When will the Iron Horse Take to the Rails again?

Question

I'm Saying that due to oil demands were not using coal at all. Should the Steam Locomotive be put back in service?

Answer 1

NO

not at all, diesel electric locomotives are far more efficient and cleaner burning than coal fired steamers.

Everybody loves the romance and sound of steamers but they were replaced for a reason.

Answer 2

Hmm, let me think.  

Option 1, run engines which (upside) run coal but (downside) are 90% less efficient than diesels, so they use A LOT of coal.  Stinky coal.   Cost one-time: medium (gotta build steam engines from scratch).  Cost ongoing: high. (coal isn't free.)

Option 2, plant some poles and hang some wires, and run the trains on electricity mostly from windmills built on railroad land in the mountains they are crossing.  Pollution: 0.  Use of nonrenewable resources: 0.  Cost one-time: medium (modify diesels, hang wire). Cost ongoing: 0.  (well not 0 but darn low.)

I like option 2.

http://www.trains.com/ctr/default.aspx?c...

Answer 3

Yes & No. If someone designed one that used electricity to boil water (like the hornby model) it would be more efficient. Right now they have hybrids (Green Goats) that seem to be the way of tomorrow. Down here in LA what killed the efficient steam engines were the price to repair the rail. When the 4-8-4's( the most cost friendly & durable locomotives)  were running on the sp they didnt break down on the loop like the "perfect" F7's & E8's did. I met a guy who worked for Espee back in the day who had to haul a dead  set of F7's back to the shops. Another western 4-8-4 that was efficient was the 3751 class Went from Chicago to LA & back mulpitle times with only 4 main water stops between the two cities. Another is the Nyc's Niagara or the C&O northern which was pulling freight in the 1980's.  I end my speech with the story of 3751 & the dead diesel. sometime between 1998 and 2002 a few diesels heated up so much fron pulling a drag they blew out (Cajon pass offers no mercy on grades either). 51 was on it's way back from arizona (some railfan trip) when the dispacter radios that the train can't pass 51's crew radios back & says we'll get you to the top of the hill & into a siding. Without uncoupling off the train it was already pulling 3751 whisks the drag to the top of the hill ( Including it's own train the dead diesels & the live one that was giving out no power) That is efficency in running. I'm sure that if someone looked at the cards they cn make new tecnology off the old. as far as other types of engines no not efficient enough.

Answer 4

No, steam locomotives just aren't as efficient as diesel-electrics or electrics.  Keep in mind that the efficiency of diesel locomotives over steamers is not just that they can operate further between fuel stops but they are also far less maintenance intensive (steam locomotives require a much larger workforce and more hours of maintenance to keep in daily operation).  A point of just how maintenance intensive steam locomotives are, their water must be clean and free of any impurities (i.e., distilled) so it doesn't effect boiler pressure.

If oil prices become so high that it begins to seriously effect railroads' profits I think they will begin to strongly consider electrifying key main lines before ever considering employing steam locomotives again (electric operation is the most efficient of all but it requires astronomical up front capital, which is why you rarely see it used in freight service).  

In any event, railroads are poised to make big gains from this unabated rise in oil prices anyway, in terms of the amount of freight traffic they move.  While, yes, their fuel costs will continue to rise along with it, nothing is more efficient, per-fuel-mile, at moving freight or passengers than railroads.  They are moving record freight tonnage right now, which is forecast to grow exponentially over the next 15+ years (for instance, while the markets have been generally week lately, railroad stock has remained quite strong).

Answer 5

Andy-

As the others have mentioned Steam Engines have three major things running against them.  

First, they require massive amounts of fuel.  Be it Coal or #3 Bunker Oil, (which SP used on their locos), this fuel is consumed at a fenomonal rate to create the heat needed to evaporate the water into steam.

Second, is the water.  This in a steam engine is part of the fuel element to make the engine work.  Again, another element that is rapidly exhausted in Steam Locomotives.

Third, is maintaining them.  The cost for operating steam engines is astronomical.  Any time you want to see what is required to maintain these machines, you are more than welcome to make the arrangements to visit the club I belong to.

www.ncry.org

The fact of the matter is they will never be used again for main line service.  

Just an example.

Union Pacifc Big Boy Locomotive.  Under full steam she would evaporate 2000 Gallons of water per hour.  Does not sound too bad right?  Well that is also why the Tender pulled 25,000 Gallons of water behind her, along with 25 tons of coal.

I hope that answers your question.