futuremodal wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology. You should keep in mind that all our thermal power plants generating electricity are using steam technology. Ergo, steam technology continues to evolve, and it beats any kind of compression-ignition/spark-ignition induced methods for turning a generator hands down.It's just the rail industry that threw in the towell on steam, not those of us in the real world!
IRONROOSTER wrote: Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology.
Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology.
You should keep in mind that all our thermal power plants generating electricity are using steam technology. Ergo, steam technology continues to evolve, and it beats any kind of compression-ignition/spark-ignition induced methods for turning a generator hands down.
It's just the rail industry that threw in the towell on steam, not those of us in the real world!
Well I don't disagree about steam being used today, but we are talking about steam engines as in railroad locomotives. That technology is obsolete, even China has finally switched. It's kind of like wind. We are now using it to generate power, but the sailing ships aren't lining up at the LA and Baltimore ports with tons of freight. 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.
Enjoy
Paul
Steam engines are just plain cool! They are living iron beasts that demand the utmost respect of their handlers or they will make you pay! Flat out nothing sounds as good, looks as good, or puts on a show like a steam engine pounding the rails.
I once saw a Santa Fe passenger train powered by 3751 come in to Topeka Rail Days with 2 Santa Fe diesels in tow. When i asked the big steamer's engineer why he need the help of the diesels to pull that train he replied, 'I don't, they're hear to stop me!'
Long live the Steamer!!!!
....I've been in the presence of steam when it was in regular service hauling coal up 2% plus grade on the S&C in Pennsylvania, with one large engine on front...sometimes a double engine {malley}, and always at least one pushing on the rear, sometimes two, and all of them blasting and shaking the ground as they ground past with an awesome display of machinery doing the job.....!! No one could stand there and not be impressed by that display....
And now....In the 21th century, we see modern six axle engines, sometimes {in normal operations}, 3 or 4 of them doing the job up front and doing it well with not too much fuss but still producing a mass of machinery up to the task....Getting the {modern}, job done.
Both instances, in my opinion are impressive.....For a winner....Guess that is up to the observer....To me, they both are.
Quentin
CNW 6000 wrote:Been there and done that. I still love a diesel 24x7x365.
Have you seen a doctor about this? It sounds serious!
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
Dan
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.
A few years ago I attended a railroad show in Denver. Among the displays were several modular layouts built and assembled by several Front Range model railroad clubs. There was one display set at floor level that really caught my eye. Although it was completely devoid of scenery, it did feature a G-scale Union Pacific Big Boy equipped with sound that seemed to move with the greatest of ease.
Now I've seen Big Boy's little cousin (UP 3985) plenty of times under steam, and yes, I'll admit, it's pretty impressive whether being hostled around the Cheyenne yard or lifting big tonnage at speed over Archer Hill east of town. But seeing that model Big Boy with those extra sets of drivers put me into a space/time freeze. Very impressive!
Semper Vaporo wrote: CNW 6000 wrote:Anything that's not fuel injected, IMHO, should go to a museum or tourist line and live until it rusts. AH! YES! I understand, you like Steam Locomotives that have automatic stokers! Sure, that makes sense!
CNW 6000 wrote:Anything that's not fuel injected, IMHO, should go to a museum or tourist line and live until it rusts.
AH! YES! I understand, you like Steam Locomotives that have automatic stokers! Sure, that makes sense!
Nope. If it's steam I'll take a picture of it, but it means nothing to me. As was said it's different and may occasionally be interesting to look at but I'll take a -9W or AC4400CW or SD70ACe any day over anything steam.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Chad, I understand your point and hope nobody even considers kicking you off the board, or "on" any particular part of your anatomy. Regardless of what you obviously need!
I am just old enough to have seen mainline steam and having had an "emotionally traumatic" event in my early life CAUSED by a Steam Locomotive (and please note the respectiful capitalization of "Steam Locomotive"), I have a terribly ingrained attachment to them. Some folk go bungee-jumping or sky-diving or ride a roller-coaster to get their adrenalin pumping... me?, I go stand near a Steam Locomotive! I believe that if I had a heart attack and needed a shot of adrenalin directly into my heart, but no hypo was available, all the paramedic would need to do is whisper in my ear, "Berkshire, Mikado, American 4-4-0". and I would jump right up and look around for it. Unfortunately, I'd probably die of dissappointment when I didn't see one right away.
We all have our "passions", misguided though they may be, and we must allow for it. I remember being at the Smithonian Air and Space Museum several years ago and at the exhibit where you can enter the cockpit of some WWII transport plane (a DC-3??, don't remember... it just ain't "my" passion) and there was a young fellow in front of me, kind'a HOGGING the cramped quarters of the display. I was quite perturbed by him, my wanting to see the thing and then get on with my wanderings through the place. Then I recognized the "passion" in his eye and it was a thing of beauty, (totally misguided, perhaps, but a thing of beauty anyway).
Ya just can't convince people of the ecconomic realities of Steam vs Dismal (er, I mean, Diesel). People still believe that Steam is "better", but we tend to be blinded by our "passion". "Better" is, in reality, a very subjective attribute.
