BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only way steams "thermal" efficiency makes
> sense, is through tubine use.

The problem with the steam turbine is the "all or none" principle. It is only more efficient than reciprocating steam when it is working full out. But as we know, locomotives do a lot of stopping, starting, drifting, lugging, et al. The one possible solution to this is the 4 turbine array as suggested by Harry Valentine.

Please take the time to look at the power curve comparisons of reciprocating steam vs diesel. Diesels were only superior to steam during low speed/start and stop activities. Diesels were a Godsend for yard work and rinkydink locals, but could not compete with the most modern reciprocating steam during mainline at-speed operations when comparing similarly powered engines, and that's where the railroads make their money - long haul. The diesels won out partly due to their ability to MU(e.g. one engine crew for multiple diesel lashups) into monster consists, yet steam technology was also at the cusp of multilple unit operation since the utilities were close to automating power plant operations. It is interesting that operating/maintenance costs for diesels were higher for the mainline locomotives than for the yard goats and locals, whereas the reverse was true for steam!

It should also be noted that the trend of heavier consists, a concept evolved into by the diesels lugging advantage/at-speed disadvantage, has played the primary role in the rail industry's average velocity staying at a relatively pedestrian 25 mph even today.

> Reciprocating steam
> locomotion is a costly maintenance problem. It is
> extremely labor intensive. The ability to use
> traction motors with a steam turbine is possible.

Again, this is a myth. It takes just as many techicians to support diesel maintenance as for reciprocating steam. They may be electricians and diesel mechanics rather than pipefitters, but it's still a cost to the railroad. The HF Brown study showed this. Labor costs for locomotive maintenance did not decrease as a result of dieselization. However, there was a shift of some maintenance from the railroads' inhouse shops to the manufacturer as a result of dieselization, probably much of that due to the EMD tradein program. Please note this does not signify a reduction in labor costs, but rather just an accounting trick in taking numbers out of the railroads' "locomotive maintenance" budget and shifting them over to the "capital expenditure" budget.

BTW, with modern steaming technology it is conceivable that a modern reciprocating steam locomotive such as a 4-8-4 (or better yet a 4-4-4-4!) could also have traction powered lead and trailing trucks for short term boost/dynamic braking assist.

> The n=one "study" cited which showed maintenance
> costs of steam to be "lower" than diesel is
> refuted by hundreds of others on this subject my
> mechanical officers throughout the industry.

I'd be interested in seeing some of those supposed refutations. Can you provide any references? My guess is that what you are really referring to is not peer-reviewed data but rather peerless GM perception. Remember, much of what we think we believe about diesels being superior to steam came straight out of the marketing department of General Motors, not unbiased studies. Ultimately it was the loss of steam locomotive suppliers that lead to UP and NS ditching their best steamers.

Note also that, after accounting for all other factors (aka increased trucking), Brown found that the rail industry's average ROI fell by half (from 4% to 2%) after dieselization. There is some argument that this was mostly due to the fact that the new diesels were bought en masse on credit rather than aquired incrementally as cash flow allowed. But the fact that the GM promises of savings did not acrue as promised also played a factor.
>
> The problem with coal based "dieselization" is a
> real cost problem, not Sierra Club propoganda.
> Coal "liquification" is extremely energy
> intensive.

Just because something is "energy intensive" does not imply that the end product will be more expensive. All the numbers I've seen regarding FT synthesis is that the end product, after all processing and waste disposal costs are accounted for, can be sold on the market for $2.50 per gallon at 15% ROI. That's based on 10,000 btu/lb coal at $40 a ton. PRB coal can probably be liquified for less cost. Remember that the process steam itself can be produced via coal combustion, the lowest cost of thermalization out there. If the AGW fanatics succeed in their quest for carbon regulations (and assuming nuke comes back into favor as a result), a CTL facility can just as easily use nuclear power to produce the process steam. Please take the time to review the technology rather than just repeating the Sierra Club talking points.

[www.futurecoalfuels.org]

> Coal gasification, "in situ", may make
> more sense, and is also energy intensive, but far
> less so than liquification.

