WOW!! Even knowing how modern steam had a lot of improvements in balancing, some of which would not be obvious (the use of stiffer than normal lateral motion devices in leading and trailing trucks to reduce nosing, and thus reduce overbalance in the N&W J is one now well-known example), this still seems almost too much to believe--but believe we must!

Are you at liberty to say what enabled this, or what caused the diesels to be harder on track than a modern 4-8-4? Or was it never actually figured out?

Welp. Having been proven utterly wrong on this subject previously....

I reckon it's because one locomotive winds up a tad lighter than the 2-4 diesels they were doing to haul the same amount of train.

Considering Gen 1.5 steam locomotives (Porta, Wardale) could push 6,000 hp at decent speeds, you'd be significantly reducing the weight on the train, but not the power. Even if technically over less wheels.

Makes you wonder if someone wouldn't venture something along the lines of the DLM engines to help further reduce likely expense to swap to steam locomotives.

That included efficient light oil burning (Domestic heating oil) in a GCPS firebox (sorry clagger fans) and a great pre-heating system which brought the water gradually up to temperature automatically with nobody needing to be present, leaving the locomotive in an "unplug and throw in a match" state.

CP and UP also prohibit passenger excursions on their leased lines.

exprail

Here's one example. I don't know how accurate this is. RJ Corman Central Kentucky Lines. The 'Old Road' between Winchester, and Louisville, Kentucky was Louisville and Nashville. I understand that Corman owns the track and controls access, but CSX maintains ownership of the land. Again, I understand, that there are lucrative fiber optic cables underground. Corman is not allowed to operate paid passenger trains on this track. They may operate company sponsored passenger trips.

Connecting to the 'Old Road' in Lexington, Ky, is the former Southern Railway Versailles Branch. Corman owns every bit of it. When they operated the Lexington Dinner Train, it was over the Versailles Branch, and not a bit on the Old Road.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Lawyering, but it's been said that CSX could still be liable for a passenger wreck, owning only the land.

James Hinman

Gas producer combustion technology is for coal fired locomotives. Light oil firing is being done most extensively on the rack engines built by SLM / Sulzer, and by the Ffestiniog for a while. Both are excellent compared to old school efficiencies, but not complementary.

I could have sworn Porta developed a firebox that could do both.

Hmmmmm----something I've been saying for years------

EDIT: And I have to laugh at negative responses!! Apparently the inability to recognize a touch of satire is not limited to the United States. Take heart, we are not alone!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lectricity

Bumping this thread once again, in light of the facts from Wipe Out Wendsday....

The whole purpose of the GPCS is to allow more-efficient combustion of solid fuels; there's no need for it with liquid or gaseous fuels. The GPCS is best known for its use with coal, but it was also used on at least one wood-fired locomotive in Paraguay and there were plans to use it with bagasse in Cuba.

There is definitely room for improvement with oil-fired steam locomotives, and improvements have been made, but the GPCS is not relevant to this issue.

It looks like the basic concept may really be needed more than before.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41818

Why would it have to be a passenger only (or mostly) railroad? Freight makes money and steam can pull freight.

"Freight makes money and steam can pull freight."

If steam will be the power for revenue freight on a regular basis, freight will not make any money.

There IS a reason they got rid of those things 65 years ago....

Howard P.

The vast majority of preserved locomotives are from the 1905-1925 era, long before super power and enhanced balancing. The railroading world was a vastly different place when these locomotives held sway. Rail was MUCH lighter (90 pounds was heavy) and speeds were MUCH slower (25 MPH was pushing it). This became readily apparent when Southern consolidation No. 630 did not do well in main line excursion service mostly due to its size and inability to sustain modern mainline speeds. It was trying to do something that it wasn't designed to do. In today's world, the majority of these locomotives are really not suitable for main line running. With few exceptions they are mostly too small and too slow.

The locomotives most likely to be used in main line excursion service today are "modern", post 1935 superpower with roller bearings and enhanced dynamic balancing. There are perhaps two dozen preserved steam locomotives like Nickel Plate 765, Milwaukee 261, UP 884 and SP 4448 that could be are perfectly at home on modern class 1 main lines.

And heritage passenger cars, if they are to run on modern main lines must be mechanically and electrically compatible with AMTRAK standards.

The real issue is the railroads themselves. They were, back in the steam era, just like they are now: driven by the bottom line. They will not do anything that they regard as getting in the way of making not just a buck, but making the maximum number of bucks possible. Some are more hard line than others, but none of them really want to host a passenger train whether it is steam, diesel or AMTRAK.

OK, so.... the majority of our power is suitable for slower operation on light rail and the mainlines need to run fast trains on heavy rail. Does this sound like a potential opportunity to work with shortlines rather than mainlines - we can make use of what we have the most of in ways that works for them without the corporate overloaded obstinacy. Also, it's likely that we'd more easily move a smaller locomotive on a dedicated flatcar between shortline hosts. 25 MPH behind a light 2-8-0 is a pretty impressive experience, and you can fit a day's survival ride into a 50 mile turnaround - and our market isn't really the long survival rides in any case.

Destinations and scenery of course can make a world of difference...... just sayin'.

This is a future for broad based US steam operation (out of steam zoos and the UP program) that I can get behind. If I want fast mainline steam there's always the UK - and their Flying Scotsman isn't too much different in size than a light FEC pacific. We can learn to admire the smaller stuff too.

And the immersive experience, which the Brits also do very well.