If you are interested in steam development ( history and possible future), this paper is a good read. John Rhode’s presentation titled “Economics of Coal as a Locomotive Fuel on US Class 1 Railroads” was given to a luncheon meeting of the National Capital Land Transportation Committee of the Institute of Electrical/Electronic Engineers and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Washington DC, this past September.
Before everyone gets all giddy about this “presentation”, you may want to know a little about the speaker. Mr. Rhodes has his B.S. degree from the Culinary Institute (yes, a cooking school). His vast knowledge of transportation issues stemed from his job as an Transportation Aide for the Fairfax Connector Bus System, where he “analyzed” ridership data for bus schedules. It seems his understanding of the railroad industry was obtained from " traveling extensively by rail with his parents in his youth" If you think I am making this up, his information is right on the IEEE site. His presentation is just a rehash of inaccurate data that can be found on many steam railfan sites. Honestly, I’ve worked with high school students on science and technology projects that had more original thought than this. Let’s see, this guy has no background in engineering or business, and no training or work experience in the railroad industry, but he is giving a presentation on the economics of locomotives.
When I first looked up Mr. Rhodes background yesterday, I have to admit I got a good laugh. But the more I think about the situation, it is very sad. I suspect that his presentation was more than likely “warmly received” for 2 reasons. First, out of politeness, for these lunch meetings are casual affairs, and rarely does any serious debate go on. Second, locomotive utilization is so highly specialized, I doubt that anyone who was attending had industry knowledge of the subject to ask any serious questions. What makes this so sad, is that I see more and more of this going on with twenty-somethings who are entering the job market. It is perfectly acceptable to them to take an entry level job in something that they have little or no background in, work for a year or two at it, then embellish the heck out their job responsibilities, finally calling themselves “experts” in the field. Just my two cents.
Having just read these two comments, I have to admit having second thoughts about posting it. Not that expertise is required for an opinion, otherwise these threads would be barren, as I have no idea ( nor do I care) as to the level of expertise the respondents themselves have. It also regretfully managed to inject politics into the subject although whenever you have more than two people in a room there are personal politics involved. I simply enjoyed reading it as a reader. I have over thirty years of engineering experience and am retired, and don’t have a horse, personal or otherwise, in this race. I was hopeful that the material itself would prompt an interesting discussion I could follow as steam development is an interesting topic, not others personal opinions of one another. Live and learn.
Wallyworld, my posts were not intended to slam your reference to this presentation. After all, you had nothing to do with the presentation, and on the surface, one would like to think that a presentation at an IEEE function would come from someone with extensive knowledge in his/her field. That is not always the case as this presentation shows. Thanks for posting it. This is a great example that why in this day and age of instant information, we all need to be wary of both the information, and the motive of the messenger providing that information.
I took no offense because none was intended. The disheartenening response I have is that the messenger rather than the content of the piece became the subject. As far as expertise, while your points are well taken, I personally found through experience in my profession, more than one consultant or expert I have worked with on a project actually was an uninformed theorist who had no real working knowledge of how theory is or is not applied to reality. Some of the best “out of the box” solutions to real problems came from those who were not formally taught what is or what is not possible, as they looked at specific issues with fresh eyes. In hindsight some of these insights were so obvious I was embarrassed that we had overlooked them as “experts” I used to tell my employees on the first day on the job, that I did not know everything and I did not expect them to. However, if I dont know the answer to a question, I will say so, and all I ask is the same of others. I worked with many peers on countless projects who more often than not found that the correct technical solution did not work in the field. My working life taught me that expertise is not in a degree, but in finding solutions to complex problems especially when some one else’s money was being spent…I suppose my response is “lighten up”…what you dont hear about is when the “experts” are wrong… or even counter productive…we used to patiently listen to some fellow drone on and on and then take him to the field and he would instantly develop a severe reaction to reality like a deer caught in the high beams. Everything is to be taken with several grains of salt.
I had no strong feelings either way as far as the material itself as reality map…but what is interesting ( at least to me) that someone takes this position in the 21st century as well as the fact that what you infer is true, that the real dialog as far as the further development of steam has been left largely ( outside of Wardale and Nigel Day, etc) has been passed along to enthu
Okay, I’ll bite. What was stated in the presentation that is factually incorrect, or that is not supported by the facts? I ask this not as a goad, but because the first response sounds a great deal like an argumentam ad hominem…it takes the argument to the man, and not to what his meaning or intent is.
So, in good faith, and leaving aside his marital status, his religion, his education, his work experience, the choice he makes in automobile purchases, and his surfing habits on the web late at night, what is it about his message, and the supporting arguments/facts, that is patently wrong? I believe the answer to that question will help me to make sense of both of the first two posts in this thread from the perspective of each author.
-Crandell
Hmm…that is a very loaded question. It all goes back to the infamous graphs and economic analysis that was brought up on that equally infamous “other” thread. At this time, I have no intentions to get involved in a 10,000 page “steam vs. diesel” debacle. Thinking outside the box is great if you actually have some understanding of the issue at hand, but I have to draw the line when somebody goes to school to be a sous chef, then a few years later presents this garbage as his “masters” thesis. Call it what you like Crandell, but I’ll leave you with this: There is a reason why industry engineers with degrees from places like MIT, CMU and CalTech simply will not get involved with this stuff, and laugh when railfans do.
