youngengineer wrote: 3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.
3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives?
I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.
youngengineer wrote: I'm not an expert I didn't stay at a Holiday express last night, but I have one question if steam is so cheap to run and maintain and can pull better run better and is just so exceedingly superior to diesel's, than why does the U.P. railroad who has 2 exceptional steam locomotives not run them on regular frieght trains? Ok, so I'm sure you will all have snappy comebacks but really does anyone believe the railroads are and continue to be that totally stupid about running their bussiness. If the numbers that have been bantered around give a true picture of how efficent steam was and is today, than you should be able to start your own bussiness and build modern steam locomotives. I am totally shocked that steam is so cheap yet no one, not one person has the foresight to bring about a radical shift in American railroads. While as i said before I am no expert why has it taken 70 years for someone to realize steam is soooo superior.
I'm not an expert I didn't stay at a Holiday express last night, but I have one question if steam is so cheap to run and maintain and can pull better run better and is just so exceedingly superior to diesel's, than why does the U.P. railroad who has 2 exceptional steam locomotives not run them on regular frieght trains?
Ok, so I'm sure you will all have snappy comebacks but really does anyone believe the railroads are and continue to be that totally stupid about running their bussiness. If the numbers that have been bantered around give a true picture of how efficent steam was and is today, than you should be able to start your own bussiness and build modern steam locomotives. I am totally shocked that steam is so cheap yet no one, not one person has the foresight to bring about a radical shift in American railroads.
While as i said before I am no expert why has it taken 70 years for someone to realize steam is soooo superior.
The U.P. engines are cherished antiques. It would be pointless to chew them up trying to prove something pulling freight trains. Besides, the prospect of returning steam does not envision 1940s technology, a point that has been well made here. A return of steam would include modern technology, in all likelihood, never seen before. It might be steam that generates current for conventional traction motors for instance. It could operate M.U. or as distributed power. Firing would be automatic. It may not even be steam power. Since the objective is to burn coal, it may burn coal in a supercharged combustion chamber and use the expanding gas to power a turbine or multiple-stage reciprocating engine.
And the title of this thread poses a question about the future, not about today. With the exception of a little flurry of steam interest with the ACE project, the motive power of choice from the time of dieselization up until today, has been diesels. What happens in the future is entirely dependent on the price of diesel compared to the price coal. If the gap continues to widen, some kind of substitution is inevitable. It seems like the three alternatives are electrification, coal-to-liquid fuel burned in diesels, and direct coal combustion. The later requires a tremendous development effort of something entirely new and probably very complex. The two former alternatives require comparatively little development, but require extensive capital investment in plants as well as locomotives.
So the fact that this return to coal has not happened yet is not proof that it cannot happen in the future as oil prices head into unprecedented territory. And if coal fired locomotives return for economic reasons, it does not mean that railroads have been making a mistake by favoring diesels since the 1950s
youngengineer wrote: ...if steam is so cheap to run and maintain and can pull better run better and is just so exceedingly superior to diesel's, than why does the U.P. railroad who has 2 exceptional steam locomotives not run them on regular frieght trains?
844 and 3985 are oil fired.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
Modelcar wrote: ....Selector:Love your photo....Very real appearing. And, it sure does seem the "Y" pusher is justified. The grade appears to be rather steep.
....Selector:
Love your photo....Very real appearing. And, it sure does seem the "Y" pusher is justified. The grade appears to be rather steep.
Thank-you, Sir. I appreciate your compliment. And yes, that lady has to work because I wanted large sweeping curves in a small space with height changes. Had to be.
-Crandell
Young engineer, your question is legitimage, especially if we can continue to prevail upon our several erudite suppliers of reason to continue to provide us with some real history. For those of you onlooking with interest, Michael Sol dealt with this aspect of the topic extensively nearly three years ago in a rather volatile and lengthy exchange. It didn't go over well back then, but I think he held his own with some pretty stiff factual information. Perhaps someone has a link...in fact, Michael may have done that here some time back.
