I'll offer, for anyone who might be interested in it, a quote from an opinion column by Lev Grossman in the 7-21-08 issue of Time magazine. The subject of his column was how increasingly difficult it is for commenters on the Internet to communicate effectively with one another.
"Commenters tend to respond with surprise -- they're shocked, shocked! - when people call them on being not nice. In their social universe, this kind of rhetorical slap-fighting is just how you do business, and anybody who feels otherwise is thin-skinned and humorless. Maybe commenters are just on one side of a cultural disconnect between two incompatible ideas of what the social conventions of the Internet should be. One is based on the standards of real-world, off-line politeness. The other is a kind of communal game in which whoever is cleverest and pushes the most buttons wins."
Mr. Grossman went on to suggest that the "disconnect is probably just temporary" because one of those two sides will eventually become the norm.
selector wrote: I don't know if that makes sense. But it doesn't appear from Ted's last that he thought Michael was being conciliatory, and feels that Michael appears to have missed Ted's interest in moving the topic along on common ground..if it can be established. Ted would like to establish it with a gentler approach.
I don't know if that makes sense. But it doesn't appear from Ted's last that he thought Michael was being conciliatory, and feels that Michael appears to have missed Ted's interest in moving the topic along on common ground..if it can be established. Ted would like to establish it with a gentler approach.
What I object to is "absolute" knowledge. Above, it is represented by the conclusion "there is no comparison ..." and "ludicrous". "Steam is dead" falls into that category. These are the people that would have been defending the US Patent Office's 1899 declaration: "everything that could be invented has been invented."
And that was a statement made by someone who ostensibly knew what they were talking about, not someone who pretends the knowledge of "alloys" in jet engines without the faintest idea of what an alloy is or what is used in jet engines but feels the compelling urge to comment anyway as though that represents a contribution to the conversation.
Now, with a ten year career on my resume in Government R&D, which just happened to include managing a corrosion, surface chemistry, and metal fatigue testing laboratory for aircraft metal and parts, as part of wind tunnel testing facility, which included program certification of actual aircraft for experimental as well as commercial certification for government, Air Force, and contractor use, including both propeller and jet engine aircraft, yes, I did and do find it somewhat confrontational for someone to pretend to lecture me as to why there can be "no comparison" and as to what passes for "ludicrous" and particularly when he bases it on his own professed knowledge of "alloys". And follows it up with a condescending "I hope you feel better" as though he knew something to begin with.
The comment underscored a perennial defect in these steam threads, which has become a sore spot for me, of the astonishing hypocrisy of what passes for "analysis" here; a methodology of freezing one technology at seventy years ago, while touting a modern technology of today or even tomorrow as being "proof" of the "absolute" proposition, for which "no comparison" can be made even as no one seems to be able to refute the economic comparisons which are as clear and stark as daylight can make them. The "logic" of the discussions would not pass muster in a class of six graders, but for some reason continues to exist as the standard here.
And yes, as I get older, I get crankier about sloppy thinking. Ask my kids or students. And that is because I have a lengthening experience with the results of sloppy thinking, and the costs to people and society, including frictional costs, when people talk without any idea of what they are talking about, and don't take even a minimal amount of time to simply educate themselves before they talk.
And I don't mean this to be specifically aimed at Ted Marshall, but he uses an arrogant terminology -- "there can be no comparison" and "ludicrous" -- and in any specialty area such as engineering, economics, you name it, its one thing to have an opinion; it's painting a target on yourself to enter the fray with a minimum of competence and a maximum of opinion on the topic.
