Michael,
I don't have the resources you have, but I plan to look into some numbers when I have some free time. I'm still a little dubious about the whole idea. If the savings were that substantial, there would be more than just a couple webpages here and there dedicated to the concept of modern steam.
Increasing efficiency on any steam locomotive generally means added complexity (e.g. using triple expansion designs and such). The problem gets further compounded by trying to engineer that added complexity into a mobile design. Throw in modern environmental regulations, and it all adds up to a highly complex design that would seem to be tough to engineer into something as small as a locomotive.
Of course, it all gets easier as scale increases, so electrification seems a natural course. Then again, the billions of dollars and years that it would take to establish all that infrastructure hardly seems like an answer for the pressing concern of what to do now.
I don't think steam is the answer in that respect, either. The infrastructure necessary to support a return to steam locomtion, while easier to put in place than electrification, would still take a monumental investment of time and money.
While admittedly not very informed, the short term answer to me still seems to point towards internal combustion locomotion. Whether that involves coal gassification, recovery of oil from oil shale and/or oil sands, establishing friendlier sources of conventional crude or conquest of the world starting with the mid-east, I don't know.
I think I'll be spending some time at the library in the near future.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
MichaelSol wrote:What was the horsepower of the turbines?
IIRC, the first generation was 4500 HP and second generation was 8500 HP. I also seem to recall that a few of the latter were boosted to 10,000 HP.
CopCarSS wrote: I don't have the resources you have, but I plan to look into some numbers when I have some free time. I'm still a little dubious about the whole idea. If the savings were that substantial, there would be more than just a couple webpages here and there dedicated to the concept of modern steam.
Well, I'm not much of an internet guy, and I can't evaluate the quality of the thought or concept by whether or not its on the internet.
My calculations regarding current coal vs current diesel fuel are just that: current. That's been changing quickly. The people that actually work with these concepts for a living aren't creating webpages for the public's benefit: particularly for proprietary information regarding economic decision making for internal corporate strategic planning purposes. Such information would not, in fact, be on the internet.
U.S. Railways have engaged in perhaps 30 serious long distance electrification studies over the past 25 years. You won't find them on the internet, either, even though they have little proprietary value at this point.
I don't know if its an irony, or a careful caveat, to note that information with genuine economic value is generally not on the internet, whereas information with little genuine economic value seems to be the reason the internet exists.
CopCarSS wrote: MichaelSol wrote:What was the horsepower of the turbines? IIRC, the first generation was 4500 HP and second generation was 8500 HP. I also seem to recall that a few of the latter were boosted to 10,000 HP.
I know nothing about turbines, but the posted maintenance plus fuel cost numbers look very good even on a hp ton mile basis.
Should I assume that those figures did not reflect other key considerations such as ownership cost or economic service life? What was wrong with the turbines?
MichaelSol wrote:Well, I'm not much of an internet guy, and I can't evaluate the quality of the thought or concept by whether or not its on the internet. My calculations regarding current coal vs current diesel fuel are just that: current. That's been changing quickly. The people that actually work with these concepts for a living aren't creating webpages for the public's benefit: particularly for proprietary information regarding economic decision making for internal corporate strategic planning purposes. Such information would not, in fact, be on the internet.U.S. Railways have engaged in perhaps 30 serious long distance electrification studies over the past 25 years. You won't find them on the internet, either, even though they have little proprietary value at this point. I don't know if its an irony, or a careful caveat, to note that information with genuine economic value is generally not on the internet, whereas information with little genuine economic value seems to be the reason the internet exists.
What I'm saying is that beyond a few projects that I've seen referenced on the 'net (ACE, for example), I haven't heard of any recent studies into the viability of modern steam locomotion. In fact, the reference to the 'net was meant in a similar manner to your last paragraph. While by no means an exhaustive study of the matter (far from it, in fact), all I've been able to uncover regarding modern steam locomotion involves pages like the Ultimate Steam page.
You referenced electrification studies above. Do you know of any major studies into the viability of modern steam? I would have to believe that if the numbers had been crunched in any meaningful way, a railroad like NS would have some interest in the matter if there was even a shred of feasibility.
MichaelSol wrote:I know nothing about turbines, but the posted maintenance plus fuel cost numbers look very good even on a hp ton mile basis. Should I assume that those figures did not reflect other key considerations such as ownership cost or economic service life? What was wrong with the turbines?
I am also very limited on my knowledge of turbines, but I seem to remember hearing that they were fueled with heavier petroleum (again, if memory is serving me, it seems like Bunker Oil was the fuel of choice). It seems that another industry (plastics, maybe?) found use for the same product that Uncle Pete was using to fuel the turbines and fuel prices sky-rocketed because of it.
