....By the way Paul, I did ride {passenger trains}, behind K-4's and of course when we arrived at Harrisburg the mighty GG-1 became the unit of power and boy one could really tell the difference....
First difference was the dirt stopped accumulating on the window sill.....But as you indicated, it sure wasn't recently.
The next difference, I remember it pushing one back in the seat with it's surge of pulling forward and off to the 90 mph "races".
Quentin
IF... steam was to make a comeback on the rails... (and that is a big if), it would not be in the form of reciprocating rod and piston drivers. It would be a fuel oil powered cogeneration boiler/turbine setup. Cogeneration can achieve efficiency levels in the 90% range, however, these efficiency levels can only be maintained if the locomotive is actually working (pulling freight). Otherwise, like your car at a stoplight, it will have an efficiency level of 0%.
So we are back to cogeneration in a large facility powering an electric locomotive. Been done already. Way too expensive to maintain I guess (must have been some reason all of our rails don't use it, it's not because its cheaper).
Modelcar wrote: ....IRONROOSTER: You might note the original discussion of the possibility of reviving "steam" and powered by some form of coal was not a discussion whether it would be better than a "modern' diesel-electric unit....It was a thought with the extreme escalating of oil prices and perhaps what might be possible with "steam"....Believe that's worth "talking about". In "our" case here it sure qualifys as a railroad subject. We didn't say it was better,etc...Oh well what's the use.
....IRONROOSTER:
You might note the original discussion of the possibility of reviving "steam" and powered by some form of coal was not a discussion whether it would be better than a "modern' diesel-electric unit....It was a thought with the extreme escalating of oil prices and perhaps what might be possible with "steam"....
Believe that's worth "talking about". In "our" case here it sure qualifys as a railroad subject. We didn't say it was better,etc...Oh well what's the use.
Some did. And of course, implicitly it is, as well. But it's too entangled so I'll accept that my original attempt failed and of course a failure at humor can rarely be rectified by explanation. This not having been that rare occurence, it's best to just let it pass on. My apologies for the confusion I have sown.
Paul
selector wrote:Paul, help us out here. What are you getting at?
Paul, help us out here. What are you getting at?
Sorry, I was just attempting to humorously point out that this thread has predictively devolved into that old dead horse about steam being better diesels.
All the railroads have switched, including the last major hold out - China, so I think it's pretty obvious that steam is not going to make a comeback. And the railroads at the time all thought they were saving money. So either all these obscure studies are leaving out essential factors or there was a massive conspiracy by the diesel makers. By the time you factor in maintenance, water pick up, crew costs, etc., etc., the steam locomotive doesn't work - that was the railroad's conclusion and they "pay the piper" so to speak.
Just like open platform truss rod wooden passenger cars, cabooses, and ball signals the steam locomotive is charming but it's from the 19th century and the railroads have moved on. Don't get me wrong, I love the old steam locomotives and all the rest, but their time has passed.
Modelcar wrote: ....I seriously doubt if we'll see any group advance the effort to promote, design, fund and prototype a 21th century version of a working {steam}, powered engine.I do think a design, using current design thoughts outside of box could be brought to life and would have surprising capibilities. How productive it might be would not be known until a working prototype was built and installed on an extensive testing program.Seems the thought rattled a fair amount of cages though....
....I seriously doubt if we'll see any group advance the effort to promote, design, fund and prototype a 21th century version of a working {steam}, powered engine.
I do think a design, using current design thoughts outside of box could be brought to life and would have surprising capibilities. How productive it might be would not be known until a working prototype was built and installed on an extensive testing program.
Seems the thought rattled a fair amount of cages though....
"Thinking outside the box" probably isn't necessary in this case. If you note, the ACE 3000 design was a fire tube boiler, generating steam for a double expansion recip steam engine, designs over a century old. Also, steam boiler technology and cleaner coal burning technology didn't quit with the death of the steam locomotive in this country. Power plants and some commercial ships still use steam, so the boiler technology was still advancing. Coal generates about half the electricity in this country, and with the enviornmental regulations, obviously cleaner burning coal technology is out there. No need to "reinvent the wheel," just combine the existing technologies. I also agree with those that have speculated that a 21st century steam locomotive externally won't look anything like the classic designs from the end of steam era. There is a good possibility, however, that it will look closer than the ACE 3000 drawings.
To your other point, recall from the ACE 3000 R&D phase, that this was supported by private industries that would most likely be supplying major components should the concept, or any derivative, go into production.
IRONROOSTER wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ... Yep, everyone in the railroad industry agreed that steam locomotives were best - that's why to this day you can still the Big Boys thundering across the Plains and K4's with their Belpaire fireboxes pulling Amtrak passenger trains into Union Station in Washington D.C. That didn't happen, those from GM suckered the railroad execs and stole our steam when we were . How that it is now Paul
MichaelSol wrote: Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ...
Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ...
