More Strange Things
1) Oblivion anyone? This actually was the last run.
2) Yeah but does it come with pontoons? Cartrainplane or CTP for short.
3) You got these with your smokes at one time. Civilization is dead today!
Overmod The Belgians are already notorious for having Pacifics -- nominally very successful Pacifics -- that have Decapod boilers and four cylinders arranged de Glehn-style, one of the few things (like the NYC P-motor electrics) that has more of a 'front porch' than an SD40. To the point it looks like something was left off the last time the engine was serviced. This is the first time I've seen the Franco-Crosti locomotive referred to with affectionate French-style back-clipping (like calling a Silver Ghost a "Rolls". It deserves more attention in this thread than it has gotten (see the Self site, "Loco locomotives", for some of the almost incredible details) Note that the version quoted is not the full 'experience'. Just as you wouldn't have believed the ATSF 2-10-10-2s if you only saw the post-modification locomotives, you have not lived until you see what it started out as (with the 2-4-2-4-2 section still in the middle and the siamesed coal bunkers)
The Belgians are already notorious for having Pacifics -- nominally very successful Pacifics -- that have Decapod boilers and four cylinders arranged de Glehn-style, one of the few things (like the NYC P-motor electrics) that has more of a 'front porch' than an SD40. To the point it looks like something was left off the last time the engine was serviced.
This is the first time I've seen the Franco-Crosti locomotive referred to with affectionate French-style back-clipping (like calling a Silver Ghost a "Rolls". It deserves more attention in this thread than it has gotten (see the Self site, "Loco locomotives", for some of the almost incredible details)
Note that the version quoted is not the full 'experience'. Just as you wouldn't have believed the ATSF 2-10-10-2s if you only saw the post-modification locomotives, you have not lived until you see what it started out as (with the 2-4-2-4-2 section still in the middle and the siamesed coal bunkers)
I only linked the "Tenth Period" from the website.
The Pacifics and Decapods are included in the "Eighth Period". I was unaware that the Decapods included a "Carello Italiano" (with a Belgian name). In the tenth period I was unaware of the narrow stacked version of the Lemaitre exhaust on the Type 1 which must have been similar to the Giesl layout (perhaps with two closely spaced rows of nozzles).
The Type 1 was notable for being too heavy to be taken away by the Germans during the war, which no doubt helped its survival.
Peter
I was surfing the web idly when I found...
http://rixke.tassignon.be/spip.php?article715&lang=fr
At least two of the locomotives in this summary deserve the title "Very strange".
If you scroll down the second page to the photo of the unstreamlined Belgian class 12 Atlantic. It is a remarkably good looking locomotive...
And the vertical boiler transfer loco right at the end...
Feel free to check other periods. I found the MacIntosh section interesting.
You get a choice of French or Dutch, of course
In other news, remember the PRR X23 converted boxcar cabooses with portholes? In a thread on an unrelated subject on RyPN (converting outside-braced cars from wood siding to metal) it has come up that no less than FIVE of them appear to have survived in preservation:
The White Deer RR Museum at White Deer, Pa. has a PRR X23 boxcar with portholes, used as a MOW car for years before being acquired.Another PRR MOW X23, 499327, sits in the Martinsburg, WV B&O roundhouse in Martinsburg, WV.Yet another, PRR 499369, is at the Northern Ohio Railway Museum, and 499320 is at Illinois Railway Museum.Alexander D. Mitchell IV -I checked out internet pix of these PRR X23 outside braced boxcars, and they all seem to still have wood sides. I actually found an additional X23 series car (PRR #499303) at the Eastern Shore Railway Museum in Parksley, VA and that one too, still has its wood sides.
At least one of these is supposed to have a very-well-preserved interior, too.
Miningman1) Seems many railfans are also aviation buffs so here is a combo for you.
If I'm not mistaken, that's a Hermes IV, Blighty's answer to the DC-6.
To put this in perspective, it has about the same horsepower as a pair of Amtrak P42s.
Be amused at the postwar Labour-government cheap low-clearance overhead catenary installation. This was at 1500VDC and still required clearance cutouts in the roofs to fit the pantographs.
