Is there anything stopping a train operating company going back to using steam engines?

Question

Steam locomotives do have more character than modern trains, look much nicer & make nicer sounds and smells. They also have a romance about them.

I have travelled behind them on presevered railways & on main line enthusiasts specials, but could they be used to operate a modern main line railway?

Answer 1

first thing is the cost and the time and Richard branson would not b a Tomas the tank

Answer 2

yes in theory, but imagine the global warming fascists, they would have a field day!

Answer 3

As far as replacing existing diesel-electric locomotive fleets, there is no chance.  However, to augment diesel powered fleets in certain areas, a newly engineered steam engine is plausibly viable.  But it is highly unlikely they would resemble the classic side-rod mechanical wonders of the past.

A vertical cylinder, geared type of locomotive, similar to the shays of the past would probably hit the drawing board.  Lots less maintenance.

Coal is in huge supply in the US, and cheaper than diesel fuel, when considering the BTU output capability.  As far as burning it for fuel, when in a 'gassified' state, combustion is more complete and therefore less polluting than in the past.

Drag freight operations are not usually time sensitive, and this is where these brutes really shined in the past.  Once underway, the steam behemoths of the past could drag 10,000 tons around all day long.  Diesel powered engines require maintenance as well.  Would you rather pay for three of them sucking up 190 gallons of fuel per hour each, or one engine performing the same duty burning cheaper coal?

Their use would only be practical in certain areas, however.  Why?  No dynamic brake.

As far as skill is concerned on the part of those who would be charged with the duties associated with their operation, the manpower pool of today is equal to the challenge.

From reading the posts here, everyone seems to think engineers just climb into the cab of their nice, new, shiny AC powered dream locomotive consist and tootle off into the sunset.  That ain't the way it goes.  Unless working in an area with a high volume of unit trains, your average hogger rarely sees one of these marvels.  SD-40s, 45s and 60s and their GE equivolents are more the norm and these are not always working to full potential, with partial loaders in power for any number of reasons, DB grid problems, DB over-current, etc.  

The locomotive engineers of today still have their hands full.  They also have the skills to overcome these daily adversities, so, don't sell them short...

Answer 4

I DO wish Yahoo would make it plain the country of origin of questioners as although this question is clearly posted on the UK&I site we STILL get answers from our American colleagues who know little of the situation in Great Britain and can only rarely give a useful answer to a British question.

HOWEVER, the answer to your question is quite simple and straightforward:

THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

This precludes the use of steam engines in a lot of areas - in London for instance, special permission has to be obtained from the environment agency as well as the TOCs (train operating companies) before steam locos can run in the London area - this is why so many "Steam Excursions" have to start in London with diesel haulage and pick up their steam loco at some out-lying point. "Block" permission is sometimes granted to things like bits of the old Orient Express services running into/out of Victoria but these are far from the norm which is why WHEN permission has been obtain from the EA AND the operating companies (they're not THAT fond of steam in case of breakdowns!) such a fuss is made by photographers (especially) to get to see them in action BUT, what about all the stuff they belch out. I DID mention THE CLEAN AIR ACT didn't I ! ! !

Answer 5

Cost, efficiency, reliability, and safety - these factors doomed steam engines.

Answer 6

Simple - costs.

Answer 7

Cost per mile far out weighs practicality.

Answer 8

David,

Two things are essentially what killed steam; high maintenance costs and slow transit times when compared to diesels (meaning steamers required many more refueling stops, driving up the time it took to deliver a train considerably compared to diesels).  

It's a common misconception that diesels (technically "diesel-electrics") replaced steam simply because they were more powerful which is not the case.  The truth is that it was actually the complete opposite with a steam locomotive like the Union Pacific 4-8-8-4 Big Boy (developed in the 1940s and the near pennical of geared steam technology) which was able to produce something like 6,000 hp compared to the EMD FT diesel locomotive (the over-the-road diesel which spearheaded steam's demise) which only produced 1,500 hp.  

The diesel's advantage over steam was its significantly reduced maintenance costs and transit times, and the railroads were willing to accept a loss in horsepower for this  (for instance, a diesel locomotive not only required far fewer refueling stops but also spent more time lugging freights and passengers between PMs and major overhauls compared to steamers, which the railroads absolutely loved!), which is really saying something considering railroads were and still are very slow to any type of wholesale changes, whatever those changes might be (ranging from new technologies to new types of business practices).  Although, a common rule of thumb is that any new technology or practice that can considerably cut costs, railroads are quick to adopt these (the industry loves redundancy).    

Lastly, as recently as the 1980s a project was studied to see if steam could be a viable source of motive power again with the ACE 3000 from then railroads Chessie System and Burlington Northern.  While interesting the concept never proved that steam was more efficient than current diesel technology (another thing to keep in mind that even if steam does become a source of railroad motive power once again it will not look like the classic geared locomotives we all know and love today which operate on tourist railroads across the country but appear more like the ACE 3000 project).

