....Tom, do you remember what the final drive system was on the drawings for the ACE3000 unit.....? Was it mechanical or did they propose traction motors....or even turbine with gearing being the final drive....I don't think it had side rods and cylinders to connect the driving wheels. I just don't remember what design drive system it had. Perhaps we could pull up some drawings on here of it....
Edit: Just found a drawing of it....and to my surprise it was to be a 4-8-2 wheel arrangement setup.....2 high press. and 2 low press. cylinders with inside drive rods. I thought I remembered they had a completely different concept for the final drive mechanism...Humm.
Quentin
Modelcar wrote: ....Tom, do you remember what the final drive system was on the drawings for the ACE3000 unit.....? Was it mechanical or did they propose traction motors....or even turbine with gearing being the final drive....I don't think it had side rods and cylinders to connect the driving wheels. I just don't remember what design drive system it had. Perhaps we could pull up some drawings on here of it....Edit: Just found a drawing of it....and to my surprise it was to be a 4-8-2 wheel arrangement setup.....2 high press. and 2 low press. cylinders with inside drive rods. I thought I remembered they had a completely different concept for the final drive mechanism...Humm.
It was a 4-4-4-2 wheel arrangement, but I don't think the two driver sets were articulated. A picture:
http://paintshop.railfan.net/images/moldover/ace3000-4.html
They dreamed up several other variations, but unfortunately, it never went to the prototype stage.
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html
....Yes, that's the same illustration of the proposal I found. No, I don't think it was articulated. I note in my reading to refresh my thoughts on it....it was designed to have "dynamic braking" using the cylinders with opposing pressures. That's an improvement on the "old" steam engine designs not having been designed to handle that function.
If the question is really, "Can coal burning locomotives be developed," the answer is yes. They might be turbines (although the experiments half a century ago were less than satisfactory) or they might be gasifiers generating coal gas to burn in an internal combustion engine. They might even be old-time piston types (possibly utilizing the ideas put forward by Bill Withuhn to drastically reduce dynamic augment.) If, OTOH, the question is, "Would it make economic sense to do so?" including ALL the costs (labor, manufacture of new parts, infrastructure...) the answer is - not very likely.
IMHO, the most probable use of coal for railroad propulsion lies in the realm of using it as a base stock for liquid fuel production - with electrification fed from fixed coal-burning steam plants as a distant second.
Chuck
MichaelSol wrote:Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization
Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization
What studies?
trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization What studies?
MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization
I used to take the time and trouble to cite these things on this forum, and learned that "studies" generally don't matter to most people, especially the ones whose minds are made up. Having learned that extending that courtesy to people was pretty much a waste of time, since it was rarely extended back, I no longer take the time to look them up. And the ones who demanded them, were least likely to read them. Sorry.
Here's the comment I have at my fingertips:
"Small diameter driving wheels, and lower centre of gravity do produce greater track and rail stresses. Rail 'burns' from slipping driving wheels are more prevalent with diesel operation than with former steam. It is often claimed that the change from steam to diesel has reduced the cost of track maintenance. Maintenance of way costs have been carefully examined over the period studied to verify this claim. No indication can be found that the change in the type of motive power has produced any savings in this field. Such costs have increased slightly.." H. F. Brown at p. 273-274.
MichaelSol wrote:I used to take the time and trouble to cite these things on this forum, and learned that "studies" generally don't matter to most people, especially the ones whose minds are made up. Having learned that extending that courtesy to people was pretty much a waste of time, since it was rarely extended back, I no longer take the time to look them up. And the ones who demanded them, were least likely to read them. Sorry.
Fiddle sticks.
MichaelSol wrote:"Small diameter driving wheels, and lower centre of gravity do produce greater track and rail stresses. Rail 'burns' from slipping driving wheels are more prevalent with diesel operation than with former steam. It is often claimed that the change from steam to diesel has reduced the cost of track maintenance. Maintenance of way costs have been carefully examined over the period studied to verify this claim. No indication can be found that the change in the type of motive power has produced any savings in this field. Such costs have increased slightly.." H. F. Brown at p. 273-274.
One of the reasons that the Pennsy went with side-rod drives on the DD1 was that a high center of gravity reduced the lateral forces on the rails - the Pennsy set up a special test track to measure track forces. The explanation is to think of an inverted pendulum - a higher center of gravity means less force exerted for a given lateral displacement. These same tests had shown that an asymmetric wheel arrangement produced lower lateral forces than a symmetric wheel arrangement. The Pennsy had to re-learn some of these lessons a quarter century later when evaluating the R-1 vs the GG-1 (both had geared quill drives which should be easier on the track than nose suspended traction motors of equivalent ratings).
