Could steam make a comeback?

[MichaelSol]

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?

-Crandell

That is correct, although the "pressure" was generally in the form of smoke ordinances, although in some instances underground or tunnel operations also dictated electrification as a practical solution to the situation.

 

[oltmannd]

 

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).

A steam locomotive driven through a transmission and torque converter would be complex, but would operate on a constant HP curve ala a diesel electric.  You could get full boiler HP to the wheels over a wide speed range.

If you did it with steam turbine and an electrical transmission, you'd have the Jawn Henry!

[KCSfan]

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.   

The current cost of copper is about $3.85 per pound. In addition to the conductor there is also the cost of supporting catenary itself, poles, insulators, hardware etc. so I have little idea what the total installed cost per mile to electrifiy would be. As an example if it were $1.5 million the cost of electrifying 1800 miles of single track would come to $2.7 billion. Add to that the cost of substations and you've probably got a price tag in the range of $4.0 billion. Then there's the cost of the motors themselves and your probably up to about $5.5 billion total cost. The only way I know to minimize the initial cost would be to use wooden support poles as did the Milw Road. 20-25 years later when the initial installation cost had been recovered in operating savings, the poles could be begin to be replaced with permanent steel support structures.

My figures are just SWAG's and I'd be interested to hear from someone with more knowledge than I (such as Michael Sol) as to their reasonableness.

Mark 

[blue streak 1]

Question: What did the New Haven Bosyon electrification cost -- as far as stringing the catenary only. Take the number of track miles, number pounds of copper installed, cost of copper then as compared to now, factor in inflation of other materials and labor, take in account that the route has so many degrees of curvature vs the location a person is comparing. I bet there are other factors. Now you see the problems calculating a current cost 

[selector]

Thanks for you answers to my last questions, Michael.

[MichaelSol]

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.

Please show the numbers, or reference the studies, that support this conclusion.

[KCSfan]

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?

-Crandell

That is correct, although the "pressure" was generally in the form of smoke ordinances, although in some instances underground or tunnel operations also dictated electrification as a practical solution to the situation.

There is no question that smoke abatement was one of the reasons leading to electrification on the PRR and NYNH&H. However, I believe the operational and cost advantages played a more significant role in the decision. Otherwise both of these roads would likely have electrified only short stretches out of metropolitan New York and Boston as did the New York Central whose electrification in New York only went as far as Harmon and a similarly short distance in the Cleveland area.

Mark

[KCSfan]

Question: What did the New Haven Bosyon electrification cost -- as far as stringing the catenary only. Take the number of track miles, number pounds of copper installed, cost of copper then as compared to now, factor in inflation of other materials and labor, take in account that the route has so many degrees of curvature vs the location a person is comparing. I bet there are other factors. Now you see the problems calculating a current cost 

Your message prompted me to think that there is probably a fairly accurate way of calculating the current cost. I believe there are fairly recent examples of electrification in Europe and Asia and I assume the costs of these projects have been quantified. Translated into US dollars these costs should enable a reasonable per mile estimate of the current cost of electrifying American rail lines.

Mark

[MichaelSol]

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.

Some time ago, I did a simulation of GE's "Computer Econometric Analysis Program" from the 1970s in order to reconstruct an analysis of DC Electrification compared to full Dieselization, and to re-evaluate the GE study from the standpoint of actual subsequent events on the Milwaukee in order to determine the effect of "assumptions" on the practical ability of the analysis to accurately predict the outcome.

As it was, the Milwaukee analysis -- GE pretty much just plugged in Milwaukee's numbers -- was conservative by far too much and the abandonment turned out to be a significant management misfire. In any case, it is a Microsoft Excel Model which permits instantaneous evaluation of alternatives over a thirty year depreciation period and the "start" numbers are pretty much the actual operating costs, diesel and electric, at the time.

The model is at:

http://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Electrification/GEEconometricStudy2.xls

The best way to use the model is to download and save it, then re-open it in Excel.

In those days, 211 miles of fixed plant of heavy DC electrification cost $9,470,00 -- and that was a solid figure that I priced personally, and which yielded the same numbers as GE and a consortium of three Power Company suppliers; while AC electrification was estimated at $211 million for an 800 mile installation. Somebody else estimated that, it seemed to be the generally accepted figure and, frankly, I never understood why it would be so expensive compared to DC. The new DC motive power was available at the same cost per rail hp as Diesel-electrics, but with thyristor controls.

