PRR Duplexes and Experimental Engines ( S1, S2, T1, Q1, V1 etc.)

30665 views
487 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, August 18, 2018 4:28 PM

Overmod

Likewise, some form of Deem geared conjugation might be considered, and this in conjunction with a Langer balancer is by far the 'best' solution to the issue of conjugation in general.  You'd still need some form of Ferguson-clutch arrangement between the engines, as rigid gearing would rapidly wear and die.

I read your msg again tonight, Overmod. I wonder if the "elastic gear" used on PRR S2 Turbine’s driving wheels axle; a design base on GG1’s driving wheel could apply on Q1 or not!


A brand new engine which could tow 125 cars at 10000 tons at higher speed like Q1 really shouldn't be wasted. moreover, it was one of the most handsome freight engine Pennsy ever had.Stick out tongue
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 718 posts
Posted by Backshop on Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:46 PM

Miningman

Baloney! The development of the Diesel engine was true enough but it was 2 and half times costlier to purchase up front. Very expensive. Sizable fleets of Centipedes, Passenger Sharks Bp20's, FM opposed piston entries, Alco PA1's, RF-16 Sharks, even FA1's were a total waste of money and were junk in short order and that after sizeable maintenance headaches, costs, breakdowns and delays. 

Roundhouse backstops could rebuild, fix and repair steam locomotives quickly and efficiently. Pennsy and NYC would have done better to do exactly what you state the N&W did...hold out until bullitproof proven Diesel locomotives became available, even longer. 

They succumbed to pressure from a societal direction that was eager for a new world of massive consumerism and easy credit was waved in front of their faces especially by EMD. It was image, style over substance. It did nothing to save them at all, not a thing. 

 

You ignore how much money was saved in maintenance, infrastructure and wages.  No more doubleheading, no more boiler washes, no more coaling towers and ashpits.  One or two system backshops instead of one per division or region.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, August 18, 2018 4:57 AM

Overmod

It's interesting to consider designing a set of what would by that time have been tandem rods connecting the two driver pairs.  These might have to be somewhat less in section than an equivalent 4-10-4 due to the divided drive cylinders, much as the PLM 2-10-2 from 1930 was, and the incremental balance weighting should have been accommodated in the 77" driver centers.  But you still have the augment of a 10-coupled engine together with all the 'additional' moments of the mains, crosshead momenta, etc. that now act strictly in phase; not really much point in running numbers as you get less, not more result for the complexity.

Thank you very much for the instructive respond, Overmod. Before I ask this question, I know that any modification apply on the original Q1 design would course new problems. But sometimes, or many times when I am watching video about steam locomotive serving or served in developing countries like India for example, I always amazed that people living there with limited resources, cherish everything they have in hand, including steam engines they have.They served them like a queen, and used them for a very long period. PRR’s duplexes were not lucky enough to have such treatment.  

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, August 18, 2018 4:03 AM
100% understand your point, Todd. But hey, let keep beating the dead horse before it is completely forgotten by the new generation, like those fabulous early steam locomotives and sleepers in 1800s.Stick out tongue
 
Speaking of EMC and EMD, they beat all steam power engine development with their simple, straight forward, standardized mechanical design and lower operation and maintenance cost (depend on which type of locomotive to compare of), but even EMD can’t stop the decline of the State’s passenger train service. 
 
Another reason of why I keep beating the dead horse is that I felt a bit indignant about what happened in the railroad industry in late-40s. 
 
