As I said, the effect can be minimized. According to the American Association of Mechanical Engineers (in regards to the N&W Class J):
A Steam Locomotive for the 21st Century
- Thread starter wva-usa
- Start date
As I said, the effect can be minimized. According to the American Association of Mechanical Engineers (in regards to the N&W Class J):
Americans... Please, find a fregging way to stop using material that even if it's eco charcoal, it will continue producing pollution... Find a way to heat up water to make steam that way for example... I love smoke in steamers, but we gotta stop polution, SERIOUSLY. There must be another way of doing this.
64Warhorse
New member
How do they propose to persuade the railroads to invest in an entire new infrastructure to fuel and water these beasts? To pay for the extra manpower to maintain them? What are the economics of biocoal, which has only about 3/4 the energy density of regular coal? Are these steamers going to have anything like the non-stop range of a diesel?
For those who would find L. D. Porta's thoughts on the subject of "a better American steam locomotive" insightful reading, click on the image below to read a paper written by Porta during "oil crisis" of the mid-1970s...
You do realize this isn't an "crazy American idea"?
In the European Union (EU), the carbon tax is already playing a major role in stimulating the use of renewable fuels, such as bio-coal. According to the RiverBasinEnergy website "Europe is the most significant existing market for biomass trade for energy generation. In 2007 biomass and biowaste accounted for 66% of the total renewable energy consumption in the EU, or 5% of the total energy consumption." (Emphasis added.)
As I said earlier: "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." (Emphasis added.)
At this point no one is asking the railroads to invest in entirely new infrastructure. One group is converting one locomotive as an experiment.
The railroads converted to using diesel-electric locomotives because doing so reduced costs. Do you really think oil is going to become anything other than more and more expensive in the coming years? It's conceivable that use of biocoal fueled steam locomotives could become less expensive to operate than diesel-electrics in the future, which would provide all the incentive the railroads would need to switch.
But again, at this point no one is asking anyone to "convert" anything. One group is building one experimental locomotive.
You really should read Porta's paper (link at top of this post).
Many of the old steam locomotive from the 1940s (and before) required extra manpower to maintain them, but we're not talking about your grandfather's steam locomotive. New technology can be used to solve previously unsolvable problems. Even during the 1950s the N&W Railway was finding new ways to cut the costs of maintaining steam. The Class M "Automatic" locomotive is one example. The locomotive used automated controls for water and fuel, and didn't require the attention of a "Hostler" to maintain the locomotive around the clock. The steam locomotive developed during the late steam era were far less costly to maintain. In fact, during the end of the steam era the N&W and Southern did a maintenance comparison of the N&W's Class J 4-8-4 and the Southern's EMD E6 diesel-electric. Both locomotives were used in similar services but the Class J 4-8-4 had 29 percent lower maintenance costs versus the EMD E6 over the course of the test period.
Biocoal has be produced with a BTU output per pound nearly equal to the best coal and can biocoal that exceeds the BTU of the lesser quality coals (such as lignite) can easily be produced. Several railroads managed quite well during the steam era burning lignite coal by simply using larger fireboxes. The Big Boy, for example, burned "second class coal".
Again, one group is building one experimental locomotive. A locomotive to pull passenger trains. At "higher" speed. Conceivably, a steam powered train traveling at higher speeds could make more stops and still out distance a slower moving diesel-electric.
What exactly is the range of a steam locomotive with greater thermal efficiency that makes use of computerized firebox and water controls? At this point we don't know, so I would suggest you ask your last question in another few years and we may have an answer.
To obtain some of real world insight now, the "Red Devil" locomotive (loco in pic at top of this page -- as rebuilt per Porta's modifications) specs include a bit of info regarding the loco's service range:
"Compared to an unmodified Class 25NC, the Red Devil achieved a 28% measured saving on coal and a 30% measured saving on water, measured during freight service, and a 43% increase in drawbar power based on the maximum recorded drawbar power. Its approximate maximum range in full load freight service on 1% to 1.25% grades is 700 kilometres (430 miles) based on its coal capacity, and 230 kilometres (140 miles) based on its water capacity."
Since Project 130 has stated its plans to perform "a similar, yet more in-depth modernization regimen to 3463 as was undertaken on the Red Devil" even better results could be obtained.
You do realize this isn't an "crazy American idea"?
In the European Union (EU), the carbon tax is already playing a major role in stimulating the use of renewable fuels, such as bio-coal. According to the RiverBasinEnergy website "Europe is the most significant existing market for biomass trade for energy generation. In 2007 biomass and biowaste accounted for 66% of the total renewable energy consumption in the EU, or 5% of the total energy consumption." (Emphasis added.)
As I said earlier: "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." (Emphasis added.)
At this point no one is asking the railroads to invest in entirely new infrastructure. One group is converting one locomotive as an experiment.
The railroads converted to using diesel-electric locomotives because doing so reduced costs. Do you really think oil is going to become anything other than more and more expensive in the coming years? It's conceivable that use of biocoal fueled steam locomotives could become less expensive to operate than diesel-electrics in the future, which would provide all the incentive the railroads would need to switch.
But again, at this point no one is asking anyone to "convert" anything. One group is building one experimental locomotive.
You really should read Porta's paper (link at top of this post).
Many of the old steam locomotive from the 1940s (and before) required extra manpower to maintain them, but we're not talking about your grandfather's steam locomotive. New technology can be used to solve previously unsolvable problems. Even during the 1950s the N&W Railway was finding new ways to cut the costs of maintaining steam. The Class M "Automatic" locomotive is one example. The locomotive used automated controls for water and fuel, and didn't require the attention of a "Hostler" to maintain the locomotive around the clock. The steam locomotive developed during the late steam era were far less costly to maintain. In fact, during the end of the steam era the N&W and Southern did a maintenance comparison of the N&W's Class J 4-8-4 and the Southern's EMD E6 diesel-electric. Both locomotives were used in similar services but the Class J 4-8-4 had 29 percent lower maintenance costs versus the EMD E6 over the course of the test period.
Biocoal has be produced with a BTU output per pound nearly equal to the best coal and can biocoal that exceeds the BTU of the lesser quality coals (such as lignite) can easily be produced. Several railroads managed quite well during the steam era burning lignite coal by simply using larger fireboxes. The Big Boy, for example, burned "second class coal".
Again, one group is building one experimental locomotive. A locomotive to pull passenger trains. At "higher" speed. Conceivably, a steam powered train traveling at higher speeds could make more stops and still out distance a slower moving diesel-electric.
What exactly is the range of a steam locomotive with greater thermal efficiency that makes use of computerized firebox and water controls? At this point we don't know, so I would suggest you ask your last question in another few years and we may have an answer.
To obtain some of real world insight now, the "Red Devil" locomotive (loco in pic at top of this page -- as rebuilt per Porta's modifications) specs include a bit of info regarding the loco's service range:
"Compared to an unmodified Class 25NC, the Red Devil achieved a 28% measured saving on coal and a 30% measured saving on water, measured during freight service, and a 43% increase in drawbar power based on the maximum recorded drawbar power. Its approximate maximum range in full load freight service on 1% to 1.25% grades is 700 kilometres (430 miles) based on its coal capacity, and 230 kilometres (140 miles) based on its water capacity."
Since Project 130 has stated its plans to perform "a similar, yet more in-depth modernization regimen to 3463 as was undertaken on the Red Devil" even better results could be obtained.
Last edited:
Europe will have one of the most highest rates, but that doesn't mean we, citizens agree with this policy. Of course USA doesn't use that ammount of coal, this is due because americans use more diesel or gasoline for almost every single thing. America has one of the most highest rates in pollution when talking about car fuel, you just have to see those big americans motor that need a lot of fuel for example...
DustinJRaiken
Fictional Specialist
It's a shame I'll be moving out of Minnesota this summer. Would've loved to see 3463 in action...
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
The class J had something called "duplex side rods", I believe, that was responsible for minimizing the hammer blow effect. Will the locomotive be able to build up enough steam pressure as one that burns regular coal? A locomotive that is as effective as diesels, burns coal, and gets all of those pesky environmentalists angry is less appetizing than a regular diesel locomotive to a railroad.
64Warhorse
New member
At this point no one is asking the railroads to invest in entirely new infrastructure. One group is converting one locomotive as an experiment.
The railroads converted to using diesel-electric locomotives because doing so reduced costs. Do you really think oil is going to become anything other than more and more expensive in the coming years? It's conceivable that use of biocoal fueled steam locomotives could become less expensive to operate than diesel-electrics in the future, which would provide all the incentive the railroads would need to switch.
But again, at this point no one is asking anyone to "convert" anything. One group is building one experimental locomotive.
Since the point of the experiment is to find something to replace the diesel locomotive, we do need to consider infrastructure costs, no? As to the cost of oil, eventually the American people will elect a government which is willing to exploit the very large and mostly untapped reserves of shale oil and offshore oil they possess, at which point oil will get quite a bit cheaper. Not to mention the fact that the refineries are largely already in place, which is not something one can say of biocoal. IF biocoal turns out to be cheaper, that would certainly be a point in favour of the new steamers, but it hasn't happened yet.
Biocoal has be produced with a BTU output per pound nearly equal to the best coal and can biocoal that exceeds the BTU of the lesser quality coals (such as lignite) can easily be produced.
My bad. The first source I consulted listed the lower energy density, but I see that others confirm your point.
In fact, during the end of the steam era the N&W and Southern did a maintenance comparison of the N&W's Class J 4-8-4 and the Southern's EMD E6 diesel-electric. Both locomotives were used in similar services but the Class J 4-8-4 had 29 percent lower maintenance costs versus the EMD E6 over the course of the test period.
Yeah, the NYC ran a similar comparison between Niagaras and E7s which came out pretty close, too. OTOH, modern diesels are quite a bit better than first generation ones. The Niagaras, in present day dollars, cost about $5 per mile to maintain, and the E7s were comparable. BNSF pays a bit under 52 cents per mile for its SD70s!
Again, one group is building one experimental locomotive. A locomotive to pull passenger trains. At "higher" speed. Conceivably, a steam powered train traveling at higher speeds could make more stops and still out distance a slower moving diesel-electric.
What exactly is the range of a steam locomotive with greater thermal efficiency that makes use of computerized firebox and water controls? At this point we don't know, so I would suggest you ask your last question in another few years and we may have an answer.
To obtain some of real world insight now, the "Red Devil" locomotive (loco in pic at top of this page -- as rebuilt per Porta's modifications) specs include a bit of info regarding the loco's service range:
"Compared to an unmodified Class 25NC, the Red Devil achieved a 28% measured saving on coal and a 30% measured saving on water, measured during freight service, and a 43% increase in drawbar power based on the maximum recorded drawbar power. Its approximate maximum range in full load freight service on 1% to 1.25% grades is 700 kilometres (430 miles) based on its coal capacity, and 230 kilometres (140 miles) based on its water capacity."
Since Project 130 has stated its plans to perform "a similar, yet more in-depth modernization regimen to 3463 as was undertaken on the Red Devil" even better results could be obtained.
A modern diesel like an SD70 or a Dash 9 has a fuel capacity of about 5,000 gallons. At full throttle, it burns on the order of 200 gallons per hour. Do the math. No steam engine is even going to be in the same league. With ten times the range and one tenth the maintenance costs, I don't see the diesels having a lot to worry about ...
The railroads converted to using diesel-electric locomotives because doing so reduced costs. Do you really think oil is going to become anything other than more and more expensive in the coming years? It's conceivable that use of biocoal fueled steam locomotives could become less expensive to operate than diesel-electrics in the future, which would provide all the incentive the railroads would need to switch.
But again, at this point no one is asking anyone to "convert" anything. One group is building one experimental locomotive.
Since the point of the experiment is to find something to replace the diesel locomotive, we do need to consider infrastructure costs, no? As to the cost of oil, eventually the American people will elect a government which is willing to exploit the very large and mostly untapped reserves of shale oil and offshore oil they possess, at which point oil will get quite a bit cheaper. Not to mention the fact that the refineries are largely already in place, which is not something one can say of biocoal. IF biocoal turns out to be cheaper, that would certainly be a point in favour of the new steamers, but it hasn't happened yet.
