The age of STEAM TRAINS is RETURNING

Patrons GET THINGS: / terrier55stepney
-----------------------
What are your thoughts on the future of steam trains? Let me know in the comments!
In 2024 a brand new steam engine experiment has been announced that aims to replace the diesel locomotives currently on mainline railways. In this Guide Rail special we discuss previous failed prototypes at making a modern day steam train and why this new technology could be different.
Having made the Complete History of Steam, covering everything that led up to the world's first railway, the announcement of this class 60 conversion concept was well timed to set up for a Complete Future of Steam. With the growing restrictions of heritage trains running, cuts of coal and push for eco-friendly designs, rail transport as we know it might be undergoing some big global changes.

[@Terrier55Stepney]

Thank you all for your comments! I'm reading what you say and there are certainly a lot of good points raised regarding the effectiveness and practicality of this venture. There will be a new Guide Rail episode on the first Friday of each month. Looking forward to talking about the 5AT project at some point!

[@Austriantrainguy]

The loco at minute 4 had at no point of its life anything to do with steam poower. The big boiler thing in the front is a set of electric converters that converted singlephase AC to tripplephase AC to DC. A loco really ahead of its time (BBÖ1082)

[@thedave7760]

Really great video very concise and informative nice production and good audio mix.. If TV was still a thing then you would have a great career ahead of you.

[@TimSmith-vl4qk]

what about a steam powered TRAINS but fuel type diesel

[@caledonianrailway1233]

We are so back

[@CR_class123]

True

[@toyotaprius79]

Hella

[@billygames9161]

lol

[@TankEngineMedia]

Yeah we are

[@KarolOfGutovo]

based and steampilled

[@williamhumes7332]

Who's revolutionary now, Diesel?- Duck, 2024

[@engineerskalinera]

Very rever-thing-gummy

[@MarckbryanBalang]

Not so revolutionary now diesel ayyy?

[@DangerAngelous]

"You might be revo-thingamy Diesel, but we've come full circle"

[@marshallthedalmatian2439]

Electricity.

[@unepintade]

Diesel hasn't been revolutionary since the 40s 😭

[@CalebJ6308]

If this succeeds then the class should be called the Phoenix class

[@FunAngelo2005]

The Phoenix rises from the ashes

[@automation7295]

It's funny that people want steam engines to return, yet don't want underground stations and tunnels are polluted.

[@petman515]

​@automation7295 you mean soot and ash there's an answer for that. You build the engine with a heat resivouire and hold the heat through the tunnel and fire out of it. Now the current systems not designed with that in mind. Neither is it built with the thinking of fireless engines which could be another answer.

[@CalebJ6308]

@automation7295 I would care about your opinion. But you have also spammed it so for all I know you could be a bot

[@automation7295]

@@CalebJ6308 I'm not a bot, but you seem to want more pollution on underground stations and tunnels?

[@obelic71]

euh electric locomotives/ multiple units are indirect steam powered trains ! The majority of Power plants use steam turbines to produce electricity.

[@WJCTechyman]

Exactly. And zero running emissions plants use Nuclear Fission as the heat source.

[@d3str0i3r]

the only electric sources that don't use steam are wind and hydroelectric

[@unepintade]

​@@d3str0i3rand solar, and RTG, and Hydrogen.

[@t0cableguy]

@@d3str0i3r Gas turbines do not use steam unless they are using heat recovery systems to run a steam turbine. The reason we have moved so far into gas turbine 3 on 1, 2 on 1, etc systems is because you get to use the waste heat from the gas turbine to generate steam that would ordinarily be exhausted into the air and wasted.

[@JulianSortland]

​@@d3str0i3r Plenty of grid scale photovoltaic in Australia, and wave / tidal is steam free too.

[@ryleeculla5570]

LONG LIVE THE ERA OF STEAM ENGINES

[@johnjephcote7636]

Yes. Engines, not Trains.

[@HeadquartersGreen-bd1fo]

GOD SAVE THE ENGINES

[@GNPXDABITE]

via la steam engines!

[@automation7295]

And then you all would complain why the underground stations and tunnels are polluted. It's official, you all don't care about pollution.

[@ffrederickskitty214]

@@ryleeculla5570 a few steam locomotiveshere and there on heritage railways is fine; I enjoy the occasional visit to the Severn Valley Railway, but god forbid coal-fired steam ever makes a comeback.

[@brenlc1412]

“BOOM! I’m back, dummy!” -Steam

[@themistakeisintentional-dn5df]

*[ Steam 🞋 is DOMINATING Diesel ]*

[@Combes_]

​@@themistakeisintentional-dn5df PLS NEVER SAY THAT AGAIN, FOR THE SAKE OF MY PERVERTED ASS

[@automation7295]

It's funny that people want steam engines to return, yet don't want underground stations and tunnels are polluted.

[@Combes_]

@@automation7295 Condensing locomotives, which have worked on underground tunnels for years:

[@danielbedrossian5986]

​@@automation7295, if it burns no coal or disel or any smoking thing, there is no problam.

[@Goresaka]

this is such a nice break from all this "hyperloop" and "pods" garbage. it's nice to see some *real* innovation in the places where it matters the most.

[@reubyrides8962]

How do you mean? Smells like a gadgetbahn could well be a gadgetbahn? Hydrogen is a red herring so why waste resources and thus have to retro fit this tech (huge cost installing storage). Just build more OLE

[@automation7295]

It's funny that people want steam engines to return, yet don't want underground stations and tunnels are polluted.

[@enricobianchi4499]

you vill sleep in ze pod

[@DerZocker2000000]

why not just electrify the whole rail system like in switzerland or most of austria?

[@WJCTechyman]

@@DerZocker2000000 And use nuclear power to generate the electricity? Those are actually steam engines, just on a larger, more efficient scale. I mean, I live about an hour away from one of two of the largest nuclear generating stations on the planet: Bruce Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Huron, Ontario, Canada. It has eight CANDU reactors making a lot of power and supplies a good portion of Ontario with electric power with Pickering and Darlington Nuclear Plants and Sir Adam Beck Hydro Generating station and also supplies parts of the US with power as well.

