Could steam make a comeback?

[Phoebe Vet]

I see I'm not the only one in here who's diplomatic skills need honeing.

What part of "first step" didn't you understand?

If you think fossil fuels are going to last forever, you are living in a dream world.

If you think the world cannot function without them, then you must work for an oil company.

[wsherrick]

American railroads already run on electricity.  They just use individual generators on each locomotive to produce it.

Running the wires is the first step in taking fossil fuels out of the loop.

What?? Running wires would take fossil fuels out of the loop?  I guess the power plants would use some more trolley wire fantasy to generate the power?  There would be no energy used in smelting the metal for the poles and wires, no energy to transport these to the construction site, no energy to erect or maintain the thousands and thousands of miles of wire which would magically take care of itself. No extra energy to make up for all of the transmission losses which would occur over such a vast system.

Where would the power come from in the first place?  Would it be purchased from the existing power grid which is aging and already at near maximum capacity?  Or would the Railroad industry just build the massive generating and transmitting infrastructure to produce this magical non polluting power?

The billions and billions in capital required to do this would come from??? Where?

And this is more feasible than producing a modern reciprocating steam locomotive?  I guess it is just because it just has to be so right?

I'm sorry but I'm not trying to be insulting here, but; really? 

The only way you are going to take fossil fuels out of any loop is to simply walk to where you want to go, ride a bike or get a horse.

But if you look at the price of feed corn these days the horse isn't a good option. 

[feltonhill]

GP40-2 - check your PMs.

[Phoebe Vet]

American railroads already run on electricity.  They just use individual generators on each locomotive to produce it.

Running the wires is the first step in taking fossil fuels out of the loop.

[Norman Saxon]

My personal opinion is that the railroads should be electrified.

 

My "personal opinion", too.

Are the costs for a caternary really so exsessive?  Why are they so unsorpported in the U.S.?

For example, Sweden has nice ore units trains, power is supplied by water-power-plants and the units are determined to run more than 1000.000miles without any failure. Loads and determined horsepower is quite equal to U.S trains.

Take note that those free nations with plenty of wide open spaces - USA, Canada, Australia - have little if any electrified railroads. 

The command economy nations with plenty of wide open spaces - Russia, China - have lots of electrified railroads.

Hmmmmm.......seems those nations where costs are accountable (give or take) are the ones which shun electrification.  Those which are more interested in making a good show for totalitarianism seem to embrace (or embraced as the case may be) electrification.

Does that answer your question?

[passengerfan]

The Northern Pacific Railway burned a lot of Power River Basin coal in the long course of its eventful history.

Interesting. Were there special fireboxes or other changes made to accomodate the PRB coal?

Larger fireboxes. What else they might have done, I do not know.

The NP coal was called Rosebud and those locomotives that operated using it had larger fireboxes. I know their is pictures of the NP and DM&IR Yellowstones for comparison. It has been said that if the NP Yellowstones had decent coal they could have pulled half the yard. The other problem the NP had was decent water. This was especially true in eastern Montana and western North Dakota. That is why the NP hauled so many cans of water into those regions to the locomotive water tanks along that area. Even treated the water from that area still foamed the NP found out quite early. Even with large water capacity tenders they still had to get water in the bad water districts thus the need for tank trains hauling water to water tanks in those districts.

Al - in - Stockton

[Anonymous]

Hi Michael,

as I reread the later part of this thread and postings several times again, the discussion turned to became out what transition-system is better:

A mechanical / reciprocating against an electric one.

The later one does not care if the power-plant / prime-mover of a locomotive is

- a diesel,

- gas

- coal

- hydrogen

or...whatever fueled engine, independent they are internal combustions, approach as a turbine or jet engine.

The last steam-engines were built with 10-15% machine losses (from the Cylinders), new diesels have less than 10%. This should be done with actual engineering, too, but better? No.

'Cause other transition-systems, e.g. hydraulic, never really widely approached, I hardly believe there is a better transition than the electric.

