I was always surprised that we never saw a steam locomotive with some sort of gear box system in the middle of the frame. Instead of steam driving the side rods, it would instead power some system where it involves starting in a low gear and goes into the higher gears like a manual transmission. I don't think this would be that complicated, as you could have one large single piston in the middle of the frame driving a flywheel much like the steam tractors do.
I am also surprised that there was never a steam locomotive towing a auxiliary boiler proving steam to the primary locomotive for steam hungry locomotives.
I think my fantasy locomotive would be a Big boy with saddle tanks and no tender. It would be one giant locomotive! How about a 4-6-8-4 with 4 drivers under the tender powered by a steam turbine?
Thomas 9011's comment about a gearbox system in the middle of the frame sounds intriguing, but it reminds me of the early years of steam when the locomotives had the cylinders and valve gear mounted within the frame. The Brits kept the system for quite a long time, but here in the US it was given up as a maintainance headache pretty quickly.
As far as the "manual transmission" aspect, that reminds me also of diesel-mechanical locomotives. They worked well for light loads as in switching, but were totally unsuitable for over-the-road work.
Interesting ideas nonetheless.
I remember riding in the cab of old 20 ton Whitcomb diesel locomotive and I was shocked when the engineer grabbed this huge gear shifter lever and was switching gears and we went along. I don't remember how many speeds it had but it was very similar to switching a manual transmission in a car.
My knowledge of steam from the era is of stationary electric power plants rather than locomotives.
Power plants from this era are water tube boilers with superheaters. This allows higher temperatures and pressures, with resultant increases in thermal efficiency. I would expect a steam turbine generator driving electric motors similar to those used with diesels
While a locomotive would not achieve the 30% efficiency of power plants, 15% to 20% would seem possible.
Oil would probably have been the preferred fuel.
Hi Folks
actually my question was aimed at what types of *conventional* or *classic steam* as I prefer to call it might have been developed in line with the evolution of American steam as it was realized in the three decades of the 1920s to 1940s .
If we consider J-79 steam-converted coal fired gas turbine / electric / condensing / high pressure / power trucks / saddle tank non-tender tender drive / booster middle frame single piston geared and what have you we might also consider possibilities of mainline rack rail and steam ram-jet supersonic propulsion & all ...
Ok - since obviously there is a liking to head into unexplored realms of the 'wild side of engineering' :
Jawn Henry
While I have no test reports or service reports on that engine , I can easily imagine trouble with side-effects of products of coal combustion and waste water / steam interfering with electrical systems even if - as I presume as given - they had been provided with some sort of protective insulation .. of possibly quite optimistic layout not fully taking account for your typical irregular incident and rough handling , generally lacking due hardening against abrasion and the elements . This could have been dealt with , no doubt, if you come to think of several times harder working conditions of electric locomotives in mining railways which do labor on and on as long but vaguely perceivable as locomotives under thick layers of dirt garbs of all sorts of odd elements and without shying water flooded rails , neither .
It *could* have been done if engineering would have been commited to solve teething troubles with as much financial investment and investigation in design development , testing , building prototypes , improving , re-testing and all that EMD had done to develop their baby to a point where it could be presented to the public , be promoted , marketed and sold on series production ( the like had never been done with any of the steam non-conventional experimental locomotives !)
The point is : would that sort of complication of the steam locomotive to a level above (!) the diesel-electric have been worth it all - in commercial reasoning : basically for the sake of using coal as fuel , if you boil down to it ? .. a question I'll leave to each one's views and preferences to decide upon .
Boosters
If we define a booster as an engine unit *temporarily* driving axles other than the regular drive axles and which are but carrying axles for most of the mileage , then boosters are principally confined to points on the line where an extra effort is asked of the locomotive - these again are points of starting under difficult conditions or climbing steep grades , both points of low speed operation , the extra effort all going into development of extra pull not extra power output ; a booster unit never was and by this definition never could be used as a means to attain extra speeds or enlarge total power output (in kW or hp - not t.e.) since the unit simply worked in parallel to the main engine unit and depended on the same boiler and thus the same limited capacity supply of heat energy .
Giant single piston between frames ... "shroom - shroom - shroom - shroom .."
.. spare us to just imagine this at any speed !
