A Steam Locomotive for the 21st Century

[wva-usa]

This is somewhat old news, but I searched the forums and found no mention of the project in the Trainz forums.

Since the topic of "modern steam locomotive design" came up in the Big Boy restoration thread, I thought I'd post about this effort to revive the steam locomotive.

Sustainable Rail International, University of Minnesota Announce Coalition to Develop the World's Cleanest Passenger Locomotive

Plans to create the world’s first carbon-neutral higher-speed locomotive were announced today (05/22/2012) by the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR), a collaboration of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment (IonE) and the nonprofit Sustainable Rail International (SRI). CSR draws on the carbon-neutral solid biofuel research expertise of the University of Minnesota and the modern steam mechanical engineering capabilities of SRI to develop the most powerful carbon-neutral locomotive to date.

The project, known as CSR Project 130, has a simple goal: create the world’s cleanest, most powerful passenger locomotive, proving the viability of solid biofuel and modern steam locomotive technology. The Coalition will put its technology to the test by planning to break the world record for steam locomotive speed, reaching 130 miles per hour and demonstrating the viability of this revolutionary, clean transportation technology.

In November 2011, SRI acquired a large test bed steam locomotive through a transfer of ownership from the Great Overland Station Museum in Topeka, Kan. This locomotive, built in 1937 for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, will be reconfigured by SRI’s locomotive modernization experts, then tested as part of CSR Project 130.

In May, SRI completed a cosmetic restoration and stabilization of Locomotive 3463 in Topeka. Plans are to move the locomotive to Minneapolis within the next 12 months. Once moved, CSR will complete the detailed engineering needed to modernize and reconfigure the locomotive.


AT&SF #3463 before stabilization:

#3463 after stabilization:

The locomotive is a AT&SF Class 3460, a 4-6-4 Hudson type steam locomotive built by Baldwin in 1937, equipped with 84-inch drivers, that was originally built as an oil burner.

Preliminary research shows that CSR’s test locomotive will cost less to maintain and less to fuel, and will exhibit greater train handling performance than any diesel-electric locomotives available today. The modern steam locomotive has relied on technology that has been neglected for decades. This is about to change. With the ability to burn biocoal efficiently and without negative impact on the environment, CSR’s modern steam locomotive will also exhibit significantly better horsepower output at higher speeds than the current diesel-electric locomotives that pull the majority of passenger trains in the United States.


Biocoal

Biocoal is a solid fuel made from biomass by heating it in an inert atmosphere. The result is either charcoal, or if the process temperature is mild, a product called torrefied wood. Charcoal and torrefied wood can be called by common name biocoal.

Biocoal can be made from nearly all kind of organic materials. Wood is the most important raw material, but also straw, peat bones and even manure can be used. If biocoal raw material originates from sustainably managed forests, the product is CO2 neutral. The growing new tree generation captures the same amount of CO2 from atmosphere that is released in the manufacture and combustion of biocoal.

http://www.balbic.eu/en/en_GB/what_is_biocoal/

 

[jjanmarine3]

Interesting thanks.
I wonder when research will start to be able to operate multiple steam locos with only one crew.
Good clean water is essential and the authorities don't like the exhaust fumes on the HT overhead lines and equipment.

 

[wva-usa]

Interesting thanks.
I wonder when research will start to be able to operate multiple steam locos with only one crew.
Good clean water is essential and the authorities don't like the exhaust fumes on the HT overhead lines and equipment.

The proposed design for the never-actually-built ACE 3000 steam locomotive from the 1980s included provision for operating the locomotives in multiple units, with either other ACE 3000s or with diesel-electric locomotives. Quoting from the ACE 3000 Technical Paper ASME No. 82-RT-2, originally published by: the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Rail Transportation Division:

In order for the ACE 3000 to operate in multiple unit with other ACE 3000's or with diesels under control of a single operator in the lead locomotive, the ACE 3000 will be equipped with a computer control system implemented with microprocessor-based hardware. The control system will respond to the operator's throttle and dynamic braking commands and automatically trim and adjust coal, air and steam flows, and cylinder cut-off, in accordance with speed, load, and emission control requirements. The control system will insure that the ACE 3000 is optimally controlled under all operating conditions and will enable the locomotive to respond in accordance with various operating strategies which are preprogrammed such as maximum adhesion at low speed, maximum fuel efficiency, or minimum environmental emission.