Yep, everyone in the railroad industry agreed that steam locomotives were best - that's why to this day you can still the Big Boys thundering across the Plains and K4's with their Belpaire fireboxes pulling Amtrak passenger trains into Union Station in Washington D.C.
That didn't happen, those from GM suckered the railroad execs and stole our steam when we were . How that it is now
Modelcar wrote: Seems the thought rattled a fair amount of cages though....
Well, there are some "cages" that rattle pretty easily.
IRONROOSTER wrote:Yep, everyone in the railroad industry agreed that steam locomotives were best - that's why to this day you can still the Big Boys thundering across the Plains and K4's with their Belpaire fireboxes pulling Amtrak passenger trains into Union Station in Washington D.C.
Actually, the specific reference was to the effect of different motive power types on track structure, but that's OK, nobody's handing out awards for attention spans here ...
MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies? I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry."Virtually all the studies I have seen." Virtually the only study you have seen on this topic is the HF Brown paper. Everyone can see that. ...Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. ...
trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies? I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry."Virtually all the studies I have seen." Virtually the only study you have seen on this topic is the HF Brown paper. Everyone can see that.
MichaelSol wrote: trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies? I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry.
trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> What studies?
MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip>
Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip>
What studies?
I no longer take the time to look them up. Sorry.
"Virtually all the studies I have seen."
Virtually the only study you have seen on this topic is the HF Brown paper. Everyone can see that.
No, it happens to be the one that, thirty five years later, I happen to have a copy of that's not packed away. I recall some AAR research papers, and a variety of references seen over 40 years. But, and in particular for people with "attitude", I just don't see the point in taking the time to look them up, and it doesn't matter whether you post as "cementmixer," "cornmaze" or "trans logis".
People invest in their mythologies and my experience is that studies and research have little impact on belief systems, even as the same individuals almost never can come up with even a single learned study to the contrary.
Brown's paper was published in the largest circulation engineering journal of its era, and peer reviewed not only by GM reps, but by the rail industry at large. His contentions on the point were not contested. Maybe they were all just asleep, or pehaps you are simply more knowledgeable than they were in that era. Why don't you set them all straight?
In any case, you can believe it or not believe it and I will sleep just as well at night either way.
MichaelSol wrote:"Small diameter driving wheels, and lower centre of gravity do produce greater track and rail stresses. Rail 'burns' from slipping driving wheels are more prevalent with diesel operation than with former steam. It is often claimed that the change from steam to diesel has reduced the cost of track maintenance. Maintenance of way costs have been carefully examined over the period studied to verify this claim. No indication can be found that the change in the type of motive power has produced any savings in this field. Such costs have increased slightly.." H. F. Brown at p. 273-274.
"Small diameter driving wheels, and lower centre of gravity do produce greater track and rail stresses. Rail 'burns' from slipping driving wheels are more prevalent with diesel operation than with former steam. It is often claimed that the change from steam to diesel has reduced the cost of track maintenance. Maintenance of way costs have been carefully examined over the period studied to verify this claim. No indication can be found that the change in the type of motive power has produced any savings in this field. Such costs have increased slightly.." H. F. Brown at p. 273-274.
One of the reasons that the Pennsy went with side-rod drives on the DD1 was that a high center of gravity reduced the lateral forces on the rails - the Pennsy set up a special test track to measure track forces. The explanation is to think of an inverted pendulum - a higher center of gravity means less force exerted for a given lateral displacement. These same tests had shown that an asymmetric wheel arrangement produced lower lateral forces than a symmetric wheel arrangement. The Pennsy had to re-learn some of these lessons a quarter century later when evaluating the R-1 vs the GG-1 (both had geared quill drives which should be easier on the track than nose suspended traction motors of equivalent ratings).
Typical steam locomotives didn't have the torque reserves common to most series wound tracion motors (I'm defining torque reserve as the peak torque minus the torque needed to slip the drivers). In addition, slipping in a steam locomotive is a lot more obvious than slipping on an electric or diesel electric locomotive.
The one area where diesel locomotives reduced the cost of track maintenance was the elimination of dynamic augment of high speed operation. The whole point of the duplex drives was to minimize the dynamic augment.
MichaelSol wrote:I used to take the time and trouble to cite these things on this forum, and learned that "studies" generally don't matter to most people, especially the ones whose minds are made up. Having learned that extending that courtesy to people was pretty much a waste of time, since it was rarely extended back, I no longer take the time to look them up. And the ones who demanded them, were least likely to read them. Sorry.
I used to take the time and trouble to cite these things on this forum, and learned that "studies" generally don't matter to most people, especially the ones whose minds are made up. Having learned that extending that courtesy to people was pretty much a waste of time, since it was rarely extended back, I no longer take the time to look them up. And the ones who demanded them, were least likely to read them. Sorry.
Fiddle sticks.
trans logis wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization What studies?
