Could steam make a comeback?

[GP40-2]

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

Exactly. LOL That's why CSX only leases new GE products. It only takes 2 ES44ACs to pull a 20,000 ton coal drag.

[benburch]

If the predictions of OPEC are correct, and oil is $200/bbl by the end of 2009, then the economics are set completely on a different footing, and we WILL see some method of using coal to power railroads whatever that is.

In the long term, I predict it will have to be electrification on the Transcon and steam on the branch lines.

Even the labor costs will not matter if oil goes to the point predicted, and that is a good thing! Because we need good honest jobs for Americans.

-Ben

[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. 

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

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.

[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.

[MichaelSol]

6. Figure also it is not merely oil shortages in the offing, but, less debateably, capital shortages.

7. Higher interest rates would put a premium on steam's lower capital cost. 

Given the combination of longer economic service life and lower cost per horsepower, if the relationship held today for the comparison that existed in the 1950s, the total capital investment in motive power in the form of reciprocating Steam would be about one-third of that for the current fleet of Diesel-electrics on a per-horsepower basis. The cost of financing that capital investment was simply yet another economic burden placed on top of the capital investment itself.

 

[wsherrick]

I know several people who to this day refuse to read Trains Magazine because DP Morgan was the editor.  His obvious bias toward EMD made a lot of people angry. 

[Anonymous]

Now that I am finding my way around this site, which is a bit difficult, and have read through

most of the 400 plus comments in this line, I would like to make the following comments:

1. The first eight or nine pages struck me as superficial and simplisitc, for the most part.

After  that the quality improved dramatically.

2. There are lies, *** lies, and statistics, as Mark Twain said. It is easier to poison a dog, which

swallows everything whole, that a cat, which sniffs, paws, and tastes its food before eating.

3. The railroads dieselized on fast, light trains and slow, heavy trains, on which the diesel's 

advantages were most apparent. Within a decade of dieselization, however, they had to run 

fast, heavy trains, on which it is a different story. Brown"s study, based on data prior to that, still made a distinction between yard and road service.

4. They still have to run fast, heavy trains, but now hampered by fuel costs. It takes twice

the diesel horsepower to haul a train at 70 mph as at 50. (TRAINS, Jan 1974, May 1986) The

old steam-diesel debate did not deal with this consideration. 

5. Train speed is not only a matter of customer service. There is also equipment and plant utilization.

There is also the matter of generating capacity, which, under mobile generation, has to equal

fleet horespower. The peak load on Penny's central plant in WWII, however, averaged 16% and

never exceeded 22%.  

6. Figure also it is not merely oil shortages in the offing, but, less debateably, capital shortages.

Anyone want to argue the current  federal and trade deficits are sustainable? See the April 6, 2008 60 Minutes on foreign security funds holding hundreds of billions in American assets, the sale of which would skyrocket interest rates and collapse the dollar. You do not have to be a right-wing sore tooth to make such an argument, as have such impeccable Establishmentarians as Perter Perterson and Robert Hormats. Figure also capital shortages could hamstring oil production, regardless of what is in the ground, per Maugeri, The Age of Oil.

7. Higher interest rates would put a premium on steam's lower capital cost. Dieselization did occur

under artificially low interest rates. Interest costs would also put a premium on lower transit times,

as on the old Great Northern silk trains. 

8. We ought to be thinking about a locomotive for hauling 5,000 ton trains at 80 mph. My nomination 

is an updated Pennsy turbine, call it the Q-3. The problem with the S-2 was low speed performance. A deflection displacement turbine is little more than a hole in the boiler starting out. Something as simple as a reverse gear for the small reverse turbine might have made it a superb locomotive. The turbine also avoided valve and balance problems, also allowing smaller 

drivers. See Railway Mechanical Engineer, March and April 1945, for not merely reciprocating steam's superiority at speed, but turbine over piston. Also see Pennsy Power for the turbine exhausting at 15lb pressure, indicating great efficiency. 

[Anonymous]

Was DPM's March 1961 editorial, Impressive But Not Convincing, on the H F Brown paper the last shot of the old steam-diesel debate?