Quentin
carnej1 wrote: wsherrick wrote: "As far as the so called "ABS Mentality" that supposedly holds sway in the U.S what country in the world today is actively pursuing the type of steam technology you advocate? Certainly Steam still hangs on in the industrial sector in China but this is largely due to a very low cost of labor. The Chinese have stopped building mainline steam locomotives and they are seriously exploring coal-to-liquids development"Let's see, there are two rack railroads one in Austria and the other in Switzerland, they replaced their diesel railcars with new steam. The new steam is operated with one person, automatic firing. pulls more than the diesels did, costs much less in fuel and maintenance, and for what it's worth emits far less pollution than the diesel railcars. The Rio Turbio Railroad in Argentina is going to extend its mileage to connect with Chili and become a transcontinental company. They are rebuilding a couple of the original Porta Locomotives as prototypes for totally new build steam to replace the diesels that were bought to replace the steam engines in the first place. There is to a conference in Australia this year concerning adopting modern steam for commercial use, there is a new railroad to be built for the purpose of hauling coal unit trains in Indonesia that is seriously considering using QJ rebuilds as prototypes for new steam for that railroad. There have been rebuilds in Germany, Poland and Cuba to base new steam designs on. So I guess that nobody else in the World is looking into modern steam power. I have another question to ask, why did the Chinese Government stop building steam power and why are many of these engines still in service years after the Government mandated that steam be banished? Was the initial decision made on an economic basis? If so can you support that claim? Actually "anyhing but steam" should really be "nothing but diesel" or perhaps, "nothing but electric" as far as much of Europe is concerned. The Rack locomotives appear to be brilliant engineering but those are tourist railways, correct? I am sure that some usage of Steam will continue in China as it is economical for them to operate in the applications they still use it for(mostly industrial i.e mills,mines and the like,IINM). It seems that you are using a relatively small number of special cases to advance the proposition that most off the world's heavy haul rail operations made the wrong motive power choice? And furthemore you contend that this is through some conspiracy of ignorance rather than sound mechanical/economic consideration? For the record, as a railfan I am rooting for companies like T.W Blasingame and Vapor Locomotive to succeed (although both are trying to market Steam Electric Locomotives, not Reciprocating Steam engines), but in the real world I have to admit the prospects of any technology supplanting the diesel engine as the overwhelmingly predominate powerplant for non electrified railroad traction are exceedingly slim..........
wsherrick wrote: "As far as the so called "ABS Mentality" that supposedly holds sway in the U.S what country in the world today is actively pursuing the type of steam technology you advocate? Certainly Steam still hangs on in the industrial sector in China but this is largely due to a very low cost of labor. The Chinese have stopped building mainline steam locomotives and they are seriously exploring coal-to-liquids development"Let's see, there are two rack railroads one in Austria and the other in Switzerland, they replaced their diesel railcars with new steam. The new steam is operated with one person, automatic firing. pulls more than the diesels did, costs much less in fuel and maintenance, and for what it's worth emits far less pollution than the diesel railcars. The Rio Turbio Railroad in Argentina is going to extend its mileage to connect with Chili and become a transcontinental company. They are rebuilding a couple of the original Porta Locomotives as prototypes for totally new build steam to replace the diesels that were bought to replace the steam engines in the first place. There is to a conference in Australia this year concerning adopting modern steam for commercial use, there is a new railroad to be built for the purpose of hauling coal unit trains in Indonesia that is seriously considering using QJ rebuilds as prototypes for new steam for that railroad. There have been rebuilds in Germany, Poland and Cuba to base new steam designs on. So I guess that nobody else in the World is looking into modern steam power. I have another question to ask, why did the Chinese Government stop building steam power and why are many of these engines still in service years after the Government mandated that steam be banished? Was the initial decision made on an economic basis? If so can you support that claim?
