-there is a good german article about that,
... condensing is a very special and limited technique ...
Those condensed steam has to be cooled down quickly to water and cooling also consumes a lot of energy...look at their big fans! Yet, on testing they could cool down 25tons of exhaust steam (metric) to 194°F hot water...
A steam locomotive and its auxiliaries is not big enough to carry huge cooling area and cooling appliances...
Those SAR-tenders were ridiculous big already, and they were far not as big engines like American's 4-8-4...
-lars
If it were a condensor engine a la S. Africa, it would do a lot better than having to stop at short intervals.
Unless, of course, we could figure out how to maintain track pans on grades.
-Crandell
Yes, Paul!
You're right! I thought it was a cleaverly done idea, and would give some folks a start to their saturday morning.
I would think a double articulated Garrett would be a power monster, but I would be curious if you could manage to pack on enough water and fuel, for a trip over even a moderately long run. I might be very doable for a specific situation where lots of power was needed over a specific obstacle. Like Sand Patch, or some of the VGN's or N&W's mainline grades. Just a thought.
Ah, the wonders of PhotoShop. All seriousness aside, though, the above picture suggests some of George Henderson's proposals for quadruplexes and quintuplexes (!) and a short article in TRAINS for a proposed Mallet-Garratt (4-8-8-4+4-8-8-4).
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/bigbigboy.jpg
I see you fellows are still discussing BIG Steam!
I kinda thought the above linked Locomotive might be a subject for and R&D Project!
Enjoy!
daveklepperThe question remains: Why the S-1? What were they thinking of? Probably some good books have the answer, but what is it? One of kind, too long to really be practical, and designed before road power dieselization was seriously considered.
The question remains: Why the S-1? What were they thinking of? Probably some good books have the answer, but what is it? One of kind, too long to really be practical, and designed before road power dieselization was seriously considered.
The S-1 was 78' long, which is only 4' longer than a SD70ACe. The real culprit here was its 62' long tender. Put a more standard length 40' tender on the S-1, and the total length is now only 118', just slightly longer than the typical 4-8-4.
selectorHarveyK400Where would a T-1 make up time with frequent commuter stops on the NY&LB, much less overcoming a slower start than a J-1? That part is the deal breaker, I'm sure. If the distance between stops is much less than, say, 20 miles, the T1 would be mightily tested to make up time. -Crandell
HarveyK400Where would a T-1 make up time with frequent commuter stops on the NY&LB, much less overcoming a slower start than a J-1?
That part is the deal breaker, I'm sure. If the distance between stops is much less than, say, 20 miles, the T1 would be mightily tested to make up time.
A quick check of the map shows the distance between stops ranges from 1-6 miles - most in the 2-3 mile range. FWIW, only a couple expresses in 1966 Guide; but not leaving Penn Station 5-6 pm. So thoeretically, a J-1 restricted to 60 mph (don't know what Pennsy thought about that) might match the trip time of a T-1. There are engineering formulas to calculate this stuff; but you need a lot of data from the heat quality of the coal to the weight of the 12 cars.
HarveyK400FWIW, a J-1 would walk away on 68" drivers with 12 cars on the NY&LB.
FWIW, a J-1 would walk away on 68" drivers with 12 cars on the NY&LB.
The J1 had 69" drivers. It would certainly eliminate double headed K4s, but at passenger speeds, that 2-10-4 would also eliminate most of the track. Better have track gangs following in its wake of destruction and give the crews paid time off so their internal organs can recover from the pounding. LOL
GP40-2The only reason they completed their own end-of-steam designs was because at the time they had too much R&D tied up in them to stop. Their hope was to sell them to another RR that was more committed to steam, but no one was interested
Thinking about this,
... and we add Harvey400K's and others thoughts, look at the number of built engines containing their own design ( past '30 steam, excluding any typical Decapod or Mountain ... etc. design ...),
their steam railroad department seemed go to no-where...and those late '20 design 2-10-4 C&O T-Class were known one of the best on the PRR? Even equal power to Q2, correct? No blame on other designs... but they were..costly? Pushing limits?
However those late S2, from a theoretical standpoint, looked pretty well, I might thing...
-hard times for steam, though.
I
selectorBut if it got behind for some reason, it couldn't make up time as the T1 was capable of doing. The J1 would be capped at 70 mph, with some odd and rare exceptions, while the Duplex was known to exceed limits when it had to, and by a substantial margin. -Crandell
But if it got behind for some reason, it couldn't make up time as the T1 was capable of doing. The J1 would be capped at 70 mph, with some odd and rare exceptions, while the Duplex was known to exceed limits when it had to, and by a substantial margin.
Where would a T-1 make up time with frequent commuter stops on the NY&LB, much less overcoming a slower start than a J-1? I even wondered if a J-1 was balanced for more than 60 mph without pounding the daylights out of the track. It boils down to which engine, the T, M, or J, would be more economical with coal measured somehow against performance.
I'm guessing double-headed K-4s were a response to the need for better acceleration and speed overcoming the cost of a second engine crew and the limitation of the length of turntables.
I wasn't referring to the T-1, but the S-1, which was 140' engine + tender.
What were they smoking? How you gonna turn that baby without a wye?