[@icenijohn2]

This smacks of distraction-tech. Hydrogen, in all its many guises (colors) still has to be made from something else, and therein lies the problem. It takes energy to make hydrogen, a lot of energy, and that must be factored into the overall equation. Just because the loco itself is efficient and "green" isn't helpful if its fuel-making process is inefficient and energy-intensive. When you look at the big picture, hydrogen is simply not a sensible alternative to existing technologies. Britain should be electrifying all its lines, and doing so without any further delays. If India (with one of the world's largest rail networks that moves more than 9 billion people each year) has already electrified 95% of its broad-gauge lines and will electrify the remaining 5% very soon, then there's no excuse for Britain to not electrify its entire network. Even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels, it's easier to control pollution at a few large power stations than at a vast plethora of individual locomotives and trains. This is the only efficient way to power trains: anything else is just a distraction.

[@reubyrides8962]

Thank you. Yes wires wires wires wires wires wires and more wires please and no hydrogen on the side.

[@Combes_]

I agree, but what about lines with low clearence? Or an EMP? We should have these at least as spares.

[@icenijohn2]

@@Combes_ For those very occasional (I hope) needs, diesel traction would suffice. It wouldn't be wise to rely on an unproven experimental new technology for emergencies. I really don't see any insurmountable obstacles to 100% electrification: Switzerland has had it for decades, and there are many other countries with near-total electrification; political prevarication is the only reason to not do so. Tunnels and low bridges can be undercut to provide sufficient clearance for catenary. As for EMPs, if that were to happen then we're all toast anyway, and the only locos that would still work will be the few preserved old steam locos; anything else with any electronics will be fried!

[@unepintade]

The issue is that British Rail only wants to buy new locomotives instead of electrifying its rails so train companies are forced to make non electric locomotives to make money

[@ericliu5491]

Natural hydrogen eliminates all the problems with all other forms of carbon neutral hydrogen.

[@TitanicKid]

"Different designs are very fussy on what fuel they use." I think this was proven very well by the camelback locomotives of the US. *Giant* fireboxes to burn coals with extremely low BTUs. The Strasburg railroad had an 0-4-0 camelback that they tried to use high-BTU coal in and it went... poorly to say the least.

[@TallboyDave]

Dare I ask?

[@basicallyarobloxian4533]

​@@TallboyDave I believe he's referring to #1187 (which was renumbered as #4 back then) here. It was made to run on anthracite coal, but they used Bituminous coal instead, resulting in it having a poor performance on their excursion trains. They demoted it to switching duties soon after, and then put it outdoors on static display after it's flue time expired. It's currently being cosmetically restored at the Age of Steam Roundhouse last I checked.

[@StarwarsFannick]

Looks like we're coming back full circle to the age of the steam Era, I'm so excited for where rail travel will go.

[@JAdg75oo00]

I just hope the OLD model's name locomotives are in the picture too and solutions for their problems as well 🙂🚂

[@22pcirish]

Don’t hold your breath. Electric is the way forward, see class 99.

[@TheGiggler333]

We’re going back to horse drawn carriages on rails in a few years

[@automation7295]

It's funny that people want steam engines to return, yet don't want underground stations and tunnels are polluted.

[@rayhankazianga6817]

I like steam locomotives and all but does no one else find it weird that the assumption is that after 220 years of development we've barely developed the steam locomotive but in half the time we've achieved all we can from diesel-electrics

[@d3str0i3r]

the thing with steam is we never standardized the designs and a lot of improvements developed for it were never fully tested because either they were developed early in the life of steam when no one wanted to replace their expensive engines that were more or less working fine without the new features, or later in the life of steam when everyone was actively trying to get rid of steam instead of improve it deisel on the other hand, has had the privilege of benefitting from multiple technologies that never touched a steam engine, but could still be applied even to new traditional steam engines, let alone a steam electric system, such as both the shift from mechanical control systems to analogue electric control systems, the shift from analogue electric control systems to digital electric control systems, modern materials quality, modern parts tolerances, radios for communications between crewmen but the biggest benefit diesel had over steam is the engine didn't have to apply power directly, if we want to be more specific, steam was never competing against diesel, it was competing against electric, and until now there was no genuine attempt to use steam to produce that electric power

[@unepintade]

That's because diesel electrics use technologies used elsewhere so most of the development was already done when they came about. Steam locomotives had a lot of issues only related to them and so the development didn't have much outshoot elsewhere

[@Pystro]

No, steam engines did not have 220 years of development. Their development started 220 years ago, but in the last 70-ish years they saw no use (beyond heritage), and therefore no development at all. Meaning they were in use for 150-ish years. And I can't imagine in the last decades before their end (when it was clear that steam was on its way out) they had much development put into them. It would kind of looking at diesel engines (first prototype 127 years ago) and assuming that the latest diesel engines we have available today are those from 40 years ago (assuming neither of them have reached their maximum possible potential and plateaued). And even if you can't assume that, steam locomotives have only been developed for 2 decades longer than diesel engines have. But the whole point is moot. If there is no water (15:22), then it's technically a hydrogen-fueled turbine engine. The name "steam engine" for something just because it exhausts steam is as silly as "steam and smoke" engine for a diesel engine.

[@rayhankazianga6817]

@Pystro to be fair, the most advanced and powerful steam locomotives built came in the final decades of their operation. NYC Niagara, N&W class A, SNCF 242A1, BR 9F, etc. In more recent times there have been a few innovations, namely when it comes to fuel sources and exhausts, and valve gear too I think. The SAR 26 class and the design changes the A1 steam locomotive trust made to Tornado are both good examples

[@henrybn14ar]

​@@d3str0i3rDirect drive is an advantage

[@juliannaudimanche1094]

I love that he used the song "fury the high pressure engine's theme" by S.A Music while talking about the leader's problems, lol

[@jamesthomas5109]

3:56 that locomotive deserves a video all to itself, looks futuristic, strong, awesome too. 😊

[@CM12youtube_official]

The Locomotive you mean is BBÖ 1082, which was only a Prototype and sadly dissapeared during WWII.

