My grandfather made steam engines, my father made a scale steam locomotive for taking children on rides in the park and at the fair. Some of my happiest memories as a child were of sitting behind my father in the coal tender, chugging down the tracks, so any picture of a steam engine brings back fond memories.
[ UPDATE: I hadn’t realized it from the photo above until later, but the 4-6-4 “Hudson” locomotive above is the one my dad modeled for the 1/8th scale train of my youth, except his had the feedwater tank over the front like this one. Our family had to sell the train due to financial hardship after his death to somebody in Lebanon Ohio (probably the saddest day of my life). I’ve since lost track of it and would give anything to get it back, but I fear it has been scrapped. I hadn’t thought about this in a long time but the image provoked some long repressed memories. On the plus side, I’ve located a Lionel model Hudson 4-6-4 Steam Locomotive 665 with 736W Tender on Ebay, and exact match to the engine and tender my dad constructed, which I hope to buy so that I can show it to my children, and pass on the story with something to show them, along with the family photographs. I never thought this topic would come up on my blog, but here it is, serendipitously hitting me with emotion. – Anthony ]
When I saw this, all I could think of is how silly this idea is. All the greens seem fascinated with high speed rail due to Euro-envy, and in California they are ramming it down our throat at an anticipated huge loss, even worse than Solyndra. With a forecast price tag in the tens of billions and growing, it is just nuts given the economic climate right now, not to mention we don’t have people clamoring to climb aboard.
In retrospect however, anything that would put a steam locomotive back on the tracks is music to my ears, even if they ran it on used McDonald’s french fry oil like some of those hippie buses we see here in California.
Here’s the strange part, they are converting an oil burning locomotive to run “biocoal”, and somehow they magically think the production process and the burning of it won’t produce any net CO2, saying the process is “carbon neutral”. I think they’ve left out some parts, like the energy needed to produce and transport the biocoal fuel in the first place. Excerpts from the MSNBC story:
A steam train built in 1937 is getting a makeover that will turn it into a “higher-speed” locomotive that runs on biocoal, a coal-like fuel made with woody plant material.
When finished, the train will be able chug along existing tracks at speeds up to 130 miles per hour without contributing to the greenhouse gas pollution blamed for global warming.
…
“Computer simulations already show that the locomotive is about as powerful as two modern passenger diesel locomotives,” Davidson Ward, president of the Coalition for Sustainable Rail, told me Thursday.
“But it will burn carbon neutral fuel.”
The biocoal is based on a so-called torrefaction process pioneered at the University of Minnesota in Duluth. To make it, woody material — in this case trees — are heated in the absence of oxygen. The resulting flaky matter is then rammed together under high pressure to create coal-like bricks.
The charcoal briquettes aka “biocoal”
Biocoal has the same energy density as regular coal, but is cleaner burning, and since trees (the fuel source) sequester carbon as they grow, the system is considered carbon neutral, according to Ward.
…
Today, most higher-speed passenger trains are diesel-electric locomotives, which generate their peak horsepower at low speeds — about 25 miles per hour. Steam locomotives, by contrast, get their peak horsepower at higher speeds — about 40 miles per hour.
“Initial computer simulations suggest that the CSR’s modern steam engine will significantly out-accelerate a modern diesel-electric locomotive to 110 mph,” according to the coalition’s website.
…
I got a big chuckle out of this part though:
If all goes according to plan, they might build a new steam locomotive from scratch, which will have some modern looks.
For example, “no cowcatcher,” Ward said. “You don’t need a cowcatcher today unless you are a ‘Back to the Future’ fan.”
Just wait until they plow into some green gawker driving a Prius, you know it is going to happen.
From the “Coalition for Sustainable Rail” website:
Once its modernization is complete, CSR 3463 will have little in common with the smoke-belching steam engine it once was. Featuring a gas-producer combustion system, improved steam circuit, modernized boiler, low-maintenance running gear and steam-powered electric generator (to power the passenger train), CSR anticipates 3463 will be able to pull a passenger train with electric-like performance for less than the cost of diesel-electric locomotives. In order to further prove the viability of biocoal and modern steam technology, CSR plans to test the locomotive in excess of 130 miles per hour, out-performing any existing diesel-electric on the market and breaking the world steam speed record. In light of this achievement, CSR has named this endeavor: “Project 130.”
