Skip to main content

I have to admit this was a interesting story to read.

 

American steam trains are waging a comeback, and it’s more than a romantic nod to the past. Since 2011, the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) has been working to develop a passenger train that is cleaner, more powerful, and less expensive than the competition.

With the nonprofit Sustainable Rail International (SRI) and the University of Minnesota collaborating, CSR will prove its claim with a locomotive that hasn’t run since 1957. With a few modifications, engineers say the retired train will soon reach speeds of more than 130 mph, and leave behind a minimal carbon footprint.

Steam Versus Diesel

Beginning in the 1820s, American industry and travel chugged along by virtue of steam power. But after World War II, U.S. rail changed course.

In the 1950s, diesel was cheap, and steam locomotive manufacturers—each with custom designs and no interchangeability—couldn’t match the General Motors production model, which could reliably churn out the same engines for trains that were previously made for submarines.

Fast-forward to today’s push for high-speed passenger trains, and the diesel advantage starts to fizzle. According to SRI President Davidson Ward, diesel trains exhibit great horsepower up to about 40 to 50 mph, but once the circuit hits higher speeds, performance peters out. 

“What Amtrak has discovered with their new Chicago to St. Louis high speed rail project which opened in the past couple years is that they need two locomotives to haul their six car passenger trains to 110 mph with the necessary acceleration. One locomotive can’t accelerate that train fast enough to make it economically viable,” Ward said.

Steam power, however, excels at higher speeds. By the 1930s, steam locomotives ran at over 100 mph daily just to stay on schedule. And unlike electric trains, steam engines can use the same Amtrak lines. 

For advances in steam technology, SRI looks to Argentina—a country that embraced steam power just as America abandoned it. In the 1950s, mechanical engineer Livio Dante Porta took emerging thermodynamic ideas and applied them to steam power, modernizing trains across South America and around the world until his death in 2003.

Porta’s innovations solved problems of complex parts, tedious upkeep, and other issues associated with the steam power of yesteryear. According to Ward, maintenance costs have been reduced by 90 percent. 

“That’s a big deal in terms of making these things more competitive down the road,” he said.

Inspired by the prospect of importing Porta’s ideas to the United States, Ward joined forces with Porta protégé Shaun McMahon, and steam locomotive experts Rob Mangles and John Rhodes. The SRI team was familiar with steam power’s muscle and versatility, but they also needed to tackle remnants of its polluting past. 

“In all these propaganda posters from the 1930s from the WPA you had smokestacks belching clouds of smoke. At the time that was a sign of progress and prosperity. Obviously, that’s not how we see things now,” said Ward.

Porta had already improved combustion efficiency so that smoke no longer billowed from the stack. But in order to sell the idea in America, SRI needed an economically viable fuel cleaner than coal. 

The answer came from researchers at the University of Minnesota (U of M) who developed torrefied biomass—a fuel made of plant material that has been roasted, condensed, and pressed into easy-to-use pucks. This “biocoal” has all the attributes of regular coal, but is twice as thermally efficient and has none of the heavy metals, sulfur, or other noxious emissions that coal does. 

Biocoal is mostly made from wood—abundant in northern Minnesota since the housing bust—but the torrefaction process has also been applied to pest plants. U of M researchers recently returned from Mauritania where they produced biocoal from a local invasive cattail.

Old Train, New Life

In order to showcase their innovations of fuel and engineering, CSR purchased a 1937-built Super Hudson, known as the Topeka & Santa Fe No. 3463. The engine has been out of service for over 50 years, but ran 1.3 million miles in its day, at a speed of more than 90 mph.

Repairs began in June, and the old train shows its age. Paint is peeling, all the stay bolts have rusted through; but Ward says the integral pieces—wheels, frame, cylinders, and boiler—still have lots of life left in them. 

Recycling an old train follows CSR’s green outlook, but the choice has other practical benefits as well. Ward said that even with the price of the old engine plus restoration and modification costs, using No. 3436 as a test platform is about five times cheaper than actually building something from scratch. 

When the transformation is complete, engineers are confident the old train will break the world steam record of 130 mph, but Ward said there is room for improvement. In the spirit of Porta, CSR will continue tinkering with the design.

“Down the road we’re looking at not even ejecting steam out of the smoke stack. We’re looking at turning that steam back into water. And that’s where you really start to see some gains in efficiency,” Ward said.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hello Southern Railway Sean...........

 

This is a VERY interesting story and the CRS can even use the 2926 S.F. Northern as it is being restored to run once again. I think the S.F. class 3463 Hudson had 84 inch drivers so it be easy for that engine to go above 100 plus MPH. The 2926 had 80 inch drivers too.

