I may have mentioned this before, but the plans for the Promontory Point replica 4-4-0s are public domain, courtesy of the National Parks Service, who I believe commissioned those engines. The plans can be found linked to the International Brotherhood of Live Steamers site http://www.ibls.org.

The basic engineering and design are there, nearly 800 pages in all. Those engines are small, but with a bit of imagination I suspect the design could be 'slide ruled' (yes, I'm old-) into something a bit larger. Larger cylinders, slightly more boiler pressure, stretch the frame into a 4-6-0, etc.

Not a PRR T-1, not an NKP Berkshire, but you could have something that could pull a short train just about anywhere. And either locomotive should be easily truckable, just like the Gramling locomotives.

I just looked at the first few drawings again and did the basic tractive effort calculations. As built, with a boiler pressure of 160 PSI and 57 inch drivers, the 119 design would have a TE of 14,659. Bump the BP up to 200, and the TE goes to 18,325.

With 62 inch drivers and a BP of 160 PSI, Jupiter has a TE of 13,477; with an increase in BP to 200 PSI, the TE goes to 16,846.

Personally, I would go with the smaller drivers and higher TE. I doubt that there are any tourist lines, or possibilities for mainline excursions, where the larger drivers and faster speed would be a benefit.

Now to get some suitable 'old but modern' open window coaches, with (hidden) roller bearings and modern brakes.

Some of you might say no. But to me, I think fuel is the main component for the future of preserving steam operations. I was looking at the CSR group, and the fuel they are experimenting with is a kind of bio-coal fuel that appears not to be producing carbon emissions that regular coal burns. The only question that I don't answer for right now is how they make the bio-coal.

This sort of environment-friendly fuel can be related to the Grand Canyon's 4960, which burns recycled vegetable oil.

Now, as for the maintenance, I know that it is a labor-intensive job. However, it would be a character-building job and some people who work on steam locomotives are the heroes of historic preservation. But at this point, in terms of a steam comeback, it is impossible. It is only with time, money, evolution in maintenance technology, and strategical planning in the future that may be, and only maybe, things would happen.

For now, we should learn from what we have at the moment in the steam preservation movement (not only in the U.S. but from other countries) to keep them going.

I am not saying yes or no to the question. I am just letting you know that before we answer the question, we should research first.

Bio coal is generally made via hydrothermal carbonization. Hydrothermal carbonization is theoretically an environmentally friendly way of production, assuming that the plant is properly operated. If not done properly, it will produce tar waste. For me, the bigger question is whether such a plant could economically produce a sufficient amount of bio coal. Currently, Terra Nova Energy is operating a plant in Jining, China that is producing bio coal using sewage sludge from the local sewage treatment plant. From the data that is available to the public, the plant has a production capacity of 14,000 tons of bio coal per year.

Economically, the answer pretty much seems to be that no, modern steam can't effectively compete against diesel or electric. The only thing that electric has going against it is the significant cost of initial installation and conversion.

Steam or electric?

Why not both?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-steam_locomotive

In all seriousness though, the prior mentioned Promontory steam engines, Tornado and the T1 project suggest the future of steam is in historical recreations and new builds. Not mainline regular haulage machines, but certainly new machines that can do things in preservation that the original authentic machines cannot.

Great discussion, but as others have said there just is no energy efficient way of producing the volume of steam needed to power a locomotive. So much energy is wasted by heat dissipation and excess steam escaping when used/let off.




Theoretically I think this would be the way to do it, but it's just not practical on a locomotive scale. Two things would need to occur: first of all an extremely well insulated boiler to reduce heat loss with a electric heating element integrated into it. Second, harnessing the power of a the steam leaving the cylinders via a turbine to generate the electricity to supplement the heating elements.

You would still need outside power to start the process and a generator or backup battery system to keep the electricity running when the steam can't produce enough electricity. In the end though I'm sure it would be more efficient to just power an traction motor with that electricity.

Don't be silly; the problem is not in heat transfer in a modern boiler; it's in heat conversion all the way to controllable TE that is cost-effective at locomotive scale. Comparatively little of this needs to be in the boiler.