Now, you could have the benefit of a:

- computer-controlled,

- high availability,

- rugged and stable system,

and even could use the braking energy. Electric-engines turn their energy into the power-net back again (commonly used in Europe and other), why not keep the energy into batteries (which also have become better now), placed into a "Tank-car" as Mr. Modelcar suggested?

Steam-engines keep a high potential energy in their boilers, but it takes some time to produce it. With a combustion-engine just start it and off you go...

Turbines work in a small frame of load efficiently. Not saying there would not be an application for this, but a limited one.

Nowadays, even cars (hybrid) are partly driven with electric-motors, to make them more efficient.

Regarding the last posts about TE curves Steam vs. Diesel that:

... Indeed, for locomotives of the same maximum horsepower, the Steam engine has nearly 40% more Tractive Effort continuously available between 0 and 40 mph than the Diesel-electric (the area under the respective Tractive Effort curves) ...

If both engines have same HP they will deliver same HP.

I think there is a lot of confusion about particular engine-Types from both sides, the diesel (First Gen., Second Gen., DC/AC) ones vs. the 4-8-4s, 2-6-6-4 and so far. It is pointless to compare them. Yes, steam-engines were magnified machines, sometimes more powerful than that what we have now, but please have a look at my post earlier: The 5600DBHP Y6B N&W engine will just half win against a 4000DBHP GE-4400AC engine, given a speed range of 0-60mph.

I did not calculate the area beyond their TE-Curves exactly, nevertheless, we compare technology 50 years apart.

Yes, one point is true, with the arrivals of the first and second generation diesels, the railroads were not happy with the speed capabilities of their diesel-engines, because the had to buy many, expensive units to beat steam-locomotives delivering 5000-6000 or more HP. Quite possible that the steamers also had some extra-reserves.

Having a lot of respect, that people achieved many years ago, erecting power plants more than 500tons and running about 70mph, anything else than awesome would be totally inappropriate to describe them, but some must wonder, is there really a need to built more than 4000-6000DBHP freight engines? Even the U.P. ( = U.nlimited P.ower) came to the economic conclusion that smaller, but less powerful units than their 5000-6600HP Double-diesel engines are enough. And no, it was not the reason that if one prime-mover fails, the whole locomotive was out of service, it were just rising maintenance costs (frame cracking).

As far as I know, most RR nowadays are quite happy with their 4000HP engines. The benefit nowadays is: The better transition of energy.

What makes me really think is, how we can use steam as a efficient transition-system? As a turbine? Limited use. Reciprocating/Classic design? The transition-system goes lost while using it.

Condensing concepts are also of limited use.

While we can debate about various kinds of fuel, burning processes, in my opinion, the electric-transition is the best and there is still place to refine it in future. Lets use Cables near superconductor capabilities and maybe we have transmission systems near 99%. Hard to beat with mechanic.

Excitingly waiting your replies!

Kind regards

Lars

Lars,

You raise several interesting points.  I have some random thoughts I would like to add regarding the difference between steam and diesel regarding what you call transition.  Not to nitpick, but if I understand your use of the term, I would call it transmission.  And I suppose even that term can be somewhat ambiguous.  In its most basic sense, transmission would be the transfer of power from the prime mover to the wheels so all locomotives have it in that sense.  However, in a more specific definition, I see the term as referring to a power transfer mechanism that not only transfers the power, but also, can vary the relationship between speed and torque of a particular power level.

As you probably know, diesel locomotives have that kind of transmission just like cars, trucks, buses, bulldozers, etc.  With diesel-electric locomotives, the transmission is electric and accomplished by trading the amperage and voltage, which in turn, trade torque for speed.  I am not completely informed on how this trading torque for speed is accomplished today with AC or even exactly what it is called.  But in the early diesel era, it was accomplished with specific circuit changes between the generator and traction motors, and those changes were called transitions.  So the electrical transmission was accomplished by circuit transition.  But, aside from the method, it was a transmission that accomplished the same thing as any vehicle transmission.  Changing transition electrically was just like shifting gears in a car or truck standard gear transmission.