Overmod-- Looks like an elaborate mousetrap or bear trap. That is a bizarre contraption.
Firelock-- While hauling tank cars to boot! Maybe they could do it on a high wire with dancing brakeman on top of the cars. How would you be like to walking across that bridge as the flames erupt around you !
As for the CP upgrading truck, well they can stop by my house anytime and I'll be glad to show them a few things. Need an upgrade in your basement?
Miningman 1) Seems many railfans are also aviation buffs so here is a combo for you. 2) Holeee Mackinaw, welcome to the future. 3) MLW /Alcos really were honorary steam locomotives Service 415384 Water Car part of OCS fire fighting equipment used forright-of-way fires caused primarily by old diesels on freight trains east of the yard.. 415384 OCS water tank car used for fire fighting caused by old MLW diesels 4) Upgrading Truck! Wow. Make that boxcar look new again. Upgrading truck used for minor interior repairs to box cars etc. 1976
1) Seems many railfans are also aviation buffs so here is a combo for you.
2) Holeee Mackinaw, welcome to the future.
3) MLW /Alcos really were honorary steam locomotives
Service 415384 Water Car part of OCS fire fighting equipment used forright-of-way fires caused primarily by old diesels on freight trains east of the yard..
415384 OCS water tank car used for fire fighting caused by old MLW diesels
4) Upgrading Truck! Wow. Make that boxcar look new again.
Upgrading truck used for minor interior repairs to box cars etc. 1976
Ok, here we go...
Shot 1) Don't you just hate it when people leave airplanes laying around?
Shot 2) Don't know what it is, but I think they stole the idea from Neil Young!
http://www.lionel.com/products/phantom-iv-passenger-car-4-pack-6-25559/
Shot 3) Doesn't have to be an ALCO, check THIS out! If all diesels put on a show like this we wouldn't miss steam engines so much! Wheeeeeee!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPYZroaURy4
"Just run it 'till all the crap burns off, it'll be fine!"
Shot 4) Love that classic ol' flatbed! They sure don't build 'em like that anymore!
MiningmanService 415384 Water Car part of OCS fire fighting equipment used for right-of-way fires caused primarily by old diesels
Not as strange-looking as BNSF's:
SD70DudeYou've inspired me to make some of my favourite drink. Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Have you discovered Lapsang Souchong yet? You may never go back to bergamot again!
Miningman Thanks Overmod.. I shall make it so.
Thanks Overmod.. I shall make it so.
You've inspired me to make some of my favourite drink.
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
MiningmanWonder what it looked like after the rebuild.
There are some pictures on the Web if you look (see P&R road number 93) - Frank Musick has an interesting collection of Reading locomotive pictures 'not to be found easily elsewhere'.
Looks like a long conventional Mother Hubbard (relatively short centered cab and 'shelter' at the firebox) with a tender. See "41 Best Reading images in 2014" on Pinterest.
1857... imangine that. Wonder what it looked like after the rebuild.
(2) is Philadelphia and Reading. Although it looks like a Winans Camel, it's actually a Milholland design from 1857. Too big for use as a pulling locomotive, it was rebuilt into an 0-10-0 and used as a pusher on the grade over the ridge between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.
Thanks to steamlocomotive.com for the info.
1) Whyte system classification -- 2Ski-4Tread-0
2) Pennsy 0-12-0 Holy Smokes!
3) After Star Wars Darth Vader found work as a snow plow.
I believe Guy took some pains to reduce the effect of the slip at low rotor rpm, as well as regulating the steam admission around his larger rotor with the six-nozzle system (even though some sources, Nock included, indicate this did not work quite as well as intended).
The real problem on 6200 was, I think, the sheer scale of the boiler, combined with some ultimately unfortunate 'optimization' of its design along contemporary North American principles. These included 300psi nominal pressure, very large radiant area in both firebox and chamber, and 'reduction of back pressure' via a truly heroic exhaust area. If any one of these had been 'ameliorated' there might have been little staybolt busting even if the turbine slip couldn't be addressed; I have argued here (and in the discussion for the Turbomotive 2 project) that using something like a Bowes drive (or at the very least a lockable MR or viscous clutch) in an otherwise-mechanical steam-turbine drive might easily provide the ability to spin up the rotor to reasonable flow independent of developing torque in the drivetrain, which also addresses part of the problem.
