MichaelSol wrote: As the Chart I posted on a prior page showed, the cost of diesel fuel is now considerably higher as a ratio compared to mineral coal, than it was in 1957 or before.The following is from a study done in 1990, [Click to Enlarge] regarding a comparison of 14 different fuel/combustion types and the relative efficiencies obtained:--The conclusion of the paper: "A key element in this cost of fuel area is the ratio of Diesel No. 2 fuel to the price of bituminous coal. The prices for both must be in terms of their energy content. ... . The ratio has varied widely from as low as 1.6 to as high as 5. At a value of 1.6, no coal-fired locomotive is competitive with the oil-fired Diesel. At a ratio of 5, virtually all coal-fired locomotives are cheaper to operate. However, the present value [1990] is around three and the options are less clear, some coal-fired locomotives are competitive, others are not."Any alternative to existing locomotives must offer more than just equal performance or cost. It must be substantially better in one or both areas to justify the cost of development and the costs associated with its introduction into service. At a minimum, its life-cycle costs must be less than 90% of the cost of the reference design. The 10% difference just offsets the development and other costs involved in its introduction."-- "PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF FOURTEEN COAL-FIRED LOCOMOTIVES", Sidney G. Liddle, California Engineering Research Institute. Conference Paper. Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1990. IECEC-90. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). The current ratio of the cost of diesel fuel to mineral coal: 14.5:1.
As the Chart I posted on a prior page showed, the cost of diesel fuel is now considerably higher as a ratio compared to mineral coal, than it was in 1957 or before.
The following is from a study done in 1990, [Click to Enlarge] regarding a comparison of 14 different fuel/combustion types and the relative efficiencies obtained:
--
The conclusion of the paper: "A key element in this cost of fuel area is the ratio of Diesel No. 2 fuel to the price of bituminous coal. The prices for both must be in terms of their energy content. ... . The ratio has varied widely from as low as 1.6 to as high as 5. At a value of 1.6, no coal-fired locomotive is competitive with the oil-fired Diesel. At a ratio of 5, virtually all coal-fired locomotives are cheaper to operate. However, the present value [1990] is around three and the options are less clear, some coal-fired locomotives are competitive, others are not.
"Any alternative to existing locomotives must offer more than just equal performance or cost. It must be substantially better in one or both areas to justify the cost of development and the costs associated with its introduction into service. At a minimum, its life-cycle costs must be less than 90% of the cost of the reference design. The 10% difference just offsets the development and other costs involved in its introduction."
The current ratio of the cost of diesel fuel to mineral coal: 14.5:1.
That is a very interesting document.
I am particularly interested in design number 10- The "Four Stroke Diesel Engine with direct injection using coal derived distillate"............Seriously though I realize that the table doesn't compare locomotive construction costs(the types that have the greatest efficiency are the most complex/technologically challenging) and fuel preparation costs (i.e the coal fuels listed vary from "right out of the mine" to highly processed). Still it's interesting that only 3 out of the 14 possible locomotives mentioned are Steam engines(reciprocating or turbine). That was during the time period of GE's coal fueled diesel experiments so I'm wondering if they were involved with the report?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
rrandb wrote:The fact that most electricity is produced by coal and not diesel tells which is most cost effective period.
Cost effectiveness varies by application. After all coal fired automobiles would have much cheaper fuel costs than the ones we all drive but is anyone going to argue that the Stanley Steamer is going to make a comeback?....
CNW 6000 wrote:So after reading that last post the steam loco should be able to out do any diesel. Were the RRs collectively duped or were they stupid for going diesel?
Just my opinion, but a read of the story of the Pacific Electric could bring some insight.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Dan
erikem wrote: For road power, steam's advantage when the need was for horsepower as opposed to tractive effort, where many of the new AC locomotives are being used where the need is for tractive effort. If I recall correctly, two 6 axle AC locomotives can generate as much starting tractive effort as three Big Boys.
For road power, steam's advantage when the need was for horsepower as opposed to tractive effort, where many of the new AC locomotives are being used where the need is for tractive effort. If I recall correctly, two 6 axle AC locomotives can generate as much starting tractive effort as three Big Boys.