A combination of submerged-combustion burners, modern nanoinsulation, and long enough heat recovery path to recondense both combustion water and injected NOx-reduction steam handily puts you ahead of any internal combustion 'efficiency' in heat transfer. The question is whether that thermal recovery efficiency comes at a price too high for practical scale...

As noted, even a fairly primitive Kriegslok can be retrofitted to need no more than 35kW even in winter conditions to hold 300psi; it follows that comparable insulation against weather when running can be obtained. Retaining heat from 'pop valve' actuation is easily handled; so is effective Rankine-system heat recovery from many, parhaps most, necessary auxiliaries on a modern locomotive (one preferred approach using a 220V or better alternator with proper condensing arrangements and running auxiliaries with OTS motors instead of wasteful little turbines or indirect air actuation).

The problem is that fuel only counts for about 5% of an operation's budget, and all the savings in the world on this won't counter the need for complex maintenance at the necessary scale to justify a full Rankine-optimized cycle at locomotive packaging scale.

Now Porta and some others saw a future for 'advanced' steam in relatively poor countries, where first build quality and good design could make 'biomasa'-based operation far more practical than complicated automotive-engined vehicles with complex transmissions, all dependent on foreign exchange for reasonable parts. In such a framework few people care about substituting more labor for what is effectively operations-critical unobtanium. But that stuff doesn't really interest me, although it does many others.

One of the best minds in modern steam, in South Africa, left the field entirely to concentrate his interest and experience on things like rocket stoves. Where the skills and techniques have more relevance to everyday people's needs. Were the opportunity to provide 'better' railway traction to arise, he and others like him would be ready to demonstrate competence.

ARGUABLY there is enough in the history of 'modern steam' from the 1970s through the present to keep some of this discussion in a 'historical' framework. Certainly the detail design of something like the ACE3000 or Perry Shoemaker's diesel-motor conversion are clearly in the historic, and their documentation in the preservation, realm. Extending that discussion into 'the future' still relates to this. On the other hand, foaming pro and con doesn't help us much...

Many interesting and thoughtful responses to the OP question. For me I think Mr. Ellsworth says it well. For the 00.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of the general population that cares about this they can increase their knowledge of the subject by reviewing this thread.

The world has changed dramatically since the ACE 3000 project and is now solidly committed to an all renewable energy future. The only open questions now are when do we get there and what percentage will be wind generated vs. solar.

Does that mean that eventually all the class 1's as we know them today will be running under wires? Probably unless battery technology makes huge leaps soon so as to enable it possible to build a long range battery powered 4,000 hp locomotive with competitive range to today's 5,000 gal. diesel belly tanks. Smaller roads will end up using class 1 hand me downs which had been converted to dual fuel.

IMHO the days of a steam locomotive being an alternative are gone forever.

My further guess near term ( next 20 years) is that if the D's prevail in the upcoming election and end up with all 3 legs ( House, Senate, White House) the new administration will quickly move the EPA pendulum from the far right to the far left, rejoin the Paris Accord, grant California's ( joined by 16 other states) petition to the EPA requiring the rails to achieve Tier 5 by 2025 which will force the OEM's to start building 100% cng fueled locomotives.

Interesting times. Ross Rowland

There is a company in Fullerton called Rail Propulsion Systems that I think has a better handle on several of the actual technologies for this than anyone I know of not in 'stealth mode' developing in this space. In my opinion they're in the position EMC was in early 1930, for 'those with eyes to see'. In particular note their design philosophy on the 'first best uses' of adding hybrid capability to existing consists.

The problem I see is that there's still a likelihood that 'natural gas fueled' anything may be demonized along with other 'fossil' sources; some of what Biden was saying in Thursday's debate was a bit worrisome in this respect. Here, the better is the enemy of the good, as one of the sensible bridges to catenary is the development of a good 'dual-mode-lite' system that uses the growing islands of catenary for helper and air-quality-enhancement while preserving both the emergency and less-intensive-traffic capability of current liquid-fueled locomotives. Note that active development of alternative-fueled power specifically as dual-mode-lite compatible will certainly not be wasted effort.

