Could steam make a comeback?

[nanaimo73]

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

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]

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.

This is why I think these conversations are strange. You presume the diesel-electric benefits from a technology that, per se, had nothing to do with dieselization, and only arrived even for diesel-electrics post 1970. You postulate the opposite for the steam engines, and presume that even today they would remain with the same technology as they had in 1950.

Coal-fired boilers today are routinely not only remotely supervised and operated at much higher outputs than seen in locomotive service, but are highly automated as well, far more so in response to demand and conditions than a Diesel-electric locomotive.

By freezing one technology at both the horsepower and technology at 1950, and postulating the other at horsepower and telemetry available in 2008, you reach a conclusion that you believe represents a "comparison".

This approach to handling data will give you a preferred conclusion, but that's about it.

 

[MichaelSol]

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

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?

Well, that wasn't the comment you posted that you were responding to, now, was it? You continue on to now say that it would take five persons to operate two steam locomotives, which seems to contradict the "one engineer" and one conductor comment being actually in reference to steam rather than about diesels. I not following your comments at all.

 

[MichaelSol]

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.

Why?

Northerns routinely did 1,000 mile runs [the average carload line haul then was only about 450 miles], and ran more than twice as many annual miles as the average road Diesel-electric does today. In 1950. Nothing has improved since then?

Modern steam boilers go thousands of hours of continuous operation. Are you referring to the need to lubricate friction bearings on steam engines built before the advent of modern sealed bearings? If so, why? If not, what are you referring to?

[wsherrick]

"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"

Let's see, there are two rack railroads one in Austria and the other in Switzerland, they replaced their diesel railcars with new steam.  The new steam is operated with one person, automatic firing. pulls more than the diesels did, costs much less in fuel and maintenance, and for what it's worth emits far less pollution than the diesel railcars.  The Rio Turbio Railroad in Argentina is going to extend its mileage to connect with Chili and become a transcontinental company.  They are rebuilding a couple of the original Porta Locomotives as prototypes for totally new build steam to replace the diesels that were bought to replace the steam engines in the first place. There is to a conference in Australia this year concerning adopting modern steam for commercial use, there is a new railroad to be built for the purpose of hauling coal unit trains in Indonesia that is seriously considering using QJ rebuilds as prototypes for new steam for that railroad.  There have been rebuilds in Germany, Poland and Cuba to base new steam designs on. So I guess that nobody else in the World is looking into modern steam power. I have another question to ask, why did the Chinese Government stop building steam power and why are many of these engines still in service years after the Government mandated that steam be banished?  Was the initial decision made on an economic basis?  If so can you support that claim?

[wsherrick]

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.

I guess you didn't read the tonnage rating of the Class A.  Many Railroads had engines that routinely ran well over a thousand miles per trip.  The Santa Fe 4-8-4's ran the whole distance between Chicago and Los Angeles with out change of engines, were serviced and sent right back.  The Great Northern S1's ran all the way from St. Paul Minn. to the west coast without change of engines and back again.  The N&W J Class ran routinely 18,000 miles per month and 240,000 miles between shoppings. The New York Central Hudsons, Mohawks and Niagaras ran the thousand miles between Harman New York and Chicago every day with only one coaling stop each way.  So if these traditional designs could do this.  A modern steam locomotive with sealed bearings, Gas Producing Firebox, etc. could easily surpass these already impressive numbers.  There is existing technology to allow steam locomotives to m.u. with diesels and other steam engines.  Electronic slip control, etc. So I guess the Powder River Basin wouldn't be much of challenge for one of these engines. 

[n012944]

  The Santa Fe 4-8-4's ran the whole distance between Chicago and Los Angeles with out change of engines, were serviced and sent right back. 

Not in regular service.  The farthest they ran was KC to LA, and that was in passenger service.  Here is a great site about them  :http://www.wheelsmuseum.org/stagner.html

[selector]

This is all very interesting.  I guess, though, that we should be controlling, for want of a better word, for the variables in our discussion.  The details are devilish.  Do we compare the costs for a passenger steam run over 30 days with a diesel freight over the same time...not really reasonable.  So, perhaps, if we could prevail upon Michael, are there figures to compare the cost per ton mile of passengers, or horsepower mile, or whatever, between diesels such as the F series to the Northern class doing the same thing?  I don't believe Northerns ever doubled in such service, although they were sometimes shoved for a brief roll out of a yard.  But the same train tonnage would most likely have rated at the very least an A/B or A/B/A, would it not?  So, let's compare what it would be in the way of cost for a Northern to run and be serviced over the same time/mileage/ton-miles...whatever is rational (I don't know..I'm asking) as the matching requirement in diesel at the time.  Or I has it already been stated and I have forgotten...would not surprise me?

