How efficient is a steam engine?

[LDPorta]

GP40-2

 

servoguy:

 

I found this recently and thought it might be of interest:  

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm

It is a very good article on what modern steam could be.

Bruce Baker

 

 

How do you run a simulation with RTC, using a mythical 2-8-8-2, with non-existent data? Well, you can...if you just make the data up. LOL

The entire basis of any computer model is you have to have actual, confirmed data to model. Other than that, running a simulation is just an example of garbage in = garbage out.

Just so everyone know who wrote this analysis, John Rhodes has an undergrad degree in Cooking. He attended grad school to get a degree as a "Transportation Analyst" .

No background in Mechanical Engineering, no advanced math or science classes, no Class 1 work history.

Then you all wonder why nobody who actually works in railroading takes any of this seriously.

My email is around the internet in several places.  If you have a problem with my work then you should have contacted me.  The data on the 2-8-8-2 isn't non-existent.  It came from Shaun McMahon and was checked over by Nigel Day as well.  I am assuming you know who they are, if you don't then you should learn before making comments like this.  If you think their data is wrong then you should take it up with them.

I may have an undergrad degree in Culinary Arts Management from the Culinary Institute of America but I do have a Masters Degree in Transportation Policy Operation and Logistics from George Mason University.  I have spent the last 6 years working professionally in the railroad industry.

I may not have a degree in Mechanical Engineering but I know alot about steam locomotive engineering.

John Rhodes

[oltmannd]

GP40-2

 

servoguy:

 

I found this recently and thought it might be of interest:  

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm

It is a very good article on what modern steam could be.

Bruce Baker

 

 

John Rhodes is just plain nuts. How do you run a simulation with RTC, using a mythical 2-8-8-2, with non-existent data? Well, you can...if you just make the data up. LOL

The entire basis of any computer model is you have to have actual, confirmed data to model. Other than that, running a simulation is just an example of garbage in = garbage out.

Just so everyone know who wrote this analysis, John Rhodes has an undergrad degree in Cooking (I'm not kidding) After not making it as a chief, he attended grad school to get a degree as a "Transportation Analyst" (Whatever that means). His whole RR knowledge base was obtained from riding Amtrak with his parents. (Really, I am not making any of this up!)

No background in Mechanical Engineering, no advanced math or science classes, no Class 1 work history. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Then you all wonder why nobody who actually works in railroading takes any of this seriously.

RTC isn't really the right tool for the job, either.  It does OK, but really doesn't have (or need to have) a first class train performance calculator built into it.  It's main purpose is line capacity modeling.  It needs a TPC to get close to actual running times - but that's it.

But, that said, the results are obvious.  More HP = shorter running times.  It also means more energy spent which means more fuel consumed, regardless of which fuel or thermal efficiency of the engine.  

I'm also not liking the drawbar HP diagram used for the diesel locomotive. The net traction HP doesn't drop off that drastically with increasing speed and for typical trains, the % of HP spent moving the locomotive compared to the rest of the train is rather small.

[BigJim]

servoguy

I found this recently and thought it might be of interest:

What I find very uninteresting is the background pattern used in the piece. It is very distracting, making the article difficult to read. Juniatha, are you paying attention here?

[GP40-2]

servoguy

I found this recently and thought it might be of interest:  

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm

It is a very good article on what modern steam could be.

Bruce Baker

How do you run a simulation with RTC, using a mythical 2-8-8-2, with non-existent data? Well, you can...if you just make the data up. LOL

The entire basis of any computer model is you have to have actual, confirmed data to model. Other than that, running a simulation is just an example of garbage in = garbage out.

EDIT: I decided to tone the original post down on my own. I will address my issues with the link at a later date, when I have time.

[GP40-2]

CSSHEGEWISCH

The entire article has a strong taste of "What might have been?"   Something that hasn't been considered:  What would happen to the price of coal if railroad demand for PRB coal as fuel was added to the existing utility demand for the same coal?  Also, railroads would have to rebuild an entire infrastructure to support steam.

PRB coal in a steam locomotive? It would be next to useless in a locomotive application. You would probably get more power burning dirt.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The entire article has a strong taste of "What might have been?"   Something that hasn't been considered:  What would happen to the price of coal if railroad demand for PRB coal as fuel was added to the existing utility demand for the same coal?  Also, railroads would have to rebuild an entire infrastructure to support steam.

[servoguy]

I found this recently and thought it might be of interest:  

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm

It is a very good article on what modern steam could be.

Bruce Baker

[servoguy]

Link to the info about the Skinner in the great lakes ship:  http://www.carferries.com/skinner/

[servoguy]

The 9% t e was for a simple expansion loco.  Clearly you can do better with compound expansion, and Mr. Chapelon was an expert at getting the most power for the amount of steam used.  Still, a unaflow engine will do better than a compound expansion with less complexity.  After you have read the stuff on the Skinner engines, I think you will be most impressed with the design.  

The out of balance force on a single cylinder engine, assuming the engine is balanced so that the counterweight equals all of the rotating weight plus half of the reciprocating weight, is a force equal to half of the reciprocating weight that rotates in the opposite direction to the driver.  This out of balance force can be balanced by making the engine a 90 deg V-2 or by adding a counterweight that rotates in the opposite direction of the driver and is equal to half the reciprocating weight.  Based on the fact that a unaflow engine would have a boiler 40% of the size of the boiler for a conventional loco, there might have been room to add two vertical cylinders to the loco and thus achieve near perfect balance.  The balance isn't perfect due to the connecting rod angularity, but in a steam loco, the angularity is pretty small.

