Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[MichaelSol]

I used a bad example because my statement regarding the relative prices of coal and oil may not be valid in a $100.00 plus per bbl economy and there is no prediction that it is ever going to go down. 

At current prices, at 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's of mineral coal would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel at 32% efficiency. The prices are, and have been for quite some time, far apart and getting farther ...

[R. T. POTEET]

That certainly explains the coal-fired generating plants.

It really does when you think about this salient point; when the railroads - Uncle John, the Onion Specific, among others - converted their steamers from coal to oil and back and back and back it was not too much of an undertaking because labor was relatively cheap and the units could be sidelined while the work was done. You don't just start pouring oil into a combustion chamber overnight; try sidelining a coal-fired generating plant some time! A lot of these plants continue using coal because the expense of conversion exceeds the value to be gained from the conversion itself.

I used a bad example because my statement regarding the relative prices of coal and oil may not be valid in a $100.00 plus per bbl economy and there is no prediction that it is ever going to go down. In addition to that look at what the increased use of ethanol has done to the price of corn for instance. If you are a corn farmer you are overjoyed by ethanol; if your favorite Saturday evening snack is corn-on-the-cob you are not very likely to enjoy the corn farmers blessings; you are going to have to grease the palm of the corn farmer in order to get him to sell to the food commodity marketplace instead of to the energy companies. The country is capable of importing only so much oil and the conversion of coal-fired generating plants to oil is only likely to cause a shortage and subsequent bidding war for that commodity.

[MichaelSol]

Oil is now approximately four times what it was in the 1970s but it is still considerably cheaper than coal.

WOW!

That certainly explains the coal-fired generating plants.

I would appreciate seeing your numbers on that one. I invite your contribution.

[wsherrick]

I can't see into the future as well as others, perhaps it's because my crystal ball is at the cleaners.

[R. T. POTEET]

Now I'm not about ready to wade through 36 pages of responses going back almost a year and a half so if this subject has been touched upon here I am sorry for the repetition.

Following the 1973 Ay-rab oil embargo a group of speculators - I believe the eminent Doyle McCormack was one of these - founded a company with the lofty title American Coal Enterprises with the equally lofty avowed purpose of using modern technology to bring back the steam engine in all of its radiant glory! ACE was going to utilize micro-computer technology to control the fuel-water consumption criteria of a truly modern steam locomotive. They even advanced a design for their first reincarnated steam locomotive. It was - are you sitting down for this? - going to be a cab-forward 4-8-2 with the cab in cab-forward looking suspiciously like the nose of a diesel, particularly a DDA40X diesel. This 4-8-2 would have a condenser in the tender for the purpose of recapturing steam to avoid the necessity of in-transit water stops a la South African Railways crossing the Great Karoo. A microprocessor would make microdecisions and carefully meter water and fuel into the boiler to maximize combustion.

ACE leased C&O 614, hitched up some sort of a dynamometer car, and ran a series of tests in order to test out a few theories - the results were, I understand, relatively impressive. However 614 drew more attention from railfans than from potential investors and when the price of oil dropped from $33.00 to $27.00 a bbl the aspirations of ACE hit the floor with a mighty thud. Oil is now approximately four times what it was in the 1970s but it is still considerably cheaper than coal.

We may well see the development of electrification in areas where it could prove itself to be economical but I'm afraid that the diesel is here to stay and the steam engine is going to remain on the trash heap of history. Lest one think that it is unique in this aspect for fifty years there have been advocates fostering the idea of a return to sail power on the high seas. Next time you take that inter-island cruise out of Honolulu look up and listen to that canvas flapping in the breeze.

[wsherrick]

I thought that this might be interesting to be brought up for those who haven't read it and to add to the current discussion concerning modern steam.

[Anonymous]

and yes i do agree, seing a coal steam locomotive in practical service again is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

We see that companies have turned to dieselization becuase:

Lower costs

Better fuel effeciency

MU

other stuff.

In the end steam lost out. But lets bring up the topic if we brought back steam today and applied new steam technologies to it. For instance, (hypotheticly) we have fuel thats clean, we use an engine like a 4-8-4 and itd desingned to produce more steam than it needs. The extra steam in turn goes to the tender and powers a (insert number here) hp engine wich helps it with taking off. This advantage giving the locomotive extra help when needed; this making the engine a good passenger/freight locomotive and the horsepower and efficiency is being used to its full potetnial. And if we can fuse atoms together we can certainetly make a comforitable cab for steam locomotives. 

I see us using steam for long haul runs and diesels for fast freight and yard service and inerurban areas. This is just my thinking. This theory is completely possible. It may be practical. But in the end Im just 14. Im not an experienced railroader.