"As far as the so called "ABS Mentality" that supposedly holds sway in the U.S what country in the world today is actively pursuing the type of steam technology you advocate? Certainly Steam still hangs on in the industrial sector in China but this is largely due to a very low cost of labor. The Chinese have stopped building mainline steam locomotives and they are seriously exploring coal-to-liquids development"
Let's see, there are two rack railroads one in Austria and the other in Switzerland, they replaced their diesel railcars with new steam. The new steam is operated with one person, automatic firing. pulls more than the diesels did, costs much less in fuel and maintenance, and for what it's worth emits far less pollution than the diesel railcars. The Rio Turbio Railroad in Argentina is going to extend its mileage to connect with Chili and become a transcontinental company. They are rebuilding a couple of the original Porta Locomotives as prototypes for totally new build steam to replace the diesels that were bought to replace the steam engines in the first place. There is to a conference in Australia this year concerning adopting modern steam for commercial use, there is a new railroad to be built for the purpose of hauling coal unit trains in Indonesia that is seriously considering using QJ rebuilds as prototypes for new steam for that railroad. There have been rebuilds in Germany, Poland and Cuba to base new steam designs on. So I guess that nobody else in the World is looking into modern steam power. I have another question to ask, why did the Chinese Government stop building steam power and why are many of these engines still in service years after the Government mandated that steam be banished? Was the initial decision made on an economic basis? If so can you support that claim?
Actually "anyhing but steam" should really be "nothing but diesel" or perhaps, "nothing but electric" as far as much of Europe is concerned. The Rack locomotives appear to be brilliant engineering but those are tourist railways, correct? I am sure that some usage of Steam will continue in China as it is economical for them to operate in the applications they still use it for(mostly industrial i.e mills,mines and the like,IINM).
It seems that you are using a relatively small number of special cases to advance the proposition that most off the world's heavy haul rail operations made the wrong motive power choice? And furthemore you contend that this is through some conspiracy of ignorance rather than sound mechanical/economic consideration?
For the record, as a railfan I am rooting for companies like T.W Blasingame and Vapor Locomotive to succeed (although both are trying to market Steam Electric Locomotives, not Reciprocating Steam engines), but in the real world I have to admit the prospects of any technology supplanting the diesel engine as the overwhelmingly predominate powerplant for non electrified railroad traction are exceedingly slim..........
No, its anything but Steam. I was answering the above assertion that no one else in the World is looking at Modern Steam, I pointed out some examples that I am aware of and that has to be qualified again with another assertion. As far as heavy haul railroads the Rio Turbio is a coal hauler and will expand its freight business when the line extensions are finished. Since the skiing is good there they will of course in your mind deligitimize themselves by hauling tourists as well. Both the Governments of Chili and Argentina have firmly decided that this railroad will be all modern steam. As far as the rack railroad example, I guess since they are only hauling tourists that they don't have the need to pursue the most economic and efficient means at their disposal to operate their business. I guess they can run a loss and stay open because they haul tourists. These new rack engines are cleaner, more powerful and more economic to run and maintain than the diesels they replaced. Tourists are a commodity like any commodity that needs to be moved. I guess the same logic just simply can't be applied to any other commodity that needs to be moved.
Of course dieselization was based as you put it on, "sound mechanical/economic considerations." Let's see, the railroads scrapped in toto locomotives that were paid for and had many years of economic service left in them to go into massive debt to buy diesels which didn't last as long as the payments on them did, had maintenance curves that increased dramatically after the engines were only few years old, didn't improve employee productivity in train service at all, didn't improve operations efficiency or lower costs there, didn't improve maintence costs at all but rather increased them. These diesels were/are so bad that the only option was/is to borrow more money on top of what was already borrowed to replace them yet again. The result was the rate of return for the railroads were decimated during the period of dieselization because of dieselization. So I guess those, "sound mechanical/economic considerations," wern't so sound after all.
Now let's talk about right now in the present. All the above issues with diesels are still with us, nothing has changed except they are even more costly to buy, maintain, and fuel. The numbers shown in this thread vividly illustrate just how costly it is to run these diesels rather than even classical steam. The improvments discussed for the steam engines are existant, have little or no extra costs to implement them and have proven to more that double the efficiency of the locomotive of 1950 vintage and reduce maintence of that engine to mere fraction of what it was. Now when anyone of a rational mind takes a look a this issue, to him the course of action is clear. I'm not trying to be smug or insulting to anyone. I am trying to show the unwitting bias that is so pervasive. Dante Porta made a statement about this uninformed anti steam bias, I'm paraphrasing: "Someone who doesn't know something is unaware that he doesn't know it."
carnej1 wrote: ...but in the real world I have to admit the prospects of any technology supplanting the diesel engine as the overwhelmingly predominate powerplant for non electrified railroad traction are exceedingly slim..........