Skinner built both simple and compound engines.  One of the finest engines they ever built is still in a ship on the great lakes.  There are some good pictures of it along with pictures of the internal parts.  I think it was installed in 1950.  It has one huge advantage over a diesel:  it can be reversed very quickly.  

When you read the Skinner information, you will see that they did a continuous development to reduce or eliminate maintenance.  That may be why many of their engines are still running.  

Bruce Baker

[Juniatha]

@ Illinois Steamhog

 

Ooops ?? As far as I understand, nobody here promotes large scale re-installation of classic type steam for powering revenue rail transport – at least I am not.

Talking of water – and of oil:

What has been supplied to us by nature for free in such rich quantity – so far – is in fact one central means of life on this planet. On the other hand, steam locomotives do not consume water, they just use it and then release it to the atmosphere as steam turning into fog – that’s what you actually see as what is colloquially called ‘steam cloud’ – dissolving in the air adding to its humidity and in the end falling back on ground as rain in combination with H₂O from other sources. I am not claiming that all is well with that since steam exhausted by classic steam locos is not pure H₂O but is contaminated by oil and dissolved or carried over matter from water treatment. Contamination by oil could be brought to zero by using modern technology, contamination by water treatment could be much reduced. The main point is: running a few steam locos for special event, i e for our ‘educated enlightening’ may be considered an ‘acceptable sin’ as regards environment pollution.

At least, it’s negligible, its contribution disappearing into microscopic scale in relation to the new horror of so called ‘bio fuel’ – fuel refined from plants and advertised as CO₂ neutral, which it clearly is NOT if you just mind one thing: Where are these plants grown and harvested? On former bare desert lands? No! They are grown on areas that formerly were either farmed growing nutrition basics or – even worse as concerns CO₂ balance – on areas of former natural forests or tropical jungles! In other words: areas of optimum re-conversion of CO₂ into H₂O and O₂ are being destroyed (!!) for growing these plants of an incredibly lower performance of the same re-conversion process because of the following:

(a)          While natural forests incessantly perform this process year round as they have perfectly done for millions of years without any need of ‘supervision’ and ‘correction’ by mankind, these plantations of ‘oil-yielding’ plants are periodically harvested leaving the land bare for a period of time and with zero re-conversion performance of CO_2.

(b)          While during its growing period a plant’s contribution to the process of re-conversion of CO₂ into H₂O and O₂ is limited because of its own needs, yet on plantations the specially grown plants are harvested just when they have – more or less – finished their period of growth; in natural forests plants generally go through their entire life span, thus contributing way larger amounts of re-conversion even for the same type of plant.

(c)          While ‘oil-yielding’ plantations are growing specially selected plants that show fast growing (mind -b- for consequence on CO₂ re-conversion!), natural forests are characterized by vastly larger trees of much longer growing period followed by an even vastly longer life span as adult plants; it’s trivial to remark that quite obviously a forest with trees of some 100 ft average height functioning all year round with about 80 – 85 % of plants in fully grown status, per given area of land will have a vastly superior yearly CO₂ re-conversion effect – or ‘return, if you prefer – than a plantation of plants 3 – 10 % that height, all of which are in process of growing and ‘in operation’ but some 9 – 10 months per year! yet that only counts for linear difference, a comparison of volume of chlorophyll active foliage per given area of land of natural forest versus ‘oil-yielding’ plantation would show even larger differences! without figures at hand to make a calculation my guess would be with yearly CO₂ re-conversion by natural forest set as 100 % the result of ‘oil-yielding’ plantation would compare much like the thermal efficiency of classic steam and not the best examples of it.

(d)          While natural forests have for eons been growing perfectly without any need of herbicides, the new human invention of so-called CO₂ neutral ‘fuel by plantations’ is yet another addition to environment pollution in its demand of heavy herbicidal defence against natures efforts to ‘re-normalize’ these artificialized areas.

 

@ Firelock 76

Building a replica in China or in Poland:

As for Datong, I recommend Wardale’s “Red Devil and other tales of steam” to read up what state of the ‘art’ he found there.

As for Poland, my personal impression when visiting some steam facilities in the early 1990s was that while there were people of good manual and technical abilities and knowledge, especially as concerns welding of which I have seen very good practical examples, surrounding administrative and economical conditions were less than supportive. While on  practical work level there were people perfectly willing to do a good job with means available, often achieving acceptable repairs in spite of tooling supply simply appalling in quality or absence there seemed to be little support by superior management level, reliability and consistency was at best uncertain. Several western investors trying to start projects had to learn this the hard way, some loosing lots of money. In defence of the Polish I have to add there was quite a flock of rather dubious profit makers roaming Poland and Eastern Europe in general in these years which surely had its negative effects on local people. However, almost two decades have passed and I don’t intend to make any claims about how things have since evolved.

Generally, having a steam locomotive the size and mass of an American Hudson or Northern  built abroad would mean to see off any possibilities of line testing since mass per axle permitted on US railroads was unparalleled worldwide. Such line testing in my view would however be indispensable even with a replica as close to the original as possible. On the other hand a straight replica would appear quite improbable if you just think of one central feature of these locomotives, their one-piece cast steel locomotive bed – quite an impractical proposition for a one-of-a-kind construction today. Thus, deviations from the original design would be inevitable. Not all of these would have to unwelcome since a number of improvements could be incorporated by using post-steam technology save of any risks. Yet, I would never want to claim such an engine could be built to succeed without a period of line testing and setting up.

