Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:48 pm
by mattvince
Coal potentially has its place, if proposals for 'Clean-Coal' power stations and CO2 storage come to fruition. It may even help the revival of the British mining industry. But not even the most efficient steam locomotives can get anywhere near the efficiency of a modern coal-fired power station. Even taking into account transmission losses (~2%), electric traction still beats even the most efficient diesels operating at their optimum performance, let alone steam engines. And what of Regenerative Braking? The pedant in me would argue that electric trains
are steam powered in most cases - as the majority of coal and nuclear power plants use their radiated heat to boil water to move power-transmission devices - although the turbine has replaced the piston. No.6202 'Turbomotive' may have been doomed, but the broad concept is still in use.
Murray - hills maybe, but mountains?
http://www.railway-technical.com/st-vs-de.html
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:35 am
by Bulliedline
MuzTrem wrote:leedavo wrote:Theres one about new efficient steam locos to repalce diesels to reboost british coal industry and rely less on foreign imports of oil
The steam enthusiast in me would like to see this happen, but the realist in me knows that it won't. Personally I'm inclined to agree with mattvince: electrification is the way ahead. Electirc traction provides better working conditions than steam engines and are more eco-friendly. As for reviving the British coal industry, it's never going to happen...the reason it collapsed in the first place was not because coal wasn't in demand but because labour is too expensive in Britain. Even if new steam engines were built for the national network, I expect they'd be burning Eastern European coal...
That said, I simply have to disagree with carlwestwood because his claims that steam engines can't climb hills are complete rubbish! Even today, preserved locomotives continue to deliver fine performances on Shap, the S&C and the South Devon banks. Besides, Deltics never had to do much hill-climbing...there aren't any of note on the ECML.
Agreed. I would love to see this but it's to unrealistic. Whatever I have said before is in a desperate attempt convince myself that it will happen. Electric is the way foward but one thing we do have to take into account is how we make this electricity (a new solar powered line maybe
)
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:09 pm
by spartacus
Plenty of climbing on the Transpennine where alot of the Deltics saw work after HSTs displaced them from the ECML.
British coal is starting to make a bit of a comeback, Hatfield has just mined it's first bit of commercial coal in years, and the main owner Richard Budge seems keen on reopening other pits. If you've got a seam think enough to bring in heavy mechanisation it makes sense to reopen.
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:02 pm
by Thrashin
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:28 pm
by rwaceyw
Look at the names signing it....
Dave
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:29 pm
by Bulliedline
Thats ridiculous! Really is. He can not count on my vote. How can you stop people from doing that. I see no harm in taking photos on platforms. Just put up with it. Apologies to anyone one this forum who is annoyed by it but we all share the same intrest here
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:44 pm
by Thrashin
rwaceyw wrote:Look at the names signing it....
Dave
Hmm, I did notice that...
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:46 pm
by daniel533
rwaceyw wrote:Look at the names signing it....
Dave
I could have done with a good laugh
I cant see what is wrong with taking pictures on a platform of passing or stationary trains. completely rediculous idea
Daniel
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:06 pm
by johncard
Well maybe if you used the dodgy wooden boxes you see on old films with a stuffed bird on top and theres an almighty bang and a puff of smoke when the photos taken
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:19 pm
by 874911
How could we not live without our huge noisy engines pumping out lots of horriblr gases (actually on second thoughts steam engines must be just as bad on the horrible gases bit)
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:34 am
by calvert
I douth the authenticity of the last name especailly!
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:45 am
by danielw2599
Flash photography should be banned (if it isnt already), but I certainly don't agree with banning ALL photography!
This guy must e some sort of joke/loser
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:51 pm
by andrewtoplis
You lot are all barking up the wrong tree...if you built a 'modern' steam locomotive you wouldnt build a reciprocating engine you would build a steam turbine that made power for electric motors. It would be more like a small power station on wheels than a 9F !! Marine steam went over to turbines decades ago...a nuclear submarine uses fuel to heat water (sound familiar?) into steam that turns the turbines and produces electricity, which then drives the propellors. Thats what a modern steam loco would look like if you started with a blank canvas not trying to update the old ideas.
I challenge this, because imported oil causes less damage to the environment as a Steam train pumps alot more CO2 into the atmosphere than a DMU like a new Class 185 (which uses the same engine as a 220).
Devils advocate here...yes steam produces more CO2, but far less of the nasty complex hydrocarbons that damage the atmosphere than a diesel engine. Steam's main exhaust is water vapour. And I think he was comparing the fuel use of an Ivatt 2 with a contemporary 1950s DMU, its a bit unfair to compare it with a modern one...
