> Hey everyone,

Hey Tim, are you talking about doing this as an engineering exercise or to make an economically viable, technically feasible that would at least get to the beta-test" stage, e.g., trials on revenue freight roads ala the current "green goat" hybrid models.

I think you have a lot of (insurmountable) things to consider, not the least of which are the enormous costs of support systems and the "Tier II" EPA regs on new locomotives as examples.

superheater62@yahoo.com

> Hey Tim, are you talking about doing this as
> an engineering exercise or to make an
> economically viable, technically feasible
> that would at least get to the
> beta-test" stage, e.g., trials on
> revenue freight roads ala the current
> "green goat" hybrid models.

> I think you have a lot of (insurmountable)
> things to consider, not the least of which
> are the enormous costs of support systems
> and the "Tier II" EPA regs on new
> locomotives as examples.

Ah yes, if only I had the resources to even attempt a full scale experiment of this sort. No, this is only an "on paper" report, basically an attempt to prove a professor of mine (who refers to steam locomotives as "overgrown waterheaters") wrong. If things do begin to look plausible however, I may get some fellow students (and steam fans) in on the project to continue study of it. I'm just trying to get some research on the concept, and being a steam fan it's proving to be very interesting. My goal at this time is only to prove that its possible (if that turns out to be the case) and econmically plausible.

My point is don't look for Tim Botti and friends to start another 614-esqe efficiency test anytime soon, but heck, who knows, maybe we'll someday see a "Dash 2" version of one of today's surviving steams plying the rails. They tell us to dream big, and that was something I was always good at! :-)

Thanks for the interest Superheater!

Tim Botti

tjb23@pitt.edu

Just brought to my attention.

dave

* The Cuban sugar ministry has decided to sell 55 steam locos. Except for a
Henschel, all are of American origin. This has to be the 'sale of the
Century' for US enthusiasts who are, of course, not allowed to buy them!
Perhaps this is why the sale is being handled for the Cubans by a Spanish
preservation group. The details are...
ARMF.
Apartado 62.
25080 Lleida.
Spain.
armf.info@teleline.es



irondave@bellsouth.net

> Apart fron your capability to build new
> ones, which seems to be greater than that in
> the USA.

> dave

I don't know where you get that idea from! I know of no "new" full sized loco built in Australia since the 1950's (I'd love to be proved wrong, but)

There have been a number of replacement boilers built - the largest probably being the AC16/Macarthur boiler for Queensland.

There have also been a few remarkable restorations that were almost new build - the G42 Garratt being probably the prime example.

3 foot gauge is most unusual in Australia - The only "railway" that I can think of was a logging line that ran 10 miles or so. There was also a bit of trackage about industrial plants - but no place that I know of where sizable locos ever worked.

> No, this is only an "on
> paper" report, basically an attempt to
> prove a professor of mine (who refers to
> steam locomotives as "overgrown
> waterheaters") wrong. If things do
> begin to look plausible however, I may get
> some fellow students (and steam fans) in on
> the project to continue study of it. I'm
> just trying to get some research on the
> concept, and being a steam fan it's proving
> to be very interesting. My goal at this time
> is only to prove that its possible (if that
> turns out to be the case) and econmically
> plausible.

The most serious difficulty is the rather modest pressures that steam locos operate at greatly limit the maximum thermodynamic efficiency. Late in the steam age engines usually used between 200 and 300 PSIG steam pressure. U.S. Navy marine boilers operate at 600 or 1200 psig, a stationary power plant will used between 2400 and 3600 psig boilers providing for great deal more theoretical efficiency. The search for higher boiler pressure took railroad locomotive is a number of different directions and none of them were successful. These included high pressure water tube boiler with reciprocating engines, and the ill fated turbine electrics of the N&W and C&O. The other major thermodynamic inefficiencies were the use of an "open" steam cycle with a great deal of your propulsion energy going up the stack and the reciprocating engine which is not very efficient under the best of circumstances and at typical railroad speeds (rpm) they were very poor. Compounding the limitations of the reciprocating was the use of side or piston valves. While the results of poppet valve tests were mixed, I think they were the next "big advance" for the steam engine had steam remained in use a bit longer. The steam engine as it stood in 1950 was like the muscle car of the 60s and 70s, they threw fuel at the horsepower problem rather than efficiency.