At that time, a credit was available by replacing existing copper feeder from the existing system with new higher capacity aluminum feeder, taking advantage of the price differential then existing between aluminum and copper, and remilling part of the copper for use as the contact wire on the 211 miles of new catenary.

 

 

[wsherrick]

Hi,

This is my first post in this forum. Some of the comments here prompted me to join in.  First of all I'm glad there is an individual such as Mr. Sol here who seems to have an informed and rational view of the steam-diesel question.  In regards to the idea that coal burning steam locomotives can not meet emissions standards is not so.  I'm sure you all here are familiar with Mr. Dante Porta who died in 2003. One of his chief innovations was the Gas Com-buster Firebox.  It was installed on the Red Devil in South Africa and on Japanese Locomotives on the Rio Turbo Line in Argentina.  This firebox essentially gassifies the coal before it is burned and the result is a 30 to 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency and a clean, virtually soot free exhaust.  There have been many, many advances in steam tech since the USA abandoned steam development.  Couple this with the Porta Boiler Treatment, Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam passages and you get an engine with a 15% overall thermal efficiency.  This stuff is being done in other parts of the World.  We are really slow to catch on it seems over here.  The Grand Canyon Railroad, Mount Washington Cog Railway and most recently the UP on the Challenger have retrofitted locomotives with some of these improvements.  The gain in power, and fuel economy is amazing.  Steam locomotives, can have a braking system sort of like dynamic braking by compressing air in the cylinders to retard movement.  Compression braking has been installed on locomotives in Europe with great success.  There is plenty of room for improvement in the rugged, reliable Stevenson form of motive power.

[Modelcar]

....Why wasn't the compresson system of "dynamic braking" put to use here in the latter builds of steam engines in this country...?

Was there an excessive cost of doing so....Complicated valving and plumbing....What prevented it, if the system method was known and reliable.  It sure seems it would have been beneficial.  First class roads today {one would think}, would have to do their runs somewhat different without the diesel electric dynamics.

[blue streak 1]

Don't count on it. Thead thread about truckers and one about teir 4 requirements. we all know steam would fall under teir 4

[carnej1]

Hi,

This is my first post in this forum. Some of the comments here prompted me to join in.  First of all I'm glad there is an individual such as Mr. Sol here who seems to have an informed and rational view of the steam-diesel question.  In regards to the idea that coal burning steam locomotives can not meet emissions standards is not so.  I'm sure you all here are familiar with Mr. Dante Porta who died in 2003. One of his chief innovations was the Gas Com-buster Firebox.  It was installed on the Red Devil in South Africa and on Japanese Locomotives on the Rio Turbo Line in Argentina.  This firebox essentially gassifies the coal before it is burned and the result is a 30 to 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency and a clean, virtually soot free exhaust.  There have been many, many advances in steam tech since the USA abandoned steam development.  Couple this with the Porta Boiler Treatment, Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam passages and you get an engine with a 15% overall thermal efficiency.  This stuff is being done in other parts of the World.  We are really slow to catch on it seems over here.  The Grand Canyon Railroad, Mount Washington Cog Railway and most recently the UP on the Challenger have retrofitted locomotives with some of these improvements.  The gain in power, and fuel economy is amazing.  Steam locomotives, can have a braking system sort of like dynamic braking by compressing air in the cylinders to retard movement.  Compression braking has been installed on locomotives in Europe with great success.  There is plenty of room for improvement in the rugged, reliable Stevenson form of motive power.

         As I stated as a railfan I am fascinated by "what might have been" technologies and I love reading about things like modern steam locomotives. However it is telling that despite the brilliant engineering of the Red Devil project, South African Railways did not build a fleet of modern steamers, but instead pursued electrification as well as investing in coal-to-liquid plants to make synfuel for their diesel fleet. At the time they were still under an oil embargo(which is why steam lasted so long in that country).

 When discussing emissions one must consider that any hypothetical coal burning locomotive technology in the U.S would be forced to conform to the same stringent Tier II (and eventually Tier III)emissions standards that diesel engines must adhere too. Those EPA regulations will not change no matter which party is in charge. In other words any ACE3000 equivalent will be held to ES44/SD70ACE standards rather than coal burning powerplant standards(not to mention that an unmodified diesel locomotive using synthetic coal derived fuel meets the standards)..............