MichaelSol wrote: Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization
Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization
Here's the comment I have at my fingertips:
MichaelSol wrote:Virtually all of the studies I have seen <snip> show that the costs of track maintenance increased, albeit slightly, as a result of dieselization
If the question is really, "Can coal burning locomotives be developed," the answer is yes. They might be turbines (although the experiments half a century ago were less than satisfactory) or they might be gasifiers generating coal gas to burn in an internal combustion engine. They might even be old-time piston types (possibly utilizing the ideas put forward by Bill Withuhn to drastically reduce dynamic augment.) If, OTOH, the question is, "Would it make economic sense to do so?" including ALL the costs (labor, manufacture of new parts, infrastructure...) the answer is - not very likely.
IMHO, the most probable use of coal for railroad propulsion lies in the realm of using it as a base stock for liquid fuel production - with electrification fed from fixed coal-burning steam plants as a distant second.
Chuck
....Yes, that's the same illustration of the proposal I found. No, I don't think it was articulated. I note in my reading to refresh my thoughts on it....it was designed to have "dynamic braking" using the cylinders with opposing pressures. That's an improvement on the "old" steam engine designs not having been designed to handle that function.
Modelcar wrote: ....Tom, do you remember what the final drive system was on the drawings for the ACE3000 unit.....? Was it mechanical or did they propose traction motors....or even turbine with gearing being the final drive....I don't think it had side rods and cylinders to connect the driving wheels. I just don't remember what design drive system it had. Perhaps we could pull up some drawings on here of it....Edit: Just found a drawing of it....and to my surprise it was to be a 4-8-2 wheel arrangement setup.....2 high press. and 2 low press. cylinders with inside drive rods. I thought I remembered they had a completely different concept for the final drive mechanism...Humm.
....Tom, do you remember what the final drive system was on the drawings for the ACE3000 unit.....? Was it mechanical or did they propose traction motors....or even turbine with gearing being the final drive....I don't think it had side rods and cylinders to connect the driving wheels. I just don't remember what design drive system it had. Perhaps we could pull up some drawings on here of it....
Edit: Just found a drawing of it....and to my surprise it was to be a 4-8-2 wheel arrangement setup.....2 high press. and 2 low press. cylinders with inside drive rods. I thought I remembered they had a completely different concept for the final drive mechanism...Humm.
It was a 4-4-4-2 wheel arrangement, but I don't think the two driver sets were articulated. A picture:
http://paintshop.railfan.net/images/moldover/ace3000-4.html
They dreamed up several other variations, but unfortunately, it never went to the prototype stage.
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html
wjstix wrote: If it were going to happen, it probably would have happened back with the ACE 3000 project of the early eighties. At that time the price of coal was very low compared to oil, and desinging and building a super-insulated effiecient steam engine to burn a slurry of coal might have been feasible. However, that price gap was caused largely by a temporary situation: the Iran-Iraq war, which started with both sides destroying the other's pipelines and oil shipping ports. This made something like 40% of the world's oil unavailable so the price of oil skyrocketed and caused massive inflation and a recession c. 1979-80. However within a few years both countries had found alternate ways to ship out oil, and were selling it as quickly and cheaply as possible to get money for weapons, causing prices to fall (and the economy to pick up) c.1984.
If it were going to happen, it probably would have happened back with the ACE 3000 project of the early eighties. At that time the price of coal was very low compared to oil, and desinging and building a super-insulated effiecient steam engine to burn a slurry of coal might have been feasible.
However, that price gap was caused largely by a temporary situation: the Iran-Iraq war, which started with both sides destroying the other's pipelines and oil shipping ports. This made something like 40% of the world's oil unavailable so the price of oil skyrocketed and caused massive inflation and a recession c. 1979-80. However within a few years both countries had found alternate ways to ship out oil, and were selling it as quickly and cheaply as possible to get money for weapons, causing prices to fall (and the economy to pick up) c.1984.
And also a good timeline to follow the rise and fall of the original ACE 3000 project. When the oil prices fell, so did support for the project.
To add to what others have stated above, a 21st century steam locomotive most likely will not look anything like the ones built in the 1950's and earlier. The proposed ACE 3000 design would give the most likely look at what you'll see on the rails if this gets to the prototype stage. A lot of engineering data and research was done with the project, and to develop this 21st century steam locomotive, this would provide the best starting point, since a lot of the ground work is already done.
....Your correct, it did spark quite a bit of conversation. I believe that's good. Think we should get to "talking" about a lot of problems in America and see what we could do to overcome them.
Edit: By "we", I refer to people involved in said problem{s}.
.....That seems to be the question at hand.
Today's crude prices should head us in some direction.
Modelcar wrote: .....If a "new" steam powered unit would ever become reality I believe the final drive would be traction motors. Too much advantage with them to ignore....including dynamic braking.
.....If a "new" steam powered unit would ever become reality I believe the final drive would be traction motors. Too much advantage with them to ignore....including dynamic braking.
So you're talking a miniature steam power plant generating electricity for traction motors? I guess the question is: What will that power plant burn?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.