We had PRR’s duplexes which can run 120-130mph for dozen miles constantly but we didn’t have a chance to built something like HST( InterCity 125 High Speed Train )in UK which can constantly run at a regular service speed of 125 mph. ( Except Amtrak Northeast Corridor; Travel time from NYC to Chi-town would be shortened to 7.5 hours)
 
We also didn’t know what would happen if PRR didn’t abandon all steam power development like the duplexes and direct-drive steam turbine and the V1 project. Some great design like the GE steam turbine locomotives deserved a review and further development……As a train buff, a model collector, it is really hard for me to not beating these dead horses. Smile, Wink & Grin
 
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, August 18, 2018 3:02 AM

Baloney! The development of the Diesel engine was true enough but it was 2 and half times costlier to purchase up front. Very expensive. Sizable fleets of Centipedes, Passenger Sharks Bp20's, FM opposed piston entries, Alco PA1's, RF-16 Sharks, even FA1's were a total waste of money and were junk in short order and that after sizeable maintenance headaches, costs, breakdowns and delays. 

Roundhouse backstops could rebuild, fix and repair steam locomotives quickly and efficiently. Pennsy and NYC would have done better to do exactly what you state the N&W did...hold out until bullitproof proven Diesel locomotives became available, even longer. 

They succumbed to pressure from a societal direction that was eager for a new world of massive consumerism and easy credit was waved in front of their faces especially by EMD. It was image, style over substance. It did nothing to save them at all, not a thing. 

  • Member since
    February 2007
  • 141 posts
Posted by 3rd rail on Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:18 AM

I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but ONE of the problems with the PRR Duplexes was more duplicate (hence the name),  equipment to maintain. ( 4 cylinders doing the work of 2). (4 sets of rods doing the work of 2.) However, That is not what killed the PRR modern steam experimentals.. Oh no.. At the same time that was going on, there was a group of men working with Winton 2-cycle diesel engines connected to big DC generators.  That soon turned into EMC, later known as EMD, and the rest, as they say, is history.. Can't compete with a unit that has almost no down time, and has a monthly, instead of hourly, maintainance window. 

 

I love steam, I'll say that Norfolk & Western being married to coal, held onto their super Y-6's 'till 1960. But even then, they had to succumb to the EMD 567 wave. 

Funny now, these days a GP-9 seems a relic. When was the last time you saw one on the head of a mainline hot-shot? 

It's all relative to when you were born I suppose. The young kids today will soon look at an SD-70 and have the same melancholy that us old-timers have for the engines that we remember from our youth. 

 

Todd 

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,483 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, August 17, 2018 2:57 PM

Jones1945
Hello all. Do you think linking the 3rd and 4th set driver with a pair of rods would have saved the PRR Q1 or at least let her served more and longer? That would make it a 4-10-4 “Duplex” (?). Some books remain neutral about the performance of Q1, many books say it was a completely failure (I believe it was).

The Q1 was already lethally impaired by being an oddball one-off that didn't produce enough incremental power to justify all the construction expense (and maintenance complications).

It's interesting to consider designing a set of what would by that time have been tandem rods connecting the two driver pairs.  These might have to be somewhat less in section than an equivalent 4-10-4 due to the divided drive cylinders, much as the PLM 2-10-2 from 1930 was, and the incremental balance weighting should have been accommodated in the 77" driver centers.  But you still have the augment of a 10-coupled engine together with all the 'additional' moments of the mains, crosshead momenta, etc. that now act strictly in phase; not really much point in running numbers as you get less, not more result for the complexity.

Considering Withuhn conjugated duplexing, a 'solution' might have been achieved with inside cranks and a pair of quartered conjugating rods putting the two engines either in antiphase balance or 135-degree 'torque optimizing' at eight peaks per revolution.  How practical it would be to make up the necessary frame, bearing, etc. modifications would involve much more detailed knowledge of the locomotive's construction than I have obtained; there are, I think, more substantial difficulties than for the ACE3000 (and many of the ACE3000s potential issues were, to put it charitably, more than a little glossed over, such as how driver-axle roller bearings would be implemented in practice on the two center driving axles...)

Likewise, some form of Deem geared conjugation might be considered, and this in conjunction with a Langer balancer is by far the 'best' solution to the issue of conjugation in general.  You'd still need some form of Ferguson-clutch arrangement between the engines, as rigid gearing would rapidly wear and die.

