Could steam make a comeback?

[nanaimo73]

 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.

 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.

[CopCarSS]

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]

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.

[CopCarSS]

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.

[Paul Milenkovic]

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.

[tattooguy67]

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.

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.

[MichaelSol]

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]

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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

 

 

 

[CopCarSS]

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:

1. If the economics of the matter did work out that because of the oil market and the cost differences steam was again competitive, wouldn't that increase the demand (and thus price) for coal? Thus, wouldn't we have to see a major difference in the economic feasibility of of diesel and steam technology before steam could again be considered?
2. If one simplifies the process in which we turn chemical energy to mechanical energy wouldn't it look like this:

• Steam - Combustion of hydrocarbon/air mixture to produce heat used to convert water to it's gasseous state. The resulting expansion of steam is used to drive a piston.
• Diesel - Explosive combustion of hydrocarbon/air mixture to drive a piston.

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?

[Anonymous]

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

[nanaimo73]

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.

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?

[tattooguy67]

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.

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!. 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!.

[MichaelSol]

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.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

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]

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

[MichaelSol]

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?

 

 

[CopCarSS]

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.

[tattooguy67]

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.

 

Ok well when was this brand new steam locomotive that you speak of built? 2007? or 1947? thats 60 years of advancment to consider, think about that, take almost any thing that was around in 1947 and compare it to the same type of thing around now and then tell me that if we put our minds to it we could not make a viable coal burning steam engine that would require less work to operate then one from the 40's. Also my wife and i took the Timberliner excursion on the Pere Marquette 1225 from Kawkawlin MI to Grayling MI last fall, now i can't remember the actual mileage but i do believe it was over a hundred miles one way(and if any body knows please chime in here) and if i am not mistaken(and again a may be here) it was pulling i think around 20 85 foot passenger cars and they where all packed as far as i could see, now we were supposed to have a three hour layover in Grayling but i think it was shortened a little, then came back to Kawkawlin, did that saturday and sunday, 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, and again when was that engine built? the 40's or early 50's?. I am not trying to argue that steam is better then diesel, what i am saying is that the most advanced diesel loco in the world is not worth a plug nickle if the fuel to run it is either not availible or so expensive that no one can afford the goods shipped useing it, whereas we do have a lot of coal availible.

[MichaelSol]

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]

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.

 

[nanaimo73]

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.

[Mr_Ash]

If steam does make a comeback I hope they have whistles not modern horns

[MichaelSol]

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.

That's what bias is all about, and what prevents genuine analysis and certainly discussion from occuring. The bias is built in and cannot be refuted since it is an absolute that is used to define the debate. 

[nanaimo73]

 In the mid 1970s, there was some excitement about the development of a new coal powered steam loco.  As I recall, it would use pressed and packaged coal, and the loco had the filters and whatnot to keep the pollution under control.  This created a lot of excitement, but it soon petered out.  I don't recall if a prototype was ever built, but the plans were ready to go as I recall.   Perhaps this was in Trains magazine, but I am not sure.

The ACE 3000 was to be a modern steam locomotive that could compete with a GP40. This concept was based on a 300 psi 4 cylinder 4-8-2 featuring balanced drive. Estimated cost of a 200 engine order was roughly $1 million each. Designs changed as time passed, and ACE 3000-4 and ACE 3000-8 diagrams appeared. May 25, 1983 saw the COALS Ltd. partnership announced. Coal Oriented Advanced Locomotives Systems included Burlington Northern, Chessie System and Babcock and Wilcox. The COALS partnership fell apart later due to differences between BN and B&W.

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. I don't know what GE will be building in 10 years, but it will be better than the ES44AC.

[mobilman44]

Hi!

In the mid 1970s, there was some excitement about the development of a new coal powered steam loco.  As I recall, it would use pressed and packaged coal, and the loco had the filters and whatnot to keep the pollution under control.  This created a lot of excitement, but it soon petered out.  I don't recall if a prototype was ever built, but the plans were ready to go as I recall.   Perhaps this was in Trains magazine, but I am not sure.

True, we do have a "buttload" of coal, but the btus extracted from it leaves a gap between what you can get out of diesel fuel - although good ol Yankee knowhow today may have closed that gap up some.  But I seriously doubt if anyone will explore this and put the money into the manufacture/design of a prototype at this point in time. 

Mobilman44 

[MichaelSol]

Ok i guess as the OP on this round of this discusion i have to clarify once more on my original thoughts, i am seeing a lot of comments on the increased maintenance costs of steam as opposed to diesel engines, based on what? the maintenance figures from the 30's 40's and early 50's?

Good point.

I referred to "mythologies" above, and this is one of them. It is of the same sort of rhetorical mush that somehow can only muster, as a supposed counterpoint, well, gee, a whole industry couldn't be wrong -- as though the U.S. auto industry has been spot-on the past forty years, the U.S. Steel industry didn't march lockstop into oblivion, and U.S. tire manufacturers didn't do esssentially the same thing. Whole industries do make mistakes, and a person has to be presumptively blind, or very young and inexperienced, to even attempt to reasonably argue otherwise.