Or is it a sleeping dog that has lain far too long?

After listing several of Brown's contentions and leaving specific rebuttal to "more qualified pencil pushers" DPM rested his case largely on this one paragraph:

"We regard Mr. Brown's paper as impressive but not convincing. For example, the merits of 'modern steam power' are better illustrated in specific applications than in over-all comparisons. It is true that Missabe Road 2-8-8-4's moved ore trains of almost 18,000 tons gross off the range and that N&W 2-6-6-4's managed 14,500-ton coal drags in flatland running. The equivalent, say, of perhaps three six motor, 1750 h.p. diesels. Driver axle loadings in this example range from slightly less than 50,000 pounds for the diesel to 70,600 pounds for the 2-8-8-4 and on up to 107,525 pounds for the 2-6-6-4. Clearances favor the diesel, too, as does the fact that the articulateds are indivisible. Put it this way: How many roads possess N&W's physical plant? Again, even N&W found it necessary to manufacture two basic types of steam locomotives (simple 2-6-6-4 and compound 2-8-8-2) to operate in mountain and flat terrain on the merchandise trains that are now handled by multiples of a single type of diesel, a unit of which is also at home, say, on the Abingdon Branch, where formerly a 4-8-0 was the largest type of power assignable."

DPM's pencil pushing is pretty much straight arrow on the DMIR application, judging by his own Steam's Finest Hour, p57, listing 565,000 WOD for the 2-8-8-4, and the November 1959 TRAINS on DMIR. Figure six motor units of the time commonly had 50,000 lb axle loads.

Re the N&W application, however, he is strictly pencil pushy. His own SFH, p67, lists 432,200 WOD for the Class A, which, divided by six, is actually less that the 2-8-8-4 figure. Figure also the "single type" of diesel on the N&W was four motor units from two builders. Further, that four motor mainline freight units ran from 120 to 130 tons, or 60,000 to 65,000 lb. axle loadings, whatever the specific N&W figures were.

Three SD9s would have replaced the A? Again, his own SFH, pp61, 66, says it averaged over 30 mph start to top with those 14,500 ton trains and did twice that with 125 cars of merchandise.

By EMD figures relayed by LeMassena, January 1974, the 3600 hp SD45 could haul a 5000 ton train on level tangent track at 35 mph, two at 51 mph, three at 62 mph, and four at 70 mph. By these figures, it would have taken three SD45s to make those 14,500 ton hauls, twice the hp of the DMIR units. But figure the 125 cars of merchandise averaged 60 tons each, for a train weight of 7500 tons. That is almost half again what three SD45s were hauling at that speed, or four and a half units.

There is a lack of record what the Class A could haul at 60 mph. By Ed King's not quite complete account of the A, on test the A hauled 7500 tons at 64 mph, he reports without elaboration. This figure has since been questioned as a misprint by Le Massena, Mainline Modeler, July 1993. On freight runs they cruised at 60 mph, often with consists filled out to 8000 tons. On one run they covered 92 miles in two hours. The conditions could be a bit more wonderfully completely described, however.

Impressive, and maybe even convincing, by DPM's own words then, is that the diesel is not quite the all-around motive power he thought. Actually, he did notice in the Oct 1956 issue that steam seemed to last longer on high speed flatland operations than on mountain pikes. And a footnote in the Lima diesel article, Nov 1963, referring to Brown's paper, said Lima could hardly be blamed for taking the diesel's fast freight performance as less than impressive.

Rather than deprecate N&W's superb realization of the different requirements for slow and high speed power, DPM might have better questioned why PRR did not order 25 Y-6bs for the mountains and 100 As for the flatlands, instead of the redoubtable but not quite equal C&O T-1. What if it had not ordered the 25 Q-2's, a possibly superb 80 mph machine with proper attention to detail, but Class As instead? The Q-2 had no significant advantage over the J-1 under 50 mph, but significant disadvantages.

