Steam is only second in power to nuclear. Nothing else comes close between those big two. Steam can be built up to a psi indefinitely as long as you can keep the fire hot enough. Steam may not be very efficient but neither is diesel engines with a efficiency of around 30%.
I read the business section everyday and I think all this talk about bringing back steam has to do with the high price of a barrel of oil. The economy has fallen off a cliff yet the price of a barrel of oil is 90-100 a barrel. Once the economy roars back to life again the price of a barrel of oil is going to climb into record territory going way past $200.00 for a barrel of oil. As it stands today a gallon of gas is somewhere around $4.00. It will probably go to $6.00 or $7.00 when the economy gets better. That price is unsustainable for anyone who deals with transportation.
The United states does have one of the largest coal reserves on the planet. Cheap clean coal and steam locomotives for power. Fire and water is the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
people keep forgetting about the stirling engine. This seems like a possible solution as it is external combustion and unlike a steam can achieve high efficiency, but of course they take a while to start up.
Railroad to Freedom
Gas turbines do offer better power-to-weight ratios. However, their efficiency and power curves are very peaky. As soon as you move off-peak, fuel consumption rockets and power plummets. Hence, gas turbines favour continuous running at fixed speeds (except for aircraft, where power-to-weight ratio dominates for obvious reasons). The UP devised some famous gas turbine - electric locomotives. I presume the thought was that long-haul freight over the steady climbs of the UP mainline would favour the gas turbine's performance characteristics. They were still thirsty though, as gas turbines of the day were relatively inefficient. These days, efficiencies have greatly improved due to higher operating pressures & temperatures.
Gas turbines have been powered using all sorts of liquids & gases. And yes, even pulverised coal has been used, although the ash from the coal had a tendency to block cooling holes in the turbine blades. This of course reduced blade life and could lead to blade failure (not an event you would want to happen, as blades have been known in the past to puncture through gas turbine casing and cause serious damage to anything and anyone nearby, although these days gas turbine casings are designed to contain such failures reliably).
Gas turbines have been designed to be external combustion engines whereby the fuel is burnt in a separate system, and a heat exchanger used to transfer the energy of combustion to the gas turbine.
I have no experience of Stirling engines. I think they too have peaky performance, but are very efficient. They like very steady running conditions. Any power-to-weight benefit can sometimes be lost in bigger designs due to the need for bulky heat management equipment. They also take awhile to start up.
As for resurrecting steam, who needs an excuse? They look, sound and smell great! Plus, I imagine it's a fascinating engineering challenge - how to improve efficiency, reduce emissions and retain that simplicity.
Regards
Dave
Sir Madog ... What was the longest daily run of a steam loco in the hey days of steam, before it required servicing? Could not have been much more than 300 miles...
... What was the longest daily run of a steam loco in the hey days of steam, before it required servicing? Could not have been much more than 300 miles...
It's longer. Check out the thread about "Steam long distant operation", also under Steam & Preservation.
I agree lets enjoy the idea of a modern steam locomotive .
Maybe YOU said that turbine blades would fly out like shrapnel but UP and GE said that it was erosion and deposits. There is also the issue of ash disposal as blowing it out the exhaust is not likely to make a lot of points these days. The PRR was a steam turbine. Apples and oranges.
ontheBNSF There seems to be a lot of talk of using steam in the modern era because of its ability to use solid fuels, but what I don't is why use a steam locomotive to do that when other forms of external combustion engines can do that such a stirling engine or gas Turbine engine would offer better power to weight ratio and much higher efficiency. Not only that a steam engine requires a good source of water while other forms of external combustion don't. Just my take on it though.
There seems to be a lot of talk of using steam in the modern era because of its ability to use solid fuels, but what I don't is why use a steam locomotive to do that when other forms of external combustion engines can do that such a stirling engine or gas Turbine engine would offer better power to weight ratio and much higher efficiency. Not only that a steam engine requires a good source of water while other forms of external combustion don't. Just my take on it though.
I wouldn't say there's a lot of talk in the railroad industry, but there is, occasionally, on these and other railfan forums....
One modern proponent is Thomas Blasingame, who has been proposing modern steam electric designs for a couple of decades now which would burn coal and other solid fuels (he specifically mentions fuel made from municipal waste).
A summation of his proposed locomotives, along with responses from Amtrak, the FRA, and Norfolk southern, can be viewed here(in PDF format):\
http://docs.stb.dot.gov/?sGet&Dl5YTH1WXw1zAAsKXBdSV0x6Sw1xfAMJXAEGCW4DF3MBe3ILXwgCCmYHGAYDfxVaAlxGcUsOS1FELBVJO1RES0ZcQQ0AfQcMS1dfVEpdTl1VcAEIVAYCCQoBamB0C20xNjgvMy8wME0zOQw%3D
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The S2 (PRR 6200) and UP 80 were two completely different turbine designs. The only thing that they had in common was that they burned coal for fuel. The S2 was a steam turbine and was similar to marine designs. UP 80 was a gas turbine that burned coal instead of Bunker C.
Paul Milenkovic wrote the following [in Part ]:
"...With respect to coal-fired gas turbines, I believe the direct combustion of pulverized coal in a gas turbine was tried, and it didn't work out well in terms of erosion and slag formation on the turbine blades..."
