The Cost Savings of Steam Today.

[NW Mailing List]

One item that might be considered in modern steam is that successful steam
locomotives used cast steel beds to keep the frame from shaking apart.
General Steel Castings Corporation was created specifically to be able to
pour the large castings necessary for single-piece beds.  Of course GSC does
not exist today.   One has to wonder if a welded frame made with today's
knowledge of welding technology and metallurgical properties would do the
job that the old cast steel beds did without cracking apart?   Or could a
corporation like GSC be re-created and the knowledge and manufacturing
skills relearned in a sufficiently timely manner? 

 

Today there are three, I think this is correct, driver wheel turning lathes
that could fit the large drivers in the US. 

 

Gary Rolih

Cincinnati

 

 

  _____  

From: nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org
[mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:51 AM
To: NW Mailing List
Subject: Re: The Cost Savings of Steam Today.

 

Ron,




On Jan 17, 2008 10:12 PM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

John,

I glanced over your paper. One detail that I have not heard
mentioned, and one that I see as the biggest hurdle is the cost of
capital to invest in the project you describe. For starters, the 5 to
11 year payback would never be sufficient to justify the investment 
and the risk. Our quarterly-dividend-obsessed friends on Wall Street
would never allow a publicly traded company to invest in such a
massive risky project that does not pay back for years and years.


Yes, the payback time is long.  Especially for theses days.
 



Secondly, your figures describe savings across the entire North 
American rail system. It would be very unlikely that all the major
Class I roads would be willing to make the investment. This further
reduces the savings that can be shown against the development investment.


Also If I had taken into account other factors like improving efficiency of
the locomotives the pay off would have been quicker.  The good thing is the
investment is not all up front it is spread out between the years so the Net
Present Value is not a big factor in this. 
 



Maybe being a little less conservative with your figures, a payback
in two years or less could be shown. 

I second Ben's comments on your work. Now it needs to be broadened to
include some of the non-technical issues being raised.


Yes, This paper is an overview and I could expand it greatly. 
 



Ron Davis


And Thanks for looking at it.

John Rhodes 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20080118/59b3a17c/attachment.htm>