Hopefully someone knowledgable about the turbines can jump in and add some meaningful information on them.
Ouch Michael, you got me...
My bad!
You are right, I dismanteld myself by not looking what ton/miles they achived...
The Turbines had 4500hp, early, and 8500hp-10000hp (Big Blow)
Hope to provide some data later...
Of course, if the Big Boy would have done the gtm as 4 diesels, than the steamer
would run cheaper...
Was that true at that times? 336.12$ fuel costs vs 145.14$ for the Challenger?
Very interesting... What's yours source?
But at least, do not you agree with me that a new kind of burning process has to developed first, in order to provide same effecienty as gas burning engines or processes? Steam turbines are just used in big appliances so far, for trains they may not be so useful...
Think you wrote it already here, the best would be a centered power source, suplling electric trains.
Best regards
Lars
Lars Loco wrote: Was that true at that times? 336.12$ fuel costs vs 145.14$ for the Challenger?Very interesting... What's yours source
Very interesting... What's yours source
Well, you!
Lars Loco wrote: But at least, do not you agree with me that a new kind of burning process has to developed first, in order to provide same effecienty as gas burning engines or processes?
But at least, do not you agree with me that a new kind of burning process has to developed first, in order to provide same effecienty as gas burning engines or processes?
No, because earlier in the thread, the adjusted cost of mineral coal at this point -- adjusted for 6% efficiency -- is substantially less than the adjusted cost of diesel fuel at this point -- adjusted for 32% efficiency.
Diesel fuel costs are quickly approaching the point where the work actually provided is just about three times the cost of mineral coal, for the work actually provided based on Steam technology of 1950.
Selecting an artificial percentage figure of some higher efficiency level for external combustion steam engines provides some tantalizing thoughts on cost efficiency, but a realistic assessment of that efficiency as being between 6% and 15% already shows a substantial cost advantage at current prices or prospective prices within the near term.
No, not just the Chal.
At hp ratings: 6000hp diesel unit (you may write 5400hp, but U.P calculated with probably with 6k)
Challenger: 5000hp
BB: 6000hp (you may say 5400hp)
and so on...
I beg your pardon, its already midnight here...
Michael, I am right!
See the diesels as a consist: you pay 145.14$ for the steamer to move 1000tons a mile and
84.03% for the diesel, regardless they are 4 units or 1 unit.
The maintance of 4 F3 was beyond one BB, but have to look at Don Strack's page first...
Lars Loco wrote: 84.03% for the diesel, regardless they are 4 units or 1 unit.
This makes no sense to me. Four diesel units moving 4,000 unit miles, can't be the same as one diesel unit moving 1,000 unit miles.
However, what data from a real railroad shows is this, and this is very interesting. The cost of maintenance difference, including labor, between Steam and Diesel-electric in this particular fleet was almost non-existent, but fuel cost obviously was a key difference; although I have a sense that the actual cost of diesel fuel was declining during this period, but no numbers to show it. Financing costs are not included. [Click to enlarge].
The point of this thread is speculation about the return of steam for railroad motive power. The implication is that such a return would be driven by the high price of oil, and specifically that steam power could directly burn coal, as opposed to converting coal to liquid fuel that could be utilized in a diesel engine. I can think of several variations of coal fired steam locomotion:
1) A coal fired boiler, producing steam for a 2-cylinder, reciprocating engine that is directly coupled to the drivers, or some multiple of this arrangement.
2) A coal fired boiler, producing steam for a turbine that turns an alternator, which provides electric current to drive conventional traction motors.
3) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power a reciprocating engine with 4-8 cylinders that would be better balanced than the conventional 2-cylinder, directly coupled engines, and operate at a higher speed. Such an engine could drive an alternator, which provides electric current to drive conventional traction motors.
4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission.
5) Some version of a coal fired gas producer that would drive either a turbine or a reciprocating engine, which in turn would drive an alternator, which would produce electric current to drive conventional traction motors.
I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.
I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.
Bucyrus wrote: 4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission.I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.
A torque converter or transmission isn't necessary with a reciprocating steam engine. Unlike an internal combustion engine, they can come to a complete stop when the train is stopped. A diesel is idling (running at low RPM) all the time. Steam pressure, as opposed to exploding fuel/air mixture provides the power and is controlled by a valve (throttle).
