MichaelSol wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Contextually my characterization of steam engine as 19th century technology means that it acquired a significant usage and refinement in the 19th century, but that it was rendered obsolete in the suceeding century. Well, oddly enough, electricity is a 19th century technology as well.Both steam and internal combustion were 19th Century technologies. Your characterization of steam as "19th century" appeared to be an editorialization to suggest that anything from the 19th century was anachronistic. Both steam and internal combustion reached new levels of application and efficiency in the 20th century, often through combinations with other 19th century technology -- specifically electric motors. The most advanced application of a 19th century technology appears to have occured when linked with a thoroughly 20th century technology -- steam and nuclear -- although most of our efficiently generated energy is generated the good old fashioned way -- coal-fired steam generating plants. A single such plant probably generates more power in a year than was generated by the entire United States in the 19th century. The entire 19th Century. How obsolete is that?As is so often the case, characterizations such as "19th Century" are nearly useless as a meaningful guide to why one form might be chosen over another. More meaningful, typically, is the cost of the commodity and its distribution providing the power. We are, after all, reaching a point of having a measureable installed base of wind power.Which century do you ascribe to that, and does it make it anachronistic, "obsolete" as you put it because of its century of original exploitation?
IRONROOSTER wrote: Contextually my characterization of steam engine as 19th century technology means that it acquired a significant usage and refinement in the 19th century, but that it was rendered obsolete in the suceeding century.
Contextually my characterization of steam engine as 19th century technology means that it acquired a significant usage and refinement in the 19th century, but that it was rendered obsolete in the suceeding century.
Well, oddly enough, electricity is a 19th century technology as well.
Both steam and internal combustion were 19th Century technologies. Your characterization of steam as "19th century" appeared to be an editorialization to suggest that anything from the 19th century was anachronistic. Both steam and internal combustion reached new levels of application and efficiency in the 20th century, often through combinations with other 19th century technology -- specifically electric motors.
The most advanced application of a 19th century technology appears to have occured when linked with a thoroughly 20th century technology -- steam and nuclear -- although most of our efficiently generated energy is generated the good old fashioned way -- coal-fired steam generating plants. A single such plant probably generates more power in a year than was generated by the entire United States in the 19th century. The entire 19th Century. How obsolete is that?
As is so often the case, characterizations such as "19th Century" are nearly useless as a meaningful guide to why one form might be chosen over another. More meaningful, typically, is the cost of the commodity and its distribution providing the power.
We are, after all, reaching a point of having a measureable installed base of wind power.
Which century do you ascribe to that, and does it make it anachronistic, "obsolete" as you put it because of its century of original exploitation?
Michael,
As a matter of interest - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - did you once make an economic case in a different thread for the superiority of steam power over diesel? If not, don't mean to smear you with other people's interpretations of your views, but if you did - would you mind providing a link? I would like to read it.
best regards,
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
nanaimo73 wrote: Any Nickel Plate fans out there ?Would it have been economically viable to run the Berks until the 1964 merger ?
Any Nickel Plate fans out there ?
Would it have been economically viable to run the Berks until the 1964 merger ?
Dale,
You obviously have an opinioin on this, please share. I was hoping some would run with this. I am interested in what someone with your knowledge thinks.
Gabe
selector wrote: UP 829 wrote: selector wrote: timz wrote: n012944 wrote:The N&W, C&O,PRR, and UP all tried out steam turbines. One of the main issues was that the ash from the coal just ate up the turbine blades. They were all steam turbines, weren't they? Nothing was supposed to touch the turbine blades except steam? Uuuhhh, .......yeah.....this one has me scratching my head, too. This isn't a jet engine where the throughflow is all air, fuel, and combustion byproducts all the way. This is a boiler with heat flues that keep the fuel and air and byproducts apart from the water...which is converted to steam which then interacts with the blades of the turbine....or have I missed something.The problem with ash eating turbine blades occurred on the experimental coal fired gas turbines, which directly burned pulverized coal instead of oil or jet fuel. UP did experiment with a 2 GE steam turbines in 1939, however these never entered regular service and spent more time in the shops, touring the country and posing for publicity pictures than actually pulling trains. Excessive mechanical problems is given as the reason in a Kratville book, but it doesn't go into details. They were also tried on the N.P. and possibly other roads, but I have no information on that. Didn't the east coast roads experiment with a Westinghouse built steam turbine??Thank-you for your reply. I am perhaps a bit obtuse or misinformed, but I am afraid that I still do not understand how ash could interact with turbine blades in a closed system meant to feed steam across the blades. If what you say is true, then I must assume that this is also the case with reciprocating steam engines inside their cylinders. That would be quite a revelation for me. How is this possible?
