A modern steam locomotive

Kloke Locomotive Works has already built two 4-4-0's.  The Leviathan and the York, both replicas of typical late 1800's locomotives.

Unfortunately, his website has been taken down.

Rusty

I don't understand your goal?
An external combustion steam loco is never going to be able to equal the fuel economy of modern (or even first generation) diesels. No matter how many modern gadgets you put on it the physics just are not there.
A newly built new design would not be historical in any sense of the word. It would be some sort of "amuzement ride" freak even if it looked somewhat like a historical loco.
In the USA, since it is new, not an actual preserved historical loco, it would never be allowed to operate because of federal and state emissions laws.

It comes down to emissions and fuel availability. Steam locomotives  of 1952 generation are only about half as fuel efficient, once you take into account, the diesel engine (which is magically ignored most of the time, which peaks at fuel efficiency 60%), and cracked fuel for a loss of 50% of the energy , into account, against a modern diesel electric. Most of the improvements would be invisible from the outside. Steam locomotives also can do a few things diesels can't. Like run in high water, something logging railroads found rather useful, and flood ravaged Portland Oregon, have used beef tallow as part of their oil ( was done for in the 1800's and early 1900's).

I have noticed a few things are ignored about steam locomotives. They do not generate nitrous oxid emissions due to having no compression in the combustion chamber. They are a flywheel machine, meaning they use a flywheel(s), the drivers, to help even out the power curves. Yhey are dual acting, not single acting pistons.

As for fuel economy in America we never picked up the longer piston valves of the UK to improve cut off. Compounding was adopted then dropped due to major problems out side of Mallett type steam locomotives, same for the UK, hence my example of the 1000 class. Gerratt type have been found to be rather useful and have been built as late as the 2000's to haul coal trains for Argentina, their ability to have a wide, but short boiler improves radically their boiler efficiency.

I posted this after reading some of the well, they looked rather to me unfeasible plans I have seen. Like a 2-8-8-2 freight steam locomotive, wihh to me looked a chronic traction issue on the front driver set, un-maintainable drive gear systems, and poor crew visibility. It looked like a really great idea, but un-affordable in both maintenance, and construction, let alone the design shake down after construction.

Tornado, took a good design, and improved it. The Duke of Gloucester would have been better if it were not for the sabotage in the drawing room, that was later rectified during a restoration.  It was technically a first generation engine, but with a massive increase in fuel economy. So it is possible to improve steam locomotives, but the mechanically simpler diesel electrics have hit a wall, even with AC traction motors, and improved engines. Given the technological wall that has been hit, and the sudden end of steam development, even before all gains had yet to be realized to me seems at least worth experimenting with on a small scale.

Allin posted:

It comes down to emissions and fuel availability. Steam locomotives  of 1952 generation are only about half as fuel efficient, once you take into account, the diesel engine (which is magically ignored most of the time, which peaks at fuel efficiency 60%), and cracked fuel for a loss of 50% of the energy , into account, against a modern diesel electric. Most of the improvements would be invisible from the outside. Steam locomotives also can do a few things diesels can't. Like run in high water, something logging railroads found rather useful, and flood ravaged Portland Oregon, have used beef tallow as part of their oil ( was done for in the 1800's and early 1900's).

I have noticed a few things are ignored about steam locomotives. They do not generate nitrous oxid emissions due to having no compression in the combustion chamber. They are a flywheel machine, meaning they use a flywheel(s), the drivers, to help even out the power curves. Yhey are dual acting, not single acting pistons.

 

As for fuel economy in America we never picked up the longer piston valves of the UK to improve cut off. Compounding was adopted then dropped due to major problems out side of Mallett type steam locomotives, same for the UK, hence my example of the 1000 class. Gerratt type have been found to be rather useful and have been built as late as the 2000's to haul coal trains for Argentina, their ability to have a wide, but short boiler improves radically their boiler efficiency.

 

I posted this after reading some of the well, they looked rather to me unfeasible plans I have seen. Like a 2-8-8-2 freight steam locomotive, wihh to me looked a chronic traction issue on the front driver set, un-maintainable drive gear systems, and poor crew visibility. It looked like a really great idea, but un-affordable in both maintenance, and construction, let alone the design shake down after construction.

