Causing Trouble On The Railfan Site

[wsherrick]

I have been visiting the Trains.com forums and causing a little mischief. See the link below.

http://cs.trains.com/forums/1378816/ShowPost.aspx

I hope the friggin link works. I just couldn't resist getting into the fracas.

[Gandar]

Whew !, you pointed me to this site when I innocently inquired about utilizing coal to make diesel. Well I found answers and more questions. I had a thought which I figure you would be able to answer for me.
Supposing that a modern steam - electric engine were manufactured would it need to be shut down overnight ? could the power not be fed into the power grid ? I know that it would be more expensive per kw than a full blown power plant, but as the cost of the engine is being borne by the transportation side it would seem to be a reasonable way to achieve more power for a reasonable price. I ask because if you are to keep operating temperatures up in the boiler overnight it seems a shame not to use it, being able to produce needed electric power might be the way to encourage such engines to come about. Of course if the engine needs the down time then its another fantasy to bite the dust.
By the way that guy MichaelSol puts up a pretty convincing case for steam for a guy who is not a steam fan, can you just imagine what he would be like if he were ?

[wsherrick]

Any steam engine boiler, regarless of type has to meet strict quidelines stipulated by the FRA. The only reason to keep an engine steamed up on standby is because it is going to be used in the next few hours. Boilers have to be inspected and overhauled after so many hours in service and thus if you keep it steamed up all the time you are running out your boiler time without it producing any revenue. If you read about the Durango & Silverton and the conversation about that, I find it astounding that the D&S keeps its engines steamed up all night long. It is totally uneccessary.

You mentioned MichalSol. Yes he is persuasive because he is honest and dosen't have an agenda. The simple facts are that the American Railroad Industry shouldn't have ever deiselized and sooner or later they are going to have to face facts about it. Steam locmotives have advanced in quantum leaps since the late 40's and 50's and even if they haven't it would still be a lot cheaper to use them than the newest diesel out of GM or GE.
The cheapest form of transport power is and always has been the reciprocating, coal burning steam locomotive. All general myths, perceptions and other arguments aside.

BTW have you read the Paper by H.F. Brown which you can get right here in our Railroad History Section? If not, I highly advise it and if you have any more questions I will be happy to try and answer them for you.

[ostlandr]

Wow, I landed on the planet of (fellow) motive power geeks!

Steam is alive, if only barely. Tourist railroads are struggling to keep their near century-old machines running despite all the perils of corrosion, metal fatigue, and non-existent parts support. The Nevada Northern railway is considering having a steam locomotive custom-built with modern technology such as a welded boiler, roller bearings, etc. This will reduce the operational wear & tear on their historical locomotives, which is killing them.
With modern technology such as computer aided machining, lightweight alloys, composites, etc. it should be possible to build conventional coal-burning steam locomotives that cost much less to operate than their ancestors. Perhaps if the economics have changed from the cheap oil days of the end of the last century, the equation that dictated diesel-electrics as always cheaper than steam may change also.

But I don't stop at recreating the past's steam locomotives. As a dreamer and wannabe inventor, I am doodling such innovations as replacing the prime mover in a diesel-electric with a steam turbine fired by liquid natural gas (LNG). A compact hybrid boiler (fire tube and water tube) would provide the steam for the main turbine. The cryogenic fuel would scavenge some of the waste heat from the exhaust, and a second turbine circuit with refrigerant instead of water would scavenge even more (this secondary turbine could provide power for "hotel" loads.) Finally the exhaust steam gets fed back into the insulated condensate tank. Heat wouldn't have to be jettisoned overboard until the condensate tank got too hot.

Or how about a 2-4-4-2T Mallet engine, burining clean wood pellets, preheating its combustion air by condensing its exhaust? This would allow the boiler to be filled with "kool aid" (the corrosion inhibitors,etc. used in modern closed steam systems) rather than constantly adding water. That would IMHO increase boiler life by a factor of ten (based on the reductions in corrosion, scale and thermal stresses from cold feedwater and air.) Gonna miss the "stack talk" and smoke, but the NIMBYs will love the silence and clean air.

