Well, the whole horsepower thing was total farce. a quote from the website-

"Initial computer simulations suggest that the CSR's modern steam engine will significantly out-accelerate a modern diesel-electric locomotive to 110 mph, meaning that passenger operators will be able to realize electric-like acceleration at or below the cost of the diesel-electrics they currently use."

Come on...did anyone proofread that crap?

Was the simulation done on MTS?

"Well, the whole horsepower thing was total farce. a quote from the website-

"'Initial computer simulations suggest that the CSR's modern steam engine will significantly out-accelerate a modern diesel-electric locomotive to 110 mph, meaning that passenger operators will be able to realize electric-like acceleration at or below the cost of the diesel-electrics they currently use.'

"Come on...did anyone proofread that crap?

"Was the simulation done on MTS?"

Actually, that's just the sort of thing steam power could do in the old days, particularly if you were talking about modern steam.

The reason is that a steam engine's main power source is a boiler, but its transmission is those pistons, rods, and wheels. Time is an element in horsepower, and that means to develop it the engine has to be running at a certain speed. It makes a steam locomotive behave very differently from a diesel-electric or even a straight electric.

At low speed, the limit on power is that pistons-rods-wheels transmission; they can't use all the steam the boiler can make. At higher speeds, they can use the steam, until the limit is either boiler capacity or the ability to get the steam into and out of the cylinders (which is where designs on valves and valve gear and blast pipes become important). What this means is that horsepower increases with speed to a point, then peaks and drops; a steam locomotive's tractive effort-speed curves looks like a horsepower curve for an internal combustion engine, except that it can start at 0 rpm.

In contrast, a diesel-electric or straight electric can use its full horsepower from 0 mph, but that's all it will ever have. It will have enormous starting effort at low speeds, though, and can accelerate faster in the lower ranges, sometimes overall enough to better what can be done with steam. This is particularly pronounced with DC traction motors, which pull harder as they run slower. This is what made diesels so useful as switchers early in the conversion; a switcher is constantly in start and stop service.

Basically, a steam locomotive has constant torque but variable horsepower, while something with an electric transmission has constant horsepower but variable torque.

This showed up rather dramatically in Paul Kiefer's "A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power." This was the summation of the famous tests between the Niagaras and EMD E-7s on the New York Central. Among the charts in that slim volume are ones for speed vs. time, a form of acceleration curve. The locomotives in the test included the Niagaras, the E-7s in two and three unit combinations, a Hudson, and a Pacific.

Working from memory, the Pacific and the Hudson topped out at 75 mph and 85 mph respectively; the E-7s topped out at something over 90. The Niagara accelerated slowly below 30 mph or so, but began to accelerate faster than that at that point; it equaled the diesels acceleration at 50 mph. Beyond that, the Niagara accelerated much faster, and its curve ran off the chart, still climbing, at 100 mph, at which point the diesel was up to perhaps 75 or 80 mph.

I can recall a ride with Reading 2101 on a New River train that was a leisurely start out of Huntington, but at 30 mph or so, crossing the bridge east of there, the acceleration picked up so fast you were pressed into your seat. This was with a train of 25 or so cars, mighty long for a passenger train anywhere, and a lot of them were riveted heavyweights.

Just linking a related page:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33277

I would say that their analysis of horsepower performance for steam versus diesel is simply wrong.

The horsepower determines the top speed. A steamer and a diesel of the same horsepower should be able to fundamentally reach the same top speed. A diesel can deliver its full horsepower at any speed. A steamer is fundamentally unable to deliver its full horsepower at lower speeds.

So with a steamer and a diesel of the same horsepower, the steamer has a horsepower disadvantage at lower speeds. The diesel has no horsepower disadvantage at any speed.

Your sources are misinformed. First, it's just all about HorsePower, period. How many HP you can get to the drawbar is all that ever matters, period. Yea I know all the talk in truck stop lounges and pickup commercials about torque, they are mostly BS. HP is torque times distance times time, basically. So if two locomotives have the same drawbar HP at the same speed, they are accelerating identically(assuming the other variables are the same, of course)

Comparing an ancient DC motored unit to modern AC driven units is silly. A DC motor will act as you say, it will make max HP at 0 RPM and it makes -zero- HP at max RPM. An AC unit can use the entire HP right up till it hits the limits of it's design. The computer can synthesize AC voltage and lead the power curve to force the motor to keep pulling.

This effort is crap, and it's going to cost us. It will end up on nightline as a story on university grants gone wrong, and forever more the balance sheets of rail preservation fundraising will have another layer of scrutiny.

Ron,

Agreed, a steam locomotive a 0 speed has 0 HP however has maximum tractive effort. Can a diesel deliver maximum tractive effort at zero speed?.....how does this weigh into their acceleration claims? You can plant full boiler pressure to the cylinders as long as you don't slip......with 84 " drivers, the peak on its HP curve may be around 65 MPH?

I believe the NYC Niagara's HP peak (as I recall about 5000-5500 DBHP) was around 50 MPH......with 79" drivers. The Niagara's peak indicated power was around 6000 HP which was the same as the engine number series.

Regards,

Randy

I wasn't going to wade into this smelly pile, but the comments from yesterday persuade me to dip a toe in anyway. Let's see if I can get away without falling in face-first.