Historical 3463 Tech Specs
Locomotive 3463, acquired by CSR through the generosity of its former owner, the Great Overland Station of Topeka, Kansas, is the largest locomotive of its type left in the world and features the largest wheels of any engine in North America. CSR will completely rebuild and modernize the locomotive, doubling its thermal efficiency, converting it to burn biocoal and more. When done, locomotive 3463 will share only the most fundamental resemblance to the engine it once was.
The table below outlines characteristics of locomotive 3463 as built in 1937 by the Baldwin Locomotive Works:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dp
June 1, 2012 8:09 am
Everything this thing produces is a greenhouse gas or particulates. Soot, CO2, water vapor – sounds like a Chinese power plant.
DJ
June 1, 2012 8:18 am
….There’s a guy in China that could put a propellor on the front of it, and above 40mph it would run even more efficiently!
….Seriously though, the locomotive, even if it’s “carbon neutral”, it’s still pumping out a major greenhouse gas by the gallon…. directly proportional to the water used to create the motive steam.
Dr. Dave
June 1, 2012 8:26 am
Sorry…but this article planted this song in my head. It’s my duty to share…
So much hilarity in one article. Maybe this article was intended to run 2 months ago today.
“Since trees (the fuel source) sequester carbon as they grow, the system is considered carbon neutral.” And what about the sequestration of carbon that occurred millions of years ago to make today’s coal? Does this mean that ordinary coal can now be declared carbon-neutral?
With all the enthusiasm surrounding this plan (and one has to admit that it’s a beautiful machine), they apparently (also) have not considered that this locomotive will have to sit for hours furiously burning its fancy charcoal to get the water up to a boil before it can move the first millimeter.
Maybe this is just an advanced steampunk project. But the original msnbc article was published under the banner “Future of Tech.” I’m sure the investors are lining up – but the 1/20/13 Obamabux deadline is looming.
Milwaukee Bob
June 1, 2012 8:33 am
OMG! Where to start?
First thing I did after getting up from rolling on the floor laughing, was check the calendar. Yup, it IS June 1st, not April 1st. However, as mentioned above, this could (has got to?) be a joke. Or is it? If not, for ALL the reasons point out above, it has to be about $$$! IF these people are serious. Delusional but they could still be serious, but I do not believe they are. At least not about actually doing what they say they want to do. I think the whole idea is a “straw man” idea. It’s a ploy, and looking at the above objections (all very valid) I would say it’s working. Steam vs electric, coal vs oil, biocoal vs wood, carbon neutral vs not-carbon neutral, cow catcher – no cow catcher, 126mph – 175mph, etc. All of it gets everyone to focus on superfluous issues, completely ignoring the REAL problem (which is their real purpose), that being IT’S FIXED RAIL! They want us to focus on WHAT runs on the rail, NOT the real negative AND most costly part of the whole “system” – the fixed rail that is so 17th century technology! Rail right-of-way, rail beds, (earthquake proof in CA), rail ties, rail fasteners, rails, rail switches, side rails, rail yards, rail and rail bed tenders, rail trestles and bridges, railway stations, rail crossings, rail signaling systems, (like the one the didn’t work in China and caused/allowed a train to run into the back of another killing a bunch of people), rails, rails, rails….
100+ BILLION dollars worth for the CA “high” speed fiasco/boondoggle. Trillions to put it across the country. Take half of that – – no, take a tenth of that and put it into the design of short range, VTOL aircraft of various sizes, use existing smaller airports in a hub and spoke design where they feed larger airports OR key surface transportation points, add in “personal” VTOL’s and/or computer controlled, electrified “rail” powered “vehicles” on separate, special lanes of existing roads/highways somewhere along the line and you/we will have solved the entire transportation problem well into the 23rd -24th century.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 1, 2012 8:40 am
Let me get this straight. There are steam engines running on solid fuel, wood and coal. They could rebuild one of those, with modern insulation, automated fuel feeder, emission controls etc, that would increase efficiency and easily “prove” the efficacy of these newfangled manufactured anthracite disks.
