The future of rail could be this 75-year-old steam locomotive

arguments on the merits of the fuel aside and pretending the loading guage isnt and issue, could that loco(with or without its streamlining) do 130mph down stoke bank (or its us equivalent) with half a dozen on the back.... ? probably is the answer....

 

Its simply a great idea. Those who would rubbish it are probably in their own time those who would have said in 1965 railway preservation was a real narrow market and would not expand. ..and those who said in1982 that Dai Woodham should just get on and scrap the rest of them! They quoted all sorts of 'realistic' facts and figures and said how unsustainable it all was-what a lot of tosh. Remember a certain railway general manager who said that the railway preservation industry would not survive if it expanded - in fact HE didn't. Projects will proliferate-folks pay their money and make their choice.Many succeed ,some fail-it's the law of the jungle.

 

Austerity (and others); I think that the problem Tom has with this problem is that it is being heralded as 'the future of rail', 'environmentally friendly' and so on and so forth. It is being advertised as a bright new dawn for carbon neutral rail transport. It isn't being advertised as a heritage project.

I agree with Tom: I do not think that a souped up steam loco is the future of rail and an answer to the environmental problems of the planet. I think that if people want to do this to a loco, if they'll foot the bill, go for it and have fun.

But don't advertise this as the solution to bigger problems. Don't hail it as the future. Because, as meee and Tom (and I, earlier in this thread) point out - Electric traction, powered by any form of power, is far more energy efficient. If you want to answer some of the environmental questions this scheme is being put forward as a solution to, go and try to get a power station to burn carbon neutral briquettes. Because that may well be the future.

 

There's a fundamental difference though. People who in 1965 said railway preservation was a small market were effectively making an economic forecast. They got their forecast wrong - though that's not too surprising: even the Governor of the Bank of England believes that economic forecasting is basically a mugs game.

Whereas those of us saying this this is a rotten idea are making a prediction based on the fundamental laws of physics, which have a rather better track record of being able to make successful predictions. So I'll say it again: however efficient you make "new generation" steam; whatever Porta / Chapelon / Wardale tweaks you apply, you will always be miles behind burning your fuel in a power station to generate electricity and using that to power electric trains. If you are able to update the laws of physics, I'll update my prediction...

Tom

 

Well put.

Tom

 

It's an interesting way of attracting publicity and research funding to "biocoal" and, hopefully, to the US railway preservation movement, and that's great. If it's also a practical test-bed for the technology, then so much the better. Given the difficulty obtaining good, consistent quality steam coal these days, biocoal may be of interest to the British preservation industry in years to come.

Given the right stretch of track, a suitable locomotive and thorough preparation, 4 mph more than Mallard achieved 75 years ago should be attainable - it's not a big increase, in percentage terms. A last-generation Yankie loco with big driving wheels, roller-bearings, oodles of tractive effort and a few extra refinements from Porta, Wardale, et al is a good choice. A bit of streamlining would make it look the part but probably wouldn't reduce the power needed significantly.

Finding the right stretch of track may be the most difficult thing. There's no shortage of straight, level stretches, but the US network is not maintained for high speed. Even on the trunk routes, their mile-long freight trains, with multiple remote-controlled locos distributed along their length, don't seem to go much more than about 60mph.

We shouldn't be surprised that there's a lot of over-the-top hype about it being the "future of railways" - it's a US project, after all the publicity it can get. There are probably a few serious engineers and scientists involved behind the scenes who cringe at the marketing spiel as much as we do. Passenger trains, outside some metropolitan districts, are rare and slow. Maybe this project will sprinkle a little fairy-dust on rail travel in the States? Unlikely, I think, but you never know.

 

Not a hope. It wouldn't, after all, make it under the first bridge...

 

Just an experiment in combustion in truth, but you have to sell it some how. Speed always sold engines in America, engines that in the event were frequently unsuitable for the tasks they were given to perform. Even now far too many States side enthusiasts cannot grasp the importance of low backpressure believing that you require a high pressure at the exhaust tip in order to achieve sufficient draught to draw on the fire, usually thin and therefore highly porous, and so maintain the traditional American standard of high carry over losses. A few grasp the fact that you do not need a locomotive to weigh over 200 tons in order to develop 5500 hp.
So, if you are going to improve an engine deal with the issue of specific steam consumption first. Then look at your combustion system in conjunction with your boiler design. Reminds me a little of the ACE project in a way.
As for electrification, not much of the USA network is electrified, and perhaps some folk are just starting to grasp the notion that energy consumption is rapidly heading towards being the preserve of the rich and privileged if you are wanting to import to meet your national needs.

