Compressed Air Locomotive Ideas

I'm a BIG steam fan (mostly U.S.), and I kind of think about a lot of things. Well, one day I started thinking about how to make steam engines... well "greener". Then it hit me, make a steam engine a compressed air engine. I started coming up with all these ideas. Covert the tender into an air tank, remove the back of the firebox, run the air directly from the tender to the boiler tubes using air hoses (the boiler tubes conect to every part of the loco that needs steam, or in this case air), and use the rear tender wheels to power a generator, which powers the air pump(s) when needed. So what do ya'll think? Feel fre to leave you opinion.
 
Steam has a huge expansive power, over that of compressed air ... much like that of nitro methane in top fuel dragsters, over that of plain old gasoline.

Compressed air, and HHO is a very inefficient high power fuel.

The fossil fueled motor driven air compressor generator would be running constantly, at high throttle just to achive 100 PSI ... actually wasting fuel, making inefficient compressed air !
 
Last edited:
<shortstory> The reason why no one has done this is because it doesn't work. </shortstory> The germans actually did do that, a single diesel engine on a standard steam frame, but was a failure. Beyond that, air systems were used solely in coal mines or at ammo dumps where excessive heat from fireless-storage locos was not tolerated. So thus, you have created a machine that cannot work. Thermodynamics works against everything, but especially in self-re-generating systems.
 
The fossil fueled motor driven air compressor generator would be running constantly, at high throttle just to achive 100 PSI ... actually wasting fuel, making inefficient compressed air !

I see what your saying, but notice I said that the rear tender wheels would power the generator which would power the compressor, not a motor to power the compressor.
 
<shortstory> The reason why no one has done this is because it doesn't work. </shortstory> The germans actually did do that, a single diesel engine on a standard steam frame, but was a failure. Beyond that, air systems were used solely in coal mines or at ammo dumps where excessive heat from fireless-storage locos was not tolerated. So thus, you have created a machine that cannot work. Thermodynamics works against everything, but especially in self-re-generating systems.

I've read about the compressed air mine locos. The fact the compressed air locos wheren't that successful kind of discoraged me a bit. But I'm still optimistic about it.
 
SO what your saying.

-Air tank hold air.

-Air then drives pistons to move wheels.

-Wheels move locomotive pulling cars

-One set of wheels on the "tender" generates power.

-Power is used to run a compressor.

-Compressor fills air tank.

-Rinse and repeat.



On paper its a sound idea, but lets look at where it goes wrong in the real world.

You could generate power from the motion of the wheels on the tender, in fact, many cabooses did this. But here's the down side, they only generated a small amount of power. Not the massive amounts you'd need to run an air compressor.

Lets also look at another thing you may have over looked, resistance. And rolling resistance. As you try to generate more power from your generating axels, the higher the load on the generators, meaning you'd need more power to turn the wheels. This means you need to work harder to spin them, this means you need to build more air, this means you need to run the compressor more, this means you need more power, this means you need to spin the wheels harder, this means you need to work harder. This just keeps going up exponentially until you hit the speed of light, or run out of air.. But there is a math formula out there that deals with this.

But the idea that the more power you want, the hard the wheels become to turn is a proven fact. Look at dynamic breaking on locomotives. The wheels spin generating power. This power is feed into large resistors. This is much the same has you holding your garden hose and kinking it to slow the flow of water. These slow the flow of electricity making it harder for the wheels to turn.

So you'd need more power then you could generate from the wheels to run the compressors. And before you think to add more wheel's, that just means you have more rolling resistance meaning more power is needed to pull the train, meaning you run out of air faster and have to run the compressors more.

The only way this would be efficient and would generate more power then it consumed is if you rolled the train down a hill. And then you run into the problem of getting back up the hill. At this point running the train down the side of say a large hill, or mountain and storing that power in the form a batteries. The removing all the heavy cars with power generating wheels and having just one car with the compressor and battires to take just the locomotive back up the hill would work. But then how do you get your power generating wheels back up the hill?


What you are suggesting, is perpetual motion. Or "Free energy." And as we know from 6th grade physical science energy can not be crated or destroyed, only transferred.
 
Last edited:
Well lets look at some of the ideas here. Not all of there are bad.

There is/was a company that was looking to outfit box or tank cars with generators in the wheels and pantographs on top. Then taking the cars to the top of a dedicated hill with over head wires. Then when extra powered was needed in the main power grid, such as peak hours, they would let a few cars at a time go down the hill. As they rolled down they would generate some thing like a few kilowatts of power. That power would be fed into the main power grid so the coal fired power plants wouldn't have to burn as much. But I don't think this idea has taken off out side of planning.

But then there is the dynamic breaking we talked about. Right now all that power generated from the wheels is used to generate heat in the large resistors. This heat is then dispensed by a fan. Hence why you hear a loud buzz from a train in dynamics. But some railroads, and even automotive manufactures, have looked into regenerative breaking. What they do is store that energy in a battery, then use it latter for something.

For example an electric car can slow its self down form 60mph to 10mph using its electric motor to generate power, and thus rolling resistance stopping the car. This power is fed back into the cars battery and is just enough to offset some of the power needed to get the can back up to 60mph. Not enough to get to 60mph, but enough that to get the car up to say 15mph. This means the car can go a little further on a charge.

The same idea can, and from what I have been told, has been applied to trains. A train burns a lot a fuel going up hill. But one up hill it goes into dynamics. Now rather then just generating heat and wasting that potential energy of a heavy train going down hill, its stored in battery's in the locomotives. Then when the train needs power to speed up or keep moving, rather then throttle up the engine, power stored in the battery's is sent to the traction motors to keep the train moving. Now its not a perfect system, there is a small fuel savings of some where in the 5% from what I was told. But this method could work, and is a bit cleaner.

So while all of your ideas wont work, some do.
 
You might as well try to make a nuclear powered locomotive. "B" unit could be the extra uranium source.
 
@Jlb288 Hmm, I don't quite understand dynamic brake part (I haven't read/learned quite how they work, yet). But other than that, I'm pretty sure I get what your saying.
 
Back
Top