First off: I have no real engineering background:
Norman Saxon wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote: The late André Chapelon planned a whole family of modern steam-engines to be built in the late 1930s or after WW II. Among them a ultra-fast (steamlined) ten-wheeler which was rated for 230 km per hour or 142 mph. So he was quite near the 150 mph. Unfortunately, none of his designs was realized, except to prototypes, a 4-8-4 and a 2-6-0 (one prototype each). So it does seem technically possible to run high-speed-steam-trains. Why a ten wheeler? Was he just trying to pack as big a punch into a single engine as possible? Did Chapelon ever consider the viability of "M.U.ing" steam engines together under one operator?I doubt however it would be the most efficient way to propel high-speed-trains. If you have true high-speed, i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph, you need extra ROW with no freight trains on it. Then, it makes sense to build a HS-ROW with diverging branches in order to distribute the fixed-costs onto a higher number of passengers. And then, it makes sense to string catenary. You're under the same notion as most HSR proponents, namely that HSR = passenger trains, and only passenger trains. Why not HSR for freight? Can't a freight train move just as fast as a passenger train? It would certainly eliminate a lot of redudant trackage (e.g. one set of track for freight, one for HSR passengers) if both moved at the same speed. Don't cargo planes fly at the same cruising speed as passenger jets? Don't lorries move at the same highway spees as autos?
martin.knoepfel wrote: The late André Chapelon planned a whole family of modern steam-engines to be built in the late 1930s or after WW II. Among them a ultra-fast (steamlined) ten-wheeler which was rated for 230 km per hour or 142 mph. So he was quite near the 150 mph. Unfortunately, none of his designs was realized, except to prototypes, a 4-8-4 and a 2-6-0 (one prototype each). So it does seem technically possible to run high-speed-steam-trains.
The late André Chapelon planned a whole family of modern steam-engines to be built in the late 1930s or after WW II. Among them a ultra-fast (steamlined) ten-wheeler which was rated for 230 km per hour or 142 mph. So he was quite near the 150 mph. Unfortunately, none of his designs was realized, except to prototypes, a 4-8-4 and a 2-6-0 (one prototype each). So it does seem technically possible to run high-speed-steam-trains.
Why a ten wheeler? Was he just trying to pack as big a punch into a single engine as possible? Did Chapelon ever consider the viability of "M.U.ing" steam engines together under one operator?
I doubt however it would be the most efficient way to propel high-speed-trains. If you have true high-speed, i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph, you need extra ROW with no freight trains on it. Then, it makes sense to build a HS-ROW with diverging branches in order to distribute the fixed-costs onto a higher number of passengers. And then, it makes sense to string catenary.
You're under the same notion as most HSR proponents, namely that HSR = passenger trains, and only passenger trains. Why not HSR for freight? Can't a freight train move just as fast as a passenger train? It would certainly eliminate a lot of redudant trackage (e.g. one set of track for freight, one for HSR passengers) if both moved at the same speed.
Don't cargo planes fly at the same cruising speed as passenger jets? Don't lorries move at the same highway spees as autos?
Yes, but for 90 percent of the lorries, and all of the jets, the cargo is prtected, covered, and mpving in the same direction at the same time. Or so is the argument I;ve heard against High speed freight. I tried it in a fictitious Mordel Railroad once, ther research given to me was the amount of freoght creating an even longerr stopping rate, and the open cars. If your running units of boxcars, or tank cars, or hoppers, then the streamlining works. You mix them, or throw in flatcars, gondolas, or intermodel, and it skewers. Also, do you really want a semi trailer on a flatcar whipping through the alleghanies at 100 or even the 150? Can you ( the RR company) guarnetee it will still be on said flatcar, in the same position instead of having flailed sideways when the train stops? And what's stopping the two or three high containers from becoming a sailboat? And yes, I know the intermodals blow through, I'm on the route for bothe the Schneider Express and the Pacer Stacktrain. They do haul aft, I sit between Terre Haute and Avon. There's nothing along the way til you get to one of those. But 70 is not 150. Planes can make the great speeds because the cargo is together in the same container. (the plane body) And as to "lorries" The open trailer trucks that are loaded are often not travelling as fasst as the one's with box trailers.
Steam M.U.ing. You mean the way they did the articulateds?