The ACE project was studied in regards to high oil prices.  Of course, oil prices are skyrocketing again today and if they reach critical levels at some point that railroads find it necessary to find a way to reduce fuel costs with diesels, they are more likely to spend the necessary money to electrify key main lines than spend time and money developing a better steam locomotive.  Electrics are already a proven (albeit costly) alternative and they are actually the most efficient of all types of motive power, far superior to both diesel and steam.  

In any event, I love steamers as much as the next person, they are truly a sight to behold and are relics which we should not only remember but also preserve as many as possible for future generations to see, enjoy, and experience.  So, if you have a chance and the time please consider visiting one of the several tourist lines across the country which feature a steam locomotive(s), you won't be disappointed in the experience!

Answer 9

It would be very difficult.

Modern rolling stock requires a lot of electricity, to power air conditioning, restaurant cars, and in some cases the doors.

There is also the problem that most coaching stock is air braked, wheras steam locos are really only equipped for vacuum.

It may also be difficult to fit steam with modern safety kit, such as TPWS, which is now mandatory in Britain, as well as the ETRM "black boxes".

Also, there is the cost of staff training, and infrastructure such as water towers to consider.

Nice thought, but I can't see it happening.

Answer 10

well steam engines require lots of maitnence and it would be hard to find enough working steam locomotives to replace all the normal locomotives

Answer 11

The biggest problem nowadays is probably the lack of experienced drivers with a steam licence. My Grandfather drove steam trains most of his life and I saw the handbook for the steam drivers licence, really tough job!!!

The other problem is the lack of water towers, coal depots and other maintenance facilities since they've all been ripped out and/or demolished long ago.

All this being said, I agree that steam was a much better way to travel. The sight, the sounds, the smells are all fantastic and, sorry to say, now of another age. Such a pity so few of our kids will get a chance to enjoy them.

Answer 12

It could be done but the cost would be huge and that's before HSE poke there noses in.

It can be done on a small scale operating a branch line to bring tourists to an area or as they do in Germany when an area will operate a number of services over a weekend with steam.

But as a general rule the costs will be to high to make it viable.

Answer 13

No, the railroads won't go back to steam engines.  They do not create enough power to pull modern rail traffic, they are far less safe than modern diesel electric engines, they waste more natural resources than modern diseal electric and the labor organizations would never stand for moving backwards like that.  

Railroading is not about nice smells or having character.  It's not about what is pleasing to the eye of rail fans who want to romantacize the industry.  

Railroading is about moving commodities and goods from point to point in an efficient and safe manner.  We can pull far more with one train than you can with 100 semi trailers.  You can move much faster than river barge.  You can get to places that ocean barge can't.  

I'm an engineer.  I have worked for a class I railroad for 14 years.  I can tell you that there is NO advantage to steam engines other than letting a few rail fans (who happen to actually be annoying to those of us trying to work) get their jollies watching it go by.

Answer 14

Only economics. But,that can revive them as well ! Did you know that after Ronald Reagan broke the USSR economically, and they fell apart, that they actually went BACK to steam engines, as they didn't have the money to afford to buy diesel fuel from foreign sources anymore? That's right, Russia had to bring it's retired fleet of steam train engines out of retirement, as they had plenty of indigenous coal to power them, as they could no longer afford foreign oil for awhile. That had to be back in the '80's? I'm not sure when or if they're retired them again, I'm sure now they have the money and resources to use diesel again. But it CAN be done, when the economics are right, or in National emergencies, which it was in this case. The efficiency wasn't as good as diesels, but they had the manpower and coal resources to keep them running, and trains moving.

So, women don't mind coal dust and cinders on their pretty white blouses? Scooting across a passenger car seat in a silk pantsuit, picking up the coal dust diffusing thru the cars? Hmm? Romantic? Maybe. Irritating? DEFINITELY. You may THINK it'd be better, but the dust, dirt, grime, etc. all contributed to steam's demise. Once steam changed over to oil burning, what's the point when you can switch to diesel and  burn it, without all the other steam hassles? Romance is the last thing on a Railroad's mind when it's operating, it's all about the dollars and customer satisfaction. Diesel is cleaner, quicker, easier on the tracks,and there was no economic justification to keep steam once all the factors were considered. Although we may miss the romance, that's all it'll ever be now.

- To reply to Citizen's list of problems - I think most of them could be overcome. Back in the day, tankers didn't exist, or were VERY crude. A steam train could now pull 6 tanker cars, half with water, half with oil, to satisfy a thru-train requirement. Could also pull a boxcar with a generator / air compressor, to satisfy "modern" requirements of passenger/freight electrical and air needs. Water was also scooped " on the fly " in the late days of steam, so a modern version could be done, or just pull tankers full of water. A modern Tender could now be used as a mobile electronic office, with all the required black boxes installed in it, and just used as a pass-thru for the fuel and water behind it in the tankers. Would this be inefficient? Maybe, as you'd have 5 or more cars as non-revenue tonnage. Maybe you wouldn't need as many oil tankers. Not sure how much oil a converted steam engine burns compared to a diesel, maybe needs more water than fuel? Anyway, with a bright mind or two, any obstacle could be overcome eventually.

