The Preservation section of Trains in the latest had some pretty newsy stuff for a change! Titled “Beating the Draft”, the article went into some detail how one of the longest steam lines in the US (65-mile Grand Can RR) has improved the “Border” area of draft outtake and several other tweeks, using modern physics in conjunction with computer. The advisor was in England, btw, birthplace of steam!
This has got me wondering. Several decades ago, C&O did some “modern” steam experiments that went nowhere. With coal so plentiful in this country and modern day scrubbers used in progressive coal plants; surely, someone can find the magic formula for making steam locomotives efficient nowadays.
I know that gas is still plentiful (tho pricey) and that diesel fuel is still the best. However, over time, it would seem that the oil supply cannot last indefinitely and that at some point, it might be productive to relook the steam locomotive model, perhaps from a fresh blueprint.
Where is Robert Le Massena when we need him?? In his June 1968 article, “The BIG Engines”, he opined that steam locomotive design peaked in 1937. He felt that further advances were held back by World War 2 and the onset of the diesel locomotive.
In his article in 1974, “Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?”, he pointed out that in the postwar period, the steam builders were trying to make up for lost time and were trying to come up with multiple technical advances at once, increasing mechanical complexity much more than necessary or desirable. His musings in that article came up with ideas used existing (pre-1949) technology in novel but practical arrangements. Even he couldn’t gaurantee that these ideas would have saved steam.
Didn’t the C&O find the key factor against steam was not that it was maintenance intensive, but rather that traditional steam, especially large steam really did a number on the track it traveled over?
This would almost lead me to believe that if steam ever made a comeback it wouldn’t be what most railfans picture when they think about steam.
The other key here is that in the 70’s, when the C&O did their study, there was a lot more infrastructure for steam still around (e.g. coal towers, water towers, steam maintenance facilities, personnel who had worked with steam, etc.). Today there would have to be a HUGE investment in all of that for steam to rule the rails again.
Would love to see it, but I won’t hold my breath for it.
If you can make diesel fuel from coal for $2.50/gal, (including the cost of the coal), and modern diesel locomotives are 30% efficient or so, you’d need a steam engine with a thermal efficiency in the mid-20s to compete. That would take some seriously high pressures and temperatures along with some cycle “bottoming” techniques such as turbo-compounding or vacuum condensing to get close.
It is far cheaper and easier to simply convert coal into sythetic diesel fuel. The Germans perfected this way back in WW2. The only thing that has held this back was the “cheap” price of natural oil.
Locomotives will someday run on coal again, but the traditional burn coal to produce steam locomotive will never return.
Don’t forget the HUGE reserves of oil sands that are located in North America too. Far larger than any other known oil reserves in the world. Also, there is growing evidence that the worlds first oil fields - the Pennsylvania fields- may have huge reserves located at deep depths. Some geologists claim these fields may dwarf the Saudi and West Texas fields.
Between synthetic diesel and the oil sands, we are not going to run out of diesel any time soon (200+ years) so don’t hold your breath for any radical locomotive changes in your lifetime.
And although it’s still a dirty phrase in some parts (say, Western CO for instance), there is a lot of oil available in oil shale, too. Like Oil Sands, it just requires the price of traditional crude to climb high enough to make it economically feasible.
It may take the form of a hybrid. BMW has a prototype car that uses the exhaust gas of the engine to produce steam to power a booster for the engine simular to an electric hybrid. Since the heat from the exhaust is wasted it improves the efficientcy of the power train. May be it will be a Diesel/Steam/Elecric hybrid. [2c] As always ENJOY
While reclaiming the heat energy of an internal combustion engine is nothing new (Many establishments that generate their own power or co-generate power have been doing this for awhile), I almost have to wonder if the thermal potential in a vehicle’s exhaust wouldn’t be better harnessed with a turbocharger. It seems awfully complex and wasteful to convert the heat energy to steam and the harness the potential of the steam.
CopcarSS has a point.
Having a separate steam cycle means you have an multipart system (boiler, turbine, condenser, pump) aalong with a separate working fluid (water) which you would have make sure cannot freeze if the vehicle is left outside too long when the air temperature gets too low.
The turbocharger basically requires only the turbocharger, a wastegate, and optionally, an intercooler.
This design was probably a very good “Can we do it ?” project which would not result in a practical production design.
BMW has a working prototype. While this has been done on stationary engines theirs moves. You can still use a turbo as they sap very little heat from the exhaust. I do not beleive they use water and it is in a closed loop. I do not remember the exact #'s for projected fuel savings but 10 to 20% comes to mind. Whats wasteful about using the heat that now is just released to the atmosphere. As stated above the idea has been used this way for years by stationary engines. At 5000 gallons a fill-up it would not take long to see a return on investment for using a tried and true concept in a new application. [2c] As always ENJOY
I think the longer term solution is to invest in perfecting a clean emission coal burning steam turbine powerplants and electrifying the ROWs where it is feasable.
Probably most guys reading this thread haven’t seen that article. When a thread cites some long-gone print source we tend to think: ah, if only I could see that! Maybe it would answer all my questions.
Timz: Thanks for the correction. Memory can fade with time. Both authors are respected authorities on steam locomotive engineering and their work in this field needs to be introduced to the next generation.
Similarly, Vernon L Smith noted in his rebuttal article which supported the engineering of American steam locomotives that he saw that the diesel revolution was the path to the future and he willingly climbed aboard.