 

[MichaelSol]

   When discussing emissions one must consider that any hypothetical coal burning locomotive technology in the U.S would be forced to conform to the same stringent Tier II (and eventually Tier III)emissions standards that diesel engines must adhere too. Those EPA regulations will not change no matter which party is in charge. In other words any ACE3000 equivalent will be held to ES44/SD70ACE standards rather than coal burning powerplant standards(not to mention that an unmodified diesel locomotive using synthetic coal derived fuel meets the standards)..............

Don't count on it. Thead thread about truckers and one about teir 4 requirements. we all know steam would fall under teir 4

I am gathering you two gentlemen believe that railroad diesel locomotive requirements are "stringent".  Compared to what, if I can ask? To the contrary, modern coal combustion technology meets standards many times more rigorous than those set for the Diesel-electric locomotive, or ever will be set for the Diesel-electric locomotive, and has been meeting those genuinely stringent standards for years.

Coal-fired plants already utilize either catalytic technology or fluidized bed combustion technology to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions, as a "for instance". Compared to the current 4.1 g/kw-hr emission standard for Railroad Road Diesel locomotives, a coal-fired plant using existing control technology (not something maybe "out there" in 2017) currently has a 0.69 g/kw-hr capability -- a capability that the Diesel-electric locomotive will likely never attain.

Presumably, a steam locomotive could be held to the much more stringent powerplant standards, rather than the very weak ES44/SD70AC standards, although the standards issued Friday make it clear that such a locomotive would only have to meet the morally loose standards "proposed" for the Diesel-electric, rather than the far more rigorous standards currently being met, routinely every day, by existing coal combustion technologies.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

  In regards to the idea that coal burning steam locomotives can not meet emissions standards is not so.  I'm sure you all here are familiar with Mr. Dante Porta who died in 2003. One of his chief innovations was the Gas Com-buster Firebox.  It was installed on the Red Devil in South Africa and on Japanese Locomotives on the Rio Turbo Line in Argentina.  This firebox essentially gassifies the coal before it is burned and the result is a 30 to 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency and a clean, virtually soot free exhaust.  There have been many, many advances in steam tech since the USA abandoned steam development.  Couple this with the Porta Boiler Treatment, Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam passages and you get an engine with a 15% overall thermal efficiency.  This stuff is being done in other parts of the World.  We are really slow to catch on it seems over here.  The Grand Canyon Railroad, Mount Washington Cog Railway and most recently the UP on the Challenger have retrofitted locomotives with some of these improvements.  The gain in power, and fuel economy is amazing.  

These advances appear to me to parallel and to some extent incorporate the development of fluidized bed combustion technology which has been so successful at increasing efficiency as well as controlling pollutants that it is replacing catalytic technology formerly used on coal-fired plants.

And this is interesting from the standpoint that the diesel engine is pretty much stuck with its century old design for which engineers have spent untold dollars trying to tweak into some kind of compliance with modern clean air standards, mostly unsuccessfully even as it has become, literally, the most expensive motive power option available from a fuel cost standpoint. The ultimate, and expensive pollution control solution, catalytic converters, have been put off until 2017 even though the technology was available 30 years ago -- but the requirement, ultimately, concedes the failure of engineering to achieve satisfactory results with the basic diesel engine design even as it admits to the need to an expensive add-on to fix the otherwise insolvable problem. The lengthy lead time suggests that the problem has not, in fact, been solved and the regulation is one based on "hope".

This compares with significant advances in coal combustion technology over the same period, both in efficiency and in pollution control, rising to the level of paradigm shifts in economic application, pollution control, and basic production efficiency compared to the small and difficult incremental improvements in comparable diesel engine technology.

It is fortuitous that the same technology that more than doubled the economic efficiency of the coal combustion process acts to significantly reduce pollution levels. It is ironic that similar efforts for the diesel engine will reduce its economic efficiency even as it fails to achieve pollution control standards met by virtually all other forms of energy production -- including coal combustion.