- The Gremlin Guy -

Answer 15

Nope!  Most steam engines spend  a lot of time in the shop. Diesels are more reliable.

Answer 16

the quantity of trains around today could cause a problem as they would produce a lot of pollution.  But i think the main reason is that they are far too slow for people who actually use trains for a practical purpose

Answer 17

Steam is fun, but it is also hard work (don't I know it!).  It is labour intensive, and requires lots of skilled people and a significant amount of infrastructure.  Diesel or electric locomotives do not require several hours work to prepare them for their day's work, and need much less, and less frequent, maintenance.  The issue is really one of economics: there is nothing STOPPING a Train Operating Company from going back to steam, other than the fact that by doing so they would be committing financial suicide!

Very occasionally the economics work the other way, and when this is the case a TOC would be only to happy to use steam.  The UK's best example of this are the steam-hauled summer services run by West Coast Railways between Fort William and Mallaig in Scotland (the "Harry Potter" line).  There, the market is tourists who come as much for the steam traction as the scenery, and the finances work.  

Performance isn't really the issue.  If the technical development of steam traction had continued, there is little doubt that 21st century steam locos would be a good match for their diesel and electric counterparts, whilst special steam-hauled trains can match the loads and timings of scheduled diesel or electric, trains.  However, when it comes down to it, diesel and (especially) electric locomotives are simply a lot more energy-efficient and require a great deal less effort.  That's why the changeover took place, in the 1930s in the USA and parts of Europe, in the 1950s and 1960s in the UK.

So yes, you COULD use steam to operate a modern railway line, but other than in very special circumstances you'd be crazy to do so.

Answer 18

Here is one of the main reasons why steam locos were abandoned, the loco is oil fired rather than coal but the main part of the story still holds.  

http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/hostling.html

Steam locos have their place, it is basically in tourist railways or in cheap labour countries with plenty of coal but not much oil.  The Chinese are said to operate up to 3000 steam locos right now.  Even on tourist railways steam locos are being upgraded with better engineering to cut costs.  

The reality is that modern design can remove much of the intensive labour and maintenance needed with steam locomotives, but the overall running costs still exceed that of Diesel-electric power.  

Of course full electric locos are mainly steam operated, but the steam is in the power station.

Answer 19

In addition to other answers here.....

There is also the infrastructure to consider.

Steam locomotives require more than just coal and water to operate.

You would need to provide coal and water towers at motive power depots...and they are very labour intensive too.

The decision to change to modern motive power on British Railways in the 1950's was primarily due to the shortage of manpower available for the dirtier lower paid jobs around steam locomotives.

Answer 20

The trouble is that the steam locomotives are very high on maintenance and repair- some preserved engines may not be able to run in the future because cylinder castings need replacing. These are big jobs that workshops now are not equipped to deal with.  That leaves building new engines.  This would not only take years (look at the project to build a Peppercorn A1, for example- 20 odd years and still going), but would need the workshops to be completely re-equipped, something almost prohibitively expensive.  Then when you DO have the engines, you have to train a new generation of engine drivers, fitters, stokers....

And to the design itself- if you want a new A4, forget it.  The valve gearing is very inefficient.  A new steam locomotive built today to run on British mainlines would probably look like a diesel or electric locomotive, that is it would run on power bogies ratehr than large driving wheels.  Think more Builled's Leader locomotive of the 1940's/1950's rather than a Gresley pacific.  

Indeed, some countries that have looked at reverting to steam traction have decided this approach holds most potential.  

Just my thoughts.

Answer 21

The smoking ban?

Answer 22

Some rail companies are starting to use the steam locomotives as a way to get people interested in the railroads again as well as a way to promote their company.

Canadian Pacific will be running one of it's steam engines, The Empress #2816, on a one month tour starting August 17th-September 22nd.  It will leave Calgary, Alberta and go through Winnepeg; Thief River Falls, MN;  Minneapolis, MN;  Milwaukee, WI; Chicago, IL;  La Cross, WI; then back to Calgary, Alberta.

One of the reasons for why railways haven't went back to steam engines is because they are slower, require more fuel (coal, wood, water), and they have high emissions.  Another problem is that is hard to find people who have the knowledge/experience to operate these engines.  Costs of operation is another factor.  Most of the "whistle stops" have been tore down or no longer usable.  Most of the steam engines that are still available also use a different gauge of tracks (the distance between the rails).

I would love to see at least one steam engine running year round on each railway across the nation, just for historical and romatic reasons.  I think if people found out how cool it is to take a train ride, more people would consider it as a means of transportation rather than driving.

Answer 23

union pacific sometimes will use it's big boy loco.  quite a sight!!

Answer 24

Nope, they could be used but steamers took a LOT more maintanence and used more fuel to move freight.

The bottom line ($$$) is what replaced steam and that is not going to change.

Something more efficient and cheaper then deisel electric will come along evertually and we will all pine for the romance of the deisels.

Answer 25

Hmm... let me thing... the cost.

Answer 26

no they use to much coal modern trains go further on less economics

Answer 27

steam... coal... finite fossil fuel... global warming...