Could steam make a comeback?

[carnej1]

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?.

 ....Or you can run Cars, light & heavy trucks, trains, ships, planes and anything else with an engine on fuel produced from coal. Coal is after all a fossil fuel. There is nothing untried or unproven about the technology to convert it into other fuels suitable for transportation.

 

[nanaimo73]

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. 

One of the most vocal opponents Michael had on that thread was a poster named Old Timer, who began his career running steam on the N&W during the 1950s. On other threads, Old Timer expressed admiration toward the A and Y locomotives, and I would have expected him to support the Brown study. Old Timer declined my invitation to talk about N&W's steam policy.

N&W would seem to be one of the railroads that got it right, but they actually seemed to make a number of errors (IMHO). Michael stated from Brown that diesel switchers were more effecient than steam switchers, which should have been replaced early. N&W built 45 steam switchers during the 1950s, which must have had a short life before retirement, well before paying for themselves. If railroads can be faulted for rushing into dieselization, and buying too many models from too many builders, than N&W should be doubly faulted for making the same mistake in the later 1950s.

Should, or could, the A and Y locomotives have been kept in service until 1963, when the GP30 became availale to replace them?  

[carnej1]

...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?

 

 Because for all it's shortcomings the diesel is a fairly efficient and maintainable powerplant for mobile applications. It also is the case that the North American railroads have large fleets of (in the case of Class 1s) fairly new diesel locomotives and the infrastructure to support them. If the goal is to develop domestic energy alternatives it makes a lot more sense to take the coal and convert it to synthetic diesel than it does to build an entire new motive power infrastructure. The Synfuel can power the locomotives as well as the maintenance of way equipment, support trucks, semi tractors used for drayage, and all the other powered equipment the railroads use without modification.

 As far as the accusation that I somehow "hate steam" that is far from the truth. As I stated I would be thrilled to see new mainline steam locomotives but I can't help noticing that the North American railroad industry has shown no interest in any serious development since the end of the American Coal Enterprises project back in the 1980's.

 I certainly agree that there are situations worldwide where steam can make sense for revenue operations (Rio Turbio and the planned Indonesian coal hauling operation using secondhand Qj's for instance). But to take these special cases and use them as evidence that, say BNSF, should junk all their GE's and EMD's for modern steam engines is a bit absurd.

[MichaelSol]

 Because for all it's shortcomings the diesel is a fairly efficient and maintainable powerplant for mobile applications. It also is the case that the North American railroads have large fleets of (in the case of Class 1s) fairly new diesel locomotives and the infrastructure to support them. If the goal is to develop domestic energy alternatives it makes a lot more sense to take the coal and convert it to synthetic diesel than it does to build an entire new motive power infrastructure.

Well, what you are saying is that it is cheaper to build a whole new synfuel infrastructure than it is to build an entire new motive power infrastructure. The costs of synfuel, and the energy losses involved, as discussed earlier on this thread, suggest that it is just not cost effective compared to burning mineral coal. That's why power plants burn mineral coal. The hard fact of physics is that conversion to synfuel decreases the useful power content of coal while increasing its cost per BTU. You pay more to get less. And while sometimes it seems like that concept has an odd appeal in the rail industry, synfuel is useful only in applications where there is simply no other economic alternative.

Infrastructure? Coal is half of everything that railroads carry. It's already there. Ninety per cent of the infrastructure is in place: the mines are already producing; the coal combustion technology is already in place and light years ahead of the diesel engine which is pretty much stuck at what it could do 100 years ago, and with increasing pollution controls, its efficiency will decline, not improve.

But, ultimately, it's about cost. The differential between coal and diesel fuel has reached a point that it is simply not a rational question to argue that railroads "should" stay with diesel-electric technology because by the way we measure business -- by dollars -- it no longer makes sense to do so.

 

[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?.

 ....Or you can run Cars, light & heavy trucks, trains, ships, planes and anything else with an engine on fuel produced from coal. Coal is after all a fossil fuel. There is nothing untried or unproven about the technology to convert it into other fuels suitable for transportation.

 

Can you please tell me where the refineries that make this fuel are located and who owns and operates them, and also what the cost per gallon is?, thanks.

