There are a number of factors at work here.
One is that the US Speed Record car uses a condensing steam power plant meant for more prosaic uses -- perhaps for a light utility truck or a small city bus that can run on a variety of bio-derived fuels. The Speed Record car, it is claimed, is an effort to draw publicity to the engine, which they hope to use for much more than speed recrods.
Secondly, this is not to say that they won't use a multi-speed transmission in for the speed record. But the group is claiming high torque with a compact, multi-cylinder radial piston uni-flow steam engine that a production car or truck may be able to utilize direct drive.
Thirdly, with respect to the claim that a (uni-flow) piston engine won't work with a condensing cycle, I don't get the impression that their condensor operates much below the atmospheric temperature and pressure of steam. I can see where you need a turbine for the required volumetric efficiency to exhaust into "vacuum", but that is for stationary power plants where the condensor is cooled by lake or river water. That their condensor inlet is not so low pressure is suggested by wanting to use the condensor cooling air outlet as combustion pre-heat.
Thirdly, perhaps the most radical part of what they are claiming is "water lubrication" and the ability to run a piston steam engine on the very high steam pressure and temperature they have in mind without the problems of coking the lubrication oil, removing the lube oil from the condensed water, and so on.
Their uni-flow engine is single-acting (there have also been double-acting uni-flow engines), and I suppose you can always lubricate a single-acting engine from the "back side" of the pistons by oil splash as in a conventional automobile engine, but that would leave a lube film that would get into the condensor water.
That they are claiming 100 HP from a 350 lb package for the complete condensing steam power plant seems pretty impressive. On the other hand, inventors and start-up businesses have been known to claim all manners of things, and Bill Lear's steam engine dreams in the 1960's didn't seem to go very far.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
@ Paul:
So, both of them have it part-traditional / part-avantgarde – yet
vice-versa, for sure, on opposing sides of the Atlantic.
Relying on the starting torque of a piston steam engine for a speed range
that far stretched seems to me - well - stretching it a bit far ;-) or,
if you prefer, over-revving?
It is exactly with a high pressure condenser steam cycle where a turbine
is clearly superior to a piston engine, and simply for its light, compact unit
running free of any reciprocating mass forces would appear to me as t-h-e
logical choice for a vehicle aiming at nothing but speed.
Uuuuhh – and why that sharp off-set in frame width behind the front wheels,
makes for a weak point in the structure!
It could well have been a smooth backwards widening of the adjacent section.
Stop, stop – I’ll cut it short here, lest I get into details …
Regards
Juniatha
On the subject of condensing steam cycles, how about this story
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/land-speed-record-attempt-gains-steam/
about a US team trying to beat the steam-powered land speed record recently set by a team from the UK?
The UK effort was pretty much the Stephenson steam cycle -- a lot of heat to boil a lot of water at moderate boiler pressure and then the steam goes out the stack -- although I thought their car had a turbine. The US effort is an "advanced" steam cycle -- flash boiler, 3200 PSI, condensing -- but I know their power plant is a 6-cylinder Uniflow engine. Oh, and they are going with "direct drive", relying on the high starting torque of a steam engine, instead of using electric drive.
The entire steam power plant -- flash boiler, uniflow piston engine, condensor -- is all into one compact stack, which is that thing behind the guy in aviator glasses wearing the red shirt. They are also using waste heat from the condensor cooling air to preheat the combustion air. OK, not a steam engine according to L.D. Porta's ideas, but interesting.
Which speed and which viable concept for a 4 x 8-coupled proposal ?
Well, as to those old proposals of Henderson’s, you don’t necessarily have to reduce wheel diameter as compared to Mallets if you consider articulated frames and boiler and involve the tender to take part of the drive sets. Principally, this concept of articulated locomotive of which just the ‘simple’ and arguably more 'realistic' form was realized – the Triplex with but one drive set under the tender – might be classified as a giant form of articulated tank loco in that the aggregate has become one integrated unit that has lost the basic characteristics of a tender locos, i.e. –
– separate power and supplies units that can readily be separated and coupled in a variety of combinations, say given engine to have smaller or larger tender;
– constant adhesion mass as no supplies are carried on the power producing unit.
However, the question immediately arises what to do with that vast length available? Boiler design could hardly take advantage of it since there is a limit to how far length can be developed in relation to barrel diameter, or, more precisely: to free gas sectional area – which again is connected to size of grate, all of which were already stretched to the limit in large SE-Mallet types (that is why some of them showed a front end with front drive unit and cylinders substantially standing out in front of the boiler smoke box door – by an engineering viewpoint that just meant available space and mass not used for maximizing boiler size).
So, thought swings to ‘the other form' of articulated locomotive, the Garratt. Widely used in Africa and mainly realized as a flexible type of high t.e. on lightly laid and / or narrow gauge lines, there have been proposals to combine the Garratt concept with the Mallet concept to form a Mallet-Garratt – or Mallgarrett.
There you are with four drive units under one central bridge frame that holds the boiler! Since in a Garratt the boiler typically can be made shorter yet of even larger barrel diameter that in a Mallet of equivalent number of drive wheels and adhesion mass, such a Mallgarrett might j-u-ust have been possible and has, it seems, been put up as a proposal in various schemes of ‘steam-revival’ projects.
