Are Steam Engines coming back??


Steam engines are really costly to maintain. Not to mention that they have less tractive effort to horsepower ratio compared to diesels.

They also don't work very well in the winter in places that get very cold.
 
In a museum recently, I came across a steam engine that had been owned by a power company. Before it left one plant for another, it was loaded with steam from the plant. It had something like 4 or 5 hours of power. I think something like that would be a viable option. Especially if it was a simple design.
 
A steam engine with today's technology has the potential to be a very efficient source of power. The old steam engines that we're all familiar with were relatively simple machines. The basis on which they were operated was also very basic, even primitive.

Old steamers did not capture any of the steam that was generated. After it was used for its intended purpose, it was released into the atmosphere. This meant that they would eventually run out of water. Refilling these old engines consisted of pulling up to a tank that was usually filled with untreated water from a lake. There was little thought given to the water and its effects on the tubes in the boiler.

Modern steam engines would be designed with the latest and best technologies to make the most efficient use of treated water. This would mean a small source for make-up water to be pumped into the boiler tubes as the engine was operated as this would be a closed loop system and that could allow computerized control of water chemistry This means that virtually no steam would be vented to the atmosphere. All steam would be reused. It would pass through a condenser to cool the steam to a liquid to be reheated to steam again. This would also allow for the use of MSR's (moisture separators) to keep the steam free of liquid and to remove any particles that may be in the system thereby greatly prolonging the life of any steam related components.

There is a lot of proven technology that is utilized in modern power plants that would prove very beneficial in designing and operating a steam loco of a modern design. Given the knowledge gained from modern power plants and modern alloys I think that a modern steamer could very well be a viable alternative to the diesel-electric locomotive.

This could be mean the replacement of diesels by steamers! Remember, it's said that history often repeats itself.

Here is a link to more discussion on another board. http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?142948-Old-ATSF-Steamer-to-be-rebuilt
 
Who says it has to be a traditional steam locomotive configuration? Why not a steam engine (the boiler, firebox, pistons, etc) are used to turn a generator? Essentially replace the internal combustion diesel engine with a steam engine.

With modern sensors and computers it could be super efficient and easy to maintain. And the tractive effort would be more comparable to modern locomotives.
 
By diburning:

Steam engines are really costly to maintain. Not to mention that they have less tractive effort to horsepower ratio compared to diesels.
Click to expand...
Newer engines could be much cheaper maintenance wise compared to the old designs. For high speed trains the steamers power curve is much more favorable than a diesel-electric at higher speeds.

They also don't work very well in the winter in places that get very cold.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Burlington Bob said:
A steam engine with today's technology has the potential to be a very efficient source of power. The old steam engines that we're all familiar with were relatively simple machines. The basis on which they were operated was also very basic, even primitive.

Old steamers did not capture any of the steam that was generated. After it was used for its intended purpose, it was released into the atmosphere. This meant that they would eventually run out of water. Refilling these old engines consisted of pulling up to a tank that was usually filled with untreated water from a lake. There was little thought given to the water and its effects on the tubes in the boiler.

Modern steam engines would be designed with the latest and best technologies to make the most efficient use of treated water. This would mean a small source for make-up water to be pumped into the boiler tubes as the engine was operated as this would be a closed loop system and that could allow computerized control of water chemistry This means that virtually no steam would be vented to the atmosphere. All steam would be reused. It would pass through a condenser to cool the steam to a liquid to be reheated to steam again. This would also allow for the use of MSR's (moisture separators) to keep the steam free of liquid and to remove any particles that may be in the system thereby greatly prolonging the life of any steam related components.

There is a lot of proven technology that is utilized in modern power plants that would prove very beneficial in designing and operating a steam loco of a modern design. Given the knowledge gained from modern power plants and modern alloys I think that a modern steamer could very well be a viable alternative to the diesel-electric locomotive.

This could be mean the replacement of diesels by steamers! Remember, it's said that history often repeats itself.

Here is a link to more discussion on another board. http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?142948-Old-ATSF-Steamer-to-be-rebuilt
Click to expand...

When you go to a closed system like that, does it even have to be water? There are other substances that expand and contract with grater variance than water, which could produce more force for the same amount of fuel.

An ultra modern steam engine powering a railroad locomotive could be shockingly powerful.
 
By LoudMusic:

When you go to a closed system like that, does it even have to be water? There are other substances that expand and contract with grater variance than water, which could produce more force for the same amount of fuel.
Click to expand...
I don't know how different liquids would be based on an economic standpoint or from a practical aspect as well.

An ultra modern steam engine powering a railroad locomotive could be shockingly powerful.
Click to expand...
VERY true!
 
I would ride a tricycle backwards uphill across the great wall of china to get steam locomotives back going again....as long as we could have EMD E and F units back again too! :p



Mike
 
railfan said:
I would ride a tricycle backwards uphill across the great wall of china to get steam locomotives back going again....as long as we could have EMD E and F units back again too! :p



Mike
Click to expand...


