Steam & Excursion > New Steam

Does anyone out ther know the reasons that the plans for the Modern ACE 3000 steam loco were shelved? This would have been one cool loco, it had diesel looks for modern modelers like me, as well as cylinders and piston rods and a tender with a cab and pilot like the loco itself. But its not its looks that make it appealing, but its use of coal as fuel, which we have in abundance, and its ability to be serviced at diesel shops. With the problems of oil availability, why not bring this project back? I'd love it, and it would be good for the rails and the country.

Oil got plentiful and cheap. A reciprocating steam engine was still an expense and maintenance intensive proposition.

Gonut

Please note the lack of interest in pushing anything that might ease our dependance on imported oil.


ge13031: there's no tomorrow

This is a shame. These countries are not friends and allies, they have the same relationship with the USA that the drug pusher has with the user.

FECSD40-2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone out ther know the reasons that the
> plans for the Modern ACE 3000 steam loco were
> shelved?

There are a number of reasons, mostly economic. In particular, a steam engine powered by reciprocating pistons is only about 9 percent efficient, compared to diesel-electric locomotives at about 40% efficient. Even though the cost of coal, per unit of energy, is less than oil, it isn't enough to offset the huge thermal efficiency loss.

Another factor is the fact that recip engines will not hold the rail as well as those powered using electric traction, so you would need more steam locomotives to do the same work as diesel-electrics. That adds to the cost.

Other factors include the reality that new fuel handling facilities would have to be provided, the problem of the disposal of fly ash would cost additional money, and maintenance is probably higher with steam.

Also keep in mind that if the price of oil really goes up in comparison to coal, you just make liquid fuel out of the coal and keep running with the existing fleet of diesel locomotives. The Germans and South Africans did exactly that when they couldn't buy oil.

What can't be ignored is the fact that single large steam locos would pull long freight and passenger trains by themselves back then that even today's diesels can't match. Single 2-6-6-6's and 2-8-8-2's have pulled coal trains of more than 200 cars by themselves, and single 4-8-4's pulled long passenger trains of more than 20 cars without help and maintained speed. This can't be ignored.

the thermal efficiencies on the AC3000 would have been far higher than conventional steam, re: higher boiler pressure,
re-circulated water , compounding, multiple cylinders.
One of the things that electric traction motors had over
2 cylinder steam was constant torque and utlilization of close to full horspower at starting. HP is a function of RPM to a degree so steam depending on driver size in part didn't reach
full HP until higher speed ranges. Thus the comment, that
steam could pull a train it couldn't start and a diesel
took far more HP to pull a train at road speed than HP it to took to start.
I believe the AC3000 had MU capabilities, also it had onboard
gasification abilities which certainly increased thermal
efficiencies and multiple cylinders gave it close to constant
torque, which allowed to come to full HP at far lower speed
ranges which is where it's really needed in freight useage.

It's true, as one of the posters stated, that modern steam
really turned impressive performanes on tonnage ( 16000 ton
trains on N&W & C&O, and 4-8-4's on many roads usually were
considered the equivalent of 3 E units. And even where steam
was the most vulnerable at the beginning of dieselization,
0-8-0's continued to be built right to the end.

Up to the 50's most RR's didn't have the plant or management
skills to do what N&W did especially. I suppose if the jumbo
100 ton hopper would have happened in the 20's , large steam
would have been quite universal, much the same way as 6 axle
high HP diesels were as part of a result of the 100 ton cars
(& unit reduction). It was said of N&W they dieselized with
diesels by getting actually higher utilization out of them.
During the 50's N&W posted 70 %operating ratios which were the
lowest in the industry well after the rest had dieselised.

Ron

IMHO:
1. It was brought out in the book on the Lakeside and Marblehead how TWO diesel switchers handled the duties of SIX steam switchers ...this was a up and down operation so comparing the steamup time to pressing the on switch gave diesels a big advantage.
2. In the rose colored romance of looking back everyone wants to forget how touchy, unforgiving, demanding, hot and dirty, limited in range of operations steam locomotives were. Add to this the tremendous machinery and labor intensive infrastructure necessary to keep them running. Add to this the cost of maintaining the roadbed that these beasts beat the daylights out of.
3. One of the big selling points of the diesel locomotive was the fact that you replaced four or five different styles of steamer customized for specific duties with one unit that you plugged in multiples of to achieve the desired horsepower need for a specific duty.
4. As they came from the factory steamers were somewhat similar and as they went thru their various maintenance cycles they became more and more unique and handcrafted. Good steamers and poor steamers, most engineers and firemen knew them. Diesels manage to retain their "mass production" characteristics thruout their life making repairs and interchangablity of parts much easier.
5. I still miss the steam locomotive!

