Steam vs. Diesel Who would Win
- Thread starter gtasa
- Start date
From Southern Railway by Tom Murray
Southern was so impressed the bought the demonstrator set and several more sets until 1945. The Southern was completely dieselized by 1953 and would have earlier if it weren't for WWII. The last steam train on the Southern was on Wednesday, June 16, 1953, hauled by Southern (CNO&TP) Ms-4 6330 from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. (Ironically the same route the first diesel freights on the Southern took)
Southern was so impressed the bought the demonstrator set and several more sets until 1945. The Southern was completely dieselized by 1953 and would have earlier if it weren't for WWII. The last steam train on the Southern was on Wednesday, June 16, 1953, hauled by Southern (CNO&TP) Ms-4 6330 from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. (Ironically the same route the first diesel freights on the Southern took)
As was said earlier, it is difficult to compare a steam locomotive to a diesel electric locomotive. I do how ever have some anecdotal evidence from a tourist railroad here in Maine. On the same grade with similar trains at similar speeds, I can tell you what the control settings were for a GE 70 ton switcher (#54) and a SJ (Statens Järnvägar) class B 4-6-0 (#1149). On #54 the throttle would be set at notch 5 or 6, while on #1149 the cut-off would be set at 40% and the throttle approximately 1/3 open (boiler pressure approximately 10 - 11.5 kg/sq cm) . However on occasion the engineers would slow to a crawl at the bottom of the grade and open the throttle as much as reasonably possible (or they dared). As long as it was still moving #1149 would out accelerate #54. On the other hand from a dead stop #54 was far better.
Again this is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, as the two locomotives differ significantly. In weight #1149 is about double the weight of #54, 140 tons to 71.5 tons. In their approximate tractive efforts it is #54 tat comes out ahead with 43,000 lbs. as opposed to #1149's 27,500 lbs (SJ figures). In terms of horsepower it was calculated that #1149 had double that of #54's 600hp.
Again this is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, as the two locomotives differ significantly. In weight #1149 is about double the weight of #54, 140 tons to 71.5 tons. In their approximate tractive efforts it is #54 tat comes out ahead with 43,000 lbs. as opposed to #1149's 27,500 lbs (SJ figures). In terms of horsepower it was calculated that #1149 had double that of #54's 600hp.
whistlehead
Lurking
I think you're thinking of the British 5at, built for tour services.
I didn't think such an obvious joke required a smiley. Electric rail systems powered by nuclear powerplants are clearly the most ecologically responsible option over either diesel or steam.
For the record: nuclear reactor does not equal nuclear weapon. Reactor fuel requires considerable processing to become weapons grade. Reactors are designed to damp out by fully inserting control rods in the absence of other instructions (gravity is a wonderful thing).
Oh, and NIMBY is one reason we are still reliant on Middle East oil despite the fact that the worst nuclear power accident in the US didn't read above background.
For the record: nuclear reactor does not equal nuclear weapon. Reactor fuel requires considerable processing to become weapons grade. Reactors are designed to damp out by fully inserting control rods in the absence of other instructions (gravity is a wonderful thing).
Oh, and NIMBY is one reason we are still reliant on Middle East oil despite the fact that the worst nuclear power accident in the US didn't read above background.
Some electrified locos still run on coal but many now are nuclear.
By the way, I just saw a video on how to drive the ex SP 2472 1921 vintage 2-6-4 Pacific. It claims that it only has half power when starting and is maximum at 40-45 mph. It was set for a maximum cruising speed of 75 mph. By watching the video I hope to figure out how to operate Trainz steam from the cab.
By the way, I just saw a video on how to drive the ex SP 2472 1921 vintage 2-6-4 Pacific. It claims that it only has half power when starting and is maximum at 40-45 mph. It was set for a maximum cruising speed of 75 mph. By watching the video I hope to figure out how to operate Trainz steam from the cab.
Excellent point, Ben. Alas, it all boils down to
hehe: ) that fact. The internal combustion engine is simply a more efficient heat engine than the external combustion engine. Yeah...bring 'em back anyway... Cheers,
Fred
P.S. I've been reading a very good book on the subject..."Perfecting the American Steam Locomotive" by J. Parker Lamb. Recommended...
In regards to the size of neuclear power plants, anyone heard of the deep sea research vessel, NR1
From this site, http://web.archive.org/web/20030429014652/www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-nr1.html
Name: Deep Submergence Vessel NR-1
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat
Laid down: 10 June 1967
Launched: 25 January 1969
In service: 27 October 1969
Out of service: 21 November 2008
Primary Function: Deep submergence research and engineering vehicle
Class: no class; this is a one-of-a-kind ship
Power Plant: One nuclear reactor, one turbo-alternator; Two motors (external), two propellers, Four ducted thrusters (two horizontal, two vertical)
Length: 150 feet (45.72 meters)
Displacement: 400 tons (406.42 metric tons)
Diameter: 12 feet (4.18 meters)
Maximum Operating Depth: 2,375 feet (724 meters)
Crew: 2 officer, 3 enlisted, 2 scientists
Armament: None
---------
I can't find out what the power output was but you can work out that it was plenty to power a train,
14,000 watts of outside lights
enough heating while working in below freezing depths
running the air scrubber and air curculation
running a desalination plant
all the scientific equipment and sonars
etc etc etc
and I did find this little bit on the needs of the sub while moored, " Capability to provide electrical power to the NR-1 while the NR-1 is moored alongside (3 phase, 440volts, 60Hz, 100 amperes) "
I couldn't find the size of the reactor itself but it fits in the 12 feet diameter of the sub.
And all this is over 40 year old technology :hehe:
Cheers David
From this site, http://web.archive.org/web/20030429014652/www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-nr1.html
Name: Deep Submergence Vessel NR-1
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat
Laid down: 10 June 1967
Launched: 25 January 1969
In service: 27 October 1969
Out of service: 21 November 2008
Primary Function: Deep submergence research and engineering vehicle
Class: no class; this is a one-of-a-kind ship
Power Plant: One nuclear reactor, one turbo-alternator; Two motors (external), two propellers, Four ducted thrusters (two horizontal, two vertical)
Length: 150 feet (45.72 meters)
Displacement: 400 tons (406.42 metric tons)
Diameter: 12 feet (4.18 meters)
Maximum Operating Depth: 2,375 feet (724 meters)
Crew: 2 officer, 3 enlisted, 2 scientists
Armament: None
---------
I can't find out what the power output was but you can work out that it was plenty to power a train,
14,000 watts of outside lights
enough heating while working in below freezing depths
running the air scrubber and air curculation
running a desalination plant
all the scientific equipment and sonars
etc etc etc
and I did find this little bit on the needs of the sub while moored, " Capability to provide electrical power to the NR-1 while the NR-1 is moored alongside (3 phase, 440volts, 60Hz, 100 amperes) "
I couldn't find the size of the reactor itself but it fits in the 12 feet diameter of the sub.
And all this is over 40 year old technology :hehe:
Cheers David
Last edited:
illinoiscentral
SARM Volunteer
Good Research there pommie!
40 year old techonology huh?
Gee whiz, that is ancient in the train world.
40 year old techonology huh?
Gee whiz, that is ancient in the train world.
If it did come back, steam would probably be more like a diesel in appearance, for example the ACE 3000.
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html
transitguard
workin' away.......
Wouldn't that be nice in trainz!:udrool:
U of M as in univercity of minnisota?