So instead they start with a locomotive that uses a liquid fuel. And don’t use it to showcase liquid biofuels like biodiesel or straight vegetable oil (SVO) or otherwise something that doesn’t need much but being squeezed out from plant material. Heck, imagine if they would burn a powdered corn slurry, take stalks and all and mash it all up, do the same with wheat stalks and other farm waste. That would be a great demonstration of renewable fuels.
But it made more sense to take a giant diesel burner and completely remake it to use fake coal?
Pablo an ex Pat
June 1, 2012 8:43 am
I had a connection 20 plus years ago to 6201 Princess Elizabeth built in 1933 and still kept in running order by her preservation society members. I talked with one of their honorary engineers after a main line run and he described the operation of a steam locomotive as requiring two types of approach to maintenance – sledgehammer and micrometer. They had forgotten to fill up some of the dashpots that lubricate the bearings at one of their stops and had flat spots as a result. Unless these guys in Kansas have some steely eyed steam guys on their team they are in for a rude awakening when they try to run the loco. As others have said the diesel/electrics took over for the reason of cost, an old style steam loco needs a lot of maintenance which vastly reduces the time it is available to be in service. http://www.6201.co.uk/links/
Jarrett Jones
June 1, 2012 8:44 am
A simpler and more “carbon neutral” idea:
1. Bury the wood in a strip mine reclamation project.
2. Run the train on diesel.
Even better:
Skip number 1.
Ben Wilson
June 1, 2012 8:49 am
Just had to comment on this;
=========================================
“Unless they’ve come up with some way of converting steam to motion other than a reciprocating steam piston, they won’t be seeing 130 mph until sometime after we’ve perfected fusion.” http://www.steamlocomotive.com/turbine/
The steam turbine doesn’t require pistons. It may have had problems but that was many moons ago, perhaps a modern design would work well.
=========================================
One of the “big problems” the steam turbine locomotive had was. . . . . .most every trip it broke down on the mainline. There were also some investigation into using a steam turbine to drive a generator much like a diesel electric locomotive, and that didn’t work well either.
Steam turbines have a very narrow efficiency range. If it’s not operating at 95% + power — it’s not very efficient. That’s true for gas turbines (jet engines) too. Piston internal combustion engines have a much wider efficiency range.
The only reasonable way to have a coal fired (or “biocoal fired”) locomotive is to have a stationery coal power plant that powers an electric railway.
more soylent green!
June 1, 2012 9:08 am
Coal, like all fossil fuels is biological.* Isn’t all coal “biocoal?”
* Anybody want to get into an aboitic oil debate?
Dr. Lurtz
June 1, 2012 9:16 am
Look, the reason for all of this, is to not use Middle East Oil !! But, the Gov. can’t say it out right, so they make all fossil fuels evil. Any non-fossil fuel is good. Don’t want to upset our Middle East friends. So, a tree based fuel source is good. A liquid natural gas locomotive is bad [they would just need a gas storage tender car].
Nuclear Power is now good ?!? Didn’t the “Terminators” have one? Short of a “Zero Point” energy source, without fossil what is left?? But isn’t nuclear a really, really, old “fossil fuel”. That’s right, we can make more — Plutonium. Either we have 5000 breeder reactors [need to replace fossil fuels today], or we all become wood burning farmers.
Billy Liar
June 1, 2012 9:21 am
Help! The dimwits and the clueless are trying to take over the world!
rogerknights
June 1, 2012 9:44 am
John Marshall says:
June 1, 2012 at 2:56 am
Mallard can be described as beautiful. Not a word I would use for the one pictured above.
Covering the wheels can be justified for a specialized loco, but it’s harder for the maintenance workers to get at on ordinary locos. Hence probably longer time needed for maintenance and higher costs. But they looked neater. British locos were that way for looks, but US & Canadian locos were more oriented to the bottom line–and more considerate to their workers.
(I’ve read that US locos had twice the cab depth of British locos, which shielded the workers there better from the cold and wind, even though it would have been cheaper to follow the British design.)
rogerknights
June 1, 2012 10:01 am
China uses steam locos almost 100%, I guess because they’ve got the coal domestically, but not the oil. and their labor costs are low.
