WI Steam Turbine Locomotives More Successful

[Mike Stearns]

What if someone had actually gotten turbine driven steam engines to work? What do Post-World War II railways look like in the United States?

Turbine Driven Steam Trains

[Lord Brisbane]

Hmmm. Well Dieselisation still occurs quite fast in the United States post war. Since the article states that these locomotives would not be effective on either shortlines or midlength routes due to ineffectiency at low speeds and weight restrictions, you still have many railroads looking to Diesels for new motive power. Highly likely the major roads don't bother either, to keep crew and maintainence costs down as well.

Unfortunatly, from that article, unless you add or change something in the basic mechanical principals of steam turbines, its going to fail.

[Mark E.]

The article itself mentions the biggest drawbacks: the need for a condensing/cooling system along with a transmission to reverse direction. Also, one of the advantages of the old steam boiler was that it could burn "dirty" fuel such as coal, wood, etc. The last such engine went off-line in 1957, years before environmental rules would have forced some very large changes in emission controls.

Perhaps a turbine could work in a hybrid electric system, where the batteries are charged at a continuous rate. The required battery brings the technology to present time and later.

[freodhoric]

Fascinating! I get the feeling that that article falls far short, even as a cursory overview.

Originally Posted by Mark E.

Perhaps a turbine could work in a hybrid electric system, where the batteries are charged at a continuous rate. The required battery brings the technology to present time and later.

By the article, most of those were set up to generate electricity, which powered the motors that turned the wheels. Batteries not strictly required (i would, but large banks aren't required, which was well within the limits of concurrent technology). Which is making me wonder why they were inefficient at low speeds. Makes sense if the turbine is directly powering the wheels, but not so much if it's running at a constant speed to generate electricity. If you think about, using the electric motors gets rid of the need for a second turbine for reverse.

I've heard that development of steam technology stagnated in the early 1900s, so (if true) what if it hadn't? Maybe the turbines could have had a few more years of development.

[The Dean]

There were several Steam/Electric locomotives built in the 1940s/50s and they worked. The problem was coal dust and water affecting the electrics. This should not have been an insurmountable problem but with WWII in full swing there were other priorities. Then there was an indecent haste to build Diesel powered locos, in fact they produced as much or more pollution than a Steam engine and were no more efficient.

[simonbp]

The entire reason reciprocating steam locomotives endured so long is that they could build up a huge head of steam while stopped, and then blast it into the cylinders, providing unmatched torque.

Direct-drive steam turbines, on the other hand, were like direct-drive diesels in that they only started to become efficient at high speeds. Electric motors can provide similar starting torque to steam cylinders, but the current has to come from somewhere.

To avoid overhead lines or a third rail, either a steam or internal combustion engine is required in addition to electric motors. Internal combustion is simpler and cheaper to operate than steam, and diesels can get more power per stroke than gasoline engines. Thus, the modern dominance of electric and diesel-electric locomotives...

Simon

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by simonbp

To avoid overhead lines or a third rail, either a steam or internal combustion engine is required in addition to electric motors. Internal combustion is simpler and cheaper to operate than steam, and diesels can get more power per stroke than gasoline engines. Thus, the modern dominance of electric and diesel-electric locomotives...

Simon

It is not true that it is simpler and to operate ICE powered electric trains. There was the infrastructure in place to refuel and replenish boilers with water. Counties without existing infrastructure in South America still find it economical to operate reciprocating steam locomotives never mind more advanced concepts like steam/electric. So do parts of Australia where the steam infrastructure was never demolished. There was an indecent haste to destroy all of the infrastructure to support steam operations, that cost significant sums of money, in order to prevent the future use of advances in steam traction.

[Lord Brisbane]

Well purely in mechanical terms steam loco's are simple beasts compared to diesels. In maintainence terms. However simonbp states the positives.

Thats why many steam locomotives were reboilered so to increase pressure, extending their service lives, in some cases by many years.

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Lord Brisbane

Thats why many steam locomotives were reboilered so to increase pressure, extending their service lives, in some cases by many years.

The last generation of steam locomotives manufactured in the UK during the 1950s were efficient, easier to operate and maintain, durable and destroyed in an act of state vandalism along with the infrastructure to operate them.

[Lord Brisbane]

I agree. Some of the 'standard' designs were very good and should have lasted well into the 1970s. Thats not to say that electrification of the ECML or WCML along with thirdrail in the South should not have been conducted.

The 1955 plan was pretty much a clusterfuck and rushed through producing some real howlers.

That being said, other modernisation plans such as those undertaken by Queensland Railways around the same time and saw steam end in 1969 was quite successful.

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Lord Brisbane

I agree. Some of the 'standard' designs were very good and should have lasted well into the 1970s. Thats not to say that electrification of the ECML or WCML along with thirdrail in the South should not have been conducted.

The 1955 plan was pretty much a clusterfuck and rushed through producing some real howlers.

That being said, other modernisation plans such as those undertaken by Queensland Railways around the same time and saw steam end in 1969 was quite successful.

The expense of electrification is fearful with all of the infrastructure that is required and then you have an energy wasteful mode of power that is restricted to set routes. Locomotives that produce their own power are more efficient and flexible.

[Lord Brisbane]

What are you views on Beeching? Either his first or second reports?

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Lord Brisbane

What are you views on Beeching? Either his first or second reports?

Unprintable, look at my TL G&PL

[danwild6]

I know this is a lame comment but couldn't you use a diesel engine for low moderate speeds ad then kick over to the steam turbine for cruising?

[Kevin Renner]

In the early '80s the American Coal Enterprises began development of the ACE 3000 recipricating steam locomotives. While things did not work out they did make a decision early on not use a steam turbine
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html

[Ofaloaf]

Here's some more decent info on Steam Turbine locomotives. Most of them look terrifyingly complex.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Kevin Renner

In the early '80s the American Coal Enterprises began development of the ACE 3000 recipricating steam locomotives. While things did not work out they did make a decision early on not use a steam turbine
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html

Thanks for that link. It looks very interesting. I think there could be a good article buried in there somewhere.