QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, let's face facts. We're basically talking buggy whips here anyway. (Hmmm, cones and whips, you're right. It is Madonnaistic.) But for posterity sake, I thing the best solution would be to go cab-forward, firebox up front supported by the lead truck, then the drivers (whatever combination), and thus no need for a trailing truck, so most of your weight is on the drivers, and the drivers can be as tall as desired. In retrospect, I'm kinda suprised some of the other roads with oil burning engines didn't adopt the cab forward principle, especially GN's Portland bound engines via SP&S, since the operating philosophy of GN was to put as much weight on the drivers as possible. Now, a cab forward Hiawatha Hudson or a cab forward Challenger, that would have been something. But without the trailing truck, what would their designation have been?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox. This brings to mind a question left unanswered on the T1 thread. Remember the 4-6-0 locomotives? They had a "gap" between the second and third set of drivers to support the firebox. I have assumed that since larger fireboxes required more width than could be afforded between 4' 8.5" gauge, they had to abandon the idea of supporting the firebox with the drivers and relegate that requirement to a supporting truck under the firebox. The question I had is this: Why couldn't the drivers support a wider firebox by extending outward the connecting rods between the driving axle in front of the firebox and the driving axle behind the firebox? That way you have more weight being supported by the drivers (e.g. more traction) instead of a non-driving trailing truck, while still maintaining the advantage of the larger firebox. For those interested, I received a drawing from Dave in the mail. I was just going to sketch how I saw it not working, but all I got was a drawing in an envelope with a return address! I'd feel kind of silly addressing a letter to "Dave Futuremodal" @xxxxxxxxx.....[;)] Anyway: a desription based on Dave's drawing. For clarity, consider that the loco is on the tracks, facing north. Starting from the front- pilot wheels / #1 set driving wheels / #2 set driving wheels / 9' x 9' firebox, at axle height / #3 set of driving wheels. There would be 3 driving wheels on each track. On the east side: wheel #1 and Wheel #2 would be connected by a rod, just like 1000's of steamers have been built. The weird part: wheel #2 and wheel #3 would be connected by a rod that goes *around* the firebox. The rod connecting #1 and #2 would be connected as normal,just to the east side(outter side) of the wheels. The rod connecting #2 and #3 would be approximately 24" further east to clear the east side of the firebox. The west side would similar. I see problems in building a steamer like this. I'll expand my thoughts later when I have time, and my fingers stop throbbing![:)]. Basically, I forsee these issues: Shear & metal failure contemporary engineering limitations *waddling* buildin a better mouse trap vs. re-inventing the wheel Beyer-Garret (sp?) locomotives Later
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox. This brings to mind a question left unanswered on the T1 thread. Remember the 4-6-0 locomotives? They had a "gap" between the second and third set of drivers to support the firebox. I have assumed that since larger fireboxes required more width than could be afforded between 4' 8.5" gauge, they had to abandon the idea of supporting the firebox with the drivers and relegate that requirement to a supporting truck under the firebox. The question I had is this: Why couldn't the drivers support a wider firebox by extending outward the connecting rods between the driving axle in front of the firebox and the driving axle behind the firebox? That way you have more weight being supported by the drivers (e.g. more traction) instead of a non-driving trailing truck, while still maintaining the advantage of the larger firebox.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Anyway: a desription based on Dave's drawing. For clarity, consider that the loco is on the tracks, facing north. Starting from the front- pilot wheels / #1 set driving wheels / #2 set driving wheels / 9' x 9' firebox, at axle height / #3 set of driving wheels. There would be 3 driving wheels on each track. On the east side: wheel #1 and Wheel #2 would be connected by a rod, just like 1000's of steamers have been built. The weird part: wheel #2 and wheel #3 would be connected by a rod that goes *around* the firebox. The rod connecting #1 and #2 would be connected as normal,just to the east side(outter side) of the wheels. The rod connecting #2 and #3 would be approximately 24" further east to clear the east side of the firebox. The west side would similar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by GN-Rick Firemen were absolutely necessary with a power stoker. As mentioned, the fireman (and engineer) had to monitor boiler water level and ane