Wanted to see what everyone thought about this

A friend of mine was talking to me awhile back about a possible engineering senior design project he had in mind: a battery-powered steam locomotive. I'm assuming he got this idea after first hearing about NS 999. He didn't have technical aspects completely figured out, so this is the rough idea. Modify the firebox of a standard steam locomotive (similar to an oil-burning conversion) to hold several electrically-power burners similar to hotplate burners or stove top burners (a side idea he had was to create a type of heating rod that could be installed where some or all of the tubes would be). The burners would be powered by batteries in a specially-designed second tender, while the main tender of the engine would be rebuilt to hold just water. The engine would still operate as normal, just the power source would be different and by association, the carbon footprint would be zero, or close to it.

Opinions?

If you are going to use batteries, why bother to boil water and make steam? Why not just use the electricity to power motors? And don't forget that the carbon footprint includes the generation of the electricity used to charge the batteries unless non-carbon based energy is used.

The Swiss tried this during WWII, they put pantographs on steam switch engines and heater coils in the firebox.

The reason was shortage of coal.

It kinda worked, and had the advantage of being able to run for short distances on non-electrified track.

It was not very efficient, and the locomotives were converted back to coal at the end of the war.

-Hudson

If motors were involved, then it wouldn't be a battery-powered steam engine, it would be an electric engine. I'm talking about a possible third power source for steam locomotives, in addition to coal and oil.

And I did say zero or close to it

Well there's always nuclear power. I'm sorry, nucular

Mark,

I highly encourage you to the narrow the scope of the project to something more manageable. A scale stationary air-powered engine is a good collegiate design project.

As for full size, a steam locomotive w/ tender full of batteries would likely run out of juice on "fire-up" before leaving the enginehouse. The energy density of combustion is about 10,000x that of batteries.

Michael made a great case about the inefficiency and unlikelihood of success.

IF, however, one wanted to experiement with it, altering a traditional firebox would not be the best approach; I'd use some sort of immersed electrical element for direct heat transfer. I'd also consider an expansive medium that takes less heat to vaporize and expand than water, and condense it and keep it captive after expansive energy release, using the vavcuum of condensation for more power. Reciprocating pistons might also not be the way to go, perhaps something like a scroll expander or turbine.........

But all those will get you is a less inefficient version of something still very inefficient relative to direct electrical drive.

Carbon neutral? How does the battery pack get recharged? Solar is how efficient?

dave

Dave:
You beat me to the punch on nixing the firebox. Now we are left with a challenge: if we do away with the combustion chamber, tubes, and flues, how can superheat be incorporated? Also, as many energy recovery systems as possible should be explored, but not necessarily employed.

Perhaps a scale model would be practical.

Stephen Piwowarski

As far as using a different heat transfer medium other that water, check out the Bill Lear (of Learjet & 8 Track Tape Fame) steam powered car(s) using one the Freons was the heat transfer medium.

-Hudson

As I said above, this was a potential idea of a friend of mines. The cost of obtaining a locomotive (even a small one) would completely shut down this idea. I just wanted to see what others in the railroading community thought.

As far as the fire-up goes, others I've talked to about this pitched various ideas such as using an external power source to fire the engine and keeping it charged en route through a form of dynamic braking or an electric generator charged through the wheels.

I freely admit this isn't a particularly viable idea and would be incredibly expensive to develop. I just wanted to see what others thought.

And to correct my statement above, so everyone stops commenting about it's inaccuracies, I meant to say its emissions would be zero, not its carbon footprint. My mistake.

Mark,

Going back to your initial proposal, I am wondering what the purpose of this electrical steam locomotive would be. Is it to provide a new type of locomotive for commercial application to pulling trains; or is it to create a lower emissions type of steam locomotive to appeal to those who like steam locomotives per se?

Mark, I just looked at this thread, and I have to parallel Ron Travis: Why? Why did your friend pick this as a senior engineering project in school?

Even with using external power to "fire up," your current drain when on battery power will be enormous. Overall efficiency is going to be terrible because of the nature of steam engines; most didn't even get out of single-digit ranges for thermal efficiency. Their saving graces that lead them to last as long as they did were relatively cheap purchase costs, the ability to run on the cheapest of fuels, and their simplicity and robustness. Once diesels got the reliability and power levels up, steam died.

Perhaps the proper question is, what is he trying to do? Is he trying to come up with motive power that's truly "green?" More likely, is he trying to come up with "green" power that's also "fun?" (Hey, why do you think we are here, and why do most of us have an interest in steam?)

If the answer is "green" railroading, then straight electric will be the best way to go. His main challenge will be to come up with either a battery locomotive, or a cheaper way to electrify a railroad. If he is of the opinion that electrification is out for capital cost reasons (and there is a lot of mileage that might be questionable for that), then he could be looking at another "green" form of power with a smaller carbon footprint.

W. H. Odom (who goes by whodom for his user name, and who moderates the Ultimate Steam page) suggested a while back that modern, wood-fired steam would be or could be carbon-neutral, by virtue of using what I would call "new" carbon from freshly-cut trees, instead of "old" carbon that accumulated from way back when coal and oil deposits were formed. There was even a railroad in Africa--I'm afraid I've forgotten which country and carrier it was--that ran with wood-burning steam power into the 1960s or 1970s. This road used fast-growing eucalliptis trees in groves planted for just this purpose.

Alternately, if he is looking for something with zero emissions that can also be "green," and isn't electric, there is the fireless locomotive, essentially a thermos bottle on wheels. This was an engine charged with hot water and steam from a stationary or "house" boiler, and relied on the principle that water that is above normal boiling temperature will not turn into steam until some of the pressure is relieved. Quite a few such locomotives were built over the years for industrial service in places where steam was available; they were considered the best thing for working in a potentially explosive atmosphere, such as the area around a chemical plant or an oil refinery. These machines could and often did have long lives, due to the low maintenance demands of a simple pressure vessel, rather than the much more heavily strained, more complex, and thus more maintenance intensive boiler.

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

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/tra ... dern21.htm

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/steam21.html

Somewhere in my magazine collection is a copy of an article from the 1940s about a proposal--pie in the sky stuff, really, just exploring the idea--of expanding the fireless locomotive to mainline sizes. Among other things, it wouldn't need a tender, but to carry enough steam and water for the power output of a 4-8-4, the machine would have to be of enormous size, particularly in length. I suspect axle loads would have been rather heavy, too.

Anyway, tell your friend to have a bit of fun.

He did not pick it as his project. As I said initially, it was an idea he had. I was just putting it here to see what opinions others in the railroad community might have.

He didn't have a specific purpose in mind, but I imagine if this were to ever come to fruition, it would just be used on a tourist line, similar to how the Grand Canyon Railroad uses a steam locomotive that runs on recycled vegetable oil.