Such a proposition however would inherit certain disadvantages of both concepts, multiplying them into veritable engineering nightmares, for instance the Mallet-typical unsymmetric partition of the drive units into a flexible and a rigid one, in this case in a part-vehicle frame with a central pivot to distribute as evenly as possible the mass loaded on it by each end of the bridge frame. Such a multi-articulated framework structure would inevitably take up a lot of space as a large inactive mass! In other words: although of impressive length and complexity, such an engine would necessarily be ineffective in view of power per mass unit, awkward in maintenance and as a concept uncompetitive to engineering always aiming as it should at designing an answer of plain simplicity and elegance to the question at hand. In short: the marvellous Mallgarrett would be great for line side photographers but not as an answer to four units powered by Rudolf Diesel’s in revenue earning transportation.
Speaking of Peak Oil having passed us: what could coal burning power have to offer?
One simple answer: develop remote controls for steam and divide powers the Diesel way: i.e. four Mikes for four Diesel units – five Mikes for five Diesels up front, six for six in the middle of the train, seven for seven shoving at the back end … still somewhat less starting t.e. unit for unit by the steam version of multi-unit traction because of torque oscillation, somewhat larger total train mass, yet, arguably more power at speed – all-in-all competitive in performance ;-)
However, I have always wondered about flange wear of such monster load trains in curves of lines climbing through the mountains. Well, just listen to those wheels squealing through Horse Shoe Curve on You Tube,
see à http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogGSzzGvE6U&feature=related
Those trains wear heavily on wheel tires and on rails, too! Does it save labor and material costs in the long run if wheels profiles have to be turned more frequently, if even rails have to be replaced due to wear? How about breaking up those trains and go up and down the mountains smoothly without wheels screaming? Here comes your all American Simple Expansion Articulated, reloaded as maybe a 2-8-8-6 …
(edit: wrong link replaced)
Juniatha When comparing thermal efficiencies, one has to keep in mind, though, maximum efficiency figures are not what governs daily in-service consumption alone. First, railroad traffic often has engines working off their range of best efficiency with engine working loads varying widely; second, there are idling times which UIC tests on SNCF and DB have shown to bear heavy on diesel engines consumption, actually bringing average efficiency in fuel energy used for a defined scheduled work on a monthly basis down to figures by far less superior to steam’s equivalent figures than those of maximum efficiency for both diesel and steam would suggest! Clearly, the reason for this is in the practical need to keep diesel engines idling through short times of locomotive inactivity, such as train coasting, train stopped in station or at signal, train waiting for departure – but also while a diesel locomotive is on stand-by between two calls of service. Often depots have kept engines idling for hours to avoid having to start the following turns with a cold motor, or where frequent cold / hot / cold circles have led to excessive wear and in some cases even blocks cracking – very much a question of choice between two undesirable extremes: extra maintenance versus extra fuel consumption.
When comparing thermal efficiencies, one has to keep in mind, though, maximum efficiency figures are not what governs daily in-service consumption alone. First, railroad traffic often has engines working off their range of best efficiency with engine working loads varying widely; second, there are idling times which UIC tests on SNCF and DB have shown to bear heavy on diesel engines consumption, actually bringing average efficiency in fuel energy used for a defined scheduled work on a monthly basis down to figures by far less superior to steam’s equivalent figures than those of maximum efficiency for both diesel and steam would suggest! Clearly, the reason for this is in the practical need to keep diesel engines idling through short times of locomotive inactivity, such as train coasting, train stopped in station or at signal, train waiting for departure – but also while a diesel locomotive is on stand-by between two calls of service. Often depots have kept engines idling for hours to avoid having to start the following turns with a cold motor, or where frequent cold / hot / cold circles have led to excessive wear and in some cases even blocks cracking – very much a question of choice between two undesirable extremes: extra maintenance versus extra fuel consumption.
I may be mistaken, but I would think that switching service has the highest amount of time where the engine is idling. In the US, switchers were often the first steam locomotives on a railroad that got replaced by diesels, with the diesels producing very large improvements in fuel consumption over steam locomotives.
As for keeping diesels idling, the need is almost as much to maintain engine temperature as it is to keep the coolant from freezing. The coolant in the engine must be brought to a defined minimum operating temperature before a load can be applied to the engine.
- Erik
P.S. Welcome to the Forum!
Hey, Ho, wonderful written,
"This would then very much approach the end of the line for ‘conventional’ i.e. classic steam of basically Stephensonian concept."
and maybe that#s just the breaking point, traction motors on flexible trucks, electricity for perfect energy transmission,
unbeatable. Any power-source, small enough, could be instelled on that. That killed the steam engine, in my mind.
Cheers
-lars
The idea of a 2-8-8-8-8-2 "quadraplex" to meet the low-speed traction of a 4-unit Diesel locomotive brings up an interesting question. By applying steam to four sets of drivers, one could perhaps build a high-tractive effort low-speed machine, but its speed would be limited.
The idea of "booster" engines applied to single trailing truck axles on Hudsons and Northerns I think tried to address that problem in a limited way. That is, one applies steam power to a larger number of axles at low speeds and then one applies steam power to a smaller number of axles at higher speeds, in the process having a machine that can operate over a wider speed range without exhausting the steam supply.
But these booster engines were only applied to single axles, and again, many railroads did not believe their complexity and attendant maintenance cost to be worth their performance.
To Juniatha: Wow! That's the first time I've ever read a doctoral dissertation in an on-line forum! Seriously though, well thought out and well written. One thing's for sure, if something comes along to make diesels obsolete, I don't think there'll be many tears shed over them, certainly not as many as the steam engines got and still get. People just love steam. The head may say diesel, but the heart always says "steam rules!"
Having read the previous comments, I might throw in a few words of mine.