Naturally, some form of applied traction control would work far better than conjugation for most of the observed 'issues' with running a Q1 in anticipated 5/4ths-of-a-M1 service on head end express/mail services (the only sort of thing that made sense for it as designed, a strictly passenger engine "needing" to be 80" or larger in the PRR pipe-dream design continuum of that era, but I digress...) and for this the likeliest approach would be to provide cheek plates for the independent driver brakes and implement them as air-over-hydraulic lateral calipers with comparatively small running gap between pads and faces.  Note that much of the 'loss' involved with using these even in full contact at starting or low speed is actually 'reversible' - think of it as expansion of the steam that doesn't happen as quickly as in 'equilibrium' with unrestrained acceleration - and you may benefit more than proportionally from thermodynamic "improvements" that decrease wall condensation, tract losses, etc. when the physical dwell of the steam per stroke is longer.  (Naturally most workable forms of "jacketing" principle could be considered here).   Likewise, using four Wagner 'throttles' in the four tracts would allow realtime 'trim' of one engine relative to the other even if only one common front-end throttle were provided for the locomotive itself -- and this could be arranged with the control technologies and methods available at that time.  (Note that the arrangement to be used on T1 5550 involves a similar modulation of independent brake acting on the driver brakeshoes and rigging, which is a slower-acting and more constrained version of traction control but that should be adequate for both low- and high-speed slip on that locomotive in any prospective service.)

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, August 17, 2018 7:26 AM

Hello all. Do you think linking the 3rd and 4th set driver with a pair of rods would have saved the PRR Q1 or at least let her served more and longer? That would make it a 4-10-4 “Duplex” (?). Some books remain neutral about the performance of Q1, many books say it was a completely failure (I believe it was).

But money already spent, the engine with 90000 TE was already there, PRR should have maxed out the use of this prototypes if small modifications could make the train run more than merely 65000 miles (1942-1946), it still worth a try.

Q1 was suffered from wheel slip of its rear engines, linking two set of engines together with a pair of rods might solve the wheel slip problem, but it was impossible to relocate the rear cylinders to a “cleaner” place or to make the firebox larger. Please feel free to share your thought! Thumbs Up

Tags: Q1
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, August 17, 2018 5:48 AM

M636C

 

 
timz
 
Jones1945
"Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

 

Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?

 

 

The Germans tended to use gradients in "per thousand", one tenth of a "percent" grade. I suspect that the load quoted was on a 0.8 percent grade.

Peter 

 
I was right. On page 98 of "German War Locomotives 1939-1945" the specification for the "third War Locomotive" is set out. It was to haul a train of 1700 (metric) tons on a grade of 8 per thousand, 0.8 percent.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, August 17, 2018 3:55 AM

M636C

 

The book I mentioned above "War Locomotives 1939-1945" contains a production diagram. For two months in 1943, 505 locomotives were being completed per month. I don't think EMD ever reached that level, for example. On the other hand, Baldwin Lima and Alco must have built a lot of locomotives in 1942-1945, too.
 
Peter
 

FYI,

Number of orders received from 1942 to 1945 in America were as follow:

Steam locomotive: 363,413,74,148 (Total=998) 

Diesel:894,635,680,691 (Total=2900)

Electrict: 12,0,3,6 (Total=21)

 

Number of locomotive built from 1942 to 1945 in America:

1047,936,1012,1171 (Total=4166)

(These figures courtesy Railway Ages and Railway Mechanical Enginner)

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, August 17, 2018 1:33 AM

Baldwin, Lima and Alco continued to build steam locomotives and some Diesel switchers over the war but they were also tasked with building tanks, artillery pieces and other wartime military needs. The Baldwin  Sante Fe 4-8-4's, the Alco Big Boys and many other notables were produced during the war. The Pennsy 2-10-4's J1's and the C&O Alleghenies, B&O EM-1 and several others being notable. 