UP 829 wrote: selector wrote: timz wrote: n012944 wrote:The N&W, C&O,PRR, and UP all tried out steam turbines. One of the main issues was that the ash from the coal just ate up the turbine blades. They were all steam turbines, weren't they? Nothing was supposed to touch the turbine blades except steam? Uuuhhh, .......yeah.....this one has me scratching my head, too. This isn't a jet engine where the throughflow is all air, fuel, and combustion byproducts all the way. This is a boiler with heat flues that keep the fuel and air and byproducts apart from the water...which is converted to steam which then interacts with the blades of the turbine....or have I missed something.The problem with ash eating turbine blades occurred on the experimental coal fired gas turbines, which directly burned pulverized coal instead of oil or jet fuel. UP did experiment with a 2 GE steam turbines in 1939, however these never entered regular service and spent more time in the shops, touring the country and posing for publicity pictures than actually pulling trains. Excessive mechanical problems is given as the reason in a Kratville book, but it doesn't go into details. They were also tried on the N.P. and possibly other roads, but I have no information on that. Didn't the east coast roads experiment with a Westinghouse built steam turbine??
selector wrote: timz wrote: n012944 wrote:The N&W, C&O,PRR, and UP all tried out steam turbines. One of the main issues was that the ash from the coal just ate up the turbine blades. They were all steam turbines, weren't they? Nothing was supposed to touch the turbine blades except steam? Uuuhhh, .......yeah.....this one has me scratching my head, too. This isn't a jet engine where the throughflow is all air, fuel, and combustion byproducts all the way. This is a boiler with heat flues that keep the fuel and air and byproducts apart from the water...which is converted to steam which then interacts with the blades of the turbine....or have I missed something.
timz wrote: n012944 wrote:The N&W, C&O,PRR, and UP all tried out steam turbines. One of the main issues was that the ash from the coal just ate up the turbine blades. They were all steam turbines, weren't they? Nothing was supposed to touch the turbine blades except steam?
n012944 wrote:The N&W, C&O,PRR, and UP all tried out steam turbines. One of the main issues was that the ash from the coal just ate up the turbine blades.
They were all steam turbines, weren't they? Nothing was supposed to touch the turbine blades except steam?
Uuuhhh, .......yeah.....this one has me scratching my head, too. This isn't a jet engine where the throughflow is all air, fuel, and combustion byproducts all the way. This is a boiler with heat flues that keep the fuel and air and byproducts apart from the water...which is converted to steam which then interacts with the blades of the turbine....or have I missed something.
The problem with ash eating turbine blades occurred on the experimental coal fired gas turbines, which directly burned pulverized coal instead of oil or jet fuel.
UP did experiment with a 2 GE steam turbines in 1939, however these never entered regular service and spent more time in the shops, touring the country and posing for publicity pictures than actually pulling trains. Excessive mechanical problems is given as the reason in a Kratville book, but it doesn't go into details. They were also tried on the N.P. and possibly other roads, but I have no information on that. Didn't the east coast roads experiment with a Westinghouse built steam turbine??
Thank-you for your reply. I am perhaps a bit obtuse or misinformed, but I am afraid that I still do not understand how ash could interact with turbine blades in a closed system meant to feed steam across the blades. If what you say is true, then I must assume that this is also the case with reciprocating steam engines inside their cylinders. That would be quite a revelation for me. How is this possible?
I will reread th article when I get back home this weekend to give some of the details.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
The GE Steamotives of 1939 were indeed beset by a variety of mechanical problems, one of the major weaknesses was the use of a condenser. The Westinghouse-built turbine to which UP829 alludes was the Blue Goose, which was a gas turbine housed in a shark-nose carbody.
cordon wrote:The large reciprocating masses are a mechanical problem. It is well known in the automotive industry that six cylinders are the fewest number of cylinders that can run in balance without complex external balancing devices. Did any locomotive manufacturer try to put six cylinders on a single crankshaft and provide a gear drive for the driving wheels, instead of rods?