Mechanical gear with speeds
.. truck style with mechanical clutch ? .. to be pressed , when driver yells pulling giant lever , by fireman jumping on it with all his hopefully not-too-small body index ( "Firemen assigned to these engines are required to watch weight and never scale below 228 pounds on duty" ) Kallirrrrrrrrrr-rumPH! Thanx . Or what about one with a steam powered clutch where the piston tends to jam up and stubbornly prevents shift down in view of grade section looming large up front ... endless delights and perhaps an effective onslaught on EMD because everyone there from engineers to salesmen , managers to fitters would get delirious with laughter , then fall silent in a permanent disconnected unearthly smile and have to take leave from work to recover .
Extra boiler in tow ..
.. hm , never thought of that - really .. yet Deutsche Reichsbahn would have come somewhat close to the idea by their program of mutilating steam locomotives into non-self-propelling 'mobile heating plants' when in the 1980s Decapods innocently calling at Meinigen shop for a decent little overhaul were bereaved of rods , pressing out pins , removing cylinders , air and feed pumps in operations lacking all surgical standards ( somehow preferably 2-10-0s , which didn't mean Pacifics or Mikados were save nor spared ) However an idea of such a non-cylindered de-powered rump-boiler would be towed by a steamer still enjoying limbs salvage and would donate steam - uhm , I'm afraid , this would have been just too far out in the way of thinking of Reichsbahn officials - at least .
More coming up ..
With regards
Juniatha
But I had suggested some more modest reforms . . . How about the Jawn Henry water tube boiler without the complicated turbine-electric drive -- just ol' (compound expansion of the 600 PSI steam) pistons, rods and drivers?
How about a siderod drive as in the Pennsy S2 turbine, but using a quill drive to one of the driver axles from a high-speed piston steam engine, or maybe the jackshaft arrangement as on the turbine in Sweden? Siderods are not the problem with track pounding as they can be balanced -- the problem is the changing force angles of the main rod.
Maybe, we could do some historical research into what the main problems were with railroad steam? If "track pounding" were such a problem, why didn't we see more of the De Glehn 2-cylinders inside driving the first cranked axle, 2-cylinders outside driving the next axle from the outside, inside and outside cylinders on the same side of the locomotive at 180-deg relative to each other? That had to be a better solution than the Bill Withun Duplex with the back cylinders stuffed under the firebox (didn't work on the Pennsy) and the inside connecting rod connections to crank axles?
Was the large amount of coal consumed by 6% efficient steam the problem? Some sources say that at their heyday, US steam locomotives were using 30% of the coal mined in the US. Forget about the smoke and the CO2 emissions, that is a lot of coal to carry around, just to run the thing (the locomotive pulled train) that does all of the carrying. In other words, much of your train and track capacity is used just moving the coal around to where you need it to run trains? Would a move to 12 percent efficient steam make this fuel logistics problem more tenable?
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 But I had suggested some more modest reforms . . . How about the Jawn Henry water tube boiler without the complicated turbine-electric drive -- just ol' (compound expansion of the 600 PSI steam) pistons, rods and drivers? How about a siderod drive as in the Pennsy S2 turbine, but using a quill drive to one of the driver axles from a high-speed piston steam engine, or maybe the jackshaft arrangement as on the turbine in Sweden? Siderods are not the problem with track pounding as they can be balanced -- the problem is the changing force angles of the main rod. Maybe, we could do some historical research into what the main problems were with railroad steam? If "track pounding" were such a problem, why didn't we see more of the De Glehn 2-cylinders inside driving the first cranked axle, 2-cylinders outside driving the next axle from the outside, inside and outside cylinders on the same side of the locomotive at 180-deg relative to each other? That had to be a better solution than the Bill Withun Duplex with the back cylinders stuffed under the firebox (didn't work on the Pennsy) and the inside connecting rod connections to crank axles? Was the large amount of coal consumed by 6% efficient steam the problem? Some sources say that at their heyday, US steam locomotives were using 30% of the coal mined in the US. Forget about the smoke and the CO2 emissions, that is a lot of coal to carry around, just to run the thing (the locomotive pulled train) that does all of the carrying. In other words, much of your train and track capacity is used just moving the coal around to where you need it to run trains? Would a move to 12 percent efficient steam make this fuel logistics problem more tenable?