So, a locomotive fuelled with charcoal briquettes is going to be more efficient than one fuelled with coal or oil or a modern diesel loco? The perpetrators should study the history of the Mallet-type locomotives that once were used to haul coal from mine to power plant. Mallets were huge, magnificent, machines with two sets of cylinders, driver wheels, etc. However, even though they were being operated by (or for) coal mines, it was found that diesels were more powerful and more economical.
One argument against the traditional steam loco was that the steam was exhausted to the air, greatly reducing their efficiency. I understand that an condenser, which would immediately raise efficiency, would be impossibly large.
I was young at the end of the steam age. Steam locos used to run close to where we lived, and we were well familiar with the soot that they threw out and how one could not hang one’s washing out when a loco was going to pass by.
I made several trips from Saint John (NB) to Montreal by train powered by one kind of steam loco, and from Montreal to Toronto and other parts of Ontario by even bigger steam locos, so I knew their characteristic sound very well. About 10 years ago I had the opportunity to ride a tourist train in a cut-open boxcar right behind the loco. I still get choked up at the memory of the the chuff-chuff sound of the steam exiting the cylinders.
IanM
tallbloke
June 1, 2012 10:14 am
Biddyb says:
June 1, 2012 at 1:00 am
I still sing the Casey Jones song. It was one of my favourite tv programmes when I was a child. I’m English.
Heh, me too.
” It’s Casey at the handle of the Cannonball Express”
woodNfish
June 1, 2012 10:14 am
Anthony, stop expecting commie luddites to be scientifically literate. They aren’t used to the truth and couldn’t handle it anyway, which is why they avoid it at all costs.
Rob Crawford
June 1, 2012 10:23 am
” All the greens seem fascinated with high speed rail due to Euro-envy…”
Oh, I think their fascination lies with one particular use of trains.
Mickey Reno
June 1, 2012 10:39 am
This goofy notion will never work. What will work is developing the ability to open an interdimensional window, and that will allow all the people from our universe who like this idea to step through to the universe where the laws of physics allow goofy ideas like this to work. 😉 And NO takebacks!
mojo
June 1, 2012 10:52 am
Just goes to show: Some folks will believe anything.
Frank Kotler
June 1, 2012 11:09 am
Blow the whistle, Rajendra!
Dr. Dave
June 1, 2012 11:35 am
I remember getting into an internet discussion about freight trains and electric motors. He maintained that cars with gas powered generators powering electric motors was far more efficient and this was the reason freight trains use diesel-electric locomotion. This is idiocy. Diesel electrics are used in freight trains primarily for control. They can simply cut the juice to the motors that drive the wheels to slow down thereby making braking much simpler. They can also start, stop and get up to speed faster.
I suppose you could use steam powered turbines to generate electricity. For the life of me I can’t help but envision the resurgence of hundreds of “Pettycoat Junctions”. Converting wood to fuel (other than for residential fireplaces) is as stupid an ide as converting food into ethanol. Hey…there’s an idea. Why not create a new model freight train locomotive that runs on pure ethanol?
A lot of misconceptions in these remarks:
“The main reason diesel engines replaced steam ones is maintenance…”
No, the main reason diesel electric locomotives began replacing steam was a significantly reduced fuel bill. Loss of component manufacturers became decisive once DE traction attained sufficient market share.
“…A steam boiler has to be torn down and rebuilt about every five years. That’s an issue that no amount of bizarre fuel is going to make go away.”
Interesting claim, even if true, a five yearly rebuild does become unneccessary with correct boiler feedwater treatment.
“…Availability is a fraction of that of diesel electric, and cost of operations is multiples of that of diesel electric traction…”
No. An NYC study published in 1948 demonstrated the total annual operating cost per mile of $1.48 for 6000hp diesel electric locmotives, $1.22 for steam and estimated $1.15 for 5000hp electric traction, not including maintenance of substations or overhead catenary. (P.W.Kiefer: ‘An Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power’, via A.Chapelon: ‘La Locomotive a Vapeur 1952).
N&W using modern steam from modern depots and servicing facilities achieved steam utilisation rates rivaling dieselised railroads – I do not have the figures or references immediately to hand.
