Could steam make a comeback?

[carnej1]

Well, if the thermal protection "protects", the Traction Motor isn't producing Tractive Effort. The point was that there is no TE available -- either the engine shuts down, or the motors burn up.

AC motors do solve the problem -- at much higher cost and that's really part of the meme of this thread regarding Steam -- cost advantages.

For a given rating, and AC induction motor is typically much cheaper to make than a DC commutator motor. The difference is the inverters needed to make AC motors practical traditionallly have been expensive, but developments with IGBT's have been bringing the cost down substantially. I'd estimate that DC transmissions will become a rarity on new locomotives in five years.

I am absolutely sure the future is going to be different than the past. For the Diesel-electric locomotive, few improvements have anything at all to do with the engine; whereas Steam has had considerable technological improvement in the department from the transition era -- indeed a qualititative leap whereas the Diesel-electric has stood relatively still. As to control technologies, Steam undoubtedly could benefit from many of the same control improvements as well. What is remarkable on that score is how well the 60 old version of the technology stands up over time; notwitstanding the improvements that it would undoubtedly enjoy today.

 

 As far as possible future improvements to large diesel engines(not just for locomotive applications) do you discount concepts such as turbo-compounding and the use of bottoming cycles (steam or otherwise)? Granted these are not changes to the engine itself......

[tnchpsk8]

  How about a steam turbine-electric that can make use of regenerative braking. Something akin to a steam operated gen-set type road locomotive.

[tnchpsk8]

  One of us is asleep at the wheel. I haven't read anything, to this point, about steam being better than diesels. It appears to me that the discussion has to do with redesigning steam engines in order to get away from the dependence on oil, especially foreign oil.

[tnchpsk8]

  Has Al Gore and his "lock box" in some invisible form arisen on this discussion? There are far and away too many of you guys who seem to have locked your brains into that box. Instead of thinking "outside the box" and trying to find newer and better ways to do things ( in this case move a train) you remain locked on the old steam of yester-year and all of the negatives that accompanyed it. In the 50 years since the U.S. has run everyday mainline steam surely there is more efficient ways of producing and utilizing steam to get more bang for the buck g\than be gotten from oil and its escalating price. I've only gotten to page four of this discussion and have found way too many nay-sayers stuck in 1950.

[MichaelSol]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

Topic rank in readership: this one ranks third out of the last 1,225 threads. Apparently someone isn't getting the answers he wants ...

[Anonymous]

  Has Al Gore and his "lock box" in some invisible form arisen on this discussion? There are far and away too many of you guys who seem to have locked your brains into that box. Instead of thinking "outside the box" and trying to find newer and better ways to do things ( in this case move a train) you remain locked on the old steam of yester-year and all of the negatives that accompanyed it. In the 50 years since the U.S. has run everyday mainline steam surely there is more efficient ways of producing and utilizing steam to get more bang for the buck g\than be gotten from oil and its escalating price. I've only gotten to page four of this discussion and have found way too many nay-sayers stuck in 1950.

I hope I never find myself in Al Gore's lock box.  So what's your plan?

[erikem]

 As far as possible future improvements to large diesel engines(not just for locomotive applications) do you discount concepts such as turbo-compounding and the use of bottoming cycles (steam or otherwise)? Granted these are not changes to the engine itself......

I recall seeing what was Detroit Diesel is working on a turbo compound for trucks. One of the problems with that technique is getting a reasonable coupling between the exhaust turbine and crankshaft as the optimal ratio of speeds varies with loading.

For a diesel electric, the most efficient approach may be to couple generators (well alternators) to the exhaust turbines and run the combination in a way to maximize power extraction. This would require that the compressors (AKA superchargers) be run off an electric motor, but a big advantage is that turbo lag would be a thing of the past. 

[wsherrick]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

Topic rank in readership: this one ranks third out of the last 1,225 threads. Apparently someone isn't getting the answers he wants ...

Apparently not.  It seems that if this is so old hat to the ABS crowd then we could save a lot of space if they would quit participating.  I find it odd that those who hate or don't find this subject interesting (according to their own posts) keep saying they are finished with the thread, yet keep popping back up with nothing positive to add to the conversation.