I continue to think most of the 'future' in utilizing fracked gas is going to be in LNG rather than CNG, both in infrastructure and operations. I know Ross is involved the other way, but I'd strongly recommend he develop for 'both legs' of the fuel. I suspect better methods of charge promotion including selective laser ignition will be important.

Much of this will be involved in the "preservation" efforts of tomorrow! Let's not re-create some of the problems and 'issues' now emerging with '80s-era tech going forward...

Many utilities are now saying that natural gas is a "bridge" fuel. It's "environmentally friendly" in that it is cleaner than coal. However, the methods of extraction and the burning quality of the fuel are pretty damaging to the environment. Fracking presents a whole host of environmental issues and may eventually be regulated out of existence.

My personal observation is that coal is dead as a fuel and that gasoline and diesel will only hold on until battery power and recharging infrastructure are readily accessible. Once that happens, you will see a big push to retire gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and equipment. Gasoline and diesel may be continued to be produced as specialty fuels with additional taxes and a premium price.

That said, I believe that we are probably at "peak steam" for the preservation and tourist rail industries. The short term view is decent, but I am greatly concerned about the long term.

You left out Hydrogen. Which has its own problems for sure, but you can run diesel engines with it.

Anyway, you'll never replicate the smell of burning coal.

You're so right. My two favorite smells are bread baking followed very closely by soft coal burning !!!

Thanks, Ross Rowland

I believe this will still take many decades. At this time, worldwide far over 1.000 coal power plants are planned and/or built, lots of them in China. New nuclear technology has made a leap forward with safer, smaller and modular units, making the case for rail electrification rather than e.g. battery operation which some say is as ecologically unfriendly as can be, due to the production and recycling process.

By now it is still plain impossible doing or building everything CO²-neutral. So the "Paris accord" means the western participants are to reduce their industrial capacities unilaterally, while e.g. China can go on producing and delivering to those very countries which limit themselves. Anyway, the worldwide human CO²-output is just 3%, the big player as to climate change being the sun.

I wonder how we could have looked down to the indigenious tribes who brought human sacrifices hoping for better weather.



Yes, but for now the small field of tourism and preservation still remains. Wallers Swiss rack locomotives have proved higher profit for the railways than diesel despite higher fuel costs, because of their overall higher attractivity to the customers.

I don't believe this to work in the United States where, as to the observations I made in many places, lots of visitors obviously didn't even notice the difference between steam and diesel or couldn't care less, as for a considerable part of them it was their first rail travel at all.

Mike

Regardless of how long it takes to transition away from fossil fuels, they are going to make it more expensive with taxes and regulations. At some point, it will be economical to string wire over the busier main lines. I think it would be pretty easy to convert an AC locomotive to all electric: remove the engine and alternator and drop in a transformer and add a pantograph. The railroads could install wind turbines and solar panels all along their right of way.

Getting back to steam, I love to see someone build an Americanized version of David Wardale's 5AT or the 2-8-0 variant. Without the streamlining, of course. There is no economic case for a new build and the engine would be just for tourist lines. It would have to be financed by a wealthy group of individuals that just wanted to advance steam technology for the fun of it, instead of building a long gone and more widely popular steam favorite.

Another issue is the cost of doing a 1472 day inspection as well as the high cost of building a Stephenson boiler. Welding has come a long way in 80 some years and I'm not talking about a main line capable 4-8-4, either. Again, very expensive and risky. There is a book on the subject: "Locomotive Boilers for the Twenty-First Century" by Alan J. Haigh.
Tom Hamilton

Clean "green" energy provided by wind turbines and solar panels built in China in factories powered by coal-fired power plants, which they are allowed to operate because of their WTO developing nation status and environmental treaties:

https://jingdaily.com/how-china-is-taki ... on-status/


PC

Well, China does have the advantage of having the majority of the rare earths native to its country needed for efficient photovoltaic panels after all.