The Kriegslok was a 2-10-0 Decapod, making Pennsys fleet of Decapods look minuscule in comparison. Not only that but a great many survived the war and were used all over Europe, mostly behind the Iron Curtain but some in Western countries, Norway and Austria come to mind, and for a long time afterward with some continuing on in service up to the year 2000. 

It was inexpensive to build, tough as can be, easy to fix out on the road without having to 'bring it in', not complicated, and powerful. The very fact they were kept in service for 40+++ years after they were built is quite a testament. Perhaps Baldwin and Pennsy would have admired them.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, August 17, 2018 12:26 AM

Miningman

Interesting film Overmod. Lots of Nar-zees...lots. 

So, (in the end), who blew that bridge to Kingdom come...the Allies, the Russians or the Germans themselves. 

We discussed before the "war locomotive' the Kriegslok, 7,000+ made in total. An amazing number. 

 
The book I mentioned above "War Locomotives 1939-1945" contains a production diagram. For two months in 1943, 505 locomotives were being completed per month. I don't think EMD ever reached that level, for example. On the other hand, Baldwin Lima and Alco must have built a lot of locomotives in 1942-1945, too.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:50 PM

Interesting film Overmod. Lots of Nar-zees...lots. 

So, (in the end), who blew that bridge to Kingdom come...the Allies, the Russians or the Germans themselves. 

We discussed before the "war locomotive' the Kriegslok, 7,000+ made in total. An amazing number. 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:49 PM

Overmod
 
Jones1945
I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version...

 

Reducing the effective water rate.

Note that it is possible this only involves recovering part of the exhaust, not going to the trouble of implementing a full draft-fan rebuild (with expensive and hard-to-maintain components; did Henschel figure out before the War how to make char-resistant fan configurations as on the latter South African class 25s?) and I think that is what you see here. 

I also seem to remember that some quasi-condensing design arrangements retained a full blastpipe front end for use when the full capacity of the condenser was not needed (or could not be achieved).

 
We shouldn't over-think a model which has clearly been cobbled together from the existing 2-6-8-0 and the existing condensing tender from a Class 52 model.
 
I suspect that special alloys for wear resistance would not have been available during WWII, at least not for these locomotives. I expect that wear monitoring and frequent replacement would have been the theory for condensing locomotves on the Russian Front.
 
My comment on the revised title centred around the deletion of the word "victory" in the German edition. I agree the full slogan in German was very close to the original English title.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:23 PM

timz
 
Jones1945
"Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

 

Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?

The Germans tended to use gradients in "per thousand", one tenth of a "percent" grade. I suspect that the load quoted was on a 0.8 percent grade.

Peter 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 2:31 PM

It seems that Locomotive using condensing tender was very rare, this pic is Class 25 and Type CZ condensing tender from South Africa, c. 1970. Looking at it makes me feel thirsty. 

 

 

Speaking of German Locomotive, one of my favoite had a similar fate like PRR S1, which is the BR 06 001 and 002, the only two "Northern" type German ever made, also the most powerful two. The smoke lifters on them was something the PRR T1 really needed.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,483 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:35 PM

M636C
The perceptive publishers felt that a new title might better suit their market so it was retitled "Wheels must Turn" apparently a wartime propaganda message.

Indeed it was, more completely as "Räder müssen rollen für den Sieg", and you can watch YouTube clips that contain it, as here:

One wonders whether 'Wheels must Roll for Victory' is really all that different from Ziel's title, and of course it would have been familiar to many prospective readers?

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 1,852 posts
Posted by timz on Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:21 PM

Jones1945
"Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,483 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:19 PM

Jones1945
I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version...

Reducing the effective water rate.

Note that it is possible this only involves recovering part of the exhaust, not going to the trouble of implementing a full draft-fan rebuild (with expensive and hard-to-maintain components; did Henschel figure out before the War how to make char-resistant fan configurations as on the latter South African class 25s?) and I think that is what you see here. 

I also seem to remember that some quasi-condensing design arrangements retained a full blastpipe front end for use when the full capacity of the condenser was not needed (or could not be achieved).