Ed

ff1044@aol.com

> Ah yes, if only I had the resources to even
> attempt a full scale experiment of this
> sort. No, this is only an "on
> paper" report, basically an attempt to
> prove a professor of mine (who refers to
> steam locomotives as "overgrown
> waterheaters") wrong. If things do
> begin to look plausible however, I may get
> some fellow students (and steam fans) in on
> the project to continue study of it. I'm
> just trying to get some research on the
> concept, and being a steam fan it's proving
> to be very interesting. My goal at this time
> is only to prove that its possible (if that
> turns out to be the case) and econmically
> plausible.

> My point is don't look for Tim Botti and
> friends to start another 614-esqe efficiency
> test anytime soon, but heck, who knows,
> maybe we'll someday see a "Dash 2"
> version of one of today's surviving steams
> plying the rails. They tell us to dream big,
> and that was something I was always good at!
> :-)

> Thanks for the interest Superheater!

> Tim Botti

Tim, one thing I'd pursue is more of a tactical issue than engineering (alas, in my youth I might've made it through engineering if I had worked at it, I chose not too-so I can't advise you there)

The key word is "scope". Limit your argument to the objective of attaining technical feasibility and address the specific objections of your professor.



superheater62@yahoo.com

Mr. Ledbetter,

It is always good to see credit given.

I am merely surprised that, while the conversation has circumnavigated the planet looking for a rusy hulk to restore, nobody has yet made reference to the Glover (If I recall correctly) Machine Works in Marietta, Georgia which was willing to produce a new mogul into the 1960s.

Besides, if one cannot pick a pedantic nit on this forum, where can one engage in that pursuit? Trust me (How many times do you hear a lawyer say that?) the pedantic nits are far less uncomfortable than their corporeal namesakes.

GME

gmedwardsesq@juno.co

> Tim, one thing I'd pursue is more of a
> tactical issue than engineering (alas, in my
> youth I might've made it through engineering
> if I had worked at it, I chose not too-so I
> can't advise you there)

> The key word is "scope". Limit
> your argument to the objective of attaining
> technical feasibility and address the
> specific objections of your professor.

Make no small plans--they bore most men.

What if you could build a 300psi fire tube boilered, computer controlled, reciprocating driven, coal fired loco. that achieved an honest average thermal efficiency of 15% vs. the diesel electrics 30%. At $1.25 for #2 diesel fuel vs.$50/ton for 12,000 b.t.u.eastern bituminous coal, coal is approx. 9 times cheaper per btu,thus the steamer would reduce your fuel bill by a factor of approx. 450%!!!

Fuel is the railroads #2 line item expense(right behind wages) and one they have NO control over.

Something to ponder!!!

Ross Rowland

rrowland@weidel.com

> Make no small plans--they bore most men.

> What if you could build a 300psi fire tube
> boilered, computer controlled, reciprocating
> driven, coal fired loco. that achieved an
> honest average thermal efficiency of 15% vs.
> the diesel electrics 30%. At $1.25 for #2
> diesel fuel vs.$50/ton for 12,000
> b.t.u.eastern bituminous coal, coal is
> approx. 9 times cheaper per btu,thus the
> steamer would reduce your fuel bill by a
> factor of approx. 450%!!!

> Fuel is the railroads #2 line item
> expense(right behind wages) and one they
> have NO control over.

> Something to ponder!!!

> Ross Rowland

Two things to quibble over.

1. The U.S. Navy tried electric boiler controls on I believe their LHA class of amphibious warships. They were resounding failures even with the immense engineering resources of the Navy behind them. And the Navy tried to make them work for four or five years. Until they finally replaced the electric controls with pneumatic ones, the plants were usually controlled by hand. In order to use microprocessor based control logic, you'll need to master the problem of electric valve control. This is a "doable" technical problem but would add greatly to the development cost.

2. The more difficult problem is to over come is the back shop manning requirements for an economically viable steam locomotive program. According to the history page of the North Carolina Transportation Museum, the Southern Railroad reduced their backshop manning by over 2000 individuals by simply dieselizing. Today, that labor cost on the balance sheets would be twice as expensive in absolute terms as then given the increases in compensation packages and healthcare costs. The maintenance requirements that drove that level of repair effort are pretty much directly attributable to the FRA. In order to reduce those requirements, a company would have to be able to demonstrate that the regulations are not needed or excessively stringent. So you have to develop the technology first, then by using maintenance track records go back to the FRA and ask for a relaxation of the regulation that may or may not be approved. A good model to use for comparison would be watching how the airlines interact with the FAA regarding aircraft maintenance.

