MichaelSol wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: If the ACE 3000 could not compete with a GP40, it certainly could not compete with an ES44AC. The gap has widened considerably, and will continue to do so. This is an example of assumption bias. It doesn't take into account fuel costs or other relevant technological advances in steam generation; ignoring both factors entirely.
nanaimo73 wrote: If the ACE 3000 could not compete with a GP40, it certainly could not compete with an ES44AC. The gap has widened considerably, and will continue to do so.
If the ACE 3000 could not compete with a GP40, it certainly could not compete with an ES44AC. The gap has widened considerably, and will continue to do so.
This is an example of assumption bias. It doesn't take into account fuel costs or other relevant technological advances in steam generation; ignoring both factors entirely.
Thanks Michael.
I believe the ACE 3000 is near the limit of technological advances in steam generation, while the diesel locomotive is still several generations behind, and will continue to improve. I have no proof, and I may be wrong, but that is how I feel.
The issue of steam requiring more maintenance time and effort than diesels (or electrics) has nothing to do with how old the engines were. A brand new steam engine still required more men and more time to maintain than would a diesel. After making a run of say 100 miles, a steam engine would be out of service usually until the next day, a diesel could be turned around and sent out on another train in a matter of minutes. That's why the railroads liked diesels - they were in use a much higher percentage of the time, and the railroads could save money since they could furlough thousands of workers who worked on steam engine maintenance and repair.
wjstix wrote: The issue of steam requiring more maintenance time and effort than diesels (or electrics) has nothing to do with how old the engines were.
The issue of steam requiring more maintenance time and effort than diesels (or electrics) has nothing to do with how old the engines were.
Well, this is where the conversation breaks down. This is a ridiculous assertion, steam, diesel, electric, Cadillac or Toyota, they all have established cost maintenance curves with age, and they all go in one direction -- up. And the curves are different. If, in fact, diesel engine overhauls are prorated over the life of the machine, the curve is steeper than that of steam over the same time period, and always higher. And that included labor costs. Only when you compare a 20 year old steam engine with a 5 year old diesel electric -- in that range -- can you show a savings -- because the age of the machines in the comparison is crucial to making the comparison in the first place.
wjstix wrote: The issue of steam requiring more maintenance time and effort than diesels (or electrics) has nothing to do with how old the engines were. A brand new steam engine still required more men and more time to maintain than would a diesel. After making a run of say 100 miles, a steam engine would be out of service usually until the next day, a diesel could be turned around and sent out on another train in a matter of minutes. That's why the railroads liked diesels - they were in use a much higher percentage of the time, and the railroads could save money since they could furlough thousands of workers who worked on steam engine maintenance and repair.
tattooguy67 wrote:now i will say that while we were in Grayling it looked like that loco was being attacked by a swarm of coverall clad ants, and yes it was a lot of work, but the fact is that it did a hundred miles plus, and in less then three hours was ready to go back, and did it 2 days in a row
You ignore the fact that it probably took somewhere along the lines of 6+ hours of prep work getting that loco ready to pull those excursions. Then it did two days work that could have been done by 50 year old diesel (OK, maybe a couple...but thanks to the magic of MUing, it still would've needed only one crew) without a swarm of coverall ants.
I'm a huge steam fan. There's nothing in the world like it to me. I'm also a realist. We will never see steam ruling the rails again. There's plenty of fuel out there. We'll see some shift, whether it be gassified coal, or oil produced from oil shale and/or oil sands.
-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
wjstix wrote: A brand new steam engine still required more men and more time to maintain than would a diesel.
A brand new steam engine still required more men and more time to maintain than would a diesel.
How many more? How much time? You don't know do you?
If the average age of the diesel-electric were 28 years old, and the oldest operating in significant numbers (40%) were built before 1960, do you think they would require "more men and more time"?
After making a run of say 100 miles, a steam engine would be out of service usually until the next day ...