Michael, your last graphic seems to be in keeping with a figure I read about almost three years ago in this or another forum, and that is that diesels were averaging 13 point something years before their replacement or significant rebuilding/third line maintenance costs came due. Do you feel that your chart is supportive of that contention?
-Crandell
selector wrote: Michael, your last graphic seems to be in keeping with a figure I read about almost three years ago in this or another forum, and that is that diesels were averaging 13 point something years before their replacement or significant rebuilding/third line maintenance costs came due. Do you feel that your chart is supportive of that contention?
Hmmm, I would have to think about that; it isn't jumping out at me. An analytical problem for examining Diesel-electric cost curves using undifferentiated fleet data is that they combine the results of Yard Diesel-electrics, which are far, far superior to their Steam counterparts in efficiency and comparable in life span, with Road Diesel-electrics which show much lower efficiency and life span on a cost of operation, including overhaul, basis.
H.F. Brown pointed out this disparity vividly. The "standard curve" then makes the Road diesel look better than its actual performance, while obscuring the yeoman service of the Yard diesel in actual service. In the opposite fashion, such cost curves obscure the economic strengths of Road Steam, by incorporating the acknowledged inefficiencies of Yard Steam.
TomDiehl wrote: Bucyrus wrote: 4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission.I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.A torque converter or transmission isn't necessary with a reciprocating steam engine. Unlike an internal combustion engine, they can come to a complete stop when the train is stopped. A diesel is idling (running at low RPM) all the time. Steam pressure, as opposed to exploding fuel/air mixture provides the power and is controlled by a valve (throttle).
Tom,
I understand your point that steam engines can be completely controlled by the throttle. However, I was thinking about the transmission for the purpose of matching the engine power curve to the locomotive speed and load. This particular concept, when in low gear, would be similar to a Shay.
Bucyrus wrote: The point of this thread is speculation about the return of steam for railroad motive power. The implication is that such a return would be driven by the high price of oil, and specifically that steam power could directly burn coal, as opposed to converting coal to liquid fuel that could be utilized in a diesel engine. I can think of several variations of coal fired steam locomotion: 1) A coal fired boiler, producing steam for a 2-cylinder, reciprocating engine that is directly coupled to the drivers, or some multiple of this arrangement. 2) A coal fired boiler, producing steam for a turbine that turns an alternator, which provides electric current to drive conventional traction motors. 3) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power a reciprocating engine with 4-8 cylinders that would be better balanced than the conventional 2-cylinder, directly coupled engines, and operate at a higher speed. Such an engine could drive an alternator, which provides electric current to drive conventional traction motors. 4) A coal fired boiler, producing steam to power multiple reciprocating engines with 4-8 cylinders with each engine driving one power truck through a torque converter or some form of hydraulic or hydraulic/mechanical transmission. 5) Some version of a coal fired gas producer that would drive either a turbine or a reciprocating engine, which in turn would drive an alternator, which would produce electric current to drive conventional traction motors. I am seeing something that is as unlike the steam locomotives of the 1940s as are today's diesel-electrics.I agree that in the context of the long evolving diesel age, the return to steam seems like a hopeless dream, but I think there is more at work in these big trends than just engineering and economics, so anything is possible.
Most of the above were tried at one point or another during the transition era. Admitedly we have 45 year newer materials and electronic technology today.
And one more configuration:
6.A completely conventional diesel electric locomotive running on low sulphur, synthetic diesel produced from coal(and coal bed methane). It uses mature technology (Axis in WW2, South Africa to the present day) and there are already pilot projects in the US. BNSF was recently approached about such a scheme. And yes, the cost per unit of fuel is higher than coal "straight out of the ground" but it requires absolutely no new infrastructure on the RR's part. The price is getting more and more competitive with "petrodiesel".
If the railroads were to take another look at using CNG or LNG than maybe #5 would be economically viable but I imagine it would be much more efficient to gasify the coal in bulk in a fixed plant rather than on the vehicle itself........