[nanaimo73]

But, ultimately, it's about cost. The differential between coal and diesel fuel has reached a point that it is simply not a rational question to argue that railroads "should" stay with diesel-electric technology because by the way we measure business -- by dollars -- it no longer makes sense to do so.

Why are you proposing that North American railroads should switch back to steam? In the past, I believe you have always supported a switch to straight electrics. If the switch to straight electrics is inevitable, an interm switch to steam would not be rational. By the way we measure business -- by dollars -- it makes no sense to do so.

 

________________

Tubes are twos and flues are fives.

[MichaelSol]

But, ultimately, it's about cost. The differential between coal and diesel fuel has reached a point that it is simply not a rational question to argue that railroads "should" stay with diesel-electric technology because by the way we measure business -- by dollars -- it no longer makes sense to do so.

Why are you proposing that North American railroads should switch back to steam? In the past, I believe you have always supported a switch to straight electrics. If the switch to straight electrics is inevitable, an interm switch to steam would not be rational. By the way we measure business -- by dollars -- it makes no sense to do so.

I am not proposing anything except to go where the numbers seem to lead: that the diesel-electric solution to rail transportation may have been based on flawed assumptions at the outset, but current fuel cost numbers, and its inability to genuinely meet modern emission standards, are beginning to suggest on purely economic grounds that its time has passed.

Electrification or Steam as the alternative? I thought the thread was about steam. Early on this thread I remarked that I thought Electrification was the preferred solution, but, since its a steam thread, well, there's your steam argument. On its own two feet. My personal preferences have nothing to do with the way the numbers come out: and the steam vs diesel numbers happen to come out that way at this point in time. A different discussion, about something else, would probably be interesting but as I have noted in the past, I'm not a big fan of attempting to discuss something trying to follow a continually changing set of parameters of the discussion in an apparently never-ending cycle that usually only finally ends when someones says something like "oh yeah, well what about ion-plasma pulse engines?"  If you want to talk about electrics, I would be glad to do so on an electrification thread. Compared to the Diesel-electric, Electrification always held many advantages. Now more than ever. Ironically, from a fuel cost standpoint at this particular point in time, Steam may provide many of the advantages of Electrification without the capital cost of Electrification.

How's that for an inversion of the old Dieselization argument?

[WM7471]

I have been following this thread for a while, and while there have been many comments about the technical aspects of steam verses other power forms, no one has addressed what I see as the major problem to bringing back steam - WATER.    Large quantities of treated (chemically not biologically) water.    

 

Even here on the water rich East Coast, communities are beginning to fight over dwindling water supplies.  In the drought riddled southeast, some towns are shuttling in water by truck.  In the West, water disputes are a part of both history and daily life. 

 

Even with water saving recondensing systems that were used in arid regions like South Africa, railroads would still be competing for millions of gallons of water every day.  In some cases, water supplies that were originally developed by the railroads more than a century ago were donated to local communities after diesels eliminated the need for that much water.  Water, which those same local governments would now not be willing to share.

 

I am going to make the assumption that the point of this thread is to examine the possibility of returning some form of steam locomotive to mainline service.  If that is the case, I believe that the infrastructure and legal costs for water source development alone would be so onerous as to make electrification look cheap.  This does not include all of the other infrastructure costs that would be needed for fueling and waste disposal that currently are not needed by diesels.  Ash disposal alone and the law suits that it would create would be a billion dollar industry.

 

IMHO it is quite possible to build an efficient steam locomotive that would be practical for small (tourist railroads) or specialty service (cog railways).  However, unless there is some type of major scientific advancement, a wholesale change in environmental rules and the public perception of them, mainline steam is as dead as the Dodo.  

 

I believe that the burning of coal will power trains across North America again, as soon as Washington begins to provide large tax incentive for railroads to electrify and power generation companies to build ultra-clean coal burning generating stations.

 

[tattooguy67]

I have been following this thread for a while, and while there have been many comments about the technical aspects of steam verses other power forms, no one has addressed what I see as the major problem to bringing back steam - WATER.    Large quantities of treated (chemically not biologically) water.    

 

Even here on the water rich East Coast, communities are beginning to fight over dwindling water supplies.  In the drought riddled southeast, some towns are shuttling in water by truck.  In the West, water disputes are a part of both history and daily life. 