This is pure mythology. Let me quote the Association of American Railroads in 1942:
"A modern coal-and-water station can load a tender with 24 tons of coal and 15,000 gallons of water in as little as four minutes. Many tenders are large enough to carry sufficient coal (or oil) and water to enable the engine to run for hundreds of miles without replenishing the supply."
Why the AAR would mention "hundreds of miles" when it is clear they could only go 100 is, what? Deception on the part of the AAR?
MichaelSol wrote: wjstix wrote: A brand new steam engine still required more men and more time to maintain than would a diesel. How many more? How much time? You don't know do you?...
...
Before we get too sharp here, let us pause and invite a response. It may be that some substance will be met with equal meausure.
-Crandell
nanaimo73 wrote: I believe the ACE 3000 is near the limit of technological advances in steam generation, while the diesel locomotive is still several generations behind, and will continue to improve. I have no proof, and I may be wrong, but that is how I feel.
The Diesel engine is very nearly the same technology as 100 years ago. That is a testament to the durability of the design. Improvements in diesel engine performance and overall locomotive design have little to do with diesel technology, but with electronics. Why steam or any other power source would not benefit is one of the interesting conundrums of your position: only diesel engines can benefit from improvements resulting from a different technology that, so far, seems pretty universally applicable to virtually all command, control, metering and monitoring systems. And to me, that reluctance to do so in this instance is simple bias; since the position is unsupported by any tangible reference to what has happened to, among other instances, fixed plant steam operations themselves.
However, the Diesel engine's problem is that it uses a fuel that is becoming increasingly expensive. It also has a short economic service life compared to alternatives. At some point, the numbers shift, and those numbers are not "technological" but financial and the problem with the Diesel engine is that it cannot shift itself away from ''diesel".
Electrification will be the likely successor for rail service, giving railroads yet another ultimate cost advantage over trucks, but the problem with the discussion of steam as an alternative for the future is the fact that people cannot even agree on its operating implications from a cost standpoint in the past -- where we do actually have good data and good studies.
How anyone can project to the future based on any kind of a past without acknowledging some base line of financial performance is a mystery to me, but do it they will.
selector wrote: MichaelSol wrote: wjstix wrote: A brand new steam engine still required more men and more time to maintain than would a diesel. How many more? How much time? You don't know do you?...Before we get too sharp here, let us pause and invite a response. It may be that some substance will be met with equal meausure.-Crandell
Well, I would like to know where on earth this stuff comes from, because my impression is that, most of the time, it is simply made up and that goes to my point about established bias trumping any tangible relationship to an identifiable fact. In this instance, given the confidence of the assertion, it is helpful to any detail analysis to know how many more people, and how much time. I didn't make the pronouncement, so I am looking to the source for the information.
And if the poster actually has no idea whatsoever, then it is unhelpful to the conversation, and seems designed to argue by "fiat" -- "this is just the way it was because I said so."
Unhelpful at best.
CopCarSS wrote: tattooguy67 wrote:now i will say that while we were in Grayling it looked like that loco was being attacked by a swarm of coverall clad ants, and yes it was a lot of work, but the fact is that it did a hundred miles plus, and in less then three hours was ready to go back, and did it 2 days in a rowYou ignore the fact that it probably took somewhere along the lines of 6+ hours of prep work getting that loco ready to pull those excursions. Then it did two days work that could have been done by 50 year old diesel (OK, maybe a couple...but thanks to the magic of MUing, it still would've needed only one crew) without a swarm of coverall ants. I'm a huge steam fan. There's nothing in the world like it to me. I'm also a realist. We will never see steam ruling the rails again. There's plenty of fuel out there. We'll see some shift, whether it be gassified coal, or oil produced from oil shale and/or oil sands.
MichaelSol wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: I believe the ACE 3000 is near the limit of technological advances in steam generation, while the diesel locomotive is still several generations behind, and will continue to improve. I have no proof, and I may be wrong, but that is how I feel.The Diesel engine is very nearly the same technology as 100 years ago. That is a testament to the durability of the design. Improvements in diesel engine performance and overall locomotive design have little to do with diesel technology, but with electronics. Why steam or any other power source would not benefit is one of the interesting conundrums of your position: only diesel engines can benefit from improvements resulting from a different technology that, so far, seems pretty universally applicable to virtually all command, control, metering and monitoring systems.
