Overview

Steam locomotives in our time are a bit of an anachronism - one rarely sees a true, coal-fired locomotive from the very late 1800s or very early 1900s. That's for good reason; the things spewed coal dust everywhere, they aren't thermally efficient at all, they're expensive to maintain, and they are really bad for the environment. However, the steam-powered locomotives do have some very desirable redeeming qualities, some of which are to be discussed in this paper. Also to be discussed are the possibilities of alternate fuels, such as bunker oil, wood chips and even nuclear fusion.

Merits of Steam-Powered Locomotives

Economics of Obtaining the Necessary Components for Locomotion of Steam Trains

Diesel-electric locomotives, as we all know, technologically replaced steam locomotives in the very late 1940s to very early 1950s. With the coming of these new locomotives came defamation of the steam locomotives as unhealthy and bad for surrounding environments. However, diesel-electrics have serious drawbacks, one of them being that the fuel is expensive. As of July 30, 2012, one gallon of diesel fuel costs about ($ 3,50, € 2,84, £ 2,23). If a typical diesel-electric locomotive, let's say maybe an EMD GP60, can hold (3.700 US GAL, 14.000 L, 3.100 IM GAL) of diesel, the money adds up real quick. To obtain that amount of fuel for just one time, the railroad would have to spend, at the very least, in excess of ($ 49.000, € 39.760, £ 31.220) on just ONE locomotive. Big railroads like BNSF can afford to pay that much to fuel their locomotives, but for smaller lines like TM, that's practically running the company into the ground!

Steam locomotives' fuel, however, is plenty cheap. You can get (1 sh. ton, 907 Kg, 0.89 ln. ton) of high-grade bituminous coal for ($ 60,88, € 49,56, £ 38,81). If a typical coal-fired steam locomotive, let's say a PRR Q2, could hold about (40 sh. ton, 36.280 Kg, 35.6 ln. ton) of that high-grade bituminous coal. Therefore, the total cost to fuel one steam locomotive with coal is about ($ 2435,20, € 1982,41, £ 1552,56), which, compared to diesel-electrics, is a savings of 96,4%.

I know what you're thinking. "Icosahedron, you didn't account for the water in the boiler that is necessary for operation of steam locomotives!"

In North America, water is a bargain. It only costs about ($ 1,50, € 1,22, £ 0,96) to get (1.000 US GAL, 3.785 L, 833 IM GAL) of the stuff from a municipal grid. If a PRR Q2's boiler can contain (19.020 US GAL, 71.998 L, 15.837 IM GAL), then the total cost of the water is ($ 28.530, € 23.231, £ 18.189,35). Even with the water costs accounted for, the railroad would only have to spend ($ 30.965,20, € 25.213,90, £ 19.741,92) on one locomotive - that's still a savings of 36,81%. Economic prudence would tell the railroad operators to go with steam because of these financial reasons.

Flexible Fuel Capabilities of Steam Trains, of which Modern Diesel-Electric Locomotives do not Possess

Diesel-Electric Locomotives have to run on very specific ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuels, and if foreign imports of that specific fuel are cut off, then how are the diesels going to get any fuel whatsoever to keep running? It is this kind of non-flexibility that makes operating diesel-electric locomotives financially unwieldy.

Steam locomotives can accommodate anything that burns into their fireboxes with proper modification, if necessary - wood, coal, vodka, JP-4, gasoline, you name it. Because it can run on all of those different fuels with varying degrees of thermal efficiency, the railroad is not constrained to one fuel source, and therefore can weather a fuel shortage far better than diesel-electric operator could ever dream of.

Exploration of the Possibilities of Alternatively-Fueled Locomotives, some of which are Most Peculiar

We can all wonder about the future of trains after the diesel-electrics have passed their prime, but what of the steamers? What other fuels, besides coal, can be used in steam locomotives that is both financially inexpensive and yet environmentally acceptable and thermally efficient? It is one of the most peculiar topics in steam railroading.