It has been noted in several references on small gas turbines, particularly in helicopters, that surprisingly good extraction in the power turbine can be made with a simple double-rotor design -- something I wouldn't have believed from steam-turbine experience, and of course not related either to the number of compressor stages or to the number of separate stages in the portion of a split turbine that drive the compressor. This was I believe one of the tacit assumptions behind the 'worth' of the free-piston gas-generator arrangement (as in the FG9) which eliminated the whole need for enormous turbine compression of primary air to generate appropriate mass flow and density of power gas.
I don't think you can equate gas-turbine performance with the kind of turbine optimized for locomotive use, though: for example, reliable tip sealing for gas turbines is relatively easy to design and maintain, whereas the same thing in a potentially 'wet' environment is no fun. To my knowledge we've lost the 'experimental' results from the Westinghouse direct-steam-turbine 'experiment' which is a great shame.
I would note that what seems like a logical 'workaround' to me would be simply venting the proportion of turbine exhaust not explicitly needed for drafting at starting or at other times, rather than passing it all through the four-stack arrangement (and depending on the wings for smoke lifting). I would also, albeit with 20/15 hindsight, use a perhaps multistage version of firebox-leg circulator, like a Cunningham system 'on steroids', to address the optimization of where DNB might be occurring on rapid reduction of throttle pressure.
I have said before, and now say again, that I think a locomotive of this type would benefit from a balanced Ljungstrom arrangement with counterrotating rotor and "stator" discs on either side of a central pinion -- even if the arrangement might include somewhat Allegheny-like multiplication of steam admission and exhaust tracting and hence static weight. Balance here having a duplicate HP-to-LP rotor arrangement on either side of a central pinion (incorporating the reverse mechanically, high up in the reduction gearing at this point, rather than jiggering with clutch arrangements to preclude windage and other issues with a separate geared reverse turbine -- experience clearly established that a turbine locomotive needs the same performance running in either directlion, at least as used in contemporary practice...)
Exactly why was the S2 so badly affected by rapid steam consumption at starting, when LMS 6202 does not appear to have been so affected, and I would assume that the Swedish 2-8-0s were not significantly affected since they all lasted to the end of steam and one was presrved in working order?
6202 had a larger superheater and a double chimney compared to the conventional four cylinder Princess, so the design principles were not that different from PRR 6200.
Is it just a scale factor, in that the lower power expected from 6202's turbine put lower stress on the boiler?
Even after the Harrow and Wealdstone accident when 6202 converted to four cylinders was scrapped (and replaced by Duke of Gloucester), the boiler was repaired and put into the Princess pool, so it must have been in good condition after fifteen years of service.
The GE LM2500 used in USN destroyers has a separate power turbine, and this is independent of the gas generator, basically a CF6 core. This separation gives very rapid application of power since the power turbine is always in the exhaust stream even when the gas generator is at idle and the gas generator with no direct load will spool up very quickly.
The Royal Australian Navy uses this turbine in the German designed "ANZAC" class frigates. These have two MTU 12-1163 diesels for cruise and manouvring (same size as an EMD 710 but four stroke) but the crew always use the turbine when "coming alongside" because it is felt to be faster to respond and more reliable than the diesels.
Yesterday I found a large colour cutaway of an LM2500 while going through my old papers. I don't imagine the Navy wants it back....
Flintlock76The men running the Pennsy Turbine got the same feeling when the pressure gauge dropped precipitously when they opened the throttle and it took a while for the turbine to "spool-up."
You are mistaking both the symptom and the effect.
The PRR men wouldn't have been concerned ... at first ... to see the pressure gauge dropping; it would just tick them off. What would much more concern them would be the pyrometers or superheat gauge, which would likely reach alarming levels within a few seconds as the draft went through the ceiling, or the ominous sound of staybolts ripping out en masse as DNB ran away in the firebox legs a few moments later. (Note that PRR even to the end refused to document exactly what was causing the staybolt failures on 6200, which when you think about it is no surprise but neatly explains why Westinghouse wasn't invited to produce a follow-on "4-8-4" turbine set...)
