Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[oltmannd]

If steam to diesel wasn't a "slam dunk", there should have been a holdout or two who stuck with steam.

The closest to a holdout would be the N&W. They had every reason to want to hang on to coal as propulsion fuel and almost no outside forces pushing them to dieselize. They had a track record of designing and building some of the best steam locomotives. They had the facilities and workforce to do it. They owned all the coal they would ever need and it was located centrally to their operations. The Jawn Henry was, prehaps, the best attempt at building a steam locomotive whose thermal efficiency wasn't in the gutter.

In the end, none of it was enough and the N&W dieselized.

That there is a corelation between ROE and dieselization does not imply cause and effect. You might also argue that the decline was caused by the huge investment in passenger equipment. Or, intermodal equipment. Or, the introduction unit trains. Or, the introduction of 100 ton cars. All of which occurred during the same time period as dieseliztion.

I'd be more inclined to think that the sea change in American society between 1945 and 1965 had much more to do with the fortunes of american RRs than dieselizaton.

What next? The supposition that the finished vehicles should still be carried in box cars instead of racks because of the greater potential for backhaul?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Coal gasification technology will permit internal combustion engines to reap all the benefits of higher fuel prices when the prices get to that point, and that point will be before railroads want to deal with hard coal as a fuel supply.

Let me revisit that notion. It's been a while since I put a way my Pickett slide rule and left the chemical engineering field, but, as I now recall, finely crushed coal takes on an almost liquid character, and has identifiable flow characteristics. In the late 1970s, producers were looking seriously at coal slurry pipelines as an alternative to rail transport. Coal may not be that difficult to utilize.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Somebody had or designed a turbine that ran on powdered coal, I'll go look it up and tell you about it later.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Yes, something enormous did happen at the same time of diesilization. The Interstate Highway System. This was far more enourmous that the dieselization,

Well, we have a considerable disagreement about that.

Dieselization was nearly complete when Congress first authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956, the first pavement was not put down until 1957, and by 1960, it was still pretty much a few chunks of urban throughways. Dieselization of American railroads was over by then, and the ROI had already plainly suffered.

I study I did on the effect of interstates showed a high correlation between the presence of interstate highway "competition" and improving operating ratios. The reason: the highways took the short hauls on which the railroads lost money anyway, capital needs for equipment decreased, relatively, because loss of short haul freed up equipment otherwise tied up in service; older equipment could be retired more rapidly.

Short hauls, in those regulated days, were a poor use of employee manpower and equipment in terms of railroad efficiency compared to revenue earned.

Indeed, the loss of that traffic lessened the need for new diesels. During the period in questiion, the Interstate Highway System did more good than harm for the freight rail industry.

As it began to reach completion after 1969, that is a different era and a different discussion.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Tilden]

I remember hanging around the yard in Pocatello Idaho one day when the Seattle to Chicago container train came through. It had run non-stop from Seattle and was being fueled. NOT because it needed it, but because it was more convienent to refuel it further down the line the next time. The trainmaster came by and stated he'd just as soon have a larger fuel tank so they wouldn't have to stop at all!
Now, how often did a steam engine stop for water? Every 60 to 100 miles in hilly terrain?
It truely is the numbers.

[oltmannd]

By 1950, the turnpike system was in place from Boston to Baltimore to Chicago - serving the most populated and heavily industrial part of the nation. Additionally, there were limited access and other multilane highways being constructed in the guise of US highways that enhanced the turnpike network. (US 22 and US 30 in NJ and eastern PA, US 40 in MD, for example). Many of these were later rebadged as interstates. That the "true" interstate network came later is irrelevant for this arguement.

The turnpiked-rust belt is still the most populated area of the country. 40% of the US and Canada live within 500 miles of Harrisburg PA. It is no longer the most industrial, however.

Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Yes, something enormous did happen at the same time of diesilization. The Interstate Highway System. This was far more enourmous that the dieselization,

Well, we have a considerable disagreement about that.

Dieselization was nearly complete when Congress first authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956, the first pavement was not put down until 1957, and by 1960, it was still pretty much a few chunks of urban throughways. Dieselization of American railroads was over by then, and the ROI had already plainly suffered.

I study I did on the effect of interstates showed a high correlation between the presence of interstate highway "competition" and improving operating ratios. The reason: the highways took the short hauls on which the railroads lost money anyway, capital needs for equipment decreased, relatively, because loss of short haul freed up equipment otherwise tied up in service; older equipment could be retired more rapidly.

Short hauls, in those regulated days, were a poor use of employee manpower and equipment in terms of railroad efficiency compared to revenue earned.

Indeed, the loss of that traffic lessened the need for new diesels. During the period in questiion, the Interstate Highway System did more good than harm for the freight rail industry.

