Could steam make a comeback?

[Modelcar]

Michael:

.....Yes, never thought of the emergency power unit usage and that it could be moved around on the rails anyware....And....the thought that FEMA might contribute to the overall cost sounds great too.

[YoHo1975]

Heck, there are a couple of old U-boats that were connected up to the grid somewhere in central California a couple years ago, so conceptually it isn't impossible.

[wsherrick]

.....If emergency planning is the priority....how about design....develop.....approve.....and build....a supply of "steam electric tenders"....Units with a portable steam engine / gen./alternator unit {that can burn various kinds of fuel, including coal}, and supply existing diesel electric engines with power simply by connecting power cables to them to supply the traction motors, etc.

Dynamics still available.....and unit could still operate {as designed originally, with the diesel prime mover}.

JawnHenry, anyone?

If I follow Michael's premise correctly, we could have a basic Northern design with enough power being produced to not only provide more than adequate steam to the pistons of reciprocating design (or a direct-drive turbine ala Pennsy Q2), but also power a turbine(s) to turn a generator(s) onboard that also powers traction motors.  These motors could be located on the lead truck or trailing truck of the locomotive, the trucks of the tender, and/or on a booster loco comprised of a conventional diesel-electric or true electric?

That way, you get the high speed hp of conventional steam, but also some of the lugging power of traction motors.

This idea has been already thought of and drawn up in a set of plans.  When I worked on the Crab Orchard & Egyptian back in the early 80's we were going to do that if we could get the funding for a prototype.  The idea was to have the traction motors on the trailing truck and tender trucks as a booster under 4 MPH.  There were going to be heating elements in the bottom of the boiler to use the heat from the dynamics to boil water, but the funding was never appropriated. Maybe someday.

[erikem]

This idea has been already thought of and drawn up in a set of plans.  When I worked on the Crab Orchard & Egyptian back in the early 80's we were going to do that if we could get the funding for a prototype.  The idea was to have the traction motors on the trailing truck and tender trucks as a booster under 4 MPH.  There were going to be heating elements in the bottom of the boiler to use the heat from the dynamics to boil water, but the funding was never appropriated. Maybe someday.

The GE Turbomotive from 1939 had dynamic braking resistors under the boiler. With current technology it would be simpler to use a battery (although the boiler could absorb more energy than a reasonably sized battery). 

[daveklepper]

Rediculous to both use reciprocating or direct drive turbine power and at the same time generate electricity for traction in the same locomotive or "slave" units.   Steam will make a comeback only through electricity generation because it is more economical, more efficient, easier on the track, more compatible with existing off-the-shelf technology, basically a small mobil power plant furnishing power to the diesel electrics standard modern electrical-electronic system.   Anything else is pure and simple waste.   But with today's technlogy, more than one turbine and generator are essential, two being a minimum for three efficient throttle positions.  

[Modelcar]

....From the thoughts I put forth yesterday regarding a "steam electric tender", I was commenting of a "unit" to accommodate housing a portable {being portable by the unit it's mounted in}, boiler / steam engine to power a generator / alternator to simply supply electricity to traction motors {via connecting cables}, on normal existing diesel electric engines....NOT to power the mobile "tender" with mechanical power or any other kind of power.  That tender would be available to be connected to and not be part of the locomotive force supplying T E to the rail.

If oil continues to skyrocket and remains in the high cost bracket, this tender would be a unit capable of using several different kinds of fuel including coal rendering the ability to shut down the prime movers in the diesel electrics and get the power right from these "tenders".

[carnej1]

....From the thoughts I put forth yesterday regarding a "steam electric tender", I was commenting of a "unit" to accommodate housing a portable {being portable by the unit it's mounted in}, boiler / steam engine to power a generator / alternator to simply supply electricity to traction motors {via connecting cables}, on normal existing diesel electric engines....NOT to power the mobile "tender" with mechanical power or any other kind of power.  That tender would be available to be connected to and not be part of the locomotive force supplying T E to the rail.