Now there are complaints that the thread is unfairly long.  If you don't like it don't read it and certainly don't contribute, thus making the thread even longer.

The juice bugs have a thread of their own.  I haven't gone on that thread and attempted to nay say everything that has been posted there advocating universal electrification or attempted to laugh at those who advocate it even if some of the assertions are nothing short of preposterous.

It seems that those of us who are steam advocates or at least open minded about the subject just simply aren't compliant enough for those folks.

Hence the above quoted statement.

[erikem]

I am absolutely sure the future is going to be different than the past. For the Diesel-electric locomotive, few improvements have anything at all to do with the engine; whereas Steam has had considerable technological improvement in the department from the transition era -- indeed a qualititative leap whereas the Diesel-electric has stood relatively still. As to control technologies, Steam undoubtedly could benefit from many of the same control improvements as well. What is remarkable on that score is how well the 60 old version of the technology stands up over time; notwithstanding the improvements that it would undoubtedly enjoy today.

There have been significant mprovements in diesel engine technology in terms of efficiency, emissions and maintainability over the last 30 years. Part of this has been vastly improved modeling of gas flow and another part is a greatly improved understanding of the combustion process. Needless to say, both would help with a new generation of steam locomotives.

What made AC transmissions possible has been the steady advance in voltage and current ratigs for power electronic devices, specifically the IGBT's and associated drivers. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is now possible to get IGBT's that would allow inverters to run directly off a 3,000VDC catenary.

As for advances in control technology, you're correct in that some of it could be applied to steam locomotives. There are some advantages unique to electric transmissions (whether the power source is an on-board diesel, gas turbine or overhead wire). One is that the response time for the electric transmission is a few milli-seconds. Another is that a balanced polyphase motor produces smooth torque (even with an inverter) while a reciprocating steam engine produces a pulsating torque which limits adhesion.

On the subject of adhesion. One of the problems with early diesels and some electrics was that the motors were operated in series. A consequence was that one of the motors started slipping, it reduced the torque produced by the other motors in the series string. A non-articulated (and non-duplex) steam engine had an advantage in that all of the drivers were connected together, so all had to be slipping to lose traction. The geared steam locomotives probably had a higher usable coefficient of adhesion than a rod locomotive since the torque pulsations were smoothed out with the gear reduction and in the case of the Shay, having three cylinders instead of two.

[MichaelSol]

There have been significant mprovements in diesel engine technology in terms of efficiency, emissions and maintainability over the last 30 years. Part of this has been vastly improved modeling of gas flow and another part is a greatly improved understanding of the combustion process.

Well, I am out of date on that. While I continue to use 32%-36% for Diesel engine efficiency, and I keep hearing about significant increases in thermal efficiency, I continue to see reported efficiencies of various diesel locomotives ranging from 25.7% to 32.5% -- and some sources showing that under actual conditions, efficiencies as low as 22%.

I continue likewise to see BN overhauling engines at 750,000 miles compared to claims of 1,000,000 miles for FT units in early GM advertising.

I understand one major improvement, the turbocharger, was a source of additional significant maintenance costs.

Statistically, what improvements have occured -- and I am thinking in terms of comparing to the 100% increase in thermal efficiency apparently available to current coal combustion processes?

 

[erikem]

Well, I am out of date on that. I keep hearing about significant increases in thermal efficiency, but I continue to see reports efficiencies of various diesel locomotives ranging from 25.7% to 32.5% -- even though lower than what was advertised during the period of transition, and some sources showing that under actual conditions, efficiencies as low as 22%.