Tornado, took a good design, and improved it. The Duke of Gloucester would have been better if it were not for the sabotage in the drawing room, that was later rectified during a restoration.  It was technically a first generation engine, but with a massive increase in fuel economy. So it is possible to improve steam locomotives, but the mechanically simpler diesel electrics have hit a wall, even with AC traction motors, and improved engines. Given the technological wall that has been hit, and the sudden end of steam development, even before all gains had yet to be realized to me seems at least worth experimenting with on a small scale.

Current technology diesel electric locomotives are still more efficient, require less labor, less infrastructure and have over all lower operating costs compared to steam locomotives.  That is why steam locomotives in America were rapidly replaced by diesels post WWII.  Outside of use on a tourist rail line, I do not see any major class 1 railroads or locomotive companies wanting to invest into bringing back steam locomotives.   I still believe the future is in electrification.  Much of Europe's main passenger and freight rail lines are electrified.  Electric locomotives have lower operating costs then diesels, faster acceleration, more horsepower, and are cleaner.  The main issue is the up front infrastructure costs.  Solutionary Rail is organization that wrote a book on the idea the US government and BNSF to do a public-private partnership to electrify the Northern transcon from Chicago to Seattle.  

http://www.solutionaryrail.org/summary

Electrification can bee really good, I would like to see more of it. Though I do recall they did take out most if not all of the electrification on the Milwaukee Road electrified trackage heading west, and they tore out the electrified lines running from Vancouver to Eugene Oregon. Good electric engines like the Milwaukee Road EP-2 also ran into companies not wanting to replace the electric motors because of profiteering, not because of a bad design. Electric runs into an issue where line loss begins to really eat into the efficiency without supper high voltages DC, which is harder to step down than high voltage AC. In densely populated areas it is great, like the East Coast Sea Board, or Portland Oregon. Where the electricity is coming from also is a question is in hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear or fossil fuel? If fossil fuel the advantages mostly vanish. That and infrastructure, maintaining the over head lines, or track side power adds to maintenance. something steam engines also have issues with, with in track water troughs to cut down on water stops.

In 1952 Norfolk and Western did compare the running costs of the soon to be Y6B against the latest F-units (the ancestor of most modern EMD engines) from EMD, it was a draw in costs, though they were in coal country. In the UK they did cut down on many of the costs with steam, mostly cleaning, especially on the Black Fives and Britannia class steam locomotives. Now turn around time that is a big thing, the bigger the steam locomotive the longer the turn around time, and money is lost when an engine is not in service. For finding the frames, the later solid cast steel frame of large articulated steam locomotives are nearly impossible to find the facilities to manufacture now, at least in the US, they were hard to find in the 1950's. Water, finding water can be problematic. Waiting for it to get up to temperature can takes days to nearly a week if I recall correctly.

The logistics appear to me to be the big determinant factor of the type of motive power used.

Steam also can do one thing, other forms can not do, run a train that is supposedly to heavy. I wish i could remember the name of the video on theCumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad or the Durango and Silverton Railroad, they had one engine fail, so they combined both trains behind one engine and got it moving again. not a good idea, but useful at times. If a steam engine can keep the train moving it can pull it, even if it does not have enough power to get it started, problem being long trains and long break lines cause safety issues.

I created this post to dispel myths I run into, and say all things start small, stay small at first and dream big, and build to the big dream in steps.

FECguy posted:

Current technology diesel electric locomotives are still more efficient,

long after the last drop of diesel fuel is consumed,
water will still be around to be turned into steam.

overlandflyer posted:

FECguy posted:

Current technology diesel electric locomotives are still more efficient,

long after the last drop of diesel fuel is consumed,
water will still be around to be turned into steam.

What fuel will be used to produce all the steam?

overlandflyer posted:

FECguy posted:

Current technology diesel electric locomotives are still more efficient,

long after the last drop of diesel fuel is consumed,
water will still be around to be turned into steam.

You've got heat that water with SOMETHING.  If not oil, back to coal, or wood?

Allin posted:

In 1952 Norfolk and Western did compare the running costs of the soon to be Y6B against the latest F-units (the ancestor of most modern EMD engines) from EMD, it was a draw in costs, though they were in coal country.

