I have to come clean and admit I speak from an enthusiast's point of view. However my interest has always been more in the technological history side and when I try to analyse it all I am fascinated by systems. When I first started regularly using the net I soon found out that there were new steam projects of all kinds in the wind: railway, marine, road transport etc. The article by the Swiss engineer Roger Waller was one of the first I came across; the other was the Australian, Ted Pritchard's site where he described his steam car development in the 1960s and 70s. He really took it a long way, but as he depended on state support, funding finally fizzled out in 1978. However he was invited to the United States with his modified Ford Falcon where notably it underwent emissions tests giving the lowest figures recorded up to that time, and this due to the intrinsic technology and not to add-ons of the type needed for IC engines.

Waller in his article, although using the radically different Stephensonian technology was claiming similar results - as did Porta. The real advantages from the emissions point of view are drastically reduced CO carbon monoxide and NOx emissions. So I thought it was worth looking into further.

Yes, the steam locomotive is a very beautiful dynamic object, and when when actually in steam almost a living being and I will be the last person to deny that. However I am not conducting a "bring-back-the-steam-locomotive" campaign as such. I sincerely believe however that in the present world situation all types of technology should be given a fair crack of the whip and objectively assessed - and we should hurry up about it.

The great advantage of the steam process to my mind is that power production is separate from power delivery. In an IC engine the two actions are combined in an "ultra short" process which demands that to deliver power the engine must turn at a minimum speed; this in turn demands various transmission devices. Steam on the other hand is a "long" process: the heat source boils water and makes steam, generally used by the cylinders to apply power directly to the wheel-rim, moreover it is effective from 0 rpm. (This is why I think that using electric drive whilst feasible is a waste of time as it throws away one of the main advantages of steam). Theoretically the process is less thermally efficient, as there are more opportunities for losses between each stage. People like Chapelon and Porta identified these losses that were long underestimated, showed how they can be minimised. This to my mind was their biggest contribution although they Chapelon also studied structure, vehicular behaviour - Porta tribology...

Separating the heat process from power delivery means that:
a) a wide variety of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels may be burnt with little or no modification.
b) combustion efficiency can be maximised more or less independently of power demands (with intermittent burners it would become completely independent), which is what gives the low emissions. Porta achieved this with coal through use of a thick low-temperature firebed with a quantity of steam injected to keep the heat at cherry-red (about 700°C). That's why he avoided the conventional white-hot fire.

As for "might-have-been", the problem is that it is a highly-charged word that for some people might imply failure. Also I am a bit touchy about steam being considered a thing of the past. I would prefer "might still be".

John of Paris