Will gas engines have the same fate as steam locomotives?
A lecturer writing in the San Francisco Chronicle is comparing the growing popularity of gas-hybrid cars with the demise of the steam locomotive.
Arrol Gellner says steam locomotives ruled the rail system in the early 20th century. When the diesel-electric locomotive first appeared around 1930, Gellner says the Big 3 of steam-engine builders at the time brushed off the threat and kept building bigger steam locomotives.
Starting to sound familiar?
Gellner says the rail companies found the diesel more efficient, even though they cost more, and began replacing their fleets with diesel-electrics. According to Gellner's research, steam locomotives outsold diesels 4-to-1 in 1936. By 1948 only 13 steam engines were purchased, compared to 2,800 diesels.
In a closing jab, Gellner points out that General Motors built those early diesels that put the aging steam engines out of business.
While not disputing Gellner's research, I wonder if the torque differences and low-speed control had more to do with the switch than not having to stop for coal and water along the route. Trains probably needed the electric propulsion for the same reason today's heavy-duty trucks need diesel engines: low-speed torque. The larger the steam engine got, the harder it was to control the piston strokes when pulling away from a stop, especially with the increasingly heavier loads.
Interesting reading, anyway.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Prattacus 3:16PM (8/27/2006)
That's a wonderfully simplistic analysis. If we've got these kinds of minds on the job, we're in good hands.
For me to poop on.
Gas engines: Do you mean I/C engines? Leaded gas engines are already extinct. Well, heck, every batch of gas is a little different - does that mean that a new crop of engines goes extinct each time we run out?
I/C engines are a tool. They follow supply/demand in light of market constraints such as politics, trends, etc., just like all the other tools out there. They're not going to go extinct just as the steam engine did, unless there's a supply/demand reason for doing it.
One example might be the sudden replacement of I/C engine technology with another technology, such as fuel cells, which are cheaper for market participants to get on a dollar/utility basis. We're really, really f'n far away from that, but it's not impossible.
Given enough time, nothing is impossible. Which reduces this guy's talk to your basic "newsflash: water is wet" talk.
Fer cryin' out loud, nobody ever argued "gas engines" were the best in the first place!
This guy should have discussed the market impediments to dethroning the technology. Instead of discussing that, it seems like this lecture painted with broad strokes hoping some people would be dumb enough to be intrigued.
Reply
Tony Belding 8:56AM (8/28/2006)
I'm glad this article was posted, it recounts an episode that I wasn't aware of. This is yet another fable about how rapidly technology can change when the conditions are right for it to happen, and how large, established companies in the industry can fail to see it coming. Despite all their expert knowledge and resources, they just couldn't summon up the vision to change their way of doing business.
Reply
SpinDaddy 10:19AM (8/29/2006)
Diesel engines replaced steam engines because they were more C-O-S-T efficient.
A steam locomotive or any steam boiler apparatus for that matter, whether it's the office building you work in or a Nuclear power plant is very maintenance(mx) intensive for reasons of safety. Steam locomotives are the same. They can be operated safely and are a terrific power source but mechanics are expensive, and diesel electrics while requiring mx, are not nearly as mx intensive as a steam locomotive.
If mx is ignored on a diesel/electric locomotive; it won't work, if you ignore mx on a steam locomotovie it can be very lethal, especially given the power that some of the last steam locomotives were making, the Y-class locomotivesof the late 1940's were running 300psi of steam pressure on some very, very large pistons.
When diesel electrics were first introduced in the 1930's, the steam locomotives had them seriously outgunned in the area of tractive force capability (ability to move weight on the rails), but diesel could be tied together in groups and several units operated by only one train crew simultaneously, by means of a simple electrical cable connection rather than requiring a crew for each locomotive as was the case for steam.
The economically powerful combination of reducing the most highly paid and skilled manpower (engineers and mechanics)at the railroads was too great an opportunity to pass up.
The same opprtunities for significant cost savings in the mx dept and for flight crews also did in the wonderful Radial aircraft engines with the advent of turbine jet engines in transport aircraft.
Turbine engines are significantly less mx intensive than their reciprocating engine counterparts. They are also sveral times more POWER efficent than a recip. State of the art recip enigines of the 1950's required about 2 pounds of engine weight for every hp made while the latest turbines (such as that found in the Honda VLJ) are more along the lines of 3hp produced for every pound of engine weight.
Flight crew work load is also reduced with the much simpler turbine engines. Flight crews in the 1950's were usually four in number on the large transports, that number is reduced by half today.
So in summary, while a DC-7 or a Baldwin locomotive can be still operated safely, it is not at all cost effective in todays hyper-competitive global business environment. -SpinDaddy
Reply