 

 People have brought things like that up as long as I have been interested in trains, (45 years) and I have two real issues with it.  One, while it MIGHT have been technically correct at the time, it has NOTHING to do with today.   The N&W had their own coal, their own shop to build steam locos and they already had all of the facilities and the people to maintain them.  If you ever tried to recreate that in the modern age, the costs would skyrocket off the chart.  Secondly, I think the comparison was dead wrong back in 1952 because I don't think the railroads took into proper consideration  the people and facilities they would be able to eliminate if they dieselized, OR the fact that in that era, diesels were getting better and more powerful by the year.  Even if the Y6B's were technically better in 1952, they wouldn't be by the time those steamers had paid for themselves.  Nobody loves big steam any more than I do, but even Ed King has said that the day FT 103 rolled out of LaGrange, the steam engine was dead, it just didn't know it yet.

A steam engine on a thermodynamic basis is less efficient than an internal combustion engine, whether it is diesel driving the wheels, gasoline or a hybrid with electric power. While it might be romantic to think of new steam engines, in reality there isn't much of a case to be made for them. A wood burning steam engine does have one advantage, in that the wood it is burning is carbon neutral, unlike burning fossil fuels where you are introducing carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere, when you burn wood it is part of the natural cycle, the net amount of CO2 you are adding is a bit more than 0, but not a lot, because the wood you would be burning is from the last x decades (not saying it is desirable, just saying it is an advantage).

Electrified locomotives have significant advantages over a diesel electric, even modern ones with how efficient and relatively clean they are, they are cleaner at the point of use (basically zero emissions), and electrified engines are certainly more efficient even if you take it from power generation to delivery of power to the rails it is likely to be more efficient (Siemens for example says that with their modern turbine gas fired plants with cogeneration their efficiency is about 60%), even with the drops caused by distance transmission and in the electric locomotive, it is still likely to be a lot more efficient then a diesel. The other advantage of an electric locomotive is that it is agnostic to what is generating the power, and it is a lot easier to control the emissions of power plants or to diversify what generates the power then it is to keep thousands and thousands of diesels running cleanly. It doesn't know or care if the power is generated by gas, oil, coal, wind, hydro, solar, fission, (fusion? 10-15 years away *lol*...like an old Times Square electronics dealer going out of business sale, that prediction last forever), doesn't care. 

This whole discussion about a steam locomotive (external combustion) vs. a diesel electric/electric locomotive, tends to overlook the drastic differences in physics between the two;

1) The diesel electric/electric locomotive is variable torque, with essentially constant horse power. Thus, huge amounts of trailing tonnage can be started and moved, with minimum horse power. If greater speed is required, simply add additional HP.

2) The steam locomotive is variable horse power, with constant torque. Thus, a VERY high horse power steam locomotive, is generally NOT even capable of starting a heavy tonnage train.  

Is not the ash from coal or wood considered a big environmental risk in today's world?

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Is not the ash from coal or wood considered a big environmental rish in today's world?

What's a "rish"?

At one time in the 1960's SP was looking at electric operations on the Sunset Route.  Earlier, Donnor was in the crosshairs.

Hot Water posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Is not the ash from coal or wood considered a big environmental rish in today's world?

What's a "rish"?

Typo.  Just corrected.  Thanks.

I think he means "risk." Apparently he's confusing the massive coal ash ponds from coal-fired power plants (a typical one of which burns 140 million tons of coal a year) with the tiny ash production of coal or wood fired steam locomotives.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Is not the ash from coal or wood considered a big environmental risk in today's world?

i was actually considering a post apocalyptic world.

but today, carbon ash? ...not really a problem.
hydrocarbons (aka diesel)?  here you go...

https://www.intechopen.com/...heavy-metals-interference-in-microbial-degradation-of-crude-oil-petroleum-hydrocarbons

bigkid posted:

A steam engine on a thermodynamic basis is less efficient than an internal combustion engine, whether it is diesel driving the wheels, gasoline or a hybrid with electric power. While it might be romantic to think of new steam engines, in reality there isn't much of a case to be made for them. A wood burning steam engine does have one advantage, in that the wood it is burning is carbon neutral, unlike burning fossil fuels where you are introducing carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere, when you burn wood it is part of the natural cycle, the net amount of CO2 you are adding is a bit more than 0, but not a lot, because the wood you would be burning is from the last x decades (not saying it is desirable, just saying it is an advantage).