As for the CSR Project 130, I'm under the impression that they intend for the prototype locomotive (the rebuilt AT&SF #3463) to be used in passenger service on runs on which a single (steam) locomotive would be sufficient. Quoting from the CSR website regarding the subject:

The majority of intercity passenger rail in the U.S. operate over tracks with the capacity for "higher speeds" of 110-125 mph. However, in the absence of modern steam engines capable of reaching those speeds quickly, passenger rail providers are forced to rely on diesel-electric passenger locomotives, which develop maximum horsepower at low speed. Combined with inefficiencies of traction motors encountered at high revolution, these diesel trains exhibit sluggish acceleration above 25 miles per hour, hampering their ability to reach full potential at 110 or 125 mph.

By comparison, the modern steam locomotive develops and maintains maximum horsepower above 40 mph, enabling higher speed acceleration than alternatives available today. Initial computer simulations suggest that the CSR's modern steam engine will significantly out-accelerate a modern diesel-electric locomotive to 110 mph, meaning that passenger operators would be able to realize electric-like acceleration at or below the cost of the diesel-electrics they currently use

.

 

[wva-usa]

Oops! Sorry. Double post!

 

[jjanmarine3]

wow, I was not aware of these developments.
Thanks for sharing this too.
I can only imagine where steam traction would have been today if much more time and resources where applied years ago.

 

[wva-usa]

I can only imagine where steam traction would have been today if much more time and resources where applied years ago.

It's a shame. Little has been done since the 1950s in terms of the development of the steam locomotive.

It will be interesting to see what comes from the CSR Project 130. William L. Withuhn, who worked on the design team of the ill-fated ACE 3000 project, is one of the Project 130 technical advisors. Another technical advisor is Alejandro Porta, the youngest son of modern steam mechanical engineer L. D. Porta.

The "130" in Project 130 refers to the groups plan to build a steam locomotive capable of 130 MPH and they hope to actually test it at that speed. With it's 84-inch drivers, the ex-AT&SF locomotive is certainly well equipped for high speed. Eighty-four inch drivers were the largest ever used in North America.

It will be interesting to see if there's a rail line that's willing to allow that test to take place!

 

[kws4000]

It will be interesting to see if there's a rail line that's willing to allow that test to take place!

Well, Illinois will be getting HrSR at 110mph pretty soon, so we could get a good test there; but for beating the record, we'll need a trip to the NEC.

 

[whitepass]

I see a lot of wrong information here and most of it has already posted in other threads.

 

[wva-usa]

I see a lot of wrong information here and most of it has already posted in other threads.

Really? What information is incorrect? And in what threads?

Well, Illinois will be getting HrSR at 110mph pretty soon, so we could get a good test there; but for beating the record, we'll need a trip to the NEC.

It would make for interesting runs on the trackage you mentioned. But the steam locomotive's reputation for being "rail pounders" might make some railroads might be a bit skittish.

Some of the steam locomotives with high-drivers that run during the steam era, when 60-80 MPH passenger trains were common, were said to have been observed "hopping" off the rail by a few inches and some were said to have routinely left a visual trail in their wake of rails that had been pounded down a few fractions of an inch in height.

During the steam era, track crews simply maintained the tracks well, and no one seemed to care very much. Today, some railroads like CSX have policies against any operation of steam locomotives on their trackage because of the possible "track impairment" that could take place.

The December 1912 edition of The Engineering Magazine made mention of the subject:

Steam locomotives are destructive to track mainly for the two reasons following. First because there heavy reciprocating masses connecting rods and crank which can balanced by a counterweight at one speed only and somewhat at that. At other speeds there is unbalanced centrifugal force has a tendency to raise the wheel then to hammer it down upon rail. This action is known as pounding. Second because pressure of many tons acting alternately on the pistons of the respective cylinders which are spaced and give great leverage result in nosing from side to side. Nosing of engines is a most characteristic as it results in loosening and spreading. The two effects are of interest not for track maintenance and safety but also for bridge design and safety. They produce moreover strains in the frame of the locomotive itself.

But perhaps now, given the number crunching abilities of today's computers, the problems of designing perfectly balanced drivers have possibly been solved. In the steam era all the design engineers had were slide rules...

 

[jordon412]

This is somewhat old news, but I searched the forums and found no mention of the project in the Trainz forums.

I beat you by about nine months: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...-Clean-Energy-on-Track-quot-What-do-you-think

 

[wva-usa]

I beat you by about nine months: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...-Clean-Energy-on-Track-quot-What-do-you-think

As I said in the first post -- it's old news but I searched but found nothing here. But it's easy to see why no results were found.