Given historical steam - FGS, first generation steam as it was denominated by Porta in contrast to his proposed second and third generation steam – did typically reach some 8 % thermal indicated efficiency in German standard steam loco classes (simple expansion all), with about 9 % in the best European simple expansion types, 10 % in good compound types, 11 to 12 % in the best French compound types including Chapelon rebuilt 4‑6‑2 and 4‑8‑0 types (pre Chapelon compound around 7 to 8 % in France). 14 % should have been reached in the proposed 6000 i.h.p. Chapelon types of 1950; some 15 % were claimed for L.D. Porta second generation steam with GPCS, 16 % to 20 % should have been reached in the third generation and in best compound designs still using live steam parameters but comparatively mildly super-elevated over best historical practice. This would then very much approach the end of the line for ‘conventional’ i.e. classic steam of basically Stephensonian concept.
One maybe extreme example from ‘Old Europe’:
In the years following re-unification of Germany in 1990, former (East-German) DR saw many depots sooner or later bound for closure and often large parts of their aged facilities were being torn down at rather rapid pace. In the process of (anticipated, yet never accomplished) ‘privatization’ the two hitherto state-owned railway networks (DB and DR) were ‘combined’ into one DBAG (sort of PC-wise – *g*). In severe winter weather, consequential situations in such depots hung midways between half alive and fully dead has led to dozens of diesel locomotives idling for hours on end in depot yard outsides of empty shed declared out of use by management and destined for demolition (imminent, later, or maybe not). Reason for this sort of ‘simplified running procedure’ was not just fear of letting motors get dead cold but standard practice of no anti-freeze filling – which had worked well enough before with locos parked motor off inside acceptably heated engine sheds. Besides horrific effects on working morals of railroaders left with imponderable personal perspectives by large-scale thinning out of facilities, this sort of diesel loco handling has sent bluish clouds of fumes all around the neighborhood providing fantastic ‘approval’ by the public of DBAG’s ways of modernization.
This very much brought diesel loco efficiency back down to worst standards of smoky steam depots.
Yet, comparing thermal efficiency of engines proper is but one factor. It has correctly been mentioned before that fuel costs on a BTU / $ basis are what really counts. Because of availability of relatively cheap coal abounding in the steam era in the US, railroads took a dim look at technological refinements to increase thermal efficiency. They preferred to keep design simple. Keeping a machine simple and therefore of low construction cost is one thing - it's a totally different matter if technology is being petrified at rather raw level, even during the steam era becoming more and more out of date as compared to what had become state of the art in engineering outsides the isolated world of steam locomotive construction and maintenance.
In this latter lies the basic reason why 'the steam locomotive' (better: 'this very sort of steam locomotive') has always remained heavy on maintenance and servicing. There is no physical law that determines "engines using steam must inevitably demand higher maintenance and service costs than engines using diesel cycle". Keeping that in mind it becomes pretty clear that most of the extra costs for maintenance and service found in the historical comparison tests of existing types of steam locomotives versus new types of diesel locomotives were really telling of flaws in the out-dated design and construction of steam. Inevitably, running maintenance and servicing of aging steam was costly versus steam by state of the art technology such as present in the diesel locomotives then introduced.
Some extra costs however were inherent with coal as fuel because of disadvantages in handling the fuel and need for fire cleaning plus consumptive effects on boilers by gases and abrasion by cinders. Extra vehicle total working mass of steam locos comes of little surprise with low total thermal efficiency of their dual heat energy conversion process asking for large supplies of fuel plus working media having to be carried on board. Yet, specific power output per mass unit of the best of classic steam was quite competitive to contemporary diesels at the time of transition.
But fuel costs are just one item - maintenance is another. Labor costs also were an important factor and here the classic concept of steam locomotive principally was at disadvantage – although on many European railways laws at the time of transition from steam to diesel out-ruled single handed control at least of express trains, replacing steam firemen by second drivers, or in other words: nullifying the labor cost advantage of diesels in this respect.
Two more points where diesels were at inherent advantage: vehicles were fully bidirectional and of full adhesion wheel arrangements. The latter was a feature much welcomed on American railroads forever seeking to take maximum tonnage trains. Bidirectional concept helped to drastically simplify multi unit traction and that again helped to overcome the diesels initial major drawback against Super Power type of steam: low h.p. output per unit, the early types in fact wanting to an almost ridiculous degree for mainline duty if compared unit for unit with the mighty steam loco types then ruling. Because the diesel units – in sharp contrast to steam locos – easily lent themselves for multi unit control from but one cab by just one driver the low h.p. output per unit (not t.e. output) became irrelevant for railroads which quickly adapted to comparing what was called one 'four units diesel locomotive' (i.e. four diesel locos) to one steam locomotive of nominally about the same i.h.p. output at speed – yet of much lower t.e. output at starting. Still, I tend to question if an early type 'four units' diesel of 5400 motor h.p., later 6000 motor h.p., really offered a step forward worth the capital invested and if it had really justified that precipitous conversion from steam when it meant scrapping highly qualified steam loco types at but a fraction of their anticipated working life. Effectively, this has had railroads buying power twice within short time for but one revenue work at hand – a financial disaster not likely warranted by whatever small margins of cost savings to or fro could be claimed according to which way or other the steam / diesel comparisons were interpreted. Had the non written-off costs of just having bought new big steam only to dispense with it after a few years been attributed to the transition to first generation diesel traction – as in my view it should have been done since these costs did not disappear miraculously with the transition – then the balance would have changed substantially.
None of the large state railways in Europe followed these rather hasty changes of traction because of the obvious multiplication of traction costs with multi unit traction by early diesel types lacking power as well as technological 'railroad-hardening' and accurate design that characterized later US diesel types that have well earned their recognition.
