selector wrote:Yes, and not at all unlike an army. A General taking ground who outruns his fuel, bullets, and meals is going to be court martialled if he doesn't get captured. Railways must have had similar logistical problems as they took ground. They do it when climbing Everest, as well. Staging, altitude camps, water towers...alla same.
Yes, and not at all unlike an army. A General taking ground who outruns his fuel, bullets, and meals is going to be court martialled if he doesn't get captured. Railways must have had similar logistical problems as they took ground. They do it when climbing Everest, as well. Staging, altitude camps, water towers...alla same.
fredswain wrote:Mark, that was some good info. Thanks for that.
I should have figured it's been tried before. There have been so many technological advances since those times though that I just have to think we could do it today.Now cost is a different matter altogether.
Nevertheless keeping an open mind is always good thing. At the very least it stimulates creativity.
vsmith wrote:Why start from scratch? there are dozens of great steam candidates rotting on display across the country that are really only handicapped by the fact that there boilers are no longer certifiable. Every locomotive restoration I have read about , the drivetrain, chassis, pushrods, etc, are often the easy part to restore, its the cost of boiler inspection, repair, restoration and certification that put the kaputs on most attempts to restore locomotives.
Why start from scratch? there are dozens of great steam candidates rotting on display across the country that are really only handicapped by the fact that there boilers are no longer certifiable.
Every locomotive restoration I have read about , the drivetrain, chassis, pushrods, etc, are often the easy part to restore, its the cost of boiler inspection, repair, restoration and certification that put the kaputs on most attempts to restore locomotives.
If the Germans can replace any boiler, that could cut significantly what often the most serious obsticle to returning a steam locomotive to service. If I was running a tourist or museum line, this would be something I would seriously consider as an option, live steam engines are a tremendous draw for museum lines and a brand new certified boiler will last far longer than any restored old boiler.
vsmith wrote:When the San Bernardino RR Historical Society ran the #3751 out to Williams Az. a few years ago, they had local Fire Departments water the loco with their pumper trucks. But a simple semi truck pulling a water tanker w/ pumper is all thats necessary. Same goes for fuel, most live steamers today are oil burners, so a semi truck/trailer can supply fuel. Its all about making sure they are waiting for the loco when it pulls into its designated stop.
When the San Bernardino RR Historical Society ran the #3751 out to Williams Az. a few years ago, they had local Fire Departments water the loco with their pumper trucks. But a simple semi truck pulling a water tanker w/ pumper is all thats necessary. Same goes for fuel, most live steamers today are oil burners, so a semi truck/trailer can supply fuel. Its all about making sure they are waiting for the loco when it pulls into its designated stop.
vsmith wrote: Why start from scratch? there are dozens of great steam candidates rotting on display across the country that are really only handicapped by the fact that there boilers are no longer certifiable.
It depends on whether you want a steam locomotive, like something to use for excursion trains, or you want a particular locomotive. Sadly, many important classes of US steam engines weren't preserved even in static displays...for example, no New York Central Hudsons were preserved, they were perhaps the most famous steam engines in the US. The first Northerns were built for Northern Pacific, but none of them were saved (although a very similar SP&S engine was), not even "Four Aces" Timken 1111 which toured the country showing the benefits of roller bearings before going into NP service.
marknewton wrote:Yes, I think so too. I don't doubt for a minute that steam turbine/electric locos could be made to work, given today's technology, but as you say, the cost would be a big issue. And it's often argued that electrification is a better way to achieve the same end.
Tulyar15 wrote: marknewton wrote:Yes, I think so too. I don't doubt for a minute that steam turbine/electric locos could be made to work, given today's technology, but as you say, the cost would be a big issue. And it's often argued that electrification is a better way to achieve the same end.The problem with steam loco's is that the majority are single expansion (compounds are double expansion) and are not as efficient as stationary triple expansion turbines used to generate electricity. As far back as 1909 the New Haven RR was telling its stock holders that it got twice as much useful horsepower at the rail from every ton of coal burnt it the power station that provided the current for its electric trains as it did from every ton of coal burnt in the firebox of its steam locos.Perhaps a better alternative might be a gas turbine running on coal dust.