Just for girns, I looked up the fuel consumption figures for the 710G3 engine (mid-1980's) and it was reported as 0.33 lbm/hp-hr, which translates into 0.44 lbm/kWhr. Assuming that the energy content in diesel fuel is 19,000 BTU/lbm, this means that 8,405 BTU is required to produce 3,412 BTU of mechanical work (1 kWhr = 3412 BTU)., or a thermal efficiency of 41%. The latest AC drives are supposed to have an efficiency in excess of 90%, which implies that a loocomotive with a 710G3 engine plus AC drive would have a peak thermal efficiency of at least 36%. I've seen figures for large diesel engines with fuel consumption of less than 0.30 lbm/hp-hr, so the most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

[MichaelSol]

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

Well, that's a 16% thermal efficiency improvement in 60 years for Diesel-electric motive power; whereas Steam has improved 117% in thermal efficiency in mobile applications over the same period of time.

[daveklepper]

Agai, I am confident that steam will make a comback, as a steam-turbine electric, with the various technological proglems that plagued past versions of this concept overcome by technology that is available today.   I am absolutely certain that GE is doing research and possibly design work on this, and possibly EMD and M-P as well.   And again don't expect any announcement from any of these companies until several months before they have a demonstrator.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

Well, that's a 16% thermal efficiency improvement in 60 years for Diesel-electric motive power; whereas Steam has improved 117% in thermal efficiency in mobile applications over the same period of time.

But what was the thermal efficiency of each type of motive power upon which the percentages of increase were based?

[tattooguy67]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

The Railroad History Quiz Game thread has 1,323 replies as of this writing.

The Trackside Lounge  thread has 889 replies as of this writing.

The THE FLAT WHEEL CAFE thread has 1,861 replies as of this writing.

Have you complained about how long those "dead horses" are going to be beaten?  No?  Why not, since you seem to be the resident complainer of thread length?

If you don't like a thread, you don't have to read it.  Try beating that horse for a change.

None of those threads are arguments that are going nowhere. They are just people socializing.

No one in this thread has any intention of changing his position.  It started out as a valid discussion, but hundreds of posts ago it degenerated into just a pointless argument.

I made the mistake of asking a couple of questions in here in an attempt to understand the numbers being thrown around in the debate and now, much to the amusement of my wife, get 30 or 40 e-mails a day showing the posts of the same 3 or 4 guys.

Perhaps you can help me out here and tell me how to turn off the replies to this thread without turning off all replies.

Well and here is the frustrating thing to me about all this and please don't take this as picking on you Phoebe Vet i am just using this as one of many examples here, several pages ago you mentioned that electrfication was the way to go as have others throughout this thread and i and others have asked what the cost per mile would be to do this and i have yet to see a reply, also you mentioned using minced tires as a way to help boost the btu's of coal and there you did provide a link to a site that talked about it and for that i thank you, but when asked if that could be used in a locomotive again no answer. So far as memory serves we have had;

Coal gassification, which from what i was able to find out MAY at some point down the road be of SOME help.

Bio-diesel, in whatever form it takes including algae and belly botton lint takes food away from people, takes more energy to make then it delivers and is already starting to fall from it's high perch because the facts are outweighing the hype, again this MAY at some point be a viable answer to SOME of our energy needs.

The ABC crowd (anything but coal) who were quick to tell us all the enviromental horrors of coal mining and burning but when asked for specifics and if advanced technology might help with this, and when asked what the impact of various forms of refineries have, and when told that it creates jobs, it provides 60%-80% of our electricity, we have a whole lot of it here and various other facts got real quite real quick.

Look please understand that i am not trying to squalch debate here, if you think that going with something other than coal fired steam is the answer than come on ahead and lets hear it, but don't come on here and say "oh yeah well nah nah!. The steam side of this discusion has produced reams of facts and figures and the other side so far not so much, with a lot of MAY. COULD, MIGHT and SOMEDAYS thrown around, so again i will ask the following:

What is the cost of steam versus electric, and here i mean the support needed to operate both types of motive power i.e. coal and water supply versus caternary, power plants and switching stations, and if (and i believe the answer is yes) it costs more to go the electric route does that cost come down over time?

What are the enviromental impacts of coal mining versus oil refineing and has technology not made any advances in coal mining at all?

Coal gassification output, how many gallons of usable fuel a day does this process produce now?

Thats enough for now, will post more later when i think of some, thanks.