“…Thermal efficiency of steam locomotives is a ratio close to zero, and very far from unity…”
No. first generation steam can be expected to yield approximately 5-7% thermal efficiency. Chapelon’s 240P and 242A1 locomotives yielded approximately 9% thermal efficiency and L.D.Porta’s rebuilt ‘Argentina’ returned an 11% thermal efficency at sub-optimal operating output, 13% being expected at optimum speed and power.
For comparison a modern diesel electric yeilds approximately 30% thermal efficiency with microprocessor control of the engine and traction motors.
Consider concurrently that at current prices, diesel contains 32,500BTU/$ and coal approximately 450,000BTU/$, in other words more than 13 times more ‘bang’ for your buck.
“…Diesel Electrics are much more efficient (30+% vs. 10% even for superheated steam locos)…”
Fair enough and addressed above but efficiency alone isn’t the whole point, the cost of operation is also partially addressed above and via the link below (a cost comparison at today’s diesel and coal costs would be interesting)
“…much, much more reliable…”
Are you comparing old locomotives nearing the end of their economic lives with factory fresh diesel electrics?
“…much less polluting…”
No, contemplate the NOx emissions measured by new built SLM mountain rack locomotives with comparable diesel emissions on the Brienz Rothorn Bahn and Schafberg Railways. (http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/dlm/sir_seymour_flyer.pdf)
“…much more versatile (think using multiple diesel locomotives hooked to each other with only one engineer)…”
why? there is no technical reason modern steam can not also be operated in multiple even if it were required (how often are lash ups of SD-40s seriously reconfigured? modern steam designed to haul intermodal freights long enough to fill the passing loops of a main line need not be broken up to haul pick up freights on branch lines since that traffic is more or less a thing of the past)
“…much easier on the track…”
No need to tolerate dynamic augment if the reciprocating masses are not balanced by the wheel mounted counter weights.
“…and much, much more comfortable as far as the crew is concerned…”
So is air travel at 30,000′ if the crew are given an open cockpit in 1930s air racer style.
There’s plenty of merit in revisiting steam locomotive design given the unexplored potential of the basic Stephensonian configuration; but agreed starting with an overweight 4-6-4 while expedient is far from ideal. It is probably easier to obtain funding for and easier to obtain track access rights (since even rebuilt the machine is an ‘existing’ design)
The argument that this project contemplates desecrating a unique, irreplacable locomotive is rather feeble given 3463 had been left to rot in a park – why wasn’t this precious artefact preserved properly then?
The torrefied fuel is somewhat more questionable, but if it is the excuse to return another derelict steam locomotive to steam using money that would otherwise be wasted on wind turbines, then I don’t object at all.
I’m surprised that nobody stated the obvious:
Pachauri “…began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974…”
THERE’S the reason they want to go to trains – Dr. Pachauri wants to play with choo-choos again…
Locomotive 3463, acquired by CSR through the generosity of its former owner, the Great Overland Station of Topeka, Kansas, is the largest locomotive of its type left in the world and features the largest wheels of any engine in North America. CSR will completely rebuild and modernize the locomotive, doubling its thermal efficiency, converting it to burn biocoal and more. When done, locomotive 3463 will share only the most fundamental resemblance to the engine it once was.
Everything this thing produces is a greenhouse gas or particulates. Soot, CO2, water vapor – sounds like a Chinese power plant.
….There’s a guy in China that could put a propellor on the front of it, and above 40mph it would run even more efficiently!
….Seriously though, the locomotive, even if it’s “carbon neutral”, it’s still pumping out a major greenhouse gas by the gallon…. directly proportional to the water used to create the motive steam.
Sorry…but this article planted this song in my head. It’s my duty to share…
The last steam engine built in the UK is here, finished in 2008\9:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059791/First-steam-engine-built-Britain-50-years-takes-tracks.html
Built by enthusiasts for around £3,000,000.
Beautiful beast…
Graham
So much hilarity in one article. Maybe this article was intended to run 2 months ago today.
“Since trees (the fuel source) sequester carbon as they grow, the system is considered carbon neutral.” And what about the sequestration of carbon that occurred millions of years ago to make today’s coal? Does this mean that ordinary coal can now be declared carbon-neutral?
