Should steamer’s make a comeback with todays technologies?
In model or prototype form? If prototype, probably not.
Bob Boudreau
They were horribly ineffecient at converting the calorific content of their fuels into motive force, and were so for two reasons: the technology was rough, and fuel was comparatively cheap (certainly in comparison to their associated labour costs).
I foget the typical efficienct ratings of the typical steamer, but it is in the order of 10-15%, and that was for the later ones. If we could get them up to 25-35%, much like an internal combustion engine, they could become viable.
Then, of course, there are the environmental folks would would object. In fact, they objected way back in the 1920’s-30’s (ish) when steamers contributed greatly to the foul air in the larger cities. Electric locomtives came into their own about that time.
The technology is there and is being used in stationary power… It is too complex to make it feasible in locomotive use at this time…
In the 30’s a guy named Besler powered an airplane with a steam engine. It produced 150 hp. with a weight of about 500# compared to an OX-5 gasoline engine of the time which weighed 800# and only produced 90 hp. it was quite an accomplishment. But Besler never thought it was practical and sold the thing to a japanese officer for $25,000 . Besler used the engine in a plane as a stunt to sell it for other uses, primarily as power generators. Check out the article in Air and Space Mag.
We will probably have to settle for an occassional railfan ride. With washers and dryers, though, we wouldn’t have the probem having to time hanging the clothes to miss the noon freight.
The use of steam as a medium for turning chemical energy into electric energy isnt all that bad of an idea. That’s what they use in any nuclear powered ship, sub, power plant, etc.
OT: Great signature pic Rick.
It might be kool for the railfans but the eviormentalist wouldnt allow it and because they have more chances of malfunction then modern insurance to run them would be high! the pollution factor just owuldnt let them back and there alot harder to service and more expensive
The last big experiement with steam was the steam turbines. They were fantastic for maritime and naval use and are still in use today with minimal maintenance. As for their use in the grit and grime of everyday railroad use, they just could not take the beating and broke down constantly. Although they produced a significant amount of power, the maintenance that went with them was a nightmare. It wasn’t long before the largest of these, the John Henry, went to the scrap lines. I don’t think a steam turbine locomotive would do any better today. The Union Pacific, the only railroad in the U.S. to have an active steam program, spends many millions of dollars keeping the program going. A lot of this comes from donations and contributions. You don’t think the UP would finance it all out of their own pocket, do you?
Jawn Henry (N&W 2300) was scrapped due to a failed main generator - the second time it had failed, not anything to do with steam turbine or boiler. On the steam side, the only problem it had was with the feedwater pump, primarily due to its location. If it had been more accessible, it would not have been a problem. The vast majority of Jawn Henry’s problems were electrical, the systems of the day were just not up to the 4500hp in one locomotive. Contempory EMD’s were no more than 1500hp per electrical system (E units have two electrical systems).
Jawn Henry with a modern electrical system, in a pressurized compartment (like all road diesels since the U25B/EMD GP30/Alco Century) would undoubtably be reliable. The problem is cost. It would be very very expensive compared to a modern diesel electric.
I stand corrected. I’m not afraid to admit I made a mistake. I was just using information from the railroad encyclopedia.