[Datafever]

Ah, now for some reason, your "pictures" are all being displayed.  And I'm kind of sorry that I mentioned anything.

[vsmith]

Vsmith,

I'm not sure what the problem is, but all of your pictures are showing up as broken-image icons for me. 

[Datafever]

Vsmith,

I'm not sure what the problem is, but all of your pictures are showing up as broken-image icons for me. 

[vsmith]

[TH&B]

Steam locomotives will never return. It was always clear that the electric traction motor was superior as soon as it was invented. It was just a matter of producing the electricity on board to get away from the overhead wire. You could have a steam generated turbine locomotive I suppose, but what would be the advantage?

[vsmith]

[carnej1]

  A return to Steam traction is so exceedingly unlikely that debating it seems rather pointless. As far as using coal as a locomotive fuel it does seem that there is serious interest in developing coal to liquids technology i.e  the Fischer-Tropsch process. South Africa has long produced the majority of it's domestic diesel fuel using this method. It's a mature technology having been used extensively by the Germans during the second world war.

  As far as other locomotive uses of coal, a Diesel adapted to burn Natural Gas can also use coal derived producer gas (at reduced power output due to the lower caloric value). I guess if Railpower are able to succesfully build and market the Compressed Integrated Natural Gas (turbine) Locomotive detailed on their website it too could use producer gas. There have been a couple of proposals over the years to develop coal gassification units to act as "tenders" to modified diesel locomotives so it is probably technically feasible (though IMHO unlikely). Maybe bulk gassification with compressed or liquefied fuel tenders would be more practical.

 And of course coal can be used as power plant fuel to generate electricity to power electric locomotives if it's is economical to string up catenary....

 

[Anonymous]

Democracy Now?!

Where do you find these wacko groups?

The IRS does not allow simply cosmetic alterations of coal to permit the tax credit, and those that abused the credit are under scrutiny:

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/press.nsf/pages/861

Real synthetic coal has to be significantly altered from it's ROM state.  The synthetic coals to which I refer (Kfuel http://www.kfx.com/commdevelop.html , Carbonxt http://www.carbonext.com/ ) have moisture content around 6% or less, have had most ash removed, and also have much of the metalic elements removed as well, leaving a product that is mostly volatile carbon.

The point is, for steam locomotive applications, you'd be able to fit a lot more burnable product in the tender using real synthetic coals because you've removed most of the water content and ash, both of which would take up weight and space when using ROM coal.

I'm glad that you found that humorous, futuremodal.  I always find that the liberal press is more interesting to read than the conservative press.  

I noticed from the carbonxt website that they claim that their product is poised to compete with natural gas and raw coal.  They make no mention of it, but may I presume that they are receiving the $27/ton government subsidy on synthetic coal to accomplish that? 

If I was an investor in their product, I would certainly hope that they take advantage of ever tax break they can get.

[Datafever]

Democracy Now?!

Where do you find these wacko groups?

The IRS does not allow simply cosmetic alterations of coal to permit the tax credit, and those that abused the credit are under scrutiny:

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/press.nsf/pages/861

Real synthetic coal has to be significantly altered from it's ROM state.  The synthetic coals to which I refer (Kfuel http://www.kfx.com/commdevelop.html , Carbonxt http://www.carbonext.com/ ) have moisture content around 6% or less, have had most ash removed, and also have much of the metalic elements removed as well, leaving a product that is mostly volatile carbon.

The point is, for steam locomotive applications, you'd be able to fit a lot more burnable product in the tender using real synthetic coals because you've removed most of the water content and ash, both of which would take up weight and space when using ROM coal.

I'm glad that you found that humorous, futuremodal.  I always find that the liberal press is more interesting to read than the conservative press.  

I noticed from the carbonxt website that they claim that their product is poised to compete with natural gas and raw coal.  They make no mention of it, but may I presume that they are receiving the $27/ton government subsidy on synthetic coal to accomplish that? 

[Anonymous]

Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.

 

Advantage - Steam!

Synthetic coal?

The Democracy Now website considers synthetic coal to be a taxpayer ripoff.  Here's what they say -

Here’s how it works: A synthetic coal company buys raw coal. Under IRS rules, the chemical composition of the coal must be changed to qualify it as synthetic fuel. At the synthetic fuel plant that change often consists of spraying diesel fuel or pine tar onto the coal. The company then sells the coal to a user such as a power plant and then claims huge tax credits for manufacturing a synthetic fuel.

