Steam (NW Mailing List)

[NW Mailing List]

Kenneth,

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:46 PM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
wrote:


> I feel the need at this point to inject a little dose of reality into the

> fantasizing.  It would be nearly impossible for "classic" reciprocating

> steam to make a comeback on a class one railroad.  It may be faster, more

> powerful, and more efficient, but there are two major drawbacks.  Hammer

> blow from the reciprocating and revolving masses require heavier track for

> the same weight on the drivers.



Well Steam era locos had a hammer blow issue but 3 cylinder designs with
high boiler pressures and much smaller cylinders and maybe Cossart valve
gear would greatly reduce the hammer blow issue.  But also remember that the
rail is heavier now than in the steam era.  I don't believe some large issue
will be created.



> Most of all, the manpower needed to keep a steam locomotive running grossly

> exceeds that needed for a diesel electric.  It was the cost of labor, more

> than any other factor, that doomed the steam locomotive 50 years ago, and

> that prevents it returning today.




The following excerpt are from my paper.  Based on the evidence I feel your
your conclusion is not correct.

*The Maintenance and Efficiency Effects of  Porta Treatment (PT)*

             PT eliminates the formation of scale, which can reduce the
horsepower output of a locomotive by 15%.[1] <#_ftn1>  The boiler tubes can
last 30 years with the use of PT.[2] <#_ftn2>  Boiler washouts can be
performed on a six month cycle instead of a 30 day cycle as in the late
steam era.[3] <#_ftn3>  The boiler blowdowns can be performed every other
month as opposed to every shift, saving huge amounts of fuel and
water.[4]<#_ftn4>
Also, the firebox plates can last 30 years with no replacements.[5] <#_ftn5>
In addition, the Superheater elements can last 30 years without replacement.
[6] <#_ftn6>  With PT and Gas Producer Combustion System (GPCS), because of
the elimination of the sandblasting effects of unburned coal particles,
leads to the virtual elimination of boiler maintenance, which accounted for
91% of the maintenance cost of the steam locomotive, as the chart below
illustrates.[7] <#_ftn7>
------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref> Martyn Bane, 'Porta Treatment' An Advanced Internal Boiler
Water Treatment Regime emailed from author, owner portatreatment.com, p. 13

[2] <#_ftnref> Ibid. p. 17

[3] <#_ftnref> Ibid. p. 18

[4] <#_ftnref> Ibid. p. 37

[5] <#_ftnref> Shaun McMahon, *The Practical Application of 'Porta
Treatment'* from Martyn Bane, p. 1

[6] <#_ftnref> Martyn Bane, 'Porta Treatment' An Advanced Internal Boiler
Water Treatment http://www.portatreatment.com/savings.htm

[7] <#_ftnref> Ibid.

*Comparisons between Modern Steam and Diesel Maintenance:*

             It has long been the prevailing view in the railroad industry
that the steam locomotive was more expensive to maintain than the diesel.  This
could easily be the case when comparing worn out generation "zero" steam
locomotives having World War I era construction dates, with new diesel
locomotives before, during and after World War II.  On the other hand, the
more modern "first generation" steam locomotives, those with non-fabricated
frames (i.e., one-piece cast), roller-bearings on all axles and motion, and
complete mechanical and pressure lubrication, like the Norfolk and Western
Railway (N&W) Class J and the South African Railways Class 25NC, were
actually cheaper to maintain than diesel locomotives.  The N&W and the
Southern Railway carried out a maintenance comparison between the Class J
and then-new E6 passenger locomotives in similar service between November
1946 and March 1947.  The N&W Class J was shown to be 29% less expensive to
maintain on the basis of total maintenance cost per 100 locomotive
miles.[1]<#_ftn1>
In H. F. Brown's presentation to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, he
showed that the steam locomotive was significantly cheaper to maintain than
the diesel in the US during the postwar period.[2] <#_ftn2>  During
Wardale's tenure on the South African Railways, he collected the following
data comparing the Class 25NC and diesel locomotives. Between 1963 and 1986
the Class 25NC was 20% cheaper to maintain on a kilometer basis than the
average SAR diesel.[3] <#_ftn3>  The average maintenance cost per unit of
output over the first thirteen years in service was 43% lower for the 25NC
than the average diesel, and in the thirteenth year the 25NC cost 56% less
to maintain than the average diesel.[4] <#_ftn4>  At no time during 30 years
of service life was the 25NC more expensive to maintain than the average
diesel.[5] <#_ftn5>  The economic life of the average diesel was 42% of that
of the 25NC.[6] <#_ftn6>  As stated earlier with GPCS and Porta Treatment,
the maintenance costs for the boiler would be significantly reduced  and
almost eliminated.  Also, as shown earlier, these costs accounted for a high
percentage, 91% to be exact, of the total maintenance costs.  Comparisons
between the actual maintenance costs for Modern Steam Locomotives and
current diesel locomotives are not available due to the fact there are no
Modern Steam Locomotives in freight service in the US.  It can be estimated
from historical comparisons and increases in technology that a Modern Steam
Locomotive would at least be as cheap to maintain as a diesel, if not
cheaper.  This possibility is not included in the projected cost savings of
Modern Steam Locomotives outlined in the executive summary of this paper.
------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref> Gordon Hamilton, "*N&W Steam vs. Southern Diesels How did the
costs compare?," The Arrow Norfolk and Western Historical Society Magazine,
*September / October 2004, 11-12

[2] <#_ftnref> H. F. Brown, Ph.B., *Economic Results of Diesel Motive Power
on the Railways of the United States of America, *The Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, November 30th 1960, 14

[3] <#_ftnref> David Wardale, *The Red Devil and Other Tales from the Age of
Steam *(Scotland: Highland Printers, 2002), 33

[4] <#_ftnref> Ibid. 37

[5] <#_ftnref> Ibid. 38

[6] <#_ftnref> Ibid. 40

 John Rhodes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20080601/12fdbc6f/attachment-0001.html>