Steam locomotives, on the other hand, are unique vehicles in that they do not have a transmission.  They are direct drive with no ability to change speed and torque ratios.  It is as if they are in high gear all the time.  This is why they do not fundamentally develop high HP or TE at low speeds.  It is just like getting into a car with a standard manual transmission and starting off in 3^rd gear.  The engine cannot get up to the RPM where it produces its maximum HP until it gets the car up to 50-60 MPH.

Steam locomotives could be built with a transmission, but the added complexity and cost would work against the concept significantly.  What it would amount to would be the reciprocating engine driving into a changeable set of gearing, and from that, the force would be transferred to the wheels.  It could also be done with an electric or hydraulic transmission.  But it makes more practical sense to just make a big, robust 2-cylinder steam engine drive the wheels as its "crankshaft."  Or at least that is the way steam locomotives began their evolution, and they stuck with that premise. 

Steam locomotives do have variable cutoff, which shortens the steam admission as the speed increases in order to reduce backpressure, which becomes a larger impediment as speed increases.  In a way, this is like a transmission, and some might argue that it is a transmission.  But since it does not actually change the force/speed ratio, I would not call it a transmission.  Although shortening admission to accomplish the reduction of backpressure would seem to reduce the total force in the piston stroke.  And if reduction of backpressure results in more speed, maybe it is a transmission.

 

Hello Bucyrus and everybody,

I have to apologize putting some more confusion here by using wrong terms.

Of course I meant transmission. My fault...

In addition, I probably mixed the terms power-plant / prime-mover too much. I meant an engine, whatever kind of, placed on a locomotives frame.

That was my point: The energy produced by the prime mover, being converted to electricity, and then into mechanical work (turning wheels), is so far, in my opinion, the best way for a locomotive.

Kind Regards

Lars

 

--- Edit ---

Here is a nice link to a GE hybrid locomotive...

http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/de/downloads/hybr/Hybrid_onepager_en.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Michael,

as I reread the later part of this thread and postings several times again, the discussion turned to became out what transition-system is better:

A mechanical / reciprocating against an electric one.

The later one does not care if the power-plant / prime-mover of a locomotive is

- a diesel,

- gas

- coal

- hydrogen

or...whatever fueled engine, independent they are internal combustions, approach as a turbine or jet engine.

The last steam-engines were built with 10-15% machine losses (from the Cylinders), new diesels have less than 10%. This should be done with actual engineering, too, but better? No.

'Cause other transition-systems, e.g. hydraulic, never really widely approached, I hardly believe there is a better transition than the electric.

Now, you could have the benefit of a:

- computer-controlled,

- high availability,

- rugged and stable system,

and even could use the braking energy. Electric-engines turn their energy into the power-net back again (commonly used in Europe and other), why not keep the energy into batteries (which also have become better now), placed into a "Tank-car" as Mr. Modelcar suggested?

Steam-engines keep a high potential energy in their boilers, but it takes some time to produce it. With a combustion-engine just start it and off you go...

Turbines work in a small frame of load efficiently. Not saying there would not be an application for this, but a limited one.

Nowadays, even cars (hybrid) are partly driven with electric-motors, to make them more efficient.

Regarding the last posts about TE curves Steam vs. Diesel that:

... Indeed, for locomotives of the same maximum horsepower, the Steam engine has nearly 40% more Tractive Effort continuously available between 0 and 40 mph than the Diesel-electric (the area under the respective Tractive Effort curves) ...

If both engines have same HP they will deliver same HP.

I think there is a lot of confusion about particular engine-Types from both sides, the diesel (First Gen., Second Gen., DC/AC) ones vs. the 4-8-4s, 2-6-6-4 and so far. It is pointless to compare them. Yes, steam-engines were magnified machines, sometimes more powerful than that what we have now, but please have a look at my post earlier: The 5600DBHP Y6B N&W engine will just half win against a 4000DBHP GE-4400AC engine, given a speed range of 0-60mph.

I did not calculate the area beyond their TE-Curves exactly, nevertheless, we compare technology 50 years apart.