The Diesel engine is very nearly the same technology as 100 years ago. That is a testament to the durability of the design. Improvements in diesel engine performance and overall locomotive design have little to do with diesel technology, but with electronics. Why steam or any other power source would not benefit is one of the interesting conundrums of your position: only diesel engines can benefit from improvements resulting from a different technology that, so far, seems pretty universally applicable to virtually all command, control, metering and monitoring systems.
You mention that steam was cheaper to maintain than diesels. Is this not because steam engines were less complicated than diesels?
At the same time, you seem to be supporting modern steam, with modern technology. Computerized combustion, pressure above 315 psi, and perhaps traction motors replacing rods? If you are going to make the modern steam engine as complicated as a modern diesel, how could it still be easier/cheaper to maintain? How can you have it both ways?
Hello everybody,
would like to supply some facts about maintance + fuel costs:
In 1954, U.P. found out that:
"During 1954, steam costs were found to be $145.14 per 1,000 gross ton-miles, and diesel costs were set at $84.03 per 1,000 gross ton-miles. The turbines came in even lower, at $69.19 per 1,000 gross ton-miles."
(Found at Don Strack's utahrails.net)
At this time, the last new U.P. steam engines would aged 10 years, however they were well maintained und should run well. Some diesels were also as old as 10 years. Turbines were brand-new.
However, it shows that the diesels would safe ~40% of costs.
Hard to believe, the ratio of costs would have changed nowadays.
The RR-Companies in the transition era were excited about the savings with diesels. They bought them, although they had to pay way much more related to a hp/ton basis: A 6000HP 4-Unit F3 would have cost 800.000$ in '48, a Big Boy 265.000$ in '44.
Kind regards
Lars
MichaelSol wrote:The Diesel engine is very nearly the same technology as 100 years ago. That is a testament to the durability of the design. Improvements in diesel engine performance have little to do with diesel technology, but with electronics. Why steam or any other power source would not benefit is one of the interesting conundrums of your position: only diesel engines can benefit from improvements resulting from a different technology that, so far, seems pretty universally applicable to virtually all command, control, metering and monitoring systems. And to me, that reluctance to do so in this instance is simple bias; since the position is unsupported by any tangible reference to what has happened to, among other instances, fixed plant steam operations themselves. However, the Diesel engine's problem is that it uses a fuel that is becoming increasingly expensive. It also has a short economic service life compared to alternatives. At some point, the numbers shift, and those numbers are not "technological" but financial and the problem with the Diesel engine is that it cannot shift itself away from ''diesel".Electrification will be the likely successor for rail service, giving railroads yet another ultimate cost advantage over trucks, but the problem with the discussion of steam as an alternative for the future is the fact that people cannot even agree on its operating implications from a cost standpoint in the past -- where we do actually have good data and good studies. How anyone can project to the future based on any kind of a past without acknowledging some base line of financial performance is a mystery to me, but do it they will.
Michael,
There's two thoughts that come to mind about the matter:
I'll grant that the diesels also include another step whereby mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy and then converted back to mechanical energy in traction motors. However that's done because of the torque benefit of the traction motors. Is there some benefit to producing steam that justifies any inefficiencies that are incurred through the process?
nanaimo73 wrote: You mention that steam was cheaper to maintain than diesels. Is this not because steam engines were less complicated than diesels?At the same time, you seem to be supporting modern steam, with modern technology. Computerized combustion, pressure above 315 psi, and perhaps traction motors replacing rods? If you are going to make the modern steam engine as complicated as a modern diesel, how could it still be easier/cheaper to maintain? How can you have it both ways?
The "complicated" part of the Diesel-electric is the engine.
Cost of maintenance + cost of operation (fuel) + economic service life + cost of ownership (financing).
I can't have it "both ways" without the entire equation.