Or perhaps a coal-burning steam loco that scrubs its exhaust using a mini version of a power plant emissions control setup? Stop for fuel, and change out the bags in the exhaust filter.

Here's a crazy idea- on a fuel cell locomotive, replace the dynamic braking grids with the same kW of electrolysis. Use all that energy to make more H2- doesn't matter if it's inefficient, since 100% of that energy gets wasted now. (I checked- somebody already patented the idea. )

And then there's the insane idea of a Frankenstein 4-8-4 with traction motors in the leading and trailing trucks, and the drivers powered by compound double acting cylinders inside the carbody and geared directly to the rodless drivers, all fueled by clean burning and renewable LNG. In theory, she'd pull like an SD45 and run like a Daylight.
Just show them the money, and I'm positive Hyundai will build us as many as we need.

[wsherrick]

You need to do some research on what is going on in other parts of the World, if you haven't already. Read up on David Wardale and Dante Porta and you'll get and eye opener. For example, the emissions problems with burning coal in a locomotive has been already solved by the Porta Gas Producing Firebox. It cuts fuel consumption anywhere from 20 to 65% depending on what the engine is doing. Emissions are reduced to less than the EPA requirements for coal, without any expensive scrubbers or extra appliances on the engine. Steam locomotives so equipped will beat any diesel in the emissions department. You can put traction motors under the tender for dynamic brakes and use the heat to make steam. Ports and Wardale have already refitted existing engines and the results are nothing short of astounding. There is a resurgance of interest in steam development slowly emerging world wide. Most people here in America are completely unaware of these and other developments. The hardest thing for most people these days to break out of is the mind set that steam engines are just antiques and are just a part of history. There is a lot more opportunity for development of the standard steam locomotive than for a diesel. The diesel is pretty much a moribund technology.

You mentioned an SD45 in the above post. Any steam locomotive with comparative weight on the drivers will blow the SD-40 away. Period.

[ostlandr]

Have been doing some research- just started.

China got in a bind recently, just after they sold or scrapped all their QJs: A storm knocked out the electric lines and caternary on their coal lines. Now, no coal is getting to the power plants, so no electricity is being generated, so no coal can be hauled. . .

The key to the steam/diesel debate is twofold: one is tractive effort related to weight on drivers- some of the "super power" locos had relatively little weight on drivers.
The second is that steam horsepower is dependent on RPMs. At low speeds such as when starting and climbing long grades, Diesels had an advantage over improperly spec'd steam locos. The Chinese QJs were able to offer good tractive effort, and were able to run at high speeds without destroying themselves or the track, despite their driver size. Some of the late steam locos like the Texas 2-10-4s had alloy rods and disc drivers also.
The battle isn't between tractive effort of steam and diesel locos- it's about how many tons will each haul over a given track profile, and at what speed. Trains magazine had a good article on this awhile back- "Big Boy or big mistake- did super power get it wrong?"

You need to do some research on what is going on in other parts of the World, if you haven't already. Read up on David Wardale and Dante Porta and you'll get and eye opener. For example, the emissions problems with burning coal in a locomotive has been already solved by the Porta Gas Producing Firebox. It cuts fuel consumption anywhere from 20 to 65% depending on what the engine is doing. Emissions are reduced to less than the EPA requirements for coal, without any expensive scrubbers or extra appliances on the engine. Steam locomotives so equipped will beat any diesel in the emissions department. You can put traction motors under the tender for dynamic brakes and use the heat to make steam. Ports and Wardale have already refitted existing engines and the results are nothing short of astounding. There is a resurgance of interest in steam development slowly emerging world wide. Most people here in America are completely unaware of these and other developments. The hardest thing for most people these days to break out of is the mind set that steam engines are just antiques and are just a part of history. There is a lot more opportunity for development of the standard steam locomotive than for a diesel. The diesel is pretty much a moribund technology.