If oil continues to skyrocket and remains in the high cost bracket, this tender would be a unit capable of using several different kinds of fuel including coal rendering the ability to shut down the prime movers in the diesel electrics and get the power right from these "tenders".

 An interesting concept that would fit into existing (North American) motive power practices, you could have traction motors under the generator unit so that it could act as a slug taking power from either the turbogenerator or the electrically connected locomotives,dynamic braking power gets sent back to the boiler to make more steam..both GE and Railpower hold patents on the type of inter-unit power bus/distribution system this would require, GE patent covers an energy storage tender/slug...(but is it "ABS" I wonder...)..

[Modelcar]

....Sure I suppose that idea could be an option to have or have not traction motors under it...{The tender}. One could supply as many traction motors as would be to the advantage of the "power" available and able to put it on the rail in usable T E.

[Anonymous]

Rediculous to both use reciprocating or direct drive turbine power and at the same time generate electricity for traction in the same locomotive or "slave" units.   Steam will make a comeback only through electricity generation because it is more economical, more efficient, easier on the track, more compatible with existing off-the-shelf technology, basically a small mobil power plant furnishing power to the diesel electrics standard modern electrical-electronic system.   Anything else is pure and simple waste.   But with today's technlogy, more than one turbine and generator are essential, two being a minimum for three efficient throttle positions.  

Generator/motor drive is both very expensive to build and loses about 20% of the prime mover power. As decentralized power it requires generating capacity equal to fleet horsepower, whereas the Pennsy's central power plant load averaged 16% of fleet horsepower and never exceeded 22%. (Barriger's foreword, When the Steam Roads Electrified)

It does produce lots of torque from a high speed prime mover, which is why diesels are so good     

 at lugging. It can run indefinitely; thus with an engine that can run long periods it can do non-stop runs like the Pioneer Zephyr. 

At speed, however, where transmission is not necessary, it is not only a major expense, but a rigid limitation on output. 

[Anonymous]

Why is this site so difficult to use?

Why can't it have some user-friendly 

margins and line-spacing?

Why does it have to go all over the place? 

[Norman Saxon]

Why is this site so difficult to use?

Why can't it have some user-friendly 

margins and line-spacing?

Why does it have to go all over the place? 

Hmmmmm, your post here seems alright.

It's just that other "wholelephant" guy that keeps screwing up!

[Anonymous]

Why is this site so difficult to use?

Why can't it have some user-friendly 

margins and line-spacing?

Why does it have to go all over the place? 

I am not sure what is happening with the margins.  When I just checked, it returned once, but testing with dots, it just keeps going.  I usually type the message in WORD and then copy/paste it in here.  The margins always are OK, but line spacing always has to be adjusted once it is pasted in here.

[Norman Saxon]

Rediculous to both use reciprocating or direct drive turbine power and at the same time generate electricity for traction in the same locomotive or "slave" units.   Steam will make a comeback only through electricity generation because it is more economical, more efficient, easier on the track, more compatible with existing off-the-shelf technology, basically a small mobil power plant furnishing power to the diesel electrics standard modern electrical-electronic system.   Anything else is pure and simple waste.   But with today's technlogy, more than one turbine and generator are essential, two being a minimum for three efficient throttle positions.  

Ummmm......we've already dispelled the myth that traction motors were easier on the tracks than driving wheels.  Just the opposite is true.

And the point being made is that, if we return to burning coal in an external combustion engine, it is more economical to use that steam in either reciprocation or direct-drive turbine.  Using the steam to generate electricity is secondary, perhaps complimentary, but definitely not primary.

Go back to the locomotive performance comparison graphs, oh..... back about a dozen pages give or take.  You'll see real data that dispells the "diesel superiority" myth.

[Modelcar]

...."Using the steam to generate electricity is secondary".....At the prices we're into now for oil and perhaps much more to come that secondary figure might become somewhat more important to have a power source to power the traction motors on existing fleets of diesel electric's all over the country.

[wsherrick]

Here is a direct cost comparison for modern steam, diesel, and traditional steam power from actual service conditions.  This graph courtesy of DLM Company.