Electrified locomotives have significant advantages over a diesel electric, even modern ones with how efficient and relatively clean they are, they are cleaner at the point of use (basically zero emissions), and electrified engines are certainly more efficient even if you take it from power generation to delivery of power to the rails it is likely to be more efficient (Siemens for example says that with their modern turbine gas fired plants with cogeneration their efficiency is about 60%), even with the drops caused by distance transmission and in the electric locomotive, it is still likely to be a lot more efficient then a diesel. The other advantage of an electric locomotive is that it is agnostic to what is generating the power, and it is a lot easier to control the emissions of power plants or to diversify what generates the power then it is to keep thousands and thousands of diesels running cleanly. It doesn't know or care if the power is generated by gas, oil, coal, wind, hydro, solar, fission, (fusion? 10-15 years away *lol*...like an old Times Square electronics dealer going out of business sale, that prediction last forever), doesn't care. 

 

Plus in generative braking, engery goes back up into the wire, and not converted to heat in a diesel-electric.

What happens when the supply line is taken into account, has anyone ever done that? The extra steps it takes to get diesel fuel? Last I knew the energy returned on energy invested on oil recovery in the United States was about 3 or 5 to 1, while coal was still sitting at 30 to 1. Diesel has to be pumped out of the ground as crude oil, now fracked oil, then cracked into Diesel fuel, using natural gas, coal, or renewable power for a heat source, or electricity source to heat it with. Each one of those steps takes energy out of the oil produced. Coal, has to be processed as well, sorted, graded, makes a mess out of the landscape (so does oil), cleaned, but not changed form, while still having its losses, they are not as great , no half of the energy  goes out the window steps (oil cracking). What happen to the water used by both? Are they both toxic sludge? What about coolants? What about the clean up? How easy is it to pick up a load of spilled coal, compared to an oil spill?

I am not just thinking of the engine itself, but the whole supply chain as to which is the best for use of energy.

Allin posted:

What happens when the supply line is taken into account, has anyone ever done that? The extra steps it takes to get diesel fuel? Last I knew the energy returned on energy invested on oil recovery in the United States was about 3 or 5 to 1, while coal was still sitting at 30 to 1. Diesel has to be pumped out of the ground as crude oil, now fracked oil, then cracked into Diesel fuel, using natural gas, coal, or renewable power for a heat source, or electricity source to heat it with. Each one of those steps takes energy out of the oil produced. Coal, has to be processed as well, sorted, graded, makes a mess out of the landscape (so does oil), cleaned, but not changed form, while still having its losses, they are not as great , no half of the energy  goes out the window steps (oil cracking). What happen to the water used by both? Are they both toxic sludge? What about coolants? What about the clean up? How easy is it to pick up a load of spilled coal, compared to an oil spill?

I am not just thinking of the engine itself, but the whole supply chain as to which is the best for use of energy.

http://www.american-rails.com/...electrification.html

In 1906, After a major accident in New York City related to steam locomotive smoke causing a loss of visibility, the city decided to ban steam locomotives from running into the city.  This was the last straw because outside of visibility issues in tunnels steam locomotives were causing a lot of smog/pollution with in Manhattan.  This led to the New York Central electrifying its operations from Grand Central to Croton-Harmon.  With many countries pushing for stricter emission standards steam locomotives could not really meet those demands.   A tier 4 diesel locomotive will have cleaner tail pipe emissions then a steam locomotive which is what governments care about.  Electrification powered by a mixture of renewable and nuclear energy would probably be the best goal to work to but it would be very capital intensive. 

overlandflyer posted:

FECguy posted:

Current technology diesel electric locomotives are still more efficient,

long after the last drop of diesel fuel is consumed,
water will still be around to be turned into steam.

 https://www.cleanenergywire.or...and-power-mix-charts

Many developed countries are focusing on expanding renewable energy like wind or solar.  29% of Germany's energy production was from renewables in 2016.   So even if crude oil reached $150 a barrel it would make more sense to expand electrification then to try to rebuild the infrastructure to support steam locomotives.  The additional labor cost, pollution from coal mining, and smog from emissions would be another negative that works against steam locomotives.  Back in the day the New York Central had some GE three-power boxcabs that were used on the High Line in New York City.   They could run off of third rail power, diesel, or batteries that the diesel engine charged up.  On  rail lines that have branchlines or industries without electrification a modern equivalent of this would be a good choice.  It is kind of funny that a lot of this technology that would help us reduce carbon emissions and a reliance of fossil fuels are existed nearly 100 years ago.