FECSD40-2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What can't be ignored is the fact that single
> large steam locos would pull long freight and
> passenger trains by themselves back then that even
> today's diesels can't match.

Actually, they pretty well can.

> Single 2-6-6-6's and 2-8-8-2's have pulled coal trains of more than 200
> cars by themselves, and single 4-8-4's pulled long
> passenger trains of more than 20 cars without help
> and maintained speed. This can't be ignored.

The important attributes are horsepower and tractive effort. Horsepower gives speed, and TE gives starting ability and tonnage rating. Here is a comparison of some common types:

Type.. DBHP. TE (lb.)
====== ===== ========
Y6b... 5,600 150,000 (without booster)
4-8-4. 5,500 .80,000

AC6000 5,400 135,000
AC4400 3,960 135,000
Dash-9 3,960 110,000

The AC6000 has a drawbar horsepower that is very similar to the largest steam locomotives. This means that locomotive can pull trains just as fast as the biggest steam. The ACE3000 was only supposed to be the equivalent of an SD/GP-40, so it really wasn't on a par with the superpower of the past, or a diesel-electric of today.

Looking at tractive effort, an AC6000 or AC4400 is somewhat less than the "rated" tractive effort of the big articulateds, but the assumed 25% adhesion of a steam locomotive is perhaps a bit high for day-to-day use. I submit that they are fairly similar. That means the same 200 car trains that you saw pulled by the big articulateds could be pulled by either type of AC traction locomotive. The ACE3000, in comparison, evolved into a design with tractive effort similar to that of a pair of GP-40s, which is only about 100,000 lb., so substantially less than the biggest steam locomotives.

Further, the biggest steam locomotives weren't typical of the overall fleet, which was made up of locomotives like Mikados, Pacifics and Ten-Wheelers. Today's diesel-electrics are a pretty good match for that type of locomotive. An AC6000 is pretty well a match for any steam locomotive.

ssafy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the thermal efficiencies on the AC3000 would have
> been far higher than conventional steam ...

Actually, it wasn't that much higher, which was probably the biggest failing of the ACE3000. The reason was that they chose to retain reciprocating pistons, which are notoriously inefficient, and even with upgrades like poppett valves, they couldn't come anywhere near the efficiency of a diesel-electric.

When railroads worked through the life-cycle cost of the ACE3000 compared to something like an SD-50 or SD-60, the extra fuel cost of the steam locomotive overwhelmed any of the other savings they might have been able to find.

> HP is a function of RPM to a degree so
> steam depending on driver size in part didn't
> reach full HP until higher speed ranges.

Yes and no. If you draw out graphs of drawbar horsepower for both diesel-electric locomotives and steam locomotives, you will get fairly similar shapes. The curves for medium-sized steam locomotive, like a Pacific, is remarkably similar to that of a locomotive like a GP-40.

> steam could pull a train it couldn't start and a
> diesel took far more HP to pull a train at road speed
> than HP it to took to start.

That comment came about when diesel-electric locomotives had only about 1,500 horsepower, compared to Superpower with perhaps 5,500 horsepower. Horsepower is horsepower, whether it comes from a steam or diesel power source, and the low horsepower of the original diesels limited what they could do alone. You had to MU a number of them to get the equivalent of a steam locomotive.

Interestingly, one of the first applications to be dieselized was passenger service, which is a horsepower-intensive application, one where steam should have been dominant. However, the railroads' customers saw diesel-electrics as "modern" and railroads like the Rock Island advertised that they were the "Route of the all-diesel Rockets" as early as 1939. That's hardly more than a decade after the introduction of diesel-electric locomotives, and shows to rush to switch from steam.

Further, the electrical systems on the diesel-electrics at the time were nowhere near as robust as they are today. The diesel's short time electrical rating would limit the size of train that could be hauled up a grade. That electrical limitation is pretty well gone with today's diesel-electrics. The result is that the old saw is no longer applicable.

