Steam Lives!

[EPH]

A group in Britain has completed an A1-class locomotive, with modern improvements and refinements. Instead of relegating it to a museum or to 'heritage' lines, Britain will begin running it as a mainline engine! Her name, 'Tornado', and her operating speed 90mph. Quite an achievement... and they hope to commission more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppe ... 63_Tornado

Enjoy!

[thegrindre]

for steam!

[coruscate]

Wow, who would have thought.

^_^

We need to get this into the game!!!!!

[EPH]

One wonders if a modern tech-driven approach could produce a coal-fired (or oil-fired, I suppose) steam engine that would meet environmental standards while outperforming diesel-electrics.

The British approach seems to have been to take the design of the last successful steam engines and give it a tweak, but I think you'd have to do more than that to sell an American company.

But the thought of the Norfolk Southern (or the UP, or, well, anybody) running modern steam is just... awesome.

[coruscate]

What I would like to see if a combination of the old and new, what about a steam powered engine that relied on bio-fuels to heat the boilers?

[Stoker]

I heard about steam turbine/ electric locomotive experiments that I believe were in the 1950's. With the long startup and shut down times they would probably only be practical in longer runs.

[wsherrick]

I heard about steam turbine/ electric locomotive experiments that I believe were in the 1950's. With the long startup and shut down times they would probably only be practical in longer runs.

If you want to know how much steam costs versus diesel. Please go to the Railroad History Section we have right here and you can have access to the only unbiased, complete report ever done that tells the REAL STORY.
I have to keep saying this every once in awhile. Where the wheel meets the rail, standard steam power has always been and probably always will be the best way to move trains. - All the decades of unsupported mis-information spouted since the '40's not withstanding.

[Hawk]

Please go to the Railroad History Section we have right here...

Here's the link to ease in finding it.

http://hawkdawg.com/rrhist/rrhist.htm

[EPH]

Here is a link you might find useful.

The Pennsy used a direct-coupled turbine which was efficient at high speed but very inefficient otherwidse. The C&O, UP and N&W all used coal-fired boilers (some pelletized) to drive turbines to turn generators to feed electric motors... they were gigantic, unwieldy, complex and unreliable.

The emphasis on coal was because it was cheap, all the handling equipment already existed, and because some of the RRs owned coal mines.

[wsherrick]

Steam locomotive design has continued to be improved by a few dedicated geniuses, who have slowly been gaining more and more credibility over the past few years. The graphs here illustrate just how superior modern steam locomotives are compared to their ancestors and their diesel counterparts. The contrasts are amazing. These are actual comparisions of locomotives in daily service.

[wsherrick]

Here are a few more. I'll make them a little smaller. As you can see the old wives tales about how much steam pollutes in relation to diesel is also blown out of the water. If it matters to anyone. Okay, now I have to go back and study for my big electric/diesel exam that is coming up this tuesday at my new job at New Jersey Transit.

[EPH]

On the last graph, are traction powers declining by year as equipment ages, or as trains increase in weight, or???

Seems to me that modern digital controls (computer links) could allow a small crew to manage multiple steam units as easily as multiple diesel boxes, but I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.