That's already been tried and it failed miserably. http://utahrails.net/all-time/all-time-01.php#coal-turbine Fly ash was the problem. It has a bad habit of scouring turbine blades and no practical method of separating it from the heated gases was developed.
The frame casting thing is basically wrong: cast frames were an innovation, and for a long time built-up frames were the norm. Cast frames are usually better, but there is no reason you couldn't make a new, built-up frame. Of course, I strongly suspect you could cast a new frame, too.
Also, the stuff about tripple expansion reflects some serious misconceptions. Tripple-expansion engines are not turbines (although turbine systems often do expand the steam more than once). In common parlance, tripple-expansion engines are piston engines, and were common in marine propulsion systems. They tried 'em for rail use, and it didn't work well, for a variety of reasons. Of course there were many Mallet locomotives that were compound (a type of double-expansion). They could work well, but fell out of favor with most railroads after ca. 1920. The notable exception was N&W, with its very modern and successful Y-6 2-8-8-2's. But for most applications, the gains of multiple-expansion in a steam locomotive are not worth the costs.
Somebody is still manufacturing large steel castings. They form the basis for those humongous dump trucks used in open pit mines.
If somebody wants to build a state of the art steam loco, I humbly nominate:
4-8-4 + 4-8-4, Garratt design. The underlined drivers would be Withuhn engines - four cylinder triple expansion compounds, rods timed (with internally-cranked connection between the two main axles) for minimum dynamic augment. The boiler would have to be brand new - 30kg/cm2, state of the art gas generator firebed...
There's only one minor problem. Does anybody have a dozen or so megabucks and no better use for them?
Chuck
It seems to me that there are two reasons for new steam:
1) To satisfy the nostalgic motive of re-experiencing the lost age of steam. This is the impetus of restoring old steam locomotives to operation, and another alternative is to simply start from scratch by building a brand new locomotive that typically replicates something from the historical age of steam.
2) Commercial application to the role presently played by diesel-electric and straight electric locomotives. Here, the motive would not be nostalgia or recreational, but rather to return to the use of coal for its cost advantage over oil.
I don't believe that all possible approaches to new steam locomotive design would lend themselves to both of the above two reasons for new steam locomotives. The restoration of any historical steam locomotive would satisfy reason number one, but not reason number two. Even the most advanced locomotives at the end of the age of steam probably would not prove viable for reason number two.
What I really wonder about is what new locomotive design would satisfy reason number one. Certainly a faithful all-new replication of a U.P. Big Boy or a Pennsylvania K-4 would satisfy reason number one. But what about a completely new design of a steam locomotive with all new technology? For instance, a locomotive that runs on steam, but is very quiet, makes little if any smoke, has little exposed machinery, and has an air-conditioned cab with electronic controls and computer monitors.
Would the fans riding behind the K-4 on a fan trip accept this new design locomotive as a suitable equivalent to the K-4 just because both are steamers capable of pulling their train?
Just to go back to the question of water supply for a minute, I found this in TRAINS Nov.05 article regarding UP 844's 1999 boiler failure & resulting overhaul.
...844's flue failure took place as a result of corrosion that started because of high oxygen levels in the water used in the boiler. The kind of water available from municipalities is great for drinking water but poor for steam engines, Austin says.
In other words, just running a hose from a fire hydrant to the tender isn't the ideal situation. If you read this whole article ("A legend reborn") you'll see that UP's steam crew put an incredible amount of work into 844's rebuilding-I'd bet that any other engine in this situation would have wound up as a static display somewhere.
Mark Newton:
Great video of the Swedish steam turbine!
The only problem I have from a fan perspective is that it sounds like the Batmobile from the cheesy 1960s TV series. I think the sound of turbines revving is cool, but I can go to the local general aviation FBO at the airport and listen to some rich guy wind up his Gulfstream for departure to get that experience.
A steam engine is interesting for the chuff-chuff sounds of the cylinder exhaust strokes. Iron horse is an apt metaphor -- the chuffing creates the image of a draft animal taking steps and giving a pull with each step. The chuff sound is the thing, along with the steam whistle, and the general gurgling, sighing, popping, straining, and whooshing sounds you hear up close to a steam engine -- makes it seem alive in a way that a Diesel isn't.