I will be the first to admit I'm not a very technically oriented person. I know how to run a train and sling snacks on one. That said, there are certain fixed laws of physics that are not hard to grasp. The first one that comes to my mind is that currently the most efficient way to convert carbon energy to motion by combustion is by making it into electricity, and then using the electricity to power a train, either with a locomotive, or as a self-propelled multiple-unit train set. The most efficient way to combust said carbon is in a stationary power plant, which uses a high-efficiency, constant-load, steam turbine generator to generate the electricity, transmitting the power to the railroad by high-voltage AC transmission line, converted to a usable level of power at the railroad. I don't believe those principles are in dispute. The only question up for argument here, really, is the most efficient way to get the carbon energy to the wheels of a train, and as far as I know, you are not going to accomplish that with a Stephensonian locomotive.

If you want to most efficiently use this "new" biomass fuel, the best way to do so would be in the most advanced, pollution-controlled stationary power plant available, and use the electricity generated there to operate a new generation of electrically-hauled passenger trains. Doing so would also enable you to obtain electricity from a variety of "green" sources of electricity; including wind, solar and hydro - since all you have to do is transmit the power from those sources to the railroad.

It would seem that the best use of millions of dollars in development grant money to move passengers in a carbon-neutral way would be to build a next-generation electric rail project that taps into every possible method of generating cleaner energy.

Just my $0.02.

(P. S. Thanks for putting a fresh coat of paint on a long-neglected historic artifact.)

So, if I understand this, the project will wed the latest steam locomotive technology with these mystery pressed wood pellets, and create a locomotive that will replace diesels on the private freight railroads and Amtrak. Compared to modern diesels, this new steamer will offer lower fuel cost, lower operating cost, and higher performance. This project strikes me as being put forth by people who go up in UFOs at night.

But with enough free money, you can build anything, whether it makes sense or not. Who is paying for this? Is this private capital being risked by investors who are convinced that the risk is worth taking. Or is this just a pipedream to shake the tree of public funding?

Just for fun, another discussion on steam vs. diesel acceleration:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... =6&t=66551

"This project strikes me as being put forth by people who go up in UFOs at night."

Well now, I wouldn't say that, but I will say this group is going to face even worse challenges than Ross Rowland did with the ACE 3000 attempt.

Railroaders are a pretty conservative bunch, largely for good reason. Economy and reliability are very high on their list of priorities. Experiments tend to be short on both in the early stages.

It's also notable that diesels have advanced greatly since the days of the GP-40/SD-40 that were the benchmarks for the ACE 3000. That group is going to have a tough sell at best. Heck, they'd have trouble selling even to a steam fan like me!

As I read this, the fatal flaw is the summation of multiple individual narrow logical claims. The total argument as a whole is false, but there is no one knowledgeable person evaluating this whole project as a unified system.

Yes, classical steam permits use of creative solid fuels.

Yes, steam acceleration is superior (HP output) as the reciprocating speed increases (higher rpm).

But as discussed at length, these narrow truths are negated by overwhelming negatives in other areas.

The maintenance, balancing, and track augment of steam running gear at 130+mph must be horrifying. The steam record, Mallard at 126 mph, is a light engine by American standards with light rotating masses. Imagine that ATSF engine with its heavy masses at that speed? Can the driving wheel centers even accept that rotational speed without blowing up?

"Low cost boiler maintenance" ? If we had that one solved, then maybe steam would still be running up Mt. Washington.

As others have noted, modern computer, AC, chopper, thyrister diesels are light years ahead of those EMD comparisons from the 1950's.

Finally, 130 mph is not the target. The target is 150+ and 200 mph. Amtrak focuses on 110 mph only because of political obstacles to the investment needed for true high speed.

I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on this just a little.....seems like a strong accusation with no back-up......maybe that's just me.....




There were quite a few other factors in the decision, not negating the issue as you have posted it....but that was not the first, nor the last reason. Any by the way, steam still is running up Mt. Washington every day from June through October on the 8:30 AM trip.

I agree with your overall view on this project, but is this quote that characterizes one of the claims even true?




Is steam acceleration superior to diesel acceleration from stop to full speed? Steam does develop more horsepower at the higher speed than it does at lower speed. But that would seem to only disadvantage steam (compared to diesels) at lower speeds. I don't see where the steam locomotive gains an advantage over a diesel at higher speed.

I would think that overall, steam has a disadvantage in the acceleration curve by not having its full horsepower available at the lower speeds.

How does Mt. Washington's reduction to a single (peak season only) steam trip a day support a premise that steam is still viable?

This is an example of the kind of narrowly defined statement that leads to flawed overall system decisions.

It does not support a premise that steam is still viable, nor does it disprove the same premise. You based your coment on low cost boiler maintenance on the assumption that "If we had that one solved, then maybe steam would still be running up Mt. Washington." I am mearly stating that steam IS STILL running up Mt. Washington, and that the "low cost boiler maintenance" was not the death blow to the steam only tenure on the mountain. I will not go into the issues of passenger time at the summit, travel times and such that were real factors along with some other things. That is for another thread and another time....but I will say this. I spent 7 seasons on that hill running trains, so I can tell you...it's not about your flawed and narrowly defined statement....and it wasn't just about boiler maintenance....


back to #3463......

I wish to state I knew nothing of this project till the other day. I dont wish to coment here either way about it.

Please note that the GCR locos are effectivly carbon nuetral running on Veggie oil as for a while was the Mount Washington #9. When I got to MW I found major isuses with the boilers which I was not in a position to solve and because of the diesels statring to come about a year after I went there. I did what I had to and left as I had no interest in such situations.