The large reciprocating masses are a mechanical problem. It is well known in the automotive industry that six cylinders are the fewest number of cylinders that can run in balance without complex external balancing devices. Did any locomotive manufacturer try to put six cylinders on a single crankshaft and provide a gear drive for the driving wheels, instead of rods?
While nobody built a locomotive exactly as you describe above, the Lima Locomotive Works was noted for building locomotives with three cylinders on a crankshaft and a gear drive for the driving wheels, most of us know these locomotives as Shays. Unlike internal-combustion engines, the cylinders on a steam engine have a power stroke on every stroke.
F M:
It's been some time since I've pulled up more data on the DRG experimental unit, but you can find a complete article regarding it and more photos and drawings of the project on the net. It plainly shows the configuration of the drive train.
It has two sets of "V"'s on each side, each driving an axle. Some photos have the sheeting off at the drive train and you can see it's configuration.
Quentin
Doc Murdock wrote:This will probably stir the pot a bit but I wanted to get some opinions on what the inquiring minds here prefer: diesel or steam. What would the advantages/disadvantages of both be?
Well, here is the original post. I don't think we've said much about advantages/disadvantages.
My comments sort of ignored the traditional coal-burning steam locomotive with large cylinders on the sides. I was thinking more about what a steam locomotive might have evolved into with an aggressive research and development program. Probably not the point.
When most of the steam locomotives we love were built, Diesel engines were relatively immature and electric generators and motors were large and clumsy. At that time, then, the main advantage was that steam worked well.
The main disadvantage of the steam locomotive was that it was labor-intensive. Another big disadvantage, not recognized as such at the time, was pollution. But when Diesel-electrics appeared, some of them polluted almost as much, and still do to this day.
Other people have covered the cost advantages of Diesel-electric locomotives pretty well, but I don't recall any mention of the pricing of Diesel fuel in the 1940s and 1950s, when most RRs made the transition from steam to Diesel. During those decades the oil companies sold Diesel fuel as a by-product of gasoline manufacture at a price far below the value of the energy in the fuel. This practice probably enhanced the cost advantage of Diesel locomotives.
What would I prefer? Between the steam locomotive we are talking about and Diesel-electric I have to say Diesel-electric because I believe the steam locomotive would not be good for either the railroads or the general population today.
But if you open up the question beyond those two, I really prefer all electric.
cordon wrote: I think turbine blades might have developed to be more shock resistant, like the blades in jet engines.I have never understood why RRs continued to release exhaust steam/water vapor overboard. The biggest step to improving steam engine efficiency was to add condensers. A condenser does two things: recover the water, and provide a much lower pressure for the exhaust. Reloading water was a significant cost for the steam locomotive. The large reciprocating masses are a mechanical problem. It is well known in the automotive industry that six cylinders are the fewest number of cylinders that can run in balance without complex external balancing devices. Did any locomotive manufacturer try to put six cylinders on a single crankshaft and provide a gear drive for the driving wheels, instead of rods?I found many answers in a search on "steam condenser locomotive." It seems that many companies built prototypes with condensers and prototypes with turbines, but gave up in the face of the Diesel electric. Steam locomotive fans might still be disappointed with a locomotive having a condenser because it doesn't go "choo-choo."
I think turbine blades might have developed to be more shock resistant, like the blades in jet engines.
I have never understood why RRs continued to release exhaust steam/water vapor overboard. The biggest step to improving steam engine efficiency was to add condensers. A condenser does two things: recover the water, and provide a much lower pressure for the exhaust. Reloading water was a significant cost for the steam locomotive.
I found many answers in a search on "steam condenser locomotive." It seems that many companies built prototypes with condensers and prototypes with turbines, but gave up in the face of the Diesel electric.
Steam locomotive fans might still be disappointed with a locomotive having a condenser because it doesn't go "choo-choo."
If jet engines were subjected to immediate deceleration to zero upon coupling to an almost immovable object, they'd break too.
The company I worked for built radios for space craft and we prided ourselves on that fact that they worked even in the violence of blast off and re-entry, but when we got into the Railroad business for railcar telemetry, we found our test instruments could not measure the shock and vibration levels... they went off the top of the scales! A rail car is subjected to more vibration and shock than the Space Shuttle experiences on take off and re-entry!