Biocoal has be produced with a BTU output per pound nearly equal to the best coal and can biocoal that exceeds the BTU of the lesser quality coals (such as lignite) can easily be produced.
My bad. The first source I consulted listed the lower energy density, but I see that others confirm your point.
In fact, during the end of the steam era the N&W and Southern did a maintenance comparison of the N&W's Class J 4-8-4 and the Southern's EMD E6 diesel-electric. Both locomotives were used in similar services but the Class J 4-8-4 had 29 percent lower maintenance costs versus the EMD E6 over the course of the test period.
Yeah, the NYC ran a similar comparison between Niagaras and E7s which came out pretty close, too. OTOH, modern diesels are quite a bit better than first generation ones. The Niagaras, in present day dollars, cost about $5 per mile to maintain, and the E7s were comparable. BNSF pays a bit under 52 cents per mile for its SD70s!
Again, one group is building one experimental locomotive. A locomotive to pull passenger trains. At "higher" speed. Conceivably, a steam powered train traveling at higher speeds could make more stops and still out distance a slower moving diesel-electric.
What exactly is the range of a steam locomotive with greater thermal efficiency that makes use of computerized firebox and water controls? At this point we don't know, so I would suggest you ask your last question in another few years and we may have an answer.
To obtain some of real world insight now, the "Red Devil" locomotive (loco in pic at top of this page -- as rebuilt per Porta's modifications) specs include a bit of info regarding the loco's service range:
"Compared to an unmodified Class 25NC, the Red Devil achieved a 28% measured saving on coal and a 30% measured saving on water, measured during freight service, and a 43% increase in drawbar power based on the maximum recorded drawbar power. Its approximate maximum range in full load freight service on 1% to 1.25% grades is 700 kilometres (430 miles) based on its coal capacity, and 230 kilometres (140 miles) based on its water capacity."
Since Project 130 has stated its plans to perform "a similar, yet more in-depth modernization regimen to 3463 as was undertaken on the Red Devil" even better results could be obtained.
A modern diesel like an SD70 or a Dash 9 has a fuel capacity of about 5,000 gallons. At full throttle, it burns on the order of 200 gallons per hour. Do the math. No steam engine is even going to be in the same league. With ten times the range and one tenth the maintenance costs, I don't see the diesels having a lot to worry about ...
Who said this was something intended to replace the diesel-electric locomotive ? You really should read some of the info and browse the FAQs on the Project 130 site.
Again, (for about the 10th time), the purpose is to power higher speed passenger trains. How may of those are there in the U.S. compared to freight trains? Passenger service is virtually non-existent in the U.S.
The ACE 3000 venture planned to load coal via containers lifted from flatcars, the containers could be filled at any mine. Water requires a source, a tank and a stand-pipe.
LOL, shale oil isn't going to do anything except slightly delay the inevitable. The world's limited supply of oil that can be extracted cheaply will continue to dry up. The world won't run out of oil, but no one will be able to afford to extract it. The chief executive of Shell Oil admitted that recently -- "Longer term you will see demand rising and we will need all investments to cope with that demand. In the very long term we will see prices going up because of high demand and as it gets more expensive to get the resources out of the ground."
You're thinking of 3 years from now. Try thinking of 2050. How much affordable oil will the world have then?
Other have expressed their belief that your point is valid but no one yet (yourself included) has cited any credible source that support your belief.
The UP's Big Boy burned 2nd rate coal, yet it managed to pull trains quite well. Biocoal can be produced with a BTU value higher than the type of coal the Big Boy used. Any questions?
As I said earlier, you really should read the Porta's white paper. It points out factors you're ignoring, such as overall cost over the long haul.
That's basically meaningless info. For the 11th time -- higher speed passenger trains.
How many 2500 mile long 100 MPH passenger train runs are there in the U.S.? Answer: None. The fact (actually not a fact unless you cite a source) that a diesel could run for 25 hours at full throttle without running out of fuel is meaningless if the run is only 100-200 miles in length.
Diesels are pieces of metal without a brain, so no, they don't worry about that (or anything else).
Only humans worry, because they do have emotions. And that brings us full circle to the crux of this problem. Humans worry about and hate change and don't want to face the reality that the world's resources are finite. Humans would rather go on living beyond the world's means of support, rather than try to change their ways.
Last edited:
jjanmarine3
Active member
Perhaps off the subject , but for interest sake and for fun - put a Big Boy and a UPDD40X next to each other on the Mojave route - the DPU Push session starting at Bena, pulling 3000 US ton coal each , and Big Boy outsprints the DD40X by quite a bit , in DCC and Cab Mode.
How realistic this is I am not sure, but both locos have just over 6000 horses.I just upped the coupler breakage values and upped the speed limit via vehicle physics.
The diesel does catch the steam loco in up on the hills though in cab mode , which it should with all those modern control circuits under it's belt...
I regularly do things like this for fun
Keep in mind we're talking about acceleration to beyond 100+ MPH. I seriously doubt anyone tested diesel-electrics at 100+ MPH in 1905 but feel free to cite reference if someone did.
Quoting (for the 2nd time) from the coalition's website (emphasis added):
Last edited:
That is not correct, charcoal is like coke from coal, chemically pure carbon plus minerals, which are converted into slag. Provided the combustion process occurs under optimal conditions, nothing but carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
There is, however a catch to the entire scheme. let us not forget, that during the 18th and 19th century people changed from using charcoal to coal and coke, because timber stands were badly depleted. the lackm of charcoal was a serious detriment to further development of the iron industry. The need to transport large amounts of coal from the mines to the iron furnaces was a major factor in promotingt the development of railways.
Modern technologies allow indeed the use of other organic materials than wood for making charcoal. Until the recent dramatic increases of crude oil prices, such technologies had been steamrolled by cheap mineral oil products.
Nevertheless, I am wondering whether the available amouts of bioorganic charcoal will be sufficient to operate more than just a few historic steam locomotives.
Cheers,
Konni
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CNJ 1000 wasn't built until 1925?
I believe you mean the tests were made with straight electric locos. Fact is, juice-jacks can, for a very short period of time, temporarlily double their HP output before having to reduce it due to motor heating.
slave-driver
Sacramento Nothern Lives
Perhaps off the subject , but for interest sake and for fun - put a Big Boy and a UPDD40X next to each other on the Mojave route - the DPU Push session starting at Bena, pulling 3000 US ton coal each , and Big Boy outsprints the DD40X by quite a bit , in DCC and Cab Mode.
How realistic this is I am not sure, but both locos have just over 6000 horses.I just upped the coupler breakage values and upped the speed limit via vehicle physics.
The diesel does catch the steam loco in up on the hills though in cab mode , which it should with all those modern control circuits under it's belt...
I regularly do things like this for fun
You can't accurately compare an experiment in Trainz to a real life train. The locomotives in Trainz are limited to the gaming physics and the engine specs being used. It's next to impossible to get a train in Trainz to perform exactly like the real thing. All you can do is get it close. As for the tests with #3463, I'll wait for more information on their results after the tests. If they can achieve most of what they hope for then there is a good possibility this can push forward handsomely. If not I hope they continue to research and experiment since as it's been pointed out, our resorces are NOT infinite.
Bill
Modern Steam Locomotives had the rail pounding effect, as you have said, commonly known as hammer blow removed through better design.
I have had personal experience with this through my own work as a Steam Locomotive Driver in Australia.
The "R" Class locomotive used in Victoria had this effect eliminated and allowed them to be used on below average track with no damage to the roadbed.
Older Steam Locomotives that did not have this new technology suffered badly and were eventually removed.
I have had personal experience with this through my own work as a Steam Locomotive Driver in Australia.
The "R" Class locomotive used in Victoria had this effect eliminated and allowed them to be used on below average track with no damage to the roadbed.
Older Steam Locomotives that did not have this new technology suffered badly and were eventually removed.