-Crandell

[MichaelSol]

This is all very interesting.  I guess, though, that we should be controlling, for want of a better word, for the variables in our discussion. 

This is why I broke it down to a per hp mile analysis, so that the costs of 4 diesel units, ABBA, necessary to equal a Northern early on could apply through the analysis to the present day, based on 1950 technologies except as noted (12% v 6% for steam). Applying the Producer Price Index gives a cost of a 4000 hp modern (2003) Diesel-electric by that methodology at about $1.7 million, for instance. Not a bad estimate, suggesting that the PPI is in the ballpark, as it should be with mature technologies, and that Steam cost, modernized, might be appropriately estimated on a hp basis.

The purchase cost per hp is significant enough amortized over the respective life spans of the equipment. The fuel cost differential, however, is the big difference. Numbers are out there all over the place, and we do know what a Northern ate at 6% efficiency vs a modern estimate at 12%, and we know what a modern 4,000 hp SD70 eats in terms of fuel. If somebody wishes to do an actual analysis of coal vs diesel fuel costs, its just not that hard to do. But, when the differential is an order of magnitude difference, which it has recently become, the gentleman who requested "hard numbers" is invited to offer some if he disagrees with my analysis, because the "hard numbers" are, in fact, out there.

 

[tomikawaTT]

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

Hi, Crandell,

Most of those old N&W photos and films were taken on helper grades.  The rear end pusher was routinely called for a 12 hour shift, and might push six, ten or a dozen trains from the bottom of the hill to the top during that time.  When not on a helper grade, a single Y could trundle along all day, usually at 25mph or so.

The very last photo in William E. Warden's Norfolk & Western Railway's Magnificent Mallets, The Y class 2-8-8-2s is of a Y-6a sitting in lonely splendor at a helper siding in the heart of nowhere, waiting for the next uphill train.

In the present, such an assignment would still rate a separate crew, even if it was operated as distributed power with a radio link.  People would be needed on the spot to attach the helper to a train and bring it back down the hill light.

Chuck

[selector]

Thanks for your reply, Chuck.  I must say, as an aside to the discussion, that images of a Y-class shoving a long string of coal hoppers is a sight dear to me.  I hope I can be forgiven for slipping one of my own layout shots into this forum.

A caboose is missing, but I don't have one yet.

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming....

-Crandell

[carnej1]

"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"

Let's see, there are two rack railroads one in Austria and the other in Switzerland, they replaced their diesel railcars with new steam.  The new steam is operated with one person, automatic firing. pulls more than the diesels did, costs much less in fuel and maintenance, and for what it's worth emits far less pollution than the diesel railcars.  The Rio Turbio Railroad in Argentina is going to extend its mileage to connect with Chili and become a transcontinental company.  They are rebuilding a couple of the original Porta Locomotives as prototypes for totally new build steam to replace the diesels that were bought to replace the steam engines in the first place. There is to a conference in Australia this year concerning adopting modern steam for commercial use, there is a new railroad to be built for the purpose of hauling coal unit trains in Indonesia that is seriously considering using QJ rebuilds as prototypes for new steam for that railroad.  There have been rebuilds in Germany, Poland and Cuba to base new steam designs on. So I guess that nobody else in the World is looking into modern steam power. I have another question to ask, why did the Chinese Government stop building steam power and why are many of these engines still in service years after the Government mandated that steam be banished?  Was the initial decision made on an economic basis?  If so can you support that claim?

 Actually "anyhing but steam" should really be "nothing but diesel" or perhaps, "nothing but electric" as far as much of Europe is concerned. The Rack locomotives appear to be brilliant engineering but those are tourist railways, correct? I am sure that some usage of Steam will continue in China as it is economical for them to operate in the applications they still use it for(mostly industrial i.e mills,mines and the like,IINM).

 It seems that you are using a relatively small number of special cases to advance the proposition that most off the world's heavy haul rail operations made the wrong motive power choice? And furthemore you contend that this is through some conspiracy of ignorance rather than sound mechanical/economic consideration? 

 For the record, as a railfan I am rooting for companies like T.W Blasingame and Vapor Locomotive to succeed (although both are trying to market Steam Electric Locomotives, not Reciprocating Steam engines), but in the real world I have to admit the prospects of any technology supplanting the diesel engine as the overwhelmingly predominate powerplant for non electrified railroad traction are exceedingly slim..........