 

@ Servoguy

These are interesting points! I will look up links later when I have time. Just a few notes:

To my knowledge, best thermal indicated efficiencies in classic steam were shown by André Chapelon’s 240.P and 242.A.1 series (the latter really a single prototype rebuilt from an unhappy État railways 241.101); 12 to 12.5 % were reached at optimum working points, better than 10 % were held over a fairly wide working range with the 160.A.1 extending efficient working into the low speed range where classic steam inherently tended to fare less well. Little has transpired in literature about test results of this unique six cylinder compound with cylinder heating and re-superheating, even less has been published of data and what has been published contains a degree of inconsistence both in view of inter-relation of certain data as in view of connection of results with technical set-up of the locomotive. For instance, it was claimed that with hp superheating cut off there was no increase of steam heat consumption per ihph – which at least to me appears difficult to see. Clearly, a steam envelope on hp cylinders should have helped a lot – but nullifying the benefit of superheating? My idea of that engine – in a preliminary abstact – would propose:

(a)          steam envelopes on cylinders help reduce condensation and wall effects, help keep mean temperatures up, thus gaining on thermodynamic efficiency;

(b)          re-superheating again helps to raise mean temperature in lp cylinders, increasing heat content of steam in lp cylinders, containing condensation losses and wall effects and raising thermodynamic efficiency;

(c)          steam envelope on lp cylinders, depending on applied steam temperatures can nullify condensation losses and even reverse wall effects which would greatly improve energy conversion efficiency of that mass of steam working inside of these cylinders; if however the balance of steam heat content saved insides the cylinders versus steam heat content spent outsides the cylinders for envelopes is a positive or a negative one, in my view remains a question demanding detailed attention in an actual application.

(d)          independently from points -a- and -b- the six cylinder machine by its distribution of power, its low reciprocating masses and very good balancing, driving on three axles provided both smooth running and very low mechanical wear. This would appear self-explaining and was countered only by need for short term periodic attendance to mechanism typical for classic steam due to age-old run-through type of oiling of unsealed plain bearings. The six cylinder machine also allowed for large total cylinder volume, providing high t e while still working at much better steam expansion rates than more regular four cylinder compounds, let alone two cylinder simple machines, thus offering substantial advantages at low speed / high t e working range.

               Your point

>> One of the things that always fascinated me about conventional steam locos is the lack of any seals to keep dirt out of the mechanism.  <<

That is one thing I have also wondered about. The burden laden on both design and maintenance by lack of bearing sealing was appalling. Not only was wear increased, and in a progressive degree as play developed due to admitting ever more dirt to bearing surfaces, but it even affected dimensioning since bearing loads had to be kept low in view of incomplete lubrication with but semi-fluid dynamic friction. Other veritable low-tech points were design and materials of piston valve rings and piston rings and packings. I could go on with this but I don’t. Discussing similar points many years ago with my late father I had to learn that any serious deviation of the idea of American Super Power steam, namely NYC’s, having been as near perfect as practical realisations could get to in those times generally led nowhere’s – except in cases of some occasional criticism brought up all by himself *g*. If nothing else would help, he used to retreat to his standing argument “Look, it wasn’t a Rolls Royce, it was a commercial tool for railroad transport!” No-one could disagree with that and so ended the discussion. Only, if I was to reverse that argument in view of a spot that, with sharp look, might be faintly noticeable in favourable conditions of light on the varnish of his Merc, good Lord, that was something else! Oh, dad, in the end you were just a father, you did your best and I will always keep you memory dearly in my heart!

Regards 

             Juniatha

 

(in case of trouble with text font / size please feel free to ask me for a copy in Arial)

[servoguy]

Several months ago I did some research on steam engine efficiency and design.  Here is what I discovered.  The best steam efficiency for locos was about 9%.  The most efficient steam engines were made by Skinner.  http://vaporlocomotive.com/  The guy who owns this company has a huge knowledge of steam engines and has all the Skinner parts and intellectual property.  The Skinner engines achieved 24% thermal efficiency by using a unaflow design rather than a counterflow design, and by using a condenser.  There are Skinner engines still running in stationary and marine applications.  Vapor Locomotive has a large amount of engineering information on their web site about the Skinner engines.  There is a company in Germany named Spilling that makes modern stationary steam engines.  

The Skinner engines were a very clever design.  The unaflow design gave the engines an inherent high efficiency, much better than can be achieved with a counterflow design which is what almost all steam locos used.  The problems with using a unaflow design for a loco are these:  The piston has to be longer than the piston for a counterflow design which makes it heavier and thus aggravates the balancing problem.  The cylinder is also longer.  The cylinder and piston will also be larger in diameter.  The Skinner engines operates at a very short cutoff, and so the peak loads on the mechanism are higher than they are for a counterflow design.  

The Skinner engines had a very clever valve gear using two cams operating poppet valves.  The cams could be rotated relative to each other to change the cutoff as one cam opened the valve and the other cam closed the valve.  If you read the engineering information on the design of the Skinner engine you will discover the design is very advanced and very clever.  

The efficiency of the Skinner was achieved over a wide range of load conditions.  A loco using a unaflow engine would have used 40% as much steam as a conventional loco.  This means that the boiler, firebox, tender, etc. could all be 40% of the size of a conventional loco.  A water cooled condenser near the cylinders would have avoided the problem of piping steam to a condenser behind the tender.  A cooling system to cool the water from the condenser would have been needed.  This could have been located behind the tender.  Using a condenser would have avoided water stops and eliminated the problem of water in the western part of the country.