With all the enthusiasm surrounding this plan (and one has to admit that it’s a beautiful machine), they apparently (also) have not considered that this locomotive will have to sit for hours furiously burning its fancy charcoal to get the water up to a boil before it can move the first millimeter.
Maybe this is just an advanced steampunk project. But the original msnbc article was published under the banner “Future of Tech.” I’m sure the investors are lining up – but the 1/20/13 Obamabux deadline is looming.
OMG! Where to start?
First thing I did after getting up from rolling on the floor laughing, was check the calendar. Yup, it IS June 1st, not April 1st. However, as mentioned above, this could (has got to?) be a joke. Or is it? If not, for ALL the reasons point out above, it has to be about $$$! IF these people are serious. Delusional but they could still be serious, but I do not believe they are. At least not about actually doing what they say they want to do. I think the whole idea is a “straw man” idea. It’s a ploy, and looking at the above objections (all very valid) I would say it’s working. Steam vs electric, coal vs oil, biocoal vs wood, carbon neutral vs not-carbon neutral, cow catcher – no cow catcher, 126mph – 175mph, etc. All of it gets everyone to focus on superfluous issues, completely ignoring the REAL problem (which is their real purpose), that being IT’S FIXED RAIL! They want us to focus on WHAT runs on the rail, NOT the real negative AND most costly part of the whole “system” – the fixed rail that is so 17th century technology! Rail right-of-way, rail beds, (earthquake proof in CA), rail ties, rail fasteners, rails, rail switches, side rails, rail yards, rail and rail bed tenders, rail trestles and bridges, railway stations, rail crossings, rail signaling systems, (like the one the didn’t work in China and caused/allowed a train to run into the back of another killing a bunch of people), rails, rails, rails….
100+ BILLION dollars worth for the CA “high” speed fiasco/boondoggle. Trillions to put it across the country. Take half of that – – no, take a tenth of that and put it into the design of short range, VTOL aircraft of various sizes, use existing smaller airports in a hub and spoke design where they feed larger airports OR key surface transportation points, add in “personal” VTOL’s and/or computer controlled, electrified “rail” powered “vehicles” on separate, special lanes of existing roads/highways somewhere along the line and you/we will have solved the entire transportation problem well into the 23rd -24th century.
Let me get this straight. There are steam engines running on solid fuel, wood and coal. They could rebuild one of those, with modern insulation, automated fuel feeder, emission controls etc, that would increase efficiency and easily “prove” the efficacy of these newfangled manufactured anthracite disks.
So instead they start with a locomotive that uses a liquid fuel. And don’t use it to showcase liquid biofuels like biodiesel or straight vegetable oil (SVO) or otherwise something that doesn’t need much but being squeezed out from plant material. Heck, imagine if they would burn a powdered corn slurry, take stalks and all and mash it all up, do the same with wheat stalks and other farm waste. That would be a great demonstration of renewable fuels.
But it made more sense to take a giant diesel burner and completely remake it to use fake coal?
I had a connection 20 plus years ago to 6201 Princess Elizabeth built in 1933 and still kept in running order by her preservation society members. I talked with one of their honorary engineers after a main line run and he described the operation of a steam locomotive as requiring two types of approach to maintenance – sledgehammer and micrometer. They had forgotten to fill up some of the dashpots that lubricate the bearings at one of their stops and had flat spots as a result. Unless these guys in Kansas have some steely eyed steam guys on their team they are in for a rude awakening when they try to run the loco. As others have said the diesel/electrics took over for the reason of cost, an old style steam loco needs a lot of maintenance which vastly reduces the time it is available to be in service.
http://www.6201.co.uk/links/
A simpler and more “carbon neutral” idea:
1. Bury the wood in a strip mine reclamation project.
2. Run the train on diesel.
Even better:
Skip number 1.
Just had to comment on this;
=========================================
“Unless they’ve come up with some way of converting steam to motion other than a reciprocating steam piston, they won’t be seeing 130 mph until sometime after we’ve perfected fusion.”
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/turbine/
The steam turbine doesn’t require pistons. It may have had problems but that was many moons ago, perhaps a modern design would work well.
=========================================
One of the “big problems” the steam turbine locomotive had was. . . . . .most every trip it broke down on the mainline. There were also some investigation into using a steam turbine to drive a generator much like a diesel electric locomotive, and that didn’t work well either.