Well, umm, here is Oz we still have F units oif a sort still running. A stretched version of the F7 sold very well over here back in the 1950's and 60's. They could be mistaken for an E unit at first glance as they have 6 wheel trucks. Wait, I'll show you a pic...ok, uploaded.

This is a ex-Victorian Government railways S class, now owned by Chicago Freightcar Leasing Company Australia (CFLCA, they rent out locos in Oz in addition to hoppers).

No steamers in regular service, but there are a few working engines that run regularly on holiday specials.

Anyway, I guess you can see why the fellows at Genesee & Wyoming and CFCL like their Australian assignments. Almost as good as a time machine.:rolleyes:

wheeler1963 said:
I always thought the steam engines were maintenance intensive virus modern diesel/electrics.
Click to expand...

Not if they were built in Roanoke:D
 
The thermodynamic efficiency of a steam locomotive is miserable compared to a diesel. That means they'd have to carry large amounts of fuel which would need to cost very little, in order to see most of the energy produced go up the stack.

They were romantic old things, but it's the day before yesterday's technology.
 
You will get a fleet of steam powered trains WHEN you ride a tricycle backwards uphill across the great wall of China.

I see another ACE 3000.
 
SCRAP THE DIESELS!

I love the old steamers, like the NYC hudsons. It would be great to build a more efficient one, steam locomotives were only 3% efficient.
 
wheeler1963 said:
Just read this article on Yahoo news. Really interesting if they can make it work. I always thought the steam engines were maintenance intensive virus modern diesel/electrics.
Click to expand...
I thought it was interesting they pulled up an old locomotive to re-fit to the new fuel. I would have thought they would have needed a completely new concept for the steam more like the UP coal turbines or the C&O John Henry. I think the steam will power generators and they will be steam/electric rather than piston driven. The old romatic type steam locomotives pound the rails to mush. I am afraid the cement ties would really crack up much sooner then they were designed for. Also slamming a heavy piston back and forth fast enough to run at a consistant 130 mph. seems a physical nightmare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman said:
... I would have thought they would have needed a completely new concept for the steam more like the UP coal turbines or the C&O John Henry...
Click to expand...

The UP had 1 coal fired turbine that didn't last long. All of their others were powered on oil.

The "Jawn Henry" was a product of the N&W Roanoke shops. The C&O, which had 3, never had a name for theirs. Either way, the heat and smoke from the fires turned both of these engines turbines, and the coal ash from these fires, (the coal in both cases I believe, was ground down to a smaller "lump" for more efficient burning), proved too corrosive to the turbine blades. These locos suffered from almost constant turbine failures, among other problems. These turbines turned a generator which supplied power to traction motors on the axles. Just like a modern diesel-electric.

The Pennsy had one, their 6-8-6, which suffered from the same problem of all the other coal fired versions.

The Roanoke shops also did some experiments with a Class-A that showed that not only was that the highly modified Class-A used could out perform the current best of EMD at the time, (a 4 unit set of GP's), not only in horsepower, starting tractive effort and sustained horsepower, but it was almost as efficient. The only reasons they still went to diesels was the price of the fuel at the time, (diesel fuel was extremely cheap at that time), and the amount of money it would take to modify the entire steam fleet to be as efficient as this A. I don't remember which A was used, but IIRC, these experiments were conducted in mid to late 1950's. It was also considered a "company secret" for years and years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually it was the lack of new Feedwater heaters, air pumps, stokers and such designed to run off of a Steam Locos steam pressure that killed steam locos in the end.
 
Cjcrescent said:
The "Jawn Henry" was a product of the N&W Roanoke shops. The C&O, which had 3, never had a name for theirs.
Click to expand...
Ooops, yup I knew that just didn't stop long enough to re-read and "think about it" before I posted the note. I thought a couple others tried interesting things too, I did not know it was the Pennsy. I'm still struggling with the 130 mph part. Pistons with driving rods and side rods weighing int the tons category slamming back and forth in order to make that much speed, even with 88" drivers is mind nummbing. Even with modern carbon fiber and titanium seems to be a big problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman said:
Pistons with driving rods and side rods weighing int the tons category slamming back and forth in order to make that much speed, even with 88" drivers is mind nummbing. Even with modern carbon fiber and titanium seems to be a big problem.
Click to expand...

They were turbines.

No pistons.

The turbine was geared to the driver and the motion was transmitted to the other drivers through the side rods.
 
dave1905 said:
They were turbines.

No pistons.

The turbine was geared to the driver and the motion was transmitted to the other drivers through the side rods.
Click to expand...
No, the second sentence was back to the locomotive that they selected to do the tests on. I can't figure out how they intend to get it to go 130 mph without vibrating itself and the track to bits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top