On the contrary, on European railways even double traction was always seen as a mere help-out by all means to be avoided for best efficiency of train running. That is why diesels have been compared and put into service on a "one to one" basis: one diesel loco per one steam loco on a train – which profoundly reversed the picture, leaving diesels to loose competition power-wise against steam and leaving diesel traction as perennial second choice against electric traction – so much so that virtually all major lines which in the years of transition from steam had been dieselized have long since become fully electrified – arguably with exception of railways in Britain. Small wonder, with electric loco maximum outputs per unit of engine mass comparing to diesels like three to one, or four to one in more recent years with three-phase synchronous motor electrics! All of the high speed trains wouldn’t be possible if it weren't for the vast power output per mass unit available with electric traction. The like applies to freight train operation where light and simple high power single electric units realize high monthly ton-mile productivity, a major key to high utilization on European double track mainlines with high traffic density demanding fast acceleration and highly uniform traveling speeds of trains.
But in America conditions and demands differ from those found on European railways. By mentioning this practice vastly differing from the developments on US RRs I just wanted to point out: there is no such thing as 'the one best solution’ in applied engineering technology and this applies to choice of traction, too. Given surrounding parameters always have to be taken into account. If that applies to comparisons E traction versus diesel traction, then it should logically also have applied to diesel versus steam – only, at the time decisions were made, the latter case got buried under massive pressing by 'modernization campaigns' that had more to do with hard selling that with hard technical facts if relative characteristics of steam versus diesel were concerned – then, at the years of transition!
By the last decade of steam loco construction in the USA, indicated thermal efficiency should have reached some 10 % in the range of best performance. Should have! Yet it didn’t. With builders answering as they did to customer railroads asking, in my view the railroads should take an ample share of blaming. With cheap coal they just didn’t care for those extra percentage of thermal efficiency – they preferred exchanging old eight wheel tenders against twelve wheel high capacity types and ‘up-grading’ to fourteen wheel centipede and even sixteen wheel types with the large loco types. What went unnoticed was that higher efficiency also meant higher degree of transformation of energy, i.e. higher power output, thus higher revenue per unit of energy invested! In the typical US Super Power 2‑8‑4 or 2‑10‑4 as with the 4‑6‑4 and 4‑8‑4 railroads felt content with approx. 6 to 7 % thermal efficiency around optimum working point – not to mention what was left of it in then all to often found ‘abuse’ type of running with excessive loads at low speeds which had steam locos going at full cry all the way in what might be called ‘starting mode’ i.e. excessively long cut-off working, excessive firing rates near grate limit with inevitable super-increase of coal consumption caused by high degrees of unburnt losses, low combustion efficiency, low boiler efficiency – at the same time producing lower than optimal ton-mile productivity figures because of sheer sluggishness, chocking mainlines with slow moving drag freights and all that just for the benefit of adding some relatively small extra tonnage to a train consist of several thousand tons.
In some articles published in more recent years, authors have blamed US steam loco builders of design and construction of steam loco types that did not fully answer this sort of service. Yet in my view these critics are unfair in that no viable alternatives were offered to the type of Super Power that had then been developed. Little could be offered. The plain and simple truth is: if it was by no means without engineering challenge to design ever increased power outputs at speed into these loco types, it still could be done by following a natural path of perfecting given basic designs. On the other hand it would have been a totally different matter taking a veritable quantum leap to extend steam in such a way as to produce starting efforts equivalent to those of combined t.e. of multi unit diesel combinations. For instance: a then typical 4 x Bo-Bo diesel combination thus having sixteen powered axles would have called for a steam 2‑8‑8‑8‑8‑x type – quite a monster, surpassing in length of powered groups even the early Triplex ventures, something that couldn’t adequately be supplied with steam by the boiler technology then in practice, an excessively long accumulation that would indeed have called for clever arrangements of multi-articulation both for negotiating curves as well as track contortion, humps, low points and any combinations of those. Footnote: probably it could be done using today’s technical knowledge and possibilities of design and construction – yet, if so, it would present an answer to a question nobody wants to ask.
It appears to me, that is why in the ACE-3000 project emphasis was put on “rate of most used continuous tractive effort” – not the maximum one, silently dropping any claim this projected steam type could ever compete with diesels in maximum starting tractive effort. In fact, in its basic performance characteristics it very much started where US steam had died in 1949, adding complications like condensing, internally coupled duplex drive (i.e. duplex no-more, with two crank axles instead of but one in straight eight coupled four cylinder compound types like those used to best advantage in France), further adding automated, electronic controls for mixed operation with diesels – in itself no small task to accomplish considering the new type loco would have been supposed to take care of itself working in a remote controlled multi unit combination, something that has yet to be achieved in a fully conventional steam locomotive, even if oil fired to simplify remote control.