One of the things that always fascinated me about conventional steam locos is the lack of any seals to keep dirt out of the mechanism.  The wear problem on the crosshead and reversing gear must have been serious.  The diesels have a big advantage here with a sealed crankcase and oil filters.  

Problems with boiler maintenance are greatly reduced when a condenser is used as there is no scale formation in the boiler.  Distilled water can be used which virtually eliminates boiler problems.  

Skinner had done many things when they designed their engines to eliminate maintenance problems. 

The efficiency that Skinner achieved was limited by the boiler pressure available at the time they designed their engines.  Raising the boiler pressure and steam temperature could improve this efficiency.  

There was a comment in another post about using a water tube boiler in a steam loco.  The problem with doing this is that a water tube boiler doesn't have as much reserve capacity as a fire tube boiler because there is less water.  This can cause problems when the load on the engine changes dramatically.  Water tube boilers are also somewhat fragile.

Bruce Baker

[Firelock76]

You know, there's been talk here in the USA on and off the past few years of having a Hudson or Niagara replica built, possibly in Poland, possibly in China.  Nothings happened yet, so I suspect all it was was talk.  But if I ever hit big on a lottery....

[Illinois Steamhog]

if we already know, that the steam locomotive needs (and ours) comes from water aka blue gold. more valuable than oil.

[Juniatha]

Firelock 76

 

In a nutshell: you can never save as much as you can earn by running the right trains to the right destinations at the right time – carrying the sort of freight that earns a living for the railroad.

On the PC merger: besides the aspects you pointed out, it appears to have also been nothing short of a clash of cultures.

 

>> Call it a Ride and you have to fight them off <<

* g *  If that’s so, what about starting an effort to build a new Niagara? After all, the Brits have done it, putting some pepper to railroading that side of the Atlantic with a new Peppercorn Pacific, Tornado, incorporating some ‘Very British’ tech features, some in fact – e-hm – exceedingly British. Anyways, it seems to be a great success. There is a nicely filmed four parts video on top gear (topgear.com) a BBC TV car buff series where they revived the ancient ‘race to the north’ idea by bidding a Jag and a motor bike against Tornado with a classic ‘Flying Scotsman’. It’s in the ‘challenges’ videos file, sorry can’t get the link right now.

So, in reminiscence of NYC’s Harmon engine facilities it shouldn’t harm on Hudson to have a 4‑8‑4 storming downstream again from Schenectady to New York …

In balance, that would call for a new Pennsy Duplex, no doubt. That said, I feel there surely are people who could point to a couple more engines missing …

 

With regards

 

Juniatha

 

[Firelock76]

To Juniatha:  Dear lady, you hit the nail right on the head with your last post, specifically the references to the French railroads, to whit:  Whether a railroad makes money or not depends on what it's hauling not what it hauls it with!  Steam, diesel, electric, it doesn't matter.  If the freight's not there neither is the revenue.  Going diesel couldn't save the Pennsy or the New York Central when the shippers dissapeared.  But who knows, they might have lived if they went into the rip-roarin' steam excursion business!  Someone once said, "call it transportation and people get bored.  Call it a RIDE and you have to fight them off!"

[Juniatha]

Hi -

 

What you write is pretty much what I meant, if you come to think of it:

With a higher efficiency and a similarly higher demand of energy at the same time you end up at much the same primary fuel consumption.

For example: using the quoted figure of three times higher efficiency in electric over steam traction; the power applied by these high speed trains is about (approx., for rule of thumb) four times that of steam typical for the 1940s Super Power types, i e it compares like 20000 to 5000 or if you prefer 16000 to 4000 hp at wheel rims. Yep - it takes a lot of power to run about twice as fast (top speed, not start to stop average) than the fastest steam powered trains! Logically, this rule of thumb comparison would tend to indicate electric high speed train rather use more not less primary (coal heat content) energy per train mile, then. You could go on to make this comparison per ton-mile / ton-km for metric units, or per passenger-mile / passenger-km which is what matters in the end as revenue is concerned.

I'm afraid the quoted losses of electric energy from power plant to pantograph of el loco are a bit optimistic and do not include energy demand by intermediate high voltage input stations needed in view of keeping line voltage (relatively) constant in spite of fluctuating, yet generally very high consumptions at peak traffic times with heavy surges of demand by traffic fluctuations and random numbers of locomotives all in one area happening to draw peak currents each at the same time or at overlapping times.  

Further, a fair comparison of the three major concepts of traction would need to include capital costs for installation of electrification which is by no means less than formidable. This is why full electrification - however desirable from a technical standpoint - was not even achieved on large state owned railway networks in Europe, practically all of which did not have to work on a strictly self-supporting financial basis but were more or less heavily supported by 'their' states -  at least from the period of transition from steam in the 1950s until the 1990 (in other words, they 'produced' deficits - in spite of or independently from E-trac). Taking into account these immense first costs and debit cost of capitalization a private enterprise would have to pay for, then it might become indeed questionable how many decades it takes until this type of investment will make a mean profit. Yet, in a larger, more general view of national economy it made good sense to modernize the railways mainlines this way taking into account what would have been the alternatives: even more truck carried transport on roads, even higher fuel consumption, even higher costs of road building and maintenance, even higher mortal rates in accidents etc ...

In my point of view - i e from an engineering perspective - electrification is the most elegant way to boost rail traffic to maximum performance. However that does not mean to say this always is the most economic way nor the optimum feasible way for private enterprises who have to have an eye on best return for capital investments strictly focussing on their future as a company. 