Our first exhibit in this rather queer topic is fuel oil. According to Wikipedia, fuel oil is

a fraction obtained from petroleum distillation, either as a distillate or a residue. Broadly speaking, fuel oil is any liquid petroleum product that is burned in a furnace or boiler for the generation of heat or used in an engine for the generation of power, except oils having a flash point of approximately 40 °C (104 °F) and oils burned in cotton or wool-wick burners.

Stretching that definition to the utmost extent, that means that even fuels like Diesel are fuel oils. More specific fuel oils are discussed below. (credit to Wikipedia for the descriptions of the fuel oils)

No. 1 fuel oil is a volatile distillate oil intended for vaporizing pot-type burners. It is the kerosene refinery cut that boils off right after the heavy naphtha cut used for gasoline. Older names include coal oil, stove oil and range oil.

+ Relatively easy to refine

- Highly volatile

No. 2 fuel oil is a distillate home heating oil. Trucks and some cars use similar diesel fuel with a cetane number limit describing the ignition quality of the fuel. Both are typically obtained from the light gas oil cut. Gas oil refers to the original use of this fraction in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - the gas oil cut was used as an enriching agent for carburetted water gas manufacture.

+ Relatively easy to refine

- Widely used and, depending on the markets, can be very expensive

No. 3 fuel oil was a distillate oil for burners requiring low-viscosity fuel. ASTM merged this grade into the No. 2 specification, and the term has been rarely used since the mid-20th century.

No. 4 fuel oil is a commercial heating oil for burner installations not equipped with preheaters. It may be obtained from the heavy gas oil cut.

+ Easy to burn in most boilers

- Widely used and, depending on the markets, can be very expensive

No. 5 fuel oil is a residual-type industrial heating oil requiring preheating to 170 – 220 °F (77 – 104 °C) for proper atomization at the burners. This fuel is sometimes known as Bunker B. It may be obtained from the heavy gas oil cut, or it may be a blend of residual oil with enough number 2 oil to adjust viscosity until it can be pumped without preheating.

+ Can be obtained from inexpensive heavy gas cuts

- Requires preheating to be pumped into the boiler

- Requires mixing with No. 2 fuel oil to circumvent this issue

No. 6 fuel oil is a high-viscosity residual oil requiring preheating to 220 – 260 °F (104 – 127 °C). Residual means the material remaining after the more valuable cuts of crude oil have boiled off. The residue may contain various undesirable impurities including 2 percent water and one-half percent mineral soil. This fuel may be known as residual fuel oil (RFO), by the Navy specification of Bunker C, or by the Pacific Specification of PS-400.

+ Can be obtained from inexpensive heavy gas cuts

- Requires preheating to be pumped into the boiler

- Lots of nasty impurities

Please notice that this Most Gratuitous Essay is currently a Work in Progress.

Edited August 1, 201212 yr by Icosahedron

Interesting work in progress. Some consideration points to add:

Fuel efficiency vs loading weight.

If Coal is a cheaper product... is it cheaper for extraction to the environment (dont forget recent carbon tax is quite high).

Heavier locomotives have greater traction power... but cost more fuel. There will be an optimimum peak which will be different for different use cases: Pulling coal trains... Pulling passenger Express (intercity), Pulling regional express (multiple start, stops, top speed for short durations)

Personally a fusion powered steam locomotive would make the best option: cheap fuel, with regular visits to the sea for natural Deutrium and Tritium, and no risk (ahem) when the inevitable cost savings on the tracks cause a slight accident. And the boiler / piston designs would hark back to the golden age of Steam.

Edited July 31, 201212 yr by roamingstudio

Interesting work in progress. Some consideration points to add:

Fuel efficiency vs loading weight.

If Coal is a cheaper product... is it cheaper for extraction to the environment (dont forget recent carbon tax is quite high).

Heavier locomotives have greater traction power... but cost more fuel. There will be an optimimum peak which will be different for different use cases: Pulling coal trains... Pulling passenger Express (intercity), Pulling regional express (multiple start, stops, top speed for short durations)

Personally a fusion powered steam locomotive would make the best option: cheap fuel, with regular visits to the sea for natural Deutrium and Tritium, and no risk (ahem) when the inevitable cost savings on the tracks cause a slight accident. And the boiler / piston designs would hark back to the golden age of Steam.

roamingstudio,

If this carbon tax is what you are saying it is, then the tax would be variable to the purity of the coal, and thus its carbon content. Is that not what you are saying, or is the tax imposed on coal in general? In that case, I used bituminous coal in the example because it was commonly used in steam trains.