Chuck

[MichaelSol]

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

Well, that's a 16% thermal efficiency improvement in 60 years for Diesel-electric motive power; whereas Steam has improved 117% in thermal efficiency in mobile applications over the same period of time.

But what was the thermal efficiency of each type of motive power upon which the percentages of increase were based?

Well, this starts the discussion all over again.

On page 1 of this thread, on 3/07,2008, I posted as follows:

At $60/ton 11,500 BTU coal, and at $3.65 per gallon diesel (last week's U.S. average), adjusted for 6% efficiency coal, 32% efficiency diesel, the current adjusted cost for 100,000 BTUs of coal is $4.35 and the equivalent cost of 100,000 BTUs of diesel is $8.21.

Wyoming coal, of course, sells for considerably less than $60/ton, running between $10 and $15 per ton. The U.S. average is only $25/ton. The average delivered price in the U.S. varies from $14/ton in Montana to $84/ton in Massachusetts, with the U.S. average at about $42. At power plants, it averages $35/ton; for other uses, about $52/ton.

At the U.S. average delivered cost, the BTU equivalent cost of coal is $3.04 vs. $8.21 for diesel fuel. In places like Montana, delivered cost would price equivalent coal at $1.01 compared to the $8.21 cost of diesel fuel.

On 3/11:

The cost difference is what it is all about.

Steam power can use mineral coal directly.

As Paul M. suggests above, if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel. At those prices, arguments about the evolution of the Diesel-electric start to give way entirely to the fundamental economics of the cost of fuel: Steam wins.

Thermal efficiency is not the same thing as economic efficiency, and the small increases in thermal efficiencies of the Diesel engine are not nearly as significant as the economic impact of the relatively more dramatic increases in fuel efficiency achieved for external combustion of coal.

Looking at it in another way: a modern steam engine would use half the coal used by a Northern to produce the same power. A modern Diesel-electric, a much smaller percentage less than its predecessors. A Northern that ran 1,000 miles between coal docks could run 2,000 miles today with no other improvements considered. Compare that to the distance a modern diesel can run with a 4,000 gallon fuel tank sucking down 200 gallons an hour at an average speed of 40 mph. And according to none other than the AAR, that Northern could reload in 4 minutes.

I find it difficult to justify the description "vastly improved" applied to the Diesel engine, but no acknowledgment at all of the improvements for external combustion steam or, as the post above suggests, let's change the subject to underlying technical efficiencies to show something else.

The measure of business success is always found in economic efficiency.

 

[nanaimo73]

 

As Paul M. suggests above, if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency,

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

If I understand this correctly, modern diesels are 3 times more efficient than what a modern steam locomotive would be.

[MichaelSol]

As Paul M. suggests above, if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency,

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

If I understand this correctly, modern diesels are 3 times more efficient than what a modern steam locomotive would be.

Or the Steam locomotive is six times more economically efficient, at this time, than a modern diesel. It just depends on whether you like technical numbers because of their intrinsic satisfaction -- because that's all there is to the idea - or have to write the check -- which has a substantively different meaning.

 

 

[Phoebe Vet]

Tatooguy:

Perhaps my "dead horse" comment was misunderstood. My diplomatic skills are not the greatest.

I did not mean that steam was the dead horse and I did not mean that coal was either. It just seemed to me that the discussion had reached a point where it was a couple of children yelling "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too". It seemed to have reached a point where the same things were being said over and over.

Interestingly enough, it now seems to have moved past that and new ideas and thoughts are again being posted.

I have nothing against steam, it just seems to me to be impractical at the locomotive level. I am aware that is opinion. My knowledge is not sufficient for me to adamantly defend that position.

I have nothing against coal. The Lackawanna Railroad which was one of two serving my hometown, was OWNED by the coal industry. It existed primarily to move coal from the Scranton PA area to New York Harbor and the Great Lakes. My wife's paternal grandfather retired from the Lackawanna. I grew up not far from coal country.