For machines with the same weight on the drivers, Steam exceeded the tractive effort output of a Diesel-electric above 6-7 mph. Above 19 mph a Steam engine exceeded the Diesel-electric in both tractive effort and horsepower and the margin of both increased as speed increased.
In the range 0-7 mph, the Diesel-electric could generate more tractive effort, but the rate of loss in its ability to do so was very high. In that same range, the Steam engine generated more TE than it did at higher speeds, as with the Diesel-electric, but the rate of loss in the ability to generate Tractive Effort was much lower.
Because of that, at 30 mph, the Diesel-electric had lost 82% of the TE it generated at 2 mph, while the Steam engine lost only 20% of the TE it generated at 2 mph, and exceeded the TE output of the Diesel-electric by a substantial margin. Notably, at 30 mph the Steam engine is generating 100% more Tractive Effort than the Diesel-electric machine.
At 30 mph, the Steam engine also exceeded the hp of the Diesel-electric, by 20%, and continued to generate increasing horsepower to 60 mph, exceeding the Diesel-electric by as much as 30-35%.
wyomingrailfan wrote:The reason rr's like diesels so much is that you don't need as many facilities, less people to operate them, the parts don't wear out as much. But on steam, you need an army to mantain them, huge facilities, you need tons of parts, so it would drive the price up really high
Railroads were not complete idiots during the Age of Steam. They knew how to analyze numbers. The maintenance numbers used for Steam, by age class, represent all of that. And those numbers do not support what you claim.
What drove "the price up really high" were locomotives that were 40 and 50 years old -- something railroads don't see with the Diesel-electric because they become uneconomical to continue operating at a much earlier point -- that is why there is a short economic service life -- "the parts" wear out much faster.
Incidentally, the investment in "huge facilities" more than doubled with Dieselization.
The end-of-steam era locomotives with their armies of maintenance personnel and facilities are not what might supplant diesels in this age.
In this discussion, when comparing diesel to steam, one must keep in mind that you are comparing diesel to something we have never known. Steam for this comparison is essentially a blank void that is fueled by coal.
Steam can provide as much tractive effort as diesel, if the power is run through a transmission; electrical, mechanical, or hydraulic.
Perhaps modern steam could replace dc locomotives for merchandise trains, ac locomotives would continue in production for unit trains, and gensets for switchers.
nanaimo73 wrote: Victrola1 wrote: How many years into the transition until amatuer archievists are chasing wheezing diesels down obscure branch lines to record their last gasp in revenue service?After reading Michael's postings on the Brown study, old steam was only better than diesels for road power, while diesels were superior in yards. Wouldn't this remain so, especially with today's genset switchers?
Victrola1 wrote: How many years into the transition until amatuer archievists are chasing wheezing diesels down obscure branch lines to record their last gasp in revenue service?
How many years into the transition until amatuer archievists are chasing wheezing diesels down obscure branch lines to record their last gasp in revenue service?
After reading Michael's postings on the Brown study, old steam was only better than diesels for road power, while diesels were superior in yards. Wouldn't this remain so, especially with today's genset switchers?
I would think so (with respect to switchers).
How great the cost to rebuild coal fired steam locomotive servicing and maintenance infrastructure?
If it took from the mid 1930's to the mid 1950's for diesel to replace steam, how long would the reverse take?
Bucyrus wrote:My gut instinct says that steam will make a comeback as railroad motive power. The first hint was the ACE project. Although it seemed to have died, these things do move slowly. It did represent a reconsideration of a trend that the mainstream dared not question. Surely the rising price of oil is sowing the seeds of another reconsideration. Stranger things have happened. Caterpillar has just unveiled their latest innovation: A diesel-electric D7 dozer.