One of the reasons the steam is "vented" is that it is an integral part of the process to control the fire... when more steam is used from the boiler, the vented steam creates more draft over the fire to create more steam. Sure, there are other ways to produce this control process, but the present method is very simple (and cheap) compared to mechanical items (i.e.: needing maintenance) that would need to be added to accomplish it.
Then, there is the additional hardware required to separate the oil out of the steam to eventually return it to the boiler for reuse. Several RR's had locomotives that had condensers, but only in places where lack of water made their use economical.... back to that ol' problem of the economics of the Steam Locomotive.
And all that has to be done in the environment of a moving locomotive. Even a ship at sea that has this equipment does not subject the parts to the violence that a railroad locomotive is subjected to.
And, you are right... if it don't go "choo choo" (even as 'belittling' as those words are) it loses a lot of it's appeal. Same for the steam turbine or the other "methods" of improving the efficiency of Steam.
The German "V" configuration of pistons between the axels may be a steam locomotive, but it is NOT a "Steam Locomotive" like the steam fanatic (ME!) really, REALLY wants to see.
Early Diesels had the actual electrical motor mounted higher on the frame and drove the wheels with a "Jack Shaft" and had "side rods" between the axels like a Steam Locomotive, but still lacked the "romance" of a true Steam Locomotive.
We ALL have our "preferences" (be it Mikado, Northern, 0-4-0T, Shay, Climax, Heistler, "inverted bathtub" or "Buck Rogers" Streamliner, C-44MAC, SD-90 or SW1300), and personal preferences are just that, personal preferences... it is just that the Steam fanatic (ME!!!!) are a lot mouthier about it. I have an excuse! It is due to a psychological trauma at the age of 3 and a half that I will never get over (I won't let me! It is too much fun!).
I am not sure if we have covered the aspects of "Steam vs Diesel" that the original poster was desiring, but I have learned a few things here!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Modelcar wrote: ....F M: You mention of using 8 cyls. for a steam engine, etc....Well it was done. By the Germans, in the 30's. I have a picture of it and you can find it on the web. Enter: DRG experimental.It did run 125 mph and somehow it {the prototype}, ended up here in the States after the war and soon was scrapped. It had 4 clusters of "V" shaped cyls. totaling 8.
....F M: You mention of using 8 cyls. for a steam engine, etc....Well it was done. By the Germans, in the 30's. I have a picture of it and you can find it on the web. Enter: DRG experimental.
It did run 125 mph and somehow it {the prototype}, ended up here in the States after the war and soon was scrapped. It had 4 clusters of "V" shaped cyls. totaling 8.
Is this the one you're talking about....
http://www.worldrailfans.org/Articles/Europe/GermanSteamImages/Experimental/19-1001.jpg
Hard to see how the inner workings are configured with all that sheet metal covering...
I was thinking more in the line of a Pennsy T1 but with two additional cylinders on the inner side of the wheels for each driving set.
I think the big advantage of electric traction for locomotion is the constant energy feed (as opposed to the counter forces inherent with reciprocation), plus the ability to use the traction motors as regenerative/dynamic brakes. Of course, they could have put free wheeling traction motors on the lead and trailing trucks of a steam locomotive, engaging them only for dynamic braking purposes or maybe even as a booster set.
It is somewhat curious that diesel powered direct drive never made it past the experimental stage here in the US. What is it about traction motors that makes them ideal for locomotives?
Semper Vaporo wrote:I vaguely remember reading in a book and a magazine article the same comments about why Turbine Locomotives were not viable (turbine blades could not take the scouring of ash, etc.) but never really questioned it until this thread here. So I just did some research on-line.It wasn't scouring of the turbine blades. It was the damage to the turbine blades from the shocks of railroading that did them in. Backing into a heavy train could jar the blades into hitting the sides of the cavity they spin in. The coal dust/ash problem refered to was that it adversely affected the electrical systems of the steam-turbine-electric locomotives.
I vaguely remember reading in a book and a magazine article the same comments about why Turbine Locomotives were not viable (turbine blades could not take the scouring of ash, etc.) but never really questioned it until this thread here. So I just did some research on-line.
It wasn't scouring of the turbine blades. It was the damage to the turbine blades from the shocks of railroading that did them in. Backing into a heavy train could jar the blades into hitting the sides of the cavity they spin in.
The coal dust/ash problem refered to was that it adversely affected the electrical systems of the steam-turbine-electric locomotives.