[@jamesthomas5109]

@@CM12youtube_official Still, it looks awesome.

[@Rudl1044]

It used a rotary converter to power its DC traction motors, had variable speed control and recuperation. There were two other prototypes fromt that era, but this was the only one that actually worked.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

rightnow it's just a prototype. if this project is done in America, the likes of EMD SD70 Mac or GE Evo series hull might be used instead :P

[@CM12youtube_official]

@@DiscothecaImperialis We spoke about the Train on 3:56, not the "Future" one.

[@Pystro]

If there is no water (15:22), then it's technically a hydrogen-fueled turbine engine. The name "steam engine" for something just because it exhausts steam is as silly as "steam and smoke" engine for a diesel engine. Or calling a steel mill a "slag mill" because it's waste is slag.

[@davidelliott5843]

Big diesels are now over 50% fuel efficient. The laws of physics mean that steam can’t even get close to that.

[@henrybn14ar]

In theory.

[@bluebellsalmon]

But that's not the point. No big diesel, however efficient, can ever be zero emission.

[@lloydevans2900]

If you mean the really big diesels, then yes. But we're talking here about the gigantic "cathedral" diesels used in massive container ships and even more massive oil tankers, where the engine itself is the size of a 3 storey building and literally has big steel staircases bolted to the side of it so maintenance workers can climb up from the crankcase to the cylinder heads. These have displacements measured in cubic metres, power outputs measured in megawatts and turbochargers larger than the biggest jet engines. They are essentially a working example of the economies of scale, proof that making a diesel engine larger is the most straightforward way to make it more efficient. In fact the only heat engine which achieves greater efficiency is a combined-cycle gas-fired power station, which runs big industrial gas turbines (usually burning natural gas, though they can run almost as well on LPG), which are themselves somewhere between 35% and 40% efficient on their own. The higher efficiency is gained by using the hot exhaust from the gas turbines to run thermal recovery boilers, which feed steam to an additional set of steam turbines. This can bring the overall efficiency up to approximately 55% - which is better than the enormous diesels, but not by all that much. Smaller diesels generally don't achieve much greater than 40% - certainly the largest diesels you can fit into a train are unlikely to manage any more than that.

[@erkinalp]

@@lloydevans2900 A large four stroke diesel that fits into a train gets about 40%, and a two stroke gets about 50%.

[@J50TerryProductions]

Wait, what? Wow! I am happy that steam is returning from a while now! Steam Engines is always my passion and one of the reasons I created my channel! Thanks for the video! Keep up the good work Terrier55Stepney!

[@TheTrueAdept]

It'll crash and burn since hydrogen is stated as a fuel source. If you look at hydrogen's stats, you'll discover that hydrogen is just that horrid when used in any other reaction other than nuclear.

[@Canadiansteamer43]

Steam engines: "haha, did you miss us bit-"

[@erikziak1249]

Another dead end. Not because of steam, but because of hydrogen. Creating, compressing (or even liquefying) hydrogen, then expanding and "burning" it is extremely wasteful. 80% of the energy is lost as heat to the environment. Storage of hydrogen is also a big issue. I bet on synthetic fuels, made from green hydrogen, without any storage or transportation of hydrogen itself. Synthetic fuels that can be distributed with the existing infrastructure and stored as easily and safely as fossil fuels will be the future. Costly, sure, but from a practical point of view much better. And certainly not worse than using hydrogen directly in terms of efficiency. Of course, the most efficient way will remain to install overhead wires and run directly on electricity. At least on main lines with frequent service.

[@MrToradragon]

I agree it would be better to produce some synthetic fuels from hydrogen and then use those in rest of the economy. On the other hand it should not be methane as that is also a greenhouse gas. So perhaps synthetic methanol or propane and butane should be produced.

[@eekee6034]

I'm sure they can use the waste heat from compressing the hydrogen. Innovations like that have been around for a long time. I'm sure a lot of the naysaying around new technology comes from old technology leaders who know perfectly well that the problems they're describing are easily solved, but want to manipulate the public into taking their side.

[@erikziak1249]

@@eekee6034 The laws of thermodynamics are the limiting factor, not technology.

[@__-fm5qv]

@@MrToradragon I agree, it would be far more feasible if it were to run off of bio-fuels or synthetic carbon-neutral fuels instead as there is plenty of research happening into similar fuels in other industries (especially in the aerospace sector where we have very little alternatives to jet engines for medium to long haul flights). Though incidentally diesel engines should be able to run off of bio diesel or synthetic fuels also, so maybe its a somewhat mute point? Though a furnace will burn fuel cleaner than the combustion chamber of any ICE engine, just due to the fact the fuel has more time to burn.

[@MrToradragon]

@@__-fm5qv There are some issues with, at least gen I, biodiesel, like very poor efficiency of production. Another thing I would consider is that even thou there are some developments in field of synthetic fuels, i am not sure whether they will be able to cut down the costs to be at least on par with taxed diesel as 1 litre of diesel contains about 9 kWh of thermal energy, with price of about 1.6 € per litre, VAT included, it is some 0.17€ per kWh, thus about 170€ per MWh, I am really not sure that they will be able to get to this price even with latest development in field of CO2 harvesting, e.g. with it's extraction from seawater (tested quite recently in California) and hydrogen production (let's for now leave out discoveries of hydrogen rich natural gas and of pockets of pure hydrogen those now seem rather suitable for burning in small scale power plants, than for further processing and distribution). Another issue I see with thee E-fuels is that they will compete for energy with other types of storage and use, for example pump-storage, load shifting and even, in case of countries in central and Northern Europe, thermal storage that can easily by added to existing heating systems and possibly can accumulate energy for weeks of operation. So the e-fuels might not be an option in upcoming decades, if ever. As well the railway would be competing for the same fuels with aviation industry, military and other sectors of economy as well, and those seem to be less sensitive to the price of fuels, or are better at transferring those onto the customers. As well any liquid fuel on railway will soon face competition from battery hybrids.