The problem is that to qualify for the tax credits, the maker of this so-called “synfuel” don’t have to prove that they are making a better kind of coal, one that burns more efficiently or offers any other benefit. By IRS ruling, they need only to modify the chemical composition of coal.

Democracy Now?!

Where do you find these wacko groups?

The IRS does not allow simply cosmetic alterations of coal to permit the tax credit, and those that abused the credit are under scrutiny:

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/press.nsf/pages/861

Real synthetic coal has to be significantly altered from it's ROM state.  The synthetic coals to which I refer (Kfuel http://www.kfx.com/commdevelop.html , Carbonxt http://www.carbonext.com/ ) have moisture content around 6% or less, have had most ash removed, and also have much of the metalic elements removed as well, leaving a product that is mostly volatile carbon.

The point is, for steam locomotive applications, you'd be able to fit a lot more burnable product in the tender using real synthetic coals because you've removed most of the water content and ash, both of which would take up weight and space when using ROM coal.

[Datafever]

Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.

 

Advantage - Steam!

Synthetic coal?

The Democracy Now website considers synthetic coal to be a taxpayer ripoff.  Here's what they say -

Here’s how it works: A synthetic coal company buys raw coal. Under IRS rules, the chemical composition of the coal must be changed to qualify it as synthetic fuel. At the synthetic fuel plant that change often consists of spraying diesel fuel or pine tar onto the coal. The company then sells the coal to a user such as a power plant and then claims huge tax credits for manufacturing a synthetic fuel.

The problem is that to qualify for the tax credits, the maker of this so-called “synfuel” don’t have to prove that they are making a better kind of coal, one that burns more efficiently or offers any other benefit. By IRS ruling, they need only to modify the chemical composition of coal.

 

[greyhounds]

Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.

Advantage - Steam!

Synthetic coal?

[Anonymous]

For this lifetime, I'll put my money on diesel/electric "hybrid" locomotives.  Steam engines have a lot of stages and parts.  The greater the number of stages or parts a machine has, the greater its probablility of failure.  A complex machine can be made reliable (think jet passenger airplane) but it is expensive to make it that way.  The basic components of a diesel locomotive are mature, reliable, and robust, and provide a lot of "9's" (decimal places) of reliability while remaining affordable.  The next generation of locomotive will build on the existing successful elements of the diesel locomotive, just as hybrid cars have built on the success and reliability of the standard gasoline car.  We will not see any new steam locomotives except in high school science fairs, low-brow publications like Popular Mechanics, or in the fantastic imaginings of railroad fanatics on internet forums... (don't they have normal lives to lead???).

Following from the Green Goat web-site:

The patented Green Goat® design, compared to standard diesel switchers - diesel electric and diesel hydraulic is cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, and produces considerably less pollutants.

The Green Goat® has over all capital cost savings of around 30%, and about 90% reduction in smog causing NOX (oxides of nitrogen), and a similar reduction in cancer linked particulate matter

[Anonymous]

I havent read this whole thread, but the issue of efficiency was known for steam locomotives,
but the N&W western did compare steam and diesel at one time and decided to continue steam use. Experimental locomotives like  turbines didnt quite pan out as expected.

The ACE locomotive research was an attempt to  revive steam locomotive development.
A cost effective steamer today could be viable but diesels are so imbedded now its difficult to
try a steam research development push.  Motive power development may take other turns with alternate energy development. 

A versatile steamer including MUing could be done today if energy demands change, and I think
some kind of constant development experimenting steam is a good thing to do and try making
even a few experimental prototypes.  The diesel decision was pretty much slam dang threw the steamer out without a good development continuance.

One thing can't be beat, the romance of the steamer, why I own models of 'em, gotta lovem.

That is the biggest thing that the diesel koolaid drinkers on this forum have missed:  Many components that made diesels *superior* to steam back in the day can easily be built into a modern steam locomotive - MU'ing, dynamic braking (and traction motor boosting), use of condensing to bypass water stops, that sort of thing.  Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.

Advantage - Steam!

[espeefoamer]

Two consultants,three opinions.

[dinwitty]

I havent read this whole thread, but the issue of efficiency was known for steam locomotives,
but the N&W western did compare steam and diesel at one time and decided to continue steam use. Experimental locomotives like  turbines didnt quite pan out as expected.

The ACE locomotive research was an attempt to  revive steam locomotive development.
A cost effective steamer today could be viable but diesels are so imbedded now its difficult to
try a steam research development push.  Motive power development may take other turns with alternate energy development. 

A versatile steamer including MUing could be done today if energy demands change, and I think
some kind of constant development experimenting steam is a good thing to do and try making
even a few experimental prototypes.  The diesel decision was pretty much slam dang threw the steamer out without a good development continuance.

