Modern Steam

[NW Mailing List]

Ben,

On Jan 11, 2008 11:33 PM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:


> John,

> After reading your reply to my query, I took the time to read through your

> paper.  I must say, you have done some serious number

> crunching, calculations, and research on this subject.  I think your

> professor should give you a very good grade on it.  I would!  Your effort in

> this has been enormous.  You have my compliments.

>


Thank you.  It took a very long time and a lot of number crunching.  Thanks
for your vote of support.



>

> As I already stated, I'd be more than happy to endorse steam use today.  I

> feel we, as a nation, should not be energy dependent to outside countries.

> Whether we truly are dependent on them or not is a political issue, and I

> won't get into that.

>


Yes energy independence is a very worthy goal, but not an easy one.



>

> About ten years ago I came up with an idea for the "What if?" category,

> but never built it.  It was a J class locomotive with a safety cab similiar

> to the GE cab on the front of the engine, with the old rear cab closed off.

> This was to be a "What if the diesel never came along?"

>

> If the diesel had not been developed, then that would have allowed

> continual development in steam technology, which as you more or less stated

> in your paper, has advanced drastically since the "modern" steam locomotives

> were designed decades ago.  And yet, only in the last few years have diesels

> began to compare to steam horsepower and tractive effort of the 1950's.  If

> steam R&D had never stopped, I have no doubt they'd be much higher that what

> you calculated, because they would have kept pushing it higher.  N&W's Y7

> was to be a mammoth, high horsepower engine.  As we all know, it never made

> it past the drawing board.

>


If you compare Tractive Effort per driving axle on N&W steam to diesels.
Everything before the SD70 was less than the N&W locos.



>

> As much as I would love to see steam on the class 1 railroads again, I

> have to admit it would be a hard sell.  I think it would only be possible if

> diesel became so hideously expensive, or in such short supply, that it was

> causing them to operate at a loss.

>


It would be a hard sell.  And an expensive conversion.



>

> But again, my compliments on the paper.  That was a lot to put together,

> and I think you did it well.

>

> Ben Blevins

>



Thanks again for reading it.

John Rhodes


>

>

>

>

> *NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>* wrote:

>

> Ben,

>

> Reasonable questions.  I did write to these issues in the paper.

>

> On Jan 11, 2008 3:14 PM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

>

>

> > Sorry.  I haven't read the report yet, but I will, so I'm not knocking

> > it.  But, some things I've not seen mentioned here are:

> >

> > The capability to connect these locomotives together, and operate them

> > from one control stand, with each one pulling evenly with the others.  The

> > diesel can do this.  Could a steam turbine?  I dunno.  Could the "Modern

> > Coal Burning Steam Locomotive" of the 40's and 50's?  No.  They had separate

> > crews, with engineers and firemen who were masters of their art constantly

> > tweaking the controls to maintain that effort. The diesel can do it with a

> > flip of the reverser lever and a notch on the throttle.

> >

>

> With computer controlled boiler management and electronic controls, MUing

> and one person operation is to be expected.  The RR's would not be

> interested in anything else.

>

>

> >

> > So, can these new modern steam locomotives be MU'd together?  Is there a

> > safety cab in the FRONT of the locomotive?  These ideas would have to be

> > factored in as well.  Maybe they were.  Again, I don't know.  But, I'd bet

> > the FRA would just about demand the cab be on the front.  The Southern

> > Pacific accomplished this with oil burners, but that won't work for the coal

> > stoker used on the locomotives back in the day.

> >

>

> If you can MU you can put the cab anywhere or have distributed power or

> remote control for that matter.

>

>

> > And, don't forget dynamic braking capabilities.  That makes a LOT of

> > difference, especially in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains.  They really

> > save a lot of wear on brakes, not to mention added safety and braking

> > capability.  This is a major consideration.

> >

>

> That is included.

>

>

> >

> > I'd be the first in line to endorse modern steam on todays railroads,

> > but, it would be a tough battle, and would have to have some serious money

> > behind it.

> >

>

> That is true the conversion cost would be quite large.

>

>

> >

> > My humble opinion.

> > Ben Blevins

> >

>

>

> I hope you enjoy reading the paper.

>

> John R. ________________________________________

> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

>

>

> ------------------------------

> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

> ________________________________________

> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at

> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20080112/e01e7a80/attachment.htm>