A side remark:

Locomotive costs, traction costs are but a fraction of overall costs of running a railroad. In France, the railway most successful in revenue earning during the age of steam was the one with the most uninspired locomotive development, the PLM with a fleet of steam locomotives in their technical features typical examples of the 'good enough' engineering much belated with steam - while the Paris-Orleans, where Chapelon introduced his innovation of highly efficient engines was about the least profitable one. This is not because it was more economic to have 'bad' locomotives than to have 'good' ones, but it puts a light on relative unimportance of locomotive running costs as compared to other factors - even more so on relative unimportance of efficiency of a group of top quality types of locomotives, again rather insignificant in numbers relative to the total fleet of locomotives. (Where they definitely do make a difference is in running top services, advertising the company and earning a good reputation) Likewise, in Germany the Prussian State railway with a parc of steam of strict if not austere simplicity was by far the leading railway in revenue earning per ton-km of train service compared with any other of the pre-Reichsbahn State railways. The Italian state railways ad another disturbing shade to the picture: they were ranking high among the economically most hopeless railways in Europe - in spite of early transition from steam to electric traction. They have gone on to remain so in recent years and do not really threaten to compromize on their social importance in keeping unemployment down - no matter which government. That it wasn't early type of electrification that was to blame is well proven by the Swiss railways where likewise early electrification in contrast was the starting point of a lasting story of enormous success, still continuing with solid common sense progress, if lacking some of the sparkle put up by the French, naturally.

With regards

 

Juniatha

[Paul Milenkovic]

BigJim

Did any of you read "The Thermodynamic Closing of the Great Steam/Diesel Debate"?

No, but the steam/Diesel question will never be answered on thermodynamics.  It is were, we would no longer have coal-fired steam-cycle electric power plants.

The question will be answered on a combination of thermodynamcs, capital, and maintenance combined with the compliance with environmental regulations.

Those guys (the people with the compact automotive steam power plant) are claiming 21 percent efficiency.  Yes, that is much less than what Diesels can achieve, but they are claiming a multi-fuel capability (although not yet solid fuel) that Diesels don't have.

[BigJim]

Did any of you read "The Thermodynamic Closing of the Great Steam/Diesel Debate"?

[Paul Milenkovic]

With electric high speed train service based on coal as primary thermal power, because of vast power outputs and multiple energy conversions and transmissions of electricity , including power sub-stations along the lines to contain voltage drops, those trains consume roughly about the same amount of primary energy per productive ton-mile, i e coal per ton-mile in this instance, as the mighty Super Power steamers once did.

The argument had been made that Chapelon's best steam locomotives (maybe 10-11% thermal efficiency) were competitive with coal-fired power plants (of the day), especially when transmission losses are taken into account.

The best figures I have seen for single-expansion steam would put efficiency, at best, around 7-8 percent.  Modern coal-fired power plants are in the 30 percent efficiency range with the latest supercritical steam cycle plants about 40 percent (with respect to low heat value -- LHV -- of the coal).  My guess is that worst-case transmission loss is 50 percent (full electric power at most remote location from substation), making the electric train at least 3 times more efficient than Super Power steam.

[Juniatha]

At least to model railroaders the electrically run ‘steam locomotive’ is nothing new - *g*

 

AltonFan wrote, to quote:

>> I'm having a hard time seeing the practical value of this locomotive. <<

 

Well, it says under “Background of the invention”, at 0005, quote:

>> Steam locomotives are old and well known. <<

E-hm – now, while emotionally inclined individuals such as me would tend to object to that claim, proposing that steam locomotives never get ‘old’, they just turn into classics, some into myths even, I agree this might be considered a side track to the issue.

So, at 0006 it continues saying:

>> Electric locomotives are also old and well known. <<

Ok, I grant that. It may be somewhat blunt, not too courteous, not too polite, but at least there is a sense of poetic justice!

               While some have undoubtedly been remotely haunted before by an inexplicable suspicion that this might be so – what does it mean to tell us in this context?

Coming up in the same paragraph, quoting excerpts:

>> These electric generating stations transform power from coal fields … into electric energy … The electrical energy is then transmitted to the locomotive … <<

Ok. The paragraph ends with:

>> In view of declining coal reserves, a need exists for an electrically powered steam locomotive according to the present invention. <<

 

I see … erh – or maybe not quite.

 Umh, I think I might have ventured to ask Jules Verne about it – unfortunately I don’t have his e-mail address. Yet, then again, he might not have been delighted by the disturbance in his absolute Zen remoteness on board of the Nautilus, broken only by some occasional erudite conversations with captain Nemo in the library, sipping an 1899 Chateau Lafayette …

 

Yet, seriously speaking:

With electric high speed train service based on coal as primary thermal power, because of vast power outputs and multiple energy conversions and transmissions of electricity , including power sub-stations along the lines to contain voltage drops, those trains consume roughly about the same amount of primary energy per productive ton-mile, i e coal per ton-mile in this instance, as the mighty Super Power steamers once did.

Well, yeah, they’re going faster now – much faster in top speed, surprisingly mildly faster in start to stop traveling speed (acceleration / deceleration times, speed restrictions going out of / going into central stations, line speed restrictions and traffic, speed restrictions passing line-side stations, etc all tend to interfere).

 

Regards

 Juniatha

[AltonFan]

carnej1

 

 

 

Nothing on rails has a higher power-to weight ratio and faster acceleration than a straight electric..still, here's an idea that comines both electricity and steam:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=ClKAAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22locomotive%22+%26+%22electric%22+%26+%22steam%22

I'm having a hard time seeing the practical value of this locomotive.  Most of the benefits of electric locomotives are due to the use of traction motors.  Using electric as "fuel" for what amounts to a rod-driven steam locomotive seems to cancel out those benefits, and create a Rube Goldberg level of needless complication.