In his book “The Red Devil and other tales of steam”, David Wardale mentions that L.D. Porta had been with ACE for some time and because of the engineering complexity of the ACE-3000 layout had recommended a more conventional, more basic engineering approach. It was not to be; ACE wanted a steam loco concept that would promise to provide compatibility with prevailing diesel locos – by itself a reasonable approach, it would seem, had it not been for engineering consequences being as severe as they were. Just what was expected to be proven by those ‘heavy tonnage test runs’ of # 614 in most severe winter weather that virtually cancelled much of the data sampling and provided rather extreme off-average conditions of running? I take from it that it could be done – yet the C&O had proven just that back in the times of regular running of these 4‑8‑4s. I also take from it that a 4‑8‑4 is rather on edge when asked this sort of service which diesels perform with little grunting – again, this isn’t really surprising. I apologize if I should have missed the point but it looks to me like an old story retold of a fairly swift engine called to take borderline tonnage, consequently laboring over the line at low speeds far off its optimum working range. On the other hand, Porta’s straight-forward proposal of a Decapod, light yet very powerful would have concentrated efforts on a viable steam loco concept – yet that would have produced an engine not easily adaptable to the railroad scene by then ruling practically throughout in America. Railroads all over the continent were firmly committed to diesel traction and with much improved second and third generation diesel locos, in my view it would have taken a very, very severe increase of diesel fuel costs, indeed sort of a sky-rocketing of oil price, to persuade them to seriously consider anything else. And then again, a locomotive concept of heavy vehicle mass per unit of power output, incorporating many new features or combination of features uncommon to railroad practice would probably still have a hard stand against a proposition of electrification with its loco units of proven, heavy-duty high-end power, of extreme maintenance freeness, all readily available off stock.(Sorry if my appreciation for contemporary E-trac might shine through ;-))
Had steam traction been continued for longer than it was in America – and I think it could have made sense for, say, some 12, in some cases up to 20 more years, depending on individual case and railroad – mainly thinking of East Coast RRs, including the NYC, at least for the shorter time span, then freight train running should have been modernized from prevailing slow moving heavy drag freights towards a more speed conscious, in other words mileage conscious type of running of lighter loads by which steam loco types would regularly run well within their best working ranges. This would have asked for 60 to 70 mph regular freight train speeds – something the Union Pacific had done on their long stretches of flat land mileage and has become more recent practice with diesels of higher motor outputs. This would also have asked for modernization of line signaling to enable denser traffic – again just taking in advance things that had to come sooner or later with any kind of traction (i.e. not a thing just needed to extend steam traction).
Continuing a modernized steam traction through most of the 1960s would have changed the typical comparison from colloquial ‘old type steam by old-fashioned operation versus new type diesel by modern operation’ towards a ‘modern versus modern’ steam to diesel comparison. Clearly, with the changes in parameters, necessarily the results of the comparison would also have been changed – which in my view might very well have justified that limited extension of steam traction in modernized format.
With the distance of time we may agree to summarize that in the end it would all have boiled down much the way it did: steam would be gone today’s – maybe there would be a degree of wider spread electric traction in the East, yet in General, Motors of diesels would always be a-humming up and down and all about in America.
With best wishes for 2011
I guess this should have been said long before this thread got going sideways,
You should read "The Thermodynamic Closing of the Great Steam/Diesel Debate" by William Pettitjean. That will answer and explain the basic question at hand.
.
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd: Some other things I remember. The condensing tender. Big condensing radiators with fans power by the low pressure steam (or hot water? I don't really remember) Exactly how reliable was this going to be? I remember at the time thinking about how we couldn't keep SD45 radiators from leaking all over the place, and they were only 8 row soldered core running just hot water. Yeah, well the temptation is to go with a condensing "tender" because of not needing the watering stops and the more thermodynamically efficient cycle and the need to not worry about hard water. I have come to accept that a condensing steam cycle without access to a cooling pond, however, is the wrong way to go. Not that this would have answered your objections, Don, but I believe Livio Dante Porta was trying to pull the ACE 3000 team back from the abyss by trying, as their first effort, to simply build a better non-condensing steam engine as their first effort. With respect to Diesel reliability, that had to have been developed over time and didn't start out as a given. I believe the EMD 567 engine was something of a breakthrough as whatever Winton engine they had -- wasn't the story that the pre-war Winton-engine E units had technicians riding in the engine compartments to make repairs underway? Or is this part of the mythology of railroading? One other thing about Diesel reliability, I had been reading late-50's vintage railroad trade magazines in the Engineering College library at the U. I can go look up what the magazine title is, but it had a monthly column on the Mysterious Diesel Problem of the Month. A steam engine is essentially a big tea kettle -- keep a fire going, keep water in it, keep the bearings oiled, keep the flues unplugged, and the thing pretty much runs. The Diesel had a complex electrical system -- it was anybody's guess why a Diesel wouldn't run or wouldn't "load up." If one would indulge me with one last question regarding what could have been done to keep steam going. The ACE 3000 was probably a Bridge Too Far with its condensing cycle and most certainly a Bridge Too Late what with Diesels being into their second and third generation and having solutions to the aforementioned problems -- the Dash 2 modular electrical cabinet? The Jawn Henry was also a Bridge Too Far with mating an electric drive to a steam turbine. But Jawn Henry must have been a non-condensing cycle -- I believe the coal bunker was in the front part of the locomotive portion, but it pulled a water tender? And Jawn Henry had a non-conventional boiler -- some kind of Babcock and Wilcox 600 PSI water tube affair that was considerably more compact than the massive steam engine boiler? The Jawn Henry had its turbine knocked out of wack in a hard coupling impact, and it was said to have had trouble with coal dust or leaking water getting into the electrics. Not much has been said about its boiler. Was that part of it reasonably successful, to go to a more compact water-tube boiler with higher steam pressure, getting some increase in thermodynamic efficiency (although not the full effect of having a condensor), perhaps mitigating the hazard of boiler explosion by not having that massive amount of water at the boiling temperature. Could that boiler have been mated to a conventional steam locomotive? Or was Jawn Henry in service for such a short time and having that many other problems that we never learned if that boiler worked out?
oltmannd: Some other things I remember. The condensing tender. Big condensing radiators with fans power by the low pressure steam (or hot water? I don't really remember) Exactly how reliable was this going to be? I remember at the time thinking about how we couldn't keep SD45 radiators from leaking all over the place, and they were only 8 row soldered core running just hot water.