Anyone have links to any video of that French DeGlehn compound in fan-trip service in Europe? Trains commented that its chuffing was muted by one of those fancy exhaust ejectors people keep talking abou -- they said that it sounds like a sewing machine, I guess that means a kind of muted drum-drum-drum instead of a chuff-chuff-chuff sound. Seeing a video with sound would be interesting for the comparison.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Anyone have links to any video of that French DeGlehn compound in fan-trip service in Europe? Trains commented that its chuffing was muted by one of those fancy exhaust ejectors people keep talking abou -- they said that it sounds like a sewing machine, I guess that means a kind of muted drum-drum-drum instead of a chuff-chuff-chuff sound. Seeing a video with sound would be interesting for the comparison.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Mark Newton:Great video of the Swedish steam turbine!The only problem I have from a fan perspective is that it sounds like the Batmobile from the cheesy 1960s TV series. I think the sound of turbines revving is cool, but I can go to the local general aviation FBO at the airport and listen to some rich guy wind up his Gulfstream for departure to get that experience.A steam engine is interesting for the chuff-chuff sounds of the cylinder exhaust strokes. Iron horse is an apt metaphor -- the chuffing creates the image of a draft animal taking steps and giving a pull with each step. The chuff sound is the thing, along with the steam whistle, and the general gurgling, sighing, popping, straining, and whooshing sounds you hear up close to a steam engine -- makes it seem alive in a way that a Diesel isn't.
marknewton wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: Mark Newton:Great video of the Swedish steam turbine!The only problem I have from a fan perspective is that it sounds like the Batmobile from the cheesy 1960s TV series. I think the sound of turbines revving is cool, but I can go to the local general aviation FBO at the airport and listen to some rich guy wind up his Gulfstream for departure to get that experience.A steam engine is interesting for the chuff-chuff sounds of the cylinder exhaust strokes. Iron horse is an apt metaphor -- the chuffing creates the image of a draft animal taking steps and giving a pull with each step. The chuff sound is the thing, along with the steam whistle, and the general gurgling, sighing, popping, straining, and whooshing sounds you hear up close to a steam engine -- makes it seem alive in a way that a Diesel isn't.Draft horses are meant to be placid animals with an even temperament, aren't they? Most of the steam locos I've worked on were cranky and temperamental bloody things, so I'm not sure I agree with that metaphor.I find there's a great tendency amongst railfans to romanticize steam engines and to ascribe attributes such as being "alive" to them. I can understand why people do this, but I almost always assume they are people who never had to work on the things for a living. Yes, there's romance in steam engines, but underpinning that there's also endless hours of hard, dirty, unglamorous work. I eventually gave the game away after 30-odd years because I couldn't handle the physical demands of the job any more. These days I sit on me fat backside in airconditioned comfort, trundling around the suburbs in a mutiple unit electric train - so much less strenuous!Cheers,Mark.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Mark Newton:Great video of the Swedish steam turbine!The only problem I have from a fan perspective is that it sounds like the Batmobile from the cheesy 1960s TV series. I think the sound of turbines revving is cool, but I can go to the local general aviation FBO at the airport and listen to some rich guy wind up his Gulfstream for departure to get that experience.A steam engine is interesting for the chuff-chuff sounds of the cylinder exhaust strokes. Iron horse is an apt metaphor -- the chuffing creates the image of a draft animal taking steps and giving a pull with each step. The chuff sound is the thing, along with the steam whistle, and the general gurgling, sighing, popping, straining, and whooshing sounds you hear up close to a steam engine -- makes it seem alive in a way that a Diesel isn't.
Mark: Did you not just summarize the average American Wedding though?
