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.
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
I'm thinking the unions would demand the return of firemen?
It was done on the N&W everyday back in the 40's & 50's. The tonnage rating for a SINGLE class A 2-6-6-4 was 14,500 Tons on the Scioto Division between Williamson, West Virginia and Portsmouth Ohio. And this was way before freight cars had roller bearing trucks. The Scioto Division didn't have any severe grades on it, so I guess to answer your question, maybe one or two modern steam locomotives of similar power to a Class A depending on the grades involved.
wsherrick wrote: The first step is to read H.F. Brown's report, "The Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power."
Well, you are right about the ABS mentality, and it is perhaps even stronger in the railfan community than the industry, much as railfans look for the first opportunity to defend a status quo they usually don't even understand, but it makes them feel like "railroaders", I guess.
I worked with Brown briefly in the early 1970s, and came to have a high regard for him personally and as an astute student of engineering principles. He sent his paper along to illustrate an analytical approach to assessing diesel-electric motive power, with some reference to electrification, which is what we were looking at at the time. He had sent along another paper by a Swedish expert, Thomas Thelander, which came to much the same conclusion after a detailed review of the Santa Fe's dieselization results. The "steam" numbers kind of jumped out at me, and stuck with me over the years, even though they didn't have anything to do with what we were doing. But they did resonate with a senior Electrification engineer's comments to me that the road diesel-electric was getting mileages and economies far below what had originally been predicted and upon which Dieselization had been based. That was before the price of Oil became a political issue.
However, if you wish to see the kind of reaction that well-regarded studies get on this forum, tune to http://cs.trains.com/forums/660985/ShowPost.aspx for a discussion of Brown's paper. There you will see the usual histrionics, including fabricated "pro" diesel-electric studies that didn't even exist but, ultimately, there was just a conspicuous lack of numbers supporting the Dieselization argument. You will see comical references to "railroads saved a lot of water" as though it were the precious commodity underlying the whole rationale.
I did my own "study" on a major Class I just to double check Brown, and came to the same result: I could not locate any net savings, but rather, increased expenditures resulting primarily from the costs of financing overwhelming any operating cost savings. The net increase in combined operating and financing costs of the motive power came, uniformly, from maintenance-of-way budgets. This increase, in turn, created an additional burden on railways during business downturns -- when they could least afford it -- as the financing charges remained whether the machine was producing revenue or not -- something that had much less impact with the much longer-lived Steam. Railroads had created a cost that they couldn't "store" during downturns, creating greater losses when business slumped or times got rough.
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: In regards to the idea that coal burning steam locomotives can not meet emissions standards is not so. I'm sure you all here are familiar with Mr. Dante Porta who died in 2003. One of his chief innovations was the Gas Com-buster Firebox. It was installed on the Red Devil in South Africa and on Japanese Locomotives on the Rio Turbo Line in Argentina. This firebox essentially gassifies the coal before it is burned and the result is a 30 to 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency and a clean, virtually soot free exhaust. There have been many, many advances in steam tech since the USA abandoned steam development. Couple this with the Porta Boiler Treatment, Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam passages and you get an engine with a 15% overall thermal efficiency. This stuff is being done in other parts of the World. We are really slow to catch on it seems over here. The Grand Canyon Railroad, Mount Washington Cog Railway and most recently the UP on the Challenger have retrofitted locomotives with some of these improvements. The gain in power, and fuel economy is amazing.
These advances appear to me to parallel and to some extent incorporate the development of fluidized bed combustion technology which has been so successful at increasing efficiency as well as controlling pollutants that it is replacing catalytic technology formerly used on coal-fired plants.
And this is interesting from the standpoint that the diesel engine is pretty much stuck with its century old design for which engineers have spent untold dollars trying to tweak into some kind of compliance with modern clean air standards, mostly unsuccessfully even as it has become, literally, the most expensive motive power option available from a fuel cost standpoint. The ultimate, and expensive pollution control solution, catalytic converters, have been put off until 2017 even though the technology was available 30 years ago -- but the requirement, ultimately, concedes the failure of engineering to achieve satisfactory results with the basic diesel engine design even as it admits to the need to an expensive add-on to fix the otherwise insolvable problem. The lengthy lead time suggests that the problem has not, in fact, been solved and the regulation is one based on "hope".
This compares with significant advances in coal combustion technology over the same period, both in efficiency and in pollution control, rising to the level of paradigm shifts in economic application, pollution control, and basic production efficiency compared to the small and difficult incremental improvements in comparable diesel engine technology.