Yes, one point is true, with the arrivals of the first and second generation diesels, the railroads were not happy with the speed capabilities of their diesel-engines, because the had to buy many, expensive units to beat steam-locomotives delivering 5000-6000 or more HP. Quite possible that the steamers also had some extra-reserves.

Having a lot of respect, that people achieved many years ago, erecting power plants more than 500tons and running about 70mph, anything else than awesome would be totally inappropriate to describe them, but some must wonder, is there really a need to built more than 4000-6000DBHP freight engines? Even the U.P. ( = U.nlimited P.ower) came to the economic conclusion that smaller, but less powerful units than their 5000-6600HP Double-diesel engines are enough. And no, it was not the reason that if one prime-mover fails, the whole locomotive was out of service, it were just rising maintenance costs (frame cracking).

As far as I know, most RR nowadays are quite happy with their 4000HP engines. The benefit nowadays is: The better transition of energy.

What makes me really think is, how we can use steam as a efficient transition-system? As a turbine? Limited use. Reciprocating/Classic design? The transition-system goes lost while using it.

Condensing concepts are also of limited use.

While we can debate about various kinds of fuel, burning processes, in my opinion, the electric-transition is the best and there is still place to refine it in future. Lets use Cables near superconductor capabilities and maybe we have transmission systems near 99%. Hard to beat with mechanic.

Excitingly waiting your replies!

Kind regards

Lars

Lars,

You raise several interesting points.  I have some random thoughts I would like to add regarding the difference between steam and diesel regarding what you call transition.  Not to nitpick, but if I understand your use of the term, I would call it transmission.  And I suppose even that term can be somewhat ambiguous.  In its most basic sense, transmission would be the transfer of power from the prime mover to the wheels so all locomotives have it in that sense.  However, in a more specific definition, I see the term as referring to a power transfer mechanism that not only transfers the power, but also, can vary the relationship between speed and torque of a particular power level.

As you probably know, diesel locomotives have that kind of transmission just like cars, trucks, buses, bulldozers, etc.  With diesel-electric locomotives, the transmission is electric and accomplished by trading the amperage and voltage, which in turn, trade torque for speed.  I am not completely informed on how this trading torque for speed is accomplished today with AC or even exactly what it is called.  But in the early diesel era, it was accomplished with specific circuit changes between the generator and traction motors, and those changes were called transitions.  So the electrical transmission was accomplished by circuit transition.  But, aside from the method, it was a transmission that accomplished the same thing as any vehicle transmission.  Changing transition electrically was just like shifting gears in a car or truck standard gear transmission.

Steam locomotives, on the other hand, are unique vehicles in that they do not have a transmission.  They are direct drive with no ability to change speed and torque ratios.  It is as if they are in high gear all the time.  This is why they do not fundamentally develop high HP or TE at low speeds.  It is just like getting into a car with a standard manual transmission and starting off in 3^rd gear.  The engine cannot get up to the RPM where it produces its maximum HP until it gets the car up to 50-60 MPH.

Steam locomotives could be built with a transmission, but the added complexity and cost would work against the concept significantly.  What it would amount to would be the reciprocating engine driving into a changeable set of gearing, and from that, the force would be transferred to the wheels.  It could also be done with an electric or hydraulic transmission.  But it makes more practical sense to just make a big, robust 2-cylinder steam engine drive the wheels as its "crankshaft."  Or at least that is the way steam locomotives began their evolution, and they stuck with that premise. 

Steam locomotives do have variable cutoff, which shortens the steam admission as the speed increases in order to reduce backpressure, which becomes a larger impediment as speed increases.  In a way, this is like a transmission, and some might argue that it is a transmission.  But since it does not actually change the force/speed ratio, I would not call it a transmission.  Although shortening admission to accomplish the reduction of backpressure would seem to reduce the total force in the piston stroke.  And if reduction of backpressure results in more speed, maybe it is a transmission.

[Anonymous]

but would drive a generator or alternator just fine.

Yep, just my opinion...