[@theradialtank212]

We are indeed back on track

[@NitroIndigo]

I remembered when people said we'd have hydrogen-powered cars by the 2020s. I guess this is close enough?

[@allangibson8494]

We had hydrogen powered cars in 2010 - they were horribly inefficient (hydrogen is just too expensive to make - batteries are much cheaper for ranges below 800km).

[@Waskotorowy]

​@@allangibson8494nah bro you arent telling me hydrogen is expensive it is 70 percent of all matter

[@allangibson8494]

@@Waskotorowy SEPARATION is expensive. Hydrogen is present as combustion ASH. It’s like turning carbon dioxide into coal and oxygen - you have to inject more energy than you could possibly extract. Charging batteries is a more efficient use of the power required (unless the power is free AND you don’t have any batteries).

[@Dumbrarere]

@@allangibson8494 Hydrogen is also notoriously difficult to store long term (ask any rocket engineer who has worked on the Space Shuttle or even SLS) as a cryogenic material, and hideously explosive. A gasoline explosion is basically a flash fire that can easily be contained (assuming fire crews get there in a short timeframe). A hydrogen explosion would cost you an entire city block if it went up at a hydrogen refueling station.

[@Waskotorowy]

@@allangibson8494 ahhh, k

[@connormclernon26]

Would be funny to see a thomas the tank engine trainz thing where Diesel is still bragging about diesel being the future, and then finds out about steam being tried again.

[@shootyboi2206]

Even better if the engine being converted was spam can The ultimate irony…

[@AbbeyYard]

​@@shootyboi2206"I thought you said steam engines spoiled our image!" "I did!"

[@shootyboi2206]

@@AbbeyYard well said

[@connormclernon26]

@@shootyboi2206or, since there was a thing about a Class 08 being converted, it’s diesel himself getting converted to steam

[@TheRedFloofball_Foxy]

@@connormclernon26that’s hydrogen fuel not a steam engine

[@MidlandProductions]

someone from wyvern rail must of saw victor tanzig non-fictional steam-diesel conversion and thought "let's give this ago"

[@emilioi.valdez6680]

Say Terrier, I was wondering if you heard of Sam Mackwell and his efforts to bring back steam in New Zealand. He doesn't have much on his KZbin channel but he does have a working boiler that utilitizes Advanced Steam principles as developed by L.D. Porta. He's planning on using the technology for farming, especially since he designed his boiler for biofuels, wood, and bagasse.

[@Handyman1199]

Instead of turning Hydrogen into Steam, why not use the Electricity we’d use to make the Hydrogen directly with electric locomotives? It’s much more efficient, you’d just need to build more overhead wires

[@davidty2006]

Hmmm. And in theory should be easier to convert a former DE into a full electric, just replace the engine and generator with a transformer and add some batteries.

[@RoamingAdhocrat]

but... but... building infrastructure requires government spending and a degree of central planning? whereas a loco driven by bionic duckweed can be dreamed up and demonstrated by a couple of eccentrics in a shed as a private venture

[@Handyman1199]

@@RoamingAdhocrat and any decent human can tell that this isnt how things should work. We are in a global climate crysis and its the job of the government to do all it can to lessen the issues itll cause, to protect us and our children from droughts, tornados, forest fires, floods and so on. If a politician thinks "lets just wait and see what the private sector comes up with" or "just slap battery electric trains and busses on the rails and roads" then its a simple way out for them to pretend to care about climate instead of working on it

[@bluebellsalmon]

The reason for trying steam generators and turbines over fuel cells is because they will provide more power per unit weight, and that's important in a big loco. Clearly if you could electrify the entire railway you wouldn't need diesels or hydrogen locos. But that'll take decades.

[@ffrederickskitty214]

All very interesting, but the best way forward is always going to be electrification. Nothing, short of rocket propulsion, will accelerate a vehicle like electric motors will. Instant, flat torque curve that no piston or turbine-based system can match, and with no need for gearing. Keep up the research though.

[@enchantereddie]

2:42 Space shuttles burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and produce huge amount of heat and water in the form of steam. So they are steam powered. Change my mind.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

You missed out one of the major reasons why dieselisation was rushed, one that is always overlooked, the Clean Air Act of 1956 which imposed fines on anyone burning coal and releasing excessive smoke into the atmosphere in a clean air zone. This applied equally to British Rail steam locom9tives as it did the owner of a factory. This meant any plans for phased withdrawal of steam were scrapped and untested diesel locomotives were ordered.

[@MrJoeyWheeler]

That in and of itself was an absurd piece of legislation that should never have come to pass to begin with.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@MrJoeyWheeler oh, so you're a fan of killer smogs and not being able to breathe clean air?

[@d3str0i3r]

gentle reminder that nuclear IS steam, just with an extra step, the nuclear fuel superheats pressurized water, the superheated water runs through a coil of tubes to heat more water that turns into steam, and the steam powers a turbine that generates electric power if we want to be really clean, compressed air engine, pull a vacuum in one air tank, pressurize another air tank, let the pressurized air run through the engine to generate electric to power the train, we don't even necessarily need to stop pressurizing the high pressure tank after we've used everything from the vacuum tank, if we want to be really fancy, we can fill the high pressure tank with something like liquid nitrogen, and as it warms up the high pressure escaping nitrogen can run the train pros: simple, clean, can theoretically run ANY engine that doesn't apply direct mechanical power, highlights the fact that anything that doesn't burn fossil fuels is technically a battery locomotive, as it is charged with electric, given a low voltage onboard compressor it can extend its own range and draw on the grid to "refuel" itself, saves weight versus batteries cons: range and power, has probably been tried before but those were before modern materials, modern tolerances, and computers, ultimately has never been given a fair test but the fact there's been any testing is going to discourage investors from giving it an updated honest trial

[@donaldscottishengine]

THE AGE OF STEAM IS BACK

[@michaelmcnally2331]

Load of hot air. Just stick the wires up and say that as a steam fan. These won’t be steam locomotives in any sense that steam fans want. If going to call these steam locomotives then nuclear powered submarines and carriers should also be called steam as the nuclear power plants generate heat to boil water, which generates steam. Pre WW2 then the big 4 were all looking at moving away from steam as they realised wasn’t the future. UK stuck with new steam after WW2 as infrastructure intact and had a ready supply of coal, whereas diesel or electric would have cost a fortune to move too and would need to import oil etc. Just go electric wires and be done with it and central electric generation.

