After a quick revue of the infamous steam page and the calculations of coal fired steam vs diesel electric, the following occured to me:
A modernized version of the Pennsy T1 traveling at 150 mph and burning coal or some coal derivative for passenger service would have LOWER FUEL COSTS than Amtrak’s current 79 mph LD offerrings.
This takes into consideration coal fired steam’s 13 to 1 cost advantage over diesel electric locomotives. But it does bring to light a qualification to the notion that fuel costs will be lower as speed is reduced.
you need to find someone who could do the work of shoveling 150 tons of coal per hour (exaggeration but probably not far off) and at that amount of coal needed would meet the cost that would be relative to diesel fuel in the first place. The saying "you can never get out of it what you put into it " would come into place, diesel engines are about 33 percent power as to steam is about 20 percent? maybe? more?
oh and a few other things. I sure wouldnt want to ride behind a 2000 lb (or more) reciprocating mass at 150mph that could be dangerous even being modernized that is alot of metal flying too quickly for my taste. Also i want to see steam wheels handle that speed. i dont think that there is no way it would work. Just my two cents
The T1 had problems with adheasion on uneven rail and tended to slip at speed. I believe if they would have articulated the front engine it would have been a great loco. The Q2 had 6000 HP. More than the Big boy. But even the mighty keystone parked them on the deadline and ran the old reliable 2 cylinder power decades older than the modern steam. As it stands steam no matter how modern would not be cost effective in the least. High maintenance cost and down time for maintenance and inspection would outweigh the cost of fuel. I would love to see a comeback of steam power but the economy would not let that be viable. Anyway there is no way this country can produce in numbers that was done in the heyday of steam. A K4 new would cost $400,000. Now we cant restore one already built for less than 3 million dollars and going on a decade. Im afraid the Steam loco building trade has gone the way of the dinosaurs.
If you realy want to move people hang wires and bring back the GG1. 60 plus years of service and billions of miles under the frames.
…I’m unaware of any production steam engine back when they were the norm, that could come close to a sustained 150 mph. And I am with the poster above with the comment of all those heavy rods and linkages, wheel assy’s., etc…whirling around loading their supporting journals / bearings at that speed…!!
Designers would need a clean sheet of paper to create a new monster to perform like that.
The New York Central “J” Class was static tested to 139 mph. Engineers (M.E.) felt that the Milwaukee Road’s larger version, the “Baltic”, would test out at 159 mph or so, and be capable of sustained operation. The problem was/is, they would be out of horsepower at those speeds because of air resistance as would production Diesel-electrics today. Could specialized Steam be produced that reaches those speeds and still pull a reasonably sized train? Sure. The inherent single-unit power plant design continues to exceed the capabilities of the modern Diesel-electric.
Yeah, remember that article in TRAINS about a MILW Hiawatha locomotive that got some part of the wheel linkage jammed around 70-something MPH? Boom…[:O]
On a modernized locomotive, that would be less likely to happen, but still, many modern locos still have teething problemswhen they’re introduced…
The C&O Historical Society Magazine, May 2006, carried an article about poppet valves which addresses the case in point. PRR was having a problem with their T1s suffering failures of their Franklin poppet valves. Franklin sent a technician to determine the cause of the failures. Here is a quote from the magazine:
“The technician returned to Baltimore and simply handed his supervisor his notebook and stopwatch, telling him to check the mile-post timings. The trains were taking longer than scheduled station stops and the PRR enginmen were running at speeds up to 140 mph between stops to make up the time. The poppet valves were simply not designed to be strong enough to stand up to that kind of service.”
…My comment was of not knowing of any production steam engine capable of sustained 150 mph. I am aware of certain instances of “flash” speed that occured just like most railfans are…
Remember the prototype German steam engine put together before the “war” had reported flash speeds of between the 120’s and 30’s mph and maybe a bit higher. That was the “V-8” cylinder arrangement with extreme streamlining over the engine itself. For any interested, list that description in Google to learn more…
Did not the English Steam engine "Mallard) set the record for steam power at 126 MPH and that was for a very short distance? [:-^] I believe the record still stands.
How many angels on a pinhead are we talking about?
Sorry guys, I love steam but short of a nuclear war in the middle east, steam aint gonna make any sort of comeback here any more so than getting your Great Great Grandfathers back from the dead, let it go…we all know what killed steam wasn’t efficiency, it was maintanence and labor costs…you want reliable 150mph train service …???
…then burn all the coal in an efficient emmisions controlable powerplant (how the hell you control emissions on a locomotive?), hang catenary, and buy some HST sets from either France, Germany or Japan, its far more energy efficient, why continue knocking heads trying to re-sell what essentially remains Edsel-era technology?
Mallard holds the records simply because it was the only one “officially” timed for so. My understanding is that PRR managemnt threatened to fire any engineer that attempted to file any kind of speed record claim, but yes the T1s and the S1s were reportetly routinely smashing the Mallards record in daily service.
I believe that when folks think of high speed rail travel, anything over 100 mph qualifies. 150 mph is roughly double the highest Interstate Highway speeds, that should count for something quatifiable. Getting there in half the time it takes to drive would have travelers banging on Amtrak’s door.
The point I was making is in the fuel cost analysis. Coal fired 150 mph steam - apparently well within the realm of actuality given the past “static” tests Michael alluded to - would (at current coal vs diesel prices) have lower overall fuel costs than diesel powered 79 mph Amtrak/Intermodal trains.
Twice as fast and half the fuel costs. Think about it. That reality runs counter to conventional wisdom that slower speeds = lower fuel costs. All it takes is a shift in fuel type.
I guess the larger question is whether the current rail infrastructure could handle 150 mph trains. Is it just a question of signalling? Crossing safety? Or is there an inherent higher track maintenance cost factor of high speeds vs lower relative speeds, one that is exponential in it’s impact?
PS - the reason I am using the T1 as the poster child for high speed steam is a Gil Reid reproduction wherein the T1 is alleged to be running at 120 mph. Whether a 4-4-4-4 with four cylinders is superior to a 4-8-4 with two cylinders I cannot say. I am only assuming the four cylinder is superior to the two cylinder.
Norman, I am thinking of it from the point of view of psychology. All the significant advances we take for granted came about from a competitive spirit or bent. The French TGV-type run much faster than 150 mph, so selling something less to the generally proud and accomplished American populace is, I think, unlikely to appeal to many would-be users. There has to be a vote-getting Wow! factor in such things. AMTRAK must do most of 100 mph or more often enough that adding a notional 40-50 mph to the mix will have to promise a much speedier delivery than is currently the case…with tickets, waiting, all the security arrangements…yada yada.