Sustainable Rail International, University of Minnesota
Announce Coalition to Develop the World’s Cleanest Passenger Locomotive
New steam engine has the potential to change both
the rail industry and clean energy research
MINNEAPOLIS - Plans to create the world’s first carbon-neutral higher-speed locomotive were announced today by the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR), a collaboration of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment (IonE) and the nonprofit Sustainable Rail International (SRI). CSR draws on the carbon-neutral solid biofuel research expertise of the University of Minnesota and the modern steam mechanical engineering capabilities of SRI to develop the most powerful carbon-neutral locomotive to date.
CSR Project 130 has a simple goal: create the world’s cleanest, most powerful passenger locomotive, proving the viability of solid biofuel and modern steam locomotive technology. The Coalition will put its technology to the test by planning to break the world record for steam locomotive speed, reaching 130 miles per hour and demonstrating the viability of this revolutionary, clean transportation technology.
The locomotive will run on torrefied biomass (biocoal), a biofuel created through an energy-efficient processing of cellulosic biomass. Biocoal exhibits the same energy density and material handling properties as coal, but unlike coal, it is carbon neutral, contains no heavy metals, and produces less ash, smoke and volatile off-gases. Since it exhibits such similar characteristics to coal, biocoal has the potential to revolutionize the way the United States generates clean electricit
In what manner is breaking an arbitrary, 60+ year old speed record for steam traction supposed to “demonstrat[e] the viability of this revolutionary, clean transportation technology”? It demonstrates the physical possibility, but not the commercial viability.
Can we see an estimated cost comparison of this proposed biomass fuel per BTU or horsepower or pound of tractive effort versus known quantifiers such as coal or fuel oil?
Does this project plan to subsequently focus its efforts on horsepower and tractive effort production rather than pure speed? If not, is the ultimate, or only, market for this proposed effort passenger operation? What is the target market for commercial production, if any has been identified?
The several principals named in this effort, including possibly the poster of the above, bring expertise to this project. Unless some or all of them are, as the saying goes, “independently wealthy,” they will warrant payment for their consulting and efforts. Has a source of funding for their efforts been located, or are they agreeing to donate their expertise to the cause?
The costs for physical reconstruction of the locomotive alone–not even any redesign or conversion, simply restoration to operation–under current CFR regulations will probably exceed, even as a most generously conservative guess, several hundred thousand dollars. Has a source for this funding, or the donation of professional services, been identified?
“Preliminary research shows that CSR’s test locomotive will cost less to maintain and less to fuel, and will exhibit greater train handling performance than any diesel-electric locomotives available today.” Is this research available for peer review? May we recommend other “peers” to review this?
Has the U. of Minnesota’s IonE identified any funding sources thus far for start-up and research? Is
In what manner is breaking an arbitrary, 60+ year old speed record for steam traction supposed to “demonstrat the viability of this revolutionary, clean transportation technology”? It demonstrates the physical possibility, but not the commercial viability.
Can we see an estimated cost comparison of this proposed biomass fuel per BTU or horsepower or pound of tractive effort versus known quantifiers such as coal or fuel oil?
Does this project plan to subsequently focus its efforts on horsepower and tractive effort production rather than pure speed? If not, is the ultimate, or only, market for this proposed effort passenger operation? What is the target market for commercial production, if any has been identified?
The several principals named in this effort, including possibly the poster of the above, bring expertise to this project. Unless some or all of them are, as the saying goes, “independently wealthy,” they will warrant payment for their consulting and efforts. Has a source of funding for their efforts been located, or are they agreeing to donate their expertise to the cause?
The costs for physical reconstruction of the locomotive alone–not even any redesign or conversion, simply restoration to operation–under current CFR regulations will probably exceed, even as a most generously conservative guess, several hundred thousand dollars. Has a source for this funding, or the donation of professional services, been identified?
“Preliminary research shows that CSR’s test locomotive will cost less to maintain and less to fuel, and will exhibit greater train handling performance than any diesel-electric locomotives available today.” Is this research available for peer review? May we recommend other “peers” to review this?
Seems like they could have proposed a more modern concept using a efficient modern boiler on a recycled diesel frame, rather than mangle up a old steam loco.
Just the idea of using reciprocating, high maintenance mechanicals is totally ludicrous! Even more than many academics, these people really don’t get out much. [banghead]
Sounds like a tragedy for steam preservation enthusiasts. What kind of so-called museum would give up a rare artifact for mutilation? What’s the back story?
Better to burn the biomass fuel in a fixed power plant generating electricity …
The steam engine did not fall out of use because of environmental reasons. They don’t indicate that the test bed loco will be other than a reciprocating steam loco. They have not explained how they will get by the well known problems that made the railroads switch to diesels. The csrail.org site says that the biofuel still costs more than coal. If the fuel becomes popular with RRs and power plants (TVA is testing it) then like any other fuel the price will go up.
Sounds like pretty exciting news to me! Not only because the 3463 has the potential to be restored to running condition but also because people are looking into developing steam power again.
Like most people I will have my fingers crossed but I think they will learn what we already know. Steam locomotives are terribly inefficient typically having only a 6%-10% efficacy. The ACE 3000 project with all of their expensive and extensive testing with C & O, 4-8-4, #614 along with it’s modifications was only averaging a efficiently of 3%. The ACE 3000 project was also started for similar reasons. It would probably be a good idea to have Ross rowland on their project team as he is probably one of the best experts in steam locomotive logistics.