-Morgan
benburch wrote:The huge issue with steam on a modern railroad is not water, it is labor. A traditional steam loco requires a team of people to get it ready for the road, two people to operate, and is not amenable to MU operation. The latter was the reason for the huge articulated locomotives; To put as much horsepower behind a single throttle as possible.Water can be worked around with condensing locomotives. These were successful on a number of desert operations. They are more expensive, but if we are going to steam it is because we HAVE to burn coal and CANNOT get oil, at which time equipment expense is not the issue.I suppose the same can be true of labor costs, but labor is a much bigger continuing expense.What we would need would be a revolutionary non-traditional steam locomotive.It would need to be condensing. It would be self-firing and self-watering such that it can be fired without a hostler's attentions before a run, no fireman during a run, and would require no supervision by the engineer in the normal course of events.It would have to be fully self-lubricating or "permanently" lubricated.It would have fully electronic controls on the throttle, reverser, and brakes, and as such, would be capable of MU operation.If it is reciprocating it either needs to be a steam motor loco or a fully-balanced loco because "hammer blow" would be a deal killer with modern road standards.Some of this we can do. Some we cannot. Computer controls will clearly help. But we will need to be very desperate as a country before we return to coal-burning steam locomotives.Honestly, electrification is cheaper and can be run from efficient fixed plants, and would be a better choice.I still love steam locomotives, though. :-)
Modern steam locomotives can overcome most of those problems though. Somebody already posted a link to DLM in this thread. They rebuilt a locomotive, German Class 52 #8055 I believe, with modern trimmings (Lempor exhaust, modern lightweight materials where possible, roller bearings throughout, etc.) to run the 'Nostalgie Orient Express'. Read here :
http://www.5at.co.uk/Clean-Steam.html.
The modifications doubled the engines horsepower, from 1,600 to 3,000, produced significant savings in fuel and water and were able to raise the rated operating speed of the locomotive from 70 to 100 km/h.
The company also built rack and pinion locomotives for the Brienz Rothorn Bahn in Sweden. These locomotives only require one person to run, use less fuel per passenger than the diesels they largely replaced, run more cheaply, and their boilers are so well insulated that after being left in a shed over night, they still often have 75psi of pressure in the boilers when the crews arrive in the morning. That means they can raise a working head of steam in minutes, not hours, and with the installed electric pre-heaters the locomotive can be made to start raising steam by remote control and be ready to go when the crew gets there, like a remote start for a car! These locomotives have 36% more power, 82% higher power to weight ratio, burn 41% less fuel and manage a 56% higher average speed than the 1930s steam locomotives the railway owns.
On another note, who says that a modern steam loco has to run on coal to be cost effective? The Mount Washington Cog Railway just recently refitted one of their locomotives with an oil burning system that burns biofuel. Read here :http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/nday/mw/ndaymw-biodiesel.html
With the redraughting and other modifications the locomotive produces almost no soot or smoke the entire trip up the mountain. In other words, combustion is much more complete and wastes much less fuel.
I'd also like to point out to the original poster the 5AT Project in the UK. It's a project to build a classic looking steam locomotive, based cosmetically off the 5MT 4-6-0 design of British Rails but with all the modern technology available. Read more at their site : http://www.5at.co.uk/
Basically, this locomotive is designed to have a max continuous operating speed of 113mph, produce 2,535 horsepower at the drawbar at a speed of 70mph (I think thats pretty spectacular for a 6-coupled locomotive) and be able to run nearly 600miles without fuel and nearly 400 without water at average operating conditions (345 and 230 miles if it's forced to produce max power for the entire duration) as well as be much lighter on the track and easier to maintain than vintage engines. I would LOVE to see a similar project take place in the US, with its less restrictive loading gauge. I'd love to see a locomotive like this built in a similar form to UP #844, one of my favorite steam locomotives. Could you imagine the kind of power they could wring from a locomotive that size if they're giving figures like that as conservative estimates for a much smaller british loco?
Hammer blow can be at least partially corrected with modern lightweight alloys that reduce the weight of the motion
Oh by the way, I'm new here, sorry for writing a book on my first post >_<
*edit - sorry, forgot to set my links up properly. I apologize if any of this has been posted before, I didn't really look around
There is a very significant difference between British and American locomotive construction that makes new steam here very difficult. American practice was for a large cast frame while in Britain plate steel was widely used with smaller cast components. The facilities to cast the frame of a large steam locomotive no longer exist in North America, but may survive in China and perhaps elsewhere.
Plate steel frames need more maintenance since they are not as robust and are more likely to work and develop cracks. On the other hand, repairs are easier so if labour was relatively cheap this was a viable option. I imagine the cast frames were rendered necessary for North American railroading to survive the stresses of larger train sizes and rougher track.
Yes, a one piece casting for all three cylinders, or a 6 foot driving wheel centre, are not small or simple jobs, but they aren't 30 feet long either.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.