IRONROOSTER wrote: In the 19th century the railroads used steam to drive their locomotives - in the 20th century they switched to using electricity to drive their locomotives. The electricity is generated by a number of sources, one of which is an on board diesel engine powering an on board generator. Since this was a superior system they stopped using steam. Contextually my characterization of steam engine as 19th century technology means that it acquired a significant usage and refinement in the 19th century, but that it was rendered obsolete in the suceeding century. In a thread on the Trains forum, diesel versus steam is understood by most to mean railroad engines (or locomotives as you will) as oppose to power plants, trucks, cars, etc.The use of "unfortunate" was an editorial remark meant to indicate that I personally wish that steam engines had not passed from the railroad scene. Personally, I am not very interested in non railroad uses of steam except when it whistles out of the kettle so I know it's time for tea. I have been attempting to elucidate my original remarks, which I feel were understood by most originally. For those who still do not understand, I admit defeat.
In the 19th century the railroads used steam to drive their locomotives - in the 20th century they switched to using electricity to drive their locomotives. The electricity is generated by a number of sources, one of which is an on board diesel engine powering an on board generator. Since this was a superior system they stopped using steam.
Contextually my characterization of steam engine as 19th century technology means that it acquired a significant usage and refinement in the 19th century, but that it was rendered obsolete in the suceeding century. In a thread on the Trains forum, diesel versus steam is understood by most to mean railroad engines (or locomotives as you will) as oppose to power plants, trucks, cars, etc.
The use of "unfortunate" was an editorial remark meant to indicate that I personally wish that steam engines had not passed from the railroad scene. Personally, I am not very interested in non railroad uses of steam except when it whistles out of the kettle so I know it's time for tea.
I have been attempting to elucidate my original remarks, which I feel were understood by most originally. For those who still do not understand, I admit defeat.
If I may, what you were trying to say is that reciprocating steam engines were obsolete, right?
Well, consider this - reciprocating steam was comprised of pistons, cylinders, rods, et al, right? What is a compression ignition engine comprised of? That's right - pistons, cylinders, rods, et al.
It seems to me that diesel engines are nothing more than a continuation of this "19th century technology". The only differences are the source of forcing the piston into action and the mechanical recipient of that force - in classic steam engines the pistons directly drove the wheels, while in diesels the pistons drive a generator that in turn supplies power to the driving wheels.
It may be that, if reciprocating steam technology had evolved to the point of using 8 pistons to drive the wheels instead of the usual two/three/four, maybe then steam could have matched the efficiency of an 8 cylinder diesel engine. It may very well be that it's simply a matter of more effectively using the steam provided, and not that combusting hydrocarbons directly in a piston is more efficient than forcing steam into a piston.
From the viewpoint of the steam fanatic (me) it is "unfortunate" that steam has, except for the few nostalgic museums, left the rails. This is not because the Steam Locomotive could not do the job, but because another mode of energy transfer was found that is cheaper to operate. If someone could harness June Bugs in large enough quanity at an overall cost that is less than the present most cost effective method, then we would be arguing the relative merits of "Diesel vs June Bugs".
"There ain't nuttin' like the sound of the little legs of 765-billion June Bugs gripping the rail as they pull tonnage up a 3% grade. And when they throw their wings into it, you just can't imagine the wind they can generate as they go past!"
Even as slow as the RR companies "apparently" are to adopt new "technology", they would not have "abandoned" Steam propulsion if it were economically "better" than what they have adopted.
The Steam fanatic (ME!) has, up until the next few words, never really voiced the secret desire to see something come along that will render the Diesel completely UNeconomical and force the RR's (hmmm, maybe too strong a word, how about, enable them to make the economic choice) back to the days of REAL Steam Locomotion... and NOT something "other than" the external mounted double (or triple) cylinder, double-acting, reciprocating steam "engine" on the front of a frame that holds a boiler as the "prime mover", repleat with drive rods, side rods and valve gear flailing away on the sides.
NEVER happen, I'm sure. NUTZ! They might change prime movers in the future, but will never "revert" to what the Steam fanatic (ME!) would REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to see. I am sure that it will never be ecomically feasable to do so. The energy cost to (re-)build the infrastructure is too great. Maybe (a BIG "MAYBE) some other method of creating steam could be invented, Maybe a less labor intensive method could be developed to maintain a rolling boiler, Maybe a method to MU multiple locomotives could be developed, Maybe, Maybe, Maybe, but very doubtful. ALL of those things, and a whole lot more, would need to be CHEAPER than the present method, or the cost of the present method would have to become MORE expensive than the so-called "obsolete technology" before it could possibly become a reality.