You mentioned an SD45 in the above post. Any steam locomotive with comparative weight on the drivers will blow the SD-40 away. Period.

[nedfumpkin]

Totally cool stuff. A while ago I wrote an e-mail to VIA Rail Canada, and I proposed to them that they pull out some old 4-8-4 steam locomotives, refurbish them with clean coal technology for which there are grants available, then have these pulling specialty design "casino carriages" on routes between major cities. They contacted me about the idea, and they are looking at doing a feasibility study into it. I can't say more, but steam may not be gone forever.

[wsherrick]

Totally cool stuff. A while ago I wrote an e-mail to VIA Rail Canada, and I proposed to them that they pull out some old 4-8-4 steam locomotives, refurbish them with clean coal technology for which there are grants available, then have these pulling specialty design "casino carriages" on routes between major cities. They contacted me about the idea, and they are looking at doing a feasibility study into it. I can't say more, but steam may not be gone forever.

No steam is not gone forever. It is on the verge of a resurgence. It will start very slowly then gain momentum. There is so much misinformation out there about the economics and capabilities of steam power. It boggles my mind sometimes. In the USA there is a mindset that is pervasive in the Industry and the public at large. I call it the, "ABS," or Anything But Steam mentality. You can present all of the documentation, stats and iron clad evidence about the economics and performance of steam and somebody will say, "yes but-"
As far as the railfan community and people who are interested in trains in general- I blame Trains Magazine for a lot of it and the now dead editor David P. Morgan. Morgan was unabashededly biased toward EMD diesels. I know many people who refuse to read Trains for that reason.

[wsherrick]

Have been doing some research- just started.

The key to the steam/diesel debate is twofold: one is tractive effort related to weight on drivers- some of the "super power" locos had relatively little weight on drivers.
The second is that steam horsepower is dependent on RPMs. At low speeds such as when starting and climbing long grades, Diesels had an advantage over improperly spec's steam locos. The Chinese QJs were able to offer good tractive effort, and were able to run at high speeds without destroying themselves or the track, despite their driver size. Some of the late steam locos like the Texas 2-10-4s had alloy rods and disc drivers also.
The battle isn't between tractive effort of steam and diesel locos- it's about how many tons will each haul over a given track profile, and at what speed. Trains magazine had a good article on this awhile back- "Big Boy or big mistake- did super power get it wrong?"

I'll tell you how this works in real life: I know what the specs are for the two types of power. First of all, no locomotive can use its full horsepower at starting. The oft quoted idea that diesels have a "continuous torque," at slow speeds may be true on paper, but it's not true in practice. The problem is, even with modern slip control, diesels slip very easily and their tractive effort and horsepower curves fall off rapidly after about 4 or 5 MPH. I have had in my experience, diesels unable to pull the tonnage that they are rated for because the weight on the drivers is just not enough to get the train started or if it does get started the engine can't pull it past a certain speed because its horsepower curve drops below the needed amount to pull the train and it slips to a stall. I have had this argument many times with individuals who have no experience with operating steam locomotives. Once a steam locomotive gets the train above 4 or 5 miles per hour, it can accelerate and pull its train.
The Super Power Concept spoken of in the Trains article uses the Big Boy I quess as an example. These engines were designed for high speed horsepower, not slow speed drag freights. Many railroads improperly assigned these big single expansion engines for drag freight service.
An accurate comparison between the types can be found in the N&W Class A and say the newest AC motor diesel units. The Class A had a starting tractive effort of 114,000 pounds and a peak horsepower output of 5340 @ 40 MPH. It's continouse horsepower rating was 5100 between 24 and 64 MPH. The Class A had a tonnage rating for fast freight between 6000 and 8000 tons which they pulled daily at speeds of 60 MPH. The A's drag freight tonnage ratings were between 15,000 and 18,000 tons which they pulled at 30 MPH. Also single handed.
It takes 3 SD70 Macs to pull that much. Where does all of that diesel horsepower go? A single SD70 Mac can not attempt to pull those tonnage ratings at the speeds a Class A did every day, day in and day out even though they are supposed to develop over 4000 horsepower each and more starting tractive effort each than the A does. The Class A was designed for pulling these tonnages between Williamson WV and Columbus OH. It pulled these trains at a far lower cost for fuel and maintence than the diesels that replaced them. Sources: N&W Giant of Steam. HF Brown, Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power.