Using the "Northern" as the most recent example for which fleet data exists, but using fuel adjustments to today, the economic service life reflected in the cost of ownership are approximately half the costs of a comparable Diesel-electric, and the cost of fuel is approximately one-half to one-third.
That leaves maintenance. And the maintenance curves for a Diesel-electric adjusted for age and inflation adjusted haven't changed much in 40 years.
tattooguy67 wrote:No sir i am not ignoring that at all, i was speaking to the acersion made that a steam loco could only go a hundred miles and then have to be serviced for a day before going on, i have no doubt that there was a lot of work to get it ready to go before we left, and again we are talking about a really old loco with really old dated technology!.
OK, but I'm saying that a trio of GP-7s that are almost as old could have also done the same feat, with much less hassle and far fewer man hours.
And i hope you are correct about the fuel situation, i really do!, but looking around i see that a lot of places we get that fuel from are not our best buddies and would be really glad to see us take a dive and would be just as happy selling it to some one else!.
The three options (coal, oil shale and oil sands) I brought up are all to be found in North America and in great quantities.
Lars Loco wrote: Hello everybody,would like to supply some facts about maintance + fuel costs:In 1954, U.P. found out that:"During 1954, steam costs were found to be $145.14 per 1,000 gross ton-miles, and diesel costs were set at $84.03 per 1,000 gross ton-miles. The turbines came in even lower, at $69.19 per 1,000 gross ton-miles."(Found at Don Strack's utahrails.net)
We are starting to repeat ourselves here.
How old was the Steam fleet, average? How old were the Diesel-electrics, average?
Were the Diesel-electric fleet numbers adjusted for the capitalization of maintenance at the overhaul to provide comparable figures for the known economic service life of the modern steam engine?
What was the cost of BTU equivalent coal vs diesel fuel in 1954?
CopCarSS wrote: tattooguy67 wrote:No sir i am not ignoring that at all, i was speaking to the acersion made that a steam loco could only go a hundred miles and then have to be serviced for a day before going on, i have no doubt that there was a lot of work to get it ready to go before we left, and again we are talking about a really old loco with really old dated technology!. OK, but I'm saying that a trio of GP-7s that are almost as old could have also done the same feat, with much less hassle and far fewer man hours. And i hope you are correct about the fuel situation, i really do!, but looking around i see that a lot of places we get that fuel from are not our best buddies and would be really glad to see us take a dive and would be just as happy selling it to some one else!.The three options (coal, oil shale and oil sands) I brought up are all to be found in North America and in great quantities.
Don't mean to express skepticism, just simply curiosity.
The old saying about "steam engines pounding the rails" is part of what everyone seems to believe is true about rod-driven steam. I find it interesting that it is not borne out in the maintenance statistics. Any more to this than just intuition than dynamic augment should pound the rails? Was this simply an EMD talking point or was there any experience to point to rod-driven power being hard on the rails?
The other thing about rod-driven locomotives is that in addition to the alleged rail pounding, there was a side-to-side "nosing" effect from applying thrust to the rails in this manner -- that is largely the reason you need pilot wheels and why a high-tractive effort arrangement like an 0-8-0 was only suitable for a low-speed switcher or transfer locomotive. There are advantages to "balanced compound", 3-cylinder, or perhaps duplex drive in terms of running the drivers had higher RPMs before the rail pounding or nosing effects get out of hand. That would allow using smaller diameter drivers to get higher tractive effort and more efficient cutoffs during hill climbing while allowing a high-enough "top end." Although given modern freight train speeds, I don't think a steam locomotive would need to be drivered for 100 MPH, or even 80 or perhaps even 50 MPH for many services.
The ACE 3000 was conventional steam in most respects (pistons, rods, and drivers, fire tube boiler, 300 PSI steam pressure), but I believe it was supposed to be condensing with a powered boiler draft fan. Condensing cuts down on the need for water, making it more Diesel-like in needing mainly fuel; condensing also addresses the water quality issues of scaling. But air heat transfer condensing seems to open up all kinds of problems of the bulk and weight of the condensor, the reduced thermodynamic efficiency for exhausting steam into an above atmospheric pressure dry air transfer condensor and so on.