 

Even with water saving recondensing systems that were used in arid regions like South Africa, railroads would still be competing for millions of gallons of water every day.  In some cases, water supplies that were originally developed by the railroads more than a century ago were donated to local communities after diesels eliminated the need for that much water.  Water, which those same local governments would now not be willing to share.

 

I am going to make the assumption that the point of this thread is to examine the possibility of returning some form of steam locomotive to mainline service.  If that is the case, I believe that the infrastructure and legal costs for water source development alone would be so onerous as to make electrification look cheap.  This does not include all of the other infrastructure costs that would be needed for fueling and waste disposal that currently are not needed by diesels.  Ash disposal alone and the law suits that it would create would be a billion dollar industry.

 

IMHO it is quite possible to build an efficient steam locomotive that would be practical for small (tourist railroads) or specialty service (cog railways).  However, unless there is some type of major scientific advancement, a wholesale change in environmental rules and the public perception of them, mainline steam is as dead as the Dodo.  

 

I believe that the burning of coal will power trains across North America again, as soon as Washington begins to provide large tax incentive for railroads to electrify and power generation companies to build ultra-clean coal burning generating stations.

 

You bring up a good point there about water, but let me make 2 counter points on this, 1. it is my understanding that to convert corn to ethanol takes very large amonts of water, and 2. the aircraft carrier i was stationed on ( the Saratoga, CV-60 ) was built in the early 50's and if i am remembering right they claimed the ability to convert 24 million gallons of sea water a day to boiler usable water.  Again i feel i have to explain the original thoughts on this post, i am not trying to argue the various merits of diesel or electric or steam power here, what i am saying is we know how to build a locomotive that would burn a fuel we have in vast supplies here, a locomotive that is not dependent on imported and refined fuel, and with the advances in technology that have been made we could make one better and more efficient and quicker then we could build the infrastructure to either produce the amount of coal to liquid fuel needed or to electrify the system.

[selector]

Is there no technology that can condense or recover water to a healthy extent?  I believe the S. African Railways had condensor locomotives.  Surely we can do a bit better by now?

[GP40-2]

...apparently never-ending cycle that usually only finally ends when someones says something like "oh yeah, well what about ion-plasma pulse engines?"

Matter / Antimatter technology is economically superior for locomotive use than old school ion-plasma technology according to a detailed paper published by Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott.

[MichaelSol]

...apparently never-ending cycle that usually only finally ends when someone says something like "oh yeah, well what about ion-plasma pulse engines?"

Matter / Antimatter technology is economically superior for locomotive use than old school ion-plasma technology according to a detailed paper published by Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott.

R.I.P.

[Anonymous]

Could coal make a comeback without steam?

Wasn't there quite a bit of interest in gas turbine locomotives during the transition from steam to diesel?  If I understand it correctly, they burn coal in a firebox, and send the resulting expanding gas of combustion directly into a turbine.  I always heard that the main problem encountered was fly ash eroding the turbine blades.  That seems like such a specific problem that I would think there would be some way to solve it.  I don't know how it all shakes out in terms of power engineering, but the concept of burning coal and turning it directly into mechanical energy without making steam, seems intriguing in its simplicity.

Has anybody ever explored the possibility of directing a stream of pressurized combustion gas into a reciprocating engine rather than into a turbine?  This would be like an internal combustion engine, except the combustion would be external.

[wsherrick]

   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.

 

 

The ability of a steam locomotive to burn low grade coal with emissions that are cleaner than a diesels IS ALREADY IN PLACE (I repeat myself here)  Again to those who refuse to comprehend that fact I will try to lay it out for you in more detail to see if it helps any. 