I should have indicated my comments were compareing 1st generation diesels as most readers wouldn't relate.
Ron

<<Horsepower is horsepower, whether it comes from a steam or diesel power source, and the low horsepower of the original diesels limited what they could do alone. You had to MU a number of them to get the equivalent of a steam locomotive.>>

And that's the key. Diesels can MU, so even if you need six of them to move a train, you still need only one crew. The main aim of "super power" was to avoid doubleheading (which of course required two crews).

Also, as noted earlier, tractive effort starts trains. Horsepower makes them go fast. It is said, "Diesels can start any train they can move, steam engines can move any train they can start". The TE curve for a diesel starts out at maximum and drops off, i.e. max tractive at 0 MPH. A steam engine TE curve looks like the hump of a camel; you have to get up to 15 or 20 MPH (or higher, depending on design) to reach max tractive effort. This is why yard engines were often used to assist heavy trains out of the yard. Once on the main, they had to stay up in that max tractive effort speed range, which is why railroads spent so much money on "low grade" freight lines that were redundant once diesels entered service.

Finally, the thermal efficiency is a big issue. Railfan & Railroad a few years ago printed an article on comparative tests of an USRA light Mikado and a GP9 on a Katy branch line. Most notable was that the diesel used one third the fuel of the (oil fired) steamer to do the same work!

As for "pushers" and "users", proven oil reserves today are double what they were 20 years ago, and fully 25% of our oil now comes from West Africa, not the Middle East (and another 50% is domestically produced), and much of the rest comes from Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil.

You forgot Canada, which I believe is the 2nd largest
exporter of crude to your fair country. The oil sands
in Northern Alberta have more recoverable reserves than
Saudi Arabia.
Ron

ssafy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot Canada, which I believe is the 2nd largest exporter
> of crude to your fair country.

It moved up to number one in October:

http://tinyurl.com/7ldt

Recognize that Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Canada each supply the US with about the same about of crude oil, and they regularly change ranking with each other.

The Canadian and Mexican numbers might also be deceiving, since the US exports petroleum products to those two countries. For example, since most of Canada's oil supply is in the west, much of the US imports come from there. In the east, the US supplies refined oil products to Canada, since there are closer sources of supply.

> The oil sands in Northern Alberta have more recoverable
> reserves than Saudi Arabia.

That's a big area of debate, since the cost of recovery is high. It costs something like $2.50 to extract a barrel of oil from the ground in Iran, and somewhat more in Saudi Arabia. Transportation cost has to be added to those numbers to get the oil to North America.

In contrast, a barrel of oil from the Alberta oil shales costs about $12 per barrel to extract and process. Further, the easiest to get at shales are being exploited, and as production continues, the cost will only go up, as it becomes more difficult to mine.

As the market price the sellers can get goes up, it makes it more attractive to find and produce what had been uneconomic reserves. Thus, the amount of what are called conventional reserves in the Mid-East will rise, since they would then be considered available for economic extraction.

Keep in mind that coal liquifaction, which is an alternative source of liquid fuel, costs something like $20 per barrel at the low end, so that fuel will become competitive if oil shale costs, or the price of oil from the Mid-East go up by very much.

I've read that the Virginian 2-10-10-2's had a TE of 170,000 lb's and pulled 17,000 ton coal trains by themselves. A steam locos tractive effort is constant while a diesel's TE falls as the MPH rises. The ACE3000 would have had MU capability, not only to MU with other ACE3000's, but also with diesels. I suspect that the ACE3000 would have been a prototype and that there would have been ACE5000 or greater locos. These locos would have been designed to be serviced in diesel shops and would have had a cab exactly like the most modern diesel, and would have been one sweet looking loco. Oil prices will only continue to rise..........

FECSD40-2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read that the Virginian 2-10-10-2's had a TE
> of 170,000 lb's and pulled 17,000 ton coal trains
> by themselves.

Yes, five and six-coupled steam had that kind of tractive effort, but it would only pull that kind of train on very flat ground. A pair of AC locomotives would easily out-pull that steam locomotive, and do it for 1000 miles on a tank of fuel, while the steam would need fuel and water in as little as 50 miles with that kind of train.