There was a whole entire thread on it but not a single post in that thread made mention of the official name of the project ("Project 130") nor was there anyone in the thread that used the actual name of the organization (Sustainable Rail International) that was sponsoring the effort. And no one bothered to mention "#3463", the actual number of the locomotive being restored.

It's interesting that such a discussion could take place without specific information such as that even being mentioned... Go figure. A discussion without specifics...


BTW, still waiting for someone to point what "wrong" information has been posted in this thread. All the facts I've posted on the subject were cited with links to the original source of the information.

 

[bolea]

Excuse but I have to say that in Spain we already have a locomotive that burns, if I'm correct diesel, among with others that just simply burn fuel. I'm talking about the "Verraco", this locomotive owned by the group "Asociacion Venteña de Amigos del Ferrocarril" is one of the most old steamers in Spain, here you can see her pulling a special train:

 

[jjanmarine3]

C​L !!

 

[wva-usa]

I like the Verraco's look!

The Project 130 locomotive will burn biocoal, which is just another name for charcoal, something that humans have been making and using for about 30,000 years or so. Unlike oil or coal, it is a renewable energy source, thus a future era when fossil-based fuels become so scarce and expensive that hardly anyone can afford to use them (or afford to pay for products transported by them) can be avoided.

 

[bolea]

Yeah, but even if it's charcoal it's still coal, therefore you will get also pollution when you burn it. So even if it's bio something, that doesn't make it even cleaner...

 

[wva-usa]

Yeah, but even if it's charcoal it's still coal, therefore you will get also pollution when you burn it. So even if it's bio something, that doesn't make it even cleaner...

As I mentioned earlier:

"If biocoal raw material originates from sustainably managed forests, the product is CO2 neutral. The growing new tree generation captures the same amount of CO2 from atmosphere that is released in the manufacture and combustion of biocoal."

But I'll also add the fact that properly made biomass briquettes, otherwise known as biocoal or charcoal, produce minimal smoke, creosote and ash, and does not emit smoke with sulfur or phosphorus or fly ash. Typically, there is no need for pollution control equipment.

Unfortunately, the commercially produced bag of charcoal one would pick up at their local Walmart store was probably made usings trace amounts of coal particles and contains several types of toxic chemicals, so it would pollute and be potentially hazardous to living things.

 

[64Warhorse]

I think the cleaner part came because it was supposed to be carbon neutral --- the CO2 from burning it gets taken up by the next generation of trees. I'm not at all sure that this considers the energy required to turn the wood into biocoal, however.

 

[JCitron]

The December 1912 edition of The Engineering Magazine made mention of the subject:


Steam locomotives are destructive to track mainly for the two reasons following. First because there heavy reciprocating masses connecting rods and crank which can balanced by a counterweight at one speed only and somewhat at that. At other speeds there is unbalanced centrifugal force has a tendency to raise the wheel then to hammer it down upon rail. This action is known as pounding. Second because pressure of many tons acting alternately on the pistons of the respective cylinders which are spaced and give great leverage result in nosing from side to side. Nosing of engines is a most characteristic as it results in loosening and spreading. The two effects are of interest not for track maintenance and safety but also for bridge design and safety. They produce moreover strains in the frame of the locomotive itself.


But perhaps now, given the number crunching abilities of today's computers, the problems of designing perfectly balanced drivers have possibly been solved. In the steam era all the design engineers had were slide rules...

I wonder if this is still an issue with CWR being the norm today versus the old stick rail used many years ago along with the modern manufacturing and design processes using CAD/Cam and CNC.

John

 

[wva-usa]

I wonder if this is still an issue with CWR being the norm today versus the old stick rail used many years ago along with the modern manufacturing and design processes using CAD/Cam and CNC.

Some railroads, such as CSX seem to believe the potential for doing damage to track is still there. Maybe CSX just needs better maintained track.

The hammer blow problem can be minimized by properly balanced drivers. The N&W Class J steam locomotive for example used a unique system of side-rod and driver counter-balancing that in theory allowed for speeds of up to 140 MPH without the rail damage.

 

[64Warhorse]

I dunno, that 1912 quote makes it sound like the physics say you're stuck with the pounding, it's not a question better balancing. You might be able to get around that with some sort of computer controlled active suspension, but rigs like that are expensive and delicate even on half-ton race cars. I'd have to doubt they'd be at all practical on a two hundred ton loco.