[JamesP]

I enjoyed the picture of the Swiss conversion!  There was an early live steam model locomotive sold that was fired with an electric heating element, and Jenson also sold versions of their stationary steam models with electric heating elements.  I can understand the Swiss taking the desperate measure of converting a steam loco to electric heating during war, but that patent... even after reading it, I don't understand what the inventor hopes to accomplish with the new electrically fired steamer.  Alternating current, creating steam, driving the wheels, but also spinning an onboard turbine to generate additional HEP and charge batteries?  That's a lot of complexity just to lose efficiency compared to a straight electric...IMHO! 

 - James

[Juniatha]

Faster than old GooneyGoose

Well, al(w)right, that’s progress at last! Still, the Gooneybird would win the gutty sound contest wings down - *g* Quest for sound or lack of it is when elegy befalls electrics. Seems, on carefully arranged test runs the hasty super railcars have even challenged Connie for speed – when cruising on three engines as she had a soft spot for  …

 

Electrically fired steam locomotive

Oh, gee – *g*

During WW-II the Swiss converted a couple of 0-6-0 shunter tank engines to electrical heating, complete with pantograph on top of the cab. It was an emergency effort to fight dire shortage of coal with a minimum of rebuilding.

See http://www.skyrocket.de/locomotive/data/sbb_e3-3.htm

So, at least for some time then, no “choole shueble” (swiss for coal shoveling) on this granny steam engine.

Switzerland at those times was light years away from later welfare as the world’s – erh – treasure case.

 

Never mind

 

= J =

[Firelock76]

Actually, a fellow named Stringfellow built a steam powered flying model airplane in the 19th century.  It worked very well but never got past the model stage.  Around the turn of the 20th century Sir Hiram Maxim built a full size steam powered airplane, but the test flight failed and Sir Hiram was so frightened by the experience he never repeated it! 

[carnej1]

Juniatha

@ carnej1

@ yardmaster01

 

Gee, I’m surprised!

Frankly, wasn’t aware of steam powered air planes tested as early as in the 1930s.

Clearly, being able to escape into third dimension is one definite advantage of

‘steam traction’ over catenary guided electric traction …

Probably that’s why all of those incredibly modern high speed trains keep crawling

along at ground level at speeds of an old DC-3 …

*gg*

 

Regards

Juniatha

 

p.s.:

I noticed that the fonts that I used don’t seem to be saved with the posting,

so it’s only displayed properly on PC having those fonts.

Sorry if that has lead to incorrect display of my postings on other’s screens.

The fonts used were Garamond for the text and another handwriting font

for my name which I thought fitting.

I used Times Roman for this one now and Arial for the p.s. text, since they

are bread and butter universal automatic undeletable Microsoft basic fonts.

 

= J =

Actually, the "incredibly modern high speed trains" such as the German ICE, French TGV, and the newest Japanese Shikansens are all faster than a DC3. You might be referring to Amtrak's Acela, which operates at Gooneybird cruising speed (150 MPH) for a part of it's route but that is due to speed limitations due to the 150 year old alignments it runs on...

Nothing on rails has a higher power-to weight ratio and faster acceleration than a straight electric..still, here's an idea that comines both electricity and steam:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=ClKAAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22locomotive%22+%26+%22electric%22+%26+%22steam%22

 

[Juniatha]

@ carnej1

@ yardmaster01

 

Gee, I’m surprised!

Frankly, wasn’t aware of steam powered air planes tested as early as in the 1930s.

Clearly, being able to escape into third dimension is one definite advantage of

‘steam traction’ over catenary guided electric traction …

Probably that’s why all of those incredibly modern high speed trains keep crawling

along at ground level at speeds of an old DC-3 …

*gg*

 

Regards

Juniatha

 

p.s.:

I noticed that the fonts that I used don’t seem to be saved with the posting,

so it’s only displayed properly on PC having those fonts.

Sorry if that has lead to incorrect display of my postings on other’s screens.

The fonts used were Garamond for the text and another handwriting font

for my name which I thought fitting.

I used Times Roman for this one now and Arial for the p.s. text, since they

are bread and butter universal automatic undeletable Microsoft basic fonts.

 

= J =

[Yardmaster01]

This is in addition to what I wrote above.  Virtually any automotive piston engine can be run in an external combustion capacity and has been done so many times that the subject does not warrant conjecture.

As to the proposition of a steam powered aircraft that MAY have come to pass in the late 1950's but the evidence is spotty at best due to the contoversial nature of the aircraft's power plant.  The aircraft in question was the B-36Q flying with a nuclear reactor on board.  The government documents released to date suggest that the plane flew with conventional power but with the reactor in a "hot" condition to evaluate the radioactivity in and around the lead lined crew compartment.

Other anecdotal evidence suggests that the reactor did indeed power two Westinghouse steam turbines operating in a Rankine cycle configuration driving line shafts through the wings transferring power to gearbxes to drive the propellers.  One of the original crew members on the test flights said the weight of the reactor, drive system and lead shielding necessitated the use of 20 RATO bottles plus the four jet engines to get the craft airborn in 11,000 feet of runway and precluded any useful payload.  On conventional power the aircrafrt was known as the NB-36H however this was later changed to the B-36Q with the supposition that this was when it was indeed nuclear powered.

After three weeks of testing the airframe had become radioactive to the point that no further testing was possible and the aircraft was subsequently scrapped.  To this day many documents regarding this interesting experiment remain classified and only the passage of time will bring out the entire story.

http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm

                                                                                                  Pat.

