> I would like to refer all to a series of articles by William Pettijean in the January through June, 1993, issues of the late, lamented, "Locomotive & Railway Preservation" magazine.
In the articles Mr. Pettijean did a thermodynamic analysis of steam locomotives vs. diesel. He concluded that a diesel locomotive is inherently three times more efficient at converting fuel to motion than a steam locomotive. In other words, a steam locomotive will require at least three times as much fuel to move a train between the same two points as would a diesel.

The steam locomotive has the advantage of being able to use other types of fuels such as wood or coal.

In spite of this advantage, China now is in the process of converting its railroads from steam to diesel power. China used steam for a long time because it had a large supply of coal and only a limited amount of oil.

Cost of labor for steam locomotive maintenance was not an issue in China because the government had a policy of full-employment. I once watched a crew of fully-employed men in Shanghai cutting the grass in a park using scissors.

Unfortunately for the lovers of steam, the increased efficiency and lower maintenace costs of diesel won out.

The same laws of physics and economics that caused diesel to replace steam also apply to tourist and museum railroad operation.

fkrock@pacbell.net

While watching this thread I have been unsuccessfully searching my library for the 1940 era engineering textbook which included such a comparison. The conclusion reached by the authors was that dieselization was inevitable, but unlikely until the current generation of "modern" steam reached the end of its economic life cycle in 1970! Wouldn't that have been wonderful.....

Anyhow, all the points made above are parts of the whole picture. Comparing costs and benefits, massive electrification of every busy mainline would be most sensible and economic while using IC / electric on the lesser used branches where capitalization of the overhead wouldn't pay. The interesting question is why this option hasn't been explored. I believe there were tax related economic benefits (which an accountant can expalin) which helped push this time frame rapidly as well as all the other things already mentioned.

Steam can only be run where it is subsidized due to the interest in steam by the operators of the line or by the audience they wish to attract. Until our tax system is overhauled to promote preservation without imposition of punitive conditions there will be no economic interest by the businesses in railroading to offer historic programs or retain unused structures no matter how picturesque.

Maybe we should lobby for laws which would credit businesses for not removing historic structures and continuing to demonstrate obsolete historic ways of doing business in the everyday world to promote the citizens understanding of our history if we really want to make a difference.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

Dear Hugh:
A good question.
The SY used approximetly 1/4 less coal and water than our No. 97 during the 2 seasons that we had it. I believe that this was due to a couple of factors:
First, the SY was new (read tight piston and valve rings hence little blow by), has a much larger heating surface in the firebox (remember, this is where most of the heat transfer takes place, not in the flues) and a much larger superheater (following Russian practice where you have mostly large flues with type "A" superheater units and just a few small flues).
Second, (and this ties in with Marty's comments) we are fortunate to have highly motivated and highly educated firemen at the Valley. At that time our weekday firemen (Chris Locke and Chris Adams) took get pains (and pride) in getting the most out of a scoop of coal, and one of them was on the locomotive a majority of the time.
I wish that I could tell you that the maintenance costs were lower, but the numbers don't lie. I will say that we spent a good deal of time (and money)on modifications and repairs, especially replacing seats and disks in the various shut off valves and in some cases the entire valve itself: the Chinese valves had steel seats which rusted and were impossible to keep tight so we renewed them with stainless steel. Also, a lot of the cost of running a steam locomotive is the inspection, hostling and routine maintenance (boiler washes, testing gauges, cleaning air brake valves, etc.) that must be done regardless of the age of the locomotive.
Without question, the SY was the best steam locomotive that I ever worked on (yes, I am biased). Unfortunatly, it didn't save the Valley enough money. When times got tough, it was one of the first things to go (better to sell it at a profit than to have the bank take it, the profits by the way, were used to finish the overhaul of No. 40, so in a way its' sale was a good thing).
J. David


jdconrad@snet.net

> Dear Marty:
You are so right!
In reading Dave Wardale's book I was struck by how totally dependant the functioning of the GPFS (Gas Producer Firebox System) was on the skill of the fireman. Basicly, it didn't work worth a diddle unless the fireman was on top of it all the time. There were other problems too, but even when the coal was right and the gradiant profile was favorable and the train was the proper tonnage and the schedule allowed for long steaming periods, and so forth, it still all came down to the skill and enthusiasm of the fireman and it is difficult to find people who are intellegent, skilled and enthusiastic about working under the conditions inherent to steam locomotive operation in the real world (not where you and I work).
J. David

jdconrad@snet.net

David:

Thanks for the response. I had read somewhere the engine was (relatively) fuel efficient. In addition to the fuel saving from higher superheat, the big Type A superheater would also have a lower pressure drop between the throttle valve and the cylinders, due to the higher cross-sectional area for steam flow.