Not as cool from a railfan perspective as an ACE3000 or Blasingame Steam Rotary Electric (google "T.W Blasingame co." to see what I'm talking about) but it seems more and more likely to actually be economically feasible(the coal-to-liquids part anyway)...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
tattooguy67 wrote:Ok help me out here guys, i keep reading these replies talking about synthetic diesel this or coal gassification that or oil sand/shale the other ect. ect., now again i have been hearing about these most of my life and have not seen a lot of progress on any of these, now it is my understanding ( and please feel free to correct any error here ) that A. these have all been done only on a very small scale and produced only small amounts of usable fuel at great cost and with lots of byproducts, and that B. that in order to produce enough usable fuel to make a real differance to our economy that we would have to build some new types of refineries to do it, now given the fact that the refineries we have now for known types of fuels are getting old and outdated and we can't seem to build newer ones to replace them because of politics and the greens and well take your pick here, then what makes any one think that we could get some thing like that built?. Listen guys, this to me has nothing to do with steam locomotives versus diesel locomotives, which one is better, which is more efficient or more cost effective and it has every thing to do with being able to get food on the table for my family, and the way things stand right now a big hurricane and a couple of well placed bombs could send diesel from almost $4.00 a gallon to double that overnight ( ok well thats my opinion but am i really that far off? ) whereas our coal supply would not be so easy to upset. Ok my feet are clean enough now, i will get off my soap box for a while, let me know what you all think, thanks.
The short answeres to some of these questions.
Coal-to-liquids historically wasn't price competitive with petroleum refined fuels but that has been changing with the ever ballooning price of crude. South Africa relied heavily on these technologies during the Apartheid area when they had difficulty purchasing oil due to embargoes. They still make a lot of their diesel fuel this way. The Germans produced a lot of diesel from coal during the second world war.
Oil sand processing is a huge industry in Canada(try googling "Alberta oil sands") and plenty of syncrude is refined there, some of which is exported south to the US.
Gasoline and diesel can also be synthesized from Natural Gas, something we have fairly abundant reserves of in the US.
As far as the question of why the US isn't more energy self-sufficient, that's a bit more complicated....
tattooguy67 wrote:Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.
I doubt at this stage of the game, fuel costs will result in the return of the steam locomotive. A more likely solution to the problem will be to find an alternative fuel for a diesel prime mover, rather than revert to steam.
Electric traction offers too many advantages to be abandoned.
What's more, whatever solution is found will also have to conform to environmental regulations. Strict rules on diesel emissions are going into effect in the near future, and it would seem to me that if a change of fuel is in the works, it will have to conform to present environmental regulations.
Dan
If only high tech system monitor and control techniques could be applied to steam to allow MU'ing of locomotives as a booster to take commands from a lead diesel loco, drop off line when not needed, and have tender cars with ample supply of fuel, water, ect to support the steam loco(s). Maybe an additional car to act as a condenser car to recover some of the water and return it to the tender for reuse. Build it with modern materials and more efficient periodical servicing techniques and practices. Eliminate as many people as possible, make it as efficient and clean burning as possible, and you just might have a product the railroads may or may not be interrested in. It seems the fact that each of the past generation steam locomotives requires its own crew was its biggest downfall and modern engineering could get around all that. Sorry if this has been covered previously.
AltonFan wrote: tattooguy67 wrote:Hi everybody, please forgive me if this has been asked already( i looked in the search area and did not see it) or is kinda dumb, what i am wondering is this, with the price of oil going up so much, the fact that we have a buttload of coal in this country, and also the fact that steel is much better now and so are manufacturing techniques would it be possible or feasible for steam locomotives to make economic sense? please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks much.I doubt at this stage of the game, fuel costs will result in the return of the steam locomotive. A more likely solution to the problem will be to find an alternative fuel for a diesel prime mover, rather than revert to steam.Electric traction offers too many advantages to be abandoned.What's more, whatever solution is found will also have to conform to environmental regulations. Strict rules on diesel emissions are going into effect in the near future, and it would seem to me that if a change of fuel is in the works, it will have to conform to present environmental regulations.
It would be entirely possible to return to steam while retaining the favorable attributes of the diesels such as electric traction, comfort cabs, computer controls, ease of fuel handling, the abitlity to M.U., and the ability to meet all environmental regulations now and in the future.
Alternate fuel for diesels is another option to combat the high price of oil. It's just that that option has to compete with coal and the best locomotive that can burn it.
The biggest disincentive for the railroads to consider other sources of motive power is their ability to pass the rising costs of diesel fuel along to the shipper. The railroads already have the diesel locomotives, servicing and repair facilities. None of them are going to seriously consider investing in other power and support facilities so long as they can pass along the high price of diesel as a fuel surcharge added to the freight rate. For a whole host of reasons electrification of high traffic density lines is the most cost effective mode of operation. The PRR and New Haven demonstrated that decades ago on their high trafficed lines. Other electrification projects (Milw Road, Great Northern, Virginian, etc) were done because of tunnels and helper districs and were abandoned with the advent of dieselization while electrified territories continue to exist in the high density northeatsern corridors to this day. IMHO both the UP and BNSF should be studying right now the feasibility of electrifying their transcon lines with their 60-100 trains per day. The long range advantages are obvious and the dividends such an investment would pay over the next 20 or more years are enormous. A fixed coal fired generating plant is much more efficient than any internal combustion or steam locomotive and with modern scrubber technology far less polluting to boot. Todays high fuel surcharges (which will do nothing but increase as oil based fuel prices continue to escalate) could be continued until the investment in catenary and fully electric engines engine is recovered. After that the savings are all gravy which would result in increased profits and/or reduced freight rates making the railroads ever more competetive with other modes of transportation. IMHO electification is a no brainer.