 

[wsherrick]

The Porta firebox was developed to burn sub-bituminous coal that is found in Argentina.  This is not pie in the sky technology, it is simple, proven and extremely effective.  As to the above post about the South African Governments choice to continue with dieselization in spite of David Wardale's work on the Red Devil, doesn't disprove the fact that the overwhelming evidence showed that modern steam was much cheaper on all fronts than these diesels, (see Wardale's book on the subject) but rather their choice displays the obtuse, myopic nature of most railroad administrations.  I have been in railroading since the late '70's and can tell you from experience that original thinking is not only discouraged by management, it's downright punished.  This myopia seems to be pervasive in the rail fan community as well.  That being said, these advances in steam tech have already been applied.  The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD. I could go down the list of all that is possible but the information is out there for those who want to find out about it.  Steam should have never been replaced in the first place and the need for it will only become more acute as the years go by.  But we are governed by what I call the, "ABS." Anything But Steam mentality here in America.  The gymnastics seen here in this and other forums to advance the Anything But Steam mentality is the problem, not how to make a steam engine like a diesel or reinvent the wheel. The first step is to read H.F. Brown's report, "The Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power."  I'll make it easy for anyone who wants a copy of it, you can get it at,5at.co.uk. Or just Google, 5at project and you can find it there with an abundance of info about modern steam in their links and articles section.

[nanaimo73]

The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD. 

Thanks for the post.

I would be interested in any thoughts you might have regarding using modern steam to move the monster coal trains now operating in the western USA. Would you guess these 18,000 ton trains would be split in half, or operate with two steam locomotives?

[MichaelSol]

The first step is to read H.F. Brown's report, "The Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power." 

Well, you are right about the ABS mentality, and it is perhaps even stronger in the railfan community than the industry, much as railfans look for the first opportunity to defend a status quo they usually don't even understand, but it makes them feel like "railroaders", I guess.

I worked with Brown briefly in the early 1970s, and came to have a high regard for him personally and as an astute student of engineering principles. He sent his paper along to illustrate an analytical approach to assessing diesel-electric motive power, with some reference to electrification, which is what we were looking at at the time. He had sent along another paper by a Swedish expert, Thomas Thelander, which came to much the same conclusion after a detailed review of the Santa Fe's dieselization results. The "steam" numbers kind of jumped out at me, and stuck with me over the years, even though they didn't have anything to do with what we were doing. But they did resonate with a senior Electrification engineer's comments to me that the road diesel-electric was getting mileages and economies far below what had originally been predicted and upon which Dieselization had been based. That was before the price of Oil became a political issue.

However, if you wish to see the kind of reaction that well-regarded studies get on this forum, tune to http://cs.trains.com/forums/660985/ShowPost.aspx for a discussion of Brown's paper. There you will see the usual histrionics, including fabricated "pro" diesel-electric studies that didn't even exist but, ultimately, there was just a conspicuous lack of numbers supporting the Dieselization argument. You will see comical references to "railroads saved a lot of water" as though it were the precious commodity underlying the whole rationale.

I did my own "study" on a major Class I just to double check Brown, and came to the same result: I could not locate any net savings, but rather, increased expenditures resulting primarily from the costs of financing overwhelming any operating cost savings. The net increase in combined operating and financing costs of the motive power came, uniformly, from maintenance-of-way budgets. This increase, in turn, created an additional burden on railways during business downturns -- when they could least afford it -- as the financing charges remained whether the machine was producing revenue or not -- something that had much less impact with the much longer-lived Steam. Railroads had created a cost that they couldn't "store" during downturns, creating greater losses when business slumped or times got rough.

 

[wsherrick]

I will ask you a question before I answer yours.  How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?

It was done on the N&W everyday back in the 40's & 50's.  The tonnage rating for a SINGLE class A 2-6-6-4 was 14,500 Tons on the Scioto Division between Williamson, West Virginia and Portsmouth Ohio.  And this was way before freight cars had roller bearing trucks.  The Scioto Division didn't have any severe grades on it, so I guess to answer your question, maybe one or two modern steam locomotives of similar power to a Class A depending on the grades involved.

[nanaimo73]

I will ask you a question before I answer yours.  How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?

Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.

I'm thinking the unions would demand the return of firemen?

[selector]

If I am to judge based on some archived film footage that I have on a DVD, the Y-class Mallets, which surpassed the Class A's in tractive effort by a hefty margin, were typically two to a coal drag.  One in the front, and one shoving.  This scenario is repeated in case over case in DVD #5 of the five DVD set Railway Journeys The Vanishing Age of Steam by Madacy Entertainment.  I am guessing, only, that the speeds would be comparable.  But, that means two full crews at a minimum.

-Crandell

[MichaelSol]

I will ask you a question before I answer yours.  How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?

Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.

And what did that have to do with Dieselization?