Meanwhile, as a couple of PRR motive-power men were quick to correct when they got 'fan letters', the turbine produced QUITE GOOD torque at zero shaft rpm in starting, the problem being the two sources of slip in the relatively small turbine. It did not need to 'spool up' like a gas turbine to make power; the power comes out of the steam, not pre-compressed air supporting high combustion rate.
One funny example of pressure gauge fear happened when the Lackawanna loaned one of their Pacifics to a local hospital as a substitute boiler. The hospital's boiler man climbed into the cab, saw the pressure gauge at 250+, and jumped out in terror! The hospital's boiler operated at around 50 or so.
Very likely more like 15 to 30psi; "50" would be scary as hell, considering.
Mind you, if I climbed into any Lackawanna Pacific and saw 250+ I would run out in terror. The absolute highest one of those ever ran ... and it was something of a stretch at that ... was 225psi; most were set around 200. To get much above that especially in stationary service would mean a more or less colossal failure of the safety valves and injection both. And you don't respond by cranking on the injectors before you take off running, especially from a side entrance cab down what is likely a rickety temporary ladder...
Making me more suspicious about veracity here is what a hospital would need with steam at that pressure, when the 'replacement' for a whole bank of conventional anthracite-fired heating boilers wouldn't need more than nominal heat-boiler gauge pressure at consistently lower fuel burn (and higher water rate, but supplied from mains so not an operational concern of any kind). Makes no sense to spend money to stress out your boiler earlier, just to throw it away tempering down to what the building systems could handle. While we are on this subject: who remembers what Union Carbide used for process-steam pressure from the N&W A class locomotives they modified for stationary service?
The only real exception would be if some of the auxiliaries on the engine in question required high pressure to operate, particularly a blower used as the 'only' induced draft in an otherwise-unmodified front end. I doubt they would, otherwise the engine would require support to fire up (like the German high-pressure locomotives that needed high-pressure steam to keep making steam) and would be relatively wasteful in operation.
Makes a funny story, though.
Pressure gauge "heebie-jeebies," those NYC guys weren't the only ones who got 'em.
The men running the Pennsy Turbine got the same feeling when the pressure gauge dropped precipitously when they opened the throttle and it took a while for the turbine to "spool-up."
Flintlock76At least the D&H's high pressure experimentals didn't kill anyone, although the D&H folks were probably nearly embarrassed to death when their experimentals didn't (putting it charitably) quite live up to expectations.
They lived up to D&H expectations just fine. Or there wouldn't have been a series of four of them.
That is, they lived up to expectations as long as a guy channelling W.H.Webb with a 'thing' for high TE at low speed with a Red Edge 'stoker' was in charge.
Contrast the 2-8-0 era D&H with the later Challenger-based one and you'll see the much better way to get best effective thermodynamics out of American road power. But only the operating-model change made the D&H locomotives 'failures'.
A slightly different 'take' on this is the best of all the '20s high-pressure attempts, the NYC 4-8-4. A very good part of the 'problem' with this locomotive, unless the surviving fragments of test report are all 'gamed', was that typical NYC crews assigned to run the thing got more and more nervous having to look at that big drum steam-pressure gauge with the needle hanging at 850. Not good for attentiveness, not the best for willing job performance... now imagine the fun working the thing at higher road speed.
It did service many years as a (colossally derated pressure-wise) hump engine, which was a waste of its capability but also a demonstration it was not an unworkable engine.
Miningman Well cut off but you get the idea. Sgt. Fury was great and I assume the Fury character as the head of SHIELD in Marvel movies. Remember the Sherman that was protected by the ghost JEB Stuart .. he was always knocking out Tigers!
Well cut off but you get the idea.
Sgt. Fury was great and I assume the Fury character as the head of SHIELD in Marvel movies.
Remember the Sherman that was protected by the ghost JEB Stuart .. he was always knocking out Tigers!