As it began to reach completion after 1969, that is a different era and a different discussion.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Coal gasification technology will permit internal combustion engines to reap all the benefits of higher fuel prices when the prices get to that point, and that point will be before railroads want to deal with hard coal as a fuel supply.

Let me revisit that notion. It's been a while since I put a way my Pickett slide rule and left the chemical engineering field, but, as I now recall, finely crushed coal takes on an almost liquid character, and has identifiable flow characteristics. In the late 1970s, producers were looking seriously at coal slurry pipelines as an alternative to rail transport. Coal may not be that difficult to utilize.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Somebody had or designed a turbine that ran on powdered coal, I'll go look it up and tell you about it later.

Nobody has yet been able to de-a***he coal well enough yet for direct combustion or injection. Erosion rates on blade and injectors are still way to high for economic use.

Gasification of the coal is no good, because if you leave the carbon uncombusted, your fuel cost is way to high. Gotta burn the carbon, too, not just the coal gas.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

By 1950, the turnpike system was in place from Boston to Baltimore to Chicago - serving the most populated and heavily industrial part of the nation. Additionally, there were limited access and other multilane highways being constructed in the guise of US highways that enhanced the turnpike network.

Well, if they were already there when railroads were earning 4%, their presence really doesn't explain why railroads dropped to 2% over the decade of dieselization.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

Not sure what your point is.

Best regards, Michael

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
That there is a corelation between ROE and dieselization does not imply cause and effect. You might also argue that the decline was caused by the huge investment in passenger equipment. Or, intermodal equipment. Or, the introduction unit trains. Or, the introduction of 100 ton cars. All of which occurred during the same time period as dieseliztion.

You will have to provide some detail on the interesting proposition that the advent of the 100 ton car impacted railroads 1945-1960, and the idea that unit trains and intermodal adversely impacted railroads during that time as well.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Nobody has yet been able to de-a***he coal well enough yet for direct combustion or injection. Erosion rates on blade and injectors are still way to high for economic use.Gasification of the coal is no good, because if you leave the carbon uncombusted, your fuel cost is way to high. Gotta burn the carbon, too, not just the coal gas.

No doubt a huge surprise at the Great Plains Coal Gasification plant in Beulah, ND., Southern California Edison's Cool Water project near Barstow, California. 100 MW, Polk Power Station at Mulberry, Florida, 313 MW, and Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project at West Terre Haute, Indiana, 292 megawatts.

The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Keep going Michael.

This is pretty interesting.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

By 1950, the turnpike system was in place from Boston to Baltimore to Chicago - serving the most populated and heavily industrial part of the nation. Additionally, there were limited access and other multilane highways being constructed in the guise of US highways that enhanced the turnpike network.

Well, if they were already there when railroads were earning 4%, their presence really doesn't explain why railroads dropped to 2% over the decade of dieselization.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

Not sure what your point is.

Best regards, Michael

correlation does not equal cause and effect.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Nobody has yet been able to de-a***he coal well enough yet for direct combustion or injection. Erosion rates on blade and injectors are still way to high for economic use.Gasification of the coal is no good, because if you leave the carbon uncombusted, your fuel cost is way to high. Gotta burn the carbon, too, not just the coal gas.

No doubt a huge surprise at the Great Plains Coal Gasification plant in Beulah, ND., Southern California Edison's Cool Water project near Barstow, California. 100 MW, Polk Power Station at Mulberry, Florida, 313 MW, and Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project at West Terre Haute, Indiana, 292 megawatts.

The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Interesting. What do they do with the coke?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Interesting. What do they do with the coke?

Well, with a 24.8 million Btu/ton energy content, coke is either used up or sent to a steel mill where they use coke in the furnaces. Sugar beet factories, oddly enough, used to prefer coke, and perhaps still do, for their furnaces.

Slag residue is used for road building.

In most coal gasification process where methane is the end-product, the catalytic processes involved produce no coke; it is not part of the process. Catalytic conversion has taken coke out of the cycle.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
That there is a corelation between ROE and dieselization does not imply cause and effect. You might also argue that the decline was caused by the huge investment in passenger equipment. Or, intermodal equipment. Or, the introduction unit trains. Or, the introduction of 100 ton cars. All of which occurred during the same time period as dieseliztion.

You will have to provide some detail on the interesting proposition that the advent of the 100 ton car impacted railroads 1945-1960, and the idea that unit trains and intermodal adversely impacted railroads during that time as well.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I would argue that those things were in reaction to changes in the markets due to the changes in society post WWII.

Unit trains were a reaction to death of traditional coal business. Home heating and industrial coal markets just plain went away. Power generation was what was left and where the growth was. No unit trains = power plants closer to coal source and trans by pipeline, conveyor or truck, not rail.

