter freights and passenger ops (5,000 tons or less), it would be more economical to use ROM coal-fired reciprocating steam of the Northern design, and thus take advantage of steam's speed economy advantage for time critical ops.

If this hypothesis is correct and assuming no middle ground (aka no MU'ing of reciprocating steam, etc.), then reviving the Q2, Garrett, or N&W Class A designs would have less merit than reviving the Northern, Hudson, or even T1 designs.  Using reciprocating steam for drag freight operations (relatively speaking) plays right into the diesel's advantage, while using diesels for hot shot intermodals and Amtrak operations plays right into reciprocating steam's advantage.  Additionally, the more complex we have to make a modern steamer aka the suggested "Q-3", the more steam loses its advantage over diesels.

Of course, there is that whole middle ground wherein one might process coal into more adaptable form, but the more we have to process ROM coal prior to employment in actual energy derivement, the less advantage reciprocating steam has over diesel locomotives, and eventually you get to the point where you might as well convert the coal to synthetic diesel fuel and continue the use of diesel-electric traction.  And it seems we do not have enough historical data available to compare a modern steam-traction design with today's diesels, other than the fact that traction locomotion employs complexities and foilabilities that have really crimped modern rail operations into today's slower but heavier MO. 

[wsherrick]

No you're correct the 7500 tons wasn't pulled at 60 MPH, it was actually 64MPH.

That's why I don't believe the 5200 dbhp because these simply are not enough to do this.

 

As far as a high horsepower machine with a high weight to power ratio. Porta designed a 6000 horsepower Garrett type for American Railroad Conditions.

Do you could show a source for that? I ask because I only have seen a 2-12-0 design he developed for US roads, but David Wardale created a Garrat the same time as the ACE 3000 project was alive. 

There is a drawing of it on Martynbane's site in the Porta section.  There are no specs. provided for it however. If I'm not mistaken Wardale's design was for the Chinese railroads.

I personally think the Garrat design has a lot of merit as it gives a high weight to power ratio and relatively light axle loadings at the same time.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

No you're correct the 7500 tons wasn't pulled at 60 MPH, it was actually 64MPH.

That's why I don't believe the 5200 dbhp because these simply are not enough to do this.

 

As far as a high horsepower machine with a high weight to power ratio. Porta designed a 6000 horsepower Garrett type for American Railroad Conditions.

Do you could show a source for that? I ask because I only have seen a 2-12-0 design he developed for US roads, but David Wardale created a Garrat the same time as the ACE 3000 project was alive. 

[wsherrick]

Does anyone know, then,

1) how big a train the A could haul at 60 mph? What happened to N&W fast freights after dieselization? Figure this is the more critical figure today than the decade of dieselization, when the diesel's advantages on slow, heavy trains and fast light trains were more decisive. The speed limit today comes from the expense of fuel on fast freights. It is well documented in the pages of TRAINS if little realized that diesels are very, very expensive on fast, heavy trains, 5 hp/ton being about the economic limit. July 1970, January 1974, May 1986, April 1990. The Niagara was both more powerful at 60 mph than a 6000 hp E7 and cost less to operate, on the other hand, per March 1984 article. Too bad one was never tried on a Flexi-Van.

2) How fast could a 2400 hp SD24 or 2500 hp SD35 haul 5,000 tons?

The average time freight tonnage for an A Class was 5600 tons.  Their maximum tonnage ratings for that speed was 7500 tons.  That's not a mis-print.  This was determined in testing and in actual practice could take a few more tons at that speed if required.

The fate of the N&W's fast time freights was the same as most other railroads after dieselization.  They vanished.  The era of "drag freights" returned as railroads tried to cut costs buy piling as many cars into a train as they could which as a management decision, reduced levels of service with the result that time sensitive merchandise, etc. only went over to the truckers all the faster. 

A single SD double digit anything can't haul 5,000 tons.  It takes several of them to do it.

Time freight, 60 mph? 7500 tons? On straight, level track?

This is not an urban legend? The bumblebee flies anyway?

My figures are taken from LeMassena's Turntable, January 1974, that a single 3600 hp SD45 can haul 5000 tons on straight, level track at 35 mph, two at 51 mph, three at 62 mph, and four at 70 mph, these taken from an EMD publication.

By these figures, then, the Class A was indeed doing the work of 4 1/2 SD45s at 60 mph.

Three SD9s hauled 18,000 ton trains on the DMIR, at somewhat less than 30 mph.

It is not a question of steam or diesel being better, but which is better for which task.

The misbegotten ACE 3000 was a GP40 equivalent sent to do the diesel's job. Withuhn's otherwise superb June 1974 article barely mentioned steam's advantage at speed, but not divided drive's, and was oriented only toward drag freight performance, the diesel's forte.

There is a crying need today to increase freight train speed. Diesels can do it physically but not economically. As James McClellan was quoted in May 1986, they "crapped out" at speed.

After reading those 1945 Railway Mechanical Engineer pieces on the Pennsy steam turbine, it does seem to me that is the way to pull a 5000 ton train at 80 mph. Put a Q2/Class A size boiler, with the Porta/Wardale improvements, on 4-10-4 running gear, with a proper booster for under 20 mph, and we have it, the Q-3.