The fact that the maintenance costs were about the same as your other engines is no real suprise since the Chinese were really using pretty much the same construction practices (other than having an all-welded boiler).

The big thing I got out of Wardale's book is that it didn't necessarily HAVE to be this way. So many faults with steamers were taken for granted (leaking valve & piston rings for example) and very little was done about them. Wardale, Porta, and some others have made some real improvements in these areas, but unfortunately they don't have many opportunities to apply them.

I really hope Wardale gets the chance to build his all-new 4-6-0 for UK excursion service. It's not intended to be an "ACE 3000"; it's intended to be a state-of-the-art traditional steam locomotive to allow steam excursions to be operated as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. It would be interesting to see what's really possible in a traditional, but 21st-century-engineered steam locomotive.

You can read more about his proposal at the "Locomotives International" magazine website at the link below. Click on "21st C Loco" for information. I predict economic pressures will eventually generate interest in similar projects in the U.S.

Regards,
Hugh Odom
the Ultimate Steam Page
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp

> Dear Hugh:
> A good question.
> The SY used approximetly 1/4 less coal and
> water than our No. 97 during the 2 seasons
> that we had it. I believe that this was due
> to a couple of factors:
> First, the SY was new (read tight piston and
> valve rings hence little blow by), has a
> much larger heating surface in the firebox
> (remember, this is where most of the heat
> transfer takes place, not in the flues) and
> a much larger superheater (following Russian
> practice where you have mostly large flues
> with type "A" superheater units
> and just a few small flues).
> Second, (and this ties in with Marty's
> comments) we are fortunate to have highly
> motivated and highly educated firemen at the
> Valley. At that time our weekday firemen
> (Chris Locke and Chris Adams) took get pains
> (and pride) in getting the most out of a
> scoop of coal, and one of them was on the
> locomotive a majority of the time.
> I wish that I could tell you that the
> maintenance costs were lower, but the
> numbers don't lie. I will say that we spent
> a good deal of time (and money)on
> modifications and repairs, especially
> replacing seats and disks in the various
> shut off valves and in some cases the entire
> valve itself: the Chinese valves had steel
> seats which rusted and were impossible to
> keep tight so we renewed them with stainless
> steel. Also, a lot of the cost of running a
> steam locomotive is the inspection, hostling
> and routine maintenance (boiler washes,
> testing gauges, cleaning air brake valves,
> etc.) that must be done regardless of the
> age of the locomotive.
> Without question, the SY was the best steam
> locomotive that I ever worked on (yes, I am
> biased). Unfortunatly, it didn't save the
> Valley enough money. When times got tough,
> it was one of the first things to go (better
> to sell it at a profit than to have the bank
> take it, the profits by the way, were used
> to finish the overhaul of No. 40, so in a
> way its' sale was a good thing).
> J. David


Locomotives International Website
whodom@awod.com

The comments about #1647 (1989) vs. #97 (1923) or #40 (1920) are interesting. TVRM had similar experiences with #610 (1952) vs. #630 (1904). According to nutshell comments unofficially overheard, 610 used up to 1/3 less coal and water than the less-efficient older locos (both 630 & 4501). Mark Ray...are you out there?

Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum
sfreer@tvrail.com

On the steam-tech mailing list which I belong to (on Yahoo), several participants were doing a "GPFS scorecard".

The final tally is that out of all the steam locomotives fitted with GPFS, only two or three in Brazil and the "Red Devil" in Cuba are still using it. Everything from the narrow-guage "Linda" in Wales to the "Red Devil" in South Africa were either converted back to their original configuration, converted to oil firing, or retired. It may have to do with the need for a good fireman in order for it work right.

I remember reading on the net awhile back how some Brits went to Sri Lanka to teach them how to fire their remaining steam locomotives. Apparently the skill of firing a steam locomotive did not last as long as the locomotives did.