Now if that D7 was a steam electric..............Actually diesel electric equipment is not uncommon in mining applications. Many large mining trucks and the biggest front end loaders (built by Letourneau, who have also build container/piggyback loaders) use this system. CAT has been a holdout on keeping their equipment mechanical drive but they are about to start offering a diesel -electric option on their largest haulers. What's unusual about the D7 is that it is a medium sized machine not specifically aimed at mining applications (and it's an Oval track like older Cats, not the high sprocket design they've used on their bigger tractors the last 20 years).
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: One issue that I've noticed that has not been addressed is who would build new steam locomotives and who would provide the sizable investment in what would currently be perceived as a highly speculative venture. After all, no United States railroad has taken delivery on a new steam locomotive since 1953 and there doesn't seem to be any real demand for one.
One issue that I've noticed that has not been addressed is who would build new steam locomotives and who would provide the sizable investment in what would currently be perceived as a highly speculative venture. After all, no United States railroad has taken delivery on a new steam locomotive since 1953 and there doesn't seem to be any real demand for one.
I did a literature review of steam studies yesterday and while I didn't notice any by EMD, I was surprised by the number of studies out there, some fairly recent, by General Electric.
GE, as a supplier for stationary power generating plants using almost entirely coal-fired equipment, no doubt has a practical handle on technological improvements for coal combustion and, for whatever reasons, has demonstrated a continuing interest in coal-fired locomotives.
Too, the repair costs for Steam have been controversial, and yet I cannot find, anywhere, a curve that does not look something like the following.
And the graph shows projections for the Diesel-electric curves past 15 years. That is beyond the economic service life of the machines and they either have been overhauled or replaced by that time because of the short economic service life.
The GP-40 data, for instance, is taken from the Milwaukee Road's GP-40 fleet as analyzed by the Mechanical Department in 1972, and in terms of slope, is nearly identical to the line derived by H.F. Brown, which is shown in yellow, which Brown took from a much larger sampling from 1953 and which happened to be just about dead on with an earlier government study that showed the same thing.
The GP-40 data does appear to show an improvement in maintenance costs compared to the earlier generation of Diesel-electric locomotives, but the curve also shows how rigidly motive power types remain true-to-form: they age in just about the same fashion no matter what. Technology can improve the Y-intercept, but can't seem to budge the Slope. This chart merely adjusts the original data to the year 2003, which just happens to be the year of the last update of the Producer Price Index I use. A caveat is that the GP-40 improvement may not be due to technological improvements of that generation, but rather, since these numbers are initially quantified on a "per horsepower" basis, it is likely simply a scale improvement rather than a quality improvement as locomotive capacity increased from 1500 and 1750 hp units in the 1950s to the 3000 hp units -- in essence consolidating two carbodies into one.
But there is also a logic here that underscores the validity of the lower Steam maintenance costs. If Steam incurred maintenance costs on anything resembling a slope like, and as high as, the Diesel-electric, railroads would have been scrapping Steam right and left between 8 and 15 years. Their economic service lives would have been over, and there would have been absolutely no economic justification for keeping them if their maintenance costs were as alleged. That was particularly so because Steam was relatively cheap in terms of purchase price per horsepower, compared to the Diesel-electric. That cheaper investment cost would have shortened the economic service life, if maintenance costs were higher, not lengthened it to the 30 years that was the well-accepted standard.
And that presents the economic nub of that argument: if Steam maintenance costs were high, at any where near the altitude of the Diesel-electric machine, the economic service life -- because of the lower investment cost -- would have been reached significantly earlier for a Steam engine than for a Diesel-electric locomotive. That is simply an economic law but it didn't happen anywhere at any time. If the premise of the rail industry is that it behaves rationally, then it must have done so by assigning 30 year economic service lives to Steam locomotives: and that dictates the lower maintenance cost curve because there is no other way to define the economic service life.
Accordingly, unless railroads were behaving completely irrationally, these maintenance repair cost curves are, I believe, absolutely rational and accurately reflect the true relative costs of Steam maintenance compared to the Diesel-electric at each appropriate age category.
[Click to enlarge]
selector wrote: Very sobering for me, Michael. Very stark in comparison.-Crandell
Very sobering for me, Michael. Very stark in comparison.
