They can actually make diesel from coal mining waste, so using the Powder River coal would be no problem. One proposal I read about would use the waste from Pennsylvania slate dumps to make diesel. Not only would it make useable low sulfur synthetic diesel, but it would remove the slate dumps from the environment at the same time.
You raise an excellent point. But, despite the 100+ years of steam development, I think the relevant questio
After some thought and research I’ve found that diesel is cheaper in the long run under current circumstances meaning an abundance of cheap petroleum. However when the petroleum gives out steam will be cheaper, because it’s more thermodynamically efficient to burn coal in a steam loco than go to all the trouble of converting it into oil for the diesel. Even with the extra labor cost of a steamer I suspect and I’m merely saying I suspect that even with the extra labor costs it would still be cheaper to burn coal in a steamer than convert it into oil for the diesel. However labor might not be an issue as I suspect again that with minor adjustments a coal fired loco could operate with a one man crew just like DLM’s steam locos can.
Once diesel fuel gets expensive it will be cheaper to string the wire, add a pantograph to your fleet of ac4400 and do business as usual 
It’s true that diesels were cheaper in most cases but on the other hand less crew
means more accidents. Although I know that computer technogoly has made railways
safer on the other hand some of those “car on track” incidents could of been avoided if
the engineer was watching from the front of the cab. Not all trains take a mile to stop.
Even if coal is a cheaper fuel source, the concept of a new coal burning steam locomotive for revenue service would never get pushed past the EPA. That would take more than a miracle. As soon as the words coal and burning are ever mentioned, the EPA starts screaming pollution. And the only kind of steam locomotive that could be used effectively in revenue service, would be a newly designed locomotive. And that wouldn’t be a problem if people in this country had even an ounce of common sense, but that isn’t the case anymore. I mean, these new locomotives could be equipped with highly sophisticated pollution control devices and burn low sulfur coal, but, try telling people that and it falls on deaf ears. Sad but true.
As stated before, when the oil dries up / gets too spendy they will put up the wire.
It might be fun to talk about the return of steam locomotives. But it will never happen. For many reasons, most already pointed out. [:(] Its dead[xx(]
The laws of physics always work against steam and in favor of internal combustion. Two points:
-
Steam requires a two stage conversion - a fuel is burned to generate steam then the steam is expanded to generate work. With each conversion there are efficiency losses. Internal combusion only has one conversion - a fuel is burned to generate an expanding gas, generating work. Less conversions - less efficiency losses.
-
Compare the mass that must remain at temperature. A steam engine has to keep the firebox, boiler, throttle control system (steam dome, etc.) and cylinders at temperature. Over half of the fuel burned is for keeping mass at temperature. Internal combusion only keeps the cylinder at temperature. The amount of fuel used to keep the cylinder at temperature is negligable.
Even if coal were free - steam unfortunately loses to the laws of physics. I wish it were the other way around.
dd
If you think burning coal in a steam locomotive would be more thermodynamically efficient than converting it to a more useful fuel, then you need to take some classes in…thermodynamics!
Another problem steam would have today is with the liability. When a diesel locomotive is involved in a major accident there is the physical damage from the collision and often a fire. When a large steam locomotive is involved in a major accident, or if the engineer is not paying enough attention to the water level, there can be a boiler explosion spreading superheated water over a large area. Just think of the lawsuits that would entail if this would happen in a residential area in this day and age.
I’m sure the management of the RRs has crunched the #s & diesel wins hands down otherwise the RRs would be buying state of the art steam loco’s today. Maybe the question to be asked is with the hugh spike in oil prices with more coming as a example today’s oil futures hit a new hi would electification with all its start up costs be better if you figure a ROI say over 20 or 30 years?
[quote]
Originally posted by tpatrick
A litle reading assignment is in order here. Each of you get yourselves a copy of Eric Hirsimaki’s “Black Gold, Black Diamonds” volumes one and two. These are chronicles of the PRR’s reluctant adoption of diesels. Remember that Pennsy had an interest in coal production in its region, so it really wanted to keep running steam. But the comparison left them no choice. Hirsimaki’s volumes have the real numbers, so you can read them for yourselves.
I could not agree more. While not the definitive postscript in the steam vs diesel debate, it is a fascinating " behind the scenes" chronical of the internal debates between various camps in upper management on this topic. I have to regretfully weigh in in the diesel camp if you are referring to contemporary techonology versus sixty year old designs from the 1940’s. However, with new composite metals, the Porta developments in combustion technology, software and predictive computer control…who knows? Even the ACE techology is some decades old now and many new technological developments have compounded since that time. Will it a prototype happen? The odds are staggeringly against the huge capital risk and associated cost. However, I just filled up my car’s fuel tank at $2.05 a gallon. There’s no doubt however that ultimately at the present time, straight electric motive power is the most effective but again, there are huge captital costs…No matter how you pare the deficit ridden apple of the national economy, from either side of the political aisle there’s no money left to explore options to our shrinking supplies of oil. This " dependance on oil" has been a perennial debate for decades…and so it goes.