Staufer and Pennypacker, Pennsy Power, pp196, 210, bemoans the order of 100 K4s instead of M1s, a better explanation of why it was not so much steam, but rather its implementation, that failed. The N&W was the notable exception, of course, its 2-8-8-2 coming within a whisker of the four unit souped up 7000 hp F7 on 1% grades, performance and cost-wise, and at a much lower capital cost. Actually, as far as that goes, that same F7 came within a whisker of the A's performance on those 14,500 ton coal trains, leaving me to wonder where all that extra hp of the three SD45s goes. Actually, I have been wondering for about 35 years, since moving a block from the C&NW mainline, observing three unit SD40s on both 12,000 ton unit trains and fast piggybackers, and reading SFH on the A's exploits.

And that Nov 1959 article on the DMIR noted the three unit diesel could start a heavier train, but the Yellowstone could pull a train it could start faster than the diesels. And that same issue has DPM's own observation on a PRR T-1 cab ride, that the great racer literaly SURGED when the throttle was opened at 70 mph, his emphasis. Contrast that with the May 1986 article on the Super C, the diesels crapping out at speed. The closer analysis should be impressive and convincing both. That is, if it is properly expressed in accounting terms, not merely performance figures.

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?

[Anonymous]

Jerry Pinkepank's July 1970 article on electrification could be updated in twenty-five words or less. Like, Southern Pacific is a fallen flag. There is another problem, besides the enormous capital investment. The power industry has peak-period charges, while railroads expect a flat rate.

The electric power industry, the most capital intensive, has its own capital problems.

[Anonymous]

Sacrificed their destiny to outside forces?

How about some examples?

1. The incident in Withuhn, Rails Across America, in which an unnamed railroad wanted modifications to an EMD design in 1940. EMD said, we will build you a locomotive and let you use it for six months, free. If you do not like it, return it. If you like it, buy it.

2. Ed King's Sept 2004 article on the railroads being sold high-wheel articulateds for work best done by the N&W Y-6b, unfashionable as compounds were.

3. The ICC Milwaukee Rd. bankruptcy report (131 ICC 615) on the electrification being approved by a board with banking, electric power, and copper interests doing business with the railroad. The big selling point of electrification was the train going down the hill pulling another going up the hill, but the railroad contracted to buy twice as much electricity as it needed.

4. Railway Mechanical Engineer becoming Railway Locomotives and Cars about 1952.

 

 

[carnej1]

I wish to make a point I have made earlier.   There is absolutely no reason to assume that the return of steam, which I am certain will occur, because of bad policies that are going to result in petroleum prices going through the roof (until wisdom prevails, and the vast untapped Canadian reserves are finally exploited)-- will involve traditional reciprocating steam locomotives.  Past experience with turbine steam locomotives failed because:

1.   Attempt to use just one turbine for a wide variety of power outputs, rather than simply at and near rotational speeds of maximum efficiency (all examples).

2.   Transmission problems, either mechanical (PRR S-2) or electrical (N&W).  (The S-2 had two turbines, alright, but one was for forward motion and one for reverse!  What a waste!)

The solution is a locomotive embodying all electric transmission advances and technology of the modern diesel, with boilers and turbines derived from modern power plant design, and at least two but possibly three or four turbines of different sizes to be used in combination to provide multiple efficient throttle positions.

I could see retention of the conventional reciprocating locomotive's outline design, like the PRR S-2.  Larger driving wheels (without rods or counterweights) would permit larger and easier to maintain motors, whether ac or dc, and a boiler with modern space-age lagging doesn't need a car body for housing and exposing it, and the lagging without carbody might make some forms of maintenance easier.  And for four turbines, locating two in the traditional position of the reciprocating locomotive's cylinders and two half way back, like the S-1. T-1, and Q-1 and Q-2.   Or it might be better to support the whole shebang on two six-wheel large-wheel trucks, like a Garrett or Mason Fairley, but the tubines on the main frame, possibly all four, two on each side, between the trucks.   A conventional tender and stoker would follow.  Or the tender could be on the main-frame like a Garrett or Farley-tank-engine.  Either there would be return of the firemen to employment or there would be a requirement that the trainman be a second man in the cab with the locomotive operating above walking speed.   This will be a lot easier on the track and be easier to maintain and not require so much revival of old technology than the reciprocating steam locomotive.