Why?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I must say, as an aside to the discussion, that images of a Y-class shoving a long string of coal hoppers is a sight dear to me. I hope I can be forgiven for slipping one of my own layout shots into this forum.
A caboose is missing, but I don't have one yet.
Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming....
selector wrote: If I am to judge based on some archived film footage that I have on a DVD, the Y-class Mallets, which surpassed the Class A's in tractive effort by a hefty margin, were typically two to a coal drag. One in the front, and one shoving. This scenario is repeated in case over case in DVD #5 of the five DVD set Railway Journeys The Vanishing Age of Steam by Madacy Entertainment. I am guessing, only, that the speeds would be comparable. But, that means two full crews at a minimum.-Crandell
If I am to judge based on some archived film footage that I have on a DVD, the Y-class Mallets, which surpassed the Class A's in tractive effort by a hefty margin, were typically two to a coal drag. One in the front, and one shoving. This scenario is repeated in case over case in DVD #5 of the five DVD set Railway Journeys The Vanishing Age of Steam by Madacy Entertainment. I am guessing, only, that the speeds would be comparable. But, that means two full crews at a minimum.
Hi, Crandell,
Most of those old N&W photos and films were taken on helper grades. The rear end pusher was routinely called for a 12 hour shift, and might push six, ten or a dozen trains from the bottom of the hill to the top during that time. When not on a helper grade, a single Y could trundle along all day, usually at 25mph or so.
The very last photo in William E. Warden's Norfolk & Western Railway's Magnificent Mallets, The Y class 2-8-8-2s is of a Y-6a sitting in lonely splendor at a helper siding in the heart of nowhere, waiting for the next uphill train.
In the present, such an assignment would still rate a separate crew, even if it was operated as distributed power with a radio link. People would be needed on the spot to attach the helper to a train and bring it back down the hill light.
Chuck
selector wrote: This is all very interesting. I guess, though, that we should be controlling, for want of a better word, for the variables in our discussion.
This is all very interesting. I guess, though, that we should be controlling, for want of a better word, for the variables in our discussion.
This is why I broke it down to a per hp mile analysis, so that the costs of 4 diesel units, ABBA, necessary to equal a Northern early on could apply through the analysis to the present day, based on 1950 technologies except as noted (12% v 6% for steam). Applying the Producer Price Index gives a cost of a 4000 hp modern (2003) Diesel-electric by that methodology at about $1.7 million, for instance. Not a bad estimate, suggesting that the PPI is in the ballpark, as it should be with mature technologies, and that Steam cost, modernized, might be appropriately estimated on a hp basis.
The purchase cost per hp is significant enough amortized over the respective life spans of the equipment. The fuel cost differential, however, is the big difference. Numbers are out there all over the place, and we do know what a Northern ate at 6% efficiency vs a modern estimate at 12%, and we know what a modern 4,000 hp SD70 eats in terms of fuel. If somebody wishes to do an actual analysis of coal vs diesel fuel costs, its just not that hard to do. But, when the differential is an order of magnitude difference, which it has recently become, the gentleman who requested "hard numbers" is invited to offer some if he disagrees with my analysis, because the "hard numbers" are, in fact, out there.
This is all very interesting. I guess, though, that we should be controlling, for want of a better word, for the variables in our discussion. The details are devilish. Do we compare the costs for a passenger steam run over 30 days with a diesel freight over the same time...not really reasonable. So, perhaps, if we could prevail upon Michael, are there figures to compare the cost per ton mile of passengers, or horsepower mile, or whatever, between diesels such as the F series to the Northern class doing the same thing? I don't believe Northerns ever doubled in such service, although they were sometimes shoved for a brief roll out of a yard. But the same train tonnage would most likely have rated at the very least an A/B or A/B/A, would it not? So, let's compare what it would be in the way of cost for a Northern to run and be serviced over the same time/mileage/ton-miles...whatever is rational (I don't know..I'm asking) as the matching requirement in diesel at the time. Or I has it already been stated and I have forgotten...would not surprise me?
wsherrick wrote: The Santa Fe 4-8-4's ran the whole distance between Chicago and Los Angeles with out change of engines, were serviced and sent right back.
