For those who contribute without reading the whole thread. The Porta Firebox is a simple application based on the nature of combustion. It decreases the consumption of coal of an average of 25 to 30%. On the Red Devil, The Argentina and other locomotives fitted with this firebox consistently show these savings in fuel. Under optimal conditions the Red Devil showed a decrease of 65% in fuel consumption. Also the emissions from the locomotive is well below what is required by the EPA. There is no need for scrubbers or any other extra stuff to be added to the maintenance and first cost of the locomotive. Diesels will NEVER be able to meet these standards and the added equipment required to make them come somewhere close will only make the first cost of the unit more and increase the already high expense in maintenance.
[quote user=“erikem”]
For locomotives pre-dating the EMD super series traction control, the steamers could deliver higher sustained tractive effort for a given weight on the drivers. After that, the diesel’s did better. A modern 6 axle AC locomotive can generate a higher continuous tractive effort (at low speeds) than a Big Boy, and weigh about as third as much. A 6,000 HP version will produce almost as much drawbar horsepower as the Big Bo
Michael…I’m simply making the comparison {on automobile gasoline engines}, and getting back to the era right before the typical catalytic converters were installed, fuel economy {and performance}, were at a low point…1973-74 time bracket. The emission controls that were in place {and required}, were reducing capable performance of the auto engines. So my statement then, intends to relate…performance and economy were advanced from the low point when the catalytic converters were put into production and made part of the powertrain package and replaced the anti pollution methods previously in place.
I agree, catalytic converters are not going to increase performance and economy compared to an engine with no polution equipment installed.
I just checked the 5at project site and they have just posted one of Wardales exhaustive works on the theory and practice of modern steam. For those of you who have an engineering bent and can understand pages of Calculus ( I only took 2 semesters of it in college) These papers have complete diagrams and calculations for the Gas Combuster Firebox, Lempor exhausts, boiler specs, in short the whole ball of wax where he lays out the probabilities and potiential for new steam. I’ll try and post a link, I’m not too good at it but here goes;
(corrected by selector. Just type/paste it, and then immediately hit “enter” on a Windows system.)
Thanks a lot Selector [:)] This paper along with Brown’s report and a whole lot of downloadable material can be found in the “References & Links,” section at the 5at site. Mr. Sol I would like to hear your thoughts on this paper if you care to study it.
For the record, CSX’s AC units produce 200,000 lbs continuous TE with the latest GE software upgrades. That’s MEASURED TE in actual service conditions, not theoretical. The 4400 GEs produce 4150 HP at the rail and the 6000’s produce 5600 HP at the rail. Again, measured in actual service. Wsherrick, it is obvious you don’t have any working experience with AC units, so please don’t pass your opinions off as fact. Thank You.
P.S. I would like to see a single Y6 or Class A to even try to attempt the tonnage a single AC can pull over the old B&O West End.
I’ve run everything from a 2-8-0 to a Berkshire, mikados, worked on many other steam locomotives, GE U Boats, Most models of EMD’s and Alco Diesels. I see these AC locomotives daily and I still don’t see a single AC unit pulling the same tonnage that any of the largest steam power and you can’t tell me that these units are not slippery devils, so I guess I do know what I’m talking about. I know GP 40, that you have totally imbibed the Diesel kool aid, but that’s fine, I also run into people like you everyday as well. No hard feelings there pal. By the way NS and CSX are buying DC motors for the mountainous coal regions for drag service for some reason. I heard that from a CSX employee just this morning as we were discussing this very topic.
PS: I have worked on a Class A.
Al Krug has this to say:
“One night I was running a freight up hill at 7 mph with a Dash 9-44CW on the point. I had previously calculated that we should have gone up the hill at 11 mph, so why were we only doing 7 mph? The rail was slightly frosty. I punched up the loco monitor screen on the computer. It showed that this supposedly 4400 Hp unit was only putting out 2930 HP!!! It had derated to prevent slipping in spite of the sanders being on. So the adhesion factor of this loco at that time was not the touted 36-43% but instead only 22%. The railroad had paid for a 4400 HP locomotive with 36% adhesion but was only getting a 2930 HP locomotive with 22% adhesion. The common SD40-2 would have done as good or better in this situation than the hi-tech wonder. This was not a one time occurrance. I have seen similar performances on many occasions.”
"If you haven’t been paying attention you might think that the new 6000 HP single unit locos are destined for heavy haul service. True they are all heavy 6 axle units. But that is because the weight is needed to put that 6,000 HP to the rail without slipping. A 6,000 Hp unit that weighs 420,000 lbs and can attain a 43% adhesion factor has an adhesion of 180,600 lbs. The 6,000 Hp diesel engine can deliver that 180,600 lbs of Tractive Effort at a speed of 13 mph. Below that speed you cannot use full throttle on these locos because they will slip. That was for an astounding adhesion factor of 43%. What if they cannot maintain that extreme level of adhesion? What if they “only” get 36%? 36% of 420,000 lbs is 151,200 lbs of TE. The 6000 hp diesel can deliver that TE at 15 mph so the loco cannot operate below 15 mph in full throttle without slipping. At an adhesion factor of 30% the lowest full throttle speed is 18 mph. If the rail is wet or frosty can these modern marvels maintain even a 30% adhesion factor? My experience with 4400 Hp units is a definite no. The C44s often have trouble maintaining 22% adhesion with bad rail conditi
That is 100% wrong.
