Could steam make a comeback?

[blue streak 1]

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. 

[MichaelSol]

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.

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.

My estimates earlier on this thread were that synfuel from coal would run about $6.50 or so for an equivalent output of BTU, compared to $8-something for diesel fuel and $1.80 for mineral coal. Better on cost than diesel fuel, sure. Better on cost than mineral coal, no. So, compared to mineral coal, what's the point?

And, the impact of synfuel on the diesel fuel market (lowering cost by lowering demand) can, at a significantly smaller change in price, wreck the cost differential, whereas the impact of coal on diesel fuel costs would be far lower in terms of reducing the price differential because the initial price differential is simply so large to begin with.

 

 

[nanaimo73]

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.

[Phoebe Vet]

Tatooguy:

Perhaps my "dead horse" comment was misunderstood. My diplomatic skills are not the greatest.

I did not mean that steam was the dead horse and I did not mean that coal was either. It just seemed to me that the discussion had reached a point where it was a couple of children yelling "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too". It seemed to have reached a point where the same things were being said over and over.

Interestingly enough, it now seems to have moved past that and new ideas and thoughts are again being posted.

I have nothing against steam, it just seems to me to be impractical at the locomotive level. I am aware that is opinion. My knowledge is not sufficient for me to adamantly defend that position.

I have nothing against coal. The Lackawanna Railroad which was one of two serving my hometown, was OWNED by the coal industry. It existed primarily to move coal from the Scranton PA area to New York Harbor and the Great Lakes. My wife's paternal grandfather retired from the Lackawanna. I grew up not far from coal country.

My personal opinion is that the railroads should be electrified. The technology required to make the use of any combustible fuel clean is much more easily applied at a power plant than at the individual locomotive level. I have no idea what the costs are, but I know it is common in other countries and they seem satisfied with it. I have ridden an Amtrak train that runs most of it's route with a pair of P-42s but changes to a single electric engine in DC. The difference can be clearly felt when it resumes the trip. Acceleration is greater and the speeds are much higher. I am aware that the speed has as much to do with the track as it does with the motive power, but you cannot help but notice that all the high speed trains are electric. It would not have to be all or nothing. Diesel engines can run on electrified track. It could be phased in.

I did not really intend to participate in this thread, but was watching it with great interest until it got bogged down. My questions were merely an attempt to understand some items that were not clear to me. I never intended to advocate anything. I have refrained from commenting on 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.

[MichaelSol]

As Paul M. suggests above, if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency,

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

If I understand this correctly, modern diesels are 3 times more efficient than what a modern steam locomotive would be.

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.

 

 

[nanaimo73]

 

As Paul M. suggests above, if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency,

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

If I understand this correctly, modern diesels are 3 times more efficient than what a modern steam locomotive would be.

[MichaelSol]

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

Well, that's a 16% thermal efficiency improvement in 60 years for Diesel-electric motive power; whereas Steam has improved 117% in thermal efficiency in mobile applications over the same period of time.

But what was the thermal efficiency of each type of motive power upon which the percentages of increase were based?

Well, this starts the discussion all over again.

On page 1 of this thread, on 3/07,2008, I posted as follows:

At $60/ton 11,500 BTU coal, and at $3.65 per gallon diesel (last week's U.S. average), adjusted for 6% efficiency coal, 32% efficiency diesel, the current adjusted cost for 100,000 BTUs of coal is $4.35 and the equivalent cost of 100,000 BTUs of diesel is $8.21.

Wyoming coal, of course, sells for considerably less than $60/ton, running between $10 and $15 per ton. The U.S. average is only $25/ton. The average delivered price in the U.S. varies from $14/ton in Montana to $84/ton in Massachusetts, with the U.S. average at about $42. At power plants, it averages $35/ton; for other uses, about $52/ton.

At the U.S. average delivered cost, the BTU equivalent cost of coal is $3.04 vs. $8.21 for diesel fuel. In places like Montana, delivered cost would price equivalent coal at $1.01 compared to the $8.21 cost of diesel fuel.

On 3/11:

The cost difference is what it is all about.

Steam power can use mineral coal directly.

As Paul M. suggests above, if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel. At those prices, arguments about the evolution of the Diesel-electric start to give way entirely to the fundamental economics of the cost of fuel: Steam wins.

Thermal efficiency is not the same thing as economic efficiency, and the small increases in thermal efficiencies of the Diesel engine are not nearly as significant as the economic impact of the relatively more dramatic increases in fuel efficiency achieved for external combustion of coal.

Looking at it in another way: a modern steam engine would use half the coal used by a Northern to produce the same power. A modern Diesel-electric, a much smaller percentage less than its predecessors. A Northern that ran 1,000 miles between coal docks could run 2,000 miles today with no other improvements considered. Compare that to the distance a modern diesel can run with a 4,000 gallon fuel tank sucking down 200 gallons an hour at an average speed of 40 mph. And according to none other than the AAR, that Northern could reload in 4 minutes.

I find it difficult to justify the description "vastly improved" applied to the Diesel engine, but no acknowledgment at all of the improvements for external combustion steam or, as the post above suggests, let's change the subject to underlying technical efficiencies to show something else.

The measure of business success is always found in economic efficiency.

 

[tattooguy67]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

The Railroad History Quiz Game thread has 1,323 replies as of this writing.

The Trackside Lounge  thread has 889 replies as of this writing.

The THE FLAT WHEEL CAFE thread has 1,861 replies as of this writing.

Have you complained about how long those "dead horses" are going to be beaten?  No?  Why not, since you seem to be the resident complainer of thread length?

If you don't like a thread, you don't have to read it.  Try beating that horse for a change.

None of those threads are arguments that are going nowhere. They are just people socializing.

No one in this thread has any intention of changing his position.  It started out as a valid discussion, but hundreds of posts ago it degenerated into just a pointless argument.

I made the mistake of asking a couple of questions in here in an attempt to understand the numbers being thrown around in the debate and now, much to the amusement of my wife, get 30 or 40 e-mails a day showing the posts of the same 3 or 4 guys.

Perhaps you can help me out here and tell me how to turn off the replies to this thread without turning off all replies.

Well and here is the frustrating thing to me about all this and please don't take this as picking on you Phoebe Vet i am just using this as one of many examples here, several pages ago you mentioned that electrfication was the way to go as have others throughout this thread and i and others have asked what the cost per mile would be to do this and i have yet to see a reply, also you mentioned using minced tires as a way to help boost the btu's of coal and there you did provide a link to a site that talked about it and for that i thank you, but when asked if that could be used in a locomotive again no answer. So far as memory serves we have had;

Coal gassification, which from what i was able to find out MAY at some point down the road be of SOME help.

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.

The ABC crowd (anything but coal) who were quick to tell us all the enviromental horrors of coal mining and burning but when asked for specifics and if advanced technology might help with this, and when asked what the impact of various forms of refineries have, and when told that it creates jobs, it provides 60%-80% of our electricity, we have a whole lot of it here and various other facts got real quite real quick.

Look please understand that i am not trying to squalch debate here, if you think that going with something other than coal fired steam is the answer than come on ahead and lets hear it, but don't come on here and say "oh yeah well nah nah!. The steam side of this discusion has produced reams of facts and figures and the other side so far not so much, with a lot of MAY. COULD, MIGHT and SOMEDAYS thrown around, so again i will ask the following:

What is the cost of steam versus electric, and here i mean the support needed to operate both types of motive power i.e. coal and water supply versus caternary, power plants and switching stations, and if (and i believe the answer is yes) it costs more to go the electric route does that cost come down over time?

What are the enviromental impacts of coal mining versus oil refineing and has technology not made any advances in coal mining at all?

Coal gassification output, how many gallons of usable fuel a day does this process produce now?

Thats enough for now, will post more later when i think of some, thanks.

Chuck

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

Well, that's a 16% thermal efficiency improvement in 60 years for Diesel-electric motive power; whereas Steam has improved 117% in thermal efficiency in mobile applications over the same period of time.

But what was the thermal efficiency of each type of motive power upon which the percentages of increase were based?

[daveklepper]

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.

[MichaelSol]

...most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

Well, that's a 16% thermal efficiency improvement in 60 years for Diesel-electric motive power; whereas Steam has improved 117% in thermal efficiency in mobile applications over the same period of time.

[erikem]

Well, I am out of date on that. I keep hearing about significant increases in thermal efficiency, but I continue to see reports efficiencies of various diesel locomotives ranging from 25.7% to 32.5% -- even though lower than what was advertised during the period of transition, and some sources showing that under actual conditions, efficiencies as low as 22%.

Just for girns, I looked up the fuel consumption figures for the 710G3 engine (mid-1980's) and it was reported as 0.33 lbm/hp-hr, which translates into 0.44 lbm/kWhr. Assuming that the energy content in diesel fuel is 19,000 BTU/lbm, this means that 8,405 BTU is required to produce 3,412 BTU of mechanical work (1 kWhr = 3412 BTU)., or a thermal efficiency of 41%. The latest AC drives are supposed to have an efficiency in excess of 90%, which implies that a loocomotive with a 710G3 engine plus AC drive would have a peak thermal efficiency of at least 36%. I've seen figures for large diesel engines with fuel consumption of less than 0.30 lbm/hp-hr, so the most modern locomotives are probably doing better than 36%. 

[MichaelSol]

There have been significant mprovements in diesel engine technology in terms of efficiency, emissions and maintainability over the last 30 years. Part of this has been vastly improved modeling of gas flow and another part is a greatly improved understanding of the combustion process.

Well, I am out of date on that. While I continue to use 32%-36% for Diesel engine efficiency, and I keep hearing about significant increases in thermal efficiency, I continue to see reported efficiencies of various diesel locomotives ranging from 25.7% to 32.5% -- and some sources showing that under actual conditions, efficiencies as low as 22%.

I continue likewise to see BN overhauling engines at 750,000 miles compared to claims of 1,000,000 miles for FT units in early GM advertising.

I understand one major improvement, the turbocharger, was a source of additional significant maintenance costs.

Statistically, what improvements have occured -- and I am thinking in terms of comparing to the 100% increase in thermal efficiency apparently available to current coal combustion processes?

 

[erikem]

I am absolutely sure the future is going to be different than the past. For the Diesel-electric locomotive, few improvements have anything at all to do with the engine; whereas Steam has had considerable technological improvement in the department from the transition era -- indeed a qualititative leap whereas the Diesel-electric has stood relatively still. As to control technologies, Steam undoubtedly could benefit from many of the same control improvements as well. What is remarkable on that score is how well the 60 old version of the technology stands up over time; notwithstanding the improvements that it would undoubtedly enjoy today.

There have been significant mprovements in diesel engine technology in terms of efficiency, emissions and maintainability over the last 30 years. Part of this has been vastly improved modeling of gas flow and another part is a greatly improved understanding of the combustion process. Needless to say, both would help with a new generation of steam locomotives.

What made AC transmissions possible has been the steady advance in voltage and current ratigs for power electronic devices, specifically the IGBT's and associated drivers. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is now possible to get IGBT's that would allow inverters to run directly off a 3,000VDC catenary.

As for advances in control technology, you're correct in that some of it could be applied to steam locomotives. There are some advantages unique to electric transmissions (whether the power source is an on-board diesel, gas turbine or overhead wire). One is that the response time for the electric transmission is a few milli-seconds. Another is that a balanced polyphase motor produces smooth torque (even with an inverter) while a reciprocating steam engine produces a pulsating torque which limits adhesion.

On the subject of adhesion. One of the problems with early diesels and some electrics was that the motors were operated in series. A consequence was that one of the motors started slipping, it reduced the torque produced by the other motors in the series string. A non-articulated (and non-duplex) steam engine had an advantage in that all of the drivers were connected together, so all had to be slipping to lose traction. The geared steam locomotives probably had a higher usable coefficient of adhesion than a rod locomotive since the torque pulsations were smoothed out with the gear reduction and in the case of the Shay, having three cylinders instead of two.

[wsherrick]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

Topic rank in readership: this one ranks third out of the last 1,225 threads. Apparently someone isn't getting the answers he wants ...

Apparently not.  It seems that if this is so old hat to the ABS crowd then we could save a lot of space if they would quit participating.  I find it odd that those who hate or don't find this subject interesting (according to their own posts) keep saying they are finished with the thread, yet keep popping back up with nothing positive to add to the conversation.

Now there are complaints that the thread is unfairly long.  If you don't like it don't read it and certainly don't contribute, thus making the thread even longer.

The juice bugs have a thread of their own.  I haven't gone on that thread and attempted to nay say everything that has been posted there advocating universal electrification or attempted to laugh at those who advocate it even if some of the assertions are nothing short of preposterous.

It seems that those of us who are steam advocates or at least open minded about the subject just simply aren't compliant enough for those folks.

Hence the above quoted statement.

[erikem]

 As far as possible future improvements to large diesel engines(not just for locomotive applications) do you discount concepts such as turbo-compounding and the use of bottoming cycles (steam or otherwise)? Granted these are not changes to the engine itself......

I recall seeing what was Detroit Diesel is working on a turbo compound for trucks. One of the problems with that technique is getting a reasonable coupling between the exhaust turbine and crankshaft as the optimal ratio of speeds varies with loading.

For a diesel electric, the most efficient approach may be to couple generators (well alternators) to the exhaust turbines and run the combination in a way to maximize power extraction. This would require that the compressors (AKA superchargers) be run off an electric motor, but a big advantage is that turbo lag would be a thing of the past. 

[Anonymous]

  Has Al Gore and his "lock box" in some invisible form arisen on this discussion? There are far and away too many of you guys who seem to have locked your brains into that box. Instead of thinking "outside the box" and trying to find newer and better ways to do things ( in this case move a train) you remain locked on the old steam of yester-year and all of the negatives that accompanyed it. In the 50 years since the U.S. has run everyday mainline steam surely there is more efficient ways of producing and utilizing steam to get more bang for the buck g\than be gotten from oil and its escalating price. I've only gotten to page four of this discussion and have found way too many nay-sayers stuck in 1950.

I hope I never find myself in Al Gore's lock box.  So what's your plan?

[MichaelSol]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

Topic rank in readership: this one ranks third out of the last 1,225 threads. Apparently someone isn't getting the answers he wants ...

[tnchpsk8]

  Has Al Gore and his "lock box" in some invisible form arisen on this discussion? There are far and away too many of you guys who seem to have locked your brains into that box. Instead of thinking "outside the box" and trying to find newer and better ways to do things ( in this case move a train) you remain locked on the old steam of yester-year and all of the negatives that accompanyed it. In the 50 years since the U.S. has run everyday mainline steam surely there is more efficient ways of producing and utilizing steam to get more bang for the buck g\than be gotten from oil and its escalating price. I've only gotten to page four of this discussion and have found way too many nay-sayers stuck in 1950.

[tnchpsk8]

  One of us is asleep at the wheel. I haven't read anything, to this point, about steam being better than diesels. It appears to me that the discussion has to do with redesigning steam engines in order to get away from the dependence on oil, especially foreign oil.

[tnchpsk8]

  How about a steam turbine-electric that can make use of regenerative braking. Something akin to a steam operated gen-set type road locomotive.

[carnej1]

Well, if the thermal protection "protects", the Traction Motor isn't producing Tractive Effort. The point was that there is no TE available -- either the engine shuts down, or the motors burn up.

AC motors do solve the problem -- at much higher cost and that's really part of the meme of this thread regarding Steam -- cost advantages.

For a given rating, and AC induction motor is typically much cheaper to make than a DC commutator motor. The difference is the inverters needed to make AC motors practical traditionallly have been expensive, but developments with IGBT's have been bringing the cost down substantially. I'd estimate that DC transmissions will become a rarity on new locomotives in five years.

I am absolutely sure the future is going to be different than the past. For the Diesel-electric locomotive, few improvements have anything at all to do with the engine; whereas Steam has had considerable technological improvement in the department from the transition era -- indeed a qualititative leap whereas the Diesel-electric has stood relatively still. As to control technologies, Steam undoubtedly could benefit from many of the same control improvements as well. What is remarkable on that score is how well the 60 old version of the technology stands up over time; notwitstanding the improvements that it would undoubtedly enjoy today.

 

 As far as possible future improvements to large diesel engines(not just for locomotive applications) do you discount concepts such as turbo-compounding and the use of bottoming cycles (steam or otherwise)? Granted these are not changes to the engine itself......

[carnej1]

I understand that the diesel was initially developed with the intention of burning coal dust (the coal dust engine), and that it later shifted to focus on burning oil as fuel.  I believe there has been some subsequent R&D effort on revisiting coal as fuel to be directly injected into compression ignition engines just like diesel fuel is injected.  Intuitively, it seems like it would be an uphill battle to get that worked out to a foolproof practice, but usually where there is a will there is a way.  I understand it was tried with a coal/water slurry.  Is that was is meant by liquified coal or is that something else?  Does anybody know what it going on with this approach?   

 I found this online:

http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/JointTFmtg/Alternatepathwaystolowemissionselect-Wibberley/Alternatepathwaystolowemissionselect-Wibberley.pdf 

 

 It's a fairly long presentation by a research group in Australia that is working on a super micronized form of coal which could be utilized in Gas Turbines and Diesels(in coal/water form). Note that they are mainly interested in stationary power production because of the required need for emissions control equipment (and they are also big advocates of CO2 capture-and-storage systems). I find it interesting because they are specifically trying to overcome the problems with earlier experiments in coal burning internal combustion (both UP and Ge's locomotive experiments are mentioned). Can emissions control equipment be developed that would make this Tier 3 compliant (BTW I accept the arguments that a modern steam locomotive could be made tier compliant) for mobile applications? The above would be more expensive than run-of-mine coal but may well be significantly lower cost per BTU than coal-to-liquids (synthetic diesel).

[MichaelSol]

Well, if the thermal protection "protects", the Traction Motor isn't producing Tractive Effort. The point was that there is no TE available -- either the engine shuts down, or the motors burn up.

AC motors do solve the problem -- at much higher cost and that's really part of the meme of this thread regarding Steam -- cost advantages.

For a given rating, and AC induction motor is typically much cheaper to make than a DC commutator motor. The difference is the inverters needed to make AC motors practical traditionallly have been expensive, but developments with IGBT's have been bringing the cost down substantially. I'd estimate that DC transmissions will become a rarity on new locomotives in five years.

I am absolutely sure the future is going to be different than the past. For the Diesel-electric locomotive, few improvements have anything at all to do with the engine; whereas Steam has had considerable technological improvement in the department from the transition era -- indeed a qualititative leap whereas the Diesel-electric has stood relatively still. As to control technologies, Steam undoubtedly could benefit from many of the same control improvements as well. What is remarkable on that score is how well the 60 old version of the technology stands up over time; notwithstanding the improvements that it would undoubtedly enjoy today.

 

[erikem]

Well, if the thermal protection "protects", the Traction Motor isn't producing Tractive Effort. The point was that there is no TE available -- either the engine shuts down, or the motors burn up.

AC motors do solve the problem -- at much higher cost and that's really part of the meme of this thread regarding Steam -- cost advantages.

For a given rating, and AC induction motor is typically much cheaper to make than a DC commutator motor. The difference is the inverters needed to make AC motors practical traditionallly have been expensive, but developments with IGBT's have been bringing the cost down substantially. I'd estimate that DC transmissions will become a rarity on new locomotives in five years.

[YoHo1975]

I was under the impression that Diesel invented his engine to run on Vegatable oil...in other words, biodiesel. It runs on Diesel fuel, because Standard oil had it as a biproduct and was looking for a use.

 

I was talking about the FT process, not slurry.

 

And I would point out that BNSF actually tried out their Green Goat in Helper service over Cajon. Then engine couldn't handle it, but it certainly is a service it was being tested for. The Green Goat ran in to problems even in it's yard service role anyway. But that's a green goat, not a regenitarive braking E-D locomotive.  

[Anonymous]

I understand that the diesel was initially developed with the intention of burning coal dust (the coal dust engine), and that it later shifted to focus on burning oil as fuel.  I believe there has been some subsequent R&D effort on revisiting coal as fuel to be directly injected into compression ignition engines just like diesel fuel is injected.  Intuitively, it seems like it would be an uphill battle to get that worked out to a foolproof practice, but usually where there is a will there is a way.  I understand it was tried with a coal/water slurry.  Is that was is meant by liquified coal or is that something else?  Does anybody know what it going on with this approach?   

[Norman Saxon]

You're missing the boat there Lars.  A compression-ignition engine is still the best way to generate on-board current for traction motors, but of course that same engine is limited to the most expensive fuel out there, for now and the foreseeable future. 

Except that we were discussing liquified coal as fuel, something that certainly could be used in a compression-ignition engine. 

If you mean synthetic diesel made from coal (FT process), that can be made cheaper than the current cost of petroleum-derived diesel.  $50 per barrel equivalent is the current theoretical break even point for FT fuels, roughly $2.50 a gallon for coal-derived diesel.  If someone actually starts making the stuff, that would only reduce the reciprocating steam from coal advantage over electric traction from compression ignition from the current 13-1 (and rising) down to the 4-1(?) of a few years ago.  Unless something dramatic happens to the price of US coal, the cost advantage of utilize ROM coal for fuel over any liquid fuel will be there for the long term.

If you're talking about that coal-water fuel from Silverado (which they claim can be made at $20 a barrel equivalent), I don't think that can be uilized in compression ignition engines, only external combustion and turbines.

