Railroad Train Aerodynamics

[redneck]

This is what I was talking about.

The ACE 3000

The Ultimate Steam Page

Big Dave

They were about 9-10% thermally efficient. Diesel electrics are routinely 30-35% efficient over the duty cycle.

Quote;

The article in Trains outlined the basic concept for the engine to be known as the ACE 3000. It was intended to be a coal-burning, steam locomotive which would somehow be made compatible with the modern railroad operating environment. Judging that the EMD GP-40 diesel-electric of 3000 crankshaft horsepower was pretty much the average railway locomotive, the ACE team set out to design a steamer that could effectively compete against it. The ACE 3000 was to be capable of 3000 (nominal) draw bar horsepower (4000 hp peak), an efficient operating speed range of 15 to 70 MPH, have computer-controlled firing, and a typical (not peak) thermal efficiency of 15%. While the ACE team acknowledged that this efficiency was much less than a modern diesel-electric locomotive (which had an efficiency of about 30%), they knew that the immense cost difference in coal and diesel oil would allow a less-efficient coal burning locomotive to be much more economical to fuel than a very efficient oil burning diesel locomotive.

The ACE team was also investigating reciprocating electric steam locomotives, steam turbine electric locomotives (mentioned in the patent), fluidized bed combustion (which can cleanly burn high sulfur coal), and coal-fired gas turbine electric locomotives. While ACE was the best-known effort of the early 1980's to develop a new coal-fired locomotive, several other companies were also hard at work. See the 21st Century page for information on these projects.

After remaining dormant for several years, in 1985 ACE came into the spotlight again as oil prices resumed their climb. In a spectacular demonstration of steam showmanship, Rowland brought out his 4-8-4 no. 614 for testing in actual revenue service on the now-CSX Railway in the mountains of West Virginia. The Foster-Wheeler boiler company was brought on board (replacing Babcock & Wilcox) to assist with testing and boiler design. In January 1985, 614 operated under some of the most grueling conditions imaginable (temperatures down to 20 degrees F below zero) in an attempt to provide test data on steam locomotive performance to be used by the ACE design team.


An extensive array of sensors were installed on the 614 by engineers from Foster Wheeler and tied-in to recorders located in a test car behind the engine and tenders. The sensors measured boiler temperatures, smokebox gas composition, steam temperatures, cylinder pressures, and rod and frame stresses. These sensors would allow real-time measurements to be made on a working steam locomotive under realistic conditions. Unfortunately, due to the short time allowed for preparation of the locomotive and equipment, and because of the incredibly harsh weather conditions, data gathering was marginally successful. While very little of this data was ever published, one result was revealed by Roland in the 1985 video "Chesapeake & Ohio 614T: The March to Hinton". The early testing confirmed the relatively low thermal efficiency of a conventional steam locomotive like the 614 at about 6%. Amazingly, despite the vast thermal efficiency gap between the 614 and modern diesel-electrics, 614's computed fuel costs were LESS than those of the newest EMD diesels hauling the same trains over the same tracks under the same conditions, due to the extreme price difference in coal and diesel fuel. As Roland put it, if a 6% efficient steamer could haul freight at a lower fuel cost than a state-of-the-art diesel, imagine what an 18% efficient steamer (i.e.- the ACE 3000) could do.


Unfortunately, the Chessie was put off by this shift in ACE's corporate design philosophy, and a sharp drop in the price of diesel fuel greatly reduced their interest in converting to coal fuel...

So, it is possible...

>

[Big Dave]

The ACE 3000 was so wrong on so many levels.

The slow response to the throttle would have made it a bear to operate.

The ACE folks thought six GP-type (four axle) chassis would yield a 3,000 HP locomotive. The best they could design was 2,000 HP. One chassis was the turbine-generator and electric controls. One was the baghouse for particulate emissions (this was before EPA clamped down on SO2 and NOx). One was the steam generator. One was a tender. Two were needed for dry condensers. A huge agglomeration of machinery for a paltry 2,000 HP. Six GP-40-2 locomotive put out a reliable, easy-to-handle 1`8,000 HP.

The ACE 3000 would be slow, temperamental, unreliable and hard to handle. And a maintenance hog to boot.

Fluidized-bed boilers use gravity for control. They are necessarily tall. The ACE would have had to use a pulverized-coal boiler.

How do I know all this? I worked at Chessie's Huntington Locomotive Shop at the time and was detailed off to keep an eye on this project. We leased a building (an old paint shop) and a track to Rowland during tests with the No. 614. I rode his instrument car and spent days getting cinders out of places cinders ought not be. Ross had a heavy hand with the whistle and that cut his efficiency a bit.

The ACE 3000 had no provision for regenerative braking. The pre WQorld War I technology of the GG-1 (Pennsy) and the GE (Virginian) electrics made heavy use of regenerative braking.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Probably the easiest thing the US could do to reduce oil usage would be to find a way to electrify freight railroad mainlines.

It's not as though there's some great unsolved technical problem with this, either. European railroads have been electric for decades.

It could be especially nice in the west, with a little planning. Say you've got an eastbound train leaving Sacramento, then you just make sure your westbound train hits Donner Summit at the same time. The westbound one goes downhill, feeding regenerative braking energy into the line, which the uphill train uses to climb the grade.

[Big Dave]

Electric railroads are in their glory in mountainous regions because of regenerative braking.

All of it is proven technology. No breakthroughs required.

The US trackage has shrunk but traffic is way up. Perfect for taking another look at electrification.

[redneck]

Big Dave;
The ACE 3000 was so wrong on so many levels.
How do I know all this? I worked at Chessie's Huntington Locomotive Shop at the time and was detailed off to keep an eye on this project.

Wow...!!! Thank you for your insight on this project.

It appears that steam some how making a comeback isn't likley.

>

[slowmover]

Probably the easiest thing the US could do to reduce oil usage would be to find a way to electrify freight railroad mainlines. There are only about 10,000 miles of mainline left, but they haul a staggering amount of freight over those mainlines. Electrification would allow the US to use plentiful coal or nuclear power to move stuff.

The Department of Defense has identified approximately 52,000 critical miles of trackway in the continental US. Electrification via nuclear ought to be a huge priority in this country (despite what you or I feel may feel about nukes) on those 10k of mainlines (and serious upgrades for the rest).

A site I keep bookmarked has, here, a very good photo essay of The Alameda Corridor through Los Angeles. I recommend the accompanying article[s] and look for Youtube videos. Heavy rail takes a long, long time to do correctly. But the savings are huge!!

Very good thread. Trains are always fascinating. Or, as one man put it: Streetcars are the sign of civilization. (I should like to see the return of interurban cars. Now there's a potential for streamlining single & double cars to link minor towns to major metro areas!

.

[aerohead]

Was at GOOGLE IMAGES 'shinkansen' and found this
http://www.chinacnr.com/Lists/articl.../7072-20100814
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
they're blowing smoke over a model of their high speed rail train.The nose also makes a nice boat tail on the back engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the address doesn't work as a link,sorry!

[Cd]

just look at this beauty :





Note the various nose designs :




These are just odd :


Also, this :

[Bicycle Bob]

As long as things are not going supersonic at the edges, there's no practical need for an extreme wedge front end. Those are for styling, at considerable cost to vision of the crew, especially when approaching a low sun. Not that vision will do those lads much good anyway. . . Maybe it is really for crush space.

[Big Dave]

An electrified Wheaties-box would be A-OK for trains.