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:19 AM

M636C

......Locomotives with condensers were built for service on the Russian front owing to unreliability of water supplies for locomotives. The condenser allowed longer runs between stops for water. The Soviet Railways had built condensing versions of the SO class 2-10-0 prior to WWII for the same reason......

Thank you for the specific response, Peter. 

"Over 6,700 locomotives of DRB Class 52 type were built across Europe for use on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. Thus, it was one of the most numerous steam locomotives in the world......" This reminds me of a TV programme on Discovery Channel about how the Nazi use the railway on military propose. 
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:46 AM

 

I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version......

Locomotives with condensers were built for service on the Russian front owing to unreliability of water supplies for locomotives. The condenser allowed longer runs between stops for water. The Soviet Railways had built condensing versions of the SO class 2-10-0 prior to WWII for the same reason. The 2-6-8-0 was intended for service in Russia, so a condensing version seems quite reasonable, although I haven't seen any drawings of one. The model includes a a pipe on the left side for conveying exhaust steam to the condenser. There is however no indication of the fitting of an exhaust fan to replace the blast pipe since no steam would be exhausted to the atmosphere. The tender is the type fitted to the Class 52 2-10-0 and would probably be too small for normal service on the 2-6-8-0. It does allow the model manufacturer to issue another model where the lack of a prototype must reduce the chances of criticism.

Peter

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:01 AM

M636C

......One of these is fairly well known, as a result of Maerklin making a model of an early Borsig suggested design, a 2-6-8-0. Maerklin gave it a road number in the "53" series, but with a 20 ton axleload it would have had a number in the "40" group, "46" being the lowest available. Borsig's other proposal was a three cylinder 2-10-4 with a booster and coupling rods on the trailing truck, giving a wheel arrangement of 1' E 2'b h3.

 

Very interesting, Peter. I wish there is a book record all the proposed, never built locomotive around the world! Some pic of the 2-6-8-0 avalible on the web:



 "Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version......
  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:36 AM

Overmod

......I had thought all the PRR eight-wheel trailing trucks were radically different in both construction and principle from the ATSF version (which much more closely follows Buckeye principles, like those in a three-piece freight truck).  This adds particular interest to the use of this particular design on so fast a locomotive.

Compare to T1 and K4s, pictures of S1 are really rare, so far, I can't find a picture showing the tender clearly even though S1 was the first locomotive to receive a 16-wheel tender.

40 years ago, one brass train manufacturer 
made a completely wrong HO scale tender for their S1 model. They used the plan of T1, many details including the brake shoe of the drivers are all in the wrong shape. My first Brass Train model was a S1 from another 
manufacturer, one of the things I notice is the different tender trucks compare to S2 and T1, I believe S1’s tender trucks was one of a kind in whole PRR system.
 
From the book ”Black Gold - Black Diamonds: The Pennsylvania Railroad & Dieselization” by Hirsimaki, Eric, it mentioned that one of the serious teething problems of T1 was the tender slamming against the rear of the locomotive at high speeds, the matter of the rough riding tender was thought to be due to the style of the trucks used. 6110’s original tender trucks were exchanged with S1’s tender truck in August 21st1942 to prove the theory, but it didn’t solve the problem. Turn out 6110 exchanged its tender’s spring rigging from tender 6884 behind M1 6809 and the problem solved. 
 
Brake cylinders of S1's tender trucks were installed inside the frame


ATSF 2912's tender trucks, a different arrangement of brake cylinders.

 

The only one pic of S1's tender from Hagley, note the Builder Plate was painted in DGLE except the number of the locomotive before it was sent to 39 World Fair.

 

"21000 Gallon tender truck class 4FST3", probably used on Class M1.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:51 PM

I thought I might mention a couple of little-known Duplex designs that remained unbuilt, and probably for the best.