Intermodal was reaction to improvement in highway network and decline of heavy industry in the rust belt. 1st RR in in a big way was PRR - which not coincidentally had route map that matched the turnpike network. Traditional customers were dying. New ones were along the turnpikes and out in the suburbs - far from RR terminals.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

Not sure what your point is.

correlation does not equal cause and effect.....

Well, since no one has actually shown a correlation between turnpikes and the loss of industry, it's not much of a proof of anything. You say the turnpikes were in place in 1950. The term "rustbelt" came into use when industries began closing in the 1970s. The connection? I have no idea what you are suggesting. or how that is relevant to an actual correlation of two events occuring during the same time period.

"Correlation" as a statistical analytical tool is, however, much more reliable in showing cause and effect than the idea of waiving arms and insisting that "other things" were going on, and therefore can ipso facto be offered as "proof" that the demonstrated correlation is in error.

"Other things going on" is just not much of an argument. About anything.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
That there is a corelation between ROE and dieselization does not imply cause and effect. You might also argue that the decline was caused by the huge investment in passenger equipment. Or, intermodal equipment. Or, the introduction unit trains. Or, the introduction of 100 ton cars. All of which occurred during the same time period as dieseliztion.

You will have to provide some detail on the interesting proposition that the advent of the 100 ton car impacted railroads 1945-1960, and the idea that unit trains and intermodal adversely impacted railroads during that time as well.

I would argue that those things were in reaction to changes in the markets due to the changes in society post WWII.

Unit trains were a reaction to death of traditional coal business. Home heating and industrial coal markets just plain went away. Power generation was what was left and where the growth was. No unit trains = power plants closer to coal source and trans by pipeline, conveyor or truck, not rail.

Intermodal was reaction to improvement in highway network and decline of heavy industry in the rust belt. 1st RR in in a big way was PRR - which not coincidentally had route map that matched the turnpike network. Traditional customers were dying. New ones were along the turnpikes and out in the suburbs - far from RR terminals.

Well, I didn't mean for this to be a trick question. The 100 ton car was not a factor in general railroad operations 1945-1960. They had nothing to do with the declining rate of return during that era. They weren't there in significant numbers and if they were, they should have increased the rate of return assuming that was their intended purpose.

Same with unit trains and intermodal. Just not a factor prior to 1960. And if they were, you would be arguing that all of these influences were negative. Good grief, do you think railroad management was that bad? And if you do, then doesn't that offer support for the proposition that management entered into an important decision with regard to the timing and extent of dieselization without a full understanding of the facts, based in large part on demonstrated errors in the cost/benefit study assumptions?

But, since their influence was on a different era altogether, what is their role in explaining how dieselization did or did not adversely affect the ROI of railroads?

Just about nothing.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tilden
[Now, how often did a steam engine stop for water? Every 60 to 100 miles in hilly terrain?It truely is the numbers.

Well, maybe on Petticoat Junction, that is, I think TV had some impact on this perception.

"A modern coal-and-water station can load a tender with 24 tons of coal and 15,000 gallons of water in as little as four minutes. Many tenders are large enough to carry sufficient coal (or oil) and water to enable the engine to run for hundreds of miles without replenishing the supply." American Association of Railroads, 1942.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

This whole topic is the most stupid one I have ever seen. History tells it all.. 10 min of my life I will never get back.

[Modelcar]

Michael....We had a major turnpike through much of the rust belt by 1940....! It is widely known as the Pennsylvania Turnpike...{and we know it's full of trucks hauling freight}...now part of the interstate system. And just on the coincidence side I happen to have a Pickett slide rule right here in front of me in the desk.....And by the way the Pennsy Turnpike took the place of where a railroad was to be many years before...{Just trivia}.

[oltmannd]

Only by analogy. There were lots of changes in RRing from 1945 until mid 1970s when, not only did the wheels come off, but the axles broke, too.

I think all of those changes, with the exception of the investment in passenger svc, were valiant attempts to pump the bilge out of ship that was being swamped by a huge, rapid shift in post WWII society. It was the rapid change in the US and the inability of RRs to adjust fast enough to it that caused their decline.

I have no doubt that the ROI for dieselization was different than predicted - and there were unintended consequences, too. It's that way with all big capital projects. But, after one overhaul cycle, you pretty much know what your costs, utilization, etc. will be from a given locomotive model. I just can't believe that RR would have INCREASED their replacement rate of steam locomotives going into the mid 1950s if there was not a positive ROI.

And, its really too much for me to swallow that it was THE driving force behind declining RR fortunes during that period.

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

"A modern coal-and-water station can load a tender with 24 tons of coal and 15,000 gallons of water in as little as four minutes. Many tenders are large enough to carry sufficient coal (or oil) and water to enable the engine to run for hundreds of miles without replenishing the supply." American Association of Railroads, 1942.

Supply of fuel, they probably meant. Referring to certain NYC and PRR passenger trains.

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%.

By "recovery" you mean they hope the gas will have 50-70% of the coal's energy, before the gas is burned?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by timz

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%.