IMHO, while steam can be operated less expensively, I don't think one can make a viable life cycle cost comparison (in the computer industry the TCO -Total Cost of Ownership) between steam and IC motive power until fuel prices are at least three times and perhaps as much as ten times their current levels OR as a result of a politically caused lack of fuel altogether. In the current economic environment, I think most investment sources would see too many risks without a reliable vision of payback to even dabble in a steam program that isn't based on a "labor of love."

Ed

ff1044@aol.com

> At $1.25 for #2
> diesel fuel vs.$50/ton for 12,000
> b.t.u.eastern bituminous coal

>Ross, tell me where I can get these prices, I think I can get rich as an arbitrageur!


superheater62@yahoo.com

Not sure how to say this but seeing as how the UP now uses more fuel oil than the Navy wouldn't there be some benifit to this to reduce our dependence on foreign oil........Wooly

> Two things to quibble over.

> 1. The U.S. Navy tried electric boiler
> controls on I believe their LHA class of
> amphibious warships. They were resounding
> failures even with the immense engineering
> resources of the Navy behind them. And the
> Navy tried to make them work for four or
> five years. Until they finally replaced the
> electric controls with pneumatic ones, the
> plants were usually controlled by hand. In
> order to use microprocessor based control
> logic, you'll need to master the problem of
> electric valve control. This is a
> "doable" technical problem but
> would add greatly to the development cost.

> 2. The more difficult problem is to over
> come is the back shop manning requirements
> for an economically viable steam locomotive
> program. According to the history page of
> the North Carolina Transportation Museum,
> the Southern Railroad reduced their backshop
> manning by over 2000 individuals by simply
> dieselizing. Today, that labor cost on the
> balance sheets would be twice as expensive
> in absolute terms as then given the
> increases in compensation packages and
> healthcare costs. The maintenance
> requirements that drove that level of repair
> effort are pretty much directly attributable
> to the FRA. In order to reduce those
> requirements, a company would have to be
> able to demonstrate that the regulations are
> not needed or excessively stringent. So you
> have to develop the technology first, then
> by using maintenance track records go back
> to the FRA and ask for a relaxation of the
> regulation that may or may not be approved.
> A good model to use for comparison would be
> watching how the airlines interact with the
> FAA regarding aircraft maintenance.

> IMHO, while steam can be operated less
> expensively, I don't think one can make a
> viable life cycle cost comparison (in the
> computer industry the TCO -Total Cost of
> Ownership) between steam and IC motive power
> until fuel prices are at least three times
> and perhaps as much as ten times their
> current levels OR as a result of a
> politically caused lack of fuel altogether.
> In the current economic environment, I think
> most investment sources would see too many
> risks without a reliable vision of payback
> to even dabble in a steam program that isn't
> based on a "labor of love."

> Ed


wooly421@charter.net

> Make no small plans--they bore most men.

> What if you could build a 300psi fire tube
> boilered, computer controlled, reciprocating
> driven, coal fired loco. that achieved an
> honest average thermal efficiency of 15% vs.
> the diesel electrics 30%. At $1.25 for #2
> diesel fuel vs.$50/ton for 12,000
> b.t.u.eastern bituminous coal, coal is
> approx. 9 times cheaper per btu,thus the
> steamer would reduce your fuel bill by a
> factor of approx. 450%!!!

> Fuel is the railroads #2 line item
> expense(right behind wages) and one they
> have NO control over.

> Something to ponder!!!

> Ross Rowland

Let me just remind everyone again that this is only a theoretical study. I just want to put together all the information, crunch the numbers, and see if this could work. :-)

Just as a footnote, not only am I planning on doing the technical study on this, but a friend from the business school is handling an economic feasibility study (basically not letting me overspend my "theoretical budget") and I will also put together an environmental study (a requirment). So lets hope that if this ever happens, it'll fire clean!

Thanks for all the input everyone, keep the suggestions coming! One suggestion I could use is the idea of a specific locomotive to base the modifications on. Let me again stress that this is all ON PAPER, so I won't be ripping apart old number (insert your engine here) anytime soon. Just need something modern that I can use the specifications for in my report. I need to take a lot of pictures of the locomotive for this as well, so preferably one thats somewhat easily accessible and within 6 hours drive time of Pittsburgh, PA. Any suggestions?