Some other things I remember. The condensing tender. Big condensing radiators with fans power by the low pressure steam (or hot water? I don't really remember) Exactly how reliable was this going to be? I remember at the time thinking about how we couldn't keep SD45 radiators from leaking all over the place, and they were only 8 row soldered core running just hot water.
Yeah, well the temptation is to go with a condensing "tender" because of not needing the watering stops and the more thermodynamically efficient cycle and the need to not worry about hard water. I have come to accept that a condensing steam cycle without access to a cooling pond, however, is the wrong way to go. Not that this would have answered your objections, Don, but I believe Livio Dante Porta was trying to pull the ACE 3000 team back from the abyss by trying, as their first effort, to simply build a better non-condensing steam engine as their first effort.
With respect to Diesel reliability, that had to have been developed over time and didn't start out as a given. I believe the EMD 567 engine was something of a breakthrough as whatever Winton engine they had -- wasn't the story that the pre-war Winton-engine E units had technicians riding in the engine compartments to make repairs underway? Or is this part of the mythology of railroading?
One other thing about Diesel reliability, I had been reading late-50's vintage railroad trade magazines in the Engineering College library at the U. I can go look up what the magazine title is, but it had a monthly column on the Mysterious Diesel Problem of the Month. A steam engine is essentially a big tea kettle -- keep a fire going, keep water in it, keep the bearings oiled, keep the flues unplugged, and the thing pretty much runs. The Diesel had a complex electrical system -- it was anybody's guess why a Diesel wouldn't run or wouldn't "load up."
If one would indulge me with one last question regarding what could have been done to keep steam going. The ACE 3000 was probably a Bridge Too Far with its condensing cycle and most certainly a Bridge Too Late what with Diesels being into their second and third generation and having solutions to the aforementioned problems -- the Dash 2 modular electrical cabinet?
The Jawn Henry was also a Bridge Too Far with mating an electric drive to a steam turbine. But Jawn Henry must have been a non-condensing cycle -- I believe the coal bunker was in the front part of the locomotive portion, but it pulled a water tender? And Jawn Henry had a non-conventional boiler -- some kind of Babcock and Wilcox 600 PSI water tube affair that was considerably more compact than the massive steam engine boiler?
The Jawn Henry had its turbine knocked out of wack in a hard coupling impact, and it was said to have had trouble with coal dust or leaking water getting into the electrics. Not much has been said about its boiler. Was that part of it reasonably successful, to go to a more compact water-tube boiler with higher steam pressure, getting some increase in thermodynamic efficiency (although not the full effect of having a condensor), perhaps mitigating the hazard of boiler explosion by not having that massive amount of water at the boiling temperature. Could that boiler have been mated to a conventional steam locomotive? Or was Jawn Henry in service for such a short time and having that many other problems that we never learned if that boiler worked out?
Early diesel vs steam from the "transition" guys I started working with: "Steam: 5 minutes to diagnose. Two days to fix." "Diesel: two days to diagnose. 5 min to fix."
By the time of the Dash two, it was getting closer to "5 min to diagnose, 5 min to fix"
The Dash two locomotive was the culmination of hundreds of improvements. There were certainly "generations", but there really was a continuous evolution. Each component was improved bit by bit. There were at least a half a dozen changes just to the cylinder head just on the 567 engine. There have been changes to the cylinder liner, the valves, the cylinder hold-down system, the head seat ring, injector nozzles, etc. The uber-reliable 645-E engine was a long way from the leaky, wheezy 567, 567A and 567B engine that killed steam. A lot of the parts looked the same, but.....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul of Covington Okay, I've overcome my embarrassment enough to thank you all for setting me straight. All these years I've accepted the story about the enhancements as fact even though I thought it curious that I never found it mentioned anywhere else.
Okay, I've overcome my embarrassment enough to thank you all for setting me straight. All these years I've accepted the story about the enhancements as fact even though I thought it curious that I never found it mentioned anywhere else.
In the case of the Super A, a westbound train headed by a Class A stalls on the Blue Ridge grade because it is over tonnage. The author deduces that it must have been a Super A or the dispatcher would never have let it try to make the grade on its own. What he didn't know is that many times after trains were pushed east over the Blue Ridge, the pusher waited at the foot of the mountain and pushed another train west over Blue Ridge. Simply an everyday thing that someone blew all out of proportion.
May I add to not believe everything you read in those blurbs under pictures telling you this and that. I have found many a blurb to be nothing more than BS used to fill some space under a photo.
Firelock76 33% is controlling interest if you're the majority stockholder. Besides, why do you think N&W's passenger coaches were painted Tuscan Red?
33% is controlling interest if you're the majority stockholder. Besides, why do you think N&W's passenger coaches were painted Tuscan Red?
Maybe Ed King should step in and set everyone straight on this issue...which is Pennsy had enough good sense to let the N&W run the N&W!