Not in regular service. The farthest they ran was KC to LA, and that was in passenger service. Here is a great site about them :http://www.wheelsmuseum.org/stagner.html
An "expensive model collector"
nanaimo73 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The question you answered -- or at least that you put in quotes -- was how many diesel-electrics did you think it took? And you emphasized the single engineer, for some reason ...You emphasized the single engineer, in bold, I only mentioned it.I believe it would take a crew of 5 using two modern steam locomotives to supply a power plant, while 2 men using 3 diesels could handle the same task.I'm guessing the steam locomotives would also have to be pulled off after a thousand mile run, while the diesels would run multiple trips. If this is true, than the number of steam locomotives required would be greater than the 2:3 per run, and perhaps the total number required to move 4 million tons a year would be greater for steam locomotives.
MichaelSol wrote: The question you answered -- or at least that you put in quotes -- was how many diesel-electrics did you think it took? And you emphasized the single engineer, for some reason ...
The question you answered -- or at least that you put in quotes -- was how many diesel-electrics did you think it took? And you emphasized the single engineer, for some reason ...
You emphasized the single engineer, in bold, I only mentioned it.
I believe it would take a crew of 5 using two modern steam locomotives to supply a power plant, while 2 men using 3 diesels could handle the same task.
I'm guessing the steam locomotives would also have to be pulled off after a thousand mile run, while the diesels would run multiple trips. If this is true, than the number of steam locomotives required would be greater than the 2:3 per run, and perhaps the total number required to move 4 million tons a year would be greater for steam locomotives.
I guess you didn't read the tonnage rating of the Class A. Many Railroads had engines that routinely ran well over a thousand miles per trip. The Santa Fe 4-8-4's ran the whole distance between Chicago and Los Angeles with out change of engines, were serviced and sent right back. The Great Northern S1's ran all the way from St. Paul Minn. to the west coast without change of engines and back again. The N&W J Class ran routinely 18,000 miles per month and 240,000 miles between shoppings. The New York Central Hudsons, Mohawks and Niagaras ran the thousand miles between Harman New York and Chicago every day with only one coaling stop each way. So if these traditional designs could do this. A modern steam locomotive with sealed bearings, Gas Producing Firebox, etc. could easily surpass these already impressive numbers. There is existing technology to allow steam locomotives to m.u. with diesels and other steam engines. Electronic slip control, etc. So I guess the Powder River Basin wouldn't be much of challenge for one of these engines.
nanaimo73 wrote: I'm guessing the steam locomotives would also have to be pulled off after a thousand mile run, while the diesels would run multiple trips.
I'm guessing the steam locomotives would also have to be pulled off after a thousand mile run, while the diesels would run multiple trips.
Northerns routinely did 1,000 mile runs [the average carload line haul then was only about 450 miles], and ran more than twice as many annual miles as the average road Diesel-electric does today. In 1950. Nothing has improved since then?
Modern steam boilers go thousands of hours of continuous operation. Are you referring to the need to lubricate friction bearings on steam engines built before the advent of modern sealed bearings? If so, why? If not, what are you referring to?
nanaimo73 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: If I missed your reference to it being about modern steam, I still can't see it in your comment. nanaimo73 wrote: wsherrick wrote: The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD. Thanks for the post.I would be interested in any thoughts you might have regarding using modern steam to move the monster coal trains now operating in the western USA. Would you guess these 18,000 ton trains would be split in half, or operate with two steam locomotives?
MichaelSol wrote: If I missed your reference to it being about modern steam, I still can't see it in your comment.
If I missed your reference to it being about modern steam, I still can't see it in your comment.
nanaimo73 wrote: wsherrick wrote: The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD. Thanks for the post.I would be interested in any thoughts you might have regarding using modern steam to move the monster coal trains now operating in the western USA. Would you guess these 18,000 ton trains would be split in half, or operate with two steam locomotives?
wsherrick wrote: The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD.
Thanks for the post.
I would be interested in any thoughts you might have regarding using modern steam to move the monster coal trains now operating in the western USA. Would you guess these 18,000 ton trains would be split in half, or operate with two steam locomotives?