If a person has no intention “to get involved in a 10,000 page ‘steam vs diesel debacle’” then don’t get involved in it. Don’t click into the thread and don’t post any replies.
As to the cost comparisons between coal and oil, these things vary. When Diesels took hold in the late 1940s and early 1950s, oil was cheap and plentiful and coal was subject to supply disruptions related to strikes conducted on behalf of the workers in then mainly underground mines. When the ACE 3000 studies were conducted in the early 1970s, oil was expensive and subject to supply disruptions owing to political turmoil in lands producing it, and strip-mined coal was comparatively inexpensive. The price of oil could come down again to wipe out the cost advantage of coal.
From a thermal efficiency standpoint, the best use of coal would be to generate electric power and then string wires over the rail lines. If those catenary wires are too expensive, it is said that the next best thing would be to convert coal into a liquid fuel and power Diesels. It needs to be considered that converting coal into a liquid fuel requires a source of hydrogen, and if the hydrogen is obtained from by breaking the oxygen bond in water by using coal in a water gas reaction, the efficiency of converting coal to liquid fuel is about 50 percent owing to the coal energy required to reduce hydrogen from water. What this means is that from the standpoint of ultimate thermal efficiency and hence carbon dioxide emissions to power trains with coal, a steam locomotive with a thermal efficiency in the mid teens is probably roughly comparable to a system of converting coal to liquids and a Diesel of overall (not peak) efficiency in the 30’s.
With regard to the 1970s ACE 3000 program, it probably needs to be considered that in the 1970’s, we were only 20 years out from the end of steam. Even though all of the steam infra
Paul
I enjoyed reading your comments which I think brings a historical leavening to the once and future use of coal. I think in all of these alternatives… manufacturing scale up and the reinvestment in support infrastructure is the real devil’s detail when the rubber meets the road. I think the issue is a overly conservative approach which has usually been the bane of the railroads historically. Another issue is the bane of all industry short term market gains versus reinvestment. I personally know of companies in the early era of reductions in force wherein it was used to drive corporate insider trading on dividends from stock options.
Short term goals just in time planning…,lack of field work in relation to experimental trials with prototypes…we seem to be lodged in circular arguments as a alternative to any experimentation outside of retrofitting existing designs…much as in the late steam era with some notable exceptions granted. It took a working F unit to evaluate, not tabletop politics, that turned the tide for the diesel.
I agree from experience that maintenance is unusually the X factor that foils the best laid plans and is usually the first necessity to get tossed overboard when the game gets rough.
Abit off topic but on the issues of scale up…you might find interesting is that I just read a great article in Esquire about Dean Kamen who has perfected a Stirling engine, which he has tied to a water purification device. The same fellow who built that invented the Segway, etc…He has developed a Stirling prototype that increases the range of electric cars, which he is currently shopping. The issue is to these as well are also the issues (read cost) of scale up…
I find the concept of “21st Century steam” fascinating but I do find that a lot of these discussions seem to break down over the question of why the railroad industry (I’m strictly referring to linehaul and passenger service in North America) does not seem to be interested…the last major discussion of the topic on this forum rapidly devolved from the initial “could/should steam make a comeback?” focus to a few railfan/steam enthusiasts trying to claim that professional railroaders (particularly mechanical/motive power management types) are fools for not “seeing the light”…
Things happen so quickly these days, it’s a wonder any project expected to take more than two or three years ever gets off the ground.
Asbestos suits? I wonder what the footwear was like! Wow. I wouldn’t mind a copy of that book, Paul. What is its title, please?