Nothing. The circumstance couldn't exist for the first thirty years of Dieselization because it had nothing to do with Dieselization.

It wasn't feasible until after the mid-1970s, when control technology made it feasible -- control technology applicable across the board.

[MichaelSol]

But, that means two full crews at a minimum.

Just as it would have meant two full crews for diesel-electrics at the same point in time.

I think this underscores the almost bizarre bias that has been appropriately noted: in this instance, simply ignoring the contemporary experience with the Diesel-electric in favor of something unrelated that happened thirty years later. As a means of comparison, it compares nothing.

 

[selector]

And who is to say that modern steam, since that is the real subject, would need a crew in each engine any more than modern diesels?  With feedback devices and automatic ones keeping the dynamics of the "system" within predetermined parameters, a modern Y-class equivalent could do the work of what now takes three or more diesels.

Would it be churlish of us to place a QED at this point?

[wsherrick]

If I am to judge based on some archived film footage that I have on a DVD, the Y-class Mallets, which surpassed the Class A's in tractive effort by a hefty margin, were typically two to a coal drag.  One in the front, and one shoving.  This scenario is repeated in case over case in DVD #5 of the five DVD set Railway Journeys The Vanishing Age of Steam by Madacy Entertainment.  I am guessing, only, that the speeds would be comparable.  But, that means two full crews at a minimum.

-Crandell

The videos you are looking at are coal trains being moved eastward.  The ruling grades eastbound on the N&W were much more severe than the westbound ruling grades.  In the mid to late 1950's there was a surge in coal demand for eastern export and that necessitated a change in N&W operations from moving coal west to Portsmouth to eastern ports.  Still these massive trains requiring two Y6b's on these grades still weighed in at 12,000 to 18,000 tons. The helper engine was only used on the grades and the single Y6b would take the train on to its destination.  You can read about these operations in full detail in Col. Jefferies book; "N & W Giant Of Steam".  And for the record, the N&W' got more ton miles at a lower cost out of it's all steam roster than any of the all diesel roads at the time,crews or no crews.  It's not a matter for conjecture, it's recorded fact.

[carnej1]

The Porta firebox was developed to burn sub-bituminous coal that is found in Argentina.  This is not pie in the sky technology, it is simple, proven and extremely effective.  As to the above post about the South African Governments choice to continue with dieselization in spite of David Wardale's work on the Red Devil, doesn't disprove the fact that the overwhelming evidence showed that modern steam was much cheaper on all fronts than these diesels, (see Wardale's book on the subject) but rather their choice displays the obtuse, myopic nature of most railroad administrations.  I have been in railroading since the late '70's and can tell you from experience that original thinking is not only discouraged by management, it's downright punished.  This myopia seems to be pervasive in the rail fan community as well.  That being said, these advances in steam tech have already been applied.  The Porta firebox could be used to effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and sub-bituminous coal that we walk over everyday, with lower emissions and vastly lower costs, than the newest diesel to be spit out of EMD. I could go down the list of all that is possible but the information is out there for those who want to find out about it.  Steam should have never been replaced in the first place and the need for it will only become more acute as the years go by.  But we are governed by what I call the, "ABS." Anything But Steam mentality here in America.  The gymnastics seen here in this and other forums to advance the Anything But Steam mentality is the problem, not how to make a steam engine like a diesel or reinvent the wheel. The first step is to read H.F. Brown's report, "The Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power."  I'll make it easy for anyone who wants a copy of it, you can get it at,5at.co.uk. Or just Google, 5at project and you can find it there with an abundance of info about modern steam in their links and articles section.

 If the proposition is to find a way to "effectively burn the millions of tons of lignite and subituminous coal" rather than imported oil I would be extremely interested to  see a "hard numbers" estimate proving that it would be more economical for the railroads to invest in fleets of modern steamers rather than investing in coal-to-liquids technology. Of course the cost of fuel is higher with coal-to-liquids(but lower than "petrodiesel"),but it requires no changes to the existing motive power and related infrastructure.

 As far as the so called "ABS Mentality" that supposedly holds sway in the U.S what country in the world today is actively pursuing the type of steam technology you advocate? Certainly Steam still hangs on in the industrial sector in China but this is largely due to a very low cost of labor. The Chinese have stopped building mainline steam locomotives and they are seriously exploring coal-to-liquids development.