The efficiency rate of a steam locomotive is not good but neither is a diesel locomotive. You really need to look at the overall picture. Steam locomotives back in the day used to haul freight trains with a single locomotive. The mighty Alleghenies where pulling 200 plus coal cars up 1% excess grades. Your average train today has 3 or 4 locomotives with each locomotive burning hundreds of gallons of diesel every hour. One steam locomotive is probably far cheaper than 4 diesel locomotives mile per mile. I know from the dozens of times I have rode on the Union pacific 844, it can go hundreds of miles with out refilling the oil in it's tender. It is pulling probably a average of 18-20 cars and burning bunker C oil which is dirt cheap.
Juanita-I have been in old power plants that use a single piston that turns a flywheel and it sounds similar to a steam engine. Since the piston is twice as big as a steam locomotive piston they are extremely powerful. The only drawback to a single piston is the possibility of the valves stopping in a position where the valve is dead center. When this happens the valve has basically shut of the steam to the piston and nothing starts. So someone must manually move the flywheel so the valve is not centered. It may seem like this would be a rarity but it happens a few times while I was there.
Here is a video of the single piston http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMiu1SBqSxM
I wouldn't imagine a steam locomotive having a giant clutch as most large industrial machinery that involves switching gears has no clutch at all. They switch gears by matching the engine and gearbox RPM's until they are synchronized. When they are, the gears will mesh with little effort. When I was riding that 20 ton Whatcom it didn't have a clutch either. The engineer basically put a little pressure on the gear shifter as it increased in speed and when the engine RPM's and gears were matched the lever went forward and the gears shifted. As anyone knows when driving a stick shift, you can shift the car into neutral with out using the clutch anytime you want. You can also shift the car into any gear you want when the engine is not running.
The quill drive theory is pretty interesting and I am surprised that has not been used before. I know with a quill drive the wheels can not move unless the motor is moving them which would make towing a dead locomotive impossible with out sliding the wheels.
Getting back to what if locomotives...I thought the Erie triplex should have been given a second chance. From what I have read it was the most powerful steam locomotive every built. I know it was dropped because they could not keep up steam in the boiler, which is why I am surprised the locomotive didn't tow a auxiliary boiler to provide extra steam to the triplex.
I know there was some chatter back in the day about nuclear powered steam locomotives which was actually getting quite a bit of attention. They said one steam locomotive could go over 20 years with out refueling. But they said it was way too risky especially if a boiler exploded or a serious accident.
Hi Paul
You sure added some worthy thoughts to the discussion , I wanted to answer yet didn't have time and peace of mind to sew up something worth reading . I had long since put various thoughts of my own into the topic and will try and post an abstract on some of them .
Absolutely true , what you write about buying power is not all there is to it , proper organisation of running and maintenance is an indispensable part of making it successful . However this isn't limited to steam or advanced steam , it applies to any category of traction power - with diesels it was soon found full potential was not to be had by keeping diesels in steam sheds , preferably they wanted facilities of their own taylored to their needs . The same is - or should I say was - true with electric traction . Nowadays , if I see DB's electrics simply parked on reserved tracks in freight yards instead in engine facilities (which have been torn down) it looks like these don't need a home anymore and hardly a shops attendance during mileages nearing a million between overhauls , neither . Yet that doesn't mean it all comes for free : what was spent on running maintenance on earlier power now is spent in high quality design and construction that has to be paid for in acquisition of this power , hat's why it only pays off when working in very intense daily ton-miles service schedules - which again isn't necessarily or always the way DB applies them , or so it seems when lately counting like 15 - 22 of various DB classes plus three form Austrian Rys parked in three rows for hours , some of them even for days on end .
More remarks coming up ...
As I write this I see the news about New York City : Jesus , that's the one thing this city for sure didn't need , ask for , less has deserved ! My empathy is with the people of New York , Atlantic City and the East Coast , may they find their individual ways through all this ordeal !