-Crandell
But, I should note, before anyone gets too sober, is that these are relative numbers, assuming the machines are running wide open all the time, 90,000 miles per year. And while this creates very stark numbers, "real" numbers would be lower for each; and depend ultimately on the kind of service. However the relative proportions would hold up.
Using the standardized age adjusted cost of maintenance curves in H.F. Brown's study (which reflected a government study with nearly identical results, by the way), the cost of fuel in 1957 created the following circumstances for 7,000 hp equivalent for 5 yr old Steam, and 7,000 hp equivalent for 5 yr old Diesel-electrics, measured on a 1000 hp mile basis for each, annualized over 90,000 operating miles per year:
1957 Steam
Maint. $32,760
Fuel $397,647
Total: $430,407
1957 Diesel-electric:
Maint. $100,800
Fuel $236,643
Total: $337,443
On an operating basis, Diesel-electrics (even with the 4 or more units necessary to equal one steam engine) were at least 22% more economical to operate. Even if amortization were added in, the annualized cost of Steam was $434,727, and the cost of the Diesel-electrics was $370,483. Financing charges closed this gap somewhat, especially as interest rates rose considerably above the 1% interest charges available at the onset of serious Dieselization. However, what is clear is that the significant difference in the cost of fuel created the significant pressure to dieselize.
Comparing the same 1957 era locomotives, and using the Producer Price Index to bring the maintenance costs forward, but with actual fuel prices today, the same set of equipment would show the following as annual operating costs:
Steam:
Maint. $239,400
Fuel $527,446
Total: $766,846
Diesel-electric:
Maint. $476,683
Fuel $2,798,546
Total: $3,275,229
Using the technology exactly as it was in 1957, Steam today would show a 4:1 operating cost advantage over the Diesel-electric.
In terms of efficiency, the Diesel-electric has improved from the 32% conversion efficiency obtained in the mid-1950s, to perhaps 38% today, a 20% improvement. Comparing the maintenance costs for the GP-40, and compared to the fleet as it was in 1957, it appears that maintenance costs for diesel-electric equipment have likewise improved by about 20%. But this would only bring the Diesel-electric's cost, with modern technology, down to $2,729,358 for operating costs, combined maintenance plus fuel.
The "Northern" Steam engine, with no technological improvements, would be a better bet at today's fuel prices, than a modern Diesel-electric.
Steam locomotive technology improvements, on the other hand, apparently have increased conversion efficiency from 6% to 12%. This would lower Steam's operating costs to $526,579. Using contemporary technology, Steam's operating advantage today, primarily because of the relative changes in the cost of fuel, would likely be on the order of a 5.4:1 operating cost advantage over Diesel-electric operation. That is, applying the appropriate technological gains to each motive power type, contemporary Steam would improve its performance relative to a contemporary Diesel-electric, compared to machines circa 1957.
If the Diesel-electric had no maintenance costs at all, it would still cost more to operate today than either a "Northern" brought forward in time with all of its documented maintenance costs, or a higher efficiency version using more modern technology.
The only area of significant difference that I was able to see a measureable improvement in during the transition from Steam to Diesel-Electric during the period 1940-1960 was in overall fuel cost per 1000 hp miles. While I have seen nothing to contradict H.F. Brown's contention that, overall, the combination of additional financing costs incurred as a result of Dieselization overwhelmed fuel and maintenance savings, it strikes me that if relative fuel costs have changed significantly since that time period, we would have to look at, based on 1955 technology, which would be more cost effective at today's fuel prices, steam or diesel, and from there, the argument can ensue as to which has enjoyed greater technological innovation since that time which might either enhance the advantage of one over the other, or mitigate the advantage.
Today, a Northern might well win the economic battle against equivalent hp EMD F Units, purely on operating costs. Click on the graph to enlarge.
....Guess that shouldn't be a surprise to any of us....But the thought has entered my mind of the higher price of diesel compared to non leaded gasoline.