One thing can't be beat, the romance of the steamer, why I own models of 'em, gotta lovem.

[Bergie]

I'd find it hard to believe that anyone could either add anything constructive to this thread, nor add any more insults.

Let's move on, gentlemen.

Gentleman... lets all try to remember that term. We can disagree, just try to be respectful about it.

Thanks,
Bergie

[Anonymous]

Some suggested reading.

The Northwestern book by Grant goes into some detail about what was going on economically during the 40's and how it affected the railroads. Briefly, 27% inflation, a national coal strike, a wage freeze for almost 3 years, labor shortages and the use of temps for back office work during the war. The freeze was lifted in '46 and wholesale prices rose 31% in the next 10 months. The railroad operating unions negotiated a 30% raise in steps from '46 to '48. The 40 hour work week also came back into play and the railway clerks retained 48 hous worth of pay for 40 hours work. The railroads were granted a modest rate increase by the ICC, but it did not fully compensate for the increased labor costs. Revenue went up in '47 & '48 but earnings fell. The decade ended in recession starting in '49.

The LA&SL book by Signor goes into the benefits of diesels on the southwestern part of the UP. Diesels were able to run across the entire division, eliminated many helper districts and reduced the number of assignments for those that remained. Dynamic brakes eliminated the setting, inspection, and release of retainers on many grades and the number of brakemen was reduced from 5 to 3 on many trains. Because of seniority, enginemen who held down road assignments ended up on the extra board and didn't see road work again for many years. A reprint of tonnage ratings for the division shows that an A-B-B-A set of F3's is equal to 1.7 Challengers on Cajon from San Bernadino to Summit. The heavier FA's are equal to 2 Challengers, despite having 2000 less horespower.

Steam Motive Power of the UP by Kratville and Ranks has a similar tonnage rating chart for all classes of power across all portions of the Nebraska division(p. 213). Here 3 1500 hp diesels have a slightly higher tonnage rating than a Big Boy. This book also talks about UP dieselization in general. Briefly, as the western districts were dieselized, modern steam was moved east, but on the Nebraska and Kansas divisions it didn't replace the oldest power in use. Both had many lightly built branch lines served by turn of the century 2-8-0's. What went into the storage/scrap lines were the heavier 2-8-2's, 4-6-2's, 4-8-2's, many 2-10-2's, and finally the 4-12-2's. When the divisions were dieselized in 1954, GP9's replaced everything in all types of service.

From NYC steam, the last Niagras purchased in '48 cost $292,000 and these engines were running 27,000 miles/month, as good as the diesels. At this rate they would have hit 1 million miles in 3 years. From Monarchs of the West in Classic Trains, the UP FEF-1's built 10 years earlier were running 15,000 miles/month and would have taken 5.5 years to reach 1 million miles. Other than roller bearing rods, the technology on the Niagras was not dramatically different, so they would have reached the end of their service lives when measured in years much faster than the UP Northerns. That high availability diesels did the same is really no surprise.

IMO, the entire decade is so atypical and full of economic distortions, that accurate forecasting is very problematic, both for the decision makers of the time or anyone using it as a basis for statistical analysis and projection. Given the rates of inflation and the 30% increase in labor costs, it's not at all surprising that railroad management jumped all over anything which could improve productivity and were willing to pay for it any way they could.

[AnthonyV]

From Michael Sol
"Because Brown recognized the existence of substantial numbers of high horsepower Steam locomotives compared to the entire fleet of relatively low horsepower Diesel locomotive units, his numbers would be diferent than yours. The assumption built into your numbers is that the average modern Steam engine was equal to the average Diesel locomotive, and that was not true.

If you assume the biggest Steam averaged 1,500 horsepower, you will get both the numbers and the costs you have estimated."


This is incorrect. The assumption was, in fact, the complete opposite. It was assumed that one steam locomotive was equivalent to 2.41 Diesels, just as Brown did.
The 27,900,000 train hour result for 1957 is not based on any assumption regarding locomotive size. It is based on the data presented in Table 3: Diesel Operating Statistics, 1953-57, Page 269 of Brown. This result is derived by dividing the train-miles by the train-miles per train-hours (i.e., average speed) for freight and passenger service, and summing the subtotals.

The number of steam locomotives was based on assuming there was only one steam locomotive pulling each train instead of 2.41 Diesels. Thus, locomotive hours equal train hours. Invoking the historical high of 1,700 hour per year per steam locomotive yields the 16,400 result I reported in my last post. The average power of each steam locomotive is about 3,600 HP, not 1,500 HP as you stated.