[ostlandr]

I said improperly spec'd locomotives. For example, a 4-8-4 Northern with 80" drivers hooked to a drag freight on a steep grade, against an A-B-B-A set of F3s wasn't a fair contest. N&W 1218, on the other hand, would have fared much better. And a Y6B even better yet.

The article I mentioned singled out N&W as doing things right- the locomotives they built in the Roanoke shop were designed to give max horsepower in the speed range they most often operated in. It also mentioned that of today's diesel electric locomotives (and some of the "super power" steam locomotives) none had better starting TE than a 1918 USRA 2-10-0. One of the points of the article was that, had railroad operating departments done a better job of procuring locomotives (rather than buying the latest gee-whiz technology from Alco and the rest) the diesel would not have had such a clear advantage, if any. I suspect GM (the Microsoft of their day) of having a hand in the death of steam (which they didn't build) in favor of diesels (which they did build.) Evil conspiracy or just smart, agressive business dealings- take your pick.

Even if all the stated economic advantages of diesels were true in 1958, the situation has changed in 2008. Coppper for traction motor wiring, diesel for fuel, skilled machinists to make the delicate parts- all in short supply these days. With (perhaps) lower costs for acquisition, and the low cost per BTU of coal offsetting the increased maintenance requirements (some of this may be offset by lower spares cost) you may well be right.

Have been doing some research- just started.

The key to the steam/diesel debate is twofold: one is tractive effort related to weight on drivers- some of the "super power" locos had relatively little weight on drivers.
The second is that steam horsepower is dependent on RPMs. At low speeds such as when starting and climbing long grades, Diesels had an advantage over improperly spec's steam locos. The Chinese QJs were able to offer good tractive effort, and were able to run at high speeds without destroying themselves or the track, despite their driver size. Some of the late steam locos like the Texas 2-10-4s had alloy rods and disc drivers also.
The battle isn't between tractive effort of steam and diesel locos- it's about how many tons will each haul over a given track profile, and at what speed. Trains magazine had a good article on this awhile back- "Big Boy or big mistake- did super power get it wrong?"

I'll tell you how this works in real life: I know what the specs are for the two types of power. First of all, no locomotive can use its full horsepower at starting. The oft quoted idea that diesels have a "continuous torque," at slow speeds may be true on paper, but it's not true in practice. The problem is, even with modern slip control, diesels slip very easily and their tractive effort and horsepower curves fall off rapidly after about 4 or 5 MPH. I have had in my experience, diesels unable to pull the tonnage that they are rated for because the weight on the drivers is just not enough to get the train started or if it does get started the engine can't pull it past a certain speed because its horsepower curve drops below the needed amount to pull the train and it slips to a stall. I have had this argument many times with individuals who have no experience with operating steam locomotives. Once a steam locomotive gets the train above 4 or 5 miles per hour, it can accelerate and pull its train.
The Super Power Concept spoken of in the Trains article uses the Big Boy I quess as an example. These engines were designed for high speed horsepower, not slow speed drag freights. Many railroads improperly assigned these big single expansion engines for drag freight service.
An accurate comparison between the types can be found in the N&W Class A and say the newest AC motor diesel units. The Class A had a starting tractive effort of 114,000 pounds and a peak horsepower output of 5340 @ 40 MPH. It's continouse horsepower rating was 5100 between 24 and 64 MPH. The Class A had a tonnage rating for fast freight between 6000 and 8000 tons which they pulled daily at speeds of 60 MPH. The A's drag freight tonnage ratings were between 15,000 and 18,000 tons which they pulled at 30 MPH. Also single handed.
It takes 3 SD70 Macs to pull that much. Where does all of that diesel horsepower go? A single SD70 Mac can not attempt to pull those tonnage ratings at the speeds a Class A did every day, day in and day out even though they are supposed to develop over 4000 horsepower each and more starting tractive effort each than the A does. The Class A was designed for pulling these tonnages between Williamson WV and Columbus OH. It pulled these trains at a far lower cost for fuel and maintence than the diesels that replaced them. Sources: N&W Giant of Steam. HF Brown, Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power.