Hey, CNW6000, you may love Diesel 24x7x365, but at least can we count you as a Steam lover for at least one day every 4 years? Please????
A question, How do "ash and cinders" get into the steam turbine to play havoc with the blades? Doesn't the smoke and particulates go up the stack and the steam from the boiler go to the turbine. The two don't mix anywhere. I guess I see the steam turbine as being a steam only device, but maybe the actual method was more like a jet engine where the fuel burns in a combustion chamber producing a force from the expansion of the fuel in that chamber and an exit to the turbine, but that would not be a "steam turbine", would it?
....Steam as used to power trains may be "old" technology from the 19th century but in my opinion, and I come from an area of the country were we saw lots of them working and working with grades....They were up to the job at hand. I'd take nothing away from them as to their importance and ability to do the job at hand they were engineered for.
Now we have a different technology working for us....and doing a great job. Just a different time and level of machine available to do the job. Diesel electric.
Both capable of doing the job they were and are assigned.
cordon wrote: And they never moved from pistons to steam turbines, even though steam turbine technology was mature in 1940. In fact, a steam turbine could efficiently use electric generators and motors as a flexible transmission, just as Diesel electric locomotives do.If the RRs had done the research and development to make these modernizations, steam may have lasted longer.
And they never moved from pistons to steam turbines, even though steam turbine technology was mature in 1940. In fact, a steam turbine could efficiently use electric generators and motors as a flexible transmission, just as Diesel electric locomotives do.
If the RRs had done the research and development to make these modernizations, steam may have lasted longer.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology.
Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology.
"Unfortunately" internal combustion engines are also 19th century technology.
From Wikipedia, which I normally would not, ever, cite from, but this chronology appears fairly accurate:
1860: Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir (1822 - 1900) produced a gas-fired internal combustion engine closely similar in appearance to a horizontal double-acting steam beam engine, with cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, and flywheel in which the gas essentially took the place of the steam. This was the first internal combustion engine to be produced in numbers.
1862: Nikolaus Otto designed an indirect-acting free-piston compression-less engine whose greater efficiency won the support of Langen and then most of the market, which at that time, was mostly for small stationary engines fueled by lighting gas.
1870: In Vienna Siegfried Marcus put the first mobile gasoline engine on a handcart.
1876: Nikolaus Otto working with Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach developed a practical four-stroke cycle (Otto cycle) engine. The German courts, however, did not hold his patent to cover all in-cylinder compression engines or even the four stroke cycle, and after this decision in-cylinder compression became universal.
1879: Karl Benz, working independently, was granted a patent for his internal combustion engine, a reliable two-stroke gas engine, based on Nikolaus Otto's design of the four-stroke engine. Later Benz designed and built his own four-stroke engine that was used in his automobiles, which became the first automobiles in production.
1882: James Atkinson invented the Atkinson cycle engine. Atkinson's engine had one power phase per revolution together with different intake and expansion volumes making it more efficient than the Otto cycle.
1891 - Herbert Akroyd Stuart built his oil engine, leasing rights to Hornsby of England to build them. They build the first cold start, compression ignition engines. In 1892, they installed the first ones in a water pumping station. An experimental higher-pressure version produced self-sustaining ignition through compression alone in the same year.
1892: Rudolf Diesel developed his Carnot heat engine type motor burning powdered coal dust.
1893 February 23: Rudolf Diesel received a patent for the diesel engine.
1896: Karl Benz invented the boxer engine, also known as the horizontally opposed engine, in which the corresponding pistons reach top dead centre at the same time, thus balancing each other in momentum.
Not sure what the remark "19th century technology" has to do with anything in this context, or why it would be "unfortunate" -- railroads seem to be pretty much unverisally invested in this particular 19th century technology. Interesting to see Diesel working on an engine using powdered coal dust ...
Poppa_Zit wrote:Modern nuclear power plants use steam to turn the generators.
Modern nuclear power plants use steam to turn the generators.
IRONROOSTER wrote:Irrelevant to the discussion of steam vs diesel. Steam engines as used by the railroads used the steam to mechanically drive the locomotive not to generate electricity. This is obsolete.