My personal opinion is that the railroads should be electrified. The technology required to make the use of any combustible fuel clean is much more easily applied at a power plant than at the individual locomotive level. I have no idea what the costs are, but I know it is common in other countries and they seem satisfied with it. I have ridden an Amtrak train that runs most of it's route with a pair of P-42s but changes to a single electric engine in DC. The difference can be clearly felt when it resumes the trip. Acceleration is greater and the speeds are much higher. I am aware that the speed has as much to do with the track as it does with the motive power, but you cannot help but notice that all the high speed trains are electric. It would not have to be all or nothing. Diesel engines can run on electrified track. It could be phased in.

I did not really intend to participate in this thread, but was watching it with great interest until it got bogged down. My questions were merely an attempt to understand some items that were not clear to me. I never intended to advocate anything. I have refrained from commenting on some things that were inaccurate but unimportant to the discussion, such as the description of turbine engine's need to run "full out" all the time.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

[nanaimo73]

Or the Steam locomotive is six times more economically efficient, at this time, than a modern diesel. It just depends on whether you like technical numbers because of their intrinsic satisfaction -- because that's all there is to the idea - or have to write the check -- which has a substantively different meaning.

Fair enough. But the price difference would change dramatically if the diesels were using synthetic diesel made from PRB coal. I'm also thinking modern steam would have to use eastern coal, and a dramatic jump in usage by railroads would lead to a dramatic jump in the price of coal.

[MichaelSol]

Fair enough. But the price difference would change dramatically if the diesels were using synthetic diesel made from PRB coal. I'm also thinking modern steam would have to use eastern coal, and a dramatic jump in usage by railroads would lead to a dramatic jump in the price of coal.

Well, there's a lot of drama involved in the presentation. It all does sound very dramatic. But, I don't have any yardsticks for drama.

My estimates earlier on this thread were that synfuel from coal would run about $6.50 or so for an equivalent output of BTU, compared to $8-something for diesel fuel and $1.80 for mineral coal. Better on cost than diesel fuel, sure. Better on cost than mineral coal, no. So, compared to mineral coal, what's the point?

And, the impact of synfuel on the diesel fuel market (lowering cost by lowering demand) can, at a significantly smaller change in price, wreck the cost differential, whereas the impact of coal on diesel fuel costs would be far lower in terms of reducing the price differential because the initial price differential is simply so large to begin with.

 

 

[blue streak 1]

MichealSol:

I think overhaul distance is not a good metric. The measure for prime mover overhaul should be the total horsepower hours. Traction motors - total  KW hours in and out(dynamics) + number of overheats. Wheel and trucks - total miles. Maybe BNSF is  getting a lot of low speed work innstead of high speed. Fuel consumption should be measured in number of horsepower hours. 

[MichaelSol]

MichealSol:

I think overhaul distance is not a good metric. The measure for prime mover overhaul should be the total horsepower hours. Traction motors - total  KW hours in and out(dynamics) + number of overheats. Wheel and trucks - total miles. Maybe BNSF is  getting a lot of low speed work innstead of high speed. Fuel consumption should be measured in number of horsepower hours. 

The average BN engine is operating about 90,000 miles a year, averaging about 20 mph. I gather that means they are doing a lot of sitting on sidings, doing their nails and smoking cigarettes. Northerns were reported doing 200,000 miles per year. Milwaukee Atlantics were routinely doing 150,000 miles a year at 100 mph. I suppose the BN average hp is about 3,200. Northerns? 5,000 hp? On a power basis, was a Northern doing less or more "work"? Don't know. Was an FT doing comparable work per hp as a modern Diesel-electric? Well ....

 

[nanaimo73]

Well, there's a lot of drama involved in the presentation. It all does sound very dramatic. But, I don't have any yardsticks for drama.

Point taken.

You would agree that converting railroads back to steam would increase the price of coal to some degree?

[Norman Saxon]

Or the Steam locomotive is six times more economically efficient, at this time, than a modern diesel. It just depends on whether you like technical numbers because of their intrinsic satisfaction -- because that's all there is to the idea - or have to write the check -- which has a substantively different meaning.

Fair enough. But the price difference would change dramatically if the diesels were using synthetic diesel made from PRB coal. I'm also thinking modern steam would have to use eastern coal, and a dramatic jump in usage by railroads would lead to a dramatic jump in the price of coal.