Regards
Thomas 9011 Steam locomotives back in the day used to haul freight trains with a single locomotive. The mighty Alleghenies where pulling 200 plus coal cars up 1% excess grades. Your average train today has 3 or 4 locomotives with each locomotive burning hundreds of gallons of diesel every hour. One steam locomotive is probably far cheaper than 4 diesel locomotives mile per mile. I know from the dozens of times I have rode on the Union pacific 844, it can go hundreds of miles with out refilling the oil in it's tender. It is pulling probably a average of 18-20 cars and burning bunker C oil which is dirt cheap.
Steam locomotives back in the day used to haul freight trains with a single locomotive. The mighty Alleghenies where pulling 200 plus coal cars up 1% excess grades. Your average train today has 3 or 4 locomotives with each locomotive burning hundreds of gallons of diesel every hour. One steam locomotive is probably far cheaper than 4 diesel locomotives mile per mile. I know from the dozens of times I have rode on the Union pacific 844, it can go hundreds of miles with out refilling the oil in it's tender. It is pulling probably a average of 18-20 cars and burning bunker C oil which is dirt cheap.
If I am not a stickler for the facts, maybe I make a big deal about getting in the rough ballpark with the numbers?
An H-8 2-6-6-6 locomotive pulling 200 (plus!) coal cars up a 1 percent hill? Empties or loads?
Now I know that a coal car back in the Transition Era is not the same mass as a coal car today. Suppose you had 200 50-gross-ton coal cars in tow behind one locomotive. Just an assumption, but bear with me.
200 cars times 50 tons times .01 (1 % grade -- haven't even accounted for the weight of the locomotive or the Davis formula resistance) equals 200,000 lbs. Are you telling me "they" were getting 200,000 lbs tractive effort out of 6 axles, and yes, I know the H-8 had one of the highest axle loading known to history. Suppose they had 480,000 lbs on the drivers -- maybe, just maybe you could get 200,000 lbs tractive effort if you liberally applied sand and if the rails were bone dry and if you held down the safety valves to get an illegal level of boiler pressure.
Something, however, tells me that had a pusher ("banking engine" to our British friends) cut into the train somewhere.
As to the fuel economy of the 844, don't they usually have trailing Diesels in the consist when they take that locomotive "out for a spin"? And as to going hundreds of miles on a tank, the fuel oil tank on that tender is pretty big, isn't it?
Agreed, what oil-fired steam was firing "back in the day" was not your #2 Diesel -- Bunker C was long a "waste product" of oil refining with the consistency of roofing tar, and part of the economics of steam was that you were using cheap fuel, whether plentiful coal or cheap "leavings" of the petroleum industry. But just as the Chicago meat packing houses made such efficient use of the pig that "nothing was wasted, apart from the squeal!", I am thinking there is a use for all of the petroleum fractions these days for something that pays top dollar for it. Even roofing tar costs serious money these days.
The other thing, are you sure they are using Bunker C instead of #2 Diesel in the 844? From a logistics standpoint, I don't know who will sell you a tender full of Bunker C, but you can get #2 Diesel from just about anyone in about any quantity these days, delivered to wherever they can get their truck, provided you hand over enough cash.
Hi Thomas
Never mind , no insult intended if I seemed to take things less serious than I shoud - it's a flaw that befalls me now and then , really I have to admit it protects me from my head becoming too much entangled in thoughts . I have to throw it off from time to time and say to myself "Look , it's all a mess , technology as run by humans is an endless show of digressivness and absurdities." - some hop into a 350 hp 2.2 tons car to get to the shop next block and buy a liitle something while others walk for miles on end or work for hours for but a trifle bit of a wage that is but an insult in itself , yet they have no choice . In this forum we are in blessed positions to be able to discuss such topics relevant but to our mental recreation and reflection while the East Coast is striken by this monster hurricane .