Typical steam locomotives didn't have the torque reserves common to most series wound tracion motors (I'm defining torque reserve as the peak torque minus the torque needed to slip the drivers). In addition, slipping in a steam locomotive is a lot more obvious than slipping on an electric or diesel electric locomotive.
The one area where diesel locomotives reduced the cost of track maintenance was the elimination of dynamic augment of high speed operation. The whole point of the duplex drives was to minimize the dynamic augment.
MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies? I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry.
trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies?
MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip>
Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip>
I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry.
"Virtually all the studies I have seen."
Virtually the only study you have seen on this topic is the HF Brown paper. Everyone can see that.
trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies? I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry."Virtually all the studies I have seen." Virtually the only study you have seen on this topic is the HF Brown paper. Everyone can see that.
No, it happens to be the one that, thirty five years later, I happen to have a copy of that's not packed away. I recall some AAR research papers, and a variety of references seen over 40 years. But, and in particular for people with "attitude", I just don't see the point in taking the time to look them up, and it doesn't matter whether you post as "cementmixer," "cornmaze" or "trans logis".
People invest in their mythologies and my experience is that studies and research have little impact on belief systems, even as the same individuals almost never can come up with even a single learned study to the contrary.
Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. Maybe they were all just asleep, or pehaps you are simply more knowledgeable than they were in that era. Why don't you set them all straight?
In any case, you can believe it or not believe it and I will sleep just as well at night either way.
....I seriously doubt if we'll see any group advance the effort to promote, design, fund and prototype a 21th century version of a working {steam}, powered engine.
I do think a design, using current design thoughts outside of box could be brought to life and would have surprising capibilities. How productive it might be would not be known until a working prototype was built and installed on an extensive testing program.
Seems the thought rattled a fair amount of cages though....
MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies? I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry."Virtually all the studies I have seen." Virtually the only study you have seen on this topic is the HF Brown paper. Everyone can see that. ...Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ...
Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ...
Yep, everyone in the railroad industry agreed that steam locomotives were best - that's why to this day you can still the Big Boys thundering across the Plains and K4's with their Belpaire fireboxes pulling Amtrak passenger trains into Union Station in Washington D.C.
That didn't happen, those from GM suckered the railroad execs and stole our steam when we were . How that it is now
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote:Yep, everyone in the railroad industry agreed that steam locomotives were best - that's why to this day you can still the Big Boys thundering across the Plains and K4's with their Belpaire fireboxes pulling Amtrak passenger trains into Union Station in Washington D.C.
Actually, the specific reference was to the effect of different motive power types on track structure, but that's OK, nobody's handing out awards for attention spans here ...
Modelcar wrote: Seems the thought rattled a fair amount of cages though....
Well, there are some "cages" that rattle pretty easily.
IRONROOSTER wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ... Yep, everyone in the railroad industry agreed that steam locomotives were best - that's why to this day you can still the Big Boys thundering across the Plains and K4's with their Belpaire fireboxes pulling Amtrak passenger trains into Union Station in Washington D.C. That didn't happen, those from GM suckered the railroad execs and stole our steam when we were . How that it is now Paul
MichaelSol wrote: Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ...
Paul, help us out here. What are you getting at?
Modelcar wrote: ....I seriously doubt if we'll see any group advance the effort to promote, design, fund and prototype a 21th century version of a working {steam}, powered engine.I do think a design, using current design thoughts outside of box could be brought to life and would have surprising capibilities. How productive it might be would not be known until a working prototype was built and installed on an extensive testing program.Seems the thought rattled a fair amount of cages though....
"Thinking outside the box" probably isn't necessary in this case. If you note, the ACE 3000 design was a fire tube boiler, generating steam for a double expansion recip steam engine, designs over a century old. Also, steam boiler technology and cleaner coal burning technology didn't quit with the death of the steam locomotive in this country. Power plants and some commercial ships still use steam, so the boiler technology was still advancing. Coal generates about half the electricity in this country, and with the enviornmental regulations, obviously cleaner burning coal technology is out there. No need to "reinvent the wheel," just combine the existing technologies. I also agree with those that have speculated that a 21st century steam locomotive externally won't look anything like the classic designs from the end of steam era. There is a good possibility, however, that it will look closer than the ACE 3000 drawings.
