Subject:
|
Re: Gray VS. Black Metroliner Nose
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2001 04:00:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
338 times
|
| |
|
|
> I think he was discounting tourist roads. I don't think any non tourist US
> road uses steam in revenue service on a regular basis (unless you count
> fireless).
I don't think that there are any which are purely industreal which still do, at
least for regular use. Mind you, I can name a railway here that shouldn't
exist, but does too...(That'd be the E&N on Vancouver Island...it is still here
because CPR doesn't want to have to return the land grants...)
As far as a regular steam only railway, the only one I can off my head think of
was the Bluebell railway in the UK, which did until earlier this year ONLY run
steam, and did serve several local customers. Again, this is a misuse of steam
at the best of times...shunting is NOT the best place to use steam, in fact, it
is probably the 2nd worst place. Mainline is where steam should be used, at
above 20 MPH.
(and, the UP _has_ been known to take 844 and (6565? The Challenger) and stuff
them onto regular revenue trains, when they were short of power...)
> You're going to need to provide a cite and detailed analysis for that. ACE
> experiments don't cut it... your costing needs to include all costs,
> including on line infrastructure, maintenance facilities and costs, labor,
> etc.
How about the 1947 UK solid fuel road reports? I _know_ they are dated, but
they do provide a fairly good background set of conditions under which steam
was more ecomomical overall than diesel. I don't think that there is a
better/more current full treatment of the problems of dealing with a solid
fueled vehicle system than those reports...even if your average Sentinel was
only 100 HP.
> I strongly dispute that steam, given where we are now, would be cheaper,
> given the long history of capital investment in a different direction. True,
> electric running costs are less than diesel but few over the road lines can
> support the huge capital investment in catenary. Witness Milwaulkee road
> pulling up its catenary through the Cascades.
The problem has to do with the number of options, and the operation system
selected to move trains. CTC is NOT the fastest way to move trains...but, it
works well. If you pick up a relatively current "Trains", or "R&R", you will
read about railways complaining about being _too busy_. Now, given the way
which trains are dispatched in NA, I can fully see how this is possible. When
your sidings are ~20 miles apart, and you run trains at ~55 MPH between them,
that means you can only run 3 trains/hr along a section of track if they are
going to pass each other. The problem is that you need to change _so_ much to
make electrification viable, that the cost of a new railway is less than that
of converting the existing. (excepting where the designers got smart, and
designed the line for electrification...example of that is CPR's Roger's Pass
projects of the mid 80's)
> Steam advocates argue on sentiment, not logic. If steam was logically,
> realistically, actually cheaper, US roads would have switched back, they're
> driven by the profit motive, after all.
The problem is that NO ONE is offering an alternative that is viable. Also,
the companies image of steam is that of 1950's steam engines at best, and more
like 1930's. It isn't the be all or end all of steam development, and that's
where I have problems with people saying that steam is not viable. The last of
the US class 1's to drop the fire did so because it couldn't get outside
support for its operations (that'd be the N&W). Things like air compressors,
bells, Turbo-Alternators, ect were not available, and that forced the change.
The same sort of problems happened in the UK, at least with private owner
steam, which still existed until at least 1983 (and not just the NCB
engines)
Given present oil prices, I don't think that railways could justify the up
front capital costs of changing back to steam. As oil prices rise, so will the
chances you will see steam or other solid fueled railway engines take over.
James P
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gray VS. Black Metroliner Nose
|
| (...) I think he was discounting tourist roads. I don't think any non tourist US road uses steam in revenue service on a regular basis (unless you count fireless). (...) You're going to need to provide a cite and detailed analysis for that. ACE (...) (23 years ago, 28-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