Here's my take on modern steam, Science can enhance the locomotive. But the physics haven't changed since 1950, or anything 50. The guts of a diesel, at least theat I know of, aren't covering such a large, uneven area as a drive rod. Even a fan is still occupying the same places, and a pidston has a smaller area, less range for something to go catasrophically wrong. (If it's going to go that route, it will, but for the most part, less unprotected movement) To help me understand what I;m saying, I'll point to the camelbacks. Yes, they are about 80 years too far back, ut it;s the physics, and the same concern of things coming flying up at you and cleaving you in half.
-Morgan
As an observer, I think I see a disparity in the usage of terms, in understanding, experience, and so on that is making both of you misunderstand each other in a significant way. I think I see some rigidity and intolerance in the mix, too.
The ball that gets bounced around in this topic without seeming to make any points for the user is that reciprocating steam can't be now what it was. It can only be what it was then. Micheal's point, I think/hope, is that it could be much more, but only with some re-visiting with new know-how. It may or may not be reciprocating and still do what seems sensible today, or it could be turbine technology applied using steam, but on a locomotive. I think Ted feels that reciprocating steam in the 50's couldn't practically be used for the work required in trains today, certainly at speeds required to compete with aircraft for pax miles. I see that both of you could certainly be right. Michael is impatient with statements and claims by people who appear to mix their terms and concepts injudiciously (if innocently). Ted says rod-driven locos of yesteryear are best left as the wonderful antiques they are. I don't think Michael would disagree, but he is saying let's move the walls out a fair bit and see what new room we have.
-Crandell
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Ted Marshall wrote: There is no comparison between a steam locomotive with dozens of extremely heavy rotating and oscilating steel rods, pistons and drivers and a jet turbine engine with lightweight alloy fans turning on a single central axis. Attempting to make such a comparison is equally as ludicrous.
There is no comparison between a steam locomotive with dozens of extremely heavy rotating and oscilating steel rods, pistons and drivers and a jet turbine engine with lightweight alloy fans turning on a single central axis. Attempting to make such a comparison is equally as ludicrous.
Here's my problem when people jump in with their "obvious" conclusions.
The biggest Jet engines were generally built with titanium fans. It's not an alloy. It's an element. Currently, the most advanced generation of Jet engines are being designed and built with composites. They are likewise not alloys. They are also not metals.
The biggest Jet engines were generally never built with alloys.
Steel on the other hand is, in fact, an alloy.
You've got just about every single metalurgical fact in your short analysis backwards.
The GE90-115B Jet engine weighs over nine tons. Whether that qualifies as "extremely heavy" is subjective, but by the standards of any given moving part in a Steam engine, that's a big, heavy, high speed moving part. Like a Steam locomotive, when something fails, it's pretty spectacular but generally much more catastrophic. There are at least two such big moving parts on any aircraft that uses them. The moving parts alone weigh nearly 19 tons on a modern trans-oceanic commercial Jet aircraft.
The point, however, is that the GE90-115B could not be built in 1950. Simply impossible. The design and manufacture of Jet engines has benefitted from enormous technological advances since that time. The logical flaw regarding discussions of Steam power is the automatic assumption -- based on zero evidence and impossible logic --that of all of the metalurgical, manufacturing, and engine power source developments since 1950, only Steam locomotive design could and would benefit from none of them.
Perhaps there is a useful application of the word "ludicrous" and I think that idea might be it.
If the same "logic" -- I use the word loosely -- applied to Jet engine development, where would we be today? Lockheed Electras, perhaps?
Ahh. "Ludicrous". The name calling starts.
OK. Your engineering background is ... what?
MichaelSol wrote: A Jet Engine is a massive moving part, operating at much higher speeds.Seems to do all right.It has also benefitted immensely from metalurgical and engineering improvements since 1950.You don't think Steam would?And who is stuck in the past?
A Jet Engine is a massive moving part, operating at much higher speeds.
Seems to do all right.
It has also benefitted immensely from metalurgical and engineering improvements since 1950.
You don't think Steam would?
And who is stuck in the past?
Ted Marshall wrote: As pointed out, there are way too many massive moving parts involved for a steam locomotive to be feasibly utilized in its customary form even it was possible to attain such speed.
