"modern" steam discussion

Well if you steamer fans really want to break the diesel deadlock on mainline haulage you're gonna have to get it to work in multiple! :hehe:

Strictly speaking not impossible but is it worth it?

I suspect that 'new' steamers will be much like the preserved ones; good for specials and passenger service only.



Cheers

Nix

I keep seeing dirty diesels and polluting diesels... you're making it sound like diesel locomotives are the end-all reason for global warming. Diesel locomotives aren't polluting machines, in reality railroads in the United States are switching to the latest tier of ultra low sulfur diesel waaay ahead of the EPA deadline. And with the advent of biodiesel and synthetic diesel, sulfur can be taken out of the picture entirely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing steam or trying to start a flame war, I just think diesels don't deserve the bad rep.

The thing to keep in mind, the 5AT (which is a whole new design) is intended to be run using biodiesel or even natural gas (depending on the fuel system used.) Ideally it would run on light oil, or man made fuels.

yes,the cleaner the fuel burns,the less we have to worry about pollution from steam engines!

I read a Glimpse of one of the Posts on this Thread that stated it takes a Long time to Start up a steam locomotive...

That's only if it is dead cold. You can in fact trap steam inside the Locomotive, which helps it maintain some of it's heat.

Starting back up takes considerably less time and you already have your Movement source ready for use right away.

Trapping steam inside a locomotive is only possible if the fire is still heating it to boiling temperature. Basic physical science can tell you that if you let the fire out, the steam will condense back into water.

Cheers,
John

While not "modern" there is something that pertains to the idea of keeping the locomotive hot. Back in the early days of steam, in London, the Great Western designed a type of locomotive that was meant to be used in the tunnels. Since the underground portions were long, and venting was an issue, these engines had HUGE fireboxes with tons of firebricks. The idea was, that before entering the tunnels, the fire would be banked and the stack closed off, with the heat in the firebricks providing the proper heat for steam production.

It didn't exactly work as planned.

Having said that, once a steam engine is hot, maintaining that heat isn't hard. It requires a constant fuel to it, though one interesting design I've heard proposed was to place electric heating elements inside the boilers. These heating elements, when the locomotive was stopped in the engine house, would be "plugged" into an electric system and provide the heat needed to keep the locomotive up to temperature.

However, it's a misconception to think that without heat you can't contain steam. In fact, this is further from the truth. If that were the case, then fireless steam locomotives wouldn't work. As long as the steam is under a high pressure, as in fireless locomotives, then sufficient steam can be maintained to operate the locomotive. It just depends on the size of the pressure vessel. In the case of most fireless locomotives, they can go several hours on a single charge, with nine or ten hours being about the max. They actually can last longer when not in use, since the steam remains in high pressure. Charging only takes a short time, since once pressure is reached, the locomotive is good to go.

Hmm, and fireless steam locomotives does not cause fires and sparks like their conventional cousins which I think fireless locomotives would be better for switching jobs!

magickmaker said:

However, it's a misconception to think that without heat you can't contain steam. In fact, this is further from the truth. If that were the case, then fireless steam locomotives wouldn't work. As long as the steam is under a high pressure, as in fireless locomotives, then sufficient steam can be maintained to operate the locomotive. It just depends on the size of the pressure vessel. In the case of most fireless locomotives, they can go several hours on a single charge, with nine or ten hours being about the max. They actually can last longer when not in use, since the steam remains in high pressure. Charging only takes a short time, since once pressure is reached, the locomotive is good to go.

Click to expand...

Basically my Previous Point, but Explained Better. Thank You!

UP, Fireless saw use in a ton of places, but yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. For the most part they were used in locations where an open flame would be dangerous. Such as explosive plants, and coal mines.

Curiously they also saw use in places where carbon dioxide, as from a diesel locomotive, or steam engine, could be dangerous. So you also found them in enclosed places or operating inside steel mills, or inside tunnel constructions. They're still in use in a handful of places, so technically they could be considered modern.

Well in a case where we are talking about the most dangerous areas where gases could ignite a fire from a diesel and/or conventional steam engine when switching at industrial plants,coal mines ,power plants and like you said tunnel construction, fireless steam trains are the way to go and I think Cuba has some working at the sugar factories,and that way we don't have to worry about pollution because like I said earlier they don't produce any smoke and they can go for hours on a single charge which made them very reliable and only takes one man to operate and it cuts down the cost of labour for them as compared to conventional steam engines which are expensive and not to mention time-consuming!