This is certain to get at least a few hearts beating faster, but as you read through this press release (link attached), think about (1) the amount of service a steam locomotive requires, regardless of what it burns, (2) the complete lack of infrastructure to support this obsolete technology and (3) this is exactly the kind of goofy thing that college kids do just to find out whether it can be done. GS www.csrail.org
1) What once was, can be again. 2) Steam isn't obsolete. Never has been. Never will be. 3) Reckin' we'd all be in the dark if'n Thomas Edison didn't try that goofy thing called inventing the light bulb, or Alexander Graham Bell, didn't try that goofy thing called the telephone.
Insanity reigns supreme within the minds at our "higher" education institutions. What a farce! It will take more energy to produce the fuel than the energy that will come from it. Then tack on the tremendous inefficiencies of incomplete combustion, incomplete energy transfer from fuel to wheel and the only way that it would work is with BILLIONS of our tax dollars -similar to ethanol fuels. I think we will allow some lattitude on this discussion as long as the discussion is related to how this proposal will or will not work rather than political nonsense.
The thing I found most surprising about this is that the museum in Topeka was willing to turn over what I would guess (having not seen it) is one of the plums in their collection. I make this assumption because it would have to be fairly close to being in running order or the project would be stalled at square one (they would have to rebuild it from the railhead up). So I suppose the lure for the museum would be that when these kids are finished, if in fact they succeed, they will have a locomotive that will run, which is good. It will be interesting to see how this all progresses, because as we all know there is a lot more to getting a steam engine running than simply lighting a fire in the firebox. GS
The only problem is the Overland Station does not and never did own the ATSF 3463 4-6-4 hudson. So I would like to know how they think they can sell it. In 1954 the engine was given to the Children of Topeka, so the City of Topeka also never owned it! The engine is on the Kansas Registry of Historical Artifacts if not the National Registry, and as such, The Kansas State Historical Society has all say in what is done to and with the Engine; and they never gave permission for the sale.
The museum probably isn't actually "selling" the engine, it's probably just "loaned" to the steam group. Whatever, it's very likely some kind of barely legal maneuvering... Tom G.
Interesting points. I went back and read the release a little more carefully than I did the first time, and it refers to a "transfer of ownership" from the museum to this group that is behind the project. If I had to bet, I would say this all will go absolutely nowhere once the true costs begin to bubble up (starting with moving the locomotive from Kansas to Minnesota). GS
What's with the anti-steam sentiment in this thread? I'd rather see them try to do this, then shove some eco-nazi organizations' unfounded bs down our throats. Honestly, this thread has rubbed me wrong. Steam built this country. Steam is still an important part of this country on all different fronts. If the kids wants to try and do something that might prove practical, lets see where it goes. If it fails, it fails, but if they find some success or full success, then it could change a multitude of things, that might not affect railroads, but could improve other industries run by steam power. Honestly, this thread is no where in the spirit of Frisco.org.
Steam was really neat - "Man's most noble invention", per Joe Collias. And, the Frisco did steam as well as any railroad. BUT - the science of thermodynamics rule greatly against steam vs internal combustion. There is no way a steam boiler can be as efficient as an internal combustion engine. The pure economics killed steam in the 1950's, and the same rules hold true today. The laws of thermodymanics cannot be repealed. Still, a Frisco 1500 was a pretty impressive machine! Ken
Manny, the thread is not anti-steam per se, my point was that someone has found a way to utilize our tax dollars following just the thing your quote above rails against. Ken identified what any person with an engineering background understands intutitively; a fuel is best utilized directly to create motion rather than changing energy forms multiple times before creating motion. Additionally, energy usage to create motion needs to be looked at "well to wheel" so to speak. There is energy consumed to get oil or coal out of the ground, refine it and get it to the pumps. There is energy consumed to convert corn into ethanol; much more than we get out of the enthanol when it is used to propel a vehicle. Without the significant Federal subsidies (our tax dollars), ethanol is not economically viable. Coal also has a production energy cost, but it makes sense to use it to create electrical power because of its abundance, the generating plants are in fixed locations and the coal can be used in its most efficient manner it that way. If one believes that we are running short on fossil fuels, then we must use them in the most efficient manner possible, and what this group is proposing is most definitely the most efficient manner - nor is st truly economically viable, otherwise it would have been done.
Whatever is discussed in a model railroad/railfan thread isn't going to amount to a hill of beans concerning this steam "study" experiment. If someone is worried about how it should be conducted or how (Or if) tax dollars are going to be used, they should complain to whoever is in charge of the project. No posts the Frisco-Dot-Org chatboard affects it one way or the other... Tom