> A steam locos tractive effort is constant while a
> diesel's TE falls as the MPH rises.

Not exactly true. They both are more or less constant at their adhesion limit, and they both fall when they reach their horsepower limit.

In the case of a diesel-electric, horsepower is limited by the capacity of the diesel engine. In the case of steam, horsepower is limited mostly by the grate area and the evaporative surface area. There is a limit to the amount of steam that can be produced, which is essentially the horsepower limit.

Early diesel locomotives, they had only 1,500 hp or so, and with the adhesion capabilities they had then, they would reach their horsepower limit at about 6 mph, when the tractive effort will start to drop off. In comparison, a Superpower locomotive might have had 5,500 hp, which meant that they were adhesion limited up to about 25 mph, when the tractive effort would start to drop off like a diesel-electric.

> The ACE3000 would have had MU capability,
> not only to MU with other ACE3000's, but also with
> diesels. I suspect that the ACE3000 would have
> been a prototype and that there would have been
> ACE5000 or greater locos.

Yes, they would likely have evolved into locomotives with more horsepower, but look at the size of boiler you would have needed to accomplish it. (Boiler size is horsepower) Also, given their poor efficiency, you would have needed a huge coal bunker to give any reasonable range. Combined, that might have meant growing to a three unit locomotive to provide enough space for all the equipment, fuel, and the weight needed for traction. A pair of SD-90 locomotives would be 12,000 hp with only a pair of units, and would have a range of about 1,000 miles.

> These locos would have been designed to be serviced in
> diesel shops and would have had a cab exactly like the
> most modern diesel, and would have been one sweet looking
> loco.

There are so many differences, that the shops would all have to be re-designed. Fuel handling is probably the biggest difference, where diesel fuel can be dispensed almost anywhere, even from local fuel trucks out in the middle of nowhere. The ACE3000 required a container-sized fuel module, that requires heavy lifting capability to exchange. No topping up allowed.

> Oil prices will only continue to rise..........

So will alternatives, like coal or electricity. Historically, they are all moved more or less in lock-step as demand shifted between the various types of fuel. The key is energy efficiency, no matter what type of fuel is used.

The collapse in the world price of crude-oil in 85/86 led the two railroad partner/investors(Chessie System&BN) to pull out of the project. At 80cents per gallon for #2 diesel fuel vs. $40/ton for 12,000 BTU eastern coal, coal enjoys a cost per BTU advantage of approx.6:1. Thus if the ACE3000 had achieved a thermal efficiency of 15% vs. the diesel-electrics of 30% it would have been 3times cheaper to run in terms of fuel cost per ton mile. As the RR's of the USA burn about 4 BILLION gallons of #2 diesel fuel per year(representing about 6% of all the oil we import) replacing that with coal would have required returning about 20,000 miners to the mines to produce the needed fuel.
I felt strongly at that time that they were making a long term mistake based on short term factors,but unfortunatly thats how we judge our corp. CEO's (next quarters earnings etc.)
I believe that someday someone will return coal-burning locos. to the railroads as it makes strong economic sense. They might well take the form of steam-turbine-electrics to reduce the engineering risk to near zero???
We still have all the drawings,results from the West Virginia test program and the Program,Plan&Schedule so that when the world price of crude gets above $40/barrel,we'll give it another go!!! Ross Rowland

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thus if the ACE3000 had achieved a
> thermal efficiency of 15% vs. the diesel-electrics
> of 30% it would have been 3 times cheaper to run in
> terms of fuel cost per ton mile.
> ... when the world price of crude gets above
> $40/barrel, we'll give it another go!!!

The overall thermal efficiency of the latest diesel-electric locomotives is closer to 40%, meaning that a steam locomotive would burn about 2.5 times more fuel than a diesel for the same power output.

Even though the theoretical cost might be lower for coal as fuel, there would be a huge increase in the amount of air pollutants, particularly particulates, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The increase in pollutants would approximately match the increase in the amount of fuel burned.

The EPA and California are pushing very hard to reduce air pollution, and a move to coal-fired locomotives would be seen as a step backwards. Even though GWB has rejected the Kyoto agreements, and has rolled back some of the requirements for emission controls on existing power plants, the issue will not go away. Have you thought about how to get around that reality?