Lars 

[Phoebe Vet]

Lars:

Not bad, just oversimplified.  Turbines work best running at a constant SPEED, but a fuel control or throttle modifies fuel flow and thus power to maintain that speed as the load changes.  Like a deisel, it would not work well mechanically connected but would drive a generator or alternator just fine.

I have no idea how the fuel costs would compare, but the exotic metals required in the hot section make turbines expensive.  But I think Bombardier actually has a turbine powered version of the engine they use on the Acela, but none of their customers seem interested.

Negative:  It still uses fossil fuel.

[Anonymous]

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.

Sorry,

maybe my bad? Maybe my point was put too far at historical locmotives...

Did not mean to suggest a "run full ot" all the time, generally.

My Post were just intended to change same infos about locomotives

Lars 

 

[Phoebe Vet]

I don't know, but I sure do like that portion of the trip between DC & NYC.

[tattooguy67]

My personal opinion is that the railroads should be electrified.

 

My "personal opinion", too.

'though I see the specific difficulties in electrifing U.S RR's with their tasks, (heavy loads, great distances, great losses due the catenary distances and hazourdous environment) The last point, I mean, if the caternary is broken, and you have to set a service team far away to repair it, until repairing that, it could set you an whole RR down. Like the big Blizzards in middle west do.

But even unit coal trains, which deliver fuel to determined power-plants are not electrified. The only recent example of electrics I know so far were some Canadian British Colombia engines.

Are the costs for a caternary really so exsessive?  Why are they so unsorpported in the U.S.?

For example, Sweden has nice ore units trains, power is supplied by water-power-plants and the units are determined to run more than 1000.000miles without any failure. Loads and determined horsepower is quite equal to U.S trains.

Kind regards

Lars 

 

 

 

Well like you say in your post i think it has something to do with size and distance, i am not real good with geography but does anyone know how many Swedens it would take to equal one texas? i mean yes europe has done a lot of electrification but the countries are fairly small and centralized so there is that differance, am i wrong here guys?

Chuck

[Anonymous]

My personal opinion is that the railroads should be electrified.

 

My "personal opinion", too.

'though I see the specific difficulties in electrifing U.S RR's with their tasks, (heavy loads, great distances, great losses due the catenary distances and hazourdous environment) The last point, I mean, if the caternary is broken, and you have to set a service team far away to repair it, until repairing that, it could set you an whole RR down. Like the big Blizzards in middle west do.

But even unit coal trains, which deliver fuel to determined power-plants are not electrified. The only recent example of electrics I know so far were some Canadian British Colombia engines.

Are the costs for a caternary really so exsessive?  Why are they so unsorpported in the U.S.?

For example, Sweden has nice ore units trains, power is supplied by water-power-plants and the units are determined to run more than 1000.000miles without any failure. Loads and determined horsepower is quite equal to U.S trains.

Kind regards

Lars 

 

 

 

[jmlaboda]

Jmlaboda,

This kind of jibberish makes no sense at all and is out of place in the context of these discussions. It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark

Your right... the comment has been removed.  A Republican shouldn't be talking that way, anyways.

[KCSfan]

All of this even as the Bushwacker talks about finding other kinds of fuel sources while his oil buddies are making millions at the expense of families.  If he were to swallow some pride and start talks with Argentina's president there would be some help nearly immediately there, in the form of vegetable based bio-fuels.  Argentina was providing low income people in 11 states with heating fuel for their homes until the Bushwacker stopped such shipments, and that to no cost to the distributers.  I can only hope that the next president, who ever that may be, will be open to the idea of talks because this sort of technology could be of benefit, but not without finding sufficient sources of raw materials.

Jmlaboda,

This kind of jibberish makes no sense at all and is out of place in the context of these discussions. It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark

[tattooguy67]

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.

The fact that coal exports are down considerably would be a good thing for the coal industry, not to mention the local economies of the areas where it is mined.  I honestly do not believe that the cost would sky rocket or have the affect on the economy in comparison to what the dependence of oil has had.  If anything, the effects would be positive.