If I were building a mainline steam locomotive, I would go for something with the stump-pulling power to replace a pair of AC-drive C-C's -- something like a 2-6-6+6-6-2 double Garratt. I would be tempted to forgo condensing and go with one of the efficient ejectors -- Lempor, Giesel, etc. To address the watering problem, my inclination would be the NW "canteen" solution of extra water tenders. For the scaling issue, why not use distilled water? There are energy-efficient multi-effect stills or perhaps vapor compression stills as used on Navy ships and subs that could be used at watering stations.
As to the drive, I think that traction motors are a Diesel weakness, even with AC. I would even consider gear-driven steam engines, perhaps with siderods to distribute torque to neighboring wheels -- the trailing truck boosters were a step in that direction. The Pennsy steam turbine used quil drive to one axle plus a siderod to neighboring axles; perhaps that arrangement could be used with a high-speed uniflow piston engine instead of the turbine that used too much steam at low speeds.
On the thermal efficiency front, there is no reason that the 12 percent achieved by Porta couldn't be a target instead of the 6 percent quoted.
The one thing about coal these days, however, is that whole global warming concern. All of the talk is that if we run out of oil, we would convert coal to oil and run Diesel locomotives on it. But keep in mind that only half of the coal BTUs gets turned into synthetic oil because of the energy required to get hydrogen out of water.
With oil past 100/barrel, there is not a reason why all use of oil for home heating shouldn't be replaced by coal. Fisher-Tropsch coal liquifaction plant? Forget that, build a supercritical steam, modern scrubber cleaned, 40 percent efficient coal-fired electric power plant and heat those homes using straight resistance electric heat -- the cycle uses no more coal than coal liquifaction, and it is today and now cheaper than oil. Problem is that about 40 such coal electric plants are on hold or on cancellation because the electric utilities are waiting for the other shoe to drop on carbon taxes. Seems expensive electric power is a national policy decision based on global warming concerns -- people should conserve electricity they say, but it is forgetting that coal could replace imported oil in this manner if we cared to.
So I guess with the global warming worries, coal-fired steam along with a whole bunch of everything else is a non-starter.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
tattooguy67 wrote:Yes i am sure that the GP-7s could have done the job very well and with less man hours in labor, but they would have been burning diesel fuel to do it, a product made from imported oil that needs to be refined to use, where as the coal comes from the ground (our ground ) and needs minimal processing, plus we have lots of operating coal mines. As far as that goes we have lots of oil in this country now, but for political reasons we are not allowed to get to it. And for the coal gassification and oil shale/sands end of things, well i am 40 and i remember them talking about that when i was a wee lad, and i am still waiting to see it used in any wide spread way, you have the same problem there, you need to refine it and we also don't seem to be able to build them either.
Oil shale is still dirty language in western Colorado, but if the economy of imported oil forces the matter, we will see the oil shale industry come to life again. Extracting oil from shale busted because the import oil market was again able to support our energy needs in a much cheaper fashion. The economics of the matter have changed since then as have our energy needs, so oil shale and oil sands will certainly become buzz words again, and we may see more than just talk.
CopCarSS wrote: Is there some benefit to producing steam that justifies any inefficiencies that are incurred through the process?
The adjusted cost for coal at 6% conversion efficiency is now less than one-half the cost of diesel fuel at 32% conversion efficiency.
The student paper cited earlier concluded as follows: "US Class I railroads burned 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2006, costing $8.1 billion. The dollar value of coal that would accomplish the same amount of "work" is only $3.0 billion, according to calculations. This is a cost savings of $5.1 billion in the single year of 2006."
He identifies the specific benefit as a $5.1 billion savings. I haven't checked his math.