[wsherrick]

As far as pollution goes, here is a revealing graph comparing diesel and modern steam exhaust emissions.

It's pretty clear which form of power is the cleanest.

[YoHo1975]

That differential isn't all that much.

The efficency lost by converting to electicity is made up for in the added flexibility of design, regenerative braking (Battery or super Capacitor) and the ability to reuse existing equipment and reduce switchover costs. The precision available in electric motor drives versus direct drive ganged drivers etc etc etc.

 

It's not as simple as the efficency loss. 

[wsherrick]

That differential isn't all that much.

The efficency lost by converting to electicity is made up for in the added flexibility of design, regenerative braking (Battery or super Capacitor) and the ability to reuse existing equipment and reduce switchover costs. The precision available in electric motor drives versus direct drive ganged drivers etc etc etc.

 

It's not as simple as the efficency loss. 

Guess what the steam locomotive compared with the diesel was burning the SAME fuel.  The cost comparisons there include the whole economic ball of wax. This includes maintenance, availability for service, fuel cost and crew costs. 

With a the vast difference existing between coal and petroleum.  The steam engine trounces the diesel down pat.  By the way this modern steam locomotive is equipped with Compression Braking a functional equivalent to dynamic braking without the waste and dissipation of generated energy.

And for what its worth any steam locomotive old or new will stomp any diesel of equivalent weight on the drivers performance wise.  I know it from 30 years of running steam and diesel locomotives.  It's not theory with me or something I've read.

Your refusal to believe it doesn't make the facts any less so.

[wsherrick]

 Here is a graph of the work performance of the new steam locomotives vs new diesel and traditional steam power.  It's quite revealing.

Edit:  I forgot to add that these new steam locomotives haul a 70% greater payload while saving 4 minutes off the same schedule as the diesels they are compared against.  So the cost savings per unit of revenue is even greater with the steam power.

[daveklepper]

I wish to apologize for the use of the word "rediculous" in one of my postings.   I should always be more respectful to people with different opinions.   My MIT education, experience at Electro Motive and the Boston and Maine, should not be an excuse for arrogance, and again I apologize.

 

There may be untried ways of making turbines, gas, steam, or whatever, more efficient over a wider range.  Perhaps blades can be feathered as on advance design prop airplanes, or their can be multiple entry and exit ports so that one large turbine can essential operate as one or as two in parallel.   Such technology may not only benefit a return of steam, but may make gas turbine locomotives practical.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

By the way this modern steam locomotive is equipped with Compression Braking a functional equivalent to dynamic braking without the waste and dissipation of generated energy.

Dynamic braking does not generate energy in and of itself, the kinetic energy of the moving train is converted to electric energy and is dissipated through the resistor grids by being converted to heat.  Compression braking on a steam locomotive would be similar, the kinetic energy of the train has to go somewhere when braking of any sort is applied.  The laws of thermodynamics apply equally to diesel-electric and steam locomotives.

[Modelcar]

....Feathered and rotatable turbine fins have been used in automotive transmission convertors to broaden their effective use during different driving situations.  No reason why that design couldn't be applied to "other" designs.

And speaking of the same feathered design used in aircraft props....Those who have experienced taking off in a Lockeed Electra 4 engined plane many years ago can easily agree with that. 

[Modelcar]

.....A train on a downgrade is a reality and will produce such energy to slow it no matter which kind of method is being used....even warming, heating....and I suppose melting brake shoes in some cases.  At least it sure does produce plenty of arid smoke under severe conditions.

[Tommy0218]

The adjusted cost for coal at 6% conversion efficiency is now less than one-half the cost of diesel fuel at 32% conversion efficiency.

The student paper cited earlier concluded as follows: "US Class I railroads burned 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2006, costing $8.1 billion. The dollar value of coal that would accomplish the same amount of "work" is only $3.0 billion, according to calculations. This is a cost savings of $5.1 billion in the single year of 2006."

He identifies the specific benefit as a $5.1 billion savings. I haven't checked his math.