-Crandell
I think the simple answer to the reluctance of the railroad industry to reinvent the wheel is that a convincing case for coal\steam based on current economic conditions has not been made.Its as simple as that. It’s a case of “show me” which is perfectly understandable. The only real demonstration I know of is pictured above,
"In late 1998, SLM completed the extensive modernization of 52 series German Kriegslokomotive 2-10-0 no. 8055 for use on the Orient Express in Europe. The locomotive was extensively tested prior to being modified so that the benefit of the modifications could be documented. Over 70 percent of the parts of the locomotive were replaced or modified. As a result of these modifications, the top speed of the engine was raised from 70 km/hr to 100 km/hr and the horsepower was increased from 1600 to 3000. The engine now burns light oil and features sealed roller bearings, a central lubrication system, light weight motion-work, and extensive thermal insulation. A side benefit of light oil firing in an external combustion engine (i.e.- steam) is very low exhaust emissions. This engine emits about 80 percent less toxic exhaust gases per kW than a state-of-the-art diesel. The modifications were performed to provide a steam locomotive which could keep tight schedules and “time windows” to be allowed to run on the main lines without causing interference with normal trains. Testing of the modified locomotive began in March 1999 and the locomotive
[quote user=“wallyworld”]
I think the simple answer to the reluctance of the railroad industry to reinvent the wheel is that a convincing case for coal\steam based on current economic conditions has not been made.Its as simple as that. It’s a case of “show me” which is perfectly understandable. The only real demonstration I know of is pictured above,
“In late 1998, SLM completed the extensive modernization of 52 series German Kriegslokomotive 2-10-0 no. 8055 for use on the Orient Express in Europe. The locomotive was extensively tested prior to being modified so that the benefit of the modifications could be documented. Over 70 percent of the parts of the locomotive were replaced or modified. As a result of these modifications, the top speed of the engine was raised from 70 km/hr to 100 km/hr and the horsepower was increased from 1600 to 3000. The engine now burns light oil and features sealed roller bearings, a central lubrication system, light weight motion-work, and extensive thermal insulation. A side benefit of light oil firing in an external combustion engine (i.e.- steam) is very low exhaust emissions. This engine emits about 80 percent less toxic exhaust gases per kW than a state-of-the-art diesel. The modifications were performed to provide a steam locomotive which could keep tight schedules and “time windows” to be allowed to run on the main lines without causing interference with normal trains. Testing of the modified locomotive began in March 1999 and the locomotive pulled its first passenger trains in April 1999.”
-Ultimate Steam Page
It’s very hard to make a compelling case by projections or opinion when you are asking for an enormous reinvestment in technology, support industries, operating procedures while not having one demonstrable application.
Someone with deep pockets would have to invest money and take a well thought out ri
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World’s Steam Passenger Locomotives, Brian Hollingsworth, Crescent Books, New York. A heavy representation of British locomotives, but the key American and French ones (Andre Chapelon’s work) are in there too.
Anyone with any kind of interest in steam should have this book in their collection, in my opinion. It has pictures yes, but cool drawings as well. It is kind of the like the Diesel Spotter’s Guide, only for steam.
Thanks, Paul, I’ll check it out…literally, I hope.
-Crandell
[quote user=“wallyworld”]
I think the simple answer to the reluctance of the railroad industry to reinvent the wheel is that a convincing case for coal\steam based on current economic conditions has not been made.Its as simple as that. It’s a case of “show me” which is perfectly understandable. The only real demonstration I know of is pictured above,
“In late 1998, SLM completed the extensive modernization of 52 series German Kriegslokomotive 2-10-0 no. 8055 for use on the Orient Express in Europe. The locomotive was extensively tested prior to being modified so that the benefit of the modifications could be documented. Over 70 percent of the parts of the locomotive were replaced or modified. As a result of these modifications, the top speed of the engine was raised from 70 km/hr to 100 km/hr and the horsepower was increased from 1600 to 3000. The engine now burns light oil and features sealed roller bearings, a central lubrication system, light weight motion-work, and extensive thermal insulation. A side benefit of light oil firing in an external combustion engine (i.e.- steam) is very low exhaust emissions. This engine emits about 80 percent less toxic exhaust gases per kW than a state-of-the-art diesel. The modifications were performed to provide a steam locomotive which could keep tight schedules and “time windows” to be allowed to run on the main lines without causing interference with normal trains. Testing of the modified locomotive began in March 1999 and the locomotive pulled its first passenger trains in April 1999.”
-Ultimate Steam Page
It’s ve
Do a Google search on “Paige Compositor.”
Mark Twain would have been a forgotten 19’th century novelist had he not sunk all of his money and a lot of borrowed money into an automatic type setting machine, which was a commercial failure. In order to pay his debts, he embarked on a world-wide speaking tour doing his Hal Holbrooke impressions. This made him internationally famous.
OK, OK, that one novelist lost his shirt on investing in not a typewriter but perhaps the steam-punk version of Microsoft Word. But it made him a famous person in the end.
I like it!
Railway Man,
I couldn’t agree with you more which is why I likened the idea that railroads themselves would “reinvent the wheel” to" putting the cart before the horse." Paul’s comments apply as well as your own. To put it all in a nutshell, without the perspective of experience, it’s all sophistry. If you dont have a product to evaluate in real world conditions, then it’s like “pouring from the empty into the void.”
Thomas Pynchon once said that if you start exploring an issue by asking the wrong questions, “you dont have to worry about about answers.” Your comments remind me of the original idea behind the often misapplied philosophy of Continuous Quality Improvement, the folks who actually do the work know more about how to “improve” a process versus those who don’t.
As far as my own experiences, the best management I worked with were comparible to those railroad managers who spent a reasonable amount of time out “on the road” and kicked the tires. A good question is worth a hundred answers. To use a metaphor, the “lowly” switch tender may know more about unclogging a yard than a fellow in some remote location ruminating over apparent abstractions. The problem I saw over and over again was the fear of simply saying “I don’t know” as well as the same applied to asking questions as if asking them was a sign of weakness or ignorance. Again the cart before the horse.
The best managers had their subordinates actually invested in discussing a common solution rather than dictating one. The weakness of human psychology was often more at fault than the process itself.as far as derailing “the best laid plans.” before they turned a wheel.