It is fortuitous that the same technology that more than doubled the economic efficiency of the coal combustion process acts to significantly reduce pollution levels. It is ironic that similar efforts for the diesel engine will reduce its economic efficiency even as it fails to achieve pollution control standards met by virtually all other forms of energy production -- including coal combustion.
carnej1 wrote: When discussing emissions one must consider that any hypothetical coal burning locomotive technology in the U.S would be forced to conform to the same stringent Tier II (and eventually Tier III)emissions standards that diesel engines must adhere too. Those EPA regulations will not change no matter which party is in charge. In other words any ACE3000 equivalent will be held to ES44/SD70ACE standards rather than coal burning powerplant standards(not to mention that an unmodified diesel locomotive using synthetic coal derived fuel meets the standards)..............
blue streak 1 wrote:Don't count on it. Thead thread about truckers and one about teir 4 requirements. we all know steam would fall under teir 4
I am gathering you two gentlemen believe that railroad diesel locomotive requirements are "stringent". Compared to what, if I can ask? To the contrary, modern coal combustion technology meets standards many times more rigorous than those set for the Diesel-electric locomotive, or ever will be set for the Diesel-electric locomotive, and has been meeting those genuinely stringent standards for years.
Coal-fired plants already utilize either catalytic technology or fluidized bed combustion technology to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions, as a "for instance". Compared to the current 4.1 g/kw-hr emission standard for Railroad Road Diesel locomotives, a coal-fired plant using existing control technology (not something maybe "out there" in 2017) currently has a 0.69 g/kw-hr capability -- a capability that the Diesel-electric locomotive will likely never attain.
Presumably, a steam locomotive could be held to the much more stringent powerplant standards, rather than the very weak ES44/SD70AC standards, although the standards issued Friday make it clear that such a locomotive would only have to meet the morally loose standards "proposed" for the Diesel-electric, rather than the far more rigorous standards currently being met, routinely every day, by existing coal combustion technologies.
wsherrick wrote: Hi,This is my first post in this forum. Some of the comments here prompted me to join in. First of all I'm glad there is an individual such as Mr. Sol here who seems to have an informed and rational view of the steam-diesel question. In regards to the idea that coal burning steam locomotives can not meet emissions standards is not so. I'm sure you all here are familiar with Mr. Dante Porta who died in 2003. One of his chief innovations was the Gas Com-buster Firebox. It was installed on the Red Devil in South Africa and on Japanese Locomotives on the Rio Turbo Line in Argentina. This firebox essentially gassifies the coal before it is burned and the result is a 30 to 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency and a clean, virtually soot free exhaust. There have been many, many advances in steam tech since the USA abandoned steam development. Couple this with the Porta Boiler Treatment, Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam passages and you get an engine with a 15% overall thermal efficiency. This stuff is being done in other parts of the World. We are really slow to catch on it seems over here. The Grand Canyon Railroad, Mount Washington Cog Railway and most recently the UP on the Challenger have retrofitted locomotives with some of these improvements. The gain in power, and fuel economy is amazing. Steam locomotives, can have a braking system sort of like dynamic braking by compressing air in the cylinders to retard movement. Compression braking has been installed on locomotives in Europe with great success. There is plenty of room for improvement in the rugged, reliable Stevenson form of motive power.
Hi,
This is my first post in this forum. Some of the comments here prompted me to join in. First of all I'm glad there is an individual such as Mr. Sol here who seems to have an informed and rational view of the steam-diesel question. In regards to the idea that coal burning steam locomotives can not meet emissions standards is not so. I'm sure you all here are familiar with Mr. Dante Porta who died in 2003. One of his chief innovations was the Gas Com-buster Firebox. It was installed on the Red Devil in South Africa and on Japanese Locomotives on the Rio Turbo Line in Argentina. This firebox essentially gassifies the coal before it is burned and the result is a 30 to 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency and a clean, virtually soot free exhaust. There have been many, many advances in steam tech since the USA abandoned steam development. Couple this with the Porta Boiler Treatment, Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam passages and you get an engine with a 15% overall thermal efficiency. This stuff is being done in other parts of the World. We are really slow to catch on it seems over here. The Grand Canyon Railroad, Mount Washington Cog Railway and most recently the UP on the Challenger have retrofitted locomotives with some of these improvements. The gain in power, and fuel economy is amazing. Steam locomotives, can have a braking system sort of like dynamic braking by compressing air in the cylinders to retard movement. Compression braking has been installed on locomotives in Europe with great success. There is plenty of room for improvement in the rugged, reliable Stevenson form of motive power.