Quentin
With every major shipper getting a tax cut on fuel and shipping having a fuel surcharge that is past on to the consumers, there is no reason why they would care. Haven't you ever wondered why diesel is higher than unleaded now? It is what is supporting the US economy every time you go by a candy bar. 99% of the US market relies on products that are shipped on diesel surcharge. No reason for corporate to make a move for another fuel. The only thing that is hitting them now is the EPA and California for polution.
wsherrick wrote: Bucyrus:All of the smoke is from unburnt volatile gasses. The reason for this is the air/fuel combination is not proper and cannot be so while the engines are not working steam. The air in the firebox must be at the right temperature also to burn the hydrocarbons, around 1700-1800 degrees F. That is virtually impossible to achieve while the locomotive is not working steam. What I can't understand is why the railroad would keep the locomotives steamed up all night in ready condition. This is terribly wasteful and unnecessary. If they do this by feeding the engines overnight and do it properly there should not be that much smoke. The qualilty of the coal is also a factor in the smoke issue, but I don't see how gradually firing the engine overnight would make that much smoke if care is taken with the firing. Is the Railroad producing great clouds of smoke from this or are residents over reacting to any smoke period? If after the Railroad did all in their power to mitigate the smoke as much as possible and the whacko crowd still complains, then its time to draw a line in the sand I hate to say.
Bucyrus:
All of the smoke is from unburnt volatile gasses. The reason for this is the air/fuel combination is not proper and cannot be so while the engines are not working steam. The air in the firebox must be at the right temperature also to burn the hydrocarbons, around 1700-1800 degrees F. That is virtually impossible to achieve while the locomotive is not working steam.
What I can't understand is why the railroad would keep the locomotives steamed up all night in ready condition. This is terribly wasteful and unnecessary. If they do this by feeding the engines overnight and do it properly there should not be that much smoke. The qualilty of the coal is also a factor in the smoke issue, but I don't see how gradually firing the engine overnight would make that much smoke if care is taken with the firing. Is the Railroad producing great clouds of smoke from this or are residents over reacting to any smoke period? If after the Railroad did all in their power to mitigate the smoke as much as possible and the whacko crowd still complains, then its time to draw a line in the sand I hate to say.
I do not know why the D&S keeps the locomotives in hot standby overnight instead of banking the fires.
I understand your point about the volatiles escaping unburned because the flames quench due to the firebox temperature not being high enough, and also your point that the engine is not working, so the firebox temperature is less than its maximum potential. But if the locomotive is being fired at the rate of 500 pounds of coal overnight, is it not possible to make this fire burn efficiently? After all, the coal bed is burning, so there is certainly sufficient temperature at the origination of the flames. I would think that if the proper draft, both primary and secondary, were provided (by an external system not part of the locomotive), and the draft were pre-heated to a temperature that was at least as hot as the firebox interior, the fire would burn up all the volatiles, and thus be smoke-free.
I suppose another factor contributing to the smoke is the cool temperature of the coal being stoked. Getting around that problem implies continuous stoking at a rate that perfectly matches the rate of consumption, as opposed to putting in an overcharge every few hours or so. The remedy of continuous stoking suggests a portable automatic micro stoker that would continuously feed the low power fire of hot standby.
Apparently the D&S intends to solve the overnight smoke problem by expanding their current engine house scrubbers. There has been some discussion indicating that these current scrubbers are not as effective as was expected or desired. The plan is to improve the scrubber system, including adding a scrubber to the ash pit. The cost for this improvement is estimated at $500,000. There is concern about the operating cost of this new expansion of the system since the present, more limited system already costs $15,000 per month for electricity.
In my opinion, if D&S drew a line in the sand over this smoke issue, they would lose.
wsherrick,
The D&S locomotives are not banked overnight. They are fired at a level they call hot standby. In this mode, each locomotive burns 500 pounds of coal overnight. They are perodically fired, but I do not know how often. They are currently experimenting with wood pellet fuel for overnight firing. Each locomotive is fired with 1000 pounds of wood pellets during overnight hot standby.
How much of the smoke emitted from the coal fire during this overnight hot standby phase are combustible volatiles? Why is that combustible portion not being burned in the firebox?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.