All the discussions regarding retaining or even returning to steam need to take this into account. I thought the GPFS would have promise on a tourist railway as well; but I can see how easily it would fail if you don't have a good fireman.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

> You are so right!
> In reading Dave Wardale's book I was struck
> by how totally dependant the functioning of
> the GPFS (Gas Producer Firebox System) was
> on the skill of the fireman. Basicly, it
> didn't work worth a diddle unless the
> fireman was on top of it all the time. There
> were other problems too, but even when the
> coal was right and the gradiant profile was
> favorable and the train was the proper
> tonnage and the schedule allowed for long
> steaming periods, and so forth, it still all
> came down to the skill and enthusiasm of the
> fireman and it is difficult to find people
> who are intellegent, skilled and
> enthusiastic about working under the
> conditions inherent to steam locomotive
> operation in the real world (not where you
> and I work).
> J. David


Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

> While watching this thread I have been
> unsuccessfully searching my library for the
> 1940 era engineering textbook which included
> such a comparison. The conclusion reached by
> the authors was that dieselization was
> inevitable, but unlikely until the current
> generation of "modern" steam
> reached the end of its economic life cycle
> in 1970! Wouldn't that have been
> wonderful.....

> Anyhow, all the points made above are parts
> of the whole picture. Comparing costs and
> benefits, massive electrification of every
> busy mainline would be most sensible and
> economic while using IC / electric on the
> lesser used branches where capitalization of
> the overhead wouldn't pay. The interesting
> question is why this option hasn't been
> explored. I believe there were tax related
> economic benefits (which an accountant can
> expalin) which helped push this time frame
> rapidly as well as all the other things
> already mentioned.

> Steam can only be run where it is subsidized
> due to the interest in steam by the
> operators of the line or by the audience
> they wish to attract. Until our tax system
> is overhauled to promote preservation
> without imposition of punitive conditions
> there will be no economic interest by the
> businesses in railroading to offer historic
> programs or retain unused structures no
> matter how picturesque.

> Maybe we should lobby for laws which would
> credit businesses for not removing historic
> structures and continuing to demonstrate
> obsolete historic ways of doing business in
> the everyday world to promote the citizens
> understanding of our history if we really
> want to make a difference.

> Dave

Dave, your post reminds me of the NW USA RR that
had most of its main line electrified. Shortly
before the Arab oil embargo the management converted to diesel and tore down all the overhead.
They proudly reported that the scrap value of the
copper they tore down was greater that the original construction cost. We often wondered what they would have given to have it back when
the oil was shut off. I wonder what they would give to have it now?
Jim


rrfanjim@mvn.net

> Maybe we should lobby for laws which would
> credit businesses for not removing historic
> structures and continuing to demonstrate
> obsolete historic ways of doing business in
> the everyday world to promote the citizens
> understanding of our history if we really
> want to make a difference.

Hmmm... I wonder what other "industries" or "businesses" would do if they saw that railroads were receiving tax benefits/etc. for doing things the "old way" or keeping old facilities/buildings etc. Would banks demand credit for having someone sit up half the night calculating mortgage payments? Would people pay to watch?

My job would be totally non-existant if my company decided to do things the "historic" way.

I hate to see old buildings torn down, but we can't save everything. Is there much that is actually worth saving in respect to the worth of what replaces it?

The last few stalls of an old roundhouse were torn down here a few years ago and the area is still littered with the bricks. (It hasn't been replaced with something of value yet!) I have driven past many times and contemplated its loss. The loss is not so much that a building is gone, but rather the loss of the evidence of the life expended in and around it by so many people. The events that transpired there were important to the people involved at the time, just like what is important to me where I am now. But will it be all that important to keep evidence of my messy desk for future generations?

Even so... Semper Vaporo,
Charles T. McCullough

Another thing that is sometimes overlooked during discussions about deiselization is the entire country's attitude at that time.

In the 40s and 50s "modern" was good, the more modern, or futuristic something was, the better it was held to be. (Remember Buck Rogers and tailfins on cars?)

Steam engines were old news, while diseasels, like commercial aeroplanes, were new and therefore exciting. I'm sure that wanting to appear on the "cutting edge" with the investors played as much a part in the decision as many other economic considerations.