As I stated as a railfan I am fascinated by "what might have been" technologies and I love reading about things like modern steam locomotives. However it is telling that despite the brilliant engineering of the Red Devil project, South African Railways did not build a fleet of modern steamers, but instead pursued electrification as well as investing in coal-to-liquid plants to make synfuel for their diesel fleet. At the time they were still under an oil embargo(which is why steam lasted so long in that country).
When discussing emissions one must consider that any hypothetical coal burning locomotive technology in the U.S would be forced to conform to the same stringent Tier II (and eventually Tier III)emissions standards that diesel engines must adhere too. Those EPA regulations will not change no matter which party is in charge. In other words any ACE3000 equivalent will be held to ES44/SD70ACE standards rather than coal burning powerplant standards(not to mention that an unmodified diesel locomotive using synthetic coal derived fuel meets the standards)..............
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
....Why wasn't the compresson system of "dynamic braking" put to use here in the latter builds of steam engines in this country...?
Was there an excessive cost of doing so....Complicated valving and plumbing....What prevented it, if the system method was known and reliable. It sure seems it would have been beneficial. First class roads today {one would think}, would have to do their runs somewhat different without the diesel electric dynamics.
Quentin
Dakguy201 wrote: I do not have the data on the cost of catenary to support such a conclusion. If anyone has ever presented the data on the Milwaukee's operating cost compared to comparable diesel operation, I missed that discussion.
I do not have the data on the cost of catenary to support such a conclusion. If anyone has ever presented the data on the Milwaukee's operating cost compared to comparable diesel operation, I missed that discussion.
Some time ago, I did a simulation of GE's "Computer Econometric Analysis Program" from the 1970s in order to reconstruct an analysis of DC Electrification compared to full Dieselization, and to re-evaluate the GE study from the standpoint of actual subsequent events on the Milwaukee in order to determine the effect of "assumptions" on the practical ability of the analysis to accurately predict the outcome.
As it was, the Milwaukee analysis -- GE pretty much just plugged in Milwaukee's numbers -- was conservative by far too much and the abandonment turned out to be a significant management misfire. In any case, it is a Microsoft Excel Model which permits instantaneous evaluation of alternatives over a thirty year depreciation period and the "start" numbers are pretty much the actual operating costs, diesel and electric, at the time.
The model is at:
http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/GEEconometricStudy2.xls
The best way to use the model is to download and save it, then re-open it in Excel.
In those days, 211 miles of fixed plant of heavy DC electrification cost $9,470,00 -- and that was a solid figure that I priced personally, and which yielded the same numbers as GE and a consortium of three Power Company suppliers; while AC electrification was estimated at $211 million for an 800 mile installation. Somebody else estimated that, it seemed to be the generally accepted figure and, frankly, I never understood why it would be so expensive compared to DC. The new DC motive power was available at the same cost per rail hp as Diesel-electrics, but with thyristor controls.
At that time, a credit was available by replacing existing copper feeder from the existing system with new higher capacity aluminum feeder, taking advantage of the price differential then existing between aluminum and copper, and remilling part of the copper for use as the contact wire on the 211 miles of new catenary.
blue streak 1 wrote:Question: What did the New Haven Bosyon electrification cost -- as far as stringing the catenary only. Take the number of track miles, number pounds of copper installed, cost of copper then as compared to now, factor in inflation of other materials and labor, take in account that the route has so many degrees of curvature vs the location a person is comparing. I bet there are other factors. Now you see the problems calculating a current cost
Your message prompted me to think that there is probably a fairly accurate way of calculating the current cost. I believe there are fairly recent examples of electrification in Europe and Asia and I assume the costs of these projects have been quantified. Translated into US dollars these costs should enable a reasonable per mile estimate of the current cost of electrifying American rail lines.
Mark
MichaelSol wrote: selector wrote: I was of the understanding that electrification took place largely because several of the major urban centres put pressure on the railroads to keep smoke belching steamers out of the cities to the extent possible. At least, that was a part of it, aside from an expected cost benefit.Is this incorrect?-CrandellThat is correct, although the "pressure" was generally in the form of smoke ordinances, although in some instances underground or tunnel operations also dictated electrification as a practical solution to the situation.
selector wrote: I was of the understanding that electrification took place largely because several of the major urban centres put pressure on the railroads to keep smoke belching steamers out of the cities to the extent possible. At least, that was a part of it, aside from an expected cost benefit.Is this incorrect?-Crandell
I was of the understanding that electrification took place largely because several of the major urban centres put pressure on the railroads to keep smoke belching steamers out of the cities to the extent possible. At least, that was a part of it, aside from an expected cost benefit.
Is this incorrect?
That is correct, although the "pressure" was generally in the form of smoke ordinances, although in some instances underground or tunnel operations also dictated electrification as a practical solution to the situation.
There is no question that smoke abatement was one of the reasons leading to electrification on the PRR and NYNH&H. However, I believe the operational and cost advantages played a more significant role in the decision. Otherwise both of these roads would likely have electrified only short stretches out of metropolitan New York and Boston as did the New York Central whose electrification in New York only went as far as Harmon and a similarly short distance in the Cleveland area.
JonathanS wrote: If, instead, you chose to remove the offending constituents of coal before the fuel is loaded onto the locomotive you have very similar cost and technology problems to what diesel locomotives have with liquified coal as a fuel. And again steam has no clear advantage.
If, instead, you chose to remove the offending constituents of coal before the fuel is loaded onto the locomotive you have very similar cost and technology problems to what diesel locomotives have with liquified coal as a fuel. And again steam has no clear advantage.
Please show the numbers, or reference the studies, that support this conclusion.
Dakguy201 wrote: I think KCSfan is on the right track (pun intended) here. Electrification of main lines is the most likely solution. The engines on those lines become modern Little Joes, and having a centralized point of fuel combustion allows more effective polution control and/or carbon dioxide capture. I do not have the data on the cost of catenary to support such a conclusion. If anyone has ever presented the data on the Milwaukee's operating cost compared to comparable diesel operation, I missed that discussion.However, if I were in charge of a Class I road, I would be far more interested in technology available now in preference to ideas that haven't made it out of the lab.
I think KCSfan is on the right track (pun intended) here. Electrification of main lines is the most likely solution. The engines on those lines become modern Little Joes, and having a centralized point of fuel combustion allows more effective polution control and/or carbon dioxide capture.
However, if I were in charge of a Class I road, I would be far more interested in technology available now in preference to ideas that haven't made it out of the lab.
The current cost of copper is about $3.85 per pound. In addition to the conductor there is also the cost of supporting catenary itself, poles, insulators, hardware etc. so I have little idea what the total installed cost per mile to electrifiy would be. As an example if it were $1.5 million the cost of electrifying 1800 miles of single track would come to $2.7 billion. Add to that the cost of substations and you've probably got a price tag in the range of $4.0 billion. Then there's the cost of the motors themselves and your probably up to about $5.5 billion total cost. The only way I know to minimize the initial cost would be to use wooden support poles as did the Milw Road. 20-25 years later when the initial installation cost had been recovered in operating savings, the poles could be begin to be replaced with permanent steel support structures.
My figures are just SWAG's and I'd be interested to hear from someone with more knowledge than I (such as Michael Sol) as to their reasonableness.
TomDiehl wrote: Bucyrus wrote: 4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission.I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.A torque converter or transmission isn't necessary with a reciprocating steam engine. Unlike an internal combustion engine, they can come to a complete stop when the train is stopped. A diesel is idling (running at low RPM) all the time. Steam pressure, as opposed to exploding fuel/air mixture provides the power and is controlled by a valve (throttle).
Bucyrus wrote: 4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission.I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.
4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission.
I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.
I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.
A torque converter or transmission isn't necessary with a reciprocating steam engine. Unlike an internal combustion engine, they can come to a complete stop when the train is stopped. A diesel is idling (running at low RPM) all the time. Steam pressure, as opposed to exploding fuel/air mixture provides the power and is controlled by a valve (throttle).
A steam locomotive driven through a transmission and torque converter would be complex, but would operate on a constant HP curve ala a diesel electric. You could get full boiler HP to the wheels over a wide speed range.
If you did it with steam turbine and an electrical transmission, you'd have the Jawn Henry!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
JonathanS wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Steam power can use mineral coal directly. Not without dust collectors to capture the particulates and scrubbers to capture the Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, and Mercury. By adding these you have greatly complicated your locomotive, added some very expensive and highly maintenance intensive items, and added toxic waste disposal costs. You say that technology can overcome these problems but you do not factor the capital and maintenance costs of the technology into your argument for replacing modern locomotives with new steam, but you make sure that the costs are factored in on the diesel side.
MichaelSol wrote: Steam power can use mineral coal directly.
Steam power can use mineral coal directly.
Not without dust collectors to capture the particulates and scrubbers to capture the Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, and Mercury. By adding these you have greatly complicated your locomotive, added some very expensive and highly maintenance intensive items, and added toxic waste disposal costs. You say that technology can overcome these problems but you do not factor the capital and maintenance costs of the technology into your argument for replacing modern locomotives with new steam, but you make sure that the costs are factored in on the diesel side.
I "make sure" eh?
Locomotive manufacturers are just now designing engines which meet pending standards. We aren't yet seeing the ultimate cost in terms of effect on fleet purchase price, long term maintenance costs, and life spans of those engines. Since it isn't there yet, how did I include that "on the diesel side"?