To your other point, recall from the ACE 3000 R&D phase, that this was supported by private industries that would most likely be supplying major components should the concept, or any derivative, go into production.
selector wrote:Paul, help us out here. What are you getting at?
Sorry, I was just attempting to humorously point out that this thread has predictively devolved into that old dead horse about steam being better diesels.
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. And the railroads at the time all thought they were saving money. So either all these obscure studies are leaving out essential factors or there was a massive conspiracy by the diesel makers. By the time you factor in maintenance, water pick up, crew costs, etc., etc., the steam locomotive doesn't work - that was the railroad's conclusion and they "pay the piper" so to speak.
Just like open platform truss rod wooden passenger cars, cabooses, and ball signals the steam locomotive is charming but it's from the 19th century and the railroads have moved on. Don't get me wrong, I love the old steam locomotives and all the rest, but their time has passed.
....IRONROOSTER:
You might note the original discussion of the possibility of reviving "steam" and powered by some form of coal was not a discussion whether it would be better than a "modern' diesel-electric unit....It was a thought with the extreme escalating of oil prices and perhaps what might be possible with "steam"....
Believe that's worth "talking about". In "our" case here it sure qualifys as a railroad subject. We didn't say it was better,etc...Oh well what's the use.
Modelcar wrote: ....IRONROOSTER: You might note the original discussion of the possibility of reviving "steam" and powered by some form of coal was not a discussion whether it would be better than a "modern' diesel-electric unit....It was a thought with the extreme escalating of oil prices and perhaps what might be possible with "steam"....Believe that's worth "talking about". In "our" case here it sure qualifys as a railroad subject. We didn't say it was better,etc...Oh well what's the use.
Some did. And of course, implicitly it is, as well. But it's too entangled so I'll accept that my original attempt failed and of course a failure at humor can rarely be rectified by explanation. This not having been that rare occurence, it's best to just let it pass on. My apologies for the confusion I have sown.
IF... steam was to make a comeback on the rails... (and that is a big if), it would not be in the form of reciprocating rod and piston drivers. It would be a fuel oil powered cogeneration boiler/turbine setup. Cogeneration can achieve efficiency levels in the 90% range, however, these efficiency levels can only be maintained if the locomotive is actually working (pulling freight). Otherwise, like your car at a stoplight, it will have an efficiency level of 0%.
So we are back to cogeneration in a large facility powering an electric locomotive. Been done already. Way too expensive to maintain I guess (must have been some reason all of our rails don't use it, it's not because its cheaper).
....By the way Paul, I did ride {passenger trains}, behind K-4's and of course when we arrived at Harrisburg the mighty GG-1 became the unit of power and boy one could really tell the difference....
First difference was the dirt stopped accumulating on the window sill.....But as you indicated, it sure wasn't recently.
The next difference, I remember it pushing one back in the seat with it's surge of pulling forward and off to the 90 mph "races".
It's all good, tattooguy. Steam gets under the skin of most railroad fans, and what the bearer feels is up to their personal biases. If it causes and itch, not so pleasant, but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, as it does for steam lovers, then there is a lot of positive (and pent up) emotion. Those who have not experienced steam in their lives truly wonder what all the quaint fuss is about. Can't blame them...a Model T doesn't do it for me, either.
But, I did grow up with steam, and feel a huge pull toward them when I see them in running order. There's something about them. And your question was a thoughtful one. It's just that steam, like so many things, evokes a certain reminiscence that was perhaps not what you were thinking. So, we who love steam have a response set that thinks, "Rods and cylinders with horizontal boilers, bells, steam whistles...you get the picture.
The acrimony is going to be there for any subject with a lot of emotional component to it for half of those reading. And, yes, it is very personal.
BTW, this was a very friendly conversation of this type. You shoulda been here for the nasty ones.
Best wishes to you, and I hope you won't feel you have to refrain from asking such questions.
I am fascinated by the various proposals for modern steam power (google "the ultimate steam page" and "Marty Bane's 21st century steam" site) but the fact of the matter is the diesel electric has a corner on railroad traction technology in North America and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. There are already some Coal Liquefaction pilot projects (a mature technology used by the Axis in WWII and by South Africa still today) which produce extremely high quality, low sulphur synthetic diesel and the economics of oil production are starting to make this concept workable. Back in the 80's there was a lot of railroad interest in using cheaper fuels (esp. Coal) which led to proposals such as the ACE 3000 as well as GE's research into coal slurry fueled diesel engines. Interestingly at the time, the guy in charge of the GE program stated that he felt that coal derived synfuels was the way to go.
