Could Steam Rule Again?

[BigBoyFan4006]

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm

I found this article on the internet after Googling for Steam vs. Diesel. It's a very interesting article, and the guy who wrote it, John Rhodes, did a very good job of covering his facts! So, do you think steam could rule the rails again after reading the article? Hope ya'll enjoy!

 

[cascaderailroad]

Too many complex moving parts
Requires 10's of thousands of employees to repair worn out parts
Parts too expensive to manufacture from scratch, and repair
Too much environmental polution
Inefficient tractive effort
Frequent mainline breakdowns

In short ... steam is dead except for tourist RR's

 

[4449tj]

"Snip"
steam is dead except for tourist RR's

That is it. That is the fact right there!
TJ

 

[nicky9499]

Is that......a steam engine dyno??

LOL

 

[jjanmarine3]

Sure looks like a dyno...what is it and what is the story ?

 

[cascaderailroad]

I just spent a 1/2 hour watching Ross Rowlands C&O 614 ACE 3000 (American Coal Enterprise) and other fantastic steam locos videos ... It would be nice if the past would come back ... but anyone who actually thinks that RR's are out there to impress railfans and the public, deceives themselves ... RR's are only there, to move billions of tons of freight, using as little money as possible, trying desperately to make a profit ... and very rarely making a profit, over operating costs ... they don't even want passenger trains on their lines, let alone steam excursions and experimental modern test steam locomotives.

I love Steam, Alco's, and Baldwins !

 

[BigBoyFan4006]

Did any of ya'll actually read the article?!?! Seriously.

 

[ryanstrains]

Did any of ya'll actually read the article?!?! Seriously.

Yes we did, and members brought up various points.

The actual performance and fuel costs are only a small part of an engine, what is the reliability and maintenance costs. Steam engines have so many moving parts that can and do break, so they have to keep large amounts of expensive parts on hand to keep the engines running.

Not it only that, but what about the facilities on the line, it would cost a ton of money to build everything again to service the engines enroute.

 

[bendorsey]

Does a steam engine have more parts then a diesel? Kinda makes me wonder.

A non-articulated steam engine has 2 cylinders and 1 valve per cylinder. A diesel has at least 16 cylinders possibly 24 (or more) with 4 valves per cylinder. Add all the other stuff and it seems to me a diesel is a far more complex gadget then a steam engine, lol.

Ben

 

[cascaderailroad]

Yeah ... But a diesel locomotive will run 100,000 miles with just basic maintenance ... and steam locomotives require major overhaul, and heaver repair, almost constantly, under mainline freight, or heavy high speed passenger usage.

 

[Pendolino]

Besides any consideration about the cost of infrastructure, the author of the article carefully avoids mentioning two important factors: multiple unit operations and tractive effort smoothness.

1) In the 1940s, many large steam locomotives could easily deliver far more HP than a single Diesel. Some of the large ones (Big Boys, Allegheny) may also beat an ES44 on a one-on-one basis. Diesels, however, can be MU'd, unlike steam engines, so you can put together as many units as you need (while still paying only one crew).

2) A reciprocating steam locomotive, because of its nature, will never be able to deliver constant TE, so its factor of adhesion will always lower than Diesels.

 

[jjanmarine3]

I seriously think that should research have continued in order to address the negatives regarding steam traction and why it was phased out, we would have had a winner today.
Modern technology would have found ways to solve all the problems like MU working, water issues , alternate fuel , pollution etc.
I am just not sure whether such modern steam engines would still have a beat and still look like a steam engine as we knew them....
In the years I worked on steam loco's and diesel electric I think there were much more breakdowns and failures on the diesels - and electric units for that matter.
Steam loco maintenance was scaled down largely too in the later stages and they were still reliable .
Did the powers make a big mistake phasing steam out or not ?...I mean - look at the world economics ...all under control..not ?

 

[BigBoyFan4006]

Besides any consideration about the cost of infrastructure, the author of the article carefully avoids mentioning two important factors: multiple unit operations and tractive effort smoothness.

1) In the 1940s, many large steam locomotives could easily deliver far more HP than a single Diesel. Some of the large ones (Big Boys, Allegheny) may also beat an ES44 on a one-on-one basis. Diesels, however, can be MU'd, unlike steam engines, so you can put together as many units as you need (while still paying only one crew).