Because of water consumption, I would not expect such locomotives to be used in desert operations, but there are plenty of USA locations where they would have economic advantages over diesels. 

 

Although it seems exeedingly unlikely that any kind of Rankine cyle/external combustion motive power will be built for line haul service in North America again, as a thought experiment why would your modern coal fired engine necessarily use steam expansion of any sort?

 You mention General Electric, a company who are at the leading edge of coal gasifier technology and also manufacture one of the more popular diesel cycle engines using gas fuel (Jernbacher, many are used in NG fueled electrical generation applications). In fact GE is adapting a jernbacher engine for use in a new locomotive model being built for UK service(although in that application the engine will run on diesel fuel rather than Natural Gas as it's designed to do). Such a lcomotive would be much more compatible with existing motive power facilities and practices and should be as thermally efficient as your triple or quad steam turbine....

 Interestingly Modern Steam enthusiast/promoter Harry Valentine has proposed such a multi- turbine unit:

 

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern10.htm

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

Arrgh!!  I didn't even state myself correctly.

Me too, me too! (and nobody did realize it?)

without switching to compound mode

 

This must be without switching to simple mode! That means the engine still works as a compound but the LP cylinders nonetheless receive a certain amount of fresh steam to increase TE.

[daveklepper]

I wish to make a point I have made earlier.   There is absolutely no reason to assume that the return of steam, which I am certain will occur, because of bad policies that are going to result in petroleum prices going through the roof (until wisdom prevails, and the vast untapped Canadian reserves are finally exploited)-- will involve traditional reciprocating steam locomotives.  Past experience with turbine steam locomotives failed because:

1.   Attempt to use just one turbine for a wide variety of power outputs, rather than simply at and near rotational speeds of maximum efficiency (all examples).

2.   Transmission problems, either mechanical (PRR S-2) or electrical (N&W).  (The S-2 had two turbines, alright, but one was for forward motion and one for reverse!  What a waste!)

The solution is a locomotive embodying all electric transmission advances and technology of the modern diesel, with boilers and turbines derived from modern power plant design, and at least two but possibly three or four turbines of different sizes to be used in combination to provide multiple efficient throttle positions.

I could see retention of the conventional reciprocating locomotive's outline design, like the PRR S-2.  Larger driving wheels (without rods or counterweights) would permit larger and easier to maintain motors, whether ac or dc, and a boiler with modern space-age lagging doesn't need a car body for housing and exposing it, and the lagging without carbody might make some forms of maintenance easier.  And for four turbines, locating two in the traditional position of the reciprocating locomotive's cylinders and two half way back, like the S-1. T-1, and Q-1 and Q-2.   Or it might be better to support the whole shebang on two six-wheel large-wheel trucks, like a Garrett or Mason Fairley, but the tubines on the main frame, possibly all four, two on each side, between the trucks.   A conventional tender and stoker would follow.  Or the tender could be on the main-frame like a Garrett or Farley-tank-engine.  Either there would be return of the firemen to employment or there would be a requirement that the trainman be a second man in the cab with the locomotive operating above walking speed.   This will be a lot easier on the track and be easier to maintain and not require so much revival of old technology than the reciprocating steam locomotive.

Because of water consumption, I would not expect such locomotives to be used in desert operations, but there are plenty of USA locations where they would have economic advantages over diesels. 

[wsherrick]

What, and how much, will the "new" replacement in steam engines need in the way of lubricants?  If they improve efficiencies by a factor of 2, would it not be reasonable to presume that the sophistication and the numbers/amounts of lubes would increase commensurately? 

Insofar as external combustion is concerned, the combustion cycle on the steam engine was separate from the production of mechanical power. On the diesel engine, they are part of the same process. This explains the difficulties for the diesel engine from an emissions standpoint, but is also the problem from a lubricant standpoint. The combustion process on the reciprocating steam engine requires no lubricant. The combustion process therefore consumes no lubricant. Because the diesel engine combines the combustion and mechanical function, it is an inherent feature of the diesel engine that it will consume lubricant where the external combustion steam engine won't, can't. The difference is inherent in the design. Signicant improvements in the combustion process for a steam engine can't affect lubricant consumption.

