Is it time to bring back steam again?

[starrymarkb]

[youtube]pOqqf-cbqQk[/youtube]

Kettles can't make it up Exeter bank without a banker, diesels (including pacers) have no problem!

 

[ainsworth74]

What? Why?

There was a rumour/joke that went around a while ago that the MOD had a number of steam locos saved in the 1960s and then stored them in various locations. In the event of a nuclear war these would be re-activated and used to try and run some key war based transport services (as diesel/electric would have been knocked out by EMP steam was the only option). It was swiftly proved to be a load of tosh of course.

 

[Rhydgaled]

While I agree with what seems to be the majority that using steam locos to haul services over the 3rd rail network when it is icey is daft, wouldn't somthing that goes along blowing steam on the 3rd rail to de-ice it (ie. only needing to run once or twice a day) help? There would probablly be a much more efficent way of creating that steam than traditional steam locomotives though (maybe a diesel that uses the engine's heat to help make the steam).

 

[jopsuk]

heat capacity- the heat energy in the steam would not be enough to melt and shift the ice. It would melt slightly, and immediately re-freeze. Possibly even re-freeze thicker, as the steam condenses. That big bulky steel rail can absorb a heck of a lot of heat energy without changing temperature very much. It can also very swiftly conduct heat away from where it is being applied, and as there's a pretty big surface area it'll dissipate it to air quickly.
Then there's pretty large amount of energy needed to go through the melt transition.

 

[At_traction]

There was a rumour/joke that went around a while ago that the MOD had a number of steam locos saved in the 1960s and then stored them in various locations. In the event of a nuclear war these would be re-activated and used to try and run some key war based transport services (as diesel/electric would have been knocked out by EMP steam was the only option). It was swiftly proved to be a load of tosh of course.

Or could it be that the thinking at the MoD went along the lines of:
1) electrics, the electric network would have been possibly rendered unreliable at least in certain parts of the country through thermonuclear attacks to key powerplant facilities and electric network nodes (here the effect of EMP is also a very real consideration)
2) diesels - which in itself are not so susceptible to remote power requirements - the availability of fuel for certain areas might have been seen to be less reliable; rather improbable though, as coal/wood would most probably be as hard to distribute anyway

But anyway Britain was not the only country that retained steam locomotives as a backup for even conventional conflicts, so it might also be a capacity question.

As for the topic itself, the fact that steam is in ecological and air quality sense a complete disaster on wheels, especially in large numbers, then, well...

 

[E&W Lucas]

heat capacity- the heat energy in the steam would not be enough to melt and shift the ice. It would melt slightly, and immediately re-freeze. Possibly even re-freeze thicker, as the steam condenses. That big bulky steel rail can absorb a heck of a lot of heat energy without changing temperature very much. It can also very swiftly conduct heat away from where it is being applied, and as there's a pretty big surface area it'll dissipate it to air quickly.
Then there's pretty large amount of energy needed to go through the melt transition.

BR had departmental locos for de icing duties. From memory, K1 62005 survived because it was used for this.

 

[jav]

Since when (back in the steam days) did you ever see people having to sleep overnight on a train because it broken down in the snow? There were 2 inccidents recently, one at Three Bridges in Crawley and another somewhere in Kent (Sevenoaks I think). There we are!

If we can build (or refurbish) a whole fleet of steam locomotives and paint them in the liveries of the train opperators for use during winter, then we have our answer to the weather problem and conductor rail freezing over.

Im not saying get rid of electric, im saying use steam power during times when electric isn't viable. Attatching a steam loco to a 12 car 377 on a Brighton - London trip would solve the problem overnight, and could reach near enough the same speed as well Think of the money it would save the rail company's in the long run!

As quoted by another forum member, most electricity comes from coal fired power stations anyway.

Wow this threads great! Rail enthusiasts at least normally have some ounce of understanding of the system and indeed a good degree of common sense. So how will the brakes be released on this 377? and its going to be mighty cold and dark on there as its deadhauled by the magical steam loco, never mind the bump as the formation slides into the stops as it reaches London as the unbraked 12 car emu set decides the laws of physics say that they don't have to stop just cos that little loco says so on the slippery rails.....be just like Thomas and the troublesome trucks or was that James?

 

[ben racey]

Hi all, first time poster, long time reader, hope it's ok to comment on this.

Whilst I agree completely over the major practicality difficulties of using steam for winter rescue, stock moves etc, especially on the former Southern. I do think there is a market for 'modern steam' - but that isn't it. As other posters have said, the staffing, infrastructure and practical problems mean there wouldn't be much point.

However one company that does have a business plan and has been successful in developing this market is DLM in Switzerland. They have probably done the most on this, their website is here:

http://www.dlm-ag.ch/

Steam definitely has a niche market, tourism, where you can charge a premium for the 'steam experience'. There may be a difference between preserved lines in the UK and the way things, particularly on the standard gauge, operate. But certainly using steam to boost off peak demand on some of our rural lines could be sensible - and West Coast railways on the west highland and cambrian seem to have the market under control!

The efficiency improvements and staffing reductions implemented on the DLM narrow gauge engines, in the early 90's seem to have been very successful. Gen on the latest standard gauge developments to be carried out in Holland(which follow on from some trains on the Hauenstein line in Switzerland) are here:

http://www.dlm-ag.ch/attachments/Press Release 23 058.pdf

There's an interesting paper on steam vs diesel here, showing there would already be savings in fuel costs for US class 1 railroads if they converted to steam - clearly though that's a very different operating scenario than the former Southern region:

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern50.htm


Anyhow, hope this is of some interest etc.

Regards to all.

Rich.