[wsherrick]

Good! I've got someone who wants to discuss these things. As far as cost goes, Diesels were never cheaper to operate or maintain than equivalent steam locomotives. And as diesels age their maintenance curves go up in an exponential fashion where as both steam and electric locomotives after a few years their maintenance curves flatten out. The Railroads found out much to their dismay and much too late that it was better to trade in the diesel than to repair it. This is even more true today. Dieselization caused far more financial burden to the railroad industry than if the railroads had continued to advance steam technology.

And your remark about the RR Industry, in general, going after what ever was tossed at them was true then and it is still true now. You are absolutely right about that. Young men who have ideas and rock the boat, don't get invited to the bosses house for poker games.

[wsherrick]

Here is an interesting paper that has just come out in the past few months. It brings HF Brown's Paper up to date with current costs. For those who are interested this reading is a must.
http://www.5at.co.uk/John-Rhodes-Coal-L ... -Paper.pdf

Hey Hawk! I think I've finally got the hang of posting links.

[ostlandr]

Awesome! Perhaps I should bring this to the attention of a certian congresscritter on the Transportation & Infrastructure committee.

Nice thought about bringing the diesel manufacturers into it. Unfortunately, having seen firsthand the current sad state of American heavy manufacturing, it will probably be better to have the new locomotives built in South Korea. Unless, of course, somebody had the capital to buy an operation like Super Steel
http://www.supersteel.com/
and hire only railfans to work there. . .

Here is an interesting paper that has just come out in the past few months. It brings HF Brown's Paper up to date with current costs. For those who are interested this reading is a must.
http://www.5at.co.uk/John-Rhodes-Coal-L ... -Paper.pdf

Hey Hawk! I think I've finally got the hang of posting links.

[wsherrick]

Show this report to anyone who is willing to read it. The more informed people become the better. This is an important issue not just because it would be neat to see steam return, but the paradigm of how this nation moves people and goods is going to have to adapt sooner or later. Our economic destiny is at stake here. Oil will never be cheap again, ever. World demand for it is only going to skyrocket. Just think of how much gasoline will be consumed if only half of China's billion plus people get cars, not to mention the other emerging economies such as India. More demand for a diminishing supply of oil will only cause the price to rise while we are sitting on trillions of tons of coal. The answer to this situation should be obvious to any reasonable person.

[Gwizz]

I watched a history channel special that I recorded over 20 years ago. As the history of locomotion progressed the statement was made that while the diesel locomotive did cost more to buy, it offered savings in maintenance by reducing the number of employees that before were needed for a steam locomotive. A diesel could also travel further with less maintenance than a steam locomotive. On top of this the railroads retired more steam locomotive than the number of diesels it bought because they were so efficient. The show also made the comment that a number of new developments in steam came to their end when diesels took over.

The cost of fuel may well be the turning point for future locomotion. Diesels don't run well on coal.

I believe government control is the cause of the high fuel prices. While China's demand for oil in increasing at a fast rate, they still run a lot of steam using coal and I believe they will for a long time. Lately some diesel locomotion is being put into service as they prepare for the World Games. They want the world to believe they are now a modern country. But, they still have a long ways to go if being modern means their people have creature comforts like we have or maybe we did have.

I don't believe there is an oil shortage; not with billions of barrels of oil still untapped. Why did we give an island rich in oil to Russia. Some secret deal I guess. We can't develop it. Russia and China have less green people than we do and each could develop the island.

We can't drill new wells to tap new oil fields. We can't build new refineries so we can import more oil. All because the green people are in control of our government.

I heard on the radio that the changes taking place in the US mostly for bogus reasons, will cost the average family up to $10,000 a year more than what is being spent now. Airlines, trucks and all transportation will cost more. The cost to produce fuel from corn costs more than using oil for fuel. If it wasn't for cheaps goods from China, I believe we would already be in trouble.

What happened to the responsible free spirit that the people had who built our country had. Did they trade this in for a welfare check.

We are going the way Rome went. They had too many on welfare just before their country fell.

I think the reason the green people are in control is because they are using so much of our money to control us, it is causing them to change color.

[ostlandr]

Much as I would love to disagree with you,Gwizz- I can't.

No new driling, no new refineries, no nuclear power plants, no LNG terminals, nothing.

Back a few years ago, when oil prices were way, way down, small oil producers in Western NY and NW PA were forced by environmental regulators to cap their non-producing wells- with concrete. Never mind that they were only shut down because the electricity to run the pumps cost more than the oil was worth, or that there are natural oil springs and seeps in those hills that put way more oil into the environment than those deep secondary and tertiary recovery wells ever could, or that we're talking light, sweet, easy-to-refine Pennsylvania grade crude. Not enough oil left down there to be worth redrilling the wells, but it would sure be valuable right now. Those wells, and the jobs and wealth they represented, are gone for good.

I'm no "conspiracy nut" but I do wonder about something. No matter whether oil costs $30 a barrel or $300 on the commodities market- if you own the well, your cost is what it costs to pump it out of the ground. Some of the oil companies own the wells, too. Depending on the transport method and distance, percent of wells owned, refining cost, supply chain logisics, etc, they don't all have exactly the same wholesale cost of fuel in the station tanks.
So: Why hasn't the oil company with the most efficient supply chain and lowest raw material cost cut their prices, stolen everybody else's customers, and run them out of business? Instead, with three or four gas stations on the corners of the same intersection, the price is always the same (or within a few pennies.) And the prices vary by how rich or poor the neighborhood is, but are always the same for every station at that location. I was told firsthand by an indepenent fuel retailer that during the post-Katrina price spike, when he tried to sell fuel at cost to help his customers (and compete a little) he was threatened by his fuel distributor that if he didn't raise his prices "we won't have enough fuel to supply your stations." He has since gotten out of what was for him a low-margin, low profit business.
I also was told firsthand by a trucker who was driving fuel tankers during the '70s Arab oil embargo that when the government imposed price controls, there was in fact no shortage of gasoline- the fuel distributors were moving tankers all over at night, stashing fuel in the tanks of abandoned/closed stations, fuel depots- anywhere they could find, so the tanks at the stations would run out. (Makes good business sense to me, if the Feds are mandating that you sell your product at less than it cost to produce.)
I'm not saying there's some kind of vast conspiracy behind this- it's not that organized, and has no ultimate goal other than the short-term enrichment of oil company executives and their pet politicians. And when the companies ultimately suffer for putting short term profits and executive perks ahead of long-term growth and profitability, it's the stockholders (folks like us) who will end up getting the proverbial dirty end of the stick while the Kleptocrats laugh all the way to the bank. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?

"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
- TR, Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913

[wsherrick]

I watched a history channel special that I recorded over 20 years ago. As the history of locomotion progressed the statement was made that while the diesel locomotive did cost more to buy, it offered savings in maintenance by reducing the number of employees that before were needed for a steam locomotive. A diesel could also travel further with less maintenance than a steam locomotive. On top of this the railroads retired more steam locomotive than the number of diesels it bought because they were so efficient. The show also made the comment that a number of new developments in steam came to their end when diesels took over.

The cost of fuel may well be the turning point for future locomotion. Diesels don't run well on coal.

