Sign in / up

back to article 'Biocoal' fuels steam train comeback

Trainspotters who find the homogenized world of modern locos a bit dull could soon be celebrating the return of steam, if all goes well in a University of Minnesota study. The university, along with Sustainable Rail International, are to restore a 1930s locomotive – 3463, a 4-6-4 Hudson-type loco built by Baldwin that’s spent …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Dazed and Confused
    Coat

    volatile gasses

    OK, so it depends upon the coal your burning, and this explains some of the differences between the loco designs between the 4 grouping in the UK's steam hey day. But the amount of energy released from burning the off gassed volatiles normally exceeds the energy released from the burning of the bulk carbon of the coal. It is also easier to exploit since the combustion can occur high in the fire box or better still inside the fire tubes running through the boiler, which is actually where you need it.

    Modern control systems might well allow you to get around some of the big bug bears of external combustions engines, the need to get the fuel into the fire 5+ minutes before it will be needed. In the past it was down to the skill of the driver and most especially the fireman, to know just when to feed the inferno so that it would be ready for the next section of the line. That should be possible to automate now.

    But as others have pointed out, making a steam engine expire the Mallards run is going to be very difficult. Gressley wasn't exactly hot on the concept of elf'N'safety. Let's face it Stanier would let the LMS have a go at the record, and went ape when they did run Coronation upto 114MPH near Crewe, having forgotten the upcoming set of points!

    Not be restricted by the UK loading gauge would allow much larger driven wheels, but you are still going to have massive reciprocating forces. The pistons and conrods are huge and so consequently weighty. The baring are going to be taking a massive loading.

    As Chris says, a turbine such as Turbomotive is a much better approach.

    This will still leave huge technical challenges.

    Mines the one with the burn whole from the cinders and a copy of the Engineman's handbook in the pocket.

    0 0
    1. Yesnomaybe
      Reply Icon

      Re: volatile gasses

      I would use a turbine instead of pistons. For spead: direct mechanical connection to drive wheels, through a gearbox, but for every-day practicality: Let the turbine run a generator.

      Secondly, I would use a steam-generator rather than a boiler, much lighter and cheaper to maintain. Reacts quicker too. Fuel in the form of coal-dust, fed into a blower.

      Waste steam fed into condensers.

      No reason why this couldn't be made to be both reliable and cheap-ish to run.

      0 0
  2. Crisp

    Deforestation

    Have you seen a Leyland Cypress grow? Those buggers grow like weeds!

    0 0
  3. Crisp

    Important Information Missing in Article

    What will the train whistle sound like?

    1 0
  4. mark1978
    Stop

    Never going to happen

    Much easier and efficient to burn the 'coal' to produce electricity and then run the trains on that.

    Steam trains are exceptionally heavy and complicated, in comparison electric trains are very light and simple to maintain, not to mention there are loads of them already operating.

    2 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Never going to happen

      overlooking the infrastructure costs?

      Since electrification of a line is expensive, compared to leaving piles of (bio)coal by the trackside.

      0 2
      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov
        Reply Icon

        Re: Never going to happen

        The logical design development to resolve coal stockpiling and feeding issues will be to move from burning coal to injection of oil in the burners. Oh, hold on a second...

        0 0
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Never going to happen

        I'll be there with my shovel and lorry.

        0 0
  5. andy gibson

    130 mph?

    88mph should be sufficient.....

    0 0
  6. Richard 45
    FAIL

    Total non-starter

    There are many problems with this idea. Firstly, and something nobody else has mentioned, is the fact that for reciprocating steam engines, the available horsepower increases linearly with speed, thus full horsepower is only generated at top speed, and at low speed, little power is produced. Contrast that with a diesel or electric, where full power is available pretty much over the entire speed range. This was one of the reasons why the Yanks moved to diesel so early on.

    The other problem is of thermal efficiency; no matter how well you lag the boiler and take other measures, it'll still be horrendously inefficient compared to diesel or electric. And as others have mentioned, the lack of steam-based lineside infrastructure such as water columns and the like, as well as huge maintenance bills for the locos themselves. Hammer blow isn't much of a problem these days. When Tornado was tested on the Great Central Railway, it was found to have much *less* adverse effect on the track than the Mk1s it was towing!

    This is a complete non-starter and has the fingers of non-engineers all over it.

    0 0
    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov
      Reply Icon

      Re: Total non-starter

      "This ... has the fingers of non-engineers all over it."

      On the opposite - it is practically covered with fingerprints of engineers eager to get their hands on a reasonably preserved engine and coming up with whatever they think is a sure tag-line to get the funding required for the restoration.

      0 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Total non-starter

      I was under the impression that in fact nearly full horsepower is available at a standing start, which is why a 24hp traction engine can happily drag a sports car backwards up a road. There is an issue of where the pistons are when the throttle opens, but even so I think you may be overstating the issue.

      Maintenance was an issue and I doubt that steam will ever be as low cost as electric in that department but modern burners and fuels can drastically reduce costs compared to 1965 and computer control has the potential to make a substantial impact on things like startup time and eliminate the need for a fireman (already largely superseded by automatic systems on the old Pacific Bigboys IIRC) .

      Infrastructure is a huge issue for locos and one of the biggest is the lack of turntables. Water isn't actually that bad a problem with fire hydrants in pretty well every major mainline station on the network, but there's hardly any turntables left in the UK at all.

      0 0
    3. MJI Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Power outputs

      Most high powers recorded by steam locos is not at full speed, but at full valve gear open and medium speeds.

      This was the technique the S&D drivers developed to leave behind banking engines, yes a passenger train with large loco can accellerate quicker than a light little engine. Read reports of 3000 EDHP

      0 0
    4. imanidiot Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Total non-starter

      You seem to be confusing a few measures of power there.

      Top horsepower only available at top speed is not really suprising. The definition of horsepower is work done over time. Thus faster speed/higher axle rpm means higher horsepower at the same torque output.

      By definition, peak torque on a steam locomotive is at standing start, with no cutoff. Once speed picks up, the cutoff is raised to save on steam usage. Due to the nature of steam (expansion and such things), peak torque normally remains relatively stable near the max output over the entire speed-range. Thus horsepower HAS to rise as speed builds. This is all due to definition.

      If you say all horsepower is available at a standing start in a diesel, you'd be right, but also wrong. The engine is not directly coupled to the wheels and can thus run at optimum speed to produce peak horsepower or peak torque (depending on whats needed). This means it can output its maximum power at all times at any speed. The power to the wheels is however delivered by the drive motors. Which follow that pesky work over time definition with torque and rpm relations.

      0 0
  7. Refugee from Windows
    Stop

    Loco has been stabilised?

    The majority of the UK's steam locos came from a scrapyard in Wales, where they'd only been left unused for not a great number of years. The description that this one has been stabilised sounds like it's a rusting hulk not far from collapsing into a pile of rust, it's not even been cosmetically cared for. Engines like that were not built for speed but to haul heavy loads.

    Possibly the best one to try for the record is somewhat newer - may we suggest our own "Tornado"?

    0 0
    1. Hugh Pumphrey
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Loco has been stabilised?

      Tornado FTW: it would probably have a far better chance than a restored Mallard as far as re-capturing a record. But the other posters are surely correct: that 3463 thing has about the same chance of beating 126mph as $HEAVYWEIGHT_BOXER has of winning the 100m at the Olympics. (Look at http://www.a1steam.com/ if you don't know what Tornado is. Having been on the platform at Edinbrugh Waverley to see it start with a full rake of coaches, I was left rather deaf and blubbing like a girl.)

      Another thing that various other posters are correct about is the efficiency. The thermodynamic efficiency of steam locomotives is pants. You can do MUCH better in a power station because you have the space to condense the steam rather than blasting it up the funnel. You get the suck as well as the blow. And you only lose a small fraction of your gains in transmitting the power to an electric loco and converting it into mechanical energy when it gets there.

      0 0

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Loco has been stabilised?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodham_Brothers

      0 0
  8. cortland

    Bio-coal

    So what's the other kind? NON-biological?

    0 0
  9. ElReg!comments!Pierre

    And what about water?

    With an electric loco you don't need to stop every now and then for clean water (which also might or might not become a precious ressource soon enough).

    Although I guess you _could_ use a condenser design I suppose, but you'd need to work on the design a bit, I seem to recall that existing models are not terribly efficient.

    Although I can see how biocoal could be made to match or beat diesel, I really doubt it can ever even see the like of the MagLev and the TGV from down there.

    0 0
  10. ravenviz Silver badge
    Boffin

    Can't they test the fuel on a test rig, without using an actual train? And an old one at that.

    Not sure what using the train will prove about the fuel concept.

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.