 

Do you mean Michael Draper? fortunately he is still with us
regards
Noel

 

But I think it is important to emphasise that he was forced out of the SVR because of a dispute over bonus payments, not because he failed to run the SVR successfully or because his philosophy about heritage railway management was unsound. Given that Austerity's post was trying to discredit this philosophy I think this is an important distinction to make. Yes, the preservation movement has expanded beyond what many people once thought possible, but that still doesn't mean that it can continue to expand forever - especially when one considers the demographic problem of recruiting young volunteers to succeed those who remember the steam era. Draper's prophecy of doom could yet be fulfilled. I hope it isn't, but we can't afford to become complacent.

As for the "Coalition for Sustainable Rail": it's an interesting science project if they can raise the money, but I certainly don't believe that it is the future of rail. Some of their claims seem distinctly woolly even to this non-engineer. For example:

I'd really like to see some more detailed statistics to back up this very bold claim. Furthermore, even if their claims are true and a steam loco really could be made to out-accelerate a diesel, this passage nevertheless seems to tacitly admit that this engine will offer little advantage over electric traction in this respect.
Their claims about the economics are also doubtful:

What "innovations"? And surely, given the increasingly stringent regulations regarding boiler safety and standards, boiler maintenance costs are going up, not coming down?
Unless someone associated with the project can provide more detailed answers to these questions, then I'm afraid I will remain sceptical.

 

I notice that our rather excitable friends who publish the 'Beano' have fallen for it. 'MALLARD' must be quaking in her shoes - or perhaps not.

 

I think we may have found the reason behind 2 of our A4's being returned to our side of the pond in (probably too early and unfound) disgrace! If they do come home, just don't let them back out again.
Although naming loco's on the other side of the pond is not a regular feature, in this case I suspect the converted locomotive might just qualify, any suggestions - DOC BROWN - sounds quite appropriate?

 

What about 'Pheme' the spirit of rumour, report and gossip.

 

Probably best to avoid discussing the why's and wherefores of Michael Draper's departure from the SVR, it would be easy to get into some pretty deep muck over it as it got very nasty then. This is not me advocating censorship, just caution.

Regarding Draper's Fraser-esque prophecies. I think he had a point, that will come to pass in time, but probably not for a long time yet. However, there is no denying that he was many decades out in timescale.

 

Or would the bridge take the land speed record for infrastructure?

 

You are quite right of course - Porta and Wardale certainly sought to bring the power station principle to the locomotive and had limited success. However the application of physics is through engineering... and engineering is updated all the time, sometimes revisting old ground with say new materials or thermodynamic improvements and sometimes expounding on new theories or fuelling alternatives. Granted the laws of physics never change but you could find yourselves updating predictions based on engineered improvements. It happens on the Starship Enterprise all the time.

In his Red Devil book Wardale almost apologised to the enthusiast who was hoping for greater things, pointing out that steam's weaknesses should not be glossed over and the strengths of its rivals not ignored. In a perfect world remotely (preferably nuclear) prompted combustion would support a universal electric railway. But it's not a perfect world so there will always be a case for integrally powered units and clearly developing the steam engine to the nth degree is a logical route to take. However the engineer should be aware that the introduction of complexity can ruin steam power's greatest asset-its simplicity. It's that constant search for solution and excellence which will prevail over the frustrations of steam 'modernisation' in the future.

Yes this should be an issue which concerns the enthusiast, technician,environmentalist and physicist alike. It's all about striking a balance and if that old Santa Fe loco can be made as free running as they say,I hope that they succeed. I'll be watching from a safe distance!

 

Jamie- that's why I didn't mention any names! You are being openly assumptive by mentioning one yourself... but as the Bank of England Governor said himself...

 

An intelligent view but that railway manager's predictions at that time were giving the impression 'like this is gonna happen next year'! Of course not every railway scheme will flourish and maybe for the reasons you mention -but i did qualify my comments by referring to the 'law of the jungle'. Let's face it in business anything can happen and that includes in railway preservation-indeed we should be vigilant whilst we support every new scheme with encouragement. Sceptical? fair enough.

 

The name had already been mentioned by others when I advocated caution. My post to which you are referring was to those who had brought his name to the thread. Had they not done so there would have been no need for me to advocate caution. I do not think that I am being assumptive.