I was looking at German War Locomotives 1939-1945 by Alfred Gottwalt. It mentions the broad gauge railway and illustrates a two unit turbo electric condensing locomotive roughly similar to that illustrated in an earlier post. It also mentions that Adolf Hitler was concerned that 3m gauge (10'0") might not be adequate and that it should be increased to 4 metres....

It does go into greater detail on larger standard gauge locomotives intended for use in Russia. These were to be built to a 20 ton axleload, while the Russians themselves were concentrating on locomotives of 18 tons axleload, and I'd guess the Russians knew more about the track than the Germans.

One of these is fairly well known, as a result of Maerklin making a model of an early Borsig suggested design, a 2-6-8-0. Maerklin gave it a road number in the "53" series, but with a 20 ton axleload it would have had a number in the "40" group, "46" being the lowest available. Borsig's other proposal was a three cylinder 2-10-4 with a booster and coupling rods on the trailing truck, giving a wheel arrangement of 1' E 2'b h3.

There were a couple of 2-12-0 and 2-12-2 designs, generally three cylinder but eventually someone suggested a 2-14-0 which was, amazingly, two cylinder so described as 1'G h2.

However, eventually the Vienna Locomotive Works suggested a Duplex. Someone had been reading about Emerson's work for the B&O and what emerged was a 2-6-6-2 with cylinders each end and a choice of two water tube fireboxes, with and without combustion chamber. What could possibly go wrong?

The Germans managed to lose the war (and more particularly the Russian campaign) without assistance from any of these designs, and the 42s and 52s performed well enough for the Russians to keep many of them right up to the end of steam, although Warsaw pact nations found that they were offered many, possibly without the option of refusal.

This book had a subtitle "Railways in World War II, part 2"

The back cover describes "part 1" which was a reprint of Ron Ziel's book "Steel Rails to Victory" translated to German. The perceptive publishers felt that a new title might better suit their market so it was retitled "Wheels must Turn" apparently a wartime propaganda message.

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,483 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 6:13 PM

Jones1945
Is that fan-shaped thing inside the red cycle, which supporting the weight of the firebox and cab on the trailer truck is the "inverted-rocker centering device" aka stabilizing rocker?

Yes.  Note also the inclined planes on the part of the frame that rests on the roller to provide the restoring force, and the substantial casting that the 'foot' of the roller rests on, a kind of 'chair' that bolts to the trailing-truck frame casting in the kind of place visible in some of the other pictures.

I had thought all the PRR eight-wheel trailing trucks were radically different in both construction and principle from the ATSF version (which much more closely follows Buckeye principles, like those in a three-piece freight truck).  This adds particular interest to the use of this particular design on so fast a locomotive.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 2:04 PM
Thank you and welcome back, Overmod. Is that fan-shaped thing inside the red cycle, which supporting the weight of the firebox and cab on the trailer truck is the "inverted-rocker centering device" aka stabilizing rocker? Such feature can't be found on Cartazzi axles or trailing wheels of German steam engine like BR 41, I am going do some research base on the information you provided. Smile


 

Trailing Truck of Q1 4-6-4-4 #6130:

Q1 4-6-4-4 #6130 Trailing truck with booster.




The 6-wheel trailing truck of S1 and S2(Steam Turbine) : 



S1's tender trucks, once exchanged with 6110's tender trucks for testing, returned after the test. ATSF 2900s 4-8-4 used the same model, probable a design from Baldwin.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,483 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 1:04 PM

Quote feature is screwed up again; here is the three-dollar tour of the general logic behind the stabilizing rollers:

I do not have good records of online illustrations for the following, but you may want to go through the history of trailing trucks (particularly the change from 1st to 2nd-type Delta) and look a bit at the general knowledge of what '20s trailing trucks did and didn't do well.