 

[LE Greys]

Wow this threads great! Rail enthusiasts at least normally have some ounce of understanding of the system and indeed a good degree of common sense. So how will the brakes be released on this 377? and its going to be mighty cold and dark on there as its deadhauled by the magical steam loco, never mind the bump as the formation slides into the stops as it reaches London as the unbraked 12 car emu set decides the laws of physics say that they don't have to stop just cos that little loco says so on the slippery rails.....be just like Thomas and the troublesome trucks or was that James?

1 - Modern steam would use Westinghouse brakes, and presumably there would be some equivalent of a translator vehicle

2 - Stick a small turbo-generator under the tender for ECS

As the people at the 5AT project plan to do

 

[jopsuk]

the 5AT and DLM people though do seem to be rooted in nostalgia- sticking to the "traditional" layout. If you're building an oil fired loco, there's no need for a footplate by the firebox. Now, maybe the Bullied Leader arrangement wasn't perfect, though one of the faults was the firing postion- eliminated in the oil-burner. An alternative would be a combination of the Leader idea and a Garret- have control cabs on the ends of the "tenders" of a Garret.

But none of the designs get round the unavoidable innefficency of carting round vast amounts of water, and big thermal losses from the boiler (even with good lagging)

 

[LE Greys]

the 5AT and DLM people though do seem to be rooted in nostalgia- sticking to the "traditional" layout. If you're building an oil fired loco, there's no need for a footplate by the firebox. Now, maybe the Bullied Leader arrangement wasn't perfect, though one of the faults was the firing postion- eliminated in the oil-burner. An alternative would be a combination of the Leader idea and a Garret- have control cabs on the ends of the "tenders" of a Garret.

But none of the designs get round the unavoidable innefficency of carting round vast amounts of water, and big thermal losses from the boiler (even with good lagging)

Agreed. If we really were starting from scratch with steam, then it would be much better to go for a non-traditional design.

Think I'm on 1,000 posts.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Agreed. If we really were starting from scratch with steam, then it would be much better to go for a non-traditional design.

Think I'm on 1,000 posts.

Probably correct, but I think you'll still struggle to design anything with sufficient power within the constraints of our Victorian loading gauge and infrastructure. That was the single biggest constraints on the Gresleys, Staniers and Bulleids of this world.

 

[LE Greys]

Probably correct, but I think you'll still struggle to design anything with sufficient power within the constraints of our Victorian loading gauge and infrastructure. That was the single biggest constraints on the Gresleys, Staniers and Bulleids of this world.

I would take the U1 as my starting point and put it through a radical redesign, with all the various modern equipment, pulverised coal automatic firing, automatic injectors, increased boiler pressure, better insulation, possibly Caprotti or Baker valve gear if a sleeve valve arrangement did not work, and a cab at either end. It might be a bit more stable as a 2-8-2+2-8-2 if worked at speed, probably 5ft driving wheels and certainly four cylinders instead of six. Figures on the page give a starting tractive effort of 72,940 lbs for an axle load of 18 tons 6 cwt, which I think works out as R/A 7, so not bad. Seems like a good way to get around the problems.

 

[E&W Lucas]

You're giving far too much importance to tractive effort figures. The crucial issues with a steam loco is its ability to boil water, ie to keep up with the demands of the mechanical bit. There's plenty of shunting locos with phenomenal TE's, but they run out of chuff in half a mile. Literally. They're not designed to be capable of "keeping up" with themselves.

The limits of boiler size for the UK were pretty much reached with the likes of the 9F or Duchess, so that's always going to be the limiting factor.

Articulated locos aren't the panacea that you seem to think that they are. Getting rid of exhaust steam is something that later designers gave a lot of thought to. If you don't get rid of "used" steam, the machine starts to "choke" itself. The length/ shape of the exhaust passages on an articulated loco are going to make this particularly challenging, as would the propensity of the exhaust to cool further in them.

Poppet valves do have their advantages, but Baker gear is just a derivative of Walcherts anyway. It's just another radial type gear.

 

[LE Greys]

You're giving far too much importance to tractive effort figures. The crucial issues with a steam loco is its ability to boil water, ie to keep up with the demands of the mechanical bit. There's plenty of shunting locos with phenomenal TE's, but they run out of chuff in half a mile. Literally. They're not designed to be capable of "keeping up" with themselves.

The limits of boiler size for the UK were pretty much reached with the likes of the 9F or Duchess, so that's always going to be the limiting factor.

Articulated locos aren't the panacea that you seem to think that they are. Getting rid of exhaust steam is something that later designers gave a lot of thought to. If you don't get rid of "used" steam, the machine starts to "choke" itself. The length/ shape of the exhaust passages on an articulated loco are going to make this particularly challenging, as would the propensity of the exhaust to cool further in them.

Poppet valves do have their advantages, but Baker gear is just a derivative of Walcherts anyway. It's just another radial type gear.

Actually, the cab-forwards layout helps with the boiler problems. That allows an increase in boiler diameter without blocking vision. The U1 was 7ft, which I think was the widest ever for a UK loading gauge. With no central cab, 8ft is quite possible. As I understand it, increasing diameter is the most effective way of increasing the heating surface, since it allows for additional tubes rather than lengthening the existing ones.

If we continue to use conventional exhausts, some of the work done by L.D. Porta might be useful. Otherwise, fan-draughting is an option. It's not really my area, but it's worth looking at.

The other radical option would be a turbine connected to a condenser. That's been tried before, but it's hard to get the condenser into British loading gauge. Again, you need fan-draughting, but this would remove the need for an exhaust system when it would be possible to return the condensed water to the tanks (not sure how they achieve this, but again not my area).

Still, since none of this is ever going to happen, I think I may be spending too much time on it.