In any case I hope funding holds out and the 3463 is returned to steam once again. Regardless if the project is a success or a failure at least the 3463 is getting it’s legs stretched and a new coat of paint.
I thought this could be interesting until I got to the second paragraph regarding beating a 130 mph speed record. Sure, there are lots of railroads around with suitable Class 8 track. Moreover, they are eagerly awaiting the chance to have their well maintained track structure beaten to death by a heavy steamer.
After reading their web sight info. I think they have in mind converting that hudson into a small version of the pennsy turbin. (Lionel start retooling the 671!) [:O]
After reading their web sight info. I think they have in mind converting that hudson into a small version of the pennsy turbin. (Lionel start retooling the 671!) [:O]
The project almost sounds like a bunch of steam guys that are using technology to rebuild the 3463 and watch it run again. It is only a test bed since that locomotive would require ten times the personnel to maintain and run it compared to any diesel. They do seem to be trying some cutting edge improvements but in the end, the project might pave the way for use of the fuel in new power plants in the future.
This is a great project for all of us if the 3463 actually gets to run again even in some modified fashion.
Ahhh, excuse me but…didnt Diesels replace Steam simply because the maintanence labor costs for steam was far in excess of that of Diesels, not to mention that diesels have grown in power far beyond their steam predecessors?
Steam locomotion is a very inefficient conversion of energy into power, it always has been. Its just that from the 1830’s till the 1950’s it was the best form of locomotive power available until the rise of the diesel/electric traction motor was widely introduced.
If they want a “carbon neutral” steam engine they had better to investigate placing a small nuclear reactor on board to heat the water because anything that burns fuel will create CO2.
To me, the research angle seems more like a cover for an attempt to exceed Mallard’s speed record for steam. Besides the damage to the track from dynamic augment, the damage to the running gear at that speed could be considerable. Mallard did not escape unscathed when it set the record.
Remember this is 2011 not 1937 there has been great advances in making lighter/stonger metals that could be used for the rods and linkage that would greatly reduce the dyamic argument.
The 3463 has 84" drivers and that is probably the reason it was choosen for this task. Too bad it did not have the light weight roller bearing side rods like the 2900 series 4-8-4’s. CZ
When I heard about this project, I expected to see people overjoyed for this project to move ahead. But the first response was to tear down this idea.Will this project work out? Maybe,maybe not, but let some of us enjoy the thought of a modern upgraded steam locomotive and wait for more information before tearing the project apart .Even if this does not move ahead it may get railroad in the news in a positive light,this is a good thing.
Seems like the skepticism about this ‘Project’ has a number of valid areas of concern.
In my mind, “funding” is a major hill to climb.
Seems as if any project involving the restoration of a steam locomotive, crashes first into the reality of never enough initial funding for completion of the project, it always exceeds the first estimates. I think the ‘Tornado Project’ in England came in somewhere around (US) million Dollars(?). Maybe, if that was in English Pounds(?) which would be considerably more,I think.
Burning ‘Biomass’ was a tried method prior to early 1900’s. When locomotive fuel was cut, and stacked for locomotive fuel along the ROW from whatever the available wood species were. In the early engines, its’ efficiency was questionable at best, but speed was not an option, not nearly as much as simply getting to the destination.
Coal burning where it was readily available was the next step to improve efficiency, but even then; the best locomotive fuel was the cheapest grades a railroad could buy, in buy. In anthracite areas, it was ‘colm’ and the coal used in SE Kansas by the MKT RR was a grade so low it had a lot of mud in it, mined in railroad owned mines. Creation of smoke was a noticeable by product of the burning of those grades. Would be very problematic in today’s ecologically aware environment.
As mentioned by another Poster. You would have to wonder how much study has been done by the academics who are trying to reinvent a ‘new’ steam locomotive. AS was suggested Ross Rowland& his company’s work would be the first place to start, ans well as to examine closely the ACE 3000 Project. My [2c]
I looked at their web sight again and it seems that most of the people that was in on the designing of the ACE 3000 project are involved in this one. So maybe it might succesd where the ACE failed. All we need now is the Fed’s to give the railroads a tax break or subscide to bring back the steam locomotive. Then watch how many re-builds take place [;)]
Poor 3463 is gonna get butchered as a plaything for a gaggle of envirogeeks playing with other peoples money. What did it do to deserve this? Maybe BNSF ought to claim breach of donation agreement and reclaim the big fella.
Hey, ya know what? I just got home from an Italian restaurant and have a half-carafe of vino in me and I feel goooooooood! So as far as I’m concerned if the guys and gals working on 3463 have the money in hand and want to go for a steam speed record I say GO FOR IT! STEAM RULES! Steam was king when diesel was a pup and steam will be king when diesels time is up!
Mind you, I wish Juniatha would weigh in on this one! She’s got the best steam brain on this Forum! And how!
Yes, absolutely. I think you have summed this up very well.
This proposal seems incredibly long on platitudinous rhetoric and short on substance. The stated mission coupled with the implications suggest that this ATSF 4-6-4 will be very extensively modified. My interpretation is that it will require a new boiler, piping, jacketing, cylinders, valves, drivers, rods, and exhaust nozzle. I suspect it will require a new throttle and extensive revision to the backhead controls. It will require a new firing system for the pellets, and possibly a new feed water system. And with all this cutting, welding, machining, and re-designing, there will be bound to be limitations and compromises imposed by the fact that this is a remodel rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper. In fact, I find it hard to believe that it would not be cheaper to start with a clean sheet of paper than to hack up this antique locomotive and convert it.