couple of minor points…
on fuel costs: you cannot take one fuel in isolation. A rise in the cost of oil also brings about rises in all other fuels; perhaps not in direct ratio, but they will go up – cancelling out much of the potential ‘advantage’ for coal.
second, very sophisticated pollution control devices do exist for coal burning. They are large, bulky, and heavy, and some of them at least are ill-suited (at best!) for mobile operation. Designing and constructing a reasonable emissions control system for a coal burning steam engine strikes me as something I woud advise a client to forget. On the other hand, one could make a very good (from the emissions standpoint) oil burning steam engine… if there were something to be gained.
third, thermodynamic efficiency is determined basically (I’m simplifying here, don’t jump on me guys) by the ‘cycle’ and by the maximum temperature difference in the cycle; the cycle doesn’t make anywhere near the difference that temperature difference does. Not only does it take less fuel to keep a diesel cylinder warm, the highest temperatures reached in a diesel engine are much higher than those which can be maintained in a steam engine; this is also the problem with gas turbine engines. Higher maximum temperature, greater efficiency, lower cost.
fourth, why not raise the temperature of the steam? three reasons (at least) – one, you begin to run into materials problem (the steel in the boiler melts, which is not desirable) and second you have to run at very high pressures, which means a boiler explosion becomes… interesting. a third is that lubrication of a steam piston and cylinder assembly becomes really difficult at the high temperatures; anything which might lubricate well at those temperatures won’t even move at room temperature.
I love steam engines. But not as an economical means of powering a railroad.
There is another factor that has not been mentioned: This is the issue of “banking” a steam engine. A steam engine was never shut down completely unless the boiler had to be rebuilt. An idle steam engine was parked in the roundhouse overnight without ever dousing the fire in the firebox. The airflow into the firebox was reduced to minimize the fuel consumption without smothering the flame entirely. I understand it took a full 48 hours to get a Big Boy ready to run if its boiler had to heated up from a cold start. Owners of Diesel trucks can tell you that this is not a problem. This long start-up time is what doomed the original steam power automobiles once the electric starter was invented.
Steam engines were a collection of custom fabricated parts. No two classes of steam engines shared very many common assemblies. Diesels were all off the shelf componnets. From EMDs 567 to it’s 710 series an amazing number of parts could be bolted together on the same assemblies.
Diesel locomotive can be set to burn coal directly if ever needed. Probably in some sort of diesel slurry at first but unscrewing the current injectors and replacing them with something compatible with the new fuel is certainly possible.
Previous posters hit it on the nail, the market determined a long time ago which is more effecient. Electrical would win hands down if you did not have to build so much infrastructure up front.
Alan
Also, this discussion hinges on the idea of “cheap” coal that would somehow make steam locomotives desireable to the RR’s again.
Check out the current coal prices: High BTU eastern coal is going for $60+ per ton now, and could hit $80-$100 per ton in a few years. Eastern coal used for steel making is already over the $100 per ton mark, and heading for $200 per ton right now.
This is not to mention the billions all us taxpayes are going to have to fork over in the next 20 years to clean up the damage left over from coal mining.
It is far easier to make fuel out of soy beans than coal, bio diesel is in use in a lot of other countries around the world but big oil keeps the politicians in office so they keep enacting roadblocks to deter its use in our country.
Originally posted by GP40-2
“If you think burning coal in a steam locomotive would be more thermodynamically efficient than converting it to a more useful fuel, then you need to take some classes in…thermodynamics!”
Here! Here!
I am an engineer and I hate these threads where laymen discuss as though they are some sort of authority that which they do not know. I don’t tell a surgeon how to operate. I wish folks would remember one simple axiom concerning the railroad . . . they are cheap “fellows” and if they are doing it, it is to help the bottom line.
Ed
Yes jason1 I agree with you. The EPA in no way would ever and I meen ever pass a bill allowing steam locomorives to come back to major class one railroads for feright service. As much as I would like to see some vinage railroading this isn’t going to happen. First off many steam engines burn high sulpher coal, which when burnned produces excessive amounts of Oxides of Sulpher SOx, which means you would have to worry about Sulphric Acid that has a pH of 3 in the form of precipatation. If you were to have a locomotive that burned wood. You would have to worry about excessive COx, small traces of NOx and SOx emissions which enhances the greenhouse effect then could lead to global warming or what I like to say global cooling, if too much of these gases are around. Also the EPA would have concerns about the NOx combining with Hydrocarbons to form ground level O3 which is bad. Plus I don’t think anyone today is willing to put lots of money into researching and designeing a modern and advanced steam locomotive, not when they have the type of emissions control they do today in diesel technology.
While it would be nice to see a big boy taking the curve at Dagget to enter the BNSF mainline sorry to sy for all those who like steam power the RRs as someone said are “cheap” which means if they thought steam or for that matter electricity was cheaper then diesel then would do it in a heart beat.