 

[Yardmaster01]

carnej1

Juniatha:

@ Paul

 

Well, that sure sounds interesting. Mass / power ratio reads respectable – although not exactly Indy Car nor Formula One level (which no one could reasonably expect).

Radial piston engine 

Hm – gee, that’s something I had been thinking about when studying engineering; it was a private idea ignited by the long & wide hoods of  1970s / 80s US full size sedans and focused on a gasoline radial piston engine, not steam, to be fitted lying flat under the hood. Usually, radial engines have odd numbers of cylinders per row or rather per disc – my idea was for a nine cylinder engine (it had to be very short stroke to contain width of block complete with cylinder heads).  Very soon, though, I found it proving a rather difficult proposition to use in a car for several reasons and by far not as suitable as it had appeared at first glance.

A) – as compared to external visual impression the engine compartment in a car is severely narrowed by the front wheels and suspension;

B) – as fitting as it would seem to sink a radial engine flat into the compartment like a giant cake – where does its crank shaft point to? It could be ideal for drilling holes into the road, but for driving the car you have to start with a spiral bevel gear;

C) – while accepting that, any sort of gearbox will tend to interfere with the exhaust lines downwards from the rearward cylinders.

Clearly, none of these problems exist in airplane applications – although not all is well with an engine exposing cylinders at right angle to direction of flight (was an axial piston engine ever used in aviation?).

Well – to cut it short: it could be done – by adequate amount of thinking, the above mentioned problems could be dealt with. Only – you should never ask  “What an advantage do you get by it ?(??)”    Perhaps mainly this one: Opening the hood, such an engine would provide a most unusual and stunning visual impression, with cylinders all around and with intake manifolds and fuel injection standing up on the engine block in a center-inclined circle. It would likely have a unique sound, too, with a soft vibrato caused by those inevitable variations in exhaust manifold bents and lengths. Unique, too:  In contrast to cars with longitudinally mounted engines, there would be no body leaning action on kick-down with a powerful engine and soft suspension, caused by engine block mounts taking up reaction torque – although there could be a certain degree of unwished nosing action instead – make it turn leftwards and it would fittingly encourage overtaking – *g*.

Water lubricated cylinders 

With modern ceramic compound materials that should be possible. In many ways technology of today much better supports the idea of a steam car than it did in Lear’s years. Yet, if all that will yield any advantage in fuel economy over modern gasoline or diesel engines of sophisticated optimized design I would not dare to bet on.

>> the claim that a (uni-flow) piston engine won't work with a condensing cycle << 

Oh, why shouldn’t a uni-flow piston engine work on exhaust to vacuum? Of course that would more radically clear cylinders of exhaust steam, with consequentially lower compression, thus less negative work. Yet, that would permit substantial down trimming of clearance volume and thus reduce mixing of used steam with live steam. Usually, uni-flow engines need larger clearance volume because on back stroke compression starts early – that impairs power output and efficiency because it tends to lower steam mean cylinder pressure and temperature.

That said, I’m still waiting for the steam airplane – it needn’t be a super-sonic transcontinental liner, a cute little city-hopper would satisfy my humble hopes … as a starter *g*.

With regards

Juniatha

 

 

Well, there is a historical precedent-The Besler Brother Steam Plane:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Dukpf2njQx0J:www.firedragon.com/~kap/SCD%26SA/Scd28.PDF+besler+steam+aeroplane&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiVSeV2wqN-_u08cUkztfF5pk1HXuEtHsnTvlcyr5hsjujM-PqERo3-Yawu0-NXnH54sG01b5U-oZ2nGp5U7QOcP1uFT6HrI5EQjv-neH8_rzQ661HQVTodwE9q0LKt1mSUoF6k&sig=AHIEtbQOvZgY7Tje7Ivh0CaA8nDjBdeLHQ

Radial aircraft engine,s were indeed used in automotive applications most famously in the US Sherman tank of WWII fame.  Now an external combustion engine of this layout is an intriging idea as it would provide a very smooth and virtually continuous torque application.  The only practicable problem being the drive system used to transmit power to the "road" be it pavement or rail.  Thanks for providing some interesting out of the box concepts.  Your grasp of the engineering principles involved is comendable.

                                                                                     Pat.

[carnej1]

Juniatha

@ Paul

 

Well, that sure sounds interesting. Mass / power ratio reads respectable – although not exactly Indy Car nor Formula One level (which no one could reasonably expect).

Radial piston engine 

Hm – gee, that’s something I had been thinking about when studying engineering; it was a private idea ignited by the long & wide hoods of  1970s / 80s US full size sedans and focused on a gasoline radial piston engine, not steam, to be fitted lying flat under the hood. Usually, radial engines have odd numbers of cylinders per row or rather per disc – my idea was for a nine cylinder engine (it had to be very short stroke to contain width of block complete with cylinder heads).  Very soon, though, I found it proving a rather difficult proposition to use in a car for several reasons and by far not as suitable as it had appeared at first glance.

A) – as compared to external visual impression the engine compartment in a car is severely narrowed by the front wheels and suspension;

B) – as fitting as it would seem to sink a radial engine flat into the compartment like a giant cake – where does its crank shaft point to? It could be ideal for drilling holes into the road, but for driving the car you have to start with a spiral bevel gear;

C) – while accepting that, any sort of gearbox will tend to interfere with the exhaust lines downwards from the rearward cylinders.

Clearly, none of these problems exist in airplane applications – although not all is well with an engine exposing cylinders at right angle to direction of flight (was an axial piston engine ever used in aviation?).