I have wondered about Railpowers CNGL gas turbine/electric proposal (try google) and whether it would be economical to operate on coal derived syngas but AFAIK the railroads have not shown interest in it.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
tattooguy67 wrote:Ok i guess as the OP on this round of this discusion i have to clarify once more on my original thoughts, i am seeing a lot of comments on the increased maintenance costs of steam as opposed to diesel engines, based on what? the maintenance figures from the 30's 40's and early 50's?
Good point.
I referred to "mythologies" above, and this is one of them. It is of the same sort of rhetorical mush that somehow can only muster, as a supposed counterpoint, well, gee, a whole industry couldn't be wrong -- as though the U.S. auto industry has been spot-on the past forty years, the U.S. Steel industry didn't march lockstop into oblivion, and U.S. tire manufacturers didn't do esssentially the same thing. Whole industries do make mistakes, and a person has to be presumptively blind, or very young and inexperienced, to even attempt to reasonably argue otherwise.
The U.S. Rail industry has done no better, but is protected from oblivion by its own pedestrian necessity: it has to exist no matter what, and so its mistakes show up differently, depending on the Age: either regulatory protection and government assistance, regulatory freedom, government assistance, or regulation masquerading as deregulation, and government assistance. If it makes a mistake, well, live with it: what's the alternative? The industry isn't going to admit a mistake; which CEO goes first? The 100-ton car debacle is about as close to a concession of failed assumptions as you are going to see in the rail industry.
Is there anything inherent in coal generated steam power that is labor intensive? Not today. Steam installations operating at pressures much higher than former steam locomotives generate most of our electric power with low maintenance cost per kw/hr, very long economic service lives, high efficiency, and remote operation.
Your point is a good one. The labor needs of the 1940s, maintaining a steam fleet overworked and encompassing a fleet 40% of which had been built before 1915, are assumed to be Steam's permanent labor burden into 2008 and for all time; that Steam technology would have been the only industrial process to have gained no productivity increases in the past 60 years.
And why would that be? Because it is necessary to the assumption -- the belief systems; that's all. And that is what is highly implausible, not that Steam is inherently inefficent as a motive power tool.
Hi!
In the mid 1970s, there was some excitement about the development of a new coal powered steam loco. As I recall, it would use pressed and packaged coal, and the loco had the filters and whatnot to keep the pollution under control. This created a lot of excitement, but it soon petered out. I don't recall if a prototype was ever built, but the plans were ready to go as I recall. Perhaps this was in Trains magazine, but I am not sure.
True, we do have a "buttload" of coal, but the btus extracted from it leaves a gap between what you can get out of diesel fuel - although good ol Yankee knowhow today may have closed that gap up some. But I seriously doubt if anyone will explore this and put the money into the manufacture/design of a prototype at this point in time.
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
mobilman44 wrote: In the mid 1970s, there was some excitement about the development of a new coal powered steam loco. As I recall, it would use pressed and packaged coal, and the loco had the filters and whatnot to keep the pollution under control. This created a lot of excitement, but it soon petered out. I don't recall if a prototype was ever built, but the plans were ready to go as I recall. Perhaps this was in Trains magazine, but I am not sure.
The ACE 3000 was to be a modern steam locomotive that could compete with a GP40. This concept was based on a 300 psi 4 cylinder 4-8-2 featuring balanced drive. Estimated cost of a 200 engine order was roughly $1 million each. Designs changed as time passed, and ACE 3000-4 and ACE 3000-8 diagrams appeared. May 25, 1983 saw the COALS Ltd. partnership announced. Coal Oriented Advanced Locomotives Systems included Burlington Northern, Chessie System and Babcock and Wilcox. The COALS partnership fell apart later due to differences between BN and B&W.
If the ACE 3000 could not compete with a GP40, it certainly could not compete with an ES44AC. The gap has widened considerably, and will continue to do so. I don't know what GE will be building in 10 years, but it will be better than the ES44AC.
nanaimo73 wrote: If the ACE 3000 could not compete with a GP40, it certainly could not compete with an ES44AC. The gap has widened considerably, and will continue to do so.
If the ACE 3000 could not compete with a GP40, it certainly could not compete with an ES44AC. The gap has widened considerably, and will continue to do so.
This is an example of assumption bias. It doesn't take into account fuel costs or other relevant technological advances in steam generation; ignoring both factors entirely.
That's what bias is all about, and what prevents genuine analysis and certainly discussion from occuring. The bias is built in and cannot be refuted since it is an absolute that is used to define the debate.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.