As far as bio-diesel goes (except for coal based products) you don't have to look far to find advantages to using something like vegetable oil to fire an engine, but you also don't have to look far to see what sort of economic nightmare it could be to the populous at large.  With corn, soy beans and the like going towards such creations the costs to individuals would become staggering, with the common man loosing much of what he needs to survive because of the costs involved.  The fact is is that we could not produce enough produce to make it a viable option, when you factor in the effects on the economy goes.  Trains magazine has had a recent topic on it and you can find many people on the web voicing the same conserns.

On thing that can't be denied is that something has to be done.  Both proponents of diesel and proponents of steam can't deny that.  It has been mentioned here that some economists are claiming that we likely have seen the worse of the oil price jumps (only to have a $16 jump over a two day period right after this was mentioned).  So far EVERY economist that I have heard are saying to expect $5 a gallon gas prices by the end of the summer if not sooner and don't expect them to come down anytime soon.  With the economy taking such a hard hit already with plants and businesses of all kinds already shutting down it may well be that before long no one will be buying much of anything, with gas being beyond the roof and jobs becoming very scarce.

All of this even as the Bushwacker talks about finding other kinds of fuel sources while his oil buddies are making millions at the expense of families.  If he were to swallow some pride and start talks with Argentina's president there would be some help nearly immediately there, in the form of vegetable based bio-fuels.  Argentina was providing low income people in 11 states with heating fuel for their homes until the Bushwacker stopped such shipments, and that to no cost to the distributers.  I can only hope that the next president, who ever that may be, will be open to the idea of talks because this sort of technology could be of benefit, but not without finding sufficient sources of raw materials.

I can only hope thngs will get better but from my vantage point I have some serios doubts.

Ok maybe i am slow in the head but it looks like you just said that bio-diesel and vegtable based fuel is not a viable option and then on the other you berate President Bush for not talking to Hugo Chavez about how he uses vegtable based fuel, did i read that right or not?, also the PR stunt Hugo tried to pull with with Joe Kennedy was just that, a PR stunt, so please keep the politics out of this discussion, you are right we do need to do some thing and soon, but if we start going political on here this will get really ugly really fast and then get locked down and thats no way to run a railroad, thanks.

[wsherrick]

I believe if the railroads converted to coal today, the railroad demand for coal would be less than 2% of the current annual production of coal.

Our railroad just had our twice a year rules qualification class which is administered under the auspices of Norfolk Southern since our railroad has trackage rights into Reading Yard.  In the rules class we were made aware that the NS is limiting the, "tractive effort production," for each train to a maximum of24 axles (4 six axled locomotives or 6 four axled locomotives) or less due to the crippling cost of fuel.  I don't know if they are doing this over the entire system or just in our part of the World.  Train weights and speeds are being lowered in a desperate attempt to lower fuel costs.

Dependency on the diesel electric locomotive is crippling the the overall efficiency and  productivity of the industry as a whole, as well as hurting the Railroad's ability to be competitive against the higher speeds of trucks.

It may be true that the profit margins for current railroad operations are high in relation to what they were say 30 years ago, however; how much of this profit is actual earnings versus fuel surcharges, etc? I don't know for sure.

The point here is that the Railroads have a need to increase capacity and the easiest way to do that is to increase average speeds, i.e. get the freight over the road.  Limiting train speeds and weight certainly can't help in this area.

Now on to another subject.

I read some references to burning Lignite on the past 2 pages or so.  I thought we had covered this earlier in the thread. 

The efficient burning of Lignite was the motivation behind Porta's development of the gas producing firebox. 

If you remember I posted the stats for the Rio Turbio 2-10-2's that perform so well on coal that is one step above plain dirt.

In regard to the Rio Turbio engines the quality of the coal they burn is of utmost importance. It's my fault as I didn't emphasize it enough.

Good Bitumenous Coal has about 14,000 to 15,000 BTU's per pound, around 2% ash and is, "non caking," that is it doesn't easily fuse together when burning.

The ash content is important.

Rio Turbio coal simply can not be burned in a standard firebox.  It has only 10,000 BTU's per pound and over 14% ash content per unit measured. A coal with that much ash will quickly choke up any firebox with clinkers and inert matter.

