Steam in the 21st Century

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello Community,

What do you guys think about the railroads bringing back full main line running steam locomotives? As with new technology steam locomotives can get more effiecient and powerful with higher operating pressure with new metal alloys can make stronger boilers. With oil almost $100 dollars a barrel and diesel almost $4 per gallon don't you think this could be a consideration for railroads? I know there would be lots of cost in getting it going and manufacturing new steam locomotives, coal is fairly cheap depending on which coal you get as the price range from $14-$75 per ton from the Powder River Basin being the cheapest to the Penn state coal being the most expensive. Or the railroads all switch to electric power.
On top of that, the consideration for steam might get derailed as with the latest USGS report that the United States could have 2.8 Trillion barrels of oil locked up in its oil shales. But that won't last long with the developing world and the oil companies selling it overseas. All the years of getting screwed over and now we could possably turn the table against the middle east and OPEC as we would have more oil that the middle east has combined. But that also brings up enviromental concerns with extracting the oil.
What do you guys think of steam running again?
 
There are many threads on this subject, and mainly, to sum it up, it would be impractical and nearly impossible. First, we would need to build new locomotives, next, new maintenance facilities. Plus, more people in the crew = more people to pay, but, on the flip side, more jobs to give.
With going all electric, it would cost tons of money to build all of the power lines, and then new power plants would need to be made to make the electricity needed, still using the oil.
Basically, to sum it up, our locomotives are good, and our railroads are pretty good, OR don't fix what ain't broken.
 
Even the Mt Washington COG Rwy went deisel, with replacing their aged steam locos.

I think the last breath of steam was the American Coal Enterprises #614-T Steam loco program test experiment in the 90's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9uOswsUgfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rmKYGEicP4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2BoMFZcnDI&NR=1

Asside from tourist RR operations, and very rare mainline special excursions ... steam is definately dead for merchandise freight and regular schedualed passenger operations.
 
Last edited:
There are environmental concerns too. When a preserved line near me (in the UK) started up, the environment agency restricted steam to weekends only because of the pollution produced.
 
Hello Nevada,

I think that if what you suggest ever did happen, the show would be most disappointing. My guess is that the combustion would be so complete and the exhaust so thoroughly scrubbed as to be invisible, there would be no dramatic chuffs and exhaust of steam but only the high pitched whine of a turbine driving an electric generator, the "whistle" would be an air horn driven by the compressor, and the engine body would look pretty much like a contemporary diesel. Yuck. Berkshires and Yellowstones are gone forever, I'm afraid.

Bernie
 
yeah. The ACE3000 project (which used 614-T as their test bed) basically put a F40PH body on the frame of a PRR T-1 Duplex (more or less). The last real steam operation was 1980-1985, when the Crab Orchard & Egyptian ran 2-8-0 No. 17 in common carrier freight service, even pulling TOFC cars! man, what i wouldn't give to go back and see that, steam working just one last time...

but hey, a guy can dream, right? (and i won't talk about the Mt. Washington Cog Railway...what a load of bull that was).
 
Hello Sawyer,

Just out of curiosity I checked out the ACE3000 on Google to see if I could find some of the projected performance statistics and found this.

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ace_det.html.

I then selected a roughly contemporary diesel to compare it to, the SD50, and found this.

http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data EMD SD50.HTML.

Not only does the steamer lag behind the diesel in every performance category, but the diesel does it at a fraction of the weight, and it doesn't have to haul around a 150 ton support unit while it is doing it. And I think it's getting even worse for steam when you look at the performance of modern locomotives like the SD70MAC.

http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data EMD SD70MAC.HTML

I dream, too. I dream that the Legislature of Heaven will repeal the laws of thermodynamics so we can have our steam locos back. But that probably won't happen. What a shame!

Bernie
 
Its just like dreaming the 1980s rock would come back but no people love modern garbage:( . Things back then ment something no a car can be replaced with easy and people can care less about whats it means. One day steam will come back when that question is unknown could be next 50years or sooner.
 