turn on the injector when needed to replenish. The fireman alse adjusted the steam jets on the stoker to throw coal where desired in the firebox. If you have ever noticed in a cab view, a cluster of 6 smallish valve wheels in front of the fireman's seat arranged in an upside down triangle, those are the jet controls for the stoker. Each jet blasts coal from the firing table or distributing plate of the stoker in it's own individual direction. How far open the valve is determines how powerful the blast is and how far forward in the firebox the coal is thrown. the controls are arranged like this: Upper row:--------O---------O------------O controlling: left rear main jet right rear center row--------------O-----------O controlling: left front right front bottom:-----------------------O controlling: center The power stoker did not replace the fireman. It was a tool for him to use in the performance of his job and made large steam locos viable from a standpoint of being able to keep up with the demands of coal while working hard. Hope this helps.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Question about automatic stokers: I understood the fireman had to shovel the coal out of the tender, and into the fire box. He had to know how much coal to put in, and where on the grate to put it, as deemed neccesarry by running conditions. How did an automatic stokker replace the fireman? Did the stokker just bring the coal forward, and the fireman placed it on the grate? Or,did someone (the engineer?) just have to turn a lever?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by timz Okay, see if this is what you mean. The two trailing axles are maybe 15 feet apart (and so the trailing siderods are 15 ft long). The firebox is down at axle level? and it's maybe 8 feet wide? It's all ahead of the flange of the rear driver and behind the next-to-rear driver? And the pins on the two rear driving axles are lengthened so their siderods are farther out from the centerline of the engine, far enough to clear the firebox. I guess the siderods ahead of the next-to-rear driver would be in the normal places, so the main rod could still be outboard of them? Or the main rods would always have to drive the leading axle? Where would the engine's frame be, between the two rear drivers-- below the firebox? Don't forget we need an ashpan too. Yes. Someone more interested in steam than I would have to fit in all the specs, I'm more interested in the trade off question - more weight on drivers vs more steam. GN rick pointed out the 2-8-8-0 of GN, which had smaller drivers supporting the firebox above, yet which still could run at near passenger speeds. But if the desire was for greater speeds via larger drivers while still keeping weight over the drivers and greater steaming requirements, would this oddball idea work?
QUOTE: Originally posted by timz Okay, see if this is what you mean. The two trailing axles are maybe 15 feet apart (and so the trailing siderods are 15 ft long). The firebox is down at axle level? and it's maybe 8 feet wide? It's all ahead of the flange of the rear driver and behind the next-to-rear driver? And the pins on the two rear driving axles are lengthened so their siderods are farther out from the centerline of the engine, far enough to clear the firebox. I guess the siderods ahead of the next-to-rear driver would be in the normal places, so the main rod could still be outboard of them? Or the main rods would always have to drive the leading axle? Where would the engine's frame be, between the two rear drivers-- below the firebox? Don't forget we need an ashpan too.
QUOTE: Originally posted by timz "Why couldn't the drivers support a wider firebox by extending outward the connecting rods between the driving axle in front of the firebox and the driving axle behind the firebox? That way you have more weight being supported by the drivers (e.g. more traction) instead of a non-driving trailing truck, while still maintaining the advantage of the larger firebox." Hmm... you're proposing the rear driver would be 20 or 30 feet behind the driver ahead of it, with 20-30-ft side rods? And a firebox that's less than 4 ft wide, and 20-30 feet long? Or is your firebox to be above the drivers, not between them? If it's above the drivers, why are the siderods a problem?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding I've mentioned that steam locomotives didn't do much for me,but I have been doing quite a bit of railroad reading recently-so they might grow on me.[:)] In the steam era, it appeared that nearly every railroad had almost custom designed engines, specifically for it's route. I'm familiar with some of the more famous ones:Big Boy, Challenger,Berkshire,J-1(? N&W), and a few others. What are some of the other well known types that other railroads had? And can you explain to this *diesel* fan what the signifigance of the type was? I still have a hard time seeing the difference between two similar types. Thanks!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.