Steam & Excursion > Using steam today to keep lines open during floods

I see some areas may get a lot of rain in Texas and Louisiana in the coming days. In the past, 1993 I think, large scale flooding of the Mississippi River resulted in many detours around flooded areas. Also, snowmelt has caused flooding in the spring at times. Would it improve a companies bottom line by using available steam locomotives to keep lines open? Is the risk worth taking? Would it save enough time and money to justify leasing a couple locomotives (611 and 765 perhaps) to keep the trains moving?

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

I'm going to assume you mean so that the traction motors don't short out. Another consideration though is if the area is flooded than who knows what the infrastructure looks like. You could have a bridge that's washed out and never know. I'm sure safer to wait until the water has receded and an inspection has been done.

Maybe it's just me but, I sure wouldn't want ANY steam locomotive that I was involved with to be used in any flood waters.

I agree the steam thats left is way to valuable to run through floods.

Thanks. I recall the CB&Q using their own power long ago for this purpose. They had flooding in the midwest in the late 1950s or early 1960s. Does anyone else recall this? I suppose the only times this would work safely would be very limited. So it's probably not worth the cost or risk.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it's just me but, I sure wouldn't want ANY
> steam locomotive that I was involved with to be
> used in any flood waters.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

Plus you'd need a fleet of them and facilities to service them.  If this was really an issue it would probably make more sense to create some special diesels that could manage it with sealed traction motors (duct the exhausts as well as the inlets, tighter shaft seals on motors as well as axle bearings, special lubricants, use your imagination).  But really not worth the trouble, especially given the track condition risks.

It would not be financially worthwhile to keep steam engines available.   Suppose a road bought some Chinese QJs or attempted to restore some older steam power.   The millions spent in maintaining them and for only a "what if" and a risky what if at that, is just not worth it.   Don't spend my stock investment dollars on it.

Yes, the traction motors. All the right of way would have to be checked of course. So it would probably be during a slow flood event. Not an event with severe flooding in a very short time. Certainly not if any bridges are unsafe.


Emmo213 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm going to assume you mean so that the traction
> motors don't short out. Another consideration
> though is if the area is flooded than who knows
> what the infrastructure looks like. You could have
> a bridge that's washed out and never know. I'm
> sure safer to wait until the water has receded and
> an inspection has been done.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

Thanks for replying. I couldn't see that happening. There are enough big locomotives available. I'm not suggesting resoting any power for this.

I was wondering (again) if keeping a mainline open would result in savings versus long detours. In 1993 I recall SP and perhaps ATSF detours here in Minneapolis due to Mississippi River flooding. In the Spring of 1997, the CP and BNSF detoured around flooded areas here in the Twin Cities. I'm sure those costs added up fast.

If there is one low lying area, perhaps 5 miles long, it could work. Probably only in rare situations though.

Tominde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would not be financially worthwhile to keep
> steam engines available.   Suppose a road bought
> some Chinese QJs or attempted to restore some
> older steam power.   The millions spent in
> maintaining them and for only a "what if" and a
> risky what if at that, is just not worth it.  
> Don't spend my stock investment dollars on it.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/15 12:15 by alco636.

I wasn't thinking of a fleet of them. Oh heck no! One or two, keeping high priority trains moving through an area with flooded tracks. From a high snow melt, or long term rainfall.

Good ideas about diesel power. Never thought of that!

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plus you'd need a fleet of them and facilities to
> service them.  If this was really an issue it
> would probably make more sense to create some
> special diesels that could manage it with sealed
> traction motors (duct the exhausts as well as the
> inlets, tighter shaft seals on motors as well as
> axle bearings, special lubricants, use your
> imagination).  But really not worth the trouble,
> especially given the track condition risks.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

http://archives.luketan.com/sc/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/train-portland-flood.jpg

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

You also have to take into account that roller bearings and flood waters don't play nice together.  In our area, flooding after a hurricane caused an entire railyard of cars to require having every axle replaced.  Once water gets up to the axle level, there is no benefit of trying to go through the water, instead of around.

Good information, I wasn't aware of this happening. It looks very unlikely then. I'm glad I asked. Thanks everyone for your replies.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also have to take into account that roller
> bearings and flood waters don't play nice
> together.  In our area, flooding after a
> hurricane caused an entire railyard of cars to
> require having every axle replaced.  Once water
> gets up to the axle level, there is no benefit of
> trying to go through the water, instead of around.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

Yes,  I remember the CB&Q using, I think #4960 to pull trains along the flooding Mississippi in the 1960s.  Kind of saved their butt for a while, till the water went down.   The water wasn't real deep, but too deep for the diesels.   It probably wasn't deep enough to get in the journal boxes, but I saw a picture of the engine  making a wake.   It might have been on a cover of Trains magazine.

   Another thought on diesels, would be diesel hydraulics like the ones built by Alco, and Kraus Mafei.  They didn't have electric traction motors but hydraulic ones.  They were basically hydrostatic drive like our fancier lawn mowers.   They didn't like heat or dirt, but they don't mind cool water.  But who cares, this is a steam forum anyhow,  right?   

Craig Hanson
Vay, Idaho

The answer to this question is no. B

There was the 1990s incident where UP pulled 3985 from an excursion train to get a time-critical load of space shuttle parts delivered through the flooding. Sounds like sci-if, but it happened. It was the year the UP convention was in Chicago and the trip back to Cheyenne was diesel-hauled while the Challenger picked up the NASA loads.

Rebecca Morgan
Jacobsburg, OH

The problem is when you've got muddy flood waters over the rail, it's really hard to inspect the track structure to make sure nothing underneath is compromised.  It's easier to just go around or wait a few days for water to subside than take the risk of piling one up in the middle of a flood.  Then you've just got a big ol' mess.

Yes, today's answer is detours until things open up again. If you do a search, there have been several photos of steam locos negotiating flood waters on the Nostalgia Board.

The T&P bought a 2-8-2 from the FW&D for use in a flood prone area and used it for a while.  I forget what they numbered it, 400 I think.   I also think it's displayed at Marshall TX.   Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Don, I think a photo of it negoatiating flood water was posted here not long ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/15 19:11 by wabash2800.