Most of the early accommodations for trailing axles in locomotives with low fireboxes did not hinge-pivot them following the Bissel formula; about the closest would be Cartazzi axles which arranged the suspension pedestals to have just the right lateral radius that the wheeltread and flange contact patches would 'track straight' to the inside tangent involved.  The chief issue here is that one important thing a trailing truck has to do is to steer the back of the locomotive chassis, and as more and more designs recognized the importance of large radiant area, circulators, heavy cast beds and ancillary machinery at the extreme rear of the locomotive, etc., designs that accomplished lateral compliance with -- well, devices like the lateral-motion devices used on driver cannon boxes, acting only as far back as the hub liners on trailing wheels, there are rapidly-achieved limits on how much stabilizing force you can apply, and the range through which that force can be made to act proportionally, which apply strictly to inside-bearing trailers and somewhat less but still meaningfully intensively to the many 'patent' outside-bearing lever arrangements involved in the pre-Delta trailing truck arrangements, many of which are known by their inventor's or promoter's names.

The Delta two-wheel truck, as perfected, solved the tracking issue with the pivot and axle location, and the equalization issue with onboard levers controlled by the relatively heavy frame structure.  However, you may note that simply by extending the truck frame far back in the right way, you can arrange lateral-motion compliance between the extreme rear of the frame and the truck-frame extensions, thereby achieving as long a lever arm as really possible to exert steering force both 'on' and 'to'.

The problem being, as you will quickly notice in a model or with reference to drawings, that the swing is very long -- much longer than an undamped facing-spring arrangement can accommodate without dreadful resonance.  (There is an epic story about a Reading 2-10-2 given "sprung" truck steering that was so bad even at drag speeds that someone from shop forces had to come out and weld the arrangement solid to permit getting the train the rest of the way over the road...)  The initial arrangement used here took advantage of a happy characteristic of equalized engines: if you use inclined planes in the 'corners', the actual weight of the chassis can serve as the proportional restoring and centering force.  It did not take long before the idea of using upside-down heart-shaped cams, or a gear-and-sector approach, cut to use rolling and not sliding tribology, was adapted to give long swing (we see pairs of heart-shaped cams also used for lateral in some Adams pin-guided lead trucks, which among other things allows separate control of small-period lateral oscillation coupling to hunting due to flange clearance or railhead wear vs. progressive curve guidance or Voyce Glaze-style steering against what would otherwise have to be handled by relatively high reciprocating overbalance.

As a peripheral note: you have probably read up on Woodard's clever articulated trailing truck ... and some of the reasons it could be a disaster in practice, particularly when you tried to back the train on a curve.  An interesting thing some of these trucks shared with the earlier two-axle Delta trucks was this: the axle spacing is prescribed as part of the Bissel formula, but other considerations -- practical weight distribution to the axles and location of the ashpan arrangements being two -- often dictated a geometrically suboptimal position for the leading trailer axle.  Timken devised a highly interesting arrangement that essentially treated a four-wheel trailing truck as a very long single-rear-axle Delta frame, with the forward axle completely free to 'float' laterally in its pedestals, the weight being transferred to it from the frame via a couple of large hardened lateral rollers.  The guiding force for the rear of the chassis was only passed to the track through the cone and flanges of the rearmost wheelset; the forward one was essentially weight-bearing only.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:24 PM

"I did some googling. I haven't found anything that conclusively proves what I'm about to say, but it looks like the person being misquoted here is a guy named Darryl Anka, who claims to be channeling a "multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial being" named Bashar. Anka has a web site that I don't want to link to, but I'm sure you will find it if you search for it. I'm reluctant to link to any woo woo sites, but I think I have to post a couple of links, since they are the only evidence we have of where this quote came from. The quote started appearing on the web some time in 2001. (You can use date ranges when you search with Google). http://www.angelvalley.org/assets/pdf/bashar-ides-of-march.pdf [Broken] (titled ‘The Ides of March’, channeling from Bashar by Darryl Anka) is filled with so much nonsense that I can't make myself read it, but it came up in the search results, so I searched the document for "frequency", and found that it ends with the words This is not philosophy! This is physics! Everything is energy and that's all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is physics.​ This web page contains the quote Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality.​ It's attributed to Bashar, not to Einstein. "

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/einstein-misquoted.583449/

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,483 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 10:13 AM

Miningman
"Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics."