 

Excellent observation M. Sol!!  I'm sure the same comparison can be made for the straight electric locomotive as well.

In as far as the traditional needs of steam locomotive lubrication-Most of that was already eliminated by the '50's.  Today the advance of sealed bearings and rubbing surfaces have advanced to the point that all moving parts, pins, journals, would require virtually no extra lubrication such as existed on a standard steam engine with friction bearings on axles, rods and journals.  These items have been eliminated on every other kind of rolling stock so the same would hold true for a new steam locomotive as well.

[MichaelSol]

What, and how much, will the "new" replacement in steam engines need in the way of lubricants?  If they improve efficiencies by a factor of 2, would it not be reasonable to presume that the sophistication and the numbers/amounts of lubes would increase commensurately? 

Insofar as external combustion is concerned, the combustion cycle on the steam engine was separate from the production of mechanical power. On the diesel engine, they are part of the same process. This is part of the higher efficiency of the diesel engine, but also explains the difficulties for the diesel engine from an emissions standpoint, and also the problem from a lubricant standpoint. The combustion process on the reciprocating steam engine requires no lubricant. The combustion process therefore consumes no lubricant. Because the diesel engine combines the combustion and mechanical function, it is an inherent feature of the diesel engine that it will consume lubricant where the external combustion steam engine won't, can't. The difference is inherent in the design. Signicant improvements in the combustion process for a steam engine can't affect lubricant consumption.

 

[selector]

I thought the Y6b class used to start in compound, and that they also had boosters.  That combination would have yielded the max published figures for TE...would it not?  I seem to recall this from www.steamlocomotive.com without actually checking.

-Crandell

Crandell,

both is wrong. They used to start in simple mode, because that way you get the most TE (because all 4 cylinders get fresh steam at nearly boiler pressuere).

The Y classes did not have a booster. What they had is a special valve permitting a certain amount of fresh steam going into the LP cylinders without switching to compound mode. That's why it was often called "booster valve". The increase of TE was large enough that it required some lead weight built into the front engine frames! This was no problem because of the high quality N&W track, and somewhere I read that the engines even ran better with the lead.

Arrgh!!  I didn't even state myself correctly.  I had meant to say "simple", not compound. on startup.

But about the "booster", I recall very recently an announcer saying that the Y's had boosters in later iterations...one of the Pentrex-style/Madacy productions videos I think, but maybe I misheard.  If I see/hear it again, I'll try to remember to remark on it to get the source.  Thanks for the corrections and info, VC.

-Crandell

[wsherrick]

Class A:

Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.

Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH

Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH

Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.

Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH

Class Y6b:

Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds,  152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.

Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH

Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH

Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.

Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b's on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons

Source:  N&W Records, circa 1950

I believe that some of these are not correct.

class A:

- starting TE of 114000 pounds is the calculated TE, actually measured were as much as 119000

- max drawbar hp was above 6200 (boiler is larger than on Y-6)

 

class Y-6b:

- 152000 pounds TE continious I think is compound mode plus intercepting valve opened, not compound alone

- if two Y-6 engines could lug 11000 tons up 1,6% grade, why could a single one take only 3900 tons on the same grade? Actually I would expect a bit moe than half of the tonnage for two engine, but 6000 tons up 1,6% seems to be very high. Do you could look again if these statistics are correct?

Yes, I will be happy to check those figures for you. The figures for the A are taken from an N&W trade publication from 1950 and others from: "N&W Giant of Steam.  If I made an error I will be more than happy to correct it.  Thanks.

I just checked my references and the figures for the A Class are correct as posted.  The 6300 horsepower rating was initially published as the maximum horsepower rating but was later revised downward because during testing it was found that there was a defective instrument in the dynamometer car and later tests determined the correct horsepower rating.

The tonnage rating for the two Y6b's of 11,000 tons was for the Radford Division which had a ruling grade of 1%.  My mistake there.

