Comments on: Coalition for Sustainable Rail to Convert World’s First Modern Steam Engine Powered with Biocoal

By: Steamer

Steamer — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:36:00 +0000

From the ACE article about the 614T:
> …its thermal performance was
dismal, caused partially by the removal of its
feedwater heating system (by the C & O in the
1950’s) and by the extremely poor performance of its
stack/exhaust nozzle arrangement (which was typical of
most U.S. steam locomotives)

The CSR loco will feedwater heating and the leading-edge Porta Treatment for simple water quality control, while also having a Lempor exhaust, which is the most efficient exhaust invented till date.

They’ve really thought of all the big issues like thermodynamics and chemistry. However, the biggest problem ACE3000 encountered was money, or the lack of it. That remains to be seen for CSR. However, ACE was aiming for the freight and passenger markets both, while CSR is focussed on higher-speed passenger rail only. This should reduce funding requirement somewhat, but still ~$10mil should be needed.

By: Steamer

Steamer — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:26:00 +0000

Amen, brother.
As a kid I’ve been the cab of a steam shunter and pulled the whistle-cord. Heaven.

By: Steamer

Steamer — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:23:00 +0000

This locomotive was rotting in the open. That is not preservation. Machines are built to run, and if this engine blows up on a 130mph+ run it will be a spectacular end indeed. Better to die a martyr in battle than rot in a shed or yard, or face the scrapping torch.

And yes, it *was* smoke-belching. American steam locomotives were among the worst inefficient in the (developed) world, not because of lack of technology, but because the railcos were intent on neglect. You can’t compare the locos from their glory days to what they *should* have achieved later, but *could* not due to apathy and neglect.

By: Steamer

Steamer — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:17:00 +0000

If NG means Natural Gas, the prospects seem slim. The main problem is not the engine itself, as suitable burners can easily be built; rather NG has very poor energy density even compressed/liquified. It is just not competitive with oil or coal as a carried medium. In other words: the quantity of NG needed for the locomotive to have effective range would be too vast to carry in the tender, even under pressure. This is less of an issue for pipelines. A similar problem exists for NG-powered automobiles, though on a much smaller scale -> shorter range than petrol.

By: Steamer

Steamer — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:09:00 +0000

Not likely, no. I’ve followed 5AT since its inception, and it is basically David Wardale’s baby. Mr. Wardale, along with Shaun McMahon (FCAF), Phil Girdlestone (Ffestiniog), and Roger Waller (SLM/DLM) etc. are the leading steam locomotive engineers in the world today. The all share Late L. D. Porta’s mentorship, and, as members of a fast-dying profession, are (usually) in close contact with each other. That’s about all CSR and 5AT have in common, as CSR is Mr. McMahon’s effort. Also, the 5AT engine was a low-power, higher speed (125mph), oil-fired design for a *new* locomotive. CSR aims to achieve even higher speed (130mph) with solid fuel using a much more powerful, but old and reconditioned, locomotive.

By: Rjmuraski

Rjmuraski — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:32:00 +0000

I am very curious to know if this project is working with the 5AT project. There seems to be a lot in common.

By: Cincinattus Patricius

Cincinattus Patricius — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:40:00 +0000

As a member of the Marcellus Shale community, I would like to know (with historically low prices available and vast reserves almost entirely unexploited both being the case) if this experiment would be able to demonstrate the supposed cost efficiencies while utilizing NG as a fuelstock.

They have all of my support in this grand endeavor and I’d love to help fund the biocoal system (for our own reasons, of course…). Should they need a section of heavy rail that bears heavy loads regularly, we’d be happy to host the old Hudson, though I’d imagine she’ll end up on more appropriate lines in the west.

Good luck!

By: GTElmore

GTElmore — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 02:01:00 +0000

ATSF 3463 never — repeat, never — ran on coal. It burned Bunker C Fuel Oil in dedicated passenger service, during much of which it reportedly regularly sustained speeds in excess of 90 mph. As Santa Fe historian E.D. Worley wrote of this class in his masterwork, “Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail,” they “rode like Pullmans and roared like sleek lionesses.”

Doesn’t sound much like “smoke-belching chugging,” does it? (Sorry, fellows — but ignorance is no excuse — and profound ignorance even less so.)

More to the point, this locomotive happens to be the last example of the Santa Fe Railway Company’s fabled Baldwin “Big Hudsons,” and is reportedly the last American “Super Hudson” locomotive in existence.

Quite clearly, it should be (jealously) preserved as-built, a quite modern and superlative machine — as an example of the finest engineering achievements of its era. It should certainly be held apart from highly speculative tinkering and defacto vandalism.

By: James D. Oss

James D. Oss — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:42:00 +0000

1 June 2012

Glenn,

I hope an pray this works out for CSR. I am the grandson of a steam locomotive engineer who retired from the NY and Michigan Central Railway Systems with 55 years of experience. I can remember as a kid Grandpa McPeak taking me up into the cab of the locomotive where he let me throw lumps of coal into the firebox, place my hand on the throttle, and blow the whistle; unforgettable.

Diesel locomotives just don’t have that class.

Highball it!,

James ‘Jim’ D. Oss
328 N. 6th. St.
Wa Keeney, Kansas 67672-1802
jamesoss@gmail.com
785.760.6277

By: Mark Jensen

Mark Jensen — Wed, 30 May 2012 14:10:00 +0000

How will the CSR solve the problems discovered by the American Coal Enterprise project in the 1980’s, http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html