Steam & Excursion > Return of Steam?

I think this was discussed recently, but I didn't get to read all of the posts before it scrolled off the front page (I'm a heritage member). I posted an entry on my blog speculating about the possibilities as gas prices continue to rise without an end in site:

When gas prices were steeply rising in the early 1980s, businessman and steam proponent Ross Rowland started American Coal Enterprises (ACE). In 1985, his 1948 4-8-4 steam locomotive #614 was used on Chessie System coal trains in West Virginia for testing and collecting data. With the help of engineers, ACE developed plans for a next generation steam locomotive. However, as gas prices fell back below $1 per gallon, the funding never came through to build a prototype.

Flash forward to today… gas prices are rising to record levels. Can we expect a return of the steam engine?

Unfortunately for steam fans, a return of steam does not appear likely. Diesel Electric locomotives, built by General Motors’ Electro-Motive Division (EMD) and General Electric (GE), are becoming increasingly powerful and efficient. Diesels have some advantages over traditional steam engines in that they:

1. require a smaller crew to operate,
2. are easier and cheaper to maintain, and
3. they can be easily turned on and off.

However, modern steam locomotives have not been manufactured in the U.S. since the 1950s. Is it fair to compare a circa 1950 steamer with a 2008 diesel electric? What would happen if today’s engineering improvements are applied to steam locomotives? What if gas prices continue to rise? How far do gas prices need to get before we take a serious look at steam again?

S.P. Gass
http://lowtechtimes.com

Isn't it about time that America builds the ACE 3000! Ross, I'm with you. Please speak up. If we can't rebuild a 1918 K-4s in 13 years with $2M, why can't we build an ACE 300 from scratch?! Keystone1

4) There is no infastructure to take care of steam
5) There are no men to take care of steam
6) Coal is expensive too

The next logical step in the evolution in locomotives is to electricty. Fire up a few new nuclear power plants and we have a cheap and clean source of fuel. And its quiet!

Stringing and maintaining all that wire for thousands of miles is not cheap. Maybe the industry could pull a page from Lionel's book and lay 3-rail track. Imagine the size of the pick-up rollers.

tucker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4) There is no infastructure to take care of
> steam
New steam locomotives would obviously require some new infrastructure, but that doesn't necessarily mean coaling towers and watering stations every 100 miles. ACE already had a pretty good plan for handling those issues (coal packs and condensing operation).

> 5) There are no men to take care of steam
Men can be trained.

> 6) Coal is expensive too
Coal has consistently remained 1/4 the cost of oil per BTU or less since the 1950's. That means a steam locomotive could be 1/2 as efficient as a diesel and still have 1/2 the fuel cost of diesels. No doubt new steamers would be more expensive than diesels, and there would be the cost of training shop workers and providing some new facilities, but there's obviously a lot of room for cost trade-offs to achieve the desired results.
>
> The next logical step in the evolution in
> locomotives is to electricty. Fire up a few new
> nuclear power plants and we have a cheap and clean
> source of fuel. And its quiet!
Electrification is extremely expensive (~$1M/mile in the early 1980's; much more now). This is the whole reason the Burlington Northern and the C&O seriously considered ACE in the 1980's. Yea, electrification has a lot of advantages, including the ability to use any fuel you can imagine including nuclear. OTOH I don't see anyone lining up to build new nuc plants yet, although the day may not be far off.

Hugh Odom
The Ultimate Steam Page
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp

I have read through some of the ACE 3000 test findings and it does not seem that steam would be a bad choice. However, the major issue with steam is not the fuel costs, even though steam locomotives are generally below 6% thermal efficiency, one superpower steam locomotive can produce the tractive effort and capacity of a multiple unit lash up of diesels.

The single biggest issue surrounding steam locomotives is the cost per mile in maintenance. A diesel a "start and go" machine. It does not require anybody to watch it while it idles, nor does it need to be greased and oiled regularly like a steam locomotive. Unfortunately, steam locomotive have to be taken out of service for maintenance far more often than the growlers, and that maintenance time is a loss on the books because a locomotive only makes money when it's moving.

I agree that the railroads should look at steam engines again for motivepower, but first you have to slay the cost dragons. Personally, with all the modern steam locomotives (pretty much anything from the late 1920's or later) around the country, I think that some real world testing would be appropriate using currently operational locomotives.

There are all sorts of possibilities. The ACE design went the route of a very modern reciprocating steam engine presumably to save the price of an electric transmission. Yet that transmission is a large part of what helped diesels kill off steam. It allows full horsepower to be applied at any speed. That might need to be reconsidered in view of AC traction's ability to reduce maintenance costs. Plus the hybrid potentials.

An electric transmission doesn't necessarily imply a turbine either as those aren't so good at partial loads. There are many potential designs for various types of positive displacement engines that are not turbines and are not pistons & cylinders either. Just think of all the types of air and refrigeration compressors that exist. Imagine something with lobes ala a Roots blower. Then again a turbine could be combined with batteries in hybrid design where the turbine can always run very efficiently.

Finally, if we are talking about a closed loop system with a condenser (which any sensible scheme would have) then the working fluid need not be water either. In the end water might be the best choice but one would have to consider other materials as well, choosing one that works best in the temperatures and pressures contemplated.