[MichaelSol]

...but in the real world I have to admit the prospects of any technology supplanting the diesel engine as the overwhelmingly predominate powerplant for non electrified railroad traction are exceedingly slim..........

Why?

 

[wsherrick]

"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"

Let's see, there are two rack railroads one in Austria and the other in Switzerland, they replaced their diesel railcars with new steam.  The new steam is operated with one person, automatic firing. pulls more than the diesels did, costs much less in fuel and maintenance, and for what it's worth emits far less pollution than the diesel railcars.  The Rio Turbio Railroad in Argentina is going to extend its mileage to connect with Chili and become a transcontinental company.  They are rebuilding a couple of the original Porta Locomotives as prototypes for totally new build steam to replace the diesels that were bought to replace the steam engines in the first place. There is to a conference in Australia this year concerning adopting modern steam for commercial use, there is a new railroad to be built for the purpose of hauling coal unit trains in Indonesia that is seriously considering using QJ rebuilds as prototypes for new steam for that railroad.  There have been rebuilds in Germany, Poland and Cuba to base new steam designs on. So I guess that nobody else in the World is looking into modern steam power. I have another question to ask, why did the Chinese Government stop building steam power and why are many of these engines still in service years after the Government mandated that steam be banished?  Was the initial decision made on an economic basis?  If so can you support that claim?

 Actually "anyhing but steam" should really be "nothing but diesel" or perhaps, "nothing but electric" as far as much of Europe is concerned. The Rack locomotives appear to be brilliant engineering but those are tourist railways, correct? I am sure that some usage of Steam will continue in China as it is economical for them to operate in the applications they still use it for(mostly industrial i.e mills,mines and the like,IINM).

 It seems that you are using a relatively small number of special cases to advance the proposition that most off the world's heavy haul rail operations made the wrong motive power choice? And furthemore you contend that this is through some conspiracy of ignorance rather than sound mechanical/economic consideration? 

 For the record, as a railfan I am rooting for companies like T.W Blasingame and Vapor Locomotive to succeed (although both are trying to market Steam Electric Locomotives, not Reciprocating Steam engines), but in the real world I have to admit the prospects of any technology supplanting the diesel engine as the overwhelmingly predominate powerplant for non electrified railroad traction are exceedingly slim..........

No, its anything but Steam.  I was answering the above assertion that no one else in the World is looking at Modern Steam, I pointed out some examples that I am aware of and that has to be qualified again with another assertion.  As far as heavy haul railroads the Rio Turbio is a coal hauler and will expand its freight business when the line extensions are finished.  Since the skiing is good there they will of course in your mind deligitimize themselves by hauling tourists as well.  Both the Governments of Chili and Argentina have firmly decided that this railroad will be all modern steam. As far as the rack railroad example, I guess since they are only hauling tourists that they don't have the need to pursue the most economic and efficient means at their disposal to operate their business.  I guess they can run a loss and stay open because they haul tourists.  These new rack engines are cleaner, more powerful and more economic to run and maintain than the diesels they replaced.  Tourists are a commodity like any commodity that needs to be moved.  I guess the same logic just simply can't be applied to any other commodity that needs to be moved.

Of course dieselization was based as you put it on, "sound mechanical/economic considerations."  Let's see, the railroads scrapped in toto locomotives that were paid for and had many years of economic service left in them to go into massive debt to buy diesels which didn't last as long as the payments on them did, had maintenance curves that increased dramatically after the engines were only few years old, didn't improve employee productivity in train service at all, didn't improve operations efficiency or lower costs there, didn't improve maintence costs at all but rather increased them.  These diesels were/are so bad that the only option was/is to borrow more money on top of what was already borrowed to replace them yet again.  The result was the rate of return for the railroads were decimated during the period of dieselization because of dieselization. So I guess those, "sound mechanical/economic considerations," wern't so sound after all.

Now let's talk about right now in the present.  All the above issues with diesels are still with us, nothing has changed except they are even more costly to buy, maintain, and fuel.  The numbers shown in this thread vividly illustrate just how costly it is to run these diesels rather than even classical steam.  The improvments discussed for the steam engines are existant, have little or no extra costs to implement them and have proven to more that double the efficiency of the locomotive of 1950 vintage and reduce maintence of that engine to mere fraction of what it was.  Now when anyone of a rational mind takes a look a this issue, to him the course of action is clear.  I'm not trying to be smug or insulting to anyone.  I am trying to show the unwitting bias that is so pervasive.  Dante Porta made a statement about this uninformed anti steam bias, I'm paraphrasing: "Someone who doesn't know something is unaware that he doesn't know it." 

