Steam Locomotives

Have you made any estimations of pollution and efficiency?

Burning coal has not only as direct follow-up generation of CO2 there are some other unpleasant byproducts.

Steam is generated with water do you want to recycle or to let the stream go into the atmosphere? Recycling means a heavy heat exchanger for condensing as for steam turbines = dead weight.

Coal has a lower energy content than oil thus a bigger mass to be carried.

If steam is not condensed then there is a need to fill up the water reservoir.

It is not so easy as it seems at 1st view.

You are telling me the drawbacks of coal. The last coal fired locomotive ran up to 1957(I think) on the Norfolk and Western Railroad. 50 years have passed since the last steam loco ran on the N&W. Don't you think improvements could be made to make coal burn cleaner and be more efficient in 50 years? I don't know how, but I'm sure it can be done. I'm optimistic. Other than perpetual motion, Everything else is possible.

The steam locomotives in west Texas ran on crude oil rather than coal. The heat for steam could be produced by a variety of means.

Coal burning steam locomotives? I'm pretty sure we did that a couple of centuries ago. Coal fired electric generators? I think we have that as well. Pollution free coal? That's an idea worth pursuing.

How about nuclear (steam) trains?

Interesting thought here. It would be interesting to run the numbers on this concept. You have to get rid of the heat on the low temperature side ot the Rankine cycle (T2). How? Condensing or non-condensing or direct steam to the air heat exchanger? Some engineering students out there could make a fascinating academic project out of this study. Even though our intuitive thinking probably knows the answer inasmuch as we are influenced by 200 years of steam technology; still, the actual numbers are worth a serious review. This is the kind of stuff that really inspires creative thinking.

Ed Weldon Los Gatos, CA

"How about nuclear (steam) trains? "

How do you suppose nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are driven?

L. J.

I was thinking the same thing, but the problem is that the reactors on nuclear subs and ships are enormous. I don't think that current technology could reduce the size to that of a rail car. However, this would remove the weight of a couple of tons of coal from the train thus allowing you to carry the water instead of the deisel or gasoline fuels.

Back in the 50's, there was a design for a nuclear powered car:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

I'm sure it could be scaled up for a locomotive. (Safety and security is a totally different issue).

That's really interesting; I have never heard of such a small reactor. I will have to check this out.

"How about nuclear (steam) trains?"

Having worked in the nuclear power world (submarines and aircraft carriers), the problem would be cost, weight, safety, training. A large amount of lead is used to shield the reactor, a derailment could be disasterous, cost of and maintenance of it would be staggering, Nuclear engineers would have to run the trains. This is not a feasible use of nuclear power.

A little off topic, but I remember taking a tour of the NS Savannah as a kid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Ronseto --

Many years ago about the time when you and I were teenagers the UP developed a steam turbine locomotive referred to by railfans as the "Veranda Turbine" or "The Big Blow". The details of this effort are not at my fingertips; but a bit of research could turn up the facts. The experiment , coming at the time when the UP was converting from their massive steam articulated locos to diesels, was not successful in preventing the onset of diesel power. Always in the minds of railroad management at the time was the high labor costs of maintaining the traditional steam locomotives.

Fueling with a solid material such as coal adds the complexity of transporting the fuel from storage to the boiler's burners that is no real problem with a liquid fuel. The mechanical engineering solutions to this problem might suggest anything from uniform size chunks moved by mechanical stokers (1930's tech) all the way to a waterborn coal dust slurry. Remember here that getting rid of the water inside the firebox doesn't help system efficiency. And abrasive slurries are not easy to pump, especially to high pressures needed to get a uniform spray pattern. And none of this addresses the emission problems of the chemically complex coal feedstock.

Sure it would look like a diesel engine. And in all probability it would be a steam turbine driving a generator with traction motors in the wheel assemblies (trucks). This machinery is best wrapped up inside a covering to keep the extremes of the outdoor environment away. The engineers like to be up front where they have good visibility and are behind the outflowing exhausts (especially in tunnels). It's important to note here that the far western railroads in the last days of steam power only made the transition to the big cab forward steam locomotives because they were oil fired (not much coal in California). Even though mechanical coal stokers had been around for a generation apparently they still needed frequent attention by a fireman (the other half of a steam loco crew) who of necessity would have to be stationed in a "cab" between the tender and the firebox entrance.

"Fuel" for thought here.....

Ed Weldon Los Gatos, CA

Hi ronseto,

This has already been done in America in 1937!

This was known as the "Beslar" steam railcar which was built for the New York, Newhaven and Hartford Railway Company.