Well – to cut it short: it could be done – by adequate amount of thinking, the above mentioned problems could be dealt with. Only – you should never ask  “What an advantage do you get by it ?(??)”    Perhaps mainly this one: Opening the hood, such an engine would provide a most unusual and stunning visual impression, with cylinders all around and with intake manifolds and fuel injection standing up on the engine block in a center-inclined circle. It would likely have a unique sound, too, with a soft vibrato caused by those inevitable variations in exhaust manifold bents and lengths. Unique, too:  In contrast to cars with longitudinally mounted engines, there would be no body leaning action on kick-down with a powerful engine and soft suspension, caused by engine block mounts taking up reaction torque – although there could be a certain degree of unwished nosing action instead – make it turn leftwards and it would fittingly encourage overtaking – *g*.

Water lubricated cylinders 

With modern ceramic compound materials that should be possible. In many ways technology of today much better supports the idea of a steam car than it did in Lear’s years. Yet, if all that will yield any advantage in fuel economy over modern gasoline or diesel engines of sophisticated optimized design I would not dare to bet on.

>> the claim that a (uni-flow) piston engine won't work with a condensing cycle << 

Oh, why shouldn’t a uni-flow piston engine work on exhaust to vacuum? Of course that would more radically clear cylinders of exhaust steam, with consequentially lower compression, thus less negative work. Yet, that would permit substantial down trimming of clearance volume and thus reduce mixing of used steam with live steam. Usually, uni-flow engines need larger clearance volume because on back stroke compression starts early – that impairs power output and efficiency because it tends to lower steam mean cylinder pressure and temperature.

That said, I’m still waiting for the steam airplane – it needn’t be a super-sonic transcontinental liner, a cute little city-hopper would satisfy my humble hopes … as a starter *g*.

With regards

Juniatha

 

Well, there is a historical precedent-The Besler Brother Steam Plane:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Dukpf2njQx0J:www.firedragon.com/~kap/SCD%26SA/Scd28.PDF+besler+steam+aeroplane&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiVSeV2wqN-_u08cUkztfF5pk1HXuEtHsnTvlcyr5hsjujM-PqERo3-Yawu0-NXnH54sG01b5U-oZ2nGp5U7QOcP1uFT6HrI5EQjv-neH8_rzQ661HQVTodwE9q0LKt1mSUoF6k&sig=AHIEtbQOvZgY7Tje7Ivh0CaA8nDjBdeLHQ

[Juniatha]

@ Paul

 

Well, that sure sounds interesting. Mass / power ratio reads respectable – although not exactly Indy Car nor Formula One level (which no one could reasonably expect).

Radial piston engine 

Hm – gee, that’s something I had been thinking about when studying engineering; it was a private idea ignited by the long & wide hoods of  1970s / 80s US full size sedans and focused on a gasoline radial piston engine, not steam, to be fitted lying flat under the hood. Usually, radial engines have odd numbers of cylinders per row or rather per disc – my idea was for a nine cylinder engine (it had to be very short stroke to contain width of block complete with cylinder heads).  Very soon, though, I found it proving a rather difficult proposition to use in a car for several reasons and by far not as suitable as it had appeared at first glance.

A) – as compared to external visual impression the engine compartment in a car is severely narrowed by the front wheels and suspension;

B) – as fitting as it would seem to sink a radial engine flat into the compartment like a giant cake – where does its crank shaft point to? It could be ideal for drilling holes into the road, but for driving the car you have to start with a spiral bevel gear;

C) – while accepting that, any sort of gearbox will tend to interfere with the exhaust lines downwards from the rearward cylinders.

Clearly, none of these problems exist in airplane applications – although not all is well with an engine exposing cylinders at right angle to direction of flight (was an axial piston engine ever used in aviation?).

Well – to cut it short: it could be done – by adequate amount of thinking, the above mentioned problems could be dealt with. Only – you should never ask  “What an advantage do you get by it ?(??)”    Perhaps mainly this one: Opening the hood, such an engine would provide a most unusual and stunning visual impression, with cylinders all around and with intake manifolds and fuel injection standing up on the engine block in a center-inclined circle. It would likely have a unique sound, too, with a soft vibrato caused by those inevitable variations in exhaust manifold bents and lengths. Unique, too:  In contrast to cars with longitudinally mounted engines, there would be no body leaning action on kick-down with a powerful engine and soft suspension, caused by engine block mounts taking up reaction torque – although there could be a certain degree of unwished nosing action instead – make it turn leftwards and it would fittingly encourage overtaking – *g*.

Water lubricated cylinders 

With modern ceramic compound materials that should be possible. In many ways technology of today much better supports the idea of a steam car than it did in Lear’s years. Yet, if all that will yield any advantage in fuel economy over modern gasoline or diesel engines of sophisticated optimized design I would not dare to bet on.

>> the claim that a (uni-flow) piston engine won't work with a condensing cycle << 

Oh, why shouldn’t a uni-flow piston engine work on exhaust to vacuum? Of course that would more radically clear cylinders of exhaust steam, with consequentially lower compression, thus less negative work. Yet, that would permit substantial down trimming of clearance volume and thus reduce mixing of used steam with live steam. Usually, uni-flow engines need larger clearance volume because on back stroke compression starts early – that impairs power output and efficiency because it tends to lower steam mean cylinder pressure and temperature.

That said, I’m still waiting for the steam airplane – it needn’t be a super-sonic transcontinental liner, a cute little city-hopper would satisfy my humble hopes … as a starter *g*.

With regards

Juniatha