 

[tattooguy67]

Well and here's another angle to throw into this whole thing,( as if one was needed ) you can run trains on coal or diesel, as of right now you can run cars and light & heavy trucks on diesel but not on coal, at least not in a practical way, so given that we supposedly have only a finite amount of fossil fuel, would it not be more sensible to use it where it can't be substituted for some thing else?.

[Modelcar]

....Selector:

Love your photo....Very real appearing.  And, it sure does seem the "Y" pusher is justified.  The grade appears to be rather steep.

[youngengineer]

I'm not an expert I didn't stay at a Holiday express last night, but I have one question if steam is so cheap to run and maintain and can pull better run better and is just so exceedingly superior to diesel's, than why does the U.P. railroad who has 2 exceptional steam locomotives not run them on regular frieght trains? 

Ok, so I'm sure you will all have snappy comebacks but really does anyone believe the railroads are and continue to be that totally stupid about running their bussiness. If the numbers that have been bantered around give a true picture of how efficent steam was and is today, than you should be able to start your own bussiness and build modern steam locomotives. I am totally shocked that steam is so cheap yet no one, not one person has the foresight to bring about a radical shift in American railroads.

While as i said before I am no expert why has it taken 70 years for someone to realize steam is soooo superior.

[selector]

....Selector:

Love your photo....Very real appearing.  And, it sure does seem the "Y" pusher is justified.  The grade appears to be rather steep.

Thank-you, Sir.  I appreciate your compliment.  And yes, that lady has to work because I wanted large sweeping curves in a small space with height changes.  Had to be.

-Crandell

Young engineer, your question is legitimage, especially if we can continue to prevail upon our several erudite suppliers of reason to continue to provide us with some real history.  For those of you onlooking with interest, Michael Sol dealt with this aspect of the topic extensively nearly three years ago in a rather volatile and lengthy exchange.  It didn't go over well back then, but I think he held his own with some pretty stiff factual information.  Perhaps someone has a link...in fact, Michael may have done that here some time back.

-Crandell

[CopCarSS]

...if steam is so cheap to run and maintain and can pull better run better and is just so exceedingly superior to diesel's, than why does the U.P. railroad who has 2 exceptional steam locomotives not run them on regular frieght trains? 

844 and 3985 are oil fired.

[youngengineer]

3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? 

I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not an expert I didn't stay at a Holiday express last night, but I have one question if steam is so cheap to run and maintain and can pull better run better and is just so exceedingly superior to diesel's, than why does the U.P. railroad who has 2 exceptional steam locomotives not run them on regular frieght trains? 

Ok, so I'm sure you will all have snappy comebacks but really does anyone believe the railroads are and continue to be that totally stupid about running their bussiness. If the numbers that have been bantered around give a true picture of how efficent steam was and is today, than you should be able to start your own bussiness and build modern steam locomotives. I am totally shocked that steam is so cheap yet no one, not one person has the foresight to bring about a radical shift in American railroads.

While as i said before I am no expert why has it taken 70 years for someone to realize steam is soooo superior.

The U.P. engines are cherished antiques.  It would be pointless to chew them up trying to prove something pulling freight trains.  Besides, the prospect of returning steam does not envision 1940s technology, a point that has been well made here.  A return of steam would include modern technology, in all likelihood, never seen before.  It might be steam that generates current for conventional traction motors for instance.  It could operate M.U. or as distributed power.  Firing would be automatic.  It may not even be steam power.  Since the objective is to burn coal, it may burn coal in a supercharged combustion chamber and use the expanding gas to power a turbine or multiple-stage reciprocating engine.

And the title of this thread poses a question about the future, not about today.  With the exception of a little flurry of steam interest with the ACE project, the motive power of choice from the time of dieselization up until today, has been diesels.  What happens in the future is entirely dependent on the price of diesel compared to the price coal.  If the gap continues to widen, some kind of substitution is inevitable.  It seems like the three alternatives are electrification, coal-to-liquid fuel burned in diesels, and direct coal combustion.  The later requires a tremendous development effort of something entirely new and probably very complex.  The two former alternatives require comparatively little development, but require extensive capital investment in plants as well as locomotives.