[@reubyrides8962]

Yep. Just build wires. Hot air indeed.

[@highloughsdrifter1629]

Maybe add generator cars where external power isn't available, trains are inherently modular. Motor per wheel (or even linear motors in the track...) and the whole concept of "locomotive" starts to look obsolete. Rail vehicles should be the easiest to make autonomous, so we don't need a place for the driver to sit.

[@traincrazymotive]

why does everyone forget about the ACE-3000?

[@sBinotto-dg4rn]

In addition to this engine, there's the company down in New Zealand who're trying to make a waste biomass-burning locomotive, that uses a new kind of boiler/steam generator that combines a bunch of efficiency technologies, developed during the dying days of steam. I think that particular project's big limitation is the piston-cylinder engine they're using for their bogies, but the boiler tech sounds somewhat promising. They claim it's carbon-neutral, in theory. I await that particular company's prototype, to see how it performs in reality.

[@Deepthought-42]

15:18 You fell into the old schoolboy trap :“Which is heavier ? A pound of feathers or a pound of lead?”

[@sandorrabe5745]

Maybe what he means to say is that 140 pounds of hydrogen "fuel" does not seem like a lot, compared to a 140 pounds of diesel, but in reality it would take up the same amount of volume as a full load of diesel for this loco?

[@mattsmocs3281]

This man never heard of the ACE 3000 or the Big John, the PRR S2, or the yellow bellies...

[@IDKstudious]

SHUT UP-

[@joshslater2426]

It’s amazing to think that steam could be making a comeback. I’ll take a steam loco over a diesel/electric any day of the week. It’d blow me away if a concept akin to the Bulleid Leader ends up being a success.

[@HenrikofEldenbright]

i guess you could say steam never ended it just took a long vacation

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

If you are burning hydrogen to make the steam, the temperature will be so high that this is effectively a gas turbine. This will have the same problem as other gas turbines of not operating efficiently when not at its optimal design speed and load, mitigated by the use of 4 of them so that you can start with 1 turbine, and then switch on others as requirements increase. It will also not be emission-free, because combustion of hydrogen makes a hot enough flame to produce nitrogen oxides unless you go to the trouble of separating the oxygen in the air away from the nitrogen, which would require much additional equipment, which would be heavy and consume some of the power, and would also make the combustion temperature even higher so that exotic materials would be needed to stay solid. If you are going to use hydrogen, it would be better to use it in fuel cells, which can operate with reasonable efficiency under varying load. However, the use of hydrogen is itself problematic: Although fuel cells themselves have efficiency that somewhat exceeds the best internal combustion engines, when you multiply this by the efficiency of generation of hydrogen by electrolysis of water, the overall efficiency becomes fairly low, meaning that even if you did convert hydrogen production to use renewable energy, you would need a lot more renewable energy than if you used the renewable energy as electricity. Also, hydrogen is hard to store and transport, because it has a very low boiling point and critical point, so that if you liquify it, you use about 1/3 of its energy content to run the refrigeration (and that is before considering the need for ongoing refrigeration to prevent boiloff. If you don't liquify it, you need extremely strong and heavy tanks to store it at high pressure, or to combine it with other substances which add a comparable amount of weight, and then consume some energy when you need to pry the hydrogen back out of them. Hydrogen is composed of molecules so small that they are even able to leak through some solid materials. So you would be better off building more railway electrification infrastructure and using the electricity directly, which is much more efficient and requires less renewable energy investment than what you would need with a hydrogen intermediate. So never mind steam locomotives -- the entire hydrogen economy concept is a pre-ordained fail, except for the subset of industrial processes that specifically need hydrogen.

[@benlewis4241]

Great post, but make sure you paragraph it!

[@nickwinn7812]

Not so. Just because your hydrogen flame will be hotter than a coal flame does not make the steam hotter. It depends how much energy you are transferring from the burnt fuel to the water. All modern steam turbines are in effect gas turbines because the steam is not only completely dry but it is also superheated and therefore a gas. Steam turbines offer flexibility over the way they deliver power compared to gas turbines which burn the fuel in the turbine itself, because in the latter, the efficiency of the burn is very much determined by the speed of the engine and the amount of compression given to the incoming air by the compression stages of the turbine. Steam turbines, of course, only have expansion stages, and the combustion is managed entirely separately to the moving parts of the turbine.

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

@@nickwinn7812 From the video, it sounded like the water vapor from combustion would be directly used in the turbine. But supposing it wasn't, then you lose efficiency, because the efficiency of a heat engine depends upon the difference between the hot part and the cold part.

[@nickwinn7812]

@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio No, the efficiency of a heat engine depends upon the heat transfer between the hot part and the cooler part, both sensible and latent heat. You get a very high rate of heat exchange at the change of phase from liquid to vapour, with no change in temperature for example. Heat transfer depends on temperature difference, pressure, the properties of the fluid being heated and the properties of the boundary material (thermal resistance, surface area etc.). Not solely on the temperature difference. The secondary heat exchanger of a condensing gas boiler for example, is very efficient because the vapour in the exhaust gases condense out onto the heat exchanger, transferring both sensible heat and (much more) latent heat, all at around 50 degrees C.

[@robertpeters9438]

I like the molecular hydrogen paste compound technology idea.

[@DillianTrainzStudios]

BOYS WAKE UP BRITISH RAIL IS BRINGING BACK STEAM

[@chairinthewoodsllc]

“The BOYS are back in town, boys back in town.” -The Boys-

[@awesomekidstv5290]

we are back steam team

[@fremenondesand3896]

Madness. We have steam power at home, with stationary power stations. Deliver the power via overhead cables and have clean filtration at the stationary generator, or use nuclear. We have thorium. It's an order of magnitude more abundant than uranium and it's a waste product of granite quarrying in Cornwall.

