The Cost Savings of Steam Today.

[NW Mailing List]

Gee, all I was doing was asking a question!  
 
I support any means of improving the efficiency of rail as a transportation system (including passengers), and if steam is the answer, great!  (And by the way Ed King, I worked in the oil industry for more than 30 years and you are preachin' to the choir about developing our own resources and building new, more efficient refineries - the last one built from the ground up, by the way, was my company's Joliet refinery in 1972).
 
Ed Svitil
 
PS - those politicians belong to ALL of us, let your voice be heard in 2008.



Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:27:24 -0500Subject: Re: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.orgFrom: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org



Rick - 
 
Every few years, someone comes up with the idea of taking rail motive power back to the good old days and do the job of producing transportation by boiling water.  In the early '80s, a bunch of folks including Wross Wroland of excursion fame and Hasty Watkins of C&O and some West Virginia politicians got all excited over the ACE-3000 project using C&O 4-8-4 614 (renumbered 614-T, the T standing for "Test" and "Tomorrow").  I covered the first run out of Huntington for TRAINS Magazine, and I listened to all the speeches and rode the engine the last lap from Montgomery into Hinton.  After a few test runs, the project faded away.
 
Now, turbines are very efficient as you note, but you have to understand that the fuel savings aren't going to be enough.  You have to pay for the development of your new locomotive and you have to sink a whole lot of dollars into the capital cost of producing the locomotive and adapting servicing facilities, etc. for handling it.  As you note, the turbine is about the best steady-state machine out there, but therein lies one of its faults; it's always going to be at its most efficient at or near full-throttle operation, and railroading ain't that kind of a game.  It's been proven that the good old positive-displacement diesel engine can develop power economically over a wide range of power outputs which is most suitable for rail operations.
 
Ed Svitil - if you REALLY want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, why not convince your politicians to let us develop our own oil resources within our borders that we can control (we have plenty of it), and get them to let us build some refineries to take care of it?  
 
Ed King  

----- Original Message ----- 
From: NW Mailing List 
To: NW Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.


Ed,
Why don't we take a look at the man's work before we pick it apart?  The diesel-electric locomotive is a very efficient machine but so is a steam turbine.  It's about the best steady-state machine out there.  Granted there are lots of questions to be answered, especially emissions and fuel processing but let's hear the plan. 
Rick Huddle

----- Original Message ----- 
From: NW Mailing List 
To: NW Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.

I don't think so.  "The dollar value of coal that would accomplish the same amount of "work" is only $3.0 billion, according to calculations."  Whose calculations, based on what thermal efficiency?  Is the assumption to be that today's steam locomotive would have a thermal efficiency equal to that of an equal dbhp of diesel power?
 
That's a lot of assuming, and I don't think it'd fly.
 
EdKing

----- Original Message ----- 
From: NW Mailing List 
To: NW Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.
John - good for you and I would also like to see the paper.   How do you address the emissions issue?  When we look at those old photos of J's and A's and Y-6B's there is a whole lot of smoke that was certainly OK in the 50's but today would possibly be looked at more critically by some. Anything that reduces our dependance on foreign oil would be a big plus in my book. Thanks very much for your email! Ed Svitil


Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:49:33 -0500To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.orgSubject: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.orgGroup:I have just finished a 2+ year project comparing the economics of the diesel locomotive and the modern steam locomotive.  The following is an excerpt from my paper:"A coal-fueled locomotive could achieve a 64.2% average cost savings over thecurrent petroleum diesel-fueled locomotive. This comparison is based on ton-miles perdollar of fuel consumed in calendar year 2006. US Class I railroads burned 4.2 billiongallons of diesel fuel in 2006, costing $8.1 billion. The dollar value of coal that would accomplish the same amount of "work" is only $3.0 billion, according to calculations.This is a cost savings of $5.1 billion in the single year of 2006. That is an incrediblecost savings over the use of diesel fuel, which is largely imported, compared to coal, which is mined locally in the US. Those 4.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel comprise 6.6%of the nation's diesel fuel use. That quantity of diesel fuel could be replaced by 72.3million tons of coal, equivalent to only 6.2% of the 1.16 billion ton yearly productionof coal."This modern steam locomotive would be powered by coal and be environmentally responsible, low maintenance and conform to the needs of railroads today. If anyone is interested in reading the paper (it is a 100+ page PDF).  I can ask the moderator to post it for the group.I hope you find this interesting,John Rhodes



________________________________________NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.orgTo change your subscription go tohttp://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-listBrowse the NW-Mailing-List archives athttp://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/________________________________________NW-Mailing-List@nwhs.orgTo change your subscription go tohttp://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-listBrowse the NW-Mailing-List archives athttp://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/



________________________________________NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.orgTo change your subscription go tohttp://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-listBrowse the NW-Mailing-List archives athttp://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20080111/7b4e620b/attachment.htm>