This railcar was the only steam train to be run on "Flash Steam" in the world, it was of the two coach pattern and streamlined in appearance just like a modern diesel locomotive.

Each coach was equiped with a two cylinder compound steam engine, the high pressure cylinder was of 6.5in dia, and the low pressure cylinder was of 11in dia and a stroke of 9ins. The crankshafts were part of the wheels axels. so it was direct driven without any type of gearbox and was of the double acting type steam engine.

Designed steam pressure 1,500psi and at 1,200psi inlet pressure the power bogie had an avarage starting tractive force of 15.000lbs. This engine was rated at 1.000hp, although capable of producing more.

The boiler was of the once through type, it had no drums or headers, but is a continuous tube from the boiler inlet to the throttle. The water is pumped from the top and passes down through a series of flat coils, where it is flash heated and boils in the helical coils, the heat was supplied by burning pressureised atomised oil at the bottom of the coils and passing through the center of said. The whole boiler measured just 4ft in dia and 6ft 5ins in height. To start from scratch to getting the railcar moving took just 2mins!

This train system ran a daily mileage of 317 miles and operated in continuous service from 6am to 10.20pm daily, it operated for 7 years without a hitch or parts replacement.

Spencer.

Here is an interesting article on the present status of steam power: http://www.stanleysteamers.com/modern_steam.htm - sorry, link no longer available. My conclusion is: A lot of research is still required, but steam still presents a viable solution to future power sources, especially in the large engine users, like trucking, heavy equipment and railroads. it seems politics is the biggest obstacle to steam power. The article confirms my vision of steam power.

I know for sure steam, if given the developmental advantages that have been afforded the internal combustion engine, can be right up there along side computer technology, space exploration, smart weaponology, medicine, etc.

Hi ronseto,

One of my uncles had a Stanley Steamer and that is what got me started in flash steam experimenting, and during the London to Glasgow race for road vehicles in the 1920s a Stanley Steamer beat all the petrol driven cars by half a day. Another great steam car of the day was the "Doble", this was built in Sheffield and was one of the fastest cars of it's time.

Another great steam car was the French "Serpollet built by M. Leon Serpollet of Paris in 1904, this had a V4 steam engine that was also powered by a flash steam boiler. In the same year the "White" steam car saw the light of day.

So yes I agree with you that there should be more developement in this subject.

Spencer.

I thought Bill Lear of Learjet built a steam turbine for buses that flashed quick, and was powerful. Seems like it was dependent on a chemical in the water that raised the flashpoint time. Seems like it was a closed loop with external heating for the heating of the fluid going through the turbine. That's about what I remember. If you are going to use coal, what do you really propose? An external combustion engine will work from any heat source. If you are going to burn things, which isn't typically perfect, you get pollution. Seems to me that if you are going to burn things to run trains, electric trains allow for a place to burn things to make the electricity to run the trains, more efficiently. Apparently in the past electricity was used to run trolleys but all the women in the neighborhood didn't like seeing wires so their husbands bought cars and ran them into the trolleys and then we wiped out the trolleys that ran on electricity and burned everything up, and it got hot, and so, here we are.

Funny you should mention Bill Lear. My father was the one that designed the boiler that he used. My dad being the good guy that he was, after perfecting the boiler thought he'd just have it published in the Steam Car Club of America magazine (this was in the mi-1960's and yes he later regretted it). Strangely enough the next year Bill Lear was using it in his experimental steam car at his shop in Las Vegas.

"electric trains allow for a place to burn things to make the electricity to run the trains, more efficiently"

Electric locomotives and trains are the answer. They are used all over the rest of the world. It is the most efficient conversion of fuel to power. Although there are some electric trains running in the U.S., they are confined to short commuter lines. The expense of installing overhead wires on all the railroads was stated as too expensive. The Milwaukee Road, Virginian and the Northern Pacific once had an electrified system, but diesels eventually took over. Some electric locomotives that ran on the Pennsylvania, NYNH&Hartford and NY Central railroads, had service lives in excess of 50 years with very little maintenance required.

This has been on my mind too for a long time. I live in a country which has enough coal reserves for at least a century and is importing most of the petroleum it uses. When we think of steam we think of the technology which stopped developing with the advent of diesel. But the IC engine of those days cannot be compared to those we have today. So if only we had put in the same effort into steam, who knows what present day steam engines would look like. For a start perhaps we could shrink the boiller by electronic controlled water injection and flue gas control to generate instant steam according to demand. Of course we need a lot of R&D to make a practical modern steam locomotive. But I am an old man who has a soft spot for steam.