[@sithlord6119]

What we could even do, is put the steam turbine in a central location, and connect its electrical output with wires directly to the trains...

[@thestormcrafter]

„All major advances in technology come down to new interesting ways to boil water.“ - I think someone smart said that once.

[@Bulbasaur617]

Well this is an epic history for steam engines. Can't wait to see where this turn out.

[@HamStrains]

Steamed Hams?

[@MarckbryanBalang]

@@HamStrains yessh

[@Combes_]

*_SEYMOUR!_*

[@ukaszwalczak1154]

@@Combes_ SUPERINTENDENT, i was just, uh, ju- just stretching my calves on the windowsill, isometric exercise! Care to join me?

[@TheSudrianStoryteller]

All though it's an intriguing idea, it wouldn't surprise me. It probably would end up not doing so good. It reminds me much of the cancelled ACE (American Coal Enterprise) 3000 Series Project where they attempted to bring steam locomotives back due to the fuel economy and the cold war. Coal ended up being reduced to cheap prices again and steam was considered to be phased out much too quickly at that time in America. The idea this group's attempt is so much different from that of the ACE project, as they wanted to create a steam locomotive that is featured with modern technology such as a boiler that is controlled by using a computer, and using diesel locomotive body designs to be the main body casing for both ends to lessen the need of a turntable for it. But it ended up being cancelled as no-one was interested in it, and that the oil pricing eventually dropped back down as the biggest nail in the coffin. Thus the prototype was never built, as a result. All ready nitpicky issues with the cancelled project and its design started to unfold in today's age for how it wouldn't work out back then compared to now. Railfans are sure to complain about this conventional project as well. Even if it looks exciting to see being pulled off. We can't know for certain what the outcome would be if they eventually get by with solving the problems from the past or if this would be a success at all. We'll just have to wait and see what the outcome will be before we jump to any conclusions.

[@Shipwright1918]

If it succeeds, it would be a proof of the old adage "what's old is new again".

[@paxvictori2385]

Wow and I thought American railroads were bending over backwards and doing everything they could to not do the obvious next step in rail traction which is just putting up wires for electric trains. Honestly I do see a future in steam power but honestly that's just in the context of what the 5AT was doing, expanding on the traditional stephensonian locomotive mainly to keep heritage steam going. Maybe also what the Mackwell company in New Zealand with energy sovereignty are doing but that's non-railway stuff. There are also a handful of modern steam locomotives around, mostly rebuilds like the red devil or DLMs Kreigslok but there are a few newbuilds, those all of course are still traditional steam engines though. Honestly I don't really see the point in New steam for revenue service, even if diesels have their flaws the answer isn't steam engines and honestly diesels were never the answer either. The future is electric and has been since the New York Central ran the first electric hauled train in 1899 the rail companies just don't wanna commit due to the large upfront cost of installing overhead wires or third rail.

[@JamesJohnson-pb1ph]

We're back baby!

[@drewzero1]

Note that while the loco at 3:55 appears to have pantographs *and* a boiler, it is purely an electric locomotive and the boiler-shaped tube actually houses a massive set of transformer windings.

[@pedroanardi]

I don't think creating the infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen would be that much cheaper than just electrifying the whole network

[@traingameiacs]

now this I did not expect

[@TM_LNER]

When he said that steam engines needed to cease, i was a little cross at that comment, but no one cares what he said, long live the age of old steam engines🚂🚂🚂

[@LexieAssassin]

I just have to ask, WHY?! I'm a steam fan, but it just makes SO MUCH more sense to just electrify the railroad and use electric locomotives instead of going through the hassle of generating and storing hydrogen and then using that to generate steam to turn turbines. Esp. since to get hydrogen, you either get it from fossil fuels or electrolysis which takes tons of power when compared to the energy you get out. It's up there imo with battery locos.

[@henrybn14ar]

Unless there are at least a few trains an hour, it isn't worth putting up the wires, and it makes the railway unreliable.

[@richardschild1640]

If I look at the needed added infrastruckture, and facilities, I cant imagine this going to be a sucses, the fact that diesel traction is even still a thing is actually mindbogling.. And no im not a hater here, I'm actually A steam engine Driver and enigineer.

[@marksaunderson3042]

A deisel or electric loco is just a box, on wheels, that moves. A steam loco is a work of moving art. They did not design it so it worked, they designed it so you could see it work. Painting the wheels with stripes, making the pipes and other bits shiny. . Tuning it so it sounded nice. When it went past that did not want people to say ‘what the duck was that?’ While frowning and shaking their heads in disbelief , They wanted people to say ‘what the duck was that?” While looking at each other in disbelief as the working work of art went past.

[@andyhinds542]

I used to know a Stratford guard who was a fireman on Leader locos. It was utter hell working on them with no ventilation.

[@FunAngelo2005]

"You've become the verry thing you swore to destroy"

[@legdig]

Thank you for mentioning the cutting off of fuel for heritage railways for the sake of greenwashing.

[@pacificostudios]

One huge advantage of the proposed new "steam" locomotive is that installing hydrogen fueling stations is a much smaller problem than installing coaling stations, water tanks, and even track pans/troughs, ash pits, boiler shops, all along thousands of miles of route-miles.

[@peterharris3563]

The loco shown at the 3.59 mark wasn't an attempt at improving steam at all. It was an Austrian prototype electric freight loco, the long boiler like barrel contained a rotary converter used to provide a controlable DC supply from a fixed frequency AC supply. The Swiss locos shown later came about due to wartime coal shortages and reverted to as built condition after the war.

[@MacsensRailway]

Duck: who is revolutionary now? Diesel: well fu-

[@sudrianrailwaystudios676]

Great video, Max!

[@darkerrorcode]

It boggles the mind that someone alive today can be old enough to watch steam be phased out, diesel introduced, electric introduced, diesel phased out, steam re-introduced.