I will write more later on - just a few remarks on the Triplex
I agree , it basically was a potentially progressive idea as for steam of maximum tractive effort . However , the idea was to extend engine unit side of the locomotive in relation to unchanged boiler size and thus avoid depression of power output at low speeds ( as usually inevitable with classic steam ) That said the idea of introducing whatever increase on the boiler side of the locomotive inherently is a contradiction to the idea of the Triplex , you see , since it re-establishes relations found in a 'conventional' Mallet - or : you could just use two locos to realize the same . What the Triplex as built suffered from obviously was a severe lack of draughting and - to a minor degree - grate size / air conduct and boiler proportions . That was what prevented the boiler to live up to demands , i e balance evaporation with consumption at low speeds ( it would have been quite another story to make it steam fast enough to feed three engine unit sets at higher speeds - but that wasn't what the idea focussed on )
The reason steaming was inadequate at any speed was simply because draughting was not balancing evaporation with consumption as it did in any decently well proportioned and draughted conventional design . A major reason for this was the fundamentally aberrant idea of ducting exhaust of rear engine unit to tender for feed water heating and then letting it go without any contribution to draughting . That sort of solution might - with tongue in cheek - have been tried when using one of the later high efficiency drauhting systems , yet even then I would think it would not have been adviseable nor helpful in any way . Lack of draughting and therefore lack of intensity of combustion was behind a remark attributed to one fireman of a Triplex , allegedly having said "On a hot summer day the coolest place is behind the firebox of the Triplex!" Though this would appear ever so slightly exaggerated I think it conveys the picture pretty well .
Secondly , the old idea of composing a compound engine with cylinders of common volume if LP are twice the number of HP again was born of but basic understanding of the nature of compound engines - 1 : 2 relation of HP : LP volume was too small to realize much of the theoretical advantages typical for compounding , a relation about 1 : 2,5 was preferably used in engines focussing on power at speed while relations around 1 : 2,7 to 1 : 3 were more to the point in slow drag power - depending of course on actual boiler pressure applied .
In general , I believe seperate engine units or sets of drivers should preferably be fully identical : same number of drivers , same adhesion mass , same set of cylinders , valve gear and rods . That inherently outrules compounding as for distribution of HP and LP stages over different sets of drivers or engine units . Now , if you quote N&W's Y classes 2-8-8-2 as examples of contradicting design philosophy : well , many roads can lead to success in technology and the North-Western folks in Roanoke sure did it their way and made it work - point is : in design you always have options if only you know exactly what you're doing ...
Paul & Thomas in cab of H-8 on 1 % grade
A lot of hill climbing was done on train momentum in steam times - yet any railroad with due safety standards loaded locos only to what they could start any point of the line . Probably it was 200 car loads **or** 1 % grade but not both combined and then not without assistence by a couple of Mikes shoving hard at the rear .
The H-8 were the antithesis of the Triplex : plenty of boiler capacity combined with a comparatively small number of drive wheels or more precisely small percentage # of powered wheels : # of total wheels . In consequence the 2-6-6-6 was a formidable tonnage roller on the level and inevitably a compromised if awesome performer on ramps .
Paul Milenkovic 200 cars times 50 tons times .01 (1 % grade -- haven't even accounted for the weight of the locomotive or the Davis formula resistance) equals 200,000 lbs. Are you telling me "they" were getting 200,000 lbs tractive effort out of 6 axles, and yes, I know the H-8 had one of the highest axle loading known to history. Suppose they had 480,000 lbs on the drivers -- maybe, just maybe you could get 200,000 lbs tractive effort if you liberally applied sand and if the rails were bone dry and if you held down the safety valves to get an illegal level of boiler pressure. Something, however, tells me that had a pusher ("banking engine" to our British friends) cut into the train somewhere.
According to dynamometer records, the H-8's were good for 115,000 lb of drawbar pull, so I would also be surprised if one H-8 could pull 200 cars up a 1% grade. While they had a high axle loading (86,000 lbs), the cylinders and steam pressure was designed for the lower "official" axle loading.