The U.S. Rail industry has done no better, but is protected from oblivion by its own pedestrian necessity: it has to exist no matter what, and so its mistakes show up differently, depending on the Age: either regulatory protection and government assistance, regulatory freedom, government assistance, or regulation masquerading as deregulation, and government assistance. If it makes a mistake, well, live with it: what's the alternative? The industry isn't going to admit a mistake; which CEO goes first? The 100-ton car debacle is about as close to a concession of failed assumptions as you are going to see in the rail industry.

Is there anything inherent in coal generated steam power that is labor intensive? Not today. Steam installations operating at pressures much higher than former steam locomotives generate most of our electric power with low maintenance cost per kw/hr, very long economic service lives, high efficiency, and remote operation.

Your point is a good one. The labor needs of the 1940s, maintaining a steam fleet overworked and encompassing a fleet 40% of which had been built before 1915, are assumed to be Steam's permanent labor burden into 2008 and for all time; that Steam technology would have been the only industrial process to have gained no productivity increases in the past 60 years.

And why would that be? Because it is necessary to the assumption -- the belief systems; that's all. And that is what is highly implausible, not that Steam is inherently inefficent as a motive power tool.

 

 

[carnej1]

 I am fascinated by the various proposals for modern steam power (google "the ultimate steam page" and "Marty Bane's 21st century steam" site) but the fact of the matter is the diesel electric has a corner on railroad traction technology in North America and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. There are already some Coal Liquefaction pilot projects (a mature technology used by the Axis in WWII and by South Africa still today) which produce extremely high quality, low sulphur synthetic diesel and the economics of oil production are starting to make this concept workable. Back in the 80's there was a lot of railroad interest in using cheaper fuels (esp. Coal) which led to proposals such as the ACE 3000 as well as GE's research into coal slurry fueled diesel engines. Interestingly at the time, the guy in charge of the GE program stated that he felt that coal derived synfuels was the way to go.

 I have wondered about Railpowers CNGL gas turbine/electric proposal (try google) and whether it would be economical to operate on coal derived syngas but AFAIK the railroads have not shown interest in it.  

[selector]

It's all good, tattooguy.  Steam gets under the skin of most railroad fans, and what the bearer feels is up to their personal biases.  If it causes and itch, not so pleasant, but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, as it does for steam lovers, then there is a lot of positive (and pent up) emotion.  Those who have not experienced steam in their lives truly wonder what all the quaint fuss is about.  Can't blame them...a Model T doesn't do it for me, either.

But, I did grow up with steam, and feel a huge pull toward them when I see them in running order.  There's something about them.  And your question was a thoughtful one.  It's just that steam, like so many things, evokes a certain reminiscence that was perhaps not what you were thinking.  So, we who love steam have a response set that thinks, "Rods and cylinders with horizontal boilers, bells, steam whistles...you get the picture.

The acrimony is going to be there for any subject with a lot of emotional component to it for half of those reading.   And, yes, it is very personal.

BTW, this was a very friendly conversation of this type.  You shoulda been here for the nasty ones.

Best wishes to you, and I hope you won't feel you have to refrain from asking such questions.

[tattooguy67]

Ok i guess as the OP on this round of this discusion i have to clarify once more on my original thoughts, i am seeing a lot of comments on the increased maintenance costs of steam as opposed to diesel engines, based on what? the maintenance figures from the 30's 40's and early 50's? i bet we could do that with lots of things and come out the same, like the condo i live in that was built in the mid 90's would compare much better then one built in the 30's-40's, better wiring, plumbing, insulation ect., heck i bet you that the maintenance costs and fuel efficiency of a modern diesel are better then those of an F3 or F7, or take power plants, i am sure that a steam generating power plant built in 1920 took a lot more to operate and did not produce nearly as much power  but far more pollution then one built now would. Again i am not talking about recreating bolt for bolt the technology of the 30's here, what i was trying to get at was the fact is with the rising cost of diesel, that our refineries are all getting older and we can't seem to build any new ones, that not only do the railroads but also the trucks that move most of our goods and food use diesel fuel that maybe instead of waiting for the other shoe to drop and having a loaf of bread cost $10 in january because the wheat has to be trucked in on $8 a gallon diesel because 3 of our refineries are off line because-fill in the blank here, that maybe for once instead of waiting for the crisis to be upon us we should maybe think ahead a little before it gets to the point that we have to commandeer the UP 844 or the Pere Marquette 1225 to run food to starving people, and what i am saying is that the car in my driveway right now is light years ahead of a model T of 1920 then maybe we could use the same advancments in technologies to use an energy source that we have in abundnace in this country, sorry for the long post and sorry that the original has caused so much acrimony.