Ross, you don't happen to have 614's vital stats handy, do you? :-)


tjb23@pitt.edu

> Let me just remind everyone again that this
> is only a theoretical study. I just want to
> put together all the information, crunch the
> numbers, and see if this could work. :-)

> Just as a footnote, not only am I planning
> on doing the technical study on this, but a
> friend from the business school is handling
> an economic feasibility study (basically not
> letting me overspend my "theoretical
> budget") and I will also put together
> an environmental study (a requirment). So
> lets hope that if this ever happens, it'll
> fire clean!

> Thanks for all the input everyone, keep the
> suggestions coming! One suggestion I could
> use is the idea of a specific locomotive to
> base the modifications on. Let me again
> stress that this is all ON PAPER, so I won't
> be ripping apart old number (insert your
> engine here) anytime soon. Just need
> something modern that I can use the
> specifications for in my report. I need to
> take a lot of pictures of the locomotive for
> this as well, so preferably one thats
> somewhat easily accessible and within 6
> hours drive time of Pittsburgh, PA. Any
> suggestions?

> Ross, you don't happen to have 614's vital
> stats handy, do you? :-)
Hello I have some test reports on modern power they all show about 3 to 4lbs of coal per hp. hour. The 1910 locomobile steam plant used a little over 1 lb of coal per hp. hour. This was a 200psi compound with supperheat and reheat and a hand fired firetube boiler. See Audels enginers guide for ref. bb

If you have the time, I would HIGHLY recommend you get a copy of David Wardale's book "The Red Devil and Other Tales from the Age of Steam" and read it. There is a lot of information on his work in South Africa, with ACE, and in China. It includes some interesting speculation on what COULD have been done better in the U.S. to save steam in the 1940's. The book also includes modifications that were proposed to be made to the 614 at one point to gain knowledge and experience for designing the full ACE prototype. Wardale basically already did what you are proposing with a South African 4-8-4 back in the 1980's.

I'd suggest a good engine to use as a basis for your project would be a C&O K-4 2-8-4. Not sure what the closest one to you is, but they are a good, reasonably modern design and there are a bunch of them left (just in case you ever decide to go to the next stage with this hypothetical study). See the link below for a list of the remaining K-4's.

> Let me just remind everyone again that this
> is only a theoretical study. I just want to
> put together all the information, crunch the
> numbers, and see if this could work. :-)

> Just as a footnote, not only am I planning
> on doing the technical study on this, but a
> friend from the business school is handling
> an economic feasibility study (basically not
> letting me overspend my "theoretical
> budget") and I will also put together
> an environmental study (a requirment). So
> lets hope that if this ever happens, it'll
> fire clean!

> Thanks for all the input everyone, keep the
> suggestions coming! One suggestion I could
> use is the idea of a specific locomotive to
> base the modifications on. Let me again
> stress that this is all ON PAPER, so I won't
> be ripping apart old number (insert your
> engine here) anytime soon. Just need
> something modern that I can use the
> specifications for in my report. I need to
> take a lot of pictures of the locomotive for
> this as well, so preferably one thats
> somewhat easily accessible and within 6
> hours drive time of Pittsburgh, PA. Any
> suggestions?

> Ross, you don't happen to have 614's vital
> stats handy, do you? :-)


Remaining C&O K-4 2-8-4's
whodom2001@yahoo.com

I never saw Glovers in the '60s, but by the time I got there in the 1980s the works was a piece of its former self. There were no personnel working there capable of building or restoring a steam locomotive - consequently, I was working on that job for the city.

There were many new old stock parts laying around, quite a bit of specialty tooling, and warehouses of mouldering termite-ridden patterns. It is theoretically possible a new Glover could have been built then using those resources.

The preservation of the works was botched badly by the city and county. No planned and concerted effort was made. I made an emergency triage trip on one icy January to pick through what remained during an ice storm after the buildings were half demolished.

The artifacts now in the museum in Kennesaw are a pale shadow of what was there, and displayed in a far too clean and sterile environment to realistically portray the business. Unfortunately, not enough of them remain to build a new locomotive even if they could be used for the purpose. My guess is that the curators would prefer to conserve what little remains, and correctly so.

Even if the Glover works were still standing and in use as they were 20 years ago, the locomotives they built were clones of 1870s Porters even through their last production in the 1930s. Surely we can at least build into the 20th century today.

dave



irondave@bellsouth.net