OK, so I found some vintage 1960's footage of K-36 #484, but I was mainly concerned with the unusually scattered and often off-topic battle in the viewers' comments between ferroequinologists like us and the general public. Here's some of the misconceptions and what I believe is correct (I did some homework but please correct me if I'm wrong): 1) steamers are the worst polluters of all time because of plumes of "smoke" and they are gone because of this-FALSE, They are gone because of relatively low efficiency ratings and high maintenance. A car arguably puts out just as much harmful exhaust as a steam locomotive (keyword steam), which really spits out evaporated water with some unburnt coal dust (essentially some trace elements but 60-90% carbon, you know, that stuff in your expensive Brita filters) and carbon dioxide mixed in, and from what I understand, the carbon dust falls back to earth and doesn't enter the atmosphere. But while both produce carbon dioxide, you get more bang for your buck with a steamer, and water vapor is much cleaner than carbon monoxide, a car's other major byproduct. 2) a lot of people wonder if a K-36 with snowplow is "Darth Vader's train" or if it was designed by Tim Burton or if it is part train, part tank-FALSE x3, but they are still cool. Kudos to Baldwin, not George Lucas. 3) trains were, and are, diabolical and stupid machines-:tb-mad:...Fine. Have fun in your covered wagons. See you in California in five months if you live to make it there. 4) fast food chains get their meat from cows that D&RGW engines run over-UNLIKELY? So one has to ask, why do they do this?
That's real interesting info about the coal particulates... ...and it's simple to witness a steamer's maintenance demands. Just go to a live steam meet and watch the guys needing to constantly fuss with their high maintenance "girlfriends".
I love steam locos. They are very cool and have lots of mechanical moving parts. Since I am an engineer (sic) that's probably why they appeal to me so much. However, steam engines, particularly steam locomotives, are terribly inefficient. Both with regards to power and operational cost. That's the real reason why railroads switched to diesels. And it's true most people don't understand this. WRT to snow plows.....here's a good article on rotary snow plows: Rotary snowplow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Once again, very cool but not cost effective or all that efficient. Railroads are all about making money (like any other business). The ones that want to survive will adapt and discard wasteful, inefficient and costly practices.
One of my earliest memories from my childhood is of my mother running out the back door screaming and holding a laundry basket. Back in those days we had a solar/wind powered cloths dryer in the back yard. A Chicago & Northwestern rail yard was just down the street and whenever a locomotive went by and the wind was right, all that soot would rain down on the wash hung out to dry.
If I might quote Men In Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it. Andy Tetsu Uma
I recently read a comparison of costs for maintaining a steam engine, versus a diesel. It was done by a former railroading official, who also holds a post-graduate degree in history. Interesting was the way numbers came together- Steam was clearly cheaper.... Boxcab E50
So I did s'more research, and the average steamer is about 10% efficient, which means for every ton of coal that goes in the firebox, 90% of its fuel's stored energy goes up the stack or is lost to friction, mechanical linkage, etc. Diesels are still, on average, only 35% efficient. Yet there's still tons of potential for steam, for 1 cup of water expands to 1600 times its volume when evaporated. ...and, if you haven't checked out the 1AT, 5AT (and possibly an 8AT) locomotive projects in the UK, you should, because there's some pretty interesting stuff that they're proposing to do with steam revival...
Direct comparison tests in the late steam era of the best modern steam (NYC Niagara, NKP 2-8-4, N&W Y6b) all showed them to be equal or superior to steam in cost. Of course, these tests were all done on trains tailored to the given locomotives' operating characteristics. Diesels, because they can generate full HP at any speed, are more flexible. Also, they permit long runs without engine change. It seems to me like it was more a matter of operating conveniences like these than simple fuel and maintenance costs. These are harder to quantify. Except maybe for yard switchers. A steam switcher has to be kept warm all day; that is, it has to idle, and wastes fuel compared to a diesel in that service. Oh, and most late American steam was around 6% efficient. 10% is more like what a Chapelon compound achieved. For a long time, from looking at statistics, I thought "Steam must've been terrible performers at low speed." They were poorer than diesels, but not as much so as I thought. I hadn't been comparing appropriate power. A 4-8-2 is best used like NYC Mohawks: fast freight on flat land. Despite its usual name, it's not the best mountain climber. If you're going to climb a hill, you should switch to something like a Y6b. Of course, that engine change might not be necessary with diesels. The other part of my error was that I'd forgotten how low of continuous tractive effort first-gen diesels had. They weren't limited by adhesion, but by how much power their traction motors could handle for any length of time.
Ah, but once again I must reiterate how much fun and excitement we all experience from steam. McCloud, 2009.
Don't get me wrong, I care about the enviroment but don't even try to argue with some of these green activists commenting on this video, I tried and I failed, they are very stuck in there ways and won't exept anything else. They see black smoke and freak out and quit listening to anything else. :tb-biggrin: This video is so popular in views, now if only we could get advertisments for the C&TS on there...hmm... Alex
Ever heard of the ACE 3000? It was a proposed modern steam locomotive designed during the early 1980s when oil prices were high. Indeed, once oil reaches a certain threshold, steam does -- once again -- become a cheaper source of motive power, as America's coal reserves remain both vast, accessible, and low priced. If we see another long term gas crisis, my guess is you'd see someone float this idea again. Last generation steam locomotives were extremely powerful, and -- if you applied modern efficiency and technology -- my guess is that you could dramatically reduce the man hours needed to properly maintain them. http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ace_det.html
I remembered one other thing that was biasing the steam/diesel comparison tests. They were probably based on the assumption that the railroad had maintenance facilities for both. The removal of steam maintenance facilities is often cited as a significant reason for the replacement of steam. I do wonder why the ACE 3000 was only designed for that power level. That is, it has *less* HP available than a PRR M1. Steam with much higher power/weight was demonstrated. For practical freight use, such steam would need powered tenders. I see a serendipity with the ACE's condensing tender. Less water and more dry weight makes it worthwhile to power the tender - and they did on a different version of the design. The Ultimate Steam Page A steam locomotive like this could be more the equal of two 1940s steam locomotives - but it would also be almost twice as complicated. With low fuel costs, overall operating costs would mainly be determined by maintenance. I have heard of improved water treatment techniques to reduce the need for boiler cleaning, for example.
Actually, what I am talking about is purely dollars and cents. That is all which matters. Efficiency of steam versus diesel is made irrelevant. Those figures used in making that comparison are from when Class 1 railroads where still fully equipped for steam, had both modes in common use and are from company internal files few of us have access. Done by a respected industry professional. Someone I have no trouble believing. Boxcab E50
In many countries outside the US they replaced steam with electric locos getting electricity from a coal burning power plant. So much for pollution, eh? :tb-tongue:
Idiocy on Youtube Youtube.....You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Believe me I have tried arguing with those morons there. Its a futile thing.
There's nothing like steam. I got to ride behind 480, 484 & 488 last May. Climbing up and down the mountains in CO & NM was absolutely fabulous. It needs to be preserved and cherished, my wife and I are donating to the C&T. This was almost as good as my first car!! Dave