Mark
ML
I think KCSfan is on the right track (pun intended) here. Electrification of main lines is the most likely solution. The engines on those lines become modern Little Joes, and having a centralized point of fuel combustion allows more effective polution control and/or carbon dioxide capture.
I do not have the data on the cost of catenary to support such a conclusion. If anyone has ever presented the data on the Milwaukee's operating cost compared to comparable diesel operation, I missed that discussion.
However, if I were in charge of a Class I road, I would be far more interested in technology available now in preference to ideas that haven't made it out of the lab.
MichaelSol wrote: Steam power can use mineral coal directly.
Steam power can use mineral coal directly.
Not without dust collectors to capture the particulates and scrubbers to capture the Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, and Mercury. By adding these you have greatly complicated your locomotive, added some very expensive and highly maintenance intensive items, and added toxic waste disposal costs. You say that technology can overcome these problems but you do not factor the capital and maintenance costs of the technology into your argument for replacing modern locomotives with new steam, but you make sure that the costs are factored in on the diesel side. The Federal and State EPAs will not permit large scale combustion of coal without removal of the Particulates, Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides, and Mercury. The scenic railways are tolerated due to thier historic value and because there are so few of them.
If, instead, you chose to remove the offending constituents of coal before the fuel is loaded onto the locomotive you have very similar cost and technology problems to what diesel locomotives have with liquified coal as a fuel. And again steam has no clear advantage.
JonathanS wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Steam power can use mineral coal directly. Not without dust collectors to capture the particulates and scrubbers to capture the Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, and Mercury. By adding these you have greatly complicated your locomotive, added some very expensive and highly maintenance intensive items, and added toxic waste disposal costs. You say that technology can overcome these problems but you do not factor the capital and maintenance costs of the technology into your argument for replacing modern locomotives with new steam, but you make sure that the costs are factored in on the diesel side.
Not without dust collectors to capture the particulates and scrubbers to capture the Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfur Trioxide, and Mercury. By adding these you have greatly complicated your locomotive, added some very expensive and highly maintenance intensive items, and added toxic waste disposal costs. You say that technology can overcome these problems but you do not factor the capital and maintenance costs of the technology into your argument for replacing modern locomotives with new steam, but you make sure that the costs are factored in on the diesel side.
I "make sure" eh?
Locomotive manufacturers are just now designing engines which meet pending standards. We aren't yet seeing the ultimate cost in terms of effect on fleet purchase price, long term maintenance costs, and life spans of those engines. Since it isn't there yet, how did I include that "on the diesel side"?
Indeed, just as of today, the EPA issued its Final Rule with regard to control of emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines, pointing out that:
"Locomotive engines are significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation's cities and ports. Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emission requirements set in 1997, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), both of which contribute to serious public health problems."
"This final rule sets new emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured--to take effect as soon as certified systems are available, as early as 2008. The rule also sets Tier 3 emission standards for newly-built locomotives, provisions for clean switch locomotives, and idle reduction requirements for new and remanufactured locomotives. Finally, the rule establishes long-term, Tier 4, standards for newly-built engines based on the application of high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technology, beginning in 2015." Note my earlier remarks about similar application of catalytic aftertreatment technology to external steam combustion.
So much for "making sure" any costs were factored in: the costs haven't even been incurred yet.
I specifically mentioned that more money has been spent with less effect on attempting to make a diesel engine that will meet emissions standards than on just about any other energy source. Since that ultimate engine is "still out" there in term of standards that other sources met years ago -- including for external combustion of mineral coal -- you will have to show me how I "factored it in" to the diesel side since I was pretty specific as to why that was difficult to do, and I did say that part of the reason for that was the relative difficulty of removing myriad complex, toxic, gaseous hydrocarbons from the diesel exhaust mix that are generally not present in the external combustion mix, and that also includes particulate.
I was of the understanding that electrification took place largely because several of the major urban centres put pressure on the railroads to keep smoke belching steamers out of the cities to the extent possible. At least, that was a part of it, aside from an expected cost benefit.
Is this incorrect?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.