From Michael Sol:
"As Brown pointed out, railway tonnage began to decline after 1920. Many steam locomotives went into storage, but their numbers are still there."


Including locomotives that are in storage distorts the true number, age, power, and characteristics of locomotives actually in service. If what you say is true, then the actual fleet is smaller, probably newer, and likely more technologically advanced than when the stored units are included. Also, how is age characterized when a unit is taken out of storage? Is it characterized by years of service or by simply its chronological age?


From Michael Sol:
"On a per unit basis, it is true that a large Steam engine like a Northern will put in one-fourth of the locomotive hours to pull the same tonnage as four modern Diesels."


This is incorrect if we are talking about AVERAGE hours per locomotive. For example, say one Northern pulls a train for eight hours. Now we have a 4-unit Diesel pull the same train for eight hours. It is true that the TOTAL locomotive hours for the Diesels would be four times that of the Northern, but the average=total/number. Then the average =4 units * 8 hrs each /4 units = 8 hours. Thus, all locomotives logged eight locomotive hours.

Now, say the 4-unit Diesel set is broken up and each pull their own train for 4 hours while the Northern is in the roundhouse. The Diesels would have logged 12 locomotive hours each while the Northern logged only eight.


From Michael Sol:
"A declining fleet usage, which Brown identifies as occuring after 1920, coupled with the Great Depression, would inevitably -- inevitably -- show a poor fleet utilization, although the cost of such low utilization was low. Brown goes into some detail about the circumstances of Steam locomotive production and fleet numbers resulting from declining tonnages after 1920."


Average fleet utilization was only about 1,300 hours per year in 1915, which is before the decline to which you refer.


From Michael Sol:
"This was the reason that Brown felt the need to reference a hypothetical fleet, in order to properly represent both horsepower and the reality of modern Steam, compared to the statistical measure of what was, at the time, a very old fleet average of 27 years. There was nothing artificial about the hypothetical fleet, it simply reflected actual modern Steam power, as opposed to the fleet average of 27 years."



Brown's fleet is artificial. It is based on a few lines of calculations, basically equating total fleet horsepower to that of the Diesel with an adjustment for availability. An entire study would be required to determine the fleet requirements for an individual railroad, let alone for the entire industry.

While it is true that Brown's 3,600 HP steam locomotive may have reflected a modern steam locomotive, the question I raised in an earlier post still stands: Could a FLEET of these locomotives totaling 11,800 satisfy the railroads' operational requirements in terms of main line freight and locals and branch lines, etc.? Also, since you state that many units were in storage, what was the actual fleet number, average age, power, and other characteristics of only those units actually in service?

How would Brown's fleet be applied to a specific railroad like the Union Pacific? We know that certain sections of the Union Pacific was always in need of the most powerful locomotives like Challengers, Big Boys, and gas turbines later on. How could have Brown's 3,600-HP units have done the job?


From Michael Sol:
"To add a slightly different perspective, if hours are logged to pull tonnage, and a fleet of lower horsepower units naturally need to operate more in order to pull the same tonnage, you might well find that using the standard, "locomotive" hour, that the 1950s Diesels were, by that standard, as good or better than the larger horsepower units today, even though the larger units today pull much more tonnage per unit. Yet, no one would argue that a 1954 EMD Diesel is, using that standard, superior to a 2006 road Diesel, merely because it had to work harder to get the job done."


Each unit of a set of four 1,500-HP Diesels pulling a train works no harder than a 6,000-HP steam locomotive pulling the same train over the same route. Also, aren't you introducing the concept of tonnage to characterize, at least in part, locomotive service, which I brought up way back?

Horsepower requirements are determined solely by the train tonnage, route characteristics, and schedule. Remember, as Brown concluded, train makeup in terms of tonnage per train was independent of the type of motive power and thus did not change as a result of Dieselization. Diesels were pulling essentially the same trains as steam did in the late 1940's.

My calculations are based only on the data presented in Brown's paper. The results of these calculations suggest that Diesels achieved a fleet utilization expressed in terms of annual miles and operating hours more than twice than the average steam locomotive ever did. This represents a major change in how the railroads utilized their locomotive fleets. I don't know why, but it did happen.

Thanks
Anthony V.

[Anonymous]

[#ditto] What on Earth are they trying to prove with these 36 pages...that steam engines are more efficeint than diesles? If that was the case, why dont railraods use steamers anymore?

[selector]

This has gone from the arcane to the sublime to the ridiculous. "Are too!!" "Am not!!" "Are too!!" "Not!"