MichaelSol wrote: The adjusted cost for coal at 6% conversion efficiency is now less than one-half the cost of diesel fuel at 32% conversion efficiency. The student paper cited earlier concluded as follows: "US Class I railroads burned 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2006, costing $8.1 billion. The dollar value of coal that would accomplish the same amount of "work" is only $3.0 billion, according to calculations. This is a cost savings of $5.1 billion in the single year of 2006."He identifies the specific benefit as a $5.1 billion savings. I haven't checked his math.
I'm not arguing with the cost difference of coal vs. oil at the moment. What I'm asking is what is the advantage of steam locomotion as a power source? Is there some compelling reason to boil water instead of using coal for gassification for use in a diesel prime mover?
MichaelSol wrote: The "complicated" part of the Diesel-electric is the engine.
I've always read that the turbocharger was the most troublesome and expensive part to maintain.
MichaelSol wrote: Using the "Northern" as the most recent example for which fleet data exists, but using fuel adjustments to today, the economic service life reflected in the cost of ownership are approximately half the costs of a comparable Diesel-electric, and the cost of fuel is approximately one-half to one-third.
Improvements in diesel engine performance and overall locomotive design have little to do with diesel technology, but with electronics. Why steam or any other power source would not benefit is one of the interesting conundrums of your position: only diesel engines can benefit from improvements resulting from a different technology that, so far, seems pretty universally applicable to virtually all command, control, metering and monitoring systems.
You're saying the (relatively uncomplicated) Northern cost of ownership was approximately half the costs of a comparable Diesel-electric. But you seem to be saying that modern steam should be fitted with modern technology. I can't see a modern steam locomotive having the same benefits as a Northern once you add the modern technology.
Just to throw one more wrench into the equation.
Railroads because they travel on tracks, unlike trucks that use roadways and are constantly changing lanes we have another alternative to consider and that is electrification. We can choose to build coal fired generating plants or nuclear power plants and hang wire over the major railroad transportation corridors or inevitably the cost of oil is going to reach a point where the costs can no longer be justified and everything will reach prices that are going to be out of reach for the average consumer.
Look at the rest of the world where electrification has become the norm and our railroads continually find excuses not to entertain the thought.
One proposal for high speed rail in California is to build enough power plants to supply the power to build a magnetic levitation system above I-5 between Redding and Sacramento then switch to 99 between Sacramento and Bakersfield where once agin the right of way would be built above I-5 to Los Angeles and San Diego. There would also be a connector from the east and west bay to the Valley system. These trains would not be limited to ten feet width but twenty and travel at up to three hundred miles per hour. At night the passenger interiors could be rolled out at most of the major terminals and trucks loaded to take the pressure off of I-5 and 99 thus eliminating the need for additional lanes to these already clogged arteries. Once again in the AM the passenger interiors would be rolled back ready for another day of hauling passengers. Expensive Yes but so is the cost of oil in case one hasn't noticed. Lets look beyond our noses when trying to solve our coming transportation crisis. And it will be here much sooner than we think.
CopCarSS wrote: I'm not arguing with the cost difference of coal vs. oil at the moment. What I'm asking is what is the advantage of steam locomotion as a power source?
I'm not arguing with the cost difference of coal vs. oil at the moment. What I'm asking is what is the advantage of steam locomotion as a power source?
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.
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?
And, that cost of the liquified/gassified coal is well within the recent historical fluctuation range in the cost of diesel fuel and would not justify the risk of the new technology.
nanaimo73 wrote: You're saying the (relatively uncomplicated) Northern cost of ownership was approximately half the costs of a comparable Diesel-electric. But you seem to be saying that modern steam should be fitted with modern technology. I can't see a modern steam locomotive having the same benefits as a Northern once you add the modern technology.
The cost of the overhaul of the diesel engine was what reversed the cost advantages of the Diesel-electric locomotive over the design simplicity of the Northern Steam engine.
Add the electronics that improves the operating efficiency of both.
The cost of the overhaul of the diesel engine will still reverse the cost advantages of the Diesel-electric locomotive over the design simplicity of the Northern Steam engine.
MichaelSol wrote: Steam power can use mineral coal directly.
