Its an interesting thought. This one goes into the believe it when I see it file.
Like an Alco diesel, any steamer can be run clean. I second Andrew's statement about seeing.
TCS - wait for water
WOW Im not sure I want to hate them for planning to ruin a classic Santa Fe 4-6-4, or like em for wanting to build an modern Steam loco. But it probably wont get far.
Typical new paper BS making it seem like 3463 was a slow, smoke belching and fuel guzzling monster. (There website sounds the same.) 3463 was one of the most modern locos on the ATSF, An was/is already capable of running at speeds over 110mph.
There site says
Once its modernization is complete, CSR 3463 will have little in common with the smoke-belching steam engine it once was. Featuring a gas-producer combustion system, improved steam circuit, modern boiler, low-maintenance running gear and steam-powered electric generator (to power the passenger train), CSR 3463 will be able to pull a passenger train with electric-like performance for less than the cost of diesel-electric locomotives.
Sounds like there wont be anything left of the original 3463. Wh not build a completely new loco might be cheaper.
I hope they run out of money before they ruin 3463.
Stepping off my soap box.
05-24-2012, 07:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-24-2012, 07:50 PM by orange choo choo.)
It seems like the changes help with efficiency, it should pretty much look the same but those with a discerning eye can tell. AT&SF 3751 was converted to run on oil so burning clean(er) coal and making the internals more efficient shouldn't harm its looks too bad. Now if they converted it to diesel electric that would require drastic changes. Why not use a reactor to heat up the water like an SSBN or CVN, that would be something but of course people would not want a potential Chernobyl on wheels and they dont have deep pockets like the DOD.
Now where's that flux capacitor...
It wasn't me.
I love the "we're using trees which makes it carbon-nuetral" excuse / reasoning .... charcoal in effect. The more I read on it, the more comical I find it.
TCS - hope they don't ruin it too much "improving" it.
It would be far more efficient to build a test bed and run a steam turbine electric. Improved steam circuit?? must mean pulling more energy out of the steam, that's a turbine, or some other ways of getting multiple temperature and pressure drops a single pressure drop is very inefficient. (Hint - why do you think ships went to steam turbine and steam turbine electric propulsion systems in the modern era of steam??) Steam turbines can be run at various speeds efficiently, gas turbines are a lot more finicky.
Carbon neutral??? How are they heating up the materials in the absence of oxygen?? That is going to take energy from some source. So fuel production needs to be taken into account and it seems in my quick readings, they kind of didn't mention it. Granted burning the fuel on site so to speak is a lot more efficient than burning it some place else and sending it down wires on a complex and expensive grid of poles and wires.
Plus the impact forces on the track and roadbed structures from the rotating wheel and rod assemblies, well the occasional pasage of a steam engine at speed is not a problem, all the time?
05-25-2012, 06:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2012, 07:03 AM by orange choo choo.)
Carbon neutral. Apparently biocoal is carbon neutral because the plants used to make it took CO2 that is existing in the atmosphere today and is released back into the atmosphere when burned thereby not adding new CO2 into our atmosphere. Naturally occuring coal was created when million year old plant material (which contains CO2) decayed, was heated and compressed by earth's pressure, and left underground thereby removing it from our atmosphere. When burned it releases the stored CO2 thereby adding more CO2 into our current atmosphere.
So it's a zero sum game. However the equation changes when you take into account the type of energy used to make biocoal, does the electricity used to make it come from a clean sources?
It's like electric cars, they may produce no emissions but the energy used to make the batteries come from "unclean" sources. One study claims the CO2 released in the production of electric cars is equivalent to the CO2 released over the lifetime of a standard car. And does the electricity used to charge the car come from a "clean" source?
So the burning of biocoal may be carbon neutral but the type of energy used to manufacture it can make it a net producer of CO2.
It wasn't me.