Ross, where are you? Keystone1

The ACE was drawn up in the late 70's and at that time 3000HP was the standard.Although it could
have been MU'd it would certainly have to re-engineered to reflect 21st Century HP, & TE realities.
I think they had the environmental aspects covered. As well it didn't require the level of attention older steam didn't and was likely close or even to diesels in that repect. It really was
a machine designed from the ground up with only passing reference to older steam.
I think the whole thing has to be re-thought again. Is 150000+TE really required per unit when you
have multiple unit lashups? I think there will be a renewed interest in 6000HP units as a way of addressing fuel costs. As far as steam is concerned, maybe the Y6 or Yellowstones should be re-visited and updated . And for passenger the 4-6-4 or moderate size 4-8-4 . I'm not kidding.
All the issues presented against this can be addressed.
Ron

Some other problems that would come with electrification would be you would have to completely rebuild all the signal systems, you would also have to dig up all the nearby pipelines to protect them from cathodic corrosion, and gosh knows what it would do to all the fiber-optic lines that have been laid trackside in recent years.
Unfortunately, more is involved than just stringing wire, buying some juice-jacks, and firing up a nuke or two.

Brian B.

ssafy, I hope you are right. Obviously, we are all steam power fans on this site, but is anyone aware of a group with engineering expertise and resources looking into this?

I read somewhere than GE is working on hybrid Evolution diesel-electrics. If diesels keep getting more fuel efficient, a return to steam seems less likely... unless there is a *major* impact to oil prices/supplies. I would think the railroads would want to have some contingency plans in case such a serious supply problem arises.

Isn't one of the biggest problems with steam engines the damage and wear they cause to the track structure? All of that pounding and waddling is hard on the track, at least from what I have read.

Ted

ACR_Ted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't one of the biggest problems with steam
> engines the damage and wear they cause to the
> track structure? All of that pounding and waddling
> is hard on the track, at least from what I have
> read.
>
> Ted

Conventional two-cylinder steam locomotives do tend to be hard on the track. ACE addressed this by adopting Bill Withuhn's perfectly balanced opposed 4-cylinder drive.

Hugh

What record price does crude oil have to reach before the Class I's start raiding museums coast-to-coast looking for "cheaper" power ... lol

* JB *

I think with ACE technology and MU capability a 2-8-8-4 or Y6 without the gasification feature and
maybe even foregoing the 4 cyl opposed piston concept, top keep matters simple, would be the way to go. A 4-6-4 would be adequate for passenger train consists in this day and age .

ssafy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think with ACE technology and MU capability a
> 2-8-8-4 or Y6 without the gasification feature
> and
> maybe even foregoing the 4 cyl opposed piston
> concept, top keep matters simple, would be the way
> to go. A 4-6-4 would be adequate for passenger
> train consists in this day and age .

Even if the economics and thermal efficiencies were favorable (which they aren't) could you imagine what the global warmists and environmentalists would have to say about the return of steam? They don't want us to drill at ANWAR or off the coast, or even build more coal powered generating plants, so they sure wouldn't go along with new steam locomotives. Then again if we drilled and built new coal powered plants, there would be no need for new steam locomotives.

Why drop the gasification feature? As for varnish service, there really aren't enuf pass. trains left to warrant taking "new steam" in that direction, are there? Anyway, I can't imagine a 4-6-4 taking 5 and 6 over Donner. 48 and 49, maybe, but not the Western Superliners. As for freight, it would seem that the big carriers ought to at least look into what technology is out there for steam today. If Ross was correct about the ACE engine delivering 18% thermal efficiency, then it ought to be poss to achieve that level or better today. During the 614T tests, it was stated that the old Lima with about 6% t.e. was actually pulling the coal trains for less in fuel costs than the diesels were. With oil having risen so high in price now, surely the coal/steam possibility is worth a fresh look. Who would design and build the prototype? I don't know. But, surely such ability still exists. Where there's a will, there's a way. And the big roads have enuf cash to at least partly fund some research. Some vision on the order of that which produced EMD 103 ought to be able to get this rolling.

What struck me was it's low HP. I realize they had proposed a larger version for BN and as another
poster stated on this thread CSX. The reason I reverted to "older" steam was the higher power already exists and with current technology , environmental and thermal efficiency could be improved. A ltd market for new steam? Well don't say that to Boise. "Heavy Superliner" consists?
My understanding is one has a gross weight about the same as a 10-6 Pullman. A 10 car train isn\t a big deal. So go for a 4-8-4. I suppose Ross could design an ACE to suit whatever was requested.
I went for "older" steam for another reason.simplicity.
Electrification..where's the $ to come from..investors would run to the hills. It would have to be
gov't funded and handed to the RR's as a gift a'la airports.
Steam isn't dead as this thread shows!

tucker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fire up a few new
> nuclear power plants and we have a cheap and clean
> source of fuel. And its quiet!

Figure out a way to neutralize the "spent" fuel and I'm with you.

SJH wrote: >>Figure out a way to neutralize the "spent" fuel and I'm with you.

How about using an automatic bore to load the ashes into a tank car... then the coal ash could be recycled for construction materials?