33% is NOT a majority. I believe that the N&W shares owned by PRR were held in trust and PRR was not allowed to exercise control per ICC order. The prime function of the N&W shares owned by PRR was to pay dividends to PRR, which did much to cover PRR's operating losses.
oltmannd Some other things I remember. The condensing tender. Big condensing radiators with fans power by the low pressure steam (or hot water? I don't really remember) Exactly how reliable was this going to be? I remember at the time thinking about how we couldn't keep SD45 radiators from leaking all over the place, and they were only 8 row soldered core running just hot water.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm: Not really sure, but I think I read that Diesel fuel back in the 50's was cheaper than gasoline, so maybe it would have been relatively cheaper in your calculations than now. The story back in the "Steam-Diesel Transition Era" was that oil was being discovered/developed in Saudi and the US hadn't reached it's 1970 Hubbert Peak, and the United Mine Workers were flexing their muscles with regard to the mine workers getting better pay for the dirty dangerous work they do. Oil was particularly cheap compared to now, and it seems with the low price of oil and the much higher thermal efficiency of Diesel engines, Diesel locomotives had a clear fuel cost advantage over steam. At the time of the ACE 3000 project -- what was that, mid '70's in response to the 70's Oil Embargo and Middle East tensions -- I believe that a mid teens thermal efficient coal burning steam locomotive had a clear fuel cost advantage over a Diesel locomotive. Even a 5 percent efficient steam engine (the ACE people tested a Northern) had a slight fuel cost savings over Diesel at that time. Today, the price of coal is increasing along with many other things, but the price of oil in inflation-adjusted terms is not too far off from conditions in the 1970's -- early '80's. The other thing to remember about the ACE 3000 project is that when was this, early '70's, and when did Norfolk and Western drop the fire of the last mainline steamer, 1960? Yes the railroads were thoroughly Dieselized and the thought of bringing coal-fired steam back -- think of Don Oltmann's shop foreman thinking the best thing to do with a locomotive boiler was to fill it with cement so it could not be put in service and have a boiler explosion accident. But there were probably enough old-timers around the railroads to make this steam thing work, if that was the direction. Today, we are 40 years away from the ACE 3000, 50 years since the end of steam on N&W, 60 years since when the railroads pretty much pulled the plug on steam. During the steam-Diesel transition, the railroads were "investing" in a hodge podge of 1st Generation Diesels with various levels of maintenance expense. By the ACE 3000, they were competing with the SD-40 and later SD-40-2, perhaps the most "bullet proof" locomotives known to mankind, steam or Diesel. Ah steam! The dream doesn't die.
schlimm: Not really sure, but I think I read that Diesel fuel back in the 50's was cheaper than gasoline, so maybe it would have been relatively cheaper in your calculations than now.
Not really sure, but I think I read that Diesel fuel back in the 50's was cheaper than gasoline, so maybe it would have been relatively cheaper in your calculations than now.
The story back in the "Steam-Diesel Transition Era" was that oil was being discovered/developed in Saudi and the US hadn't reached it's 1970 Hubbert Peak, and the United Mine Workers were flexing their muscles with regard to the mine workers getting better pay for the dirty dangerous work they do. Oil was particularly cheap compared to now, and it seems with the low price of oil and the much higher thermal efficiency of Diesel engines, Diesel locomotives had a clear fuel cost advantage over steam.
At the time of the ACE 3000 project -- what was that, mid '70's in response to the 70's Oil Embargo and Middle East tensions -- I believe that a mid teens thermal efficient coal burning steam locomotive had a clear fuel cost advantage over a Diesel locomotive. Even a 5 percent efficient steam engine (the ACE people tested a Northern) had a slight fuel cost savings over Diesel at that time.
Today, the price of coal is increasing along with many other things, but the price of oil in inflation-adjusted terms is not too far off from conditions in the 1970's -- early '80's.
The other thing to remember about the ACE 3000 project is that when was this, early '70's, and when did Norfolk and Western drop the fire of the last mainline steamer, 1960? Yes the railroads were thoroughly Dieselized and the thought of bringing coal-fired steam back -- think of Don Oltmann's shop foreman thinking the best thing to do with a locomotive boiler was to fill it with cement so it could not be put in service and have a boiler explosion accident. But there were probably enough old-timers around the railroads to make this steam thing work, if that was the direction.
Today, we are 40 years away from the ACE 3000, 50 years since the end of steam on N&W, 60 years since when the railroads pretty much pulled the plug on steam. During the steam-Diesel transition, the railroads were "investing" in a hodge podge of 1st Generation Diesels with various levels of maintenance expense. By the ACE 3000, they were competing with the SD-40 and later SD-40-2, perhaps the most "bullet proof" locomotives known to mankind, steam or Diesel.
Ah steam! The dream doesn't die.
Ross Roland was making the rounds with his ACE3000 model in 1979 or 1980. The office sent me to his presentation. I was the new guy. None of the old "steam guys" wanted to go. This already tells you how important they thought it was....
But, I was excited to go.
Here's what I remember taking away from the presentation. The ACE3000 was an attempt to construct a state of the art steam locomotive with diesel locomotive availability. Not reliability. Availability. They were going to do it by making the components modular. Great. That doesn't make them reliable, just easy to swap out.
One of the components was the cab. Theoretically, the cab could be "unplugged" and a few air connections undone, and it could be lifted out. The current isolated cabs are built this way, yet no one I know is swapping them out for trouble.
Some other things I remember. The condensing tender. Big condensing radiators with fans power by the low pressure steam (or hot water? I don't really remember) Exactly how reliable was this going to be? I remember at the time thinking about how we couldn't keep SD45 radiators from leaking all over the place, and they were only 8 row soldered core running just hot water. Wheelslip control. IDAC/WS-10 plus HTC trucks had gotten reliable adhesion up close to 20% and Super Series wheel creep control was just around the corner. The ACE3000 was going to automate wheelslip control. All that rotating equipment? How exactly is would work out was anybody's guess at that point.