[@toyotaprius79]

Has someone finally figured out the complimentary nature of battery power and regen in tandem with high pressure steam? Hell electric preheating seemed like an obvious solution that BR ignored. I'm annoyed why it's happening now and not 15 years ago but I should be glad, right?

[@toyotaprius79]

Hydrogen is a bad bet. Difficult to stop leakages, low energy density and highly energy consumptive in manufacture. Either forcing water and gas to react at 700C, or use +50kWh and 9l of water for 1Kg of H2. It's not worth the effort compared to modern batteries.

[@peterwright4224]

So did you know in the80s SLM in winterthur Switzerland built hyper modern steam engines ?

[@flyingtardisOfficial]

loving the fact that new steam is becomming a thing also loving the fact that i'm not the only one to think about turning electric kettle technology into usable steam traction, not quite how i envisioned it but then battery technology of the time wasn't quite as advanced as it is now, considering electric car batteries are getting better and better, whats stopping in the future having large kettle elements inside existing steam engines, swapping the coal for batteries of a usable voltage, yet keeping steam engines looking as they should be

[@melodymonger]

Great video, very interesting. Thank you 🙏😊

[@vincentkuipers9577]

Expectation of 2024: Flying cars Reality: Steam.

[@markbradley9008]

Plot twist: in the year 2100 diesel locomotives make a comeback; and the Rolling Stones announce a new world tour

[@HIDLad001]

Kind of reminds me of the experimental “Steambus” that from the 1970s and was created to test steam engines in buses that could possibly reduce some of the pollution and smog in the Los Angeles valley. (See we knew about this stuff back in the 1970s) Nothing came of that, but we did get cleaner burning diesel buses and stricter emissions standards throughout California.

[@myriaddsystems]

Nothing has the sheer power and Low End Torque of a steam loco - much more than diesel

[@lukegreen5341]

6:21 Great Scotland Yard. It's LNER Gresley A4 Streamlined Pacific Sir Nigel Gresley A Bit Like Mallard From The National Railway Museum In York In Yorkshire. Thanks Mate. X❤

[@earlfreeman93]

It would be more efficient to power the locomotives with hydrogen fuel cells that to boil water with it.

[@spambot7110]

"hydrogen extraction can be non-ecofriendly" is a hell of an understatement. the only hydrogen production happening at scale, and the only production planned at scale in the foreseeable future, is all fossil fuel based. electrolysis is not economical primarily due to the energy cost, but also your electrodes and membranes and stuff are all consumable. but, lets imagine we pull off such a huge renewable transition that energy is cheap enough to make actual green hydrogen production practical. now your electrical energy is being converted into chemical energy through hydrolysis, plus a bunch more energy is thrown away to compress the hydrogen for transport, then you're burning the hydrogen to convert it into thermal energy, then you're using that thermal energy to spin a turbine, to generate electricity, to power an electric motor. the wildly optimistic end-to-end efficiency is gonna be what, 20%? 30%? and oops, at both ends of this convoluted chain of conversion, we have electricity. just put up some damn wires! overhead electrification solved this entire problem space, and it did so over a century ago. it's deployed, at scale, all over the world today. the only thing you need to deploy it is the political will to build environmentally friendly infrastructure, and defend it from sci-fi bullshit like this.

[@saltyroe3179]

Here in the USA things evolved differently than in Britain. 1st we copied British designs. Our environment was very different. In the USA: ‐ longer distances - higher altitudes - steeper grades - more expensive labor costs This resulted in locomotives evolving differently. The classic being the 4-4-0 American which was mostly fueled on wood. Wood was replaced by coal because it was more efficient, even though the coal was more expensive. The next big step was augers to deliver the coal to the engine without humans. This was followed by oil which was even easier to handle and more efficient. Steam turbines or try but we're overtaken by electrified lines and Diesel electric locomotives. By 1960 the last steam locomotive was taken out of regular Mainline service. Since then it has been a battle between diesel electric and electrified lines .

[@user-lt9py2pu6u]

British railway engineer H G Ivatt visited the States after WWII and was apparently impressed with some of the innovation that American engineers were applying to steam powered locomotives and may well have introduced them over here but the railways were nationalised around the same time and this inevitably led to government interference. Some locomotives were fitted with mechanical stokers but this was just before the decision was made to phase steam out in favour of diesel and electric traction so nothing much came of it.

[@barrie5852]

Lots of comments about the technical/engineering aspects of this post, I'm just happy to see a picture of Richard Trevithick as the engineer responsible for the 1st Steam locomotive to run on rails.

[@johnrobinson5156]

Where is the hydrogen coming from? The sun? Petroleum makes all current hydrogen supplies

[@andyhinds542]

What a superb video! Very informative and narrated by a human being with a personality and not AI. I, as a Freightliner driver look forward to the development of this new technology with great interest and enthusiasm.

[@233kosta]

The problem with hydrogen is that we can't just mine it. It has to be artificially produced. That process is not particularly efficient to begin with (about 10%), and basically has to be done next to its own dedicated nuclear power plant if it's to power anything bigger than a few heritage railways. Storage and transport issues exist, but those are solved with an adequate investment in the requisite infrastructure. Trouble is, it would cost about as much to build the power plant, pipelines and storage tanks as it would to just electrify the whole network and be done with it. This one might be consigned to heritage railways. Though saying that, if the rest of the infrastructure got properly cleaned up (highly unlikely, but one can dream), there would be a BUNCH of coal left for the heritage railways to burn, and they will do so at such a slow pace that it really doesn't matter on a global scale.

[@MashUpGames]

In an ideal world, we find an alternate, eco-friendly and sustainable way to run steam engines. But more than anything, I just want trains to look cool again!

[@henrybn14ar]

Just use light oil as the fuel. Emissions from rail are insignificant.

[@TheSillyFrog742]

“My death was, greatly exaggerated” - steam powered trains

[@johnjephcote7636]

I am pleased you included Bulleid's CIE Turf Burner. I did muse, back in the early 1970s using paraffin to fuel a small steam engine which would power a generator to fit inside a motor car.

[@danielsellers8707]

Sounds like the Stanley steam cars of the 1900s-1920s...