The responding dialogue appears to have gotten cluttered somewhat with the issue of steam locomotive versus diesel getting lost in the discussion on oil versus coal as energy sources.

Oil was used in both steam and diesel powered locomotives.

My understanding is that what killed the steam locomotive was the inordinate amount of complexity and maintenance needed to make them run and keep them running. The diesel did not require as much R & D as your question suggests and it's vastly lower acquisition and operating costs won it universal acceptance virtually overnight.

There is an enormous steam locomotive on the grounds floor (it had better be!) of the museum of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. The complexity of the systems needed to run it can only be fully appreciated by standing on the deck of the engine and looking at the mass of valves, gauges, levers and knobs.

The flight desk of a Boeing 747 seems tame by comparison!

My father once worked for a railroad. He hated diesel engines and insisted that the only reason they took over is they they are 20% efficient instead of 3% for steam engines. Of course, we could make much more efficient steam engines today.

I think the main reason we don't is that the prototype would be so expensive and the advantages insufficient to attract buyers.

May I refer you to New Scientist magazine of15/12/2001- no 2321- an article The New Age of Steam-" it's taken years & cost millions to create"- basically new technology including ceramic lining to pistons & bores- in an effort to overcome blowby oil/water contamination- the drawback with steam trains was the high maintenance needed, the extra staff needed to run the trains, the fire risk from sparks from the stack- etc,etc,etc. Plus if you were a fireman(stoker) it was hot,hard work shovelling coal into the firebox!. Though it was lovely & warm when freezing temps outside!).

Hi - I've often thought of using low heat conductivity materials (ceramics, engineering plastics)or linings for the piston and cylinders to improve efficiency. Clive, steam buff, Didcot (with its own steam railway center). Clive

PS - a train just isn't a train with out a steamer up front!

Clive (same Clive as above)

Some miscelaneous comments:

Back in the 1930's, the U S Navy had a serious research project looking at steam airplanes!

NASA, during the Carter oil shortage if I recall correctly, did a design study for coal-fired steam locomotives and came up with a design that looked like a diesel. The boiler used a fliuidized bed combustion and was supposed to be "smokeless". I think they had a large car full of condensers, partly for efficiency (lower exhaust temperature) and partly to avoid the need for supplying water at frequent intervals. (I believe that water conservation was a big motivator to use diesels in deserts of the American West) Since the old gravity-feed coaling stations are long gone, the locomotive was refueled with a fork lift loading in box-like coal containers and removing the ashes. I've forgotten the drive mechanism, but, considering that it looked like a diesel-electric, it may have been steam-electric.

In South Africa, when oil was scarce (an embargo), coal fired locomotives persisted. Some were improved by injecting steam into the firebox, which reacted with the coal to provide producer gas, with an improvement in combustion and a reduction in pollution. Using gassified coal might be a good idea. Diesel engines can be run on coal, and coal gas might be a good fuel for a converted diesel-electric locomotive. Injecting powdered coal or a slurry of coal tends to result in slower combustion, vice kerosene diesel fuel, so existing diesel engines converted to coal would run slower and produce less power. Perhaps gasseous fuel would increase power output.

As a general comment, it seems that engineers tend to be conservative, sticking with the tried and true "perfected" design. Thus steam locomotives, apart from getting bigger, changed very little over a century, and, in places, 100-year-old locomotives remained in service. Similarly, the bolt action military rifle, perfected in the 1890's, remained in service through WW-1 and WW-2, except that the US adopted the M-1 semiautomatic rifle which was clearly superior. My late-model Chevrolet pickup truck was very similar to one of my favorite cars, the 1934 Plymouth deluxe coupe. The cab is about the same, tho' the luggage capacity is greater. The engine is smaller and better; the transmission has an extra gear, and the opening windshield is replaced with air conditioning. Oh, the radio is better too. But the chassis is practically identical, another example of conservative engineering.

Here's another thought. Inject the coal, water, and air into a boiler, where the coal would oxidize "wet". The output, input to the expander, would be a mixture of CO2, steam, and dephlogisticated air. The exhaust of the expander, when the steam condensed, would probably retain many pollutants (like NOx) in solution, where they could be removed in a benign way.

One could use the exhaust of an IC engine to make steam, recovering some of the waste heat. I believe BMW has tried that. I understand there are ships which use a gas turbine to generate electricity and then use the exhaust heat to make steam to drive another turbine-generator.

However, how about using an IC engine, or even a sort of pulse jet, burning coal, to put the combustion products directly into water, allowing "dry combustion" but resulting in the mixed air-steam flow to the expander? Or, one could have a coiled pipe in the boiler and put compressed air and coal into the pipe, which would oxidize and heat water, but the compressed outflow from the pipe would mix with the water.