 

the woman who loves the S.F.5011,623

Tiffany

Isn't this shades of Ross Rowland's attempts to convince everyone that he had the answer for a modern steam locomotive?  What was the name of that project?  Remember, he ran the #610 through W. VA for a month during a cold January with all kinds of sensors attached to the engine?  And he had a design for a "modern" steam engine that looked like a cross between an FP45 and a Pennsy T-1.

 

Sure, most of us, myself included, would love to see steam brought back to the rails as power.  But the only thing that might happen, I'm afraid, is that some of the more PR oriented RR's will be restoring certain special locomotives like the #4o14 Big Boy or the #911 "J".  Other notable engines like the #765 NKP Berk, the Milw Rd #261, a couple of   Sante Fe Northerns and the #4449 Daylight and a few other engines will be operating for the entertainment of us railfans.

 

Paul Fischer

Now I have my doubts about this project ever seeing completion.  But if it were carried thru: If they do design and install a Porta gas combustion boiler atop this Santa Fe running gear, with roller bearing rods, improved valving and exaust, increased themal effienciy,  AND if it makes it onto a main line for testing: that many of you will be there cheering it on. 

 

In the automotive community, to take a restored/viable vintage vehicle and "hot rod" it is to butcher it.  To take a scrapyard wreck and hot rod it is to extend its life in a new direction.  Having seen the condition of this engine prior to CSRs stabilization, I would think the latter.

 

FWIW I'm a retired USN Machinest Mate, qualified steam plant Engine Room Supervisor and Boiler water/Feedwater chemistry supervisor.  Experiments such as this I find fascinating. The USNs been using variations of the Porta treatment system for decades.

Originally Posted by Drydock: 

FWIW I'm a retired USN Machinest Mate, qualified steam plant Engine Room Supervisor and Boiler water/Feedwater chemistry supervisor.  Experiments such as this I find fascinating. The USNs been using variations of the Porta treatment system for decades.

All well and good, and thank you for your service. The fact remains that the 3463 is still just a two cylinder, constant torque/variable horsepower machine, and no matter WHAT they do to the boiler & furnace system, it will NEVER be able to compete with the modern diesel electric, nor straight electric, locomotives of today.  All the attention to bio-fuels and "hockey pucks" trying to burn in a steam locomotive firebox, will not amount to a hill of beans!

Mr. Porta's steam locomotive improvement techniques were implemented in South Africa, producing a 3' 6" gauge 4-8-4 of some 4000+ horsepower. SAR painted it red and it was known as the Red Devil. It did perform well........but South Africa jettisoned steam locomotives some 20+ years ago, despite having ample coal supplies and abundant cheap labor. So, I will not be track-side looking for a great steam resurgence!

Originally Posted by mark s:

Mr. Porta's steam locomotive improvement techniques were implemented in South Africa, producing a 3' 6" gauge 4-8-4 of some 4000+ horsepower. SAR painted it red and it was known as the Red Devil. It did perform well........but South Africa jettisoned steam locomotives some 20+ years ago, despite having ample coal supplies and abundant cheap labor. So, I will not be track-side looking for a great steam resurgence!

Bingo.

 

Mr. Porta's experiments interest mechanically-inclined people, but they don't address the big costs in running steam (labor). 

 

In 2001, the total fuel budget for the Cumbres & Toltec was $55,000 out of a $4 million total budget - 1.4%. Even if Porta's ideas cut your fuel bill in half, he's only saved you less than a penny of every dollar you spend. You're still paying a shop full of boilermakers and machinists, and maintaining water towers every few miles.

 

Labor is why steam can't be competitive with diesel - fuel prices are irrelevant in the discussion.

 

So as a research project, this one doesn't solve any constraining problem. 

 

But if I were a steam fan that fantasized about breaking the 126mph record, I might obfuscate my real goal with a cover story like this and write a bunch of revisionist-history press releases in the process.

Originally Posted by ironlake2:

Is that why the chuff has such a muffled , no bark sound to it?

No, it sounds this way because it does not have Baker valve gear and it was not built by Lima. 

 


 

Originally Posted by mark s:

...The Red Devil barks quite substantially starting her train, but at high speed, it's just a continuous roar...

If a steam locomotive sounds like a jet engine with a continuous roar at the stack - no matter WHAT the speed - it is not bring run properly. If the locomotive is hooked up right, individual chuffs will still be audible...even at very high speeds. It may sound like a rapid-fire machine gun, but definitely NOT like a jet.