Steam turbines have a very narrow efficiency range. If it’s not operating at 95% + power — it’s not very efficient. That’s true for gas turbines (jet engines) too. Piston internal combustion engines have a much wider efficiency range.
The only reasonable way to have a coal fired (or “biocoal fired”) locomotive is to have a stationery coal power plant that powers an electric railway.
Coal, like all fossil fuels is biological.* Isn’t all coal “biocoal?”
* Anybody want to get into an aboitic oil debate?
Look, the reason for all of this, is to not use Middle East Oil !! But, the Gov. can’t say it out right, so they make all fossil fuels evil. Any non-fossil fuel is good. Don’t want to upset our Middle East friends. So, a tree based fuel source is good. A liquid natural gas locomotive is bad [they would just need a gas storage tender car].
Nuclear Power is now good ?!? Didn’t the “Terminators” have one? Short of a “Zero Point” energy source, without fossil what is left?? But isn’t nuclear a really, really, old “fossil fuel”. That’s right, we can make more — Plutonium. Either we have 5000 breeder reactors [need to replace fossil fuels today], or we all become wood burning farmers.
Help! The dimwits and the clueless are trying to take over the world!
Covering the wheels can be justified for a specialized loco, but it’s harder for the maintenance workers to get at on ordinary locos. Hence probably longer time needed for maintenance and higher costs. But they looked neater. British locos were that way for looks, but US & Canadian locos were more oriented to the bottom line–and more considerate to their workers.
(I’ve read that US locos had twice the cab depth of British locos, which shielded the workers there better from the cold and wind, even though it would have been cheaper to follow the British design.)
China uses steam locos almost 100%, I guess because they’ve got the coal domestically, but not the oil. and their labor costs are low.
So, a locomotive fuelled with charcoal briquettes is going to be more efficient than one fuelled with coal or oil or a modern diesel loco? The perpetrators should study the history of the Mallet-type locomotives that once were used to haul coal from mine to power plant. Mallets were huge, magnificent, machines with two sets of cylinders, driver wheels, etc. However, even though they were being operated by (or for) coal mines, it was found that diesels were more powerful and more economical.
One argument against the traditional steam loco was that the steam was exhausted to the air, greatly reducing their efficiency. I understand that an condenser, which would immediately raise efficiency, would be impossibly large.
I was young at the end of the steam age. Steam locos used to run close to where we lived, and we were well familiar with the soot that they threw out and how one could not hang one’s washing out when a loco was going to pass by.
I made several trips from Saint John (NB) to Montreal by train powered by one kind of steam loco, and from Montreal to Toronto and other parts of Ontario by even bigger steam locos, so I knew their characteristic sound very well. About 10 years ago I had the opportunity to ride a tourist train in a cut-open boxcar right behind the loco. I still get choked up at the memory of the the chuff-chuff sound of the steam exiting the cylinders.
IanM
Biddyb says:
June 1, 2012 at 1:00 am
I still sing the Casey Jones song. It was one of my favourite tv programmes when I was a child. I’m English.
Heh, me too.
” It’s Casey at the handle of the Cannonball Express”
Anthony, stop expecting commie luddites to be scientifically literate. They aren’t used to the truth and couldn’t handle it anyway, which is why they avoid it at all costs.
” All the greens seem fascinated with high speed rail due to Euro-envy…”
Oh, I think their fascination lies with one particular use of trains.
This goofy notion will never work. What will work is developing the ability to open an interdimensional window, and that will allow all the people from our universe who like this idea to step through to the universe where the laws of physics allow goofy ideas like this to work. 😉 And NO takebacks!
Just goes to show: Some folks will believe anything.
Blow the whistle, Rajendra!
I remember getting into an internet discussion about freight trains and electric motors. He maintained that cars with gas powered generators powering electric motors was far more efficient and this was the reason freight trains use diesel-electric locomotion. This is idiocy. Diesel electrics are used in freight trains primarily for control. They can simply cut the juice to the motors that drive the wheels to slow down thereby making braking much simpler. They can also start, stop and get up to speed faster.