 As a Railfan I would be thrilled to see the proposals put forward by people such as Ross Rowland, Tom Blasingame, and Harry Valentine "In iron" and blasting down the mainline but in the real world this is exceedingly unlikely................

[nanaimo73]

I will ask you a question before I answer yours.  How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?

Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.

And what did that have to do with Dieselization?

Nothing. The circumstance couldn't exist for the first thirty years of Dieselization because it had nothing to do with Dieselization.

It wasn't feasible until after the mid-1970s, when control technology made it feasible -- control technology applicable across the board.

What are you talking about, Michael?

I'm talking about moving PRB coal 1,000 miles to a power plant with modern steam a couple of years down the road.

[MichaelSol]

I will ask you a question before I answer yours.  How many diesel units does it take to pull the 18,000 ton coal train?

Two up front, and a third on the rear, seems pretty common. All operated by one engineer, with a conductor keeping an eye on the train.

And what did that have to do with Dieselization?

Nothing. The circumstance couldn't exist for the first thirty years of Dieselization because it had nothing to do with Dieselization.

It wasn't feasible until after the mid-1970s, when control technology made it feasible -- control technology applicable across the board.

What are you talking about, Michael?

I'm talking about moving PRB coal 1,000 miles to a power plant with modern steam a couple of years down the road.

The question you answered -- or at least that you put in quotes -- was how many diesel-electrics did you think it took? And you emphasized the single engineer, for some reason ...

If I missed your reference to it being about modern steam, I still can't see it in your comment.

 

[nanaimo73]

The question you answered -- or at least that you put in quotes -- was how many diesel-electrics did you think it took? And you emphasized the single engineer, for some reason ...

You emphasized the single engineer, in bold, I only mentioned it.

I believe it would take a crew of 5 using two modern steam locomotives to supply a power plant, while 2 men using 3 diesels could handle the same task.

I'm guessing the steam locomotives would also have to be pulled off after a thousand mile run, while the diesels would run multiple trips. If this is true, than the number of steam locomotives required would be greater than the 2:3 per run, and perhaps the total number required to move 4 million tons a year would be greater for steam locomotives.

[MichaelSol]

...I would be extremely interested to  see a "hard numbers" estimate proving that it would be more economical for the railroads to invest in fleets of modern steamers rather than investing in coal-to-liquids technology.

Moving back to a time when we had "hard" numbers on a fleet basis, the numbers work out as follows based on 1950 or thereabouts, purchase price $160,000 for a Northern, $120,000 for a 1500 hp diesel-electric unit. 

Moving forward slightly to when we had a better understanding of their economic service lives: the Steam depreciated over 30 years, the Diesel-electric over 14. Based on purchase price per horsepower, each horsepower cost was $32 for Steam, and $80 for Diesel-electric.

Moving forward again with those numbers, and applying the Producer Price Index, the roughly current purchase cost per hp would be $162 for Steam and $406 for Diesel. Steam out at, $4,320 per year (10% salvage) and the Diesel $33,040 for equivalent horsepower. This is where Brown pointed out the impact of the significant economic cost due to the substantial difference in economic service lives.

Using that basis to get a handle on a modern cost, at 12% vs 32% efficiency, the modern equivalent of a 7,000 hp steam unit and a 4,000 hp Diesel-electric unit costs, per hour of operation at a 20 mph average, fuel will cost $554 for the equivalent Diesel-electric hp to equal the $58.61 that it costs to operate the 7,000 hp Steam engine. And if these numbers seem odd, recall that an SD-70 uses 204 gallons an hour working hard, and a ton of coal costs only an average of $42.

At 90,000 miles per year for both types of motive power [BN's current average], the annual cost of fuel for the equivalent hp of Diesel-electric (without accounting for transmission losses) is $2,492,789, whereas the cost for mineral coal for equivalent Steam hp is $263,723.

The combined amortization plus fuel, on an equivalent annual hp mile basis is as follows:

7,000 Steam hp: $268,043 [At 6% efficiency, $531,766]

7,000 Diesel-electric hp: $2,525,829.

The cost of maintenance will add to each of these in some proportion. For the Diesel-electric to "break even" with Steam, the cost of Steam maintenance would have to be over eight times the cost per adjusted horsepower as the Diesel-electric. Even based on "old" Steam at 6%, the cost would have to exceed 4.6 times the cost of diesel-electric maintenance per adjusted hp.  

Nothing remotely close to that has ever been claimed by anyone.

Have at it.