2) A reciprocating steam locomotive, because of its nature, will never be able to deliver constant TE, so its factor of adhesion will always lower than Diesels.

Did you read the article but didn't pay attention, or did you just skip through? Seriously. He did cover the MU operations, plus traction control.

Power plants have had automated boiler controls for years, and the use of this type of control on any US locomotive would be necessary to prevent the need for a fireman and would undoubtedly be needed to meet environmental compliance. Automated boiler controls, along with electric control of throttle and cutoff, could form the heart of MU capability. MU capability would allow a single engineer to control many locomotives in the normal way or through distributed power or remote control. A computerized traction control system that restricts steam being exhausted from the cylinders to prevent a wheel slip from occurring could be used on a modern steam locomotive.

 

[BigBoyFan4006]

Too many complex moving parts
Requires 10's of thousands of employees to repair worn out parts
Parts too expensive to manufacture from scratch, and repair
Too much environmental polution
Inefficient tractive effort
Frequent mainline breakdowns

Yeah ... But a diesel locomotive will run 100,000 miles with just basic maintenance ... and steam locomotives require major overhaul, and heaver repair, almost constantly, under mainline freight, or heavy high speed passenger usage.

You're talking about the steam locomotives from the days of yore, before all of the major advancements in technology. I assume you mean boiler repairs when you say major overhaul. The water treatment solution would majorly reduce, if not eliminate, the need for the "constant" boiler maintenance. Because the water would be treated, it would eliminate mineral and scale build up. The Gas Producer Combustion System (GPCS) firebox would significantly reduce airborne coal particles (reducing the need to clean boiler tubes) as can be seen in the following diagrams:

Regular firebox:

GPCS firebox:

The GPCS firebox would also virtually eliminate emissions, a factor that you implied made steam inferior as you mentioned in your earlier comment.

The use of GPCS provides impressive environmental benefits. First, smoke disappears due to complete combustion through gasification of the fuel. Also, carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions virtually disappear. In addition, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions are very low. Porta asserted that with GPCS, sulphur can also be controlled by blending the fuel with a calcite-dolomite mixture.

Extensive use of roller bearings would reduce the effects of friction, thus reducing worn out parts and the need to replace or manufacture parts (other factors you mentioned).

 

[BigBoyFan4006]

I seriously think that should research have continued in order to address the negatives regarding steam traction and why it was phased out, we would have had a winner today.
Modern technology would have found ways to solve all the problems like MU working, water issues , alternate fuel , pollution etc.
I am just not sure whether such modern steam engines would still have a beat and still look like a steam engine as we knew them....
In the years I worked on steam loco's and diesel electric I think there were much more breakdowns and failures on the diesels - and electric units for that matter.
Steam loco maintenance was scaled down largely too in the later stages and they were still reliable .
Did the powers make a big mistake phasing steam out or not ?...I mean - look at the world economics ...all under control..not ?

I agree, more research should and development be done. Steam could prove itself better if we give it a chance. But I also do agree that steam locomotives would never look the same if we applied all of that technology to them.

 

[BigBoyFan4006]

Does a steam engine have more parts then a diesel? Kinda makes me wonder.

A non-articulated steam engine has 2 cylinders and 1 valve per cylinder. A diesel has at least 16 cylinders possibly 24 (or more) with 4 valves per cylinder. Add all the other stuff and it seems to me a diesel is a far more complex gadget then a steam engine, lol.

Ben

You make a good point, Ben! I had never thought of that before.

 

[kws4000]

***sigh***
Read everything given to you, then do research.
John T Rhodes is working with the Coalition for Sustainable Rail http://www.csrail.org/ , with title as Vice President and Treasurer. David Ward is President, and Shaun McMahon is Director of Engineering. Advisors include Bill Withuhn and the son of LD Porta, Alejandro Porta.

Furthermore, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle.

 

[jacksonbarno]

Even if steam was more economical, it wouldn't get past the EPA and their nonsensical laws.

 

[pdkoester]

With all those water towers long gone and removed, what would they do to keep it running with enough water?

 

[gtasa]

Do the same thing the NYC did, install water troughs along the route with a pickup scoop under the tender. Its highly unlikely steam will ever return but who knows what could happen in the future.