Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,682
- Dec 6, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Boiler design is not that simple. If you look at locomotive designed for low quality coal the fireboxes are enormousIMO, it would've been better.
German access to a good coal - even if it was not perfect coal - was much greater than it was their access to any liquid fuel. Ironically, their access to the coal was improving as Germany was gobbling up the territory. Any boiler design for the steam truck should have the quality of the coal in mind in the time the back-of-the-napkin stage is in.
Nobody said that the boiler design is a simple thing. Start designing and testing ASAP, and then apply the lessons learned.Boiler design is not that simple. If you look at locomotive designed for low quality coal the fireboxes are enormous
The British had the advantage of access to Welsh coal which was world renowned for its quality. It typically had a higher heating value of 14,500 btu/lb. If you substitute sub bituminous which has a HHV of 10,000 at best you you have to carry around 50% more coal, reducing your payload. The boiler will be bigger and heavier further reducing the payload. Finally the boiler efficiency is reduced by the high moisture content of the sub bituminous coals requiring yet more coal. Forget about lignite.
Higher taxes and speed limits than what gasoline had.The British steam lorries fell out of use in the 1930s because people were not buying them. Economics not government policy.
Road steam disappeared through becoming uneconomical to operate, and unpopular with British governments. By 1921, steam tractors had demonstrated clear economic advantages over horse power for heavy hauling and short journeys. However, petrol lorries were starting to show better efficiency and could be purchased cheaply as war surplus; on a busy route a 3-ton petrol lorry could save about £100 per month compared to its steam equivalent, in spite of restrictive speed limits, and relatively high fuel prices and maintenance costs.[1]
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s successive governments placed tighter restrictions on road steam haulage, including speed, smoke and vapour limits[2], and a 'wetted tax', where the tax due was proportional to the size of the wetted area of the boiler; this made steam engines less competitive against domestically-produced internal combustion engined units (although imports were subject to taxes of up to 33%).
As a result of the Salter Report on road funding, an 'axle weight tax' was introduced in 1933 in order to charge commercial motor vehicles more for the costs of maintaining the road system, and to do away with the perception that the free use of roads was subsidising the competitors of rail freight. The tax was payable by all road hauliers in proportion to the axle load; it was particularly damaging to steam propulsion, which was heavier than its petrol equivalent.[3]
Initially, imported oil was taxed much more than British-produced coal, but in 1934 Oliver Stanley, the Minister for Transport, reduced taxes on fuel oils while raising the Road Fund charge on road locomotives to £100 pounds a year, provoking protests by engine manufacturers, hauliers, showmen and the coal industry. This was at a time of high unemployment in the mining industry, when the steam haulage business represented a market of 950,000 tons of coal annually. The tax was devastating to the businesses of heavy hauliers and showmen, and precipitated the scrapping of many engines.[4]
Diesel Engine efficiency is 38% for 1940s, Gasoline 26% for stuff that is roadboundLow grade fuels (solid or liquid) should be used in rear areas were it is easy to replenish fuel due to short trips. Using low grade fuel for moving long distance can mean doubling the amount (tonnage) of fuel used for long distance traveled which means less cargo actually moved (might be only 1-2 coal wagons per trip?).
If this was the case, how did the Eastern US Railroads ever move a ton of cargo when green softwood was frequently used to cut costs from the 1840s to 1870s? Lignite is awesome compared dried wood, let alone green.Finally the boiler efficiency is reduced by the high moisture content of the sub bituminous coals requiring yet more coal. Forget about lignite.
Very interesting, informative.My original info
A 124 HP Sentinel Steam wagon, using 1890s technology, uses 4.3 gallons of water and 7.4 lb. of Bituminous coal(12,000BTU/lbs) per mile. Lignite is a bit more needed. 6 ton payload Top speed 30mph.
So to move 6 tons of cargo 40 miles, that's 175 Gallons of water, 300 pounds of coal and an hour and 20 minutes of time to get to the destination
OK, use Lignite, 5000BTU instead. 720 pounds of fuel consumed, vs 300 for Bituminous Coal. Not a big hit on the 6 ton cargo load.
@ the knowledgeable people here - what was the % of the end products of the German synthetic fuel processes? IOW, besides the different 'useful' hydro-carbonates (in what percentages?), what else was there in the 'exit'?
You can find some information in the German article on the Bergius process on Wikipedia. Generally, I would recommend the German sources on the subject as the most comprehensive. But the question is asked in such a form that I doubt that it can be adequately answered to satisfy the person who asked it.I've wondered the same myself, but haven't been able to find anything from the time period.