You would have to read up on engineers like Andre Chapelon and L.D. Porta to see where the steam locomotive efficiency ideas were going in their time. There was a lot of work done on improving draft and exhaust back pressure, but a steam locomotive improving efficiency? Tough job, and then there's the non-condensing energy throwaway up the stack. http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ex_dwgs.html 

Smog come from out of date coal combustion chambers, something that has been greatly improved since the 1920's. Most of the issues have been solved with the last generation of coal fire boxes wit ha combustion chamber, also bad coal was a major problem, and tunnels are inherently troublesome with any form of combustion. The fuel efficiency on a diesel has hardly budged since the 1930's. 50 percent fuel efficiency then and only 60 now, most of the gain came from switching of the electric system for more power and a more effective alternator and traction motors. America with it large expanses has always had problem with electric train,s that is why most of the Oregon and Washington electric lines were ripped out years ago, power was cheap, but there was not the density of power generation to make it work, line loss, or the fact Portland ran on trollies ran on DC while the house hold power was AC or the local population to look after the supporting power lines. European and American designs both have a different climate to take into account and haulage distance, not accounting for different operating procedures and loading gauges.

Allin posted:

Smog come from out of date coal combustion chambers, something that has been greatly improved since the 1920's. Most of the issues have been solved with the last generation of coal fire boxes wit ha combustion chamber

Allin

A "superpower" steam era locomotive boiler with a combustion chamber behind the flue sheet does not improve combustion to the point that it reduces air pollution problems.  The combustion chamber is more important as a maintenance reducing feature since it decreases temperature changes and therefore leaks at the flue sheet.

Allin posted:

The fuel efficiency on a diesel has hardly budged since the 1930's.

The railroads that have been replacing older diesels with newer diesels since the 1950s would disagree.

Allin posted:

 50 percent fuel efficiency then and only 60 now, most of the gain came from switching of the electric system for more power and a more effective alternator and traction motors.

You are overstating the thermal efficiency of diesel-electric locomotives then and now.  The improvement in efficiency of diesel electrics over the last 70-80 years is closer to an improvement from about 30% thermal efficiency to about 40% thermal efficiency.  Put another way, there has been a 33% increase in horsepower output for the same amount of diesel fuel burned.

Allin posted:

 America with it large expanses has always had problem with electric train,s that is why most of the Oregon and Washington electric lines were ripped out years ago, power was cheap, but there was not the density of power generation to make it work, line loss,

The Great Northern and Milwaukee Road electrifications ran near some of the largest power generation facilities in the world.  Stevens Pass and Snoqualmie Pass were then and continue to be the routes of power transmission lines that send thousands of megawatts from Columbia River dams to the Puget Sound region.  Today you can stand watching BNSF diesel powered trains crossing Stevens Pass and hear the high tension lines hum.  The availability of electricity had nothing to do with the end of railroad electrification in the Pacific Northwest.

Diesel-electric motive power is the most cost effective source of motive power for almost every railroad application.  Until someone comes up with a better and cheaper mousetrap diesels will continue to be the standard motive power of the world.

Allin posted:

I hope i have posted this in the right place.

I have seen several ideas of a modern steam locomotive. Many strike me as well, big, hard to get funding for, and from their size and complexity difficult to work the bugs out of. I figure start with something that worked, small, but highly succefully. Like start with the Midland Railway 1000 Class, a three cylinder compound, one high, and two low, it remained a compound for fifty years, sixty if you count the LMS engine based on it, something I have not run into often in my reading of steam locomotives. Use roller barrings, modern improvements in boiler, fire box, super heater, and drive train if possible. Being a 4-4-0 it would be simpler to fund, than Tornado a 4-6-2, and smaller, making adjustments easier. Given a test bed engine does not need to be a huge main line freight or passenger engine to prove the concepts, while still being large enough to possible over time with volunteers be financially feasible.

There are two separate concepts here that should not be mixed up because the way they are supported and funded are fundamentally different.

1) A modern steam locomotive (often called a 2nd or 3rd generation steam locomotive), with modern design improvements that are intended to make it something that could never have existed in the steam era. Such improvements could include computer controls allowing 1 man operation, climate controlled cab and condensing steam back into water to reduce water stops (and other improvements). The 5AT project was based around these principals, the team broke up because they had no funding. A truly modern steam locomotive project can NEVER be funded by grass roots donations like a reproduction can. A hypothetical locomotive like this is not built to represent what once was or preserve something for the general public but rather to move people or freight where needed. The only successful steam locomotives like this built today were built for a cog railway in Europe.

2) A reproduction or replica of an older steam locomotive design that happens to be built with some modern construction techniques (such as the recent 4-4-0 builds). Improvements such as an all welded boiler (see Tornado un the UK) or a mixed riveted and welded boiler. The 2-foot gauge WW&F RY museum is building two new boilers with mixed construction. This gives the appearance of an antique boiler. The WWFRy keeps to 19th and 20th century railroading practices just as it was before the WWFRY closed. They have massive fund raising efforts from the general public, largely from people that want to see that era recreated.

More information on the WWF RY new boilers: http://wwfry.org/?page_id=1119

Ted Hikel posted:

Allin posted:

Smog come from out of date coal combustion chambers, something that has been greatly improved since the 1920's. Most of the issues have been solved with the last generation of coal fire boxes wit ha combustion chamber

Allin

A "superpower" steam era locomotive boiler with a combustion chamber behind the flue sheet does not improve combustion to the point that it reduces air pollution problems.  The combustion chamber is more important as a maintenance reducing feature since it decreases temperature changes and therefore leaks at the flue sheet.

Allin posted:

The fuel efficiency on a diesel has hardly budged since the 1930's.

The railroads that have been replacing older diesels with newer diesels since the 1950s would disagree.

Allin posted:

 50 percent fuel efficiency then and only 60 now, most of the gain came from switching of the electric system for more power and a more effective alternator and traction motors.

You are overstating the thermal efficiency of diesel-electric locomotives then and now.  The improvement in efficiency of diesel electrics over the last 70-80 years is closer to an improvement from about 30% thermal efficiency to about 40% thermal efficiency.  Put another way, there has been a 33% increase in horsepower output for the same amount of diesel fuel burned.

Allin posted:

 America with it large expanses has always had problem with electric train,s that is why most of the Oregon and Washington electric lines were ripped out years ago, power was cheap, but there was not the density of power generation to make it work, line loss,

The Great Northern and Milwaukee Road electrifications ran near some of the largest power generation facilities in the world.  Stevens Pass and Snoqualmie Pass were then and continue to be the routes of power transmission lines that send thousands of megawatts from Columbia River dams to the Puget Sound region.  Today you can stand watching BNSF diesel powered trains crossing Stevens Pass and hear the high tension lines hum.  The availability of electricity had nothing to do with the end of railroad electrification in the Pacific Northwest.

Diesel-electric motive power is the most cost effective source of motive power for almost every railroad application.  Until someone comes up with a better and cheaper mousetrap diesels will continue to be the standard motive power of the world.

First the have solved the smog problems, years ago. Smog is from incomplete combustion, which was for the most part solved by the 1970's, with the combustion chamber that did a better job of evenly burning both the solid and volition compounds (the main part of smog), before they leave the firebox. Cars also cause smog if they lake a catalytic converter, and with always have nitros oxide emissions something a steam engine can not do, no compression, no electrical spark catalyst, something that is a major part of smog.

As for diesel engine fuel economy I am going by the numbers I could find on EMD prime movers, if they can't figure out how to state fuel conversion into kinetic energy that is their problem. Special vocabulary or vernacular is great, but if the words are used wrong I can't fix that. Thank you for more information.

It is still logistics for the electrification, something I did bring up. Even if power is cheap, maintenance is not always as affordable. I do agree diesel electric, or generation on sight is the most effective. Also in Oregon and Washington ran into problems with redundancy, both the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific under one CEO and Northern Pacific SP&S Great Northern under a different CEO competed heavily, leaving Milwaukee road in a tough position when it did arrive. At least in Oregon SP and SP&S competed for the same traffic in the Wilmette valley, SP won in the end, dooming the electrified SP&S subsidiary.