You still didn’t answer my question about the Y and A on the West End…
Al Krug didn’t test AC’s on the Mountain Sub…I did. Like I said, the figures I gave are from ACTUAL service…What don’t you guys understand about ACTUAL…
As regards actual fuel costs today … right on! Those things actually are important. The best machine in the world is worthless if it costs too much trying to do the job …
MY aren’t we combative! I will answer your question about the Y6b on the B&O’s west end when you tell me how often a single AC unit goes over the grade and how much it pulls. Or is it more than one unit at a time? And at what speeds does the AC unit produce this “continous tractive effort,” and what speeds do these engines produce these horsepower ratings? Any decent size Northern can produce 4000 horsepower for a wide range of speeds
Hey, I never disagreed with you on the current cost of coal vs. oil. My post was about the actual in-service performance of the ACs. In fact, if what you say about economic potential about modern steam being so much cheaper can be proven to be true, and will stay that way AND worth the initial investment, THEN I say go for it. That’s right, scrap all the D-Es right now. If what you are saying is really true, then the RR’s would be crazy not to invest in new steam.
Actually, no need for combat at all. In fact my question was answered by the PRR when they tested the Class A and decided to buy the better designed and performing C&O T1 instead.
As far as the rest of your question, I have posted that information before on this forum. Do a search–I do not want to retype it here. Member Feltonhill agreed that The Class A’s horsepower curve was no match for an AC6000 at any speed. Jay Potter wrote an article (I believe in Nov. 2006 Trains) on CSX’s AC program on the Mountain Sub.
Your word is as good as the engineer I was talking to, both claims are unsubstantiated so if I goofed by quoting this man, I apologize for all. Now these are the some of the specs for Y6b’s and A’s and this is the last of this conversation because if we are going to talk about AC/DC units and comparing them to 60 years ago, there needs to be another thread started on it. This thread is about the feasibility of modern steam, its characteristics, design and potential for use TODAY and the future that we are barreling toward.
Class A:
Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.
Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH
Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH
Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.
Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH
Class Y6b:
Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds, 152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.
Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH
Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH
Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.
Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b’s on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons
Source: N&W Records, circa 1950
Another item to look at when comparing a new steam locomotive to a traditional one is what Porta and other call the, “Steam Circut.” I don’t have the mathmatical skills to go through the formulas about how it works, but maybe some of the engineering types could jump in and help.
What I do know from being a fireman on a hard working locomotive is the draft is of key importance to the performance of the engine. I have had the coal literally sucked off the shovel as the coal was being placed in the fire. It is really neat to see the lumps of coal burst into flame as soon as they leave the shovel and head for the grate, but neat is not always efficient. According to Wardale and others, the front end design of the standard locomotive is hopelessly poor as well as the valves, steam chests and assorted pipes. In this region is where most of the loss of power occurs as the steam is travelling from the boiler to end up chugging up the stack.
The idea is to have the steam pressure in the cylinders as close to that of the boiler as possible, but there is in the best conditions over a fifteen pound loss of steam pressure by the time the steam makes it to the cylinder. It may not sound like a lot but it is a tremendous loss of power. I believe that every (somebody check me on this) five pound loss of pressure in the cylinder translates into a loss of over five tons of piston thrust. That’s quite a lot. The idea then is find out where this loss is occurring. Most of it is due to excessive back pressure formed as the piston is trying to force steam out of the exhaust. This back pressure is due to several causes that compound with one another. It has been found that there are three main culprits: Constriction in the steam passages heading in and out of the steam chest, constriction in the dry pipe and super heater headers and worst of all the constriction in the exhaust nozzle.
Porta after many years of exp
This sounds more like a research project than maintaining a historic relic …
Yes, I quite agree. This,“treasured antique,” as some put it earlier in this thread, has been significantly altered from its original design at a substantial cost to the company. I’m inclined to believe that this money wasn’t spent for the occasional happy excursion.
The other odd thing about this work is the Union Pacific has been extremely secretive about it. Nigel Day is involved and he shut down a discussion about the Challenger in the Railway Preservation News Forum.
This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.
I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency—and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.
As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency.
Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me.
I guess I don’t have a problem with the Lempor ejector nozzle on the UP Challenger.
These locomotives are antiques yes, and they are historical recreations of the heydey of steam, yes as well, but the alternate history in which steam stayed around another 10 years and locomotives got fitted with those ejectors is also part of the history.
Try this analogy. Suppose there was some group of wealthy EAA types who somehow got ahold and restored to flight status a B-36, complete with those monster R-4460 radial piston engines driving pusher props and those outboard jet engines. Suppose some maniacs with time on their hands actually built the Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) upgrade to the turbo-charging system of those engines that had been planned but never done. Not quite sure what the VDT was, but it seems to be a kind of turbocharger that used the engine exhaust for supplemental jet thrust to the propulsive force of the engine.
If there were some maniacs with enough time and money to do this, I would say, more power to them rather than complain that they are corrupting a one-of-a-kind antique aircraft. Likewise with putting fancy ejectors or firebox systems on the Colorado narrow gauge of the UP Northern or Challenger locomotives. Those systems are all part of the history of steam as they were conceptualized in many cases but not applied.
This is almost like saying, no, don’t hot-rod a 1932 flat-head V-8 Ford with chromed carbs, manifold headers, and other performance parts. The 1932 Ford is a priceless antique and the Beach Boys committed sacriledge by memorializing the highly modified Deuce Couple in song.