The simpling valves were not added to the Y6b's until 1953 and after.  They also had modifications to the valve events, port openings and redesigned stacks and exhaust nozzles.  Before these changes the Continuous tractive effort rating was 126,838 thousand pounds.  I could not find conclusive evidence in my reference material that indicated if the 152,000 pounds of tractive effort rating was due to the use of the simpling valve or not.  So you could be right about that. 

Yes the Y6b's had lead added to the lead engine to eliminate slipping.

No N&W engines had boosters.  The simpling valve was referred to as a, "booster valve."

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

I thought the Y6b class used to start in compound, and that they also had boosters.  That combination would have yielded the max published figures for TE...would it not?  I seem to recall this from www.steamlocomotive.com without actually checking.

-Crandell

Crandell,

both is wrong. They used to start in simple mode, because that way you get the most TE (because all 4 cylinders get fresh steam at nearly boiler pressuere).

The Y classes did not have a booster. What they had is a special valve permitting a certain amount of fresh steam going into the LP cylinders without switching to compound mode. That's why it was often called "booster valve". The increase of TE was large enough that it required some lead weight built into the front engine frames! This was no problem because of the high quality N&W track, and somewhere I read that the engines even ran better with the lead.

[selector]

I believe that some of these are not correct.

class A:

- starting TE of 114000 pounds is the calculated TE, actually measured were as much as 119000

- max drawbar hp was above 6200 (boiler is larger than on Y-6)

 

class Y-6b:

- 152000 pounds TE continious I think is compound mode plus intercepting valve opened, not compound alone

- if two Y-6 engines could lug 11000 tons up 1,6% grade, why could a single one take only 3900 tons on the same grade? Actually I would expect a bit moe than half of the tonnage for two engine, but 6000 tons up 1,6% seems to be very high. Do you could look again if these statistics are correct?

I thought the Y6b class used to start in compound, and that they also had boosters.  That combination would have yielded the max published figures for TE...would it not?  I seem to recall this from www.steamlocomotive.com without actually checking.

-Crandell

[blue streak 1]

Tom you are right about steam plants. mainly they remove solids and do a minimum amount to neutralize chemical imbalances.

[TomDiehl]

I'm not clear on the water problem. Modern steam electric plants have to take their own water from streams and rivers that is untreated. I've heard that steam operators of today have to be very careful where they get their water. Because many local water systems treat water to make it taste better that water cannot be used. How about it you steam operators lets us know. The lack of good water on some RRs suggest that they would not want to start hauling proper water al la Santa FE. The techniques discussed for newer technology almost suggest distilled water would be needed.

New steam facilities would be very costly to build - sand, water, coal, heaters for water storage, ash pits, servicing facilities, wyes or turntables, etc. All old steam heads i've talked to say you don't work outside on those "beasts" in cold weather.

Modern steam electric plants probably have their own treatment facilities on site. I can't imagine one of them putting raw river water into the boiler.

At Steamtown, we use Scranton City Water, but it may be from the lines that supply the fire hydrants rather than the drinking water system. The water is sampled from the boilers daily and the type and amount of chemicals needed is added to the tender tank. Also, the boilers are washed (internally) once every thirty days during the operating season to remove any scale buildup. Distilled water would be ideal, but costly. Simple neutralized water with a minimum of minerals is the desirable type.

[blue streak 1]

I'm not clear on the water problem. Modern steam electric plants have to take their own water from streams and rivers that is untreated. I've heard that steam operators of today have to be very careful where they get their water. Because many local water systems treat water to make it taste better that water cannot be used. How about it you steam operators lets us know. The lack of good water on some RRs suggest that they would not want to start hauling proper water al la Santa FE. The techniques discussed for newer technology almost suggest distilled water would be needed.

New steam facilities would be very costly to build - sand, water, coal, heaters for water storage, ash pits, servicing facilities, wyes or turntables, etc. All old steam heads i've talked to say you don't work outside on those "beasts" in cold weather.

[wsherrick]

Class A:

Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.

Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH

Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH

Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.

Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH

Class Y6b:

Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds,  152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.

Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH

Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH

Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.

Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b's on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons

Source:  N&W Records, circa 1950

I believe that some of these are not correct.

class A:

- starting TE of 114000 pounds is the calculated TE, actually measured were as much as 119000

- max drawbar hp was above 6200 (boiler is larger than on Y-6)

 

class Y-6b:

- 152000 pounds TE continious I think is compound mode plus intercepting valve opened, not compound alone

- if two Y-6 engines could lug 11000 tons up 1,6% grade, why could a single one take only 3900 tons on the same grade? Actually I would expect a bit moe than half of the tonnage for two engine, but 6000 tons up 1,6% seems to be very high. Do you could look again if these statistics are correct?

Yes, I will be happy to check those figures for you. The figures for the A are taken from an N&W trade publication from 1950 and others from: "N&W Giant of Steam.  If I made an error I will be more than happy to correct it.  Thanks.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

Class A:

Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.

Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH

Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH

Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.

Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH

Class Y6b:

Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds,  152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.

Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH

Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH

Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.

Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b's on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons

Source:  N&W Records, circa 1950

I believe that some of these are not correct.

class A:

- starting TE of 114000 pounds is the calculated TE, actually measured were as much as 119000

- max drawbar hp was above 6200 (boiler is larger than on Y-6)

 

class Y-6b:

- 152000 pounds TE continious I think is compound mode plus intercepting valve opened, not compound alone

- if two Y-6 engines could lug 11000 tons up 1,6% grade, why could a single one take only 3900 tons on the same grade? Actually I would expect a bit moe than half of the tonnage for two engine, but 6000 tons up 1,6% seems to be very high. Do you could look again if these statistics are correct?

[wsherrick]

In the case of the Santa Fe the use of diesels permitted AT&SF to eliminate all of the non revenue trains that they had to run to supply water in the deserts of New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas.  All of the water to resupply the steam locomotives had to be hauled in because the water was either unavailable, or unusable.  So for the Santa Fe dieselization was a no brainer.

Can you imagine what a return to steam could mean for western railroads? I don't even want to think about California emmissions restrictions and water conservation constraints. I have to agree with Jonathan!

Now some folks on this thread have been claiming that dieselisation, and solely dieselisation, led to higher operating costs, less return on investments, and the overall demise of North American railroading. I understand that a love of steam can cause tunnel-vision (no pun intended). Now, after consulting my history books, it seems that the US economy was experiencing a recession around 1960, a date by which the steam-diesel transition can be considered complete.

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! I once read a study which "proved" that red cars get stopped more often by the cops than cars of another color. Turns out that more high horsepower sportscars are sold in red than in any other color. It wasn't the red paint causing the speeding tickets, it was the powerful motor in the car. The color was actually irrelevant.

Steam survived over here in western Europe almost 20 years longer than in North America. If, by the 70s, railroads could have proven that steam were more efficient and cost effective than diesel, surely European railroads were in a position to stick with steam. Yet they made the transition. Why? Because steam is NOT cheaper and more efficient than diesel.

The point has been proved over and over again with out refute.  It wasn't sucessfully refuted in H.F Brown's time and it can't be on this thread.  I take your red car example to illustrate your point of view.  The supposed benefits of dieselization, lowered maintence, improved locomotive productivity, etc., are all because of other economic factors such as a decline in traffic overall and a decline in unprofitable short haul traffic and costs associated with that, et al. that had nothing to do with the type of power involved.  So I guess it was because the diesels were painted red so to speak.

There have been repeated posts here with hard numbers to back these statments.  And you call us liars.  Hmm, I could be offended but I'm not, one is entitled to one's opionion even if it is based on unfounded bias and willful ignorance.  So be it.

[selector]

...although, to keep the argument fairly steam tight ( ), we don't really have a comparative basis to deal with the lubricant debate.  What, and how much, will the "new" replacement in steam engines need in the way of lubricants?  If they improve efficiencies by a factor of 2, would it not be reasonable to presume that the sophistication and the numbers/amounts of lubes would increase commensurately?  It might be somewhat moot when a realistic comparison is eventually made on this part of the topic.

