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...
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.
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: "P
roperly 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.)
How do they propose to persuade the railroads to invest in an entire new infrastructure to fuel and water these beasts?
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.
To pay for the extra manpower to maintain them?
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.
What are the economics of biocoal, which has only about 3/4 the energy density of regular coal?
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".
Are these steamers going to have anything like the non-stop range of a diesel?
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.