Hello Nevada,

I think that if what you suggest ever did happen, the show would be most disappointing. My guess is that the combustion would be so complete and the exhaust so thoroughly scrubbed as to be invisible, there would be no dramatic chuffs and exhaust of steam but only the high pitched whine of a turbine driving an electric generator, the "whistle" would be an air horn driven by the compressor, and the engine body would look pretty much like a contemporary diesel. Yuck. Berkshires and Yellowstones are gone forever, I'm afraid.

Bernie

You've hit the nail on the head. The charm of steam locos came from their antiquated technlology. I'm grateful that I grew up with steam locos, the kids of today with their ipods and facebooks really missed out.
Mick Berg. (turned 64 last month!:eek: )
 
We will never have steam again.

And your wondering why?

Well, in the 1900's railroads started getting gung ho about electrics. They were all like it's the wave of the future and steam was going to die.

If GM didn't pitch the diesel so much, we would be seeing boxcabs hauling container trains.
 
Its just like dreaming the 1980s rock would come back but no people love modern garbage:( . Things back then ment something no a car can be replaced with easy and people can care less about whats it means. One day steam will come back when that question is unknown could be next 50years or sooner.

I like what you think Beattie! There use to be a steam excursion train going by my place it was 4-8-4 ad hauled 20 cars, it was a beast! It seamed like a earthquake was going on when it went by. I wished I went on it before they stopped running it though. But I got to drive the 93 2-8-0 on the Nevada Northern one day last year it was a blast, cost $900 but well worth it though!
 
Nice I wouldn't mind driving Norfolk and Western 611 one day. If they ever bring it back to operating condition.
 
Hello Mick,

Now you are making me nostalgic. I am of your generation and I remember the way it was. Grimy little hogs shoving and pulling cuts of 40 foot reefers and box cars in and out of sidings (alongside occasional first generation diesels, of course), belching great clouds of smoke and exhausted steam, all of it tended by team of sweaty, swearing trainmen who looked huge to a 6 year old. Very different from polished museum and tourist road operations.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I'm all for it and have thoroughly enjoyed the visits I've made to such facilities. I'm just saying there is something about the memory of witnessing steam in work clothes as a kid that the exhibitions can't match.

Bernie
 
You look at diesels they A waste gallons of oil on these un efficent engines. B people say steam unefficent ha sure and so are diesels it takes a ton of more diesels to equals a breathing monster! Think people would want to have huge fire breathing monsters or boring diesels????
 
Hello Mick,

Now you are making me nostalgic. I am of your generation and I remember the way it was. Grimy little hogs shoving and pulling cuts of 40 foot reefers and box cars in and out of sidings (alongside occasional first generation diesels, of course), belching great clouds of smoke and exhausted steam, all of it tended by team of sweaty, swearing trainmen who looked huge to a 6 year old. Very different from polished museum and tourist road operations.


Bernie

I agree with that; I grew up in the age of the Dash-9 and the GEVO, but to me, steam will always be king. when i lay down at night i dream of the sooty, gritty yards full of quietly panting engines, hostlers moving engines down to the ready tracks, watering, coaling, oiling, sanding the engines so they're ready for the road. I dream of being in the cab, on the right-hand seatbox, feeling the weight of 90+ cars coming on to the drawbar, the engine barking mad as she fights to get underway. Flying down the mainline, whistling for crossings, watching the signals flick as i thunder by, holing out in the siding as the perishable overtakes...it's a sight i'll never get to see in real life, but in trainz, i can.

sorry, i think i had a bit of a moment there. forgive me for being all nostalgic.
 
You look at diesels they A waste gallons of oil on these un efficent engines. B people say steam unefficent ha sure and so are diesels it takes a ton of more diesels to equals a breathing monster! Think people would want to have huge fire breathing monsters or boring diesels????