I agree that there is a certain "golden spot" where fuel efficiency and loading weight meet at an optimum, before which or after which the locomotive becomes too encumbered with either variable. Should the train have too high or too low loading weights on each axle, then fuel efficiency will inevitably drop.

Regarding your statement on nuclear fusion I am skeptical. This seems to contradict your earlier statement on locomotive weight in that you need very heavy lead shielding to protect the fireman from ionizing radiation.

I'll post in detail, but the best reading is going to be the reports on 614T (USA, 1982) , the solid fuel road vehicle report of 1948 (UK), and the writing on Jawn Henry (USA, Turbine Electric).

Please realize I have a professional opinion on this, as I operate a oil fired steam ship, and have been playing with steam since 1980 for fun. I own a 4" to the foot model road traction engine, 3 3.5" gauge live steam railway engines, and a few other steam things...

James Powell

Interesting start, though there is one glaring fault in your cost calculations. You give figures to fill each type of engine to it's capacity, but you don't give figures for how much each type of engine can earn with a full tank/hopper. To compare the costs we also need to see the running costs. Steam engines needed far more regular maintenance.

Personally a fusion powered steam locomotive would make the best option: cheap fuel, with regular visits to the sea for natural Deutrium and Tritium, and no risk (ahem) when the inevitable cost savings on the tracks cause a slight accident. And the boiler / piston designs would hark back to the golden age of Steam.

I'm half with you on this, though a steam driven electric turbine generator rather than boiler and pistons would make more sense. And then the inevitable saving of removing the fusion generator and adding overhead wires to lower weight would lead us to modern electric trains. Far less romantic but more efficient.

I'm half with you on this, though a steam driven electric turbine generator rather than boiler and pistons would make more sense. And then the inevitable saving of removing the fusion generator and adding overhead wires to lower weight would lead us to modern electric trains. Far less romantic but more efficient.

I know. But one can dream. Fusion is not fission. Nuclear reactors are generally fission - the holy grail fusion reactors are still not working in areal world sense. Shielding would still be needed. Perhaps put the reactor in the back of train, running powerful through electric cables to motors. Real time video cameras relay the view to the locomotive driver - who is at the other end of the train shielded by all the passengers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax gives details on carbon tax from emissions. On a serious note it would need to be added onto the costs of coal -> steam -> generator -> motor. Excess heat is used for what? Efficiency of moving parts means mechanical linkages should be minimized. But could an electric engine still have the class of look and feel as old steam? Just because it is modern does not mean no class

Interesting comparison. How far with what carriage load would your 2 examples run on the respective full tank loads? In the long run, you want to compare costs per operated kilometre.

Edited August 1, 201212 yr by harnbak

The stuff that you guys mentioned is coming with the next part of the essay.

I know. But one can dream. Fusion is not fission. Nuclear reactors are generally fission - the holy grail fusion reactors are still not working in areal world sense. Shielding would still be needed. Perhaps put the reactor in the back of train, running powerful through electric cables to motors. Real time video cameras relay the view to the locomotive driver - who is at the other end of the train shielded by all the passengers.

I seem to remember the difference from 3rd year radiation lab in my Physics degree :-) I was happy to accept the dream of fusion but then apply other real world considerations. It comes down to whether a large fixed fusion reaction is more efficient than a small portable one, and if this is enough to outweigh transmission loss in the electricity grid. I'd guess so given the suggestions for the magnetic containment I've seen, and the shielding requirement.

While not disagreeing with the general avoidance of moving parts, huge flywheels for regenerative brakes might bring back a bit of the steam era.

Also if portable fusion were used, many steam era trains used the excess heat to heat passenger carriages. In fact in the early days of diesel and electric traction many trains had boiler cars for this purpose before electric heating became common.

I'm closing this thread for now as, while it does concern trains, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lego.

Icosahedron can make his case in PM as to if it should be re-opened in the future.