Thanks Vince! Cut-off, but I more than got the gist of it. At least the D&H's high pressure experimentals didn't kill anyone, although the D&H folks were probably nearly embarassed to death when their experimentals didn't (putting it charitably) didn't quite live up to expectations.
Nick Fury. Well, they've used the comics as inspiration, Sgt. Fury at some point got a battlefield commission and eventually wound up as Colonel Fury of SHIELD, but the Nick Fury in the films looks a little, uh, different from the Nick Fury of the comics.
Of course, if the Nick Fury of the comics was still alive he'd be over 100 years old!
"Jeb Stuart And The Haunted Tank," loved that comic! Maybe one of these days I'll visit a "comic-con" and see if I can find the Jeb Stuart-General Patton team-up issue from 1971, missed that one.
Goes without saying there wouldn't be a Confederate flag flying from the tank's whip antenna nowadays, not "politically correct." Pity. The crew were all Southerners after all.
Erik_Mag Flintlock76 Crazy rodeo-type stuff with locomotives? You mean like this? (Go full-screen if you can, the print's not too sharp.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q53AYdnZX8Y I remember my dad telling me about when the scene was filmed.
Flintlock76 Crazy rodeo-type stuff with locomotives? You mean like this? (Go full-screen if you can, the print's not too sharp.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q53AYdnZX8Y
Crazy rodeo-type stuff with locomotives? You mean like this?
(Go full-screen if you can, the print's not too sharp.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q53AYdnZX8Y
I remember my dad telling me about when the scene was filmed.
If he was there it must have been a thrill to see it, and absolutely unforgettable!
What a sight it must have been!
The London Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) No. 6399 Fury was an unsuccessful British experimental express passenger locomotive. The intention was to save fuel by using high-pressure steam, which is thermodynamically more efficient than low-pressure steam.
Built in 1929 by the NBL (North British Locomotive Company) in Glasgow,[1] it was one of a number of steam locomotives built around the world in the search for "Superpower steam". The locomotive was a joint venture between the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS), with Henry Fowler as Chief Mechanical Engineer (C.M.E.) and The Superheater Company[2]with the latter having responsibility for constructing the complex, 3 stage Schmidt-based boiler.[3] The LMS provided a Royal Scot frame and running gear.[4]However, Carney [3] shows that the frames for Fury were not standard Royal Scot frames, but longer. For the complex boiler, John Brown & Company of Sheffield forged the special nickel-steel alloy high pressure drum and many boiler fittings were imported from Germany[5] but otherwise all manufacture was carried out by NBL.[3]
A 3-cylindered semi-compound compound locomotive, it had one high-pressure cylinder between the frames (11.5 inch bore) and two larger low-pressure outside cylinders (18 inch bore). The Schmidt steam-raising boiler was a 3-stage unit. The primary generator was a fully sealed ultra-high-pressure circuit working between 1400 and 1800 psi (9.7 to 12.4 MPa), filled with distilled water that transferred heat from the firebox to the high-pressure drum. This raised high-pressure steam at 900 psi (6.2 MPa) which was taken to power the cylinders and also recirculate pure water. The third steam raising unit was a relatively conventional locomotive fire tube boiler operating at 250 psi (1.7 MPa) heated by combustion gases from the coal fire.[3] The engine was technically an "ultra-high pressure, semi-compound steam locomotive". It was given the LMS number 6399 and then inherited the name Fury from LMS 6138, which had itself been renamed in October 1929.[6]
After short runs during January 1930, a longer test run from Glasgow to Carstairs was scheduled for 10 February 1930. Approaching Carstairs station at slow speed, one of the ultra-high-pressure tubes burst and the escaping steam ejected the coal fire through the fire-hole door, killing Mr Lewis Schofield of the Superheater Company.[7] Subsequently the burst tube was thoroughly investigated at Sheffield University but no definitive conclusion reached. The boiler was eventually repaired and Fury moved to Derby where a number of running trials were carried out until early 1934, mostly revealing significant shortcomings in performance.[9] Fury's rods and linkages were then removed together with the indicator shelter and test gear when in 1935 it was rebuilt by William Stanier at Crewe Works with a more conventional type 2 boiler becoming 6170 British Legion, the first of the LMS 2 and 2A boilered 4-6-0 locomotives. Despite the accident, Fury was primarily an economic rather than a technological failure. Although tolerating the trials from Derby, Stanier didn't devote much effort to rectifying the faults Fury displayed, no doubt because of his many other work pressures and development of the LMS Turbomotive.[3] Nevertheless, Fury never earned revenue for the LMS and in fact "Fury must have travelled more miles under tow than under its own steam".[10] As many other experimental locomotives showed, the theoretical benefits of ultra high steam pressure steam were hard to realise in practice. Fuel is only one part of the operating costs of a steam locomotive—maintenance is very significant, and introducing extra complications always increased this disproportionally.