Stored energy concepts will favor DE's only where there is a demand for constant stop and go movements, aka yards.

Or mountain profiles where you switch from dynamics to run regularly.

Unless you're talking about extreme up and down profiles, the ability to store all that downhill energy is limited.  There's a reason RailPower locos are strictly yard locos, although they have promoted the concept for use on mainline power.

 

The ability to utilize all forms of fuel, solid or liquid or any combination thereof, favors external combustion over internal combustion.

Again, we've been talking about liquified coal which negates this advantage, because an Internal combustion engine could use it.

See above. 

 

The emissions profile will still favor external combustion over internal combustion, except for CO2 where coal is utilized for the former compared to liquid or compressed gas fuels for the latter.

Except that right no, CO2 is the ONLY politically meaningful pollutant. Saying  "the emissions profile is better except for CO2" is the functional equivelent of saying it isn't a viable fuel. We can discuss the validity of this (well, we can't, because it would get the thread closed) but valid or not, it's the current most important value.

Did you see what happened to that Senate attempt at CO2 regs?  Went down like the Hindenberg.  The continued growth in the anti-AGW movement in the science community (the latest barrage is the 31,000 scientists who signed an anti-AGW petition and presented it to the National Press Club) will eventually counter any future attempts at strict CO2 regulation.  They'll probably come up with some token CO2 regs to save face, but nothing so strict as to seriously diminish coal's cost advantages.

And does anyone really need a locomotive that can start up and go at a moment's notice?

Probably not, but again on those former helper districts, switching from dynamics to run and possibly utilizing regenerative braking, the electric transmission looks quite favorable.  

It should be noted that one could place simple traction motors on the lead and trailing trucks of a basic 4-8-4, and use them as boosters/regenerative dynamics, with the batteries stored under the boiler (in that usually empty space under the axles of the driving wheels).  It'd be an added complication, but could be done if needed or desired.

[Norman Saxon]

"Topic has 822 replies."

How long are you guys going to beat this dead horse?

The Railroad History Quiz Game thread has 1,323 replies as of this writing.

The Trackside Lounge  thread has 889 replies as of this writing.

The THE FLAT WHEEL CAFE thread has 1,861 replies as of this writing.

Have you complained about how long those "dead horses" are going to be beaten?  No?  Why not, since you seem to be the resident complainer of thread length?

If you don't like a thread, you don't have to read it.  Try beating that horse for a change.

None of those threads are arguments that are going nowhere. They are just people socializing.

No one in this thread has any intention of changing his position.  It started out as a valid discussion, but hundreds of posts ago it degenerated into just a pointless argument.

I made the mistake of asking a couple of questions in here in an attempt to understand the numbers being thrown around in the debate and now, much to the amusement of my wife, get 30 or 40 e-mails a day showing the posts of the same 3 or 4 guys.

Perhaps you can help me out here and tell me how to turn off the replies to this thread without turning off all replies.

I get along fine without needing email alerts everytime a thread I am interested in gets a reply.  I only check the forum when I feel like it, and there's only a handful of threads that are of interest to me.  Since the interesting topics always seem to stay at the top of the forum page, it's easy for me. 

Try that.

[YoHo1975]

You're missing the boat there Lars.  A compression-ignition engine is still the best way to generate on-board current for traction motors, but of course that same engine is limited to the most expensive fuel out there, for now and the foreseeable future. 

Except that we were discussing liquified coal as fuel, something that certainly could be used in a compression-ignition engine. 

Stored energy concepts will favor DE's only where there is a demand for constant stop and go movements, aka yards.

Or mountain profiles where you switch from dynamics to run regularly

 

The ability to utilize all forms of fuel, solid or liquid or any combination thereof, favors external combustion over internal combustion.

Again, we've been talking about liquified coal which negates this advantage, because an Internal combustion engine could use it.

 

The emissions profile will still favor external combustion over internal combustion, except for CO2 where coal is utilized for the former compared to liquid or compressed gas fuels for the latter.

Except that right no, CO2 is the ONLY politically meaningful pollutant. Saying  "the emissions profile is better except for CO2" is the functional equivelent of saying it isn't a viable fuel. We can discuss the validity of this (well, we can't, because it would get the thread closed) but valid or not, it's the current most important value.

And does anyone really need a locomotive that can start up and go at a moment's notice?

Probably not, but again on those former helper districts, switching from dynamics to run and possibly utilizing regenerative braking, the electric transmission looks quite favorable.