Originally Posted by OGR Webmaster:
Originally Posted by ironlake2:

Is that why the chuff has such a muffled , no bark sound to it?

No, it sounds this way because it does not have Baker valve gear and it was not built by Lima. 

 


 

Originally Posted by mark s:

...The Red Devil barks quite substantially starting her train, but at high speed, it's just a continuous roar...

If a steam locomotive sounds like a jet engine with a continuous roar at the stack - no matter WHAT the speed - it is not bring run properly. If the locomotive is hooked up right, individual chuffs will still be audible...even at very high speeds. It may sound like a rapid-fire machine gun, but definitely NOT like a jet.


Unless that steam engine was a PRR S-2 Turbine ;-)

To Rich's point, at 5:41 or so on the Red Devil tape, she is running fast and each exhaust is chasing the prior one up the stacks (note:2 !), but there is a pinprick between each exhaust!  Next time I'm riding behind a steam locomotive at track speed and the exhaust is roaring, I am marching right up to the cab at the first opportunity and chastise that engineer to start running this engine properly!!

Originally Posted by mark s:

Ironlake - The Red Devil barks quite substantially starting her train, but at high speed, it's just a continuous roar, but that's to be expected with steam entering the cylinders at literally super-sonic speed! 

Actually, if you listen carefully, Mark you CAN hear the individual exhaust "cracks", especially since the Red Devil had poppet valves.

 

Also, I can speak from experience that with SP 4449 (another Lima product) at full throttle, and PROPER power reverse gear setting, you could still hear the individual exhaust "clicks" as we accelerated past 85MPH. The stack sounded almost like a sewing machine. There really should not be a "solid roar" at the stack.

Originally Posted by OGR Webmaster:
Originally Posted by ironlake2:

Is that why the chuff has such a muffled , no bark sound to it?

No, it sounds this way because it does not have Baker valve gear and it was not built by Lima. 

 


 C'mon, Rich . . .

 

Lima didn't have a monopoly on designing valve gear or setting valves.

 

Get the new Winston Link CD and listen to A 1238 going up Blue Ridge with time freight.  Both engines are absolutely square.

 

I personally like Baker Valve Gear, but there are Walschaerts enthusiasts out there who might take issue with you on that one, too.

 

EdKing

 

My own recollections of riding behind a Pennsy K4 at 80 MPH was that the exhaust sounded like a highly amplified cat's purr!  (Think of a cat the size of a K4!)

 

Someone wrote:Isn't this shades of Ross Rowland's attempts to convince everyone that he had the answer for a modern steam locomotive?  What was the name of that project?

 

It was called the ACE (American Coal Enterprises)2000.

Originally Posted by Kent Loudon: 

Someone wrote:Isn't this shades of Ross Rowland's attempts to convince everyone that he had the answer for a modern steam locomotive?  What was the name of that project?

 

It was called the ACE (American Coal Enterprises)2000.

Close. It was the ACE3000. Its design flaw was, it still used the reciprocating drive of steam cylinders and associated side rods, which can no way ever compete with the modern electric motor powered axles. 

Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by Kent Loudon: 

Someone wrote:Isn't this shades of Ross Rowland's attempts to convince everyone that he had the answer for a modern steam locomotive?  What was the name of that project?

 

It was called the ACE (American Coal Enterprises)2000.

Close. It was the ACE3000. Its design flaw was, it still used the reciprocating drive of steam cylinders and associated side rods, which can no way ever compete with the modern electric motor powered axles. 

The ACE 3000 for those unfamiliar:

3000

 

Rusty

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 3000

There were theories that if steam had about 10 more years, the problems related to the designs of the time would have been overcome. Some advances started showing up toward the transition era such as the switch from coal to oil, roller bearings on the rods and axles, automatic lubricators, etc. At some point, they would have probably figured out an alternative to the reciprocating drive.

 

Some big shortcomings (all contributing to high maintenance costs/time) of steam were:

  • Lack of standardization across various classes. You had different drivers, different wheelebases, different side-rods, different stroke lengths, different cylinders, etc. Everything was almost a one-off custom. Ironically, the USRA, which the railroads weren't real happy with, did bring in some standardization. With diesels, several models within a manufacturer's line were using similar parts (cylinders, axles, traction motors, controls, etc.)
  • The mechanicals were tightly tied into the locomotive's structure, so you almost had to rebuild the unit for some types of maintenance. With a diesel, you could hoist the entire power plant out and swap it if you had to.
  • Multiple unit power requirements required a second crew; with diesels, you had MU equipment to tie booster units' controls into the front cab's controls.
  • Water purity was problematic. Living in an area with hard water, I can relate to this. Boilers would get a lot of scale build up due to high mineral content. Modernly, on-board purification systems could take care of this. Of course, this was an issue with diesel radiators and steam boilers on passenger units.

