WI: Internal combustion engine never invented, electric + steam engines still exist?

[phx1138]

So you surface at night, and rely on batteries during the day, this is pretty much how the U-boats ended up anyway.

Have a look at the history of steam in subs. It isn't pretty. The hazard isn't diving under threat: it's diving.

 

[MattII]

if you're refering to the K-class, that wasn't all the fault of their having steam engines, and in fact diesels would have done little better.

 

[tallthinkev]

I'll bite : WHY were they not invented in this ATL ? Were different reliable means of producing power perfected earlier ? Was the combustion engine vilified due to cultural/social/religious/competitive reasons ? Why ?

As pointed out batteries are heavy. How about towing them? As in one powered airship with all cargo, people, engines and crew there and tow the fuel in another. Possible?

 

[VictorLaszlo]

Railroads would still primarily use steam locomotives. ...

No, they wouldn't, despite what steam locomotive enthusiasts like to say today, steam locomotives were dirty and labour-intensive beasts and terrible maintenance hogs on top of that; thus no diesel locomotives would mean an earlier and direct switch to electricity, like in Switzerland where complete electrification of railway traffic was achieved in 1946.

The famous 1920 Crocodile electric heavy duty freight locomotive:

 

[JimTheB]

And for countries where you don't have plentiful flowing water for hydro-electricity?

 

[Workable Goblin]

There is also the point that total electrification is a large capital investment; in countries which either have extremely large amounts of rail to electrify (US, possibly Russia) or which don't have the capital to make that investment (third-world states…especially if they would also have to develop a high-quality electrical grid), I can well see steam engines surviving longer than IOTL, even to the present day in some cases.

 

[SirCliveWolfe]

And for countries where you don't have plentiful flowing water for hydro-electricity?

Coal/Nuclear powered power-stations?...

Also lots are missing the point somewhat... the crux of the matter is why no ICE? for example;

Earlier steam engine could lead to earlier electricity meaning;

earlier electric trains, cars and batteries

with electric cars having problems with their batteries then you get more R&D and therefore better batteries now?

 

[VictorLaszlo]

There is also the point that total electrification is a large capital investment; in countries which either have extremely large amounts of rail to electrify (US, possibly Russia) or which don't have the capital to make that investment (third-world states … especially if they would also have to develop a high-quality electrical grid), I can well see steam engines surviving longer than IOTL, even to the present day in some cases.

In developing countries with low wage levels where the labour intensiveness in the operation and maintenance of steam locomotives is less of a factor maybe, but not in high wage countries, where having to pay a fireman (would the term have been changed to fireperson due to political correctness by now?) and having to pay them well since it's dirty and hard physical work, for each locomotive and the costs for all the other installations neccessary to operate steam locomotives like watering towers, coaling stations and railway turntables would soon outweigh the costs of electrification.

 

[MattII]

Except that the intermediate phase is oil-firing.

 

[phx1138]

if you're refering to the K-class, that wasn't all the fault of their having steam engines, and in fact diesels would have done little better.

I believe it's them I had in mind. I didn't realize they were as bad as that regardless.

As pointed out batteries are heavy.

Let's not forget, the concept of fuel cells is a quite old one, dating to the 1840s IIRC. So if there's need, it's conceivable to go that way.

How about towing them? As in one powered airship with all cargo, people, engines and crew there and tow the fuel in another. Possible?

I think you're making things way too complicated... I'd say building bigger gasbags would be the simpler & more likely choice.

No, they wouldn't, despite what steam locomotive enthusiasts like to say today, steam locomotives were dirty and labour-intensive beasts and terrible maintenance hogs on top of that; thus no diesel locomotives would mean an earlier and direct switch to electricity

Agreed. Cost to maintain was a big deal in the switch to diesel.

Electrification also encourages development of the likes of the Nozomi & TGV.

It doesn't take massive hydro. It just means you get railways on a power grid. In fact, it might improve power distribution generally.

Earlier steam engine

Not seeing "earlier" in the OP as much as "mroe developed.

could lead to earlier electricity

Not seeing the connection. Can you explain?

meaning;

earlier electric trains, cars and batteries

with electric cars having problems with their batteries then you get more R&D and therefore better batteries now?

This could very well be. If so, see "fuel cell" above. (Which has important knock-ons for subs, & serious implications for ASW.)

Talking about electricity, what about RTGs? Can you drive trains & cars with them? Steam or electric...

 

[Workable Goblin]

In developing countries with low wage levels where the labour intensiveness in the operation and maintenance of steam locomotives is less of a factor maybe, but not in high wage countries, where having to pay a fireman (would the term have been changed to fireperson due to political correctness by now?) and having to pay them well since it's dirty and hard physical work, for each locomotive and the costs for all the other installations neccessary to operate steam locomotives like watering towers, coaling stations and railway turntables would soon outweigh the costs of electrification

As MattII points out, you can fire steam engines with oil (or, for that matter, I should imagine, any fluid burning substance, eg. powdered coal or natural gas), which means no dirty shoveling; in fact, a number of American steam engines in the late period were fired with oil, such as Southern Pacific's cab-forwards designs (necessary because the tender couldn't lead the train). There are also surely technological and design changes that can alleviate some of these concerns--for instance, would it not be possible to design a cab-forwards hood unit-like locomotive? Then there would be no need for railway turntables at all.

More to the point, I only said that the era of steam would undoubtedly last longer. I mean, can you really see US railroads electrifying the whole country, including places like, say, branch lines in remote areas like Nebraska or Utah, as quickly as they introduced diesel engines? Especially since now they not only have to continue maintaining the old infrastructure as they introduce electrification, but also have to pay for maintaining the new infrastructure, which is not going to be cheap, either? While the railroads might be on a firmer financial footing ITTL because of the absence of air travel and possibly long-distance road transport, it seems improbable that they are going to be enormously stronger; and the railroads did suffer significant financial issues during the 1940s through 1970s that would cause problems given the aforementioned massive costs involved in having to electrify while still running steam in non-electrified areas. Assuming, of course, that World War II still happens, which obviously isn't a given...

That being said, the only places I can realistically see steam surviving to the present are, as you say, third-world countries where the low cost of labor removes most of the disadvantages of steam to begin with and the inability to finance the necessary electrical and rail infrastructure would prevent electrification anyways, and possibly some little-used, remote routes in more developed countries where the cost of electrification is great enough and the benefits small enough that despite perhaps higher ongoing costs it doesn't make any sense to switch to electric (that is, where the net present value of the upgrade is smaller than the cost of upgrading, because of the time cost of money).

 

[MattII]

I believe it's them I had in mind. I didn't realize they were as bad as that regardless.

Steam engines don't cause collisions, misidentification, torpedo failures and the likes. The only K-sub that went down becuase of her steam engine was K-13, which was recovered, although the problem of the fires being extinguished in rough seas admittedly wasn't solved until K-26.

 

[ArKhan]

So would cars (if there are any) be bigger on average, or smaller on average in TTL?

 

[NothingNow]

So would cars (if there are any) be bigger on average, or smaller on average in TTL?

No real difference (seriously, read my posts on page 1, regarding steam cars.) They'd be slightly heavier, and produce less horsepower, but Steam engines produce tons of torque, so the actual power and performance difference is pretty minimal.

Electric Cars would probably be the vehicles of choice in cities though, with designs like the Henney Kilowatt being the norm about the middle of the century. A 60-100 mile range would probably be normal once battery tech reached the right levels (which would come far sooner ITTL.)