So the fact that this return to coal has not happened yet is not proof that it cannot happen in the future as oil prices head into unprecedented territory.  And if coal fired locomotives return for economic reasons, it does not mean that railroads have been making a mistake by favoring diesels since the 1950s     

[tattooguy67]

3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? 

I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.

 

You don't understand how an entire industry could make a huge blunder and do it repeatedly? have you ever seen a K-car or others from that era? how about a Cordova, with it's rich corinthian leather?, you ever see the Love boat or Fantasy island?, ever think how we used to have a really amazing steel and auto industry in this country?. I would ask 2 things of you, first go to the very first post in this thread and read what i asked when i started this, do you see where it says diesels are inferior to steam? and second please tone down the sarcasm just a touch, i would hate to see this thread locked so soon, thanks.

[wsherrick]

3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? 

I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.

 

The arguments have been well supported in this and the other thread that Mr. Sol pointed out to me to look over, which I did.  I was astounded at the hostile spewing of pure ignorance, and personal assaults that he endured during that entire thread.  I have been in the railroad industry for 30 years and have run or been on the crew of steam locomotives for that length of time.  I am NOT a railfan per se, but someone who cares about his industry and honors its history.  The reason I have jumped in here is because I believe this is an important issue, an issue that factors not only in the railroad industry, but the long term destiny of our national economy as a whole.  I like M. Sol referenced H.F. Brown's report, gave a web location where it can be downloaded at no cost for anyone who has enough incentive to go get it.  I have referenced the works of Porta, David Wardale,and Col. Jefferies book, "N&W: Giant Of Steam," in which the information about how the N&W out performed the all diesel roads with their all steam railroad is plainly explained.  I paid the money to get the books and read them, done the leg work to find information about the nature of the issue at hand.  I am not going to spoon feed you the information for you all over again since it has been given already.  If you want to find out for yourself, you can go do it.  I have pointed out where you can find it.  Everyone here should be grateful that someone such as Michael Sol has the patience to take the effort to provide you with the information and to continue to do so even after he has had to face a such a lynch mob.  The only people here who have not provided any information to back their point of view are the ones who refuse to entertain any notion that the sacred cow of dieselization can be challenged or proven to have not lived up to its advertised reputation. I have enjoyed these coversations and will continue as long as the discourse is somewhat civil.  Thank you.  

[Paul Milenkovic]

Are there some reasonable leads on how I might purchase The Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam by Wardale?  I believe it is both out of print and a British publisher, but any leads on used book dealers would be greatly appreciated.

[TomDiehl]

3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? 

I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.

 

You don't understand how an entire industry could make a huge blunder and do it repeatedly? have you ever seen a K-car or others from that era? how about a Cordova, with it's rich corinthian leather?, you ever see the Love boat or Fantasy island?, ever think how we used to have a really amazing steel and auto industry in this country?. I would ask 2 things of you, first go to the very first post in this thread and read what i asked when i started this, do you see where it says diesels are inferior to steam? and second please tone down the sarcasm just a touch, i would hate to see this thread locked so soon, thanks.

Huge blunders? The K-car was one of the first US built production compact cars with front wheel drive, so I guess you're saying that this design was a mistake. And just how was the Cordoba inovative in any way? Or are you saying no cars are made with leather seats?

And what do lame sit-coms have to do with this discussion at all?

[youngengineer]

  I have read the H.F. Brown papers that Micheal so digintly found and shared with us. I understand what is said there and thank Micheal for his patience in digging into the discussion. I am not in any way trying to besmirch anyone.

   I understand that corporations make huge blunders, sometimes its just fascinating that all the railroads seem to make the same blunder at the same time. I guess I'm somewhat interested in how it all came about. Were the sellers of diesels, i.e GE, EMD, ALCO, and others so persuasive as to make the railroads blindly scrap steam for what looked like the future. Did the preverbial rose colored glasses get put on. Did the railroads see what could be not what really was. Its amazing to me that they just seemed to throw away good equipment for untried equipment. What was it that the railroads saw in this new technology.

   I will go seek out some of these books, and do some more research into what was and what became. I never thought to much about this time period, I just went along with what everyone had said for the most part in books. Diesels were better, cheaper, and so on, never challenging these authors. I guess we can all learn to look deeper into the words and maybe think, what really happened is conventional wisdom really the correct reality.

 

 

[daveklepper]

I would like to wiegh in on this issue.  Without entering the arguments regarding any blunders or what the economics were in general during the 1938 - 1956 period of real conversion from steam to diesel, I will state I believe that with the proper research and investment, coal-fired steam can make a comeback.   But it would not at all be the traditional reciprocating steam locomotive that we knew.   It would be a modern efficient electric power plant on wheels, with all the advantages of electric distribution of power to the wheels that is characterist of nearly all north american diesel locomotives.  What I envision is a modern high pressure boiler, with the metalurgy and structural engineering developed to make such possible with the vibrations encountered in rail service.  The power would be provided by two, three, or four efficient turbines, graded as to power, so the right combination of one-to-all turbines are in use for a particular throttle position.  Other than that, most of the rest of the technology would be similar to the most advanced design diesels.   (Note the comparison of the multiple turbine concept with genset locomotives.)  An alternative design might just use one turbine, either shut down or operating at maximum efficiency, with battery storage and use of the hybrid concept.

Frankly, I would not be surprised if EMD and GE have some secret back-room research and development on this concept right now.

Incidentally, such a steam locomotive could mu with existing diesels.

[tattooguy67]

3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? 

I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.

 

You don't understand how an entire industry could make a huge blunder and do it repeatedly? have you ever seen a K-car or others from that era? how about a Cordova, with it's rich corinthian leather?, you ever see the Love boat or Fantasy island?, ever think how we used to have a really amazing steel and auto industry in this country?. I would ask 2 things of you, first go to the very first post in this thread and read what i asked when i started this, do you see where it says diesels are inferior to steam? and second please tone down the sarcasm just a touch, i would hate to see this thread locked so soon, thanks.

Huge blunders? The K-car was one of the first US built production compact cars with front wheel drive, so I guess you're saying that this design was a mistake. And just how was the Cordoba inovative in any way? Or are you saying no cars are made with leather seats?

And what do lame sit-coms have to do with this discussion at all?

All those mentioned above were used as examples of how whole industries could make repeated blunders, the K-car and cordova or doba were used as examples of how the auto industry was caught with it's pants down, i also mentioned the steel industry, and the lame sitcoms were used as an example from another industry, the television industry.

[TomDiehl]

3985 was once coal fired, they changed to oil due to the problem of sparks setting fires along the right of way. I believe this change happened in the 80's. 844 was always oil fired I believe setting up a possible problem of coal being cheaper than oil. Why would railroads burn oil in steam locomotives? 

I have seent the past posts of how Micheal believes that steam is better, I tend to believe what Micheal says because he is the only one that seems to be able to back up his arguments. Having said that I dont understand how the railroads could have made such a colossal blunder and continue to repaet that blunder year after year decade after decade.

 

You don't understand how an entire industry could make a huge blunder and do it repeatedly? have you ever seen a K-car or others from that era? how about a Cordova, with it's rich corinthian leather?, you ever see the Love boat or Fantasy island?, ever think how we used to have a really amazing steel and auto industry in this country?. I would ask 2 things of you, first go to the very first post in this thread and read what i asked when i started this, do you see where it says diesels are inferior to steam? and second please tone down the sarcasm just a touch, i would hate to see this thread locked so soon, thanks.

Huge blunders? The K-car was one of the first US built production compact cars with front wheel drive, so I guess you're saying that this design was a mistake. And just how was the Cordoba inovative in any way? Or are you saying no cars are made with leather seats?

And what do lame sit-coms have to do with this discussion at all?

All those mentioned above were used as examples of how whole industries could make repeated blunders, the K-car and cordova or doba were used as examples of how the auto industry was caught with it's pants down, i also mentioned the steel industry, and the lame sitcoms were used as an example from another industry, the television industry.

The K-car was an example of how Chrysler was behind the power curve (the first oil embargo) by about 6 months. They knew higher gas prices were coming and better fuel economy would sell, but their current R&D plus fielding of a car put them a little behind the price jump and rationing. They were not caught by surprise or "with their pants down." Maybe a miscalculation on the "when" of the price jump. I don't know that GM or Ford had anything comparable in the works at the time. These two would be better examples of "caught with their pants down. And the Cordoba was just another car of that era, just like was produced before and after, with a Spanish sounding name, plugged by a Hispanic actor (with appropriate accent).

The entertainment indusry was and still is its own little world. Look at the so called "reality shows."

The steel industry is the only one that comes close, but is more likely a "milk the asset dry and abandon it" situation.

[OldArmy94]

I believe that a coal will yet again "ride the rails" due to its abundance in the North American continent.  There HAS to be a paradigm shift regarding energy policy in the USA or we will become a third-world country.  I am not kidding, by the way.