Except that, oh Lord, it's not.  This sounds like someone who has confused pop-Einstein with pop-Tesla with about as much actual physics knowledge as someone talking about 'detoxing' and 'cleansing' has medical knowledge.

Resonance is really useful, as are the somewhat more sophisticated versions used in control theory.  Note that strange attractors (and other convergent or metastable-convergent functions using sequential probabilities) don't work at all deterministically in the happy idea that what may be true for SHM or electromagnetic radiation accurately describes even small systems of complex reality. 

And then we get to what E=MC^2 is derived from, and what it means, and from there we get to quantum mechanics and what the 'numbers' that can be quantum entangled actually represent (hint: it assumes particular structure of matter, and preservation of relationships in that structure across 'distance', in ways that have nothing to do with oscillating frequency in the classical sense).

Much more fun than "frequency" per se is the ongoing discussion of the wave-particle duality in so much of this physics.  Just be sure you have the aspirin bottle reasonably near when trying to conceive of what an actual 'photon' represents (and why it has a virtual wavetrain of more than one EM cycle at given wavelength/frequency contained in it...)

There is PLENTY of stuff that was that does not 'still exist'.  One case in point should be highly familiar to you: where are the neptunium-series daughters?? 

And I ask you to consider the numbers that would have to be manipulated to produce a time-stable S1 ... as opposed to one with, say, a gold tooth in its front end, or paint patched for Conrail, or one metric-size tender wheelset.  Transfinite numbers, aren't they?  Suspect no amount of faith-based reasoning can help extract just the right complexity and phase in just the right area of reality to help with this -- unfortunately.  If only Mary Baker Eddy's father had been able to craft a religion...

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,417 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:17 AM
I believe many readers of this post are interested in PRR's trains and waiting for overmod’s coming backStick out tongue. In case you didn't catch up, a train model manufacturer will release an HO scale model of Streamlined K4s (PRR's own design) very soon.
 
By the way, I am reading some books borrowed from the library about Steam locomotive of America, every time when the topic goes to Streamlined Trains in the 1930s to 40s, Dreyfuss Hudson always grabbed a lot of attention while many books didn’t even mention this streamlined K4s designed by PRR. Imo, they look even better than the #3768 design by Raymond Lowey.
 
 
 
I love Dreyfuss Hudson too since they are not only good looking, but they also represent the quality of management and creativity of NYCRR during the prewar period. Dreyfuss Hudson became the face of NYC while PRR probably thought that GG1, running between New York - the economic center of the world to Washington-the political center of the world, was good enough to represent the cooperation image of PRR, thus not many efforts were put to streamlining steam trains on the western part of the system.
 
(Photo Credit: John Appleman. GG1 #4800 with riveted body make the engine looks tougher.)
 
NYCRR had 12 streamlined J3a and 2 K-5 (for Mercury) in the early 1940s formed beautifully streamlined fleet, while PRR only had 5 streamlined K4s,1 granitic S1, 2 fancy looking T1 prototype and one Q1 for freight service by 1943. The States was at war, not many people had the mood to admire the beauty of streamlined locomotive anyway, this is one of a regret thing when I read the history of PRR. Even though PRR had 139 “streamlined” GG1 serving on the Northeast, that was a different thing in my book.
 
 
 
 
When the 50 T1 finally arrived in the mid-1940s, streamlining was no longer a thing for many Railroads, they did come too late. On the other hand, PRR didn’t keep their streamlined shrouding intact very long, and the streamlining itself made the fleet of T1 always covered with coal dust and looked dirty. After Baldwin’s early mainline Diesel were proofed incompetent (they actually looked good), EMD E7, E8 replaced T1’s publicity role, which overall looks absolutely no different from other railroads E7, E8…… The rest is history.


SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter