# Historic steam engine to be used in passenger train project



## CHamilton (May 23, 2012)

Historic locomotive on track to new use

Great Overland Station gives steam engine to passenger train project



> The [Topeka] Great Overland Station is giving its 1937 locomotive to a nonprofit group that is pushing the bounds of steam engine design to modernize the neglected technology for passenger travel in a multimillion-dollar research project.
> 
> Officials on Tuesday announced the station has transferred ownership of the steam engine to Sustainable Rail International, which is based out of Minneapolis. The nonprofit group is working in conjunction with the University of Minnesota to develop steam engine technology, which hasn't been a focus of study for decades.
> 
> Davidson Ward, president of SRI, said computer simulations and studies show a steam engine such as Topeka's powered by biotech fuel will cost less to transport people for passenger service than today's diesel trains. Also, he said, the steam engines will have a higher top end speed, get up to that speed quicker and burn cleaner than their counterparts.


----------



## Tumbleweed (May 23, 2012)

Well, they say history repeats itself......


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 24, 2012)

I've always heard that steam locomotives take longer to get up to speed. Don't know what SRI is trying/going to achieve. I have heard that there are proposals for modern steam locomotives, but they all failed.


----------



## TCRT (May 24, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I've always heard that steam locomotives take longer to get up to speed. Don't know what SRI is trying/going to achieve. I have heard that there are proposals for modern steam locomotives, but they all failed.


If you read the details on their site, they note that steam locomotives hit their maximum horsepower at speeds above 40mph, as opposed to an electric motor, which exhibits maximum power at low speeds but gets less powerful above 25mph. This is exactly why diesel freight locomotives are diesel electric - the good low-end power of the electric traction motors allows for easier starting of heavy trains. SRI goes on to claim that because of this difference, their computer simulations indicate that the revamped Hudson will accelerate to 110mph faster than a diesel-electric locomotive could. Whether or not it would win in a race to 20mph is a different story.

This is an interesting project. I wonder how much better they will do on thermal efficiency - a conventional steam locomotive is something like 8-9% while a diesel electric is more like 20%. That's a large gap to try to make up.

Also, the locomotive they have acquired currently looks to be in very poor shape.


----------



## Anderson (May 24, 2012)

I guess the question comes down to how much they can close that gap vs. the cost difference in the fuels.

The biggest problem I see with this plan is the same one that Norfolk and Western ran into at the end: Unless a reasonably large order of these were to start operating, replacement parts would be coming from niche manufacturers and so forth, meaning that even if they get some of the more troublesome parts of a steam engine "under control" under normal circumstances...well, the lack of a stable supplier base becomes a problem.


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2012)

This project will never amount to anything except putting money in a few persons' pockets.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2012)

Yup. Sounds like a boondoggle to me.


----------



## Anderson (May 24, 2012)

The thing of it is that such an engine _might_ make sense for certain freight hauls (since IIRC, the big deal with steam was that it could handle big freight runs better).

A worthwhile question: Even if it required a B-unit or a tender car of some sort, why hasn't someone seriously looked at using natural gas for an engine?


----------



## jis (May 24, 2012)

Anderson said:


> The thing of it is that such an engine _might_ make sense for certain freight hauls (since IIRC, the big deal with steam was that it could handle big freight runs better).


Really? Where did you read that?


----------



## Ispolkom (May 24, 2012)

I don't understand. If coal-fired steam doesn't make sense economically, why would steam fired by a fuel that costs more than coal make sense?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all on board with biomass. My office building is heated and cooled by a district heating plant that runs principally on biomass. But this doesn't add up for me.



> A worthwhile question: Even if it required a B-unit or a tender car of some sort, why hasn't someone seriously looked at using natural gas for an engine?


A quick Internet search shows that people, including EMD, are.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (May 30, 2012)

A waste of time, money and materials? Probably. But then there was a long period of time when virtually everyone thought the idea of a self propelled 'iron horse' seemed ridiculous.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (May 31, 2012)

The prime advantage to steam engines is that they are the first "flex fuel" engine out there. It doesn't really matter what you're burning as long as it burns hot and cheap (and today, clean). It also doesn't require it's fuel to be stored in any particular physical state. Find a cheap, renewable, solid fuel that burns well? Shovel it in. Oh, your state has shale gas wells everywhere? pump it in. Technically, you could even make it nuclear powered.

You could design one steam engine with interchangeable burner assemblies for various kinds of fuel.

Supposedly, the N&W Class-J was one of the most efficient steam engines ever built, but it was also a victim of its time.


----------