I'm not arguing with the cost difference of coal vs. oil at the moment. What I'm asking is what is the advantage of steam locomotion as a power source? Is there some compelling reason to boil water instead of using coal for gassification for use in a diesel prime mover?

I don't know however, I like this kid's idea and if the figures are true as the chart has indicated then the RR's may want to look at this. There are no diesels today that could equal the power of the massive steamers that once ruled the rails.

[carnej1]

I wish to apologize for the use of the word "rediculous" in one of my postings.   I should always be more respectful to people with different opinions.   My MIT education, experience at Electro Motive and the Boston and Maine, should not be an excuse for arrogance, and again I apologize.

 

There may be untried ways of making turbines, gas, steam, or whatever, more efficient over a wider range.  Perhaps blades can be feathered as on advance design prop airplanes, or their can be multiple entry and exit ports so that one large turbine can essential operate as one or as two in parallel.   Such technology may not only benefit a return of steam, but may make gas turbine locomotives practical.

 

 IINM there are multi-stage steam turbines that have multiple steam injector ports giving them improved part load performance. I seem to remember reading that there was an experimental  (UK?) direct drive steam turbine locomotive that used such a system. A similiar concept would be using a rotary engine design adapted as a steam expansion engine rather than internal combustion which is what T.W Blasingame has proposed......

 

 

[carnej1]

As far as pollution goes, here is a revealing graph comparing diesel and modern steam exhaust emissions.

It's pretty clear which form of power is the cleanest.

 Is this comparison based on a coal fired steamer?

[wsherrick]

This is burning diesel fuel.  But the results for coal are similar with a Porta Firebox as has been stated numerous times.

The neat thing is this steam engine runs cleaner than a diesel, runs cheaper than a diesel and pulls more cars than a diesel thus earning more money than the diesel, while burning the same fuel as a diesel.

Pretty cool in my estimation.

[MichaelSol]

The neat thing is this steam engine runs cleaner than a diesel, runs cheaper than a diesel and pulls more cars than a diesel thus earning more money than the diesel, while burning the same fuel as a diesel.

The significance of Steam is found in those horsepower/TE curves. That significance is found above 11 mph and becomes more significant at the higher speeds. As has been noted, above about 20 mph and the Diesel-electric "craps out" whereas the Steam engine is still developing power. As you have pointed out, ultimately the Steam engine can always move the train faster. On a single track mainline, the difference can be significant in terms of capacity. If the average running speed of trains is 29 mph, for instance, the line will have approximately 35% greater train capacity than at 19 mph. Revenue over cost of operation increases from 2.2% to 23%, without accounting for the lower operating costs of the Steam power.

 

[Norman Saxon]

The neat thing is this steam engine runs cleaner than a diesel, runs cheaper than a diesel and pulls more cars than a diesel thus earning more money than the diesel, while burning the same fuel as a diesel.

The significance of Steam is found in those horsepower/TE curves. That significance is found above 11 mph and becomes more significant at the higher speeds. As has been noted, above about 20 mph and the Diesel-electric "craps out" whereas the Steam engine is still developing power. As you have pointed out, ultimately the Steam engine can always move the train faster. On a single track mainline, the difference can be significant in terms of capacity. If the average running speed of trains is 29 mph, for instance, the line will have approximately 35% greater train capacity than at 19 mph. Revenue over cost of operation increases from 2.2% to 23%, without accounting for the lower operating costs of the Steam power.

This difference may not have been apparent when the railroads willingly ran their diesel consists at the track's posted speed - just add protection power and get her to the next siding in a timely fashion.  The 25 mph average velocity thus far may be more a function of relative congestion - single line running coupled with two way traffic.

Now that railroads are starting to run their trains in a manner more conscience of the fuel price and top speeds are falling in order to save fuel, this difference between diesel and steam power factors may now become more apparent.

[GP40-2]

As has been noted, above about 20 mph and the Diesel-electric "craps out"

Obviously, you have never operated an AC6000 at speed.

For the record, CSX's AC6000s develop over 5600 HP at the drawbar at 70-75MPH, so if you want to call that "crapping out" I guess you are entitled to your opinion.