If the price of diesel continues to increase, will we see railroads return to coal-fired steam locomotives?

I really doubt it. That's like saying gas is too high...let's all go back to riding bikes.

The fact is we're lazy.

Well , Guy On The Side Of The Oatmeal Box , I would say that you're on the "right track" , but lookin' at the wrong fuel.

Super heated water vapor that is highly compressed is indeed a powerful force , but there's more than one way to steam a cat.

I think nuclear power is a better answer to this problem than coal.How do you think nuke plants run? Or submarines?

If you answered with anything other than "steam" then I have bad news for you....you're WRONG!

If you answered "steam" , then good for you! Right answer!

Nuclear power (which is the only thing France EVER got right!) relies on the heat generated by nuclear fission to heat water to a temperature that creates pressures great enough to drive turbines capable of creating massive amounts of electricity , which is also what diesel trains really run on.

Calling a train a "diesel" is a bit of a misnomer , as the diesel engine actually powers a generator that produces electricity , which is what the train REALLY runs on.

If we could put the same nuclear engines in trains that we have in submarines then we could do just what you're talking about.And you could still call the "choo-choo" a steam engine!

Actually, a "modern" steam engine actually made it to the drawing board.

This was in the mid 1970's, however, when we were dealing with an OPEC fomented gasoline crisis back then. But, it was a far cry from anything we recognize as a typical reciprocating steam engine. They were hybrids to boot.

There was a diesel electric portion of the engine, but its use was in getting the tonnage started, whereupon the steam engine would take over, or when in heavy drag operation where the diesel electric would again supply power or add power.. Even then it boasted "micro-processor" control. Think of the processing power available today.

The fuel, coal (not the 'black diamonds' of the past. A partially or soon to be gassified coal) was to be supplied by lifting pre-packaged, 50 ton bins into the locomotive while it was being fueled with the diesel needed.

They were condenser engines of course, capturing the spent steam and condensing it back into water for another go round. With as mush time as modern freight trains sit in sidings, time for taking water is no longer an issue. But, with condenser engine, water stops are far fewer. But, even steam engines of the past took water "on the fly," scooping it out of troughs as they sped along.

It was touted that this new design was even more track friendly when taking into account all the erganomic forces at play in the interaction between rail, wheels and trucks.

I see no reason why they couldn't return. In the design referenced, a fireman was not needed. Although there would be an increase in needed maintenance, new, computer assited design would all but insure that they be more efficient, less complicated than old designs, therefore needing less maintenance than the behemoths of the past.

At current rates, we are rapidly nearing the point where people are cheaper than diesel on an hour to hour basis. How's that for irony?

So, I would say there is a definite chance of steam once again plying the rails. But, alas, not in as grand a fashion nor with such reciprocating grace as the noble ladies of the steam era past...

I dont think it has been proved to be any more efficient for converting energy into motion.

You still have to convert the energy of a substance into heat, before it can be used for locomotion, be it turbine, diesel electric or straight electric. And it is still going to cost $$$.

Another thing railorads would have to consider, infrastructure, they have facitlities for fueling deisel locomotives and all the attendant ecological protection in place. In order to start using coal, it would be horrendously expensive to install coaling facilities.

Keep this in mind, railroads use 1/4 the fuel that trucks use to move a ton of freight one mile. So even though the railroads squawk and holler about the cost of fuel, each cost increase makes it harder for trucks to compete without additional subsidies.

It is actually better for railroad business, not worse.

No, railroads will go electric again. They're the only mode that can do that easily today.

Additional reasons steam won't happen:

1. Steam locomotives are unbelievably difficult to maintain. Just ask anyone in railway preservation.

2. Coal prices are going up too.

3. A steam engine would never, ever be able to meet smog regulations.

More likely railways will have to bite the bullet and pay to convert the most cost effective routes to electric.

Steam powers electric railways anyway....it's in the generator plants that produce electricity.

Its cleaner to use coal in modern electricity generating stations where the exhaust gasses can be cleaned up efficently than to have to install cleaning units on locomotives,and more efficient to have electric locos that dont need to carry thier power supply around with them.

In the UK Virgin trains have tested bio-diesel in some locos with concentrates as high as 70% diesel-30% vegatable oil.

Maybe with more efficient engines total bio-diesel power might be the way to go on less cost effective routes.

Most likely not. They will just continue to to charge more to transport items. But it is quite an interesting thought, waiting for the steam locomotive to roll through the cities.

No way man...they are not going to the expense and time of replacing the fleets of locomotives with that ancient technology...a better answer is to find an alternative fuel that will work in our present equipment

You indeed bring up an interesting proposition and I have heard positives and negatives about so I am somewhat on the fence myself. The major drawback with steam is its efficiency. For instance a steam locomotive has to make several stops for water along its route which adds a lot of increased transit time, which in turns lowers the train's profit margin because it takes longer to reach its destination. Similarly the longer the train takes to complete its journey the more hours the railroad must pay the crews who are working that particular train, it's sort of a domino effect. Faster transit times and overall mainetance costs are big reasons why the railroads loved diesel-electrics to begin with, even though they did have to sacrifice (at the time) a good bit of horsepower per locomotive in the process. To be honest, though, I don't know, I think another ACE project would be interesting to see, and what exactly it could do (even though, of course, in any event, the days of the big drivers and moving, open, rods and pistons are long gone).

All you would need is a steam turbine to power the electric generator. I could forsee existing locomotives retrofitted to do this.

I'm definitely optimistic about that possibility. It's just that steam locomotives also contribute to the pollution in our atmosphere.