If synthetic diesel made from PRB coal could be produced and sold at $2.50 gallon (an independent producer would of course sell his product for what the market would bear, aka over $4.00 per gallon at today's prices), the BTU equivalent only lowers from the $8.21 per 100,000 BTU's (at a price of $3.65 per gallon) down to about $5.75(?) per 100,000 BTU's.  Since the BTU equivalent of ROM PRB coal is about $1.00, that's still a 5 to 1 economic cost advantage of 60 year old reciprocating steam over modern DE's.

If those same steamers are burning a 50/50 blend of pulverized PRB coal and synthetic diesel fuel made from PRB coal (the physical equivalent of medium to light bunker oil), the cost per 100,000 BTU's rises from $1.00 to about $1.75 - still a 3 to 1 advantage.

Of course, I did all this math in my head, so you guys might want to check my numbers!

[MichaelSol]

Well, there's a lot of drama involved in the presentation. It all does sound very dramatic. But, I don't have any yardsticks for drama.

Point taken.

You would agree that converting railroads back to steam would increase the price of coal to some degree?

There are two things happening at the same time. Oil refining capacity in the United States cannot meet demand. Gasoline is currently being imported from Europe, which has excess gasoline refining capacity. Europe has no excess diesel fuel refining capacity, and the US is at its limit.

Converting back to Steam/coal would release diesel fuel to a market that is going to be requiring more diesel fuel. The elastic effect on price that might be expected from reducing fuel demand in this case likely will not, in fact, occur in the price of diesel fuel. Indeed, without a conversion to coal, the cost of diesel fuel will go up as a result of demand exceeding supply.

So, with that in mind, would the price of coal go up? As the price of oil goes up, coal also trends up. If the price of diesel fuel goes up as a result of supply shortages, in part because railroads continue to use diesel, the price of coal will also go up even if railroads use no coal, simply because they are both locked into an overall energy market where there exists a measureable substitution capability in the short term, and near complete subsitution ability in the long run. And that's what this conversation is about: substitution to obtain the lower cost.

If there is additional demand for coal because of a general railroad conversion to coal, would the price go up?

The answer is "yes" -- no matter what the railroads do, the price of coal will go up as a result of the choice of the railroads, no matter what that choice is, and the cost differential will continue to exist.

The question whether or not the railroads should convert based on the cost differential would not change.

[MichaelSol]

If synthetic diesel made from PRB coal could be produced and sold at $2.50 gallon (an independent producer would of course sell his product for what the market would bear, aka over $4.00 per gallon at today's prices), the BTU equivalent only lowers from the $8.21 per 100,000 BTU's (at a price of $3.65 per gallon) down to about $5.75(?) per 100,000 BTU's.  Since the BTU equivalent of ROM PRB coal is about $1.00, that's still a 5 to 1 economic cost advantage of 60 year old reciprocating steam over modern DE's.

The approach I took on 3/11 was this:

" If "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel. At those prices, arguments about the evolution of the Diesel-electric start to give way entirely to the fundamental economics of the cost of fuel: Steam wins.

Now, conversion of mineral coal, at delivered cost to a conversion plant, to a liquefaction or gasification process, plus delivered costs of the resulting product to the user?

If there is a 40% loss in the conversion process, then the ultimate efficiency of the mineral coal is brought back down to 7.2% rather than 12% at the locomotive. If the delivered cost of coal was $42, and the delivered cost of the end product of liquefaction incurred a similar delivery cost, the resulting cost of 100,000 BTUs of liquefied or gassified coal is about $6.82, compared to the equivalent power derived from burning mineral coal directly at $1.52. What's the point of that if the whole purpose is to achieve maximum economic efficiency?"

That included the transportation costs included in producing liquified fuel since, for the cost of diesel fuel, the price includes that cost.

 

[YoHo1975]

Bio-diesel, in whatever form it takes including algae and belly botton lint takes food away from people, takes more energy to make then it delivers and is already starting to fall from it's high perch because the facts are outweighing the hype, again this MAY at some point be a viable answer to SOME of our energy needs.