As pointed out, there are way too many massive moving parts involved for a steam locomotive to be feasibly utilized in its customary form even it was possible to attain such speed.
And, not you particularly, but who is stuck in the past on these issues?
After all, a diesel engine is a reciprocating machine as well, with many more moving parts, and much less robust moving parts.
I think the very idea of traveling at that velocity with a steam engine is completely ludicrous, attempting it would certainly be a recipe for disaster. As pointed out, there are way too many massive moving parts involved for a steam locomotive to be feasibly utilized in its customary form even it was possible to attain such speed.
I know that I wouldn't want to ride behind it.
I doubt however it would be the most efficient way to propel high-speed-trains. If you have true high-speed, i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph, you need extra ROW with no freight trains on it. Then, it makes sense to build a HS-ROW with diverging branches in order to distribute the fixed-costs onto a higher number of passengers. And then, it makes sense to string catenary. For example, a HS-ROW from (the suburbs of) Chicago to Cleveland and from there to Pittsburgh would have a branch from Toledo to Detroit (perhaps Toronto) and from somewhere near Toledo to the South to get to Columbus. Another branch could go to Buffalo, the branch-lines perhaps rated for only 100-125 mph.That's the way the French run their HS-system. Trains can follow each other in three-minutes-slots. In a package of trains the non-stop-trains to Cleveland/Pittsburg, to Detroit, to Toronto, to Buffalo and to Columbus would leave Chicago first, let's say at 9.00 a.m., 9.03 a.m., 9.06 a.m., 9.09 a.m. and 9.12 a.m., followed by trains that make stops at several intermediate stations. (Intermediate stations have passing sidings to let the faster trains go through).
Are you implying that your conductor won't pick up a coal shovel?
IIRC, they had air conditioned cars on steam-powered trains, so that is not an issue.
erikem wrote: Albeit with somewhat larger grate areas than would be needed with higher grade coal - the NP Yellowstones had the largest grate area of any production US steam locomotive.
Albeit with somewhat larger grate areas than would be needed with higher grade coal - the NP Yellowstones had the largest grate area of any production US steam locomotive.
And the Colstrip coal is perhaps the lowest grade of all the Powder River coal, and even at that, with their larger grates, the NP Steam power ran just fine. running competitive schedules over some of the roughest profiles in the West.
Milwaukee's coal at Roundup, which is considered by some geologists to be the northern edge of Powder River coal (others consider it part of the Fort Union formation), was a higher quality for instance, and the quality of the coal improves in other direction from Colstrip as well.
MichaelSol wrote: ignatius wrote: Much more of the bituminous coal used in the US today is coming from places like Powder River, which often need to be coked before use or are just to darned explosive to handle in a small furnace or firebox.PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant.Right? No.The Northern Pacific Railroad relied on Powder River Basin coal through the end of the Steam era.
ignatius wrote: Much more of the bituminous coal used in the US today is coming from places like Powder River, which often need to be coked before use or are just to darned explosive to handle in a small furnace or firebox.PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant.Right?
Much more of the bituminous coal used in the US today is coming from places like Powder River, which often need to be coked before use or are just to darned explosive to handle in a small furnace or firebox.
PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant.
Right?
No.
The Northern Pacific Railroad relied on Powder River Basin coal through the end of the Steam era.
If I recall correctly, the Powder River Basin coal boom started with coal mined from the NP's old mine at Colstrip - and this was pre-BN. As of 1971, the Western Energy mine was still using the 9 cu yd dragline built in 1923 and the 27 cu yd shovel built in the early 1940's.
I first saw a PRB coal train in August 1969 - hauled by NP F units.
Speak of the devil!
Here's a link to an article in the U.K. Guardian from July 16, 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/16/automotive.railtravel
"Full steam again"
Exerpts:
"In 1946 Paul Kiefer, chief mechanical engineer of the New York Central Railroad, set his latest steam locomotive, the potent, coal-burning 6,700hp Niagara class 4-8-4, against General Motors' brand new diesel-electrics. The Niagara could generate more power than three of the latest diesel-electrics coupled together. It could run the wheels off them while accelerating passenger trains as long as 30 modern British InterCity carriages with the alacrity of an electric.