Irrelevant to the discussion of steam vs diesel. Steam engines as used by the railroads used the steam to mechanically drive the locomotive not to generate electricity. This is obsolete.
Yeah, no kidding?
From the post that started this thread, I was under the assumption that this was a discussion of "diesel vs. steam" -- how the technologies are and were applied to industry, which includes railroads. So think your confusion centers around the semantics of the terms "steam engine" vs. "steam locomotive". I would venture a guess that just about everyone here would agree that for fiscal efficiency diesel electrics are far superior to steam locomotives. That's simply overstating the obvious.
Just as all "engineers" don't run trains, a steam turbine turning a generator in a nuke plant is mechanically a "steam engine" and therefore the technology of "steam engines" is not obsolete. ("Steam locomotives" in railroad or other use are obsolete, as you say.) But let's not forget the catapult system employed on modern aircraft carriers is also a "steam engine" and hardly obsolete technology.
PZ
CopCarSS wrote: I challenge any diesel enthusiast (cough, cough, Dan, cough) to stand by and watch 3985 and 844 double-headed racing by, absolutely pounding the ground, throwing their deliberate exhausts into the atmosphere, living and breathing as only a steamer can and tell me that he (or she) still likes those modern contraptions.
I challenge any diesel enthusiast (cough, cough, Dan, cough) to stand by and watch 3985 and 844 double-headed racing by, absolutely pounding the ground, throwing their deliberate exhausts into the atmosphere, living and breathing as only a steamer can and tell me that he (or she) still likes those modern contraptions.
Been there, done that. And I still would rather watch the Johanna Ore train with four RS3s up front and another three on the rear shoving. The 244s barking with everything they've got to keep the train moving upgrade at less than 10 MPH. Exhaust and sparks being shoved out the stack with such force that it makes you expect pistons and the crankshaft to follow. And yes the ground shaking.
I also was there watching the PRR carry the ore through Shamokin. Three I1sa Decapods on the head end and two more shoving (my grandfather being one of the engineers). Yes it was quite a show. But in my opinion the better show was watching the endless parade of E7s, E8s, PAs, F3s, F7s, Sharks, GP9s, etc. going up and down the Horse Shoe Curve with Centipede and RSD15 helpers. Uphill the roar was deafening, downhill every wheel was surrounded with a ring of fire trying to hold the train back. The sights, the sounds and the smells of railroading on a grand scale.
But IMHO the best show was at the Elizabeth on the corridor. Between the PRR above and the CNJ/B&O/RDG below if you did not have at least three moving trains in sight continuously throughout the rush hours then you were having a very poor day. Over 100 trains an hour is what you could expect. Everything from CNJs babyfaces burbling past at 20 MPH to PRRs GG1s carrying the Clockers to New York at 100+. That was one great place to watch trains.
CopCarSS wrote: I challenge any diesel enthusiast (cough, cough, Dan, cough) to stand by and watch 3985 and 844 double-headed racing by, absolutely pounding the ground, throwing their deliberate exhausts into the atmosphere, living and breathing as only a steamer can and tell me that he (or she) still likes those modern contraptions.Diesels are great, but nothing compares to steam.
Diesels are great, but nothing compares to steam.
I will be one of the first to say that, yes, I like diesels, even after I've seen 3985, 611, GTW 4960, C&O 614, and others run by. Diesels are one of the things that made me a railfan.
Poppa_Zit wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology. Modern nuclear power plants use steam to turn the generators.
As you point out, steam today is used in the operation of generators to produce electricitiy.It is not used to mechanically drive a locomotive down the track. Neither is diesel power. All of today's locomotives are electric.PZ
As you point out, steam today is used in the operation of generators to produce electricitiy.It is not used to mechanically drive a locomotive down the track.
As you point out, steam today is used in the operation of generators to produce electricitiy.
It is not used to mechanically drive a locomotive down the track.
Neither is diesel power. All of today's locomotives are electric.
Exactly, that's why the steam engine is no longer used by the railroads.
CopCarSS wrote: CNW 6000 wrote:Been there and done that. I still love a diesel 24x7x365. Have you seen a doctor about this? It sounds serious!
CNW 6000 wrote:Been there and done that. I still love a diesel 24x7x365.
Have you seen a doctor about this? It sounds serious!
I have, actually. He said take two GE's and call me in the EMD! All BS aside they are neat to look at but that's about it.
Dan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.