Well, that wasn't the comment you posted that you were responding to, now, was it? You continue on to now say that it would take five persons to operate two steam locomotives, which seems to contradict the "one engineer" and one conductor comment being actually in reference to steam rather than about diesels. I not following your comments at all.
nanaimo73 wrote: I believe it would take a crew of 5 using two modern steam locomotives to supply a power plant, while 2 men using 3 diesels could handle the same task.
This is why I think these conversations are strange. You presume the diesel-electric benefits from a technology that, per se, had nothing to do with dieselization, and only arrived even for diesel-electrics post 1970. You postulate the opposite for the steam engines, and presume that even today they would remain with the same technology as they had in 1950.
Coal-fired boilers today are routinely not only remotely supervised and operated at much higher outputs than seen in locomotive service, but are highly automated as well, far more so in response to demand and conditions than a Diesel-electric locomotive.
By freezing one technology at both the horsepower and technology at 1950, and postulating the other at horsepower and telemetry available in 2008, you reach a conclusion that you believe represents a "comparison".
This approach to handling data will give you a preferred conclusion, but that's about it.
carnej1 wrote: ...I would be extremely interested to see a "hard numbers" estimate proving that it would be more economical for the railroads to invest in fleets of modern steamers rather than investing in coal-to-liquids technology.
...I would be extremely interested to see a "hard numbers" estimate proving that it would be more economical for the railroads to invest in fleets of modern steamers rather than investing in coal-to-liquids technology.
Moving back to a time when we had "hard" numbers on a fleet basis, the numbers work out as follows based on 1950 or thereabouts, purchase price $160,000 for a Northern, $120,000 for a 1500 hp diesel-electric unit.
Moving forward slightly to when we had a better understanding of their economic service lives: the Steam depreciated over 30 years, the Diesel-electric over 14. Based on purchase price per horsepower, each horsepower cost was $32 for Steam, and $80 for Diesel-electric.
Moving forward again with those numbers, and applying the Producer Price Index, the roughly current purchase cost per hp would be $162 for Steam and $406 for Diesel. Steam out at, $4,320 per year (10% salvage) and the Diesel $33,040 for equivalent horsepower. This is where Brown pointed out the impact of the significant economic cost due to the substantial difference in economic service lives.
Using that basis to get a handle on a modern cost, at 12% vs 32% efficiency, the modern equivalent of a 7,000 hp steam unit and a 4,000 hp Diesel-electric unit costs, per hour of operation at a 20 mph average, fuel will cost $554 for the equivalent Diesel-electric hp to equal the $58.61 that it costs to operate the 7,000 hp Steam engine. And if these numbers seem odd, recall that an SD-70 uses 204 gallons an hour working hard, and a ton of coal costs only an average of $42.
At 90,000 miles per year for both types of motive power [BN's current average], the annual cost of fuel for the equivalent hp of Diesel-electric (without accounting for transmission losses) is $2,492,789, whereas the cost for mineral coal for equivalent Steam hp is $263,723.
The combined amortization plus fuel, on an equivalent annual hp mile basis is as follows:
7,000 Steam hp: $268,043 [At 6% efficiency, $531,766]
7,000 Diesel-electric hp: $2,525,829.
The cost of maintenance will add to each of these in some proportion. For the Diesel-electric to "break even" with Steam, the cost of Steam maintenance would have to be over eight times the cost per adjusted horsepower as the Diesel-electric. Even based on "old" Steam at 6%, the cost would have to exceed 4.6 times the cost of diesel-electric maintenance per adjusted hp.
Nothing remotely close to that has ever been claimed by anyone.
Have at it.
nanaimo73 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: wsherrick wrote: I will ask you a question before I answer yours. How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.And what did that have to do with Dieselization?Nothing. The circumstance couldn't exist for the first thirty years of Dieselization because it had nothing to do with Dieselization.It wasn't feasible until after the mid-1970s, when control technology made it feasible -- control technology applicable across the board. What are you talking about, Michael?I'm talking about moving PRB coal 1,000 miles to a power plant with modern steam a couple of years down the road.
MichaelSol wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: wsherrick wrote: I will ask you a question before I answer yours. How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.And what did that have to do with Dieselization?Nothing. The circumstance couldn't exist for the first thirty years of Dieselization because it had nothing to do with Dieselization.It wasn't feasible until after the mid-1970s, when control technology made it feasible -- control technology applicable across the board.
nanaimo73 wrote: wsherrick wrote: I will ask you a question before I answer yours. How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.
wsherrick wrote: I will ask you a question before I answer yours. How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?