Apart from the aforementioned possible advantage in removing some pollutants from the gasseous exhaust, it would also, perhaps, reduce the need for a condenser. If the expansion ratio is high enough, the steam will condense, reheating the air, and the exhaust can be cool with an increase in thermal efficiency.

In the traditional steam locomotive, there were large cylinders, often compounded in Europe, directly driving the wheels with large, heavy driving rods. This was simple and efficient, but it was difficult to balance, and details such as lubricating the rod ends led to labor intensive maintenance. The "engine", the expander, could just as well resemble a high speed diesel, with a proper enclosed lubrication system, and could drive a generator or be geared to the wheels. (Geared drives were used about 100 years ago with Shay and Heisler logging locomotives) One could have a single engine with shafting, or have one engine per axle. The same principle, only with one engine per wheel, could be used for large off-road vehicles.

Steam engines, those without condensers, have usually had a lower thermal efficiency than IC engines, but it is possible to reach efficiencies comparable to IC engines. (Consider how long it took the American Navy to abandon steam propulsion)

Ever since the British Navy went to oil fired boilers with the Dreadnought (ca. 1908?), oil has been preferred over coal for convenience and lower labor costs, but the lower price of coal can compensate for the inherent advantages of liquid fuel, or, perhaps, coal can be liquified. Our railroads advertise that they can get 400-plus ton-miles of cargo for a gallon of (imported) fuel. With coal, they would need no imported fuel. If certain industrialized countries plan to fight the Muslim world for the next century or so (reference remarks by a certain presidential candidate), it might be prudent to reduce their need for imported oil.

When I talk about steam power, I'm trying to think outside the box. A new steam locomotive probably wouldn't resemble a loco of 50+ years ago. It would not use reciprocal motion from pistons, no big drivers or connecting rods. Operation would be state-of-the-art computer controls. There would not be the huge array of valves and gauges. Just simple controls similar to that found on diesels and electrics.

...You coul then sell it to the theme parks who would promptly fit a 'steam loco' shaped body...!

I see an opening for steam locos, particularly in the third world, especially now that cheap oil has run out.

Clive - coal fired steam power plant engineer.

Clive --

There is a steam powered narrow gauge railroad operating in the African nation of Eritrea. This is a newly rebuilt and maintained operation, not one in the final death throes before they tear it up or convert to diesel. Google the subject and you'll find a number of writeups about it. I think it fits the very model you are thinking of.

Ed Weldon, Los Gatos, CA

"I see an opening for steam locos, particularly in the third world, especially now that cheap oil has run out." ....Clive Burke

I agree. There is much that could be controlled electronically, even by simple electronic circuits built from discrete components. Computer controlled would be even better.

I was also thinking you might be able to drive a steam vehicle using biomass such as wood pellets. This might not have the energy density needed for a locomotive, but might work for a car.

The best thermal efficiency for a steam engine exhausting to atmosphere is about 7%. You have to have a condenser to do better.

A diesel in a large locomotive has a thermal efficiency of about 35%. You can see the big problem here. Coal with about five times the BTU content of diesel has to be burned to produce the same result. That is a lot of coal.

To get 35% efficiency from a coal fired steam power plant requires a lot of heavy equipment and high pressure operation. High pressure boilers are a safety issue. All of the added weight is inefficient.

The best use for coal would be to convert it to diesel and then use it in a diesel locomotive. That way the harmful coal contaminants can be removed and the exhaust from the combustion in the locomotive will be much cleaner.

The Swiss have built a locomotive which is a steam-electric that is more cost-efficient than a diesel.

A locomotive could use liquid fuel made from coal to make the fuel feed easier and the fuel cleaner. It would have to use a condensing engine to be efficient. The old mechanical controls were complex, modern computers would simplify that. Old locomotives used fire tubes to heat a huge tank of water and that could result in big explosions if the boilers exploded. Water tube Lamont boilers do not explode and they were used in Navy ships. The engine need not be the old piston and cylinder design, the Cyclone Engine, the Green Steam Engine and the Tesla Turbine are other possibilities. The engine would drive generators that would power the electric motors in the wheels.

The old steam people were very traditional and hidebound, their answer to more power was simply to build the locomotive bigger, not to research different designs. The designers of diesels got the jump on them and proceeded to laugh steam out of existence and deride all research in the field. Steam was suddenly transformed into an obsolete technology, lied about, ridiculed and said not to be worth study. The fact that steam is less polluting and more efficient is ignored. The fact that a steam engine uses fewer moving parts is the reason for calling them more complicated. IC engine makers propaganda.

