The ACE 3000 succeeds?

When one looks at modern transportation, trains always come up. That makes sense - US railroads use one third the fuel for every ton-mile that a truck does, and when two or three-man train crew can move 300 trucks' worth of goods, you get a major labor cost savings, too. These factors are why US rail traffic went ballistic in the last 40 years - it's more than tripled in that timeframe.

But when it comes to modern trains, they are all diesel or electric. Building electric trains is expensive, diesel trains rely on oil, which the US imports in vast quantities. But what if the ACE 3000 Project had succeeded?

The ACE 3000 was to make a steam locomotive that would work for modern railroads. Now, the first design did NOT make all of the efficiencies that it could have, the idea still caught a lot of interest, particularly in the very coal-rich US. Among its people were Argentinian engineer L.D. Porta and Brit David Wardale, the latter having build the legendary South African Class 26NC, which was commonly referred to as the "Red Devil". The idea looked almost certain to succeed in the 1980s, but financial problems and lower oil prices doomed it.

What if this project had succeeded?

Ace_3000_by_Gil_Reid.jpg


Could fleets of these be blasting across North America? And could these even be used in other nations with big coal reserves - China, Australia, Great Britain?
 
Having the Oil Crisis last longer would seem to be the easiest way, especially if it results in anti-oil backlash leading to government support for the ACE. Then, once the crisis is over, the railroads that invested in buying them government-sponsored are stuck with the infrastructure to support them, and thus end up buying more...
 
Longer lasting and more severe oil crisis would certainly help this project. Whether it becomes mainstream or not is another matter. Were there export versions planned, particular one for Meter and Cape gauges, or even broad gauge for India? That could allow foreign sales be factored in.
Like the ACE 6000-G Garratt Configuration though.
 
I wouldn't have thought that an oil crisis could get bad enough to revert to coal fired steam engines.
 
I fully agree the length of the Oil Crisis would determine the fate of the rebirth of steam traction locomotives. I can see the USA, Canada and a few others buying into this technology. It might be a good idea still today as coal is something we produce at home and is not imported.

If the transport community as a whole looked at steam power as an alternative we might see more than second generation steam locomotives.
I wonder if anyone has looked at a SGSC (Second Generation Steam Car)... might be worth a letter to Jay Leno!
 
I wouldn't have thought that an oil crisis could get bad enough to revert to coal fired steam engines.

The best energy efficiency of most mainline American steam engines was give or take 6-7%. The first ACE 3000 was about 15%, though Porta, among others, figured it could be brought up further. Another '80s proposal was the National Steam Propulsion Company proposal, which promised 18-27% efficiency. If coal can stay cheap and oil stay fairly expensive, one could see these things taking to the rails again. Roller bearings reduce the need for lubrication, and modern insultation, exhaust systems, stokers and the like could well have made for an engine with 20% efficiency. Diesel-electrics of the type most used on North American railroads run at 30% or so efficiency, and water condensers could reduce the water problems. At 20% efficiency, the difference in fuel prices for the ACE as opposed to the diesels was minimal.

Me, I'm thinking that the best way to go is that ACE builds a real unit, preferably the big Dash-8 model that Burlington Northern requested, and sent it to prove its worth. With oil prices in the 80s, I have little doubt that this monster could well have proven its worth - it was rated at 8000 peak horsepower, equivalent to nearly three of BN's ubiquitous General Motors SD40-2 diesels. When the Dash 8 was announced, BN announced that the first two units would be out for testing in spring 1985.
 
Maybe I'm missing the point. In my mind high oil prices will push people and freight off the roads and onto rails but trains are fuel efficient enough and cash in on economies of scale to such an extent that diesel trains will be fine without reverting to even highly efficient coal/steam trains. It would make a good technology demonstrator though.
 
Maybe I'm missing the point. In my mind high oil prices will push people and freight off the roads and onto rails but trains are fuel efficient enough and cash in on economies of scale to such an extent that diesel trains will be fine without reverting to even highly efficient coal/steam trains. It would make a good technology demonstrator though.

Ahh, but take it one more step, oil is needed say for more military purposes and trains have to go for even more efficiencies.
Had say the situation in Iran gotten worse, maybe Israel had beaten up a little more on its opponents you might have seen the stage set for a SGS/clean coal frieght/passenger train.
That would've had some interesting ripples here in Nova Scotia as DEVCO in Cape Breton would probably still be running coal mines to this day.

Trains work well with any 'bulky' fuel such as coal or hydrogen (cheap methods of storing hydrogen are a bit bulky). Yes diesel is easier but it's not an efficient use of fuel. Trains and large cargo/tanker ships would do better with SGS engines running on either coal or hydrogen (maybe hydrogen internal cumbustion engines on large ships, but I digress) and it would be a better allocation of resources. A large ship or train is already big enough that a bit bigger to handle a 'bulky' fuel won't really matter.
 
I see that the entire discussion so far has revolved around fuel costs. Unfortunately, that's only one of several reasons why steam was abandoned. The biggest other reason is simply maintenance. A steam locomotive in regular service would spend several weeks a year out of service being inspected and repaired. While that could probably be reduced somewhat through the use of modern materials, sensors, and computers, I doubt it could be brought down to the same level as for diesel locomotives. And, of course, that requires more locomotives and more shop space.

Reciprocating steam locomotives (like the one shown in the picture above) also increase track maintenance, due to the uneven way tractive force is distributed through each revolution of the driving wheels. Imagine, if you will, that with each "chuff" the locomotive is hitting the rails with a couple of sledgehammers.

Next, even with more efficient boilers, you'd still likely need fueling facilities spaced closer together than you do with diesels (not to mention water towers spaced even closer together). There is a practical limit to how much coal a locomotive can carry; while pulling 1 or 2 auxiliary water tenders was not uncommon, I've never seen an auxiliary coal tender. The more space devoted to carrying coal, the longer the locomotive becomes, the harder it gets to transfer coal to the firebox, and the less horsepower is available for pulling actual freight. There's also less track capacity available, since you have to run coal trains to all the fueling facilities (diesel fuel generally goes by pipeline or truck).

Don't forget pollution controls. Power companies have been complaining for years about the cost of installing exhaust scrubbers at new and overhauled coal-fired plants. It's a good bet such devices wouldn't be cheap for locomotives, either.

Given all the extra costs associated with steam, it's highly unlikely that a mere oil crisis would make the railroads start using it again. They'd electrify first.
 
They should never have retired the Challengers/Big Boys in my honest opinion. Those things could HAUL. Challenger 3985 does still do freight runs with its special Union Pacific freight cars(theyre cool yellow cars, look em up. I think the challenger freight consist is a full length freight train), and pax excursions with old UP pax cars. Challenger 3985 is also oil-fired, which means it burns cleaner. Thats why its still in service also, most likely.
 
No is anything they should have used the Norfolk and Western Y and A class locomotives. They were smaller sized, used less coal and water, and pulled just as much as the Union Pacific units.
 
Challenger 3985 does still do freight runs with its special Union Pacific freight cars(theyre cool yellow cars, look em up. I think the challenger freight consist is a full length freight train), and pax excursions with old UP pax cars. Challenger 3985 is also oil-fired, which means it burns cleaner. Thats why its still in service also, most likely.

The cars you're referring to are UP's business cars, not freight cars. 3985 only rarely hauls freight these days (only once in the past decade, to my knowledge, and that may have been 844 that I'm thinking of).
 
The cars you're referring to are UP's business cars, not freight cars. 3985 only rarely hauls freight these days (only once in the past decade, to my knowledge, and that may have been 844 that I'm thinking of).
3985 did haul freight, 143 doublestack cars. It was staged for a video, but damn did she look impressive doing it!
 
Top