[@eekee6034]

* Burns hydrogen in oxygen, rather than air * Could be running for decades to come This could be the first rail locomotive on Mars! :D

[@jamesthomas5109]

I'd recommend the concept of the 5AT Advanced Technology Steam Locomotive for a futuristic Steam Locomotive idea. 😊

[@LBSC70]

I still seeing the article when it first came out I was in awe

[@AndreiTupolev]

I'd love to see someone be brave enough to build a new-build Leader with all the faults ironed out: boiler fired by vegetable oil, weight distribution sorted by siting the boiler centrally (since there'd be no need for a passageway along the loco with remote operation and oil firing), and with modern tolerances and manufacturing techniques there'd surely be no problem getting the sleeve valves to work reliably. The next project for Sheffield Park after the Brighton Atlantic? 🙃

[@FeckHallBahn]

Watching with interest. New subscriber here!

[@Al3ixhoveutot]

I think it's also interesting to note that something somewhat similar is being done in Spain. A minery railway closed in 2012 in Ponferrada is due to reopen in the coming years using hydrogen powered steam trains from the late 1910s.

[@BritishRail60062]

The Godfather of railway power is back. Whilst there is no coal involved this time around. A steam gas turbine Class 60 is doable. That said, how come other safe alternatives have not been considered? Thorium reactors and salt reactors are just as powerful as nuclear reactors but there is no dangerous radiation poisoning with those like there is with uranium and plutonium in the event of a leak. If Hydrogen is to to be used then would it be better to use fuel cells like that used on buses and cars? Just my thoughts on the matter. Anyway. I wish them well with this unique and intriguing project. EDIT: You might want to look up CPKC 1200 on here. That one has something similar to what will be done on a Class 60.

[@davidty2006]

Reactors are best when NOT moving around but instead sat in 1 place powering overhead wires to the train that feeds it.

[@ukaszwalczak1154]

Fun fact, Poland used steam till the 90s, despite the PKP's motorization plan[including diesel and electric locos/EMUs and DMUs] in the 50s and 60s aiming at the replacement of steam on the PKP. Was steam kept in service out of desperation? Yeah, somewhat, but then again, we also had a more successful electrification process than the UK, so, PKP 1, BR 0. Edit: At 15:30, WHERE IS THIS, I WANNA GO THERE-

[@soknightsam]

Kind of like the new "wind assisted" ships being developed lol

[@stanislavczebinski994]

As much as I like the idea - there are a few inherent problems with this design: - Turbines rev high - but have little torque. A gearbox changing that to low rev - high torque is naturally very inefficient - As mentioned - hydrogen is only green if generated by green sources. With today's tech, conversion losses are quite high - Converting existing engines are little less effort (and cost) than building new ones from scratch - As mentioned, rpms have to be changed a lot - turbines aren't ideal for that It's a lot easier to use modern Diesels (see DARPA engine) or to upgrade the existing ones. Keep the old block. Use new pistons, piston rods etc. with optimised geometry and made of modern alloys. Put on modern, flow-optimised cylinder heads with new valves, high-pressure injection, improve turbocharging with modern turbos, improve intercooling, add modern ECU. Optimize intake and exhaust system, add catalytic converters and particle filters. Furthermore, power can be boosted (and emissions improved) by adding LPG (needs separate tank and refueling) to the combustion. All in all, rail is naturally exponentially more efficient than trucks/lorries. The oldest and dirtiest train beats the most clean and efficient truck (even EV) hands down.

[@TheWacoKid1963]

1:37 "ahead of the 200th anniversary of railways" You do realise that two oldest surviving steam locos were built in 1813 & 1814 ie Puffing Billy & it's sister loco, Wylam Dilly? the oldest is 211 years old

[@jirislavicek9954]

It is not really a steam locomotive but turbine locomotive. Also that Swiss steam shunter with pantograph was an emergency wartime measure. Switzerland was importing all its coal, which was very scarce during World War II. On the other hand it had plentiful electric energy from hydroelectric dams. So they converted the steam boiler into electric boiler.

[@Necro3Monk]

General way to understand engines and locomotives: -Source of energy. Could be chemicals that react, could be nuclear (in theory, trains obviously don't use this outside some experimental things), could be electricity from wires, flywheels, springs, or other mechanical energy sources, etc. -Convert that energy into something that can drive wheels. Could be a heat source + steam system, could be an internal combustion engine for some fuels, a battery or fuel cell for some chemicals. Outside electricity skips this step. -The thing that actually pushes the train. Electric motors, gears or drive bars, that sort of thing. A good locomotiove system will convert energy efficiently, not be too expensive to build, be able to work well at different speeds, be easily maintained, not pollute too much, produce a lot of power, and others I'm forgetting. Obviously there are tradeoffs between these, an actual choice depends on what the trains will be used for, but all else equal more of these are better. Hydrogen to steam system has to compete with different types of internal combustion engines (if theburned frdrogen powers a turbine directly instead of being condensed and reheated, it is just a gas turbine with steam heavy exhaust. Nitrogen and other air gases are presumably still there) and fuel cells as other options, and these are almost certainly more fuel efficient, piston engines can handle lots of different speeds, if the system is engine-electric (like current diesel electric locomotives) different speeds needed is somewhat of a moot point (depending on how the electric system is designed.), and these things either already exist with a little development needed, or are well on their way to being developed. Possibly, the burned hydrogen directly powers pistons like your traditional steam engine (The video didn't seem to explain this well), but burning other types of fuel could already have been used this way and was not, suggesting it isn't a great way to run an engine. Will want to look this up to see how it is actually powered.

[@DrBovdin]

Also, we could argue that steam never really left traction effort on our railways - Any electrically operated railway will receive, if not all, at least a significant amount from turbogenerators at a thermal power station. Thus, a large proportion of French trains ale in fact nuclear powered, with a steam Rankine cycle turning the generator 😉

[@keinasmith1518]

I live in The US but I would love to see more steam locomotives build

[@haphappy266]

STEAM IS BACK AND I KNEW IT WOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!