In France, the Chemins de fer de Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée had bought a Schmidt system 4-8-2locomotive (no. 241.B.1) and in 1933 this too suffered a burst ultra high pressure tube. The failure was investigated and if a single conclusion could be reached following both incidents, it was that inadequate water circulation in the ultra high pressure circuit was responsible.[3]
Not trying to be a wise guy, but the only time the name "Fury" rings a bell is...
1) The TV western "Brave Stallion" with Fury the horse.
2) the movie "Fury," and quite honestly ALL four Shermans should have been knocked out by that Tiger tank! Charging at a Tiger in "line abreast" was a good way to get all of you killed!
3) "Son of Fury," the Tyrone Power movie.
4) Sergeant Nick Fury, and his "Howling Commandos" in Marvel Comics.
Sorry.
Flintlock76I forget just where I read this, but supposedly steam experts said a little boiler scale was all right as it helped to seal the tubes, but obviously you didn't want a lot of it.
That's for older, low-pressure boilers (and it technically isn't the 'tubes' but the joints at the tubesheets that are the beneficiaries of 'sealing') That is NOT the case in high-pressure systems!
You may remember the parody of the old Alco 'fire to water' ads, where the heat transfer involved 'fire-soot-a pipe-scale-water'. Scale is an excellent insulator, as is any steam film under it against the pipe metal. That can lead to dramatic heat increase back across the wall thickness, softening or creep of the metal ... and various kinds of swelling or bagging failure. These are much more serious in relatively large-bore tubes subjected to high pressure!
Does the name 'Fury' ring a bell?
That gyro-monorail's interesting as well. I'm assuming there had to be some outriggers to keep it in the upright position when the gyros weren't engaged. I didn't see any mention of the same in either article.
I dimly remember an arrangement between a kickstand and training wheels, which when lowered allowed an unpowered vehicle to be pushed or towed and would hold it stable as the gyro servo system 'initialized'. (You may or may not have noticed that the Brennan system easily accommodates even fairly severe off-center loads, unlike a Lartigue system, when under power, but NOT when shut down or during spinup, so the gear and its jacking and leveling means should be more robust, and perhaps better powered, than you might expect at first glance.)
The design of the Schweizer Lokomotiv und Maschinenfabrik (SLM) Eb3/5 (this was NOT an SBB engine, SBB's Eb3/5 2-6-2 tanks were very conventional) was a product of the strange mind of SLM's chief engineer Mr. Buchli. SLM was perhaps the most aggressive of the Swiss locomotive manufacturers, and is still very much in business.
Buchli also came up with strange drives for Tramwagen (streetcars) including one with cardan shafts, as well as a slightly more successful three axle design with steering sone by the sidways shift of the center axle.
Buchli redeemed himself with the Buchli Antrieb, used extensively in Swiss electric locomotives of the Ae3/6 I, Ae4/7 and Ae8/14 classes among others (several classes in France), many of which remained in service for well over fifty years. Similar to the quill drive used on locomotives like the GG1 but with links rather than springs to transmit torque, it allowed almost the entire weight of the motors and propulsion equipment to be carried as sprung wieght, making the classes very light on their feet.
If my memory serves me correctly the class designation breaks down to:
E = Tender locomotive
b = max speed between 70 and 80 km/h
3 = number of powered axles
5 = total number of axles
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter