![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1378816/ShowPost.aspx
I hope the friggin link works. I just couldn't resist getting into the fracas.
wsherrick wrote: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.
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-"nedfumpkin wrote: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.
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.ostlander wrote: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?"
wsherrick wrote: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.ostlander wrote: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?"
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 wrote: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.
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.Gwizz wrote: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.
Yes, you are certainly right about that. Any monkey can operate a diesel. Some of the people I work with are proof of that.Gwizz wrote: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.