- Erik
Paul Milenkovic Thomas 9011 Steam locomotives back in the day used to haul freight trains with a single locomotive. The mighty Alleghenies where pulling 200 plus coal cars up 1% excess grades. Your average train today has 3 or 4 locomotives with each locomotive burning hundreds of gallons of diesel every hour. One steam locomotive is probably far cheaper than 4 diesel locomotives mile per mile. I know from the dozens of times I have rode on the Union pacific 844, it can go hundreds of miles with out refilling the oil in it's tender. It is pulling probably a average of 18-20 cars and burning bunker C oil which is dirt cheap. If I am not a stickler for the facts, maybe I make a big deal about getting in the rough ballpark with the numbers? An H-8 2-6-6-6 locomotive pulling 200 (plus!) coal cars up a 1 percent hill? Empties or loads? Now I know that a coal car back in the Transition Era is not the same mass as a coal car today. Suppose you had 200 50-gross-ton coal cars in tow behind one locomotive. Just an assumption, but bear with me. 200 cars times 50 tons times .01 (1 % grade -- haven't even accounted for the weight of the locomotive or the Davis formula resistance) equals 200,000 lbs. Are you telling me "they" were getting 200,000 lbs tractive effort out of 6 axles, and yes, I know the H-8 had one of the highest axle loading known to history. Suppose they had 480,000 lbs on the drivers -- maybe, just maybe you could get 200,000 lbs tractive effort if you liberally applied sand and if the rails were bone dry and if you held down the safety valves to get an illegal level of boiler pressure. Something, however, tells me that had a pusher ("banking engine" to our British friends) cut into the train somewhere. As to the fuel economy of the 844, don't they usually have trailing Diesels in the consist when they take that locomotive "out for a spin"? And as to going hundreds of miles on a tank, the fuel oil tank on that tender is pretty big, isn't it? Agreed, what oil-fired steam was firing "back in the day" was not your #2 Diesel -- Bunker C was long a "waste product" of oil refining with the consistency of roofing tar, and part of the economics of steam was that you were using cheap fuel, whether plentiful coal or cheap "leavings" of the petroleum industry. But just as the Chicago meat packing houses made such efficient use of the pig that "nothing was wasted, apart from the squeal!", I am thinking there is a use for all of the petroleum fractions these days for something that pays top dollar for it. Even roofing tar costs serious money these days. The other thing, are you sure they are using Bunker C instead of #2 Diesel in the 844? From a logistics standpoint, I don't know who will sell you a tender full of Bunker C, but you can get #2 Diesel from just about anyone in about any quantity these days, delivered to wherever they can get their truck, provided you hand over enough cash.
I can spends months talking about the Allegheny. If you have never seen one of the surviving two on display I would highly recommend it. There is a book called "The Allegheny - Lima's Finest" which is the best source on all things related to the Allegheny. It was written by the former President of C&O and he had all the papers from the test car data.
I do own the book but unfortunately it is buried deep in my storage locker. From what I remember the Allegheny shattered all records for pulling loaded trains and they still stand today. If I remember right it pulled approx 218 loaded coal cars up a 1% grade at 15-20 MPH. The tonnage was estimated at around 12,000 tons and the peak horsepower was 7498. It did that unassisted. It smashed that record by pulling a 18,000 ton train on level track. I will see if I can find that book to get you the actual statistics.
I don't think any of us will ever understand the forces involved when it comes to pulling trains. Some things just don't seem to add up. Would you believe it, if I told you two SD40-2's could pull a train in excess of 600 cars at approx 30mph? Here is a video so you can see it to believe it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxtSI-u0ZF0
I live in Denver and I visit the Cheyenne steam shop on a pretty regular basis. I heard from some people that the UP 844 and the Challenger were burning diesel fuel. So I asked the fireman what the deal was and he said it was a little of both. He said the burn around 90% waste crankcase oil, and 10% diesel. The costs was very low. Used crankcase oil can cost you as little as 10 cents a gallon to around 1 dollar a gallon depending on the demand. I don't believe any steam locomotives burns bunker C anymore as there is a huge supply coming from people recycling their used motor oil, and shops that now sell there used motor oil. Used motor oil is much cheaper than buying anything left over from the refinery.
It is standard to have a trailing diesel unit on the mainline steam passenger trains. They have really only started doing that in the last 5 years or so and I think unfortunately that is here to stay. The steam locomotives certainly don't need the extra diesel. It is a insurance policy to make sure that train gets to where it is going regardless of what problems the steam locomotive has.
I remember riding on both the 844 and the 3985 many times with out diesel helpers and they did not need to refill the oil during the entire trip which typically lasted from 8am until 7pm.
I have the Huddleston and Dixon book. The graph for drawbar pull vs speed shows that at start, the H-8 was capable of 115,000 lbs. As for the H-8 producing 7498 DBHP, that cannot have been achieved at 15 MPH, since 7500 DBHP translates into 187,500 lbs of drawbar pull (and 141,000 lb at 20 MPH).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.