Also in that 1945 RME is an editorial on boilers having the greatest room for improvement.

No you're correct the 7500 tons wasn't pulled at 60 MPH, it was actually 64MPH.  According to all these arm chair pundits.  The N&W just simply lied about it's test results. Not only lied once but over and over for 30 years.  It's funny that no one caught them lieing in those long 30 years. BTW the 7500 tons was pulled over the Scioto Division of the N&W which is fairly level.

As far as a high horsepower machine with a high weight to power ratio. Porta designed a 6000 horsepower Garrett type for American Railroad Conditions.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know, then,

1) how big a train the A could haul at 60 mph? What happened to N&W fast freights after dieselization? Figure this is the more critical figure today than the decade of dieselization, when the diesel's advantages on slow, heavy trains and fast light trains were more decisive. The speed limit today comes from the expense of fuel on fast freights. It is well documented in the pages of TRAINS if little realized that diesels are very, very expensive on fast, heavy trains, 5 hp/ton being about the economic limit. July 1970, January 1974, May 1986, April 1990. The Niagara was both more powerful at 60 mph than a 6000 hp E7 and cost less to operate, on the other hand, per March 1984 article. Too bad one was never tried on a Flexi-Van.

2) How fast could a 2400 hp SD24 or 2500 hp SD35 haul 5,000 tons?

The average time freight tonnage for an A Class was 5600 tons.  Their maximum tonnage ratings for that speed was 7500 tons.  That's not a mis-print.  This was determined in testing and in actual practice could take a few more tons at that speed if required.

The fate of the N&W's fast time freights was the same as most other railroads after dieselization.  They vanished.  The era of "drag freights" returned as railroads tried to cut costs buy piling as many cars into a train as they could which as a management decision, reduced levels of service with the result that time sensitive merchandise, etc. only went over to the truckers all the faster. 

A single SD double digit anything can't haul 5,000 tons.  It takes several of them to do it.

Time freight, 60 mph? 7500 tons? On straight, level track?

This is not an urban legend? The bumblebee flies anyway?

My figures are taken from LeMassena's Turntable, January 1974, that a single 3600 hp SD45 can haul 5000 tons on straight, level track at 35 mph, two at 51 mph, three at 62 mph, and four at 70 mph, these taken from an EMD publication.

By these figures, then, the Class A was indeed doing the work of 4 1/2 SD45s at 60 mph.

Three SD9s hauled 18,000 ton trains on the DMIR, at somewhat less than 30 mph.

It is not a question of steam or diesel being better, but which is better for which task.

The misbegotten ACE 3000 was a GP40 equivalent sent to do the diesel's job. Withuhn's otherwise superb June 1974 article barely mentioned steam's advantage at speed, but not divided drive's, and was oriented only toward drag freight performance, the diesel's forte.

There is a crying need today to increase freight train speed. Diesels can do it physically but not economically. As James McClellan was quoted in May 1986, they "crapped out" at speed.

After reading those 1945 Railway Mechanical Engineer pieces on the Pennsy steam turbine, it does seem to me that is the way to pull a 5000 ton train at 80 mph. Put a Q2/Class A size boiler, with the Porta/Wardale improvements, on 4-10-4 running gear, with a proper booster for under 20 mph, and we have it, the Q-3.

Also in that 1945 RME is an editorial on boilers having the greatest room for improvement.

[wsherrick]

The average time freight tonnage for an A Class was 5600 tons.  Their maximum tonnage ratings for that speed was 7500 tons.  That's not a mis-print.  This was determined in testing and in actual practice could take a few more tons at that speed if required.

But to do this 5200 dhp are not enough. I still have some kind of problem with that number. It doesn't make sense considering the size and speed of loads these engines did haul. And it soens't make sense that the Y-6 should have put out MORE hp than the bigger class A with larger fire boxes, more heating surfaces, etc.

I have to look into the books and papers I have available. 

A single SD double digit anything can't haul 5,000 tons.  It takes several of them to do it.

Nah, it isn't THAT bad. On C&O, three SD-40 were used on 18000 ton coal drags, makes 6000 tons for each. If you mean 5000 tons at 60 mph, I think two of these will do the job.

Those are the figures that I confirmed from 3 different books.  It has been said that the N&W used conservative numbers on their locomotive stats.  I can't go back and ask them personally. The flux capacitor is broken on my Dolorean at present. 

The 5200 HP for the Class A sounds right on the money based on its historical performance. The H8 Allegheny, with a boiler much more powerful than the Class A, was good for an honest 6600 HP. The 7500 HP often quoted for the H8 is but one data point from the scatter plot. Your point about the Y's claimed HP is well taken. I would place them at around 4800 HP based on the Class A actual performance.

If you guys want to throw out all the documentation done by the N&W on their own power and rely on what some article in Trains or other historical expert that's fine.

This is an important point that needs to be remembered.  The Y6b's were the most efficient steam locomotives ever produced in this country.  Bigger is not always better.  These engines had various stages of their development which continued up until the mid '50s.  They were tested over and over.  I can't think of any other locomotive that was scrutinized more by it's railroad and the public at large.