A steam engine can be made to use any available fuel, although mobile units work better with liquid or gaseous fuels. Stationary units work quite well on solid fuels.

We could have steam-electric plug-in EV autos which would reduce fuel consumption by about 80%. All it takes is for someone to dare to try it and invest some money in producing them.

Just about anything can be done given enough time, money and manpower. The issue is not whether someone can do it, the issue is can it compete with the existing highly efficient diesel electric locomotives.

The answer is no, it cannot. There will have to be some major league breakthroughs that are currently not on the horizon. I quick check down history lane will reveal the many attempts at an alterntive to diesel electric locomotives. A lot of money was put into it by both railroads and steam locomotive manufacturers, but no one was able to come close to the economy, reliability and price of GE diesel electric locomotives.

Cost of fuel could be a big enough factor to outweigh the efficiency of a diesel. A Breakthrough would be such as to outweigh any other issues against coal.

A lot of money was put into it by both railroads and steam locomotive manufacturers, but no one was able to come close to the economy, reliability and price of GE diesel electric locomotives.

I don't think enough effort wqs put into it. I believe minds were made up in advance and no one wanted to look foolish in pushing steam. I seem to recall the one thing that killed steam for good was, a tragic accident that occurred during testing of the latest design steamer. After that happened, funding for future research on steam went down quickly.

Back in 1985, a consortium of railroads and manufacturers, grouped to form Coal Oriented Advanced Systems (COALS). They produced a steam locomotive of type 4-8-2 for the C&O railroad. I haven't heard anymore about this project.

I believe near the end of steam, that the C&O RR was looking at (maybe built) a steam engine prototype that used pulverized coal and a turbine. It see the picture in my head but don't have time right now to look any further for it.

The steam engine that comes closest to a diesel that I've come across is the Skinner Uniflo. I never sailed on a vessel with them but did take a trip on a ferry 30 years ago that was powered by them.

There are still a few coal fired locomotives around. Quite a few years ago, I took the ride up in the cab and made miserable efforts (within about a 2 x 3 foot area between the bunker and the firebox) to keep the firebox stoked. I spilled more coal than I got in. The fireman took over and completed my feeling of ineptitude at the task.

The iron horse died and was superseded by deisel electric because deisel electric was much less costly to produce, operate, and maintain...and safer. Except as a novelty, return to steam locomotion in any form? Not likely.

As I said the steam people were hidebound and narrow-minded. Most of our electric power is made by steam engines [turbines] and they are very efficient. The old steam locomotives were not efficient designs when compared to diesel-electrics. The old fire-tube boilers were not as good for heating water into steam as the Lamont water-tube boiler [which does not explode]. The old locomotive designers were used to exhausting the used steam to the air, and making many refill stops, rather than using a closed condensing design. There are better designs for steam engines, the part using the steam to make power, than the old double-acting compound type. Using computerized controls, modern materials and improved designs could make locomotives operating as steam-electrics very cost efficient, perhaps even better than diesel-electrics. Making liquid fuel from coal will also reduce our dependence on oil, which may be worth a possibly lower efficiency.

Why do you think steam was so unsafe? The propaganda of the diesel makers? Do you not believe it is possible to improve old technology with modern materials and new designs?

This makes interesting reading.

"This makes interesting reading."

WOW! That is indeed a very interesting link. Unusual locomotives have always been of great interest to me. Thank you so much.

Ronseto (or anyone for that matter):

You may find some very interesting reading material at Internet Archive regarding railroads, boilers, steam engines, etc. all from around the years 1800-1900.

I find these old engineering texts fascinating.

Many thanks for the link. I used to subscribe to a railroad forum, but never have I seen so much good information as on this forum that was totally unknown on the railroad forum.

Yeah this is a pretty good site (I should subscribe sometime, but that goes against one of my philosophies )

Anyways, I haven't been too much into locomotives but be sure to do a search on "locomotives" as well - here is one book that I had a quick look at and it seems pretty interesting.

http://www.archive.org/stream/splendidbookoflo00jackuoft

Anyways, I haven't been too much into locomotives but be sure to do a search on "locomotives" as well - here is one book that I had a quick look at and it seems pretty interesting.

http://www.archive.org/stream/splendidbookoflo00jackuoft

Thanks for the link. It is very interesting.

One last thing, I just want to make sure you know of this as well, because some people aren't aware of it - Google also offers free books that are past their copyright dates - here is the link for a locomotive search (note the 'full view' selection)

http://books.google.com/books?q=locomotives&as_brr=1