Actually, both processes use thermal gasification as a first step, and that is where the energy intensiveness is paramount. Coal methanization (e.g. synthetic natural gas) requires further processsing of the CO+H gas stream into CH4 via catalysts, wherein much of the energy potential is lost via CO2. However, this is still cheaper than importing liquified natural gas from overseas. In the FT process, the CO+H gas stream is likewised catalyzed into but more of the carbon product is saved as useful byproducts. Both processes have higher presumptive "carbon footprints" (please don't get me started on that crap-o-rama!) than petroleum based fuels, but that can be mitigated via using nuclear power for the process steam and/or co-gasifying biomass with the coal, assuming our fearless *leaders* in DC actually start requiring such nonsense. And for the record, neither biodiesel nor ethanol are carbon neutral when we take into account conventional farming practices used in their production.

> I was involved in the
> methanol fiasco a few years ago. Touted as "fuel
> of the future" it took perfectly good natural gas,
> reduced its BTU equivalance 2/3 turning into a
> liquid that could be pumped with a nozzle into a
> tank. Only one problem it cost a fortune, and the
> buses were so underpowered they could climb a
> hill. Now we run all our buses in Southern
> California on natural gas directly at 30% less
> cost per gallon btu equivalence than diesel.

The reason it was a fiasco is that ya'll were using natural gas as the feedstock rather than coal. But you were correct, in that if you just had to convert the buses into something other than conventional transportation fuels, it made more sense to convert the buses to run on CNG rather than methanol. By the way, did you know that it is (and has been since 2000) cheaper to manufacture synthetic natural gas from coal than to buy natural gas at wellhead prices? Ironicly, you guys in PC SoCal may one day be unknowingly running your CNG vehicles on synthetic natural gas made from coal. I wonder what the Guvinator would say about that!

Also, methanol seems to be the alcohol of choice for transesterification of vegetable oils into biodiesel! Hmmmmmm....
>
> I've even been involved in a successful local
> application of hydrogen, made with "un-reliable"
> off peak wind power, that is used to power hythane
> buses, and peaker power plants (yes, you can store
> the wind?) But, today in 99% of applications of
> hydrogen take over 3 tiomes as much energy to
> produce than the btu gallon equivalent that it is
> replacing. So while I've been involved with a
> local application that was "cost effective" this
> is not a real economic solution for universal
> application at this time.

Interesting that someone would consider a manufacturing process wherein the process is only employable an unscheduleable 5% to 30% of the time. That's some productivity! Wouldn't it be cheaper to store the wind power with batteries or pumped water storage? As far as hydrogen, if and when we get to the point where hydrocarbons become scarce, we'll probably use nuke power to produce the hydrogen. Frankly, by that time someone will have found a way to capture CO2 and convert it to CO, wherein it can be combined with hydrogen to produce the same ol' liquid hydrocarbon fuels! There's a reason hydrocarbons (hydrogen + carbon) are a better energy choice for transportation than either pure carbon or pure hydrogen.
>
> Electrification of railroads is a real solution
> used around the world today. Costs are high but
> known, benefits are well documented.
> Electrification takes a tax policy that rewards
> investment, not speculation in stocks, and this is
> one of the biggest hurdles this country faces.
> Our competitors in a world energy market reward
> long term investment for conservation and
> alternatives, and we reward short term stock
> trading? And, now we are paying the price.

I'm still not sold on railroad electrification as preferable nor necessarily the best use of motive power in North America or Australia. I know in Europe with all those long tunnels electrification is about the only way to power trains. However, the fact that European railroads are still much more predicated to moving tourists than for moving freight makes me cynical of ever using their example as being applicable to NA operations. Plus, it makes economic sense for a nation to use what it has for it's energy and transportation needs, and what we have is a 300 year supply of coal. Since moving objects are better suited to onboard power plants than stationary objects, our best use of this resource should be mostly for conversion to transportation fuel rather than electricity generation. We should use nukes for the latter.