I suppose you could use steam powered turbines to generate electricity. For the life of me I can’t help but envision the resurgence of hundreds of “Pettycoat Junctions”. Converting wood to fuel (other than for residential fireplaces) is as stupid an ide as converting food into ethanol. Hey…there’s an idea. Why not create a new model freight train locomotive that runs on pure ethanol?
A lot of misconceptions in these remarks:
“The main reason diesel engines replaced steam ones is maintenance…”
No, the main reason diesel electric locomotives began replacing steam was a significantly reduced fuel bill. Loss of component manufacturers became decisive once DE traction attained sufficient market share.
“…A steam boiler has to be torn down and rebuilt about every five years. That’s an issue that no amount of bizarre fuel is going to make go away.”
Interesting claim, even if true, a five yearly rebuild does become unneccessary with correct boiler feedwater treatment.
“…Availability is a fraction of that of diesel electric, and cost of operations is multiples of that of diesel electric traction…”
No. An NYC study published in 1948 demonstrated the total annual operating cost per mile of $1.48 for 6000hp diesel electric locmotives, $1.22 for steam and estimated $1.15 for 5000hp electric traction, not including maintenance of substations or overhead catenary. (P.W.Kiefer: ‘An Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power’, via A.Chapelon: ‘La Locomotive a Vapeur 1952).
N&W using modern steam from modern depots and servicing facilities achieved steam utilisation rates rivaling dieselised railroads – I do not have the figures or references immediately to hand.
“…Thermal efficiency of steam locomotives is a ratio close to zero, and very far from unity…”
No. first generation steam can be expected to yield approximately 5-7% thermal efficiency. Chapelon’s 240P and 242A1 locomotives yielded approximately 9% thermal efficiency and L.D.Porta’s rebuilt ‘Argentina’ returned an 11% thermal efficency at sub-optimal operating output, 13% being expected at optimum speed and power.
For comparison a modern diesel electric yeilds approximately 30% thermal efficiency with microprocessor control of the engine and traction motors.
Consider concurrently that at current prices, diesel contains 32,500BTU/$ and coal approximately 450,000BTU/$, in other words more than 13 times more ‘bang’ for your buck.
“…Diesel Electrics are much more efficient (30+% vs. 10% even for superheated steam locos)…”
Fair enough and addressed above but efficiency alone isn’t the whole point, the cost of operation is also partially addressed above and via the link below (a cost comparison at today’s diesel and coal costs would be interesting)
“…much, much more reliable…”
Are you comparing old locomotives nearing the end of their economic lives with factory fresh diesel electrics?
“…much less polluting…”
No, contemplate the NOx emissions measured by new built SLM mountain rack locomotives with comparable diesel emissions on the Brienz Rothorn Bahn and Schafberg Railways. (http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/dlm/sir_seymour_flyer.pdf)
“…much more versatile (think using multiple diesel locomotives hooked to each other with only one engineer)…”
why? there is no technical reason modern steam can not also be operated in multiple even if it were required (how often are lash ups of SD-40s seriously reconfigured? modern steam designed to haul intermodal freights long enough to fill the passing loops of a main line need not be broken up to haul pick up freights on branch lines since that traffic is more or less a thing of the past)
“…much easier on the track…”
No need to tolerate dynamic augment if the reciprocating masses are not balanced by the wheel mounted counter weights.
“…and much, much more comfortable as far as the crew is concerned…”
So is air travel at 30,000′ if the crew are given an open cockpit in 1930s air racer style.
There’s plenty of merit in revisiting steam locomotive design given the unexplored potential of the basic Stephensonian configuration; but agreed starting with an overweight 4-6-4 while expedient is far from ideal. It is probably easier to obtain funding for and easier to obtain track access rights (since even rebuilt the machine is an ‘existing’ design)
The argument that this project contemplates desecrating a unique, irreplacable locomotive is rather feeble given 3463 had been left to rot in a park – why wasn’t this precious artefact preserved properly then?
The torrefied fuel is somewhat more questionable, but if it is the excuse to return another derelict steam locomotive to steam using money that would otherwise be wasted on wind turbines, then I don’t object at all.
I’m surprised that nobody stated the obvious:
Pachauri “…began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974…”
THERE’S the reason they want to go to trains – Dr. Pachauri wants to play with choo-choos again…