Indeed, just as of today, the EPA issued its Final Rule with regard to control of emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines, pointing out that:
"Locomotive engines are significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation's cities and ports. Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emission requirements set in 1997, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), both of which contribute to serious public health problems."
"This final rule sets new emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured--to take effect as soon as certified systems are available, as early as 2008. The rule also sets Tier 3 emission standards for newly-built locomotives, provisions for clean switch locomotives, and idle reduction requirements for new and remanufactured locomotives. Finally, the rule establishes long-term, Tier 4, standards for newly-built engines based on the application of high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technology, beginning in 2015." Note my earlier remarks about similar application of catalytic aftertreatment technology to external steam combustion.
So much for "making sure" any costs were factored in: the costs haven't even been incurred yet.
I specifically mentioned that more money has been spent with less effect on attempting to make a diesel engine that will meet emissions standards than on just about any other energy source. Since that ultimate engine is "still out" there in term of standards that other sources met years ago -- including for external combustion of mineral coal -- you will have to show me how I "factored it in" to the diesel side since I was pretty specific as to why that was difficult to do, and I did say that part of the reason for that was the relative difficulty of removing myriad complex, toxic, gaseous hydrocarbons from the diesel exhaust mix that are generally not present in the external combustion mix, and that also includes particulate.
Not without dust collectors to capture the particulates and scrubbers to capture the Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, and Mercury. By adding these you have greatly complicated your locomotive, added some very expensive and highly maintenance intensive items, and added toxic waste disposal costs. You say that technology can overcome these problems but you do not factor the capital and maintenance costs of the technology into your argument for replacing modern locomotives with new steam, but you make sure that the costs are factored in on the diesel side. The Federal and State EPAs will not permit large scale combustion of coal without removal of the Particulates, Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides, and Mercury. The scenic railways are tolerated due to thier historic value and because there are so few of them.
ML
The biggest disincentive for the railroads to consider other sources of motive power is their ability to pass the rising costs of diesel fuel along to the shipper. The railroads already have the diesel locomotives, servicing and repair facilities. None of them are going to seriously consider investing in other power and support facilities so long as they can pass along the high price of diesel as a fuel surcharge added to the freight rate. For a whole host of reasons electrification of high traffic density lines is the most cost effective mode of operation. The PRR and New Haven demonstrated that decades ago on their high trafficed lines. Other electrification projects (Milw Road, Great Northern, Virginian, etc) were done because of tunnels and helper districs and were abandoned with the advent of dieselization while electrified territories continue to exist in the high density northeatsern corridors to this day. IMHO both the UP and BNSF should be studying right now the feasibility of electrifying their transcon lines with their 60-100 trains per day. The long range advantages are obvious and the dividends such an investment would pay over the next 20 or more years are enormous. A fixed coal fired generating plant is much more efficient than any internal combustion or steam locomotive and with modern scrubber technology far less polluting to boot. Todays high fuel surcharges (which will do nothing but increase as oil based fuel prices continue to escalate) could be continued until the investment in catenary and fully electric engines engine is recovered. After that the savings are all gravy which would result in increased profits and/or reduced freight rates making the railroads ever more competetive with other modes of transportation. IMHO electification is a no brainer.
AltonFan wrote: tattooguy67 wrote:Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.I doubt at this stage of the game, fuel costs will result in the return of the steam locomotive. A more likely solution to the problem will be to find an alternative fuel for a diesel prime mover, rather than revert to steam.Electric traction offers too many advantages to be abandoned.What's more, whatever solution is found will also have to conform to environmental regulations. Strict rules on diesel emissions are going into effect in the near future, and it would seem to me that if a change of fuel is in the works, it will have to conform to present environmental regulations.
tattooguy67 wrote:Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.
I doubt at this stage of the game, fuel costs will result in the return of the steam locomotive. A more likely solution to the problem will be to find an alternative fuel for a diesel prime mover, rather than revert to steam.
Electric traction offers too many advantages to be abandoned.
What's more, whatever solution is found will also have to conform to environmental regulations. Strict rules on diesel emissions are going into effect in the near future, and it would seem to me that if a change of fuel is in the works, it will have to conform to present environmental regulations.
It would be entirely possible to return to steam while retaining the favorable attributes of the diesels such as electric traction, comfort cabs, computer controls, ease of fuel handling, the abitlity to M.U., and the ability to meet all environmental regulations now and in the future.
Alternate fuel for diesels is another option to combat the high price of oil. It's just that that option has to compete with coal and the best locomotive that can burn it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.