The detailed report that followed revealed total annual running costs of $350,095 for Kiefer's finest and $359,478 for a twin-set of 4,000hp GM diesels capable of maintaining existing NYC schedules."
Apparently the author Jonathan Glancey stumbled across the "Steam vs Diesel" thread?!
Last Chance wrote: Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen,
Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen,
Why? Why not coal? After all, that's the whole point of going back to steam: Coal is relatively cheap, and getting cheaper (relative to petroleum and for that matter nuke) all the time. Coal fired steam is also very simple even with the modernization.
Remember - subs have to use nuke for ideal operations. There's a reason subs are nuke while surface ships are mostly fossil-fueled.
6 hours at 150 will probably encompass NYC, Akron OH, and close to Toledo... What about all those people in between? Dont they deserve 150+ service?
Not sure what you are driving at here. And the 150 mph is theoretical sustained speed, not point to point average speed which would be lower.
I go back to HST a little. Why are we peeing in the wading pool at 150 when we can build and run 300+ in regional corridors.
My understanding is that 150 mph to 200 mph give or take is the theoretical upper limit for non-electrified speed e.g. steam or diesel e.g. self propelled locomotion. Above that and you have to have catenary. With catenary comes exponentially increasing costs. Have you checked the price of copper wire lately? Concrete? Steel? About the only infrastructural commodity that isn't skyrocketing in price is wood, so one could use wooden catenary support structure like the Milwaukee PCE, but do you want to use wood for high speed service?
The second point is that 150 mph takes you twice as fast as posted highway speeds (and for that matter Amtrak LD speeds). If the point is to get folks out of autos, trucks, and buses then 150 will suffice for garnering that market. If however the point is to compete with airlines, is 300 mph even enough? 300 gets you even with a slow turboprop, maybe.
Lastly, is it even in the realm of (fuel and infrastructural) efficiency to try and run surface transport at 300+ mph even with nuke powered catenary? That's a lot of expensive capital being thrown at a relatively pedestrian 300 mph, when planes can fly twice that speed with minimized infrastructural needs. In other words it gets to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you're trying to facilitate airplane-speed surface transport.
It makes more economical sense for HSR proponents to focus on siphoning off highway traffic, not airline traffic.
Last Chance wrote:Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen, however much the people will fight such a idea of a nuclear train on the railroad track.6 hours at 150 will probably encompass NYC, Akron OH, and close to Toledo... What about all those people in between? Dont they deserve 150+ service?Steam is something that I have always enjoyed but it is a reality that it may never come back in the form as we understood it.I go back to HST a little. Why are we peeing in the wading pool at 150 when we can build and run 300+ in regional corridors.
Thinking about the Steam, I would have to lean on some Submarines and thier nuclear power plants to make things happen, however much the people will fight such a idea of a nuclear train on the railroad track.
Steam is something that I have always enjoyed but it is a reality that it may never come back in the form as we understood it.
Well said!!
Dreaming is fun. Let's get passenger trains to run on time, then make them run fast.
As a first link, I propose Erie, PA become the new hub of fast regional service with straight runs to Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Cleveland.
~Ignatius
Well, I will accept the nitpicking.
Last Chance wrote:The reason the T1 4-4-4-4 was built was to reduce the amount of mass on those wheels and cut down on the hammering of the rails.It worked well enough to get into a 4-4-6-4 or other engines.There is one little problem, getting to 150 is not a problem. STAYING at 150 is the problem.Ive been at 150+ in cars (In another lifetime) and frankly at those speeds you need to plan your stopping several miles before your destination. The maintaince was a headache at those speeds.
The reason the T1 4-4-4-4 was built was to reduce the amount of mass on those wheels and cut down on the hammering of the rails.
It worked well enough to get into a 4-4-6-4 or other engines.
There is one little problem, getting to 150 is not a problem. STAYING at 150 is the problem.