I think all of the above could be dealt with using a flexible component-style design and some new technology.

 

I'm trying to locate the photos, but there was a steam design concept that was non-reciprocating and used removable cylinder blocks above each driver axle. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name. I don't think any prototypes were built.

 

All of that said, while I wouldn't mind seeing 3463 back on the rails, I don't think its design is one that would be a good platform for the a steam-powered future.

Matt

The only locomotive that I know that used steam without any non-reciprocating parts would have been the N&W Jawn Henry. I wonder if the Pennsy Steam turbine would be a design to revisit. I've been to Several power plant my company operate both Steam, Nuclear and Combined Cycled and for the 3 three plant to operate and generate electricity it's all from the same principle. Steam and Nuclear use HEAT to boil water to create steam. The steam is then moved thru High and low pressure turbines that spins a shaft. A Combine Cycle plant will use a mounted jet engine to turn the shaft and the heat from the engine will be used to create steam which will go to a steam turbine to generate power. This is all done with just one jet engine. So the Steam Turbine to me would be the best platform is steam where to make a come back

Originally Posted by Southern Railway Sean:

Matt

The only locomotive that I know that used steam without any non-reciprocating parts would have been the N&W Jawn Henry. I wonder if the Pennsy Steam turbine would be a design to revisit. I've been to Several power plant my company operate both Steam, Nuclear and Combined Cycled and for the 3 three plant to operate and generate electricity it's all from the same principle. Steam and Nuclear use HEAT to boil water to create steam. The steam is then moved thru High and low pressure turbines that spins a shaft. A Combine Cycle plant will use a mounted jet engine to turn the shaft and the heat from the engine will be used to create steam which will go to a steam turbine to generate power. This is all done with just one jet engine. So the Steam Turbine to me would be the best platform is steam where to make a come back

You are forgetting about the massive load demand changes on the furnace system/boiler in railroad service. Electric generation plants and ships have little to no load changes for days, months, or years on end (in the cases of electric generating plants).

 

That famous PRR steam turbine was such a disaster because every time the Engineer opened the throttle to start a train, the steam pressure dropped 50 to 100psi in less than a minuet! That poor 6-8-6 turbine was breaking staybolts by the dozens EVERY WEEK it operated.

 

 

The PRR Turbine is the subject of the cover story in the Spring 2012 issue of Classic Trains Magazine ("Battleship of the Rails," by Preston Cook, pp. 20-31). Problems mentioned in this thread are recounted. But on pp.29-30, patents for reduction gears are described. The most sophisticated would have provided an automatic transmission of sorts, and that may have reduced strains on the boiler.

 

There are videos of a much smaller steam turbine running overseas on YouTube. The turbine looks like a 55-gallon drum mounted horizontally on the pilot and connected directly to the drivers. So the principle seems sound.

 

I wish the PRR had tried those patented reduction gears, but the company lost money for the first time in its history and diesels were much more economical, as posts here and elsewhere.

RICH M.: Oh, I know, Ed. I'm just havin' a little fun.

 

And now you know that "mantel clock" is a nickname given to an access hatch on air pump shields on Reading T-1's.

 

I am inclined to treat you with even more respect.

 

To find a "mantel clock," look straight down from the headlight. Only Reading T-1's had them. I think some of those were removed after valves or pipes were changed.

WowakT-1 001

Attachments

Images (1)
  • WowakT-1 001

I thought, "Oh, bleep", when I read that pucks were going to be ROASTED and COMPRESSED, because a lot of our problems in obtaining energy, like oil sands,

and tar (Gilsonite) deposits as used to be served by the Uintah narrow gauge road in Colorado, is that it takes too much energy (cost) to make energy.   As for recycling

steam back into water....uh, the Stanley brothers of Stanley Steam auto fame, were

doing that with condensors on their cars at least by 1917.  And there was a fellow

named Abner Doble who build a very expensive, instant start, steam car that was purchased by few. (as stated above, labor and maintenance  are a major problem with steam... Stanley Steamers were very maintinenance prone, with boiler and kerosene burners subject to periodic cleaning)  For fast starts the burner was left on all night

(got a sprinkler system in the ceiling of your garage?, and that was not a fuel saving action), Doble, with flash boilers, tried to work around that.  Dunno if modern technology, like in nuclear subs, have solved some of the maintenance problems.

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×