James,

As far as I've been able to find out, the Cuban "Red Devil" is not GPCS yet. It was left oil-fired during its conversion with the intent of converting it for the GPCS combustion of bagasse and other "bio-mass" fuels (wood, wood chips, etc.). I have not seen anything on whether this has happened yet or not.

Your story about the Brits teaching the Sri Lankans how to fire steam brings up a good point. It may be easier to teach "green" firemen how to fire a GPCS boiler properly. Old habits die hard and this seems to have been a significant problem on several of the GPCS installations. The GPCS definitely requires a different firing technique than conventional combustion.

Regards,
Hugh

> On the steam-tech mailing list which I
> belong to (on Yahoo), several participants
> were doing a "GPFS scorecard".

> The final tally is that out of all the steam
> locomotives fitted with GPFS, only two or
> three in Brazil and the "Red
> Devil" in Cuba are still using it.


the Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com

"Hear that lonesome airhorn blat."

That may be the best line of humor I've heard in a long time! Of course it wouldn't be funny without it reflecting a good deal of common sense truth.



glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

I was in my teens when steam ended around Cleveland, Ohio. Collinwood yard was my summer camp and it seemed everything we did ensured that we would see a lot of steam in action. The passenger trains were already changing to diesel and when we heard the "fish-horn" blow for a crossing we looked away. When I listen to the complaints about leaky cabs, poor air conditioning, plugged toilets, computer problems etc., my memories harken back to the soot and sweat covered guys working their rearends off up in the cab under all weather conditions. My favorite overheard comment was the engineer that quit rather than go diesel.." I didn't hire on the be a damn streetcar motorman". It certainly has changed, but then again what hasn't?


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Hmmm... I wonder what other
> "industries" or
> "businesses" would do if they saw
> that railroads were receiving tax
> benefits/etc. for doing things the "old
> way" or keeping old
> facilities/buildings etc.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I include all businesses and industries. Structures built by banks or farmers are worthy of preservation.

But will
> it be all that important to keep evidence of
> my messy desk for future generations?

Possibly. I wish we could see Mark Twains desk as he had it, or H L Menckens. If your work contributes as much to our cultural history please do see to its preservation.

I don't propose a total time capsule here - just elimination of fiscal punishment for not removing structures and for retaining some examples of the development of the business.

I have tried to explain such mundane things as the grocery store my mother took me to shop in back in the dark ages of my youth to today's 20somethings but can't communicate it effectively. I found one Piggly Wiggly that hasn't been upgraded in a small town in SC. I like to stop there just for the environment and nostalgia even though it is out of my way. I hope they never get scanners.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

> In spite of this advantage, China now is in
> the process of converting its railroads from
> steam to diesel power.

True for almost all of China, with one major exception, the JiTong Rwy., which plans to retain steam for 3-4 more years.

> Cost of labor for steam locomotive
> maintenance was not an issue in China
> because the government had a policy of
> full-employment.

For reasons that have much to do with the above paragraph, coupled with the first cost difference between nearly new steam locomotves available cheap from CNR versus new or used diesels, the JiTong Rwy has decided to retain steam in the near term. The following is excerpted from Hans Schaefer's web site:

"Bill Alborough has provided the following information: "21st November 2001: from the Daban Chief of Motive Power.
November 15th to 18th DF4D 4055 from Baiqi Depot was borrowed for traction trials on Jingpeng Pass (Daban - Halokou). A November 19th assessment meeting decided:
1. Diesel traction reduces Galidesitai - Jingpeng times by 60%, for the same load, or 35% more load is possible for similar timings.
2. Taking into account, first cost, fuel, maintenance and depot facilities, far more profit can be achieved by steam traction using two locos, against 1 diesel.
3. Baiqi depot confirms that since buying 6 diesels and operating them to Ben Hong, their profit compared to steam is lower. Hence the recent emphasis on more steam
4. Therefore Daban depot will continue with steam for 3-4 years, will not buy new or second-hand diesels until a further traction assessment in 2004.""

However, I am sure that once the first cost differential disappears, either when the supply of cheap steam drys up, or cheap diesels appear on the scene, or the steam engines start to require major shopping, steam will disappear, just as it has everywhere else. Go and enjoy it while you can.



a231pacific@aol.com