The Dash 2 locomotives running around at the time were the product of 30 years development at that point, and they were extremely reliable. The ACE3000 was to be a large collection of new or nearly new technology, almost none of it RR hardened or perfected. Add in that, at 300 tons, it would only do the work of a 140 ton locomotive. It looked like it could eat you alive in maintenance and development. A risky proposition at a time when the scarce capital was going to very, very low risk investments, like rail and ties.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
The steam vs diesel test report is available at the N&WHS archives in Roanoke. There is no mystery to it. All of the findings are documented including cost comparisons. I've been through the report page by page many times over the past 15 years or so and keep a copy here. The person I referred to above that participated in the tests comes to almost every archives work session. His memory is sharper than most people half his age. On top of that, he kept a diary of the events he saw during the individual tests where he had a role. You can't get much better than that. That's why many of us can't understand where that article came from. The conclusions are not supported by the historical information available.
Firelock76 Gets back to what I've said on other Forum posts. N&W only went diesel because they were ordered to by the Pennsy, who held controlling interest at the time. I'm sure they realized diesels were coming eventually but they just weren't in any rush.
Gets back to what I've said on other Forum posts. N&W only went diesel because they were ordered to by the Pennsy, who held controlling interest at the time. I'm sure they realized diesels were coming eventually but they just weren't in any rush.
A 33% interest in N&W is a controlling interest only if you can persuade enough other shareholders to agree with you. Anyway, as mentioned elsewhere, N&W was running into the position of being able to operate steam locomotives efficiently but no longer being able to maintain them properly because of parts unavailability.
Sorry about my last post. I guess I missed the May '92 letter.
But were the results on fuel cost comparison correct, or was that part of the myth, too?
Hi Big Jim,
Yup, same guy that not only created the Y6c out of thin air and lots of factual errors, but also the A1. N&W never had any such classes and they didn't need to. This stuff will never die!!!! See Trains Nov 1991 and the response of someone who participated in the steam vs diesel tests in the May 1992 issue (only a portion of his letter was published.). There were also two lengthy articles rebutting this nonsense in N&W Historical Society's magazine The Arrow, one by the same person that participated in the tests and another by a disinterested party that came to the same conclusions. There were no such alterations, and no reason to make them.
Paul of Covington All this talk of relative fuel costs of diesel vs steam brought to mind an article in TRAINS in the early 90's, I think, about N&W's tests when EMD had loaned them four F's to try out. I've been looking for that issue, but haven't found it yet. ( I guess I need that DVD). N&W found that they could haul more tonnage for less fuel cost with a Y6b than with the F's. The article mentioned that N&W had tweaked the Y by boring out the cylinders a little and increasing the boiler pressure to 315psi. However, EMD had also tweaked their units, so that the horsepower was higher than standard. Of course, being a coal-hauler, they probably got their coal at a pretty good price.
All this talk of relative fuel costs of diesel vs steam brought to mind an article in TRAINS in the early 90's, I think, about N&W's tests when EMD had loaned them four F's to try out. I've been looking for that issue, but haven't found it yet. ( I guess I need that DVD). N&W found that they could haul more tonnage for less fuel cost with a Y6b than with the F's. The article mentioned that N&W had tweaked the Y by boring out the cylinders a little and increasing the boiler pressure to 315psi. However, EMD had also tweaked their units, so that the horsepower was higher than standard. Of course, being a coal-hauler, they probably got their coal at a pretty good price.
The title of the article is "N&W's Secret Weapons" from November 1991.
Anthony V.
The article mentioned that N&W had tweaked the Y by boring out the cylinders a little and increasing the boiler pressure to 315psi.
Aw gee whiz! Not this falsehood again. Let me guess the author. Is it the same guy that proclaimed that there was a super Class A? LeMassena.
To me, thermal efficiency would be maximized by generating no more heat than would be required to sublimate liquid water for demand use in cylinders that were insulated with about R20 factor, and the cylinder exhaust should have been condensed and fed back to a feedwater heater/pump. Better ones.
Even the waste heat up the stack should have been scavenged more than it ever was. It should have been expelled with a small jet of steam when the smoke was taken down to about 60-80 degrees. How one would achieve all these things in a machine under 260 tons is beyond me. Maybe towing a special radiator car, or a heat-echanger car. Weighing 30 tons or less. How that would work with 6000 trailing tons I dunno.
Steam beeth dead. Long liveth steam.
Something to keep in mind about railroad coal: railroads often didn't use decent coal. A lot of the time, railroads were using the leftovers of the grading process. Even when oil was used, Bunker C originated as a waste product of the refining process. How would thermal efficiency and maintenance been improved if railroads had been picky about fuel? (Of course, being particular about fuel would have raised the price of the fuel.)
Dan
Sulfur content in coal would prevent going back to steam in the USA. Much of USA coal is shipped to China which has no emission restrictions because the USA coal has higher sulfur content.
A coal fired power plant not far from me gets lower sulfur coal from China via a port in RI. And they still need stack scrubbers to comply. Stack scrubbers on steam locos, never happen.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Just my quick two cents worth: In the early 50s the Lackawanna was running commuter trains in New Jersey and surprisingly finding them cheaper to run using steam engines rather than diesels. The Erie was getting the same results. What pushed them over the edge to complete dieselizaton was a series of coal strikes from the late 40s through the early 50s. Who ever heard of a strike in the oil business? And of course diesel fuel was abundant and dirt cheap. I can't blame the miners for striking, though, few groups of people have been so consistantly been treated so poorly. One thing's for certain, everybody loves steam except railroad management!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.