Ive been at 150+ in cars (In another lifetime) and frankly at those speeds you need to plan your stopping several miles before your destination. The maintaince was a headache at those speeds.
OK, I'll nitpick a little now too.
Even the T1 pounded on the rails to some extent. The difference between the rod locomotives and diesel-electrics is that the pounding is ELIMINATED and offers steady, even traction.
I will agree too, though, that staying at high speeds with steam would be a challenge if only for steaming capacity.
Could a re-vamped "modernized" steamer keep a full head for six hours running at 150mph? I'd sure like to see it. One of the P.E.s or M.E.s out there could give a better idea, but I believe the steam volume required for that kind of operation would be huge.
Another thought... Steam is not dead, just buried alive in history. The problem with energy ineffiency is the inefficiency of heat transfer and retention. You can't tell me every single practical possibility to solve that problem has been thought of and discared.
Steam is dead.
Now you want to see a show? Try one of those French trains that recently showed a video at 300+ or was it 350? for that record try they did last year.
Gentlemen:
There is still more here to be vetted.
To remove all doubt, the most advanced steam in North America had automatic stokers which would direct feed coal from the tender to the firebox. This became standard with many railroads by the mid to late 1920s.
If steam makes a high-speed comeback it will be a turbine, gear or other form which eliminates rail pounding common with rod locomotives.
The faster wheels spin and drive rods fly, the "heavier" they become because of centripital force. The force of the drive rods literally pounded stick rail with every movement. There was no way around it.
When you think of maintanence, you have to remember the locomotive as well as what the locomotive does to the property.
And half the fuel costs are at today's prices and exactly what coal are you getting?
Some eastern roads used hard clean burning anthracite which is now relatively expensive and less common. Most roads used a common bituminous coal in the day.
....I'd say the N&W J's were as "modern" and capable as any of that era generally and capable of 100 mph plus running for a lengthy time if track conditions were available. But 150 mph "normal" running back then here in America is just pie in the sky.
Quentin
Norman, I am thinking of it from the point of view of psychology. All the significant advances we take for granted came about from a competitive spirit or bent. The French TGV-type run much faster than 150 mph, so selling something less to the generally proud and accomplished American populace is, I think, unlikely to appeal to many would-be users. There has to be a vote-getting Wow! factor in such things. AMTRAK must do most of 100 mph or more often enough that adding a notional 40-50 mph to the mix will have to promise a much speedier delivery than is currently the case...with tickets, waiting, all the security arrangements...yada yada.
Crandell - how many 300 mph trains are there now?
I believe that when folks think of high speed rail travel, anything over 100 mph qualifies. 150 mph is roughly double the highest Interstate Highway speeds, that should count for something quatifiable. Getting there in half the time it takes to drive would have travelers banging on Amtrak's door.
The point I was making is in the fuel cost analysis. Coal fired 150 mph steam - apparently well within the realm of actuality given the past "static" tests Michael alluded to - would (at current coal vs diesel prices) have lower overall fuel costs than diesel powered 79 mph Amtrak/Intermodal trains.
Twice as fast and half the fuel costs. Think about it. That reality runs counter to conventional wisdom that slower speeds = lower fuel costs. All it takes is a shift in fuel type.
I guess the larger question is whether the current rail infrastructure could handle 150 mph trains. Is it just a question of signalling? Crossing safety? Or is there an inherent higher track maintenance cost factor of high speeds vs lower relative speeds, one that is exponential in it's impact?
PS - the reason I am using the T1 as the poster child for high speed steam is a Gil Reid reproduction wherein the T1 is alleged to be running at 120 mph. Whether a 4-4-4-4 with four cylinders is superior to a 4-8-4 with two cylinders I cannot say. I am only assuming the four cylinder is superior to the two cylinder.
Wasn't N&W's J rumored to have run up to 120 mph?
Hi
Yes I agree, my uncle was an engineer and he told me he could exceed 100 mph but was not comfortable doing it because the track was not smooth enough.
Lee
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.