Remember this thread is about the capabilities of steam today.  A locomotive of similar design to the Y Class today with currently available knowledge would easily have double the horsepower of the former engines and have a much improved power to weight ratio while costing half as much to run.

[MichaelSol]

Obviously there were many external factors contributing to railroads' economic woes. As for the supposed numbers "proving" it was diesel's fault (sounds like an episode of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), never believe a statistic you didn't personally falsify!

Perhaps it is a measure of your sophistication that when you can't offer a single tangible number or reasoned analysis, you call someone a liar. Thanks for the compliment. The classiest folks show up on these threads.

Dear Mr. Sol,

I did not in this thread, nor have I ever in these forums, personally attacked any other forum member. I regret that you misunderstood what was intended to be reference to the reliability of studies and statistics. One must always ask, who authored it, who sponsored it, and what were the original biases of these people. The particular sentence to which you appear to have taken offense is actually a loose paraphrase of a quote by Winston Churchill.

Nope, when someone takes the time to look things up in the "Statistics of the Railways of the United States" -- a thoroughly public source -- goes through the numbers, posts them  here, and you walk up and do, indeed, have the audacity to claim they are "supposed numbers" and that such use of numbers simply falls into the class of falsified statistics -- "personally falsified", instructing the reader to "never believe" my posted numbers -- 1) that's patently offensive, 2) an insult, 3) it's a cheap shot because it attempts to denigrate someone else's work while you have done none of your own, and 4) it's dishonest because it explicitly implies dishonesty to what is, in fact, routine econometric analysis taken from data published by the railroads themselves, which, by publication here, is in fact an effort to offer an honest context to unsupported and often wildly misleading comments like yours. It was nothing more than a cheapest of cheap shots at credibility while offering nothing factual to refute the cited statistics.

Blaming Winston Churchill somehow just doesn't make it acceptable.

Further, the politician's retort that "I'm sorry you misunderstood my remarks", as though it is the reader's fault, not your own, for explicitly attaching the implication of "falsification" to the conversation when you see numbers you don't "prefer", is emphatically not a misunderstanding on the part of the reader, but is exactly what you try to claim it is not, notwithstanding the feigned indignation that you didn't mean exactly what you said.

 

[Flint Hills Tex]

Obviously there were many external factors contributing to railroads' economic woes. As for the supposed numbers "proving" it was diesel's fault (sounds like an episode of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), never believe a statistic you didn't personally falsify!

Perhaps it is a measure of your sophistication that when you can't offer a single tangible number or reasoned analysis, you call someone a liar. Thanks for the compliment. The classiest folks show up on these threads.

Dear Mr. Sol,

I did not in this thread, nor have I ever in these forums, personally attacked any other forum member. I regret that you misunderstood what was intended to be reference to the reliability of studies and statistics. One must always ask, who authored it, who sponsored it, and what were the original biases of these people. The particular sentence to which you appear to have taken offense is actually a loose paraphrase of a quote by Winston Churchill.

As to your argument that I personally have offered no tangible evidence for my arguments: I view a thread as a forum for exchange, where many participants express their opinions and contribute their knowledge. On April 30 at 11:56 pm forum member n012944 posted a link to an interesting article empirically comparing steam and diesel by Al Krug. If I feel that another forum member has expressed my opinion better (perhaps more eloquently) or contributed sounder knowledge than I, I usually choose not to respond, to avoid senseless repetition.

I apologize, if I inadvertantly hurt anybody's feelings. I personally do not appreciate being called low class! I also find it rather audacious to claim I am biased because I obviously prefer diesel to steam. For the record, I am convinced that all out electrification is the way to go, no matter what the cost, as electrification provides for greater flexibility in primary energy source without affecting a railroads physical plant or motive power.

[GP40-2]

The average time freight tonnage for an A Class was 5600 tons.  Their maximum tonnage ratings for that speed was 7500 tons.  That's not a mis-print.  This was determined in testing and in actual practice could take a few more tons at that speed if required.

But to do this 5200 dhp are not enough. I still have some kind of problem with that number. It doesn't make sense considering the size and speed of loads these engines did haul. And it soens't make sense that the Y-6 should have put out MORE hp than the bigger class A with larger fire boxes, more heating surfaces, etc.

I have to look into the books and papers I have available. 

A single SD double digit anything can't haul 5,000 tons.  It takes several of them to do it.

Nah, it isn't THAT bad. On C&O, three SD-40 were used on 18000 ton coal drags, makes 6000 tons for each. If you mean 5000 tons at 60 mph, I think two of these will do the job.

Those are the figures that I confirmed from 3 different books.  It has been said that the N&W used conservative numbers on their locomotive stats.  I can't go back and ask them personally. The flux capacitor is broken on my Dolorean at present. 

The 5200 HP for the Class A sounds right on the money based on its historical performance. The H8 Allegheny, with a boiler much more powerful than the Class A, was good for an honest 6600 HP. The 7500 HP often quoted for the H8 is but one data point from the scatter plot. Your point about the Y's claimed HP is well taken. I would place them at around 4800 HP based on the Class A actual performance.