I will ask you a question before I answer yours. How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?
Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.
And what did that have to do with Dieselization?
Nothing. The circumstance couldn't exist for the first thirty years of Dieselization because it had nothing to do with Dieselization.
It wasn't feasible until after the mid-1970s, when control technology made it feasible -- control technology applicable across the board.
What are you talking about, Michael?
I'm talking about moving PRB coal 1,000 miles to a power plant with modern steam a couple of years down the road.
wsherrick wrote:The Porta firebox was developed to burn sub-bituminous coal that is found in Argentina. This is not pie in the sky technology, it is simple, proven and extremely effective. As to the above post about the South African Governments choice to continue with dieselization in spite of David Wardale's work on the Red Devil, doesn't disprove the fact that the overwhelming evidence showed that modern steam was much cheaper on all fronts than these diesels, (see Wardale's book on the subject) but rather their choice displays the obtuse, myopic nature of most railroad administrations. I have been in railroading since the late '70's and can tell you from experience that original thinking is not only discouraged by management, it's downright punished. This myopia seems to be pervasive in the rail fan community as well. That being said, these advances in steam tech have already been applied. The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD. I could go down the list of all that is possible but the information is out there for those who want to find out about it. Steam should have never been replaced in the first place and the need for it will only become more acute as the years go by. But we are governed by what I call the, "ABS." Anything But Steam mentality here in America. The gymnastics seen here in this and other forums to advance the Anything But Steam mentality is the problem, not how to make a steam engine like a diesel or reinvent the wheel. The first step is to read H.F. Brown's report, "The Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power." I'll make it easy for anyone who wants a copy of it, you can get it at,5at.co.uk. Or just Google, 5at project and you can find it there with an abundance of info about modern steam in their links and articles section.
If the proposition is to find a way to "effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and subituminous coal" rather than imported oil I would be extremely interested to see a "hard numbers" estimate proving that it would be more economical for the railroads to invest in fleets of modern steamers rather than investing in coal-to-liquids technology. Of course the cost of fuel is higher with coal-to-liquids(but lower than "petrodiesel"),but it requires no changes to the existing motive power and related infrastructure.
As far as the so called "ABS Mentality" that supposedly holds sway in the U.S what country in the world today is actively pursuing the type of steam technology you advocate? Certainly Steam still hangs on in the industrial sector in China but this is largely due to a very low cost of labor. The Chinese have stopped building mainline steam locomotives and they are seriously exploring coal-to-liquids development.
As a Railfan I would be thrilled to see the proposals put forward by people such as Ross Rowland, Tom Blasingame, and Harry Valentine "In iron" and blasting down the mainline but in the real world this is exceedingly unlikely................
The videos you are looking at are coal trains being moved eastward. The ruling grades eastbound on the N&W were much more severe than the westbound ruling grades. In the mid to late 1950's there was a surge in coal demand for eastern export and that necessitated a change in N&W operations from moving coal west to Portsmouth to eastern ports. Still these massive trains requiring two Y6b's on these grades still weighed in at 12,000 to 18,000 tons. The helper engine was only used on the grades and the single Y6b would take the train on to its destination. You can read about these operations in full detail in Col. Jefferies book; "N & W Giant Of Steam". And for the record, the N&W' got more ton miles at a lower cost out of it's all steam roster than any of the all diesel roads at the time,crews or no crews. It's not a matter for conjecture, it's recorded fact.
And who is to say that modern steam, since that is the real subject, would need a crew in each engine any more than modern diesels? With feedback devices and automatic ones keeping the dynamics of the "system" within predetermined parameters, a modern Y-class equivalent could do the work of what now takes three or more diesels.
Would it be churlish of us to place a QED at this point?
selector wrote: But, that means two full crews at a minimum.
But, that means two full crews at a minimum.
Just as it would have meant two full crews for diesel-electrics at the same point in time.
I think this underscores the almost bizarre bias that has been appropriately noted: in this instance, simply ignoring the contemporary experience with the Diesel-electric in favor of something unrelated that happened thirty years later. As a means of comparison, it compares nothing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.