Porta's firebox is able to burn this terrible coal with amazing results and enough efficiency to get 2 pounds of coal per horsepower per hour out of it.

On a larger scale these efficiencies can be greatly enhanced with more room to design a boiler with optimal proportions as was seen on Wardale's Red Devil.

So with that in mind the Western Railroads would be able to enjoy a huge saving in fuel by burning Lignite.  The Great Northern and Northern Pacific already had designs that could burn this coal successfully so I don't see any problems with it.

 

 

 

 

 

[jmlaboda]

Fuel for thought... here are a page that the Wisconsin & Southern has put on the web in regards to what they have had to do to cope with current fuel prices.  Guess you could say that this is "fuel for thought".

http://wsorrailroad.com/fuel/fuel.html

[Norman Saxon]

" 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.

Two things -

Although there is a loss of about 40% of the BTU factor when converting 9,000 BTU/lb PRB coal to synthetic diesel fuel for use in a steam locomotive, there are byproducts (naptha, electricity) resulting from the conversion process that can be sold on the open market, thus mitigating the economic difference.  By how much I do not know at this time.

Secondly, if we're talking about a blend of synthetic diesel and pulverized coal into a synthetic bunker oil, the 40% loss is reduced by half to 20%.  (I am assuming your solid coal cost includes pulverization since that is the product characteristic we are using for comparison's sake, aka modern coal-fired power plant equivalent.)  So instead of reducing the modern steamer's efficiency from 12% down to 7.2% when converting from straight coal to straight synthetic diesel, it is only reduced down to 9.6% when converting to a 50/50 blend.

So the cost per 100,000 BTU's is lowered from that $6.82 figure you cite for straight synthetic diesel burned in a modern steamer down to, what?  Somewhere in the $4 range or less?

Still not the apex of economic efficiency, but alot closer.  If there are environmental advantages to burning a liquid over a solid, and those environmental costs become quantified in some fashion via legislative mandate, it could make the difference.

 

[jmlaboda]

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.

The fact that coal exports are down considerably would be a good thing for the coal industry, not to mention the local economies of the areas where it is mined.  I honestly do not believe that the cost would sky rocket or have the affect on the economy in comparison to what the dependence of oil has had.  If anything, the effects would be positive.

As far as bio-diesel goes (except for coal based products) you don't have to look far to find advantages to using something like vegetable oil to fire an engine, but you also don't have to look far to see what sort of economic nightmare it could be to the populous at large.  With corn, soy beans and the like going towards such creations the costs to individuals would become staggering, with the common man loosing much of what he needs to survive because of the costs involved.  The fact is is that we could not produce enough produce to make it a viable option, when you factor in the effects on the economy goes.  Trains magazine has had a recent topic on it and you can find many people on the web voicing the same conserns.

On thing that can't be denied is that something has to be done.  Both proponents of diesel and proponents of steam can't deny that.  It has been mentioned here that some economists are claiming that we likely have seen the worse of the oil price jumps (only to have a $16 jump over a two day period right after this was mentioned).  So far EVERY economist that I have heard are saying to expect $5 a gallon gas prices by the end of the summer if not sooner and don't expect them to come down anytime soon.  With the economy taking such a hard hit already with plants and businesses of all kinds already shutting down it may well be that before long no one will be buying much of anything, with gas being beyond the roof and jobs becoming very scarce.

I can only hope thngs will get better but from my vantage point I have some serios doubts.

[jmlaboda]

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.

It is a bit hard for me to grasp the implications of such a monster of a locomotive since I was born around the time the few examples were put to rest, but it yet seems to be something that could be proven to be a "good thing".  Coupled with AC traction motors such a beast could likely pull a whole railroad up (God forbid) if someone ever decided to anchor it to the tracks.  If powered trucks could be included on the tender it would be nearly impossible for anything else to beat it.  This would be one form of modern steam that would be greatly of use!!!

[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

 

[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?

[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.  

[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.

 

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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 ....