Where are you getting your information?
Lets look at a Berkshire and avg large steam engine compared to a Dash9

Berkshire
2700 - 2900 horsepower
64000 - 69000 LB Traction Effort

GE 9-44CW
4400 horsepower
105,640 lb - 142,000 LB Traction Effort


Even looking at the Big Boy assuming there still was a place big enouph to turn the thing. Which by the way could chew through 9.66 tons of coal an hour and 9980 gallons of water @ ~41 mph


4-8-8-4 UP Bigboy
135,375LB Traction Effort
 
The comparative cost of coal and diesel fuel shows that a coal-fueled locomotive would have lower fuel costs than a diesel-fueled locomotive. In 2008, fact one its cheaper in 2008 and might still be as of nowhttp://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm
Even at this level of efficiency, 12 percent, and using PRB coal, with an average transportation cost, the steam locomotive would have a fuel cost 78 percent lower than the average Class I railroads. This is based on using the relative thermal efficiencies of steam and diesel locomotives and the cost of the fuel input. But improvements in steam technology did not end with Chapelon. They continued with a new generation of designers.

See that 78% lower costs so explain to me how diesels save us money?
A modern steam locomotive for US Class I railroads should be comparable in performance to a GE ES44AC. This is a very typical locomotive in Class I service today. The ES44AC has a 4,400 HP prime mover, six powered axles, 180,000 pounds starting tractive effort and dynamic brakes. A Third Generation steam locomotive in the form of a five cylinder, 2-8-8-2 could match the performance of an ES44AC

See theres you proof right there if america would have kept building them like the other countries did the steam would easily match the diesels of modern times.


Drawbar pull of 2-8-8-2 and ES44AC
rhodes08.gif


Drawbar horsepower of 2-8-8-2 and ES44AC
rhodes09.gif

In the past, it has been said that the cost of fuel for steam locomotives sitting at idle was high. Today this wouldn’t be the case, due to better design and low fuel cost. The 2-8-8-2 described above would cost 10 percent of the cost of an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) equipped diesel locomotive sitting at idle. Also, the 2-8-8-2 would have a fuel and water range six percent greater than the ES44AC, due to its low fuel consumption and large tenders


Now again as I was saying if we built a modern steam engine we can see clearly that the steam is close and and the next 10 years might beat diesel engines.

The RTC simulation showed that the steam locomotives had fuel consumption equating to costs 89 percent less than the diesel locomotives. In 2008, the Class I’s had a diesel fuel bill of $12.2 billion, which could be reduced to a $1.3 billion coal bill, resulting in a $10.9 billion cost saving per year. In all the services modeled, the cost savings ranged from 88.2 percent to 90.1 percent, based on ton-miles per dollar of fuel consumption. The steam locomotives consumed an average of 2.44 tons of coal and 2,880 gallons of water per hour, while the diesel locomotives averaged 252 gallons of fuel per hour.

This leads to the question of how much money could be saved by the US Class I railroads if they converted to steam. Over the first five years, the estimated cost to install fueling and routine maintenance facilities, but not heavy maintenance facilities, is $1.7 billion. It would take $18 billion over 15 years above programmed locomotive fleet renewal costs to purchase the needed steam locomotives. The locomotive cost was estimated by Roger Waller of DLM. Even with these costs of nearly $20 billion factored out, the modern steam locomotive could produce almost $50 billion in fuel cost savings over the 15-year implementation period.



Lol your diesel got owned:hehe:
 
Last edited:
Beattie, I am empressed! If I get in to the steam business, I would like to take as a business partner! You are good at this stuff. Steam ended with 1950's tech. Now we can start it up again with 2010 tech to make it vastly superior over the diesel. Plus America as enough coal to last for 2,500 years at current comsumption rates and not exported out of the country, as compared with oil of only about 100 years worldwide.
 
Lol your diesel got owned:hehe:

So you have proven your ability to copy and paste.

How do you plan on removing the pollutants from the burning and the fact that there will be 1000's of high pressure bombs roaming the country side.


Also regardless if a steam engine **could be equal or slightly better than a diesel how does this state meant remain true? " it takes a ton of more diesels to equals a breathing monster!"



** all of the charts posted of the theoretical steam engine were estimates.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top