By "recovery" you mean they hope the gas will have 50-70% of the coal's energy, before the gas is burned?

The power plant will generate electric power -- the ultimate end product -- to the extent that the plant can be said to have a conversion efficiency from coal of 50%, say compared to a modern diesel engine which has a conversion efficiency of 31-36%. of the energy in the diesel fuel.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Leon Silverman]

MIchael:
The last time I looked (today), the chemical symbol for methane gas is CH-4, a carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. This is where your carbon is burned. Methane is a gas because the molecule is relatively small and light, compared to other hydrocarbon fuels which contain multiple carbon atoms combined with both hydrogen and usually oxygen as well. Coal Gasification is a two step process. You have to both remove the ash (and any other impurities) and change its' state from solid to gas. This requires energy consumption. Since few processes are 100% efficient, the energy content of the converted fuel has to be less than unprocessed fuel. In this case, the generated coal gas has only 50% of the energy that had been available from the orignial amount of solid coal that had been refined.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by timz

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%.

By "recovery" you mean they hope the gas will have 50-70% of the coal's energy, before the gas is burned?

The power plant will generate electric power -- the ultimate end product -- to the extent that the plant can be said to have a conversion efficiency from coal of 50%, say compared to a modern diesel engine which has a conversion efficiency of 31-36%. of the energy in the diesel fuel.

Best regards, Michael Sol

You're a bit behind the times for diesel engine thermal efficiency. A turbo compounded slow speed diesel is around 55%.

70% from any heat engine would have to include waste heat recovery to a large degree.

I am confused about the what % of chemical energy from coal is captured by the gasification process (coal gas BTU/total coal BTU). What is the energy cost for the gassification? And, what is the thermal efficiency for the coal gas heat engine (gas turbine? boiler? what?) that is turning the generator?

[MichaelSol]

Before you change the subject, because I am trying to nail down "all these other things" that affected the railroad ROI prior to 1960, I would still appreciate an answer as to how and to what extent the 100 ton car affected anything prior to 1960, how unit trains affected anything prior to 1960, and how intermodal affected railroads prior to 1960 as your proffered examples of things that overwhelmed the effects of dieselization of American railroads.

These were indeed significant impactors of the railroads, but you offered them in the context of alternate responsibility for a declining ROI, and offered them as examples for the specific period prior to 1960.

How did they negatively affect ROI? Particularly interested in the impact of the 100 ton car.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

The ROI fell after WWII because costs (wages, passenger losses, ect.) rose faster than regulated rates were allowed to rise. Dieselization just cushioned the fall.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

The ROI fell after WWII because costs (wages, passenger losses, ect.) rose faster than regulated rates were allowed to rise. Dieselization just cushioned the fall.

Do you have some numbers on that?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
70% from any heat engine would have to include waste heat recovery to a large degree.

I am confused about the what % of chemical energy from coal is captured by the gasification process (coal gas BTU/total coal BTU). What is the energy cost for the gassification? And, what is the thermal efficiency for the coal gas heat engine (gas turbine? boiler? what?) that is turning the generator?

The Wabash River plant generates 292 megawatts of electricity, and supplies- 262 megawatts to the electric grid . Presumably the rest goes back to the gasification process.

From the Department of Energy:
Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. Only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity by most combustion plants, the rest is lost as waste heat.

A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for a more conventional steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant can be boosted to 50 percent or more.

Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining waste heat can be channeled into process steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent."

Probably there is a separate thread more appropriate to this, particularly since there are specific, actual railroad content and questions pending.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[vsmith]

Its my understanding that dieselization was well under way right before WW2 broke out, the RRs were already convinced by the shear economic savings over the much more labor intensive steam locos. This transition was put on hiatus during the duration due to the higher priority of diesels needed for naval vessels. Once the war was over, and after a period of time for the major diesel locomotive manufacturers to retool factories, the steady march to supply diesel engines resumed. Dont forget, almost no new locomotives, steam or deisel were built during the war years unless they were priority ordered for the war effort, so the RRs had to run what they had and they ran what they had right into the ground due to the demand of shipping frieght a wartime economy demanded.

By the end of the war, the RRs were going to have to replace the aging and wornout steamers with either new steamers, costly rebuildings of the worn old steamers, or buying less costly to operate new diesels locos. Its not hard to understand why the RRs chose to order the newer deisels, they were less expensive to operate and less expensive to maintain. Any loss in motive efficiency over steam was compensated by the economic gain. Money talks, especially to railroads.

Sad side note: When the move towards dieselization began to really take hold by the 1950's, entire roundhouse crews, shop crews, entire facilities, whistlestops, watering and coaling stations were eliminated very quickly, throwing hundreds of RR workers out of work.

Anyway thats all I got to say, very interesting topic[8D]