I know that this view is what has been said over and over again for the past 60 years, but the Statistical Record Indicates Otherwise. Diesels were not only more expensive to buy, but the Railroads had to go into ruinous debt to buy them. Their economic service lives were less than half as long as a steam engine. Their maintenance costs soared above steam or straight electric locomotives after a year or two in service.
If you look at the record the diesel DIDN'T save the railroads a dime in labor costs. If you look at the numbers the costs for locomotive maintenance and train operations employees decreased far less than in any other department. From 1945 onward until the present time railroad employee numbers have been falling, yet dieselization happened just once. The real reason for the decline in employee numbers was from the decline in the industry as a whole. Switching to diesels was the largest single cost ever undertaken by the American Railroad Industry and during the decade of dieselization the rates of return for the Industry fell from 4% in 1945 to less than 2% in 1960 the year that the steam age officially ended in this country. If these locomotives were so vastly superior, why the did bottom line of the Industry suffer so? It should have jumped upward.
If you want, I will go into all the evidence and be happy to post it here for you. They are available in Brown's Report and the recent report linked to above. The Office Of Transport Statistics has all the ugly details about what a debacle dieselization was in reality.

[Gwizz]

I thought I had replied this morning.
I must have hit the wrong button.

I thought that the history movie I watched and the statements made were interesting.

Anyway, I believe that steam can out perform
the diesel for many of the reasons you gave.
The problems I see, for it, is the color green.

While modern thinking is that green house gases really do not cause the kind of problems the Greene's said they did.
Mother Nature seem able to adjust for man quite well.
I believe the burning of coal would still have an uphill battle even burning as clean as it does in todays world.

I used to run a couple of identical, oil fired, small 4-4-2 steamers. With one I was alway fighting to keep up the steam pressure. With the other I would come into the station with the safety valve whistling Dixie.

My point is: It takes a lot more skill to operate a steam loco than it does a diesel. And, each steamer has its own characteristics, even when they do look identical.

With a diesel, the operation is easier than driving a bus. The computers they have on board can do most of the work for you. I'm surprised that they don't operate by remote control with a camera for eyes.

Steamers are definitely more fun to operate.

[wsherrick]

I thought I had replied this morning.
I must have hit the wrong button.

I thought that the history movie I watched and the statements made were interesting.

Anyway, I believe that steam can out perform
the diesel for many of the reasons you gave.
The problems I see, for it, is the color green.

While modern thinking is that green house gases really do not cause the kind of problems the Greene's said they did.
Mother Nature seem able to adjust for man quite well.
I believe the burning of coal would still have an uphill battle even burning as clean as it does in todays world.

I used to run a couple of identical, oil fired, small 4-4-2 steamers. With one I was alway fighting to keep up the steam pressure. With the other I would come into the station with the safety valve whistling Dixie.

My point is: skill to operate a steam loco than it does a diesel. And, each steamer has its own characteristics, even when they do look identical. It takes a lot more

With a diesel, the operation is easier than driving a bus. The computers they have on board can do most of the work for you. I'm surprised that they don't operate by remote control with a camera for eyes.

Steamers are definitely more fun to operate.

Yes, you are certainly right about that. Any monkey can operate a diesel. Some of the people I work with are proof of that.

Now here's an ironic twist for you concerning smoke emissions. The EPA and FRA have repeatedly eased and relaxed the time frame for GM and GE to meet the latest tier of emissons regulations. Diesels can not meet those standards and probably won't be able to meet them.
Dante Porta, one of the great designers of modern steam, who recently passed away, invented a gas producing firebox for locomotives which completely gassifies the coal before it is burned. The FIRST result is the engine gets the same work with up to 65% LESS fuel. Thus the engine's combustion efficiency is over 90%. The results are amazing, read about the RED DEVIL for proof of this. Now, The SECOND important result is the engine emissions fall well below the most strict EPA standards. This is done without any exotic technology or expensive add on equipment such as is needed for an internal combustion engine. The modern coal burning choo-choo kicks any diesel's metal behind when it comes to pollution.
But, your point about the Lefty-Enviro Whacko's hearing the words coal and burn in the same sentance and going hostile is very true I'm afraid. That's why they need to be laughed at and ignored.

[wsherrick]

This is just an update. The battle on the Trains.com Forum RAGES ON