After it was treated, to meet emission standards?
nanaimo73 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Steam power can use mineral coal directly. After it was treated, to meet emission standards?
Well, I can see we are just going to wander all over here; today's comment will morph into something about something else, and then we will have to consider "water savings" all over again, and electronics that only help the diesel engine, but never steam, and of course never the steam that stays locked into a mindset of sixty years ago. This is kind of how it always goes, doesn't it: "oh yeah, well what about ..."? And that process reflects what, ultimately, is the bias I refer to earlier: no question can be examined, but for the mindset that there cannot be an accurate or even a satisfying answer because "it just can't be so."
I posted my thoughts on emission standards earlier. The idea of going in circles to continually revisit every option as soon as one consideration is addressed, just to keep spinning the argument along, is really the problem, isn't it? And just once, instead of the easy burden of proof that passes here for essentially "oh yeah, what about ...", I would enjoy the concession of, if you don't agree, show why and show the numbers.
I have given you that courtesy.
....And without wondering any farther....The question was, could we make a steam engine {today}, that would be acceptable....to replace or supplement the diesel electric since the price of oil is skyrocketing.
And it sure is today in Muncie: Gasoline now, $3.48...!!
Quentin
Hello Michael,
I wrote
You wrote:
Sorry, my post was not an intention to repeat things, but have not seen "hard facts" so far at this thread. Only liked to provide some, nothing more.
Ok, my "facts" may not deliver the "whole" view of this subject, but U.P calculated maintance costs per "unit", despite how powerful or how old they were (in general). In 1954, mainline steam exits only between Green River and Nebraska. The only reason for this was, that U.P got cheap coal from their Wyoming mines. The western district were already dieselized at this time, the difficult water supply in those areas was also a problem.
The remaining steam engines of the U.P were either freshly shopped mainline steam or small branchline Units. I think at Ogden, they only kept 10 steamengines in '54.
Can not support any data about the fuel costs, I only know that after WWII gasoline rised high (more than coal). However, in '1954 the situation may have changed, not sure about that.
Well, maybe one day we may face the day coal will be much cheaper than oil, but it needs a whole industry to switch (not only trains!). I have neaver heard in Europe about such a projected, coal-fired (and even use steam-circle) locomotive.
If we have something new, my propose is it will be a gas, methanol or even hydrogen (aka mini-nuke ;-) ) driven locomotive.
Best Regards
Lars Loco wrote: Lars Loco wrote:Hello everybody,would like to supply some facts about maintance + fuel costs:In 1954, U.P. found out that:"During 1954, steam costs were found to be $145.14 per 1,000 gross ton-miles, and diesel costs were set at $84.03 per 1,000 gross ton-miles. The turbines came in even lower, at $69.19 per 1,000 gross ton-miles."(Found at Don Strack's utahrails.net)... but U.P calculated maintance costs per "unit", despite how powerful or how old they were (in general).
Lars Loco wrote:Hello everybody,would like to supply some facts about maintance + fuel costs:In 1954, U.P. found out that:"During 1954, steam costs were found to be $145.14 per 1,000 gross ton-miles, and diesel costs were set at $84.03 per 1,000 gross ton-miles. The turbines came in even lower, at $69.19 per 1,000 gross ton-miles."(Found at Don Strack's utahrails.net)
... but U.P calculated maintance costs per "unit", despite how powerful or how old they were (in general).
Well, I'm not sure I understand the clarification. If UP calculated such costs "per unit" regardless of horsepower, then in that case, if the UP Steam locomotive was generating 5,400 horsepower, it required 4 Diesel-electric units of 1500 hp each to equal or exceed the horsepower of the Steam locomotive to haul the equivalent 1,000 GTM; 4,000 Diesel-electric unit miles for each 1,000 Steam engine miles, so that each can haul the same tonnage.
The Diesel-electric cost of the four "units", maintenance and fuel, was $336.12 to equal the single unit Challenger cost of $145.14. So yes, the cost per "unit" was lower, but not the cost per horsepower ton mile.
What was the horsepower of the turbines?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.