First you have to understand the nature of coal and the nature of basic combustion.  Coal is basically made up of three parts; 1 fixed carbon, 2 hydrocarbons, 3 inert matter (ash) and a small amount of moisture depending on the grade of coal.  Bituminous coal has a higher percent of hydrocarbon content than fixed carbon.  Hydrocarbons are what make up the gaseous content of the coal and is where most of the heat value is.  The fixed carbon burns at a steadier rate and at a much lower temperature than the hydrocarbons. The charcoal you burn in your backyard grill is almost pure fixed carbon.  In any fire the flame and much of the smoke you see in a fire are the hydrocarbons burning and being cooked out of the fuel.  To get the most heat out of the coal it is necessary to burn the hydrocarbons as much as possible.  The hydrocarbons of coal burn best at about 1500 to 1800 degrees F.  The fixed carbon produces much less heat and burns at a temperature between 500 and 800 degrees.  To get the hydrocarbons to burn you have to maintain the high temperature to do so and you MUST have the proper amount of air to combine with the hot gasses to cause ignition.  If the temperature or air mixture is not right then you get unburnt hydrocarbons which pass up the stack unused or they burn off to form carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide which produces much less heat. You get soot also which is the unburnt carbon portion of the hydrocarbon which is released in its almost pure form and that is what is visible to us as black smoke.

In a fireplace, parlor stove or locomotive firebox the air is introduced to the fire in two ways: Primary air and secondary air.  Primary air is the air that comes through the grates up to the fire from the bottom. Secondary air is what is drawn in over the top of the fire. Primary air burns the fixed carbon and secondary air burns the hydrocarbons in an ideal situation.

The traditional locomotive firebox allows only 10% of the air to come in as secondary air.  Any air to burn the hydrocarbons (remember this is what you want) must come through the fire bed first.  That is why a fireman is told to have his fire, "light, level and bright."  Needless to say this was only marginally effective in burning off the hydrocarbons in any satisfactory way.  Brick arches and combustion chambers are for the purpose of providing the space and time for everything to come together to burn the hydrocarbons successfully.  In order for the traditional firebox to pull in enough air to accomplish this, you have to have a tremendous forced draft. This forced draft is the least efficient way to burn the fuel as it is has to be heated to the right temperature and be in the correct proportion to burn the hydrocarbons and this all has to occur in a split second of time before the opportunity is lost and the gasses pass into the flues.  Plus this hard, forced draft pulls unburnt fuel out of the fire and out of the stack as cinders, a significant loss.  The third disadvantage to this as this method heats up the inert matter in the coal to a melting point and this causes clinkers in many cases and thermal stress on the firebox sheets.

The Porta, "Gas Producing Combustion System," cures ALL of the above problems without any extra expense or the needed technical advances that are postulated here in such a fuzzy manner.  How it works is this.  The firebox is modified to allow only 20 to 30% of the air to enter as primary air.  The rest is admitted as secondary air above the fire. A portion of exhaust steam is mixed in with the primary air to allow the fixed carbon to burn at a temperature lower than the fusing point of the ash, thus it burns completely without clinkers forming.  The fire bed is much thicker and the coal bed is hot enough to cook the hydrocarbons out of the coal (much like a coke oven.)  Once the gasses are cooked out they are burned completely in the secondary air admitted above the fire.  The secondary air ports are designed to create a cyclonic current in the firebox to insure the gasses and oxygen mix completely.  This cyclonic current also allows any cinders drawn up to be tossed out in a centripetal manner and burned before they can escape.  The needed draft to do this is MUCH lower than the ordinary locomotive and thus the thermal stresses on the boiler and firebox are virtually eliminated as well.  When this firebox is coupled with a LEMPOR exhaust, the draft is is evenly distributed across the fire bed and efficiency is increased much further.

This firebox is so efficient that the lowest grades of lignite can be perfectly burned in it.  This not any fictional, wanna be thing.  It has already been perfected and gives savings in fuel from 30 to 65% as displayed on the "Red Devil." 

What about emissions? It seems that to most here that there has to be some sort of Buck Rodgers advance in combustion techniques to control coal smoke.  According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively.  "CO and HC emissions virtually disappear and NOX emissions are close to their theoretical minimum".  Visible soot and cinder emission vanish as well.  Sulpher can be virtually eliminated by combining a calcite-dolomite mixture in with the fuel by mixing it on the coal pile or introducing it in with the undefire steam. 

This firebox can be retrofitted on any locomotive for a tiny, tiny cost and built into new ones at no additional cost, so that sort of blows away any argument that there has to be some sort of mystery technology procured at huge cost to achieve these results.  The GPCS firebox is only one of the many components of a second generation steam locomotive.  Perhaps these might be detailed in further posts.  Now I'm gonna see if this is fully read, comprehended and if somebody else is going to say something really stupid about liquid coal fuel as the only possible alternative.

[Anonymous]

 

The ability of a steam locomotive to burn low grade coal with emissions that are cleaner than a diesels IS ALREADY IN PLACE ...

This firebox can be retrofitted on any locomotive for a tiny, tiny cost and built into new ones at no additional cost, so that sort of blows away any argument that there has to be some sort of mystery technology procured at huge cost to achieve these results. 

I understand the primary and secondary air concept, and don't doubt the viability of the gas producing firebox, but I do not conclude that it is the ultimate solution and that no further advancement can be made or is needed.  If the concept of locomotives burning coal today were developed from scratch, with a clean sheet of paper, and with perfect, objective, engineering/economic logic, I would be surprised if the road lead unerringly to a conventional reciprocating/rod locomotive with a Lempor exhaust and a gas producer firebox.

 

You mentioned that steam locomotives can be retrofitted to a GP firebox for a tiny, tiny cost.  The Durango & Silverton RR has been exploring the possibility of converting its 2-8-2s to a GP firebox.  It seems like the cost is a major issue.  As I understand the GP firebox, it brings the secondary air in through many small tubes that penetrate inner and outer walls, passing through the pressure vessel.  Would it be possible to bring the secondary air into the firebox without penetrating the pressure vessel with the air passages?    

[MichaelSol]

The needed draft to do this is MUCH lower than the ordinary locomotive and thus the thermal stresses on the boiler and firebox are virtually eliminated as well.  When this firebox is coupled with a LEMPOR exhaust, the draft is is evenly distributed across the fire bed and efficiency is increased much further.

This firebox is so efficient that the lowest grades of lignite can be perfectly burned in it.  This not any fictional, wanna be thing.  It has already been perfected and gives savings in fuel from 30 to 65% as displayed on the "Red Devil." 

What about emissions? It seems that to most here that there has to be some sort of Buck Rodgers advance in combustion techniques to control coal smoke.  According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively.  "CO and HC emissions virtually disappear and NOX emissions are close to their theoretical minimum".  Visible soot and cinder emission vanish as well. 

Well, this is very interesting stuff. It does sound substantially like fluidized bed combustion which is coming into wide use in stationary applications for precisely the reasons that you set out. TVA's first fluidized bed plant was so efficient and pollution free that it exceeds the standards met by its 30 or so catalytic plants even as it boosts combustion efficiency substantially. I've never liked coal; or steam engines in particular -- not a fan. But the numbers pencil in very well these days, and coal, oddly enough, has benefitted from significant technology advances that are transformational, whereas diesel engines have really been stagnant for decades -- what efficiencies can be tweaked by better monitor and control electronics are given up to pollution control impositions.

 

[WM7471]

I am very sure that it is quite possible to build a coal powered steam locomotive that will be much more efficient than anything from the 40's or 50's.   What I doubt is that these new locomotives will be efficient enough to cover all of the massive costs  that will be necessary to make a change, even if the cost of diesel fuel goes up many times.

It is the ancillary and infrastructure costs, including environmental costs that will prevent the return of steam.  Tattooguy 67 makes the point that a large naval ship can easily process millions of gallons of fresh water using either distillation or the more modern reverse osmosis process that cruise ships use.  This is not a problem when you are floating around on a gazillion gallons of sea water, and the cost of processing that water is not a limiting factor.  Now use your imagination for a moment, and plop that ship down in the middle of the Arizona desert.  Now how much water can be processed?

The water has to come from somewhere, if it's not there, then you have a very expensive problem to solve.

Any mention of words like: "coal" and "burn" will immediately run you head long into the Enviro-NIMBYs who are experts at tying up projects in court at tax payer expense.  They will hogtie any steam project for years with everything from valid concerns to lunatic fringe pseudo-science.

The cost of fuel alone did not doom mainline steam, the reduction of labor and facilities costs did.   Somewhere over the years I have read that in the late 40's Union Pacific's Challengers and Big Boys could move a car from Omaha to SLC more cheaply than with diesels.  But after labor costs were factored in, even UP's beautifully service matched steam fleet went to the torch.

As much as I miss them, let the Iron Horse die...  And start hanging the wires.

[MichaelSol]

What I doubt is that these new locomotives will be efficient enough to cover all of the massive costs  ...

Well, what are the estimates for those massive costs?

 ....including environmental costs ...

If the technology is cleaner than diesel, isn't this backwards?

The water has to come from somewhere, if it's not there, then you have a very expensive problem to solve.

The diesel fuel is pumped out of the ground in a desert on a different continent, subject to political upheavals, moves by pipeline, then ship, then pipeline, then often by truck ....

And you say water is the problem? 

The cost of fuel alone did not doom mainline steam, the reduction of labor and facilities costs did.  

How much did the railroads save, vs how much did they lose on financing costs?

There is a problem with this entire analysis. The answers don't match the questions. And the questions don't seem to have answers ...

 

[carnej1]

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?.

 ....Or you can run Cars, light & heavy trucks, trains, ships, planes and anything else with an engine on fuel produced from coal. Coal is after all a fossil fuel. There is nothing untried or unproven about the technology to convert it into other fuels suitable for transportation.

 

Can you please tell me where the refineries that make this fuel are located and who owns and operates them, and also what the cost per gallon is?, thanks.

As I stated in an earlier post simply google "coal-to-liquids" and you will get plenty of links to actual companies. The reason that this technology is still in it's infancy in North America is that historically the costs have not been competitive due to the (relatively) low cost of conventional diesel. Obviously this has started to change with soaring oil prices. We could also speculate that there may be some reluctance on the part of "big oil" to purchase product from sources other than their own refineries. This is why it seems to be the coal mining companies that are driving this development (and I am not aware that they are investing any money into modern steam locomotive development). Among the organizations investing in this are the United States Airforce(for Jet Fuel manufacture) And Norfolk Southern Corp. (whose primary business, IINM is railroad freight transportation). BNSF has also shown some interest. There are projects operating both in the westen coal producing regions as well as Appalachia.

 Mr. Sol is 100% correct that converting coal into synfuel increases the cost per BTU but the fact remains that you get a product that is cost competive(and getting more so day by day) with petroleum based fuels and is usable in any diesel engine.

[carnej1]

Could coal make a comeback without steam?

Wasn't there quite a bit of interest in gas turbine locomotives during the transition from steam to diesel?  If I understand it correctly, they burn coal in a firebox, and send the resulting expanding gas of combustion directly into a turbine.  I always heard that the main problem encountered was fly ash eroding the turbine blades.  That seems like such a specific problem that I would think there would be some way to solve it.  I don't know how it all shakes out in terms of power engineering, but the concept of burning coal and turning it directly into mechanical energy without making steam, seems intriguing in its simplicity.

Has anybody ever explored the possibility of directing a stream of pressurized combustion gas into a reciprocating engine rather than into a turbine?  This would be like an internal combustion engine, except the combustion would be external.

 Caterpillar holds several patents on solid fuel gas producer systems suitable for mobile (specifically locomotive)applications. These are meant to supply producer gas to dual fuel or spark initiated gas(cng) engines.I believe Tom Blasingame(modern Steam designer) was involved in these designs, according to his online bio worked on similiar systems with MK rail(he also holds a patent on a slug/tender which would house such a device). I don't believe a prototype was ever constructed.

  I also saw some documents online some years back that detailed an EMD engineering study for a gas turbine electric locomotive using a gasifier system (as opposed to burning pulverized caol in the turbine like the UP experiment). These dated from the late 80's/early 90's, the same time period when GE was trying to develop coal slurry fueled diesel engine. There were part of a research paper written by an enginnerring student who (IIRC) had intereed at EMD.

[blue streak 1]

Any locomotive uses a lot of FUEL while idling. either in the yard or in a siding on coasting either downhill or just slowing down. I would like to see the number of hours a diesel is in run 8 vs. total time for a whole year. That is a lot of wasted fuel. In contrast with coal fired electrification plants, they run a long time at full power then some maintenance downtime. An electric loco can use regrenative braking to add power to the plant to be used by other locomotives, the general public, or into pumped storage ponds. A power plant has a higher BTU conversion and can easily be built to whatever polution standards in effect. I'll cover other aspects later.

[MichaelSol]

From:

Joule A. Bergerson and Lester B. Lave, "Should We Transport Coal, Gas, or Electricity: Cost, Efficiency and Environmental Implications," Environmental Science Technology 39(16) July 7, 2005 (American Chemical Society).

Abstract: We examine the life cycle costs, environmental discharges, and deaths of moving coal via rail, coal gas via pipeline, and electricity via wire from the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming to Texas. Which method has least social cost depends on how much additional investment in rail line, transmission, or pipeline infrastructure is required, as well as how much and how far energy is transported. If the existing rail lines have unused capacity, coal by rail is the cheapest method (up to 200 miles of additional track could be added). If no infrastructure exists, greater distances and larger amounts of energy favor coal by rail and gasified coal by pipeline over electricity transmission. For 1,000 miles and 9 gigawatts of power, a gas pipeline is cheapest, has less environmental discharges, uses less land, and is least obtrusive.

---

[blue streak 1]

"UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!!!"  As a boy I visited Roanoke and Bristol, Va. and observed N&W steam and would love to watch steam again. : However coal fired steam has one side effect no one has mentioned. Coal especially the low BTU coal of powder river coal produces ash. Now all locos had ash pans and they had to be dumped. I recall that even NS's coal excursions during dry seasons had a high rail following the train to watch for fires being started by both ashes or hot cinders. Fluidized coal? It is much like oil and I seem to recall that UP canclled a few Cheyene - Denver trips during an extended dry spell. Anyone know details? Regular Steam operations could even bring back the caboose for fire watches. I'd love to get a part time job watching for those fires. Wouldn't the RR's just love hiring another operating person? BTW the National forest people would just love that additional hazard.

[MichaelSol]

However coal fired steam has one side effect no one has mentioned. Coal especially the low BTU coal of powder river coal produces ash. Now all locos had ash pans and they had to be dumped.

This kind of falls into the category of "oh yeah, what about ...".

OK. The inventory costs of diesel fuel run about 10% of the price of the fuel itself. That's not chicken feed: the transportation, storage, maintenance, and inventory costs of the diesel fuel supply for railroads is a significant cost: $810 million in 2006 for the U.S. rail industry. That is a significant on-going infrastructure cost before a drop of fuel ever even gets in the locomotive.

On top of that, "storage" is a notoriously fickle process for diesel fuel. I live within catapault distance of two major disasters where the railroad fuel storage tanks leaked, and the railroad is now on the bucket for tens of millions of dollars of cleanup costs for contaminated soil and contaminated ground water, with the cleanup efforts stretching out for years.

And of course engine oil from the diesel engines is considered a "hazardous waste".

[MichaelSol]

....but the fact remains that you get a product that is cost competive(and getting more so day by day) with petroleum based fuels and is usable in any diesel engine.

But, it is not competitive with the cost of mineral coal which is far cheaper per applied BTU.

[blue streak 1]

Another point someone made to me is does UP or any other RR want another burning tresel fire like the one near Sacremento?

[MichaelSol]

Another point someone made to me is does UP or any other RR want another burning tresel fire like the one near Sacremento?

Well, my first job with the railroad was putting out ROW and trolley pole fires caused by hot combustion exhaust particles from certain diesel-electric locomotives before they got the spark arrester installed and this was, for some reason, an annual process.

[Victrola1]

Would a massive change in propulsion technology cause any noticable NIMBY reaction?

Would an "investigative" reporter dredge up old bolier explosion disasters? New steam locomotives rolling though your community could rain down tons of steel on your child's kindergarten class room. Will forest fires rage from sparks? What are your elected leaders doing to protect you? Tune in at ten.

Often when you look behind the concern, you find vested interests not above doing a little scare mongering because they are scared their position is threatened. Would a serious consideration change prompt much of a reaction?

I do not see Nimbyism as much of an issue on converting locomotive propulsion systems. However, I do not live in Rochester, MN.

 

 

 

 

 

[CopCarSS]

I do not see Nimbyism as much of an issue on converting locomotive propulsion systems.

Hmmm...the resident NIMBY's saw fit to complain about the smoke output from the D&S -- enough that the D&S hired a firm to look into the issue, IIRC.

I could see NIMBYism being a real concern for any conversion back to steam locomotion, even if it is cleaner. The public perception could easily equate new steam to older, dirtier steam.

[selector]

Another point someone made to me is does UP or any other RR want another burning tresel fire like the one near Sacremento?

Which steam engine was it that caused the last trestle fire?