UPRR # 8080 [nee:#80] was a platform built on an ALCO PA body, a GNRR W1 electric locomotive chassis, and a Centipede tender. It was said that its problem was that due to its pulverization of the coal for fuel was not uniform, and therefor was a danger to anyone standing in its area as the larger pieces of coal would cause the turbine blades to fly out of the unit like shrapnel.
The PRR had their more conventional Turbine (a 6-8-6). It lasted about 5 years in service, and was scrapped in 1952. Its' problem was under performance at speeds under 40 mph.
It would seem that modern advancements in the more uniform pulverization of coal and modern turbine technologies would be useful in a more modern steam turbine locomotive.
In Europe there were a number of different models produced to utilize steam and turbine technologies, but I think the results were sometimes good and sometimes not so.
The advantage of electricity is that it is manufactured. As energy technology evolves there is no need to update every vehicle or every section of track. You can manufacture electricity in a nuclear power plant but the general public would never tolerate a nuclear powered train traveling through their city regularly. Electricity can be manufactured using hydro dams, wind mils, solar panels, coal fired plants, gas fired plants, fuel oil fired plants, nuclear plants, and who knows what else will be discovered in the future. Maybe someday we will be able to capture lightning. Electricity is not an energy source, it is a very versatile energy distribution system.
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Decades ago, there was a feature in TRAINS titled "Did we scrap steam too soon?" and, if I remember correctly, the answer was no.
There had been many attempts to increase the efficiency of steam locomotives, from better insulation of boilers to steam turbine drives and even steam motors - they all could not improve it anywhere near to the efficiency of Diesels or Electrics. The operation of steam locomotives always remained a fairly "dirty" operation, requiring a much higher number of personnel and short intervals between maintenance stops. What was the longest daily run of a steam loco in the hey days of steam, before it required servicing? Could not have been much more than 300 miles. Today´s ICE trains in Europe have daily runs of three to five times that figure, with only one engineer in the cab, not two.
As much as we steam buffs would like to see the resurrection of steam, it is most unlikely in whatsoever form, even if the world runs out of crude oil as the prime source of energy. In that case, it would be more economical to turn the remaining fossil fuels into electricity and string wires over our rails.
So in essence, you agree that a gas turbine will not not, in practical terms, run on coal. If the coal must be "gasified" then it is not running on coal. And in any case, a gas turbine, running on coal, liquid fuels, gaseus fuels, or what ever IS an internal combustion engine.
BaltACD Breakout the perpetual motion machine!
Breakout the perpetual motion machine!
What does a remark about a perpetual motion machine have to do with anything?
Steam locomotives were not perpetual motion machines in any shape, way, or form. They used (large amounts) of various types of fuel, generated heat in their fireboxes, raised steam, and produced mechanical motion to perform useful work moving people and goods around for the better part of a century.
There are a variety of social, economic, and technological reasons why it is unlikely that steam locomotives are coming back in a major way any time soon. On the other hand, world society could reenter a Dark Age resulting from a resource collapse (the Greek Dark Age was really dark from that standpoint whereas the post-Roman Dark Age was probably a social construction of later people who thought themselves to be so much smarter). It is conceivable that the post-Dark Age society could construct steam locomotives in building itself back up. Steam locomotives don't violate any laws of physics; they only seem to violate some laws relating to how our society is constituted.
With respect to coal-fired gas turbines, I believe the direct combustion of pulverized coal in a gas turbine was tried, and it didn't work out well in terms of erosion and slag formation on the turbine blades. You could, however, put coal into a gasifier and power a turbine with the low-BTU gas. The electric power companies are looking into this, kind of dipping their toe into the pool as it were, as there are probably many technical details on this to work out. Also, a locomotive is still more limited in weight and space than a stationary power plant. But there is nothing in principle, no law of physics ruling out perpetual motion, that would stand in the way of a coal gas-producer gas turbine.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Hey, why-ever not? "Stuff that dreams are made of." Just like me hooking up with Jenny Agutter. Man, I was crazy about her back in the 70's.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sorry about that I didn't realize a gas turbine wasn't external combustion. Anyways a stirling engine would do a fine job of burning coal and you could use it as a electrical generator. Some one else mentioned the coal to oil method, that could work too
"Why modern steam?" Well, why not? Sometimes me lads you just have to put your feet up, pop a cold one, and enjoy "the stuff that dreams are made of..."
wjstix I'm not sure that many people are talking about bringing back steam locomotives for everyday use?? Some folks have pointed out that US coal reserves are expected to last 200-300 years, while oil supplies are likely to become scarcer within this century, making coal-burning an alternative to burning oil products. If we had built electrified mainlines (or maintained the electric rail systems we once had) we could use coal and natural gas to generate electricity, so would be less dependent on oil for diesels.
I'm not sure that many people are talking about bringing back steam locomotives for everyday use?? Some folks have pointed out that US coal reserves are expected to last 200-300 years, while oil supplies are likely to become scarcer within this century, making coal-burning an alternative to burning oil products. If we had built electrified mainlines (or maintained the electric rail systems we once had) we could use coal and natural gas to generate electricity, so would be less dependent on oil for diesels.
Just turn the coal into clean synthetic diesel fuel for around $60/barrel and be done with it. No need to spend $ Billions on electrified lines, when you already have locomotives with electric transmissions.
Also, a gas turbine does not burn coal and it is an Internal combustion engine.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.