My friends and relatives just do NOT understand my feelings. They all think I like "trains" and no amount of discussion can convince them that a Diesel is just a box on wheels and has as much attraction as a Kleenex... sure I need one periodically, but my sleeve works just as well sometimes.
Even within the genre of "Steam Locomotive", I have varying levels of "rush". European or Asian designs are "oh-hum, don't care". Don't much care about the Canadian designs, either. Too big (Big Boy, Y6, etc.) or too small (0-4-0T), or "geared" (Shay, etc.) or "turbine" and I don't get the "rush". Make it a USRA design centered between 2-6-2 and 4-8-4, (and that odd diversion to the American 4-4-0) WITH Tender and I can feel the ol' ticker pick up and shift into overdrive. No control over it... Praise God!
OK, Chad. I understand your points.
However, I think this board is very heavy with railfans, trainwatchers or trainspotters. Even if you work for a railroad your participation here reveals an interest beyond just putting in time to pull a paycheck on a job. And that's what the hobby is all about -- not only watching trains, but finding interesting trains to watch. You asmuch say so yourself in describing your legendary steam chases.
Steam is exciting, vibrant, exotic. Steam locomotives -- with their hissing noises and clanking and huge drivers spinning and rods whirring -- exhibit a living character that diesels could not compete with on their finest day. Look at a photo of an operating steam locomotive and there's no doubt it's moving... by comparison photos of staid diesels are.... well, boring. It's like STUD vs. DUD.
Of course most of us watch diesel locomotives. That's because the options are very limited.
We all enjoy seeing trains of note. That's why you rack up so much mileage chasing steam, and that's why I make annual 1,000-plus mile pilgrimages with my cameras to Steamtown, Strasburg, East Broad Top and Western Maryland. It's why I drove a 400-mile round trip to sit behind the throttle and run the 765. I've driven 800 miles in one day and waited eight to ten hours for a steam train to rumble past -- I have never waited an hour or driven more than 60 miles to see one diesel locomotive.
I'll still enjoy watching the diesels parade at Eola and Rochelle and my other fave spots.
But if I had a choice, I'd take steam every time. I still have my jacket from running the 765 and thank god it still smells like coal smoke.
Diesels just ain't romantic. Period.
PZ
At the risk of getting lynched and kicked off the forum.....
Mabee it's because they were before my time and I never saw regular mainline freights running with steamers but I don't see what the big deal is with steam. I think some people go way overboard with there steam fanaticism. Some to the point of getting downright hostile over the subject. Don't get me wrong, I do like steam. I have loged thousands of miles chaseing 4449, 3985, 844 ect. but I think its more because they are unusual trains that I go see them then because they are steamers.
(stands back and waits for the attack)
Diesels have it all over steam economically. Too bad they're also unencumbered by any style, pizzaz, emotional impact for kids of all ages, charm, and history.
Sunset on the Seneca Falls trestle.
....Well put, IronRooster....And it's fortunate we had all those steam engines both good ones and badly worn ones to help us win WWII. They sure did contribute. Hauled our war stuff {people and material}, all directions and got the job done. A fitting final song.
Then it was time for the diesel electric to take over and head for the 21th century.
I think steam engines are much more interesting and handsomer than Diesels.
Unfortunately, steam engines are 19th century technology. WWII enabled them to last an extra 10 years, but the handwriting was on the wall with the first experimental Diesel-electric in 1917 and the first commercial one in 1925.
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 ?
The consensus is that the 1958 recession and the 119-day steel strike in 1959 killed off the last of operating steam because of the resulting decrease in traffic. NKP was still making class repairs to its Berkshires as late as 1958 so it's possible that they could have run into the early 1960's. There were a few Berkshires left on the property at merger day although I don't know what it would have taken to make them serviceable.
STEAM FOREVER! Diesel is the murderer of steam. -Enough said. This is my little idea of steam vs. diesel. (I don't mean to offend anyone.)
Catholiscism-steam vs. Protestanism-diesel !
Comparing marine and rail applications of either steam or diesel is a tricky issue. After all, triple expansion steam engines were quite common in marine usage and were quite rare on North American railroads. The same can be said for steam turbines. As far as diesels are concerned, consider the OP engine. It was quite successful on submarines and destroyer escorts, somewhat less so on locomotives. Also consider that marine diesels are beginning to get appreciably larger than locomotive diesels.
The only trouble with steam on the RRs was that the RRs didn't modernize their steam engines with electric controls and automation. And they never got serious about adding condensers to make a closed steam/water cycle. 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. The most modern steam engines are now in nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered ships and submarines. They are ten to twelve times more efficient than the typical steam locomotive.
I must admit that the largest ships are now coming with huge Diesel engines, instead of steam turbines.
Dont you start up with that all over again.
Two toots and im so outta town with tonnage on steam.
Now with desiels, they have respect but cannot match the top end horsepower of steam. The notches run out and there is nothing left to feed to the traction motors. With steam, you can literally cook it a little bit and extract the last drop of giddy-up-n-go.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.