-Crandell

[wsherrick]

...and by reducing the need for lubricants

I'm curious on this point, Michael. Do you have supporting numbers on this point? I have no idea, but I would have thought the advantage would be to the diesel on this point. Lubricating a steam locomotive seems to be a fairly labor intensive task -- at least the steam locomotives I've seen running. Is there such a quantity of lubricant in the crankcase and elsewhere on a diesel that offsets the labor costs of steam lubrication?

So many posts to respond to today.  I'll start with this one.

Today at work I just poured 25 gallons of lubrication oil into the diesel (GE U Boat)at work.  It will need that again in a few weeks.  We put 1500 gallons of fuel into the tank @ $3.75 per gallon which cost $5,625.00. It will have to be filled again in a couple of weeks.

I have experience with operating these steam locomotives: Southern No. 4501, T&P 610, C&O 2716, N&W 611, N&W 1218, CO&E No. 17 and NH&I No. 40.

None of these engines needed 25 gallons of any kind of lubricating oil at one time, ever.  The difference in the time to do the servicing depends on how old the engine is.  The 4501 which was built in 1911 took about an hour to do all the oiling.  The 611 which was built in 1950 takes about 20 minutes and oil is measured out in ounces and quarts not gallons.

You might say, well that's an old diesel.  And I will answer why do many of you try and compare 60 year old steam technology with what is current?  In the effort not to be redundant, I will simply say: Go back and read the thread again.

 

[MichaelSol]

...and by reducing the need for lubricants

I'm curious on this point, Michael. Do you have supporting numbers on this point?

From Brown:

"Lubricants

"In the diesel locomotive, some of the lubricants are consumed with the fuel. The costs of lubricants are higher than for other types of motive power.

"Most lubricants are products of petroleum, which has increased in cost 2.4 times since 1940. Lubricants cost $7.5 million for 33,700 steam and electric road locomotives in 1940. The equivalent steam and electric locomotives in 1957 would be 14,300, or 42.5 per cent of the 1940 number. The costs of lubricants in 1957 on the basis of above assumptions would be $7.5 x 2.4 x 0.425 or $7.7 million, a very slight increase compared with the actual cost in 1957 of $27.2 million.

"Lubricants for yard service locomotives cost $1.3 million in 1940. Multiplied by the assumed rise in cost, this would be $3.1 million in 1957, compared with the actual cost of $4.4 million."

Summarizing, lubricants for equivalent steam power in 1957 would have cost $10.8 million, compared with lubricant costs for diesel operation of $31.6 million. This was a net cost of $20.8 million because of dieselization.

I compared Browns' analysis, which was taken from railroad supplied data contained in Statistics of Railways of the United States with Milwaukee Road's experience.

On the Milwaukee, adjusted for ton-miles, lubricant costs increased from $419,687 in 1944, when the fleet was primarily Steam, to $1,324,196 on an equivalent ton-mile basis in 1959, an increase in lubrication costs of $904,509.

Although Brown and I used different approaches -- his by raw numbers of locomotives, mine by the amount of work done -- the results, 2.92 times the cost of lubricant for Diesel-electrics as for steam under Browns' approach, and 3.15 times the cost of lubricant for Diesel-electrics as for steam by using a "work" approach, are remarkably close suggesting that the observation is true rather than a statistical anomoly.

Since lubricant costs are generally 10-14% of the overall cost of diesel fuel used, the role of lubricants as an operating cost is significant.

 

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

All the railroads have switched, including the last major hold out - China, so I think it's pretty obvious that steam is not going to make a comeback.

Yes they switched - and don't rely on the fact that they now pay between 3 and 4 times as much as they did for steam service.

Just what do you mean by "3 and 4 times as much"? Initial cost per horsepower, fuel cost per ton mile hauled or something else. I would love to see a return of steam, particularly reciprocating steam not some whining turbine, but I would rate the possibility of that happening as just slightly better than a return to stagecoaches as a means of transport. I'm sure the arguments will go on and on and if any railroad executives are tuned into this thread I'll bet they are chuckling about the zeal of the railfan community for steam power.

Mark

They didn't specify, but it seems that they meant the complete game including every factor necessary to run trains with a given form of traction.