Steam Locomotives, Will They Ever Make a Comeback?

This would be one of the few places on land where combined propulsion sources would make sense. If the engine had a combined diesel-electric and steam (CODAS) propulsion system the efficiency would be greater than from a single source such as coal or diesel alone.

"In my opinion" a pulverised coal burner to make steam and
then electricity for a single wire caternary system as is done in Norway
would work well.

The electric pantograph method of power deliver used for the
IORE locomotives used in pairs used for iron ore delivery from the LKAB iron mines
(The IORE locomotives are the Bombardier TRAXX models).
to the ports and returning to the mines with the clay loads to make
the iron ore pellets are a beautiful thing to see..

Steam engines are a curio these days not because they don't work but, because something lighter and more efficient was invented. The internal combustion engine. However that doesn't mean coal is out of the question. Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-water_slurry_fuel

http://news.yahoo.com/huge-big-boy-steam-locomoti ... 235.htmlig

Big Boy restoration.

To pick up where Coaledsweat left off, I watched about 3 straight hours of footage on these yesterday. LOVE this machine!! Makes my arm hair stand on end.

Can't wait for the completed restoration!! I want to hear and FEEL this thing actually RUN.

And you will..

:punk:

I can't wait!!

11/14

They brought 4014 through northern Utah on the way to the Cheyenne shops and the kids and I went down to check it out...Here are a few photos we took that day.

The last photo is of the coal auger coming out of the bottom of the tender (the section connecting to the locomotive had already been removed). It is about 6 inches in diameter. Sad to say that it will never be used again because 4014 will be converted to burn oil instead of coal.

Why in the world put all this money and effort into restoring and maintaining these things and then convert them to oil. That's so incredibly stupid.

Berlin wrote:Why in the world put all this money and effort into restoring and maintaining these things and then convert them to oil. That's so incredibly stupid.

I couldn't think of a better way to word my disgust for this supposed restoration than to post a good post again.

When 4014 came through northern Utah, my wife and I had the opportunity to attend a VIP dinner put on by a local model railroad club and we ended up sitting at the back with two young UP employees...one was a machinist at the Cheyenne shops and the other was a conductor IIRC. I questioned them about the coal to oil conversion and I could tell that they had been questioned about it a lot. They basically said that it is due to materials handling issues that required more work (literally tons ash had to be shoveled by hand etc.) as well as the equipment for handling the large amount of coal needed to run the engine.
Using oil is easier but but has it's own problems. The fireboxes on these locomotives were designed for coal and I do know that they've had a constant battle with other engines that they've restored (3985 and 844) trying to get them to work with burning oil.

If they really wanted to keep 4014 on coal I know they could do it. A better ash removal/handling system could be developed as well as mobile coal handling equipment that could follow the train to refuel it as needed.

I've read that attempts were made to burn oil in a 4000 class locomotive many years ago but it didn't work out...Maybe the same thing will happen this time.

Oh My am I seeing this right? look at the tracks.....

You have to wonder why the fairly new ballast stone would have been put down on a line that needs replaced that badly.

rockwood wrote:When 4014 came through northern Utah, my wife and I had the opportunity to attend a VIP dinner put on by a local model railroad club and we ended up sitting at the back with two young UP employees...one was a machinist at the Cheyenne shops and the other was a conductor IIRC. I questioned them about the coal to oil conversion and I could tell that they had been questioned about it a lot. They basically said that it is due to materials handling issues that required more work (literally tons ash had to be shoveled by hand etc.) as well as the equipment for handling the large amount of coal needed to run the engine.
Using oil is easier but but has it's own problems. The fireboxes on these locomotives were designed for coal and I do know that they've had a constant battle with other engines that they've restored (3985 and 844) trying to get them to work with burning oil.

If they really wanted to keep 4014 on coal I know they could do it. A better ash removal/handling system could be developed as well as mobile coal handling equipment that could follow the train to refuel it as needed.

I've read that attempts were made to burn oil in a 4000 class locomotive many years ago but it didn't work out...Maybe the same thing will happen this time.

==================================================================================================

Ah yes, when they got rid of the last steam locomotives they took out the ash dumping pits,
that received the coal ashed dumped out of the ash pit in the boiler that was dumped with
a lever located outside the locomotives that opened the ash dumping door that dumped the
ashes and coals into the the concrete ash pits which were emptied by the steam operated
ash pit hoist buckets which were lifted by the ash pit hoists and dumped the ashes into
gondola cars.

They eliminated the steam powered coal elevators that dumped into the wood or concrete
coal coal tipples that dumped the coal into the tenders using coal chutes that were raised
and lowered with a wire rope winch and they scrapped the coal stokers used to feed the
coal into the locomotive boilers WITH NO SHOVELING.

The problem with the oil they used oil was that the oil used was the no. 2 heavy fuel oil and it
cost much less and did not burn well-hence the white smoke from incomplete
combustion.