 

Point of Clarification, Alga based Bio-diesel solutions would not take food away from anyone since they don't utilize cropland.  

[carnej1]

Agai, I am confident that steam will make a comback, as a steam-turbine electric, with the various technological proglems that plagued past versions of this concept overcome by technology that is available today.   I am absolutely certain that GE is doing research and possibly design work on this, and possibly EMD and M-P as well.   And again don't expect any announcement from any of these companies until several months before they have a demonstrator.

 Dave,

 Given that General Electric is touting their technical expertise in coal gasification/gas turbine technology on their website and TV commercials, wouldn't that be a more likely development route if they do want to market a solid fuel locomotive? The powerplant could be a Jenbacher gas burning IC engine instead of the turbine as that too is a GE product...

 As far as EMD goes I was under the impression in the post -GM incarnation they are strapped for R&D funds?

[Norman Saxon]

If synthetic diesel made from PRB coal could be produced and sold at $2.50 gallon (an independent producer would of course sell his product for what the market would bear, aka over $4.00 per gallon at today's prices), the BTU equivalent only lowers from the $8.21 per 100,000 BTU's (at a price of $3.65 per gallon) down to about $5.75(?) per 100,000 BTU's.  Since the BTU equivalent of ROM PRB coal is about $1.00, that's still a 5 to 1 economic cost advantage of 60 year old reciprocating steam over modern DE's.

The approach I took on 3/11 was this:

" If "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel. At those prices, arguments about the evolution of the Diesel-electric start to give way entirely to the fundamental economics of the cost of fuel: Steam wins.

Now, conversion of mineral coal, at delivered cost to a conversion plant, to a liquefaction or gasification process, plus delivered costs of the resulting product to the user?

If there is a 40% loss in the conversion process, then the ultimate efficiency of the mineral coal is brought back down to 7.2% rather than 12% at the locomotive. If the delivered cost of coal was $42, and the delivered cost of the end product of liquefaction incurred a similar delivery cost, the resulting cost of 100,000 BTUs of liquefied or gassified coal is about $6.82, compared to the equivalent power derived from burning mineral coal directly at $1.52. What's the point of that if the whole purpose is to achieve maximum economic efficiency?"

That included the transportation costs included in producing liquified fuel since, for the cost of diesel fuel, the price includes that cost.

If burning pulverized coal in a steam locomotive is the most economically efficient way to maximize the bottom line, so be it.  What I'm thinking about are some peripheal issues that may affect the paradigm.

Assuming diesel fuel (synthetic or conventional) packs 19,000 BTU's per lb, bunker oil (synthetic or conventional) packs 20,000 BTU's per lb, and PRB coal packs about 9,000 BTU's per lb, wouldn't a steamer burning synthetic bunker oil (made from pulverized coal and synthetic diesel) be able to carry more BTU's per tender with the liquified blend rather than the solid?

Or is that even a factor to consider - you still get a 3 to 1 cost advantage over DE's burning synthetic diesel, but you also get twice the mileage between fuel stops over the steamer burning ROM coal for the same tender capacity.  Liquids are easier to handle in transit than solids, there's no "dusting incidents" handling liquids. 

Weren't oil burning steamers considered superior to coal burners for a variety of reasons?

Again, if the ROM coal burner can meet or exceed all the economic and environmental considerations as well as an oil burner, then it's a moot point.

The other consideration is that coal-water fuel being promoted by Silverado.  If as they claim it can be produced at $20 per barrel equivalent, that comes out to $0.42 per gallon.  It's energy content is lower (about 7,000 BTU's per lb), and I'm too tired to do the 100,000 BTU equivalent math.  But at 7,000 BTU's per lb, you'd need three times the fuel storage as that needed for bunker oil.  I guess adding a tender or two could make up for that.

I would venture that for lignite, conversion to coal-water fuel might make more sense for use in rail transportation than trying to burn lignite directly.  And Montana and North Dakota have lots of lignite available. 

Interesting article penned by Harry Valentine here (he's one of the guys you read in the Ultimate Steam page):

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1279