John
GP40-2 The PRR T1 was 119' long, and 51 of those feet was due to its extended capacity long distance tender. The T1 itself was only 68' long - about the size of a SD40-2. To put that in prospective, the PRR J1 2-10-4 was 118' long, and most late steam 4-8-4s were around 115' long (give or take a few feet depending on tender capacity). So in that respect, the T1 was really no longer than most other late steam designs. Remember, the PRR original idea was to use the T1 in long distance service, so the long tender made sense.
The PRR T1 was 119' long, and 51 of those feet was due to its extended capacity long distance tender. The T1 itself was only 68' long - about the size of a SD40-2. To put that in prospective, the PRR J1 2-10-4 was 118' long, and most late steam 4-8-4s were around 115' long (give or take a few feet depending on tender capacity). So in that respect, the T1 was really no longer than most other late steam designs. Remember, the PRR original idea was to use the T1 in long distance service, so the long tender made sense.
UP 4-12-2I agree--what were they smoking when they were designing such long locomotives?
I agree--what were they smoking when they were designing such long locomotives?
HarveyK400But possibly too long for the South Amboy turntable?
http://www.raritanriver-rr.com/ForgottenHistory1Forgotten traces of the RRRR 20seenin the three official Raritan River Rail Road Company maps.htm
Are these maps related to those mentioned locations? Some plans contains a turntable, look at "Stevens" Ave shops"
daveklepperBack to lack of T-1's on the NY&LB. Thought comes the PRR already had a locomotive that could have avoided double heading: the M-1 Moutain 4-8-2. Would not it have adequate for the NY&LB commuter trains? But possibly too long for the South Amboy turntable? And the use of M-1 probably meant the PRR saw no reason for a 4-8-4 pre-WWII. But just what was the thinking that led to the S-1? Did they really plan on a system-wide infrastructure modification to be able to use this locomotive?
Back to lack of T-1's on the NY&LB. Thought comes the PRR already had a locomotive that could have avoided double heading: the M-1 Moutain 4-8-2. Would not it have adequate for the NY&LB commuter trains? But possibly too long for the South Amboy turntable? And the use of M-1 probably meant the PRR saw no reason for a 4-8-4 pre-WWII. But just what was the thinking that led to the S-1? Did they really plan on a system-wide infrastructure modification to be able to use this locomotive?
Interesting question about using M-1s on the NY&LB - certainly better than a single K-4 and about as good overall as the T-1. On the plus side, the M-1 had 72" drivers and simpler machinery. Other than the boiler pressure and grate area, was there much difference in heating surfaces between the two types?
As an earlier post pointed out though, turning engines may have been an issue, even with the original short tender. Anybody got anything specific?
Perhaps generally "in the same class"--BUT
NOT in the same class as compared to one particular road's SD40-2 versus all other SD40-2 variants, or one road's FT versus the others.
UP 4-12-2 It (the Big Boy) may appear similar to a Yellowstone, but I think UP was doing "their own thing" without having an eye on what NP/DM&IR were doing. Even in the mid-1930's, UP and NP had different design approaches on the original Challengers--that is well documented--the NP Challenger may look generally like an early UP Challenger, but they were different animals. NP's version had significantly higher starting tractive effort. John
It (the Big Boy) may appear similar to a Yellowstone, but I think UP was doing "their own thing" without having an eye on what NP/DM&IR were doing. Even in the mid-1930's, UP and NP had different design approaches on the original Challengers--that is well documented--the NP Challenger may look generally like an early UP Challenger, but they were different animals. NP's version had significantly higher starting tractive effort.
John,
Maybe they have done it unintended.
Do not know, how much they shared common avail. design parts or particular designs, buts lets say, all starts with some ( GSI - mostly ? ) casted frame, scaled up on a wished/designed/-frame...I mean the technical approach of such an engine. OK. you are right to say they were an equivalent stronger ( yet more expensive ) articulated than the Challengers in gen. UP service. But from outside they look more like a Yellowstone to me... ---do i feel wrong?
lars
-BTW. agree too that the team around Jabelman and Alco and more worked pretty hand in hand together as they have been ordered to...
Lars--
Yes, as I had said my figures come from The Challenger Locomotive book.
I don't have the Big Boy book. Ok, given the average figures you quoted, I'll buy the 3600 "average".
Regarding the contention that the Big Boy is really just a Yellowstone--I just cannot agree. From Kratville's writings which I have read, I do not recall any mention of UP having looked at the 2-8-8-4, but instead that they were interested in scaling up their own challenger.
In the history supplied with the new Athearn Genesis Big Boy model, it specifically states that "the easiest solution was to scale up the successful Challenger design by adding another pair of drivers to each half of the locomotive making a 4-8-8-4 design. The task before Jabelmann's department was to fit such a large machine into the real world." Athearn's history makes no mention of the 2-8-8-4's.
The Union Pacific often did things "their own way"--often disagreeing with and sometimes even outright ignoring ALCO's recommendations because they considered ALCO's position to be a rather "conservative" design philosophy. Case in point: Alco specifically stated the 4-12-2 was not designed for/should not be used at speeds above 35 mph. Union Pacific had absolutely no intention of running them that slow--but instead in the 40 to 60 mph range--and sometimes faster than that. Also--Alco wanted the middle blind drivers on the 4-12-2's, and 9000 was delivered with at least one set blind (no flanges)--but even before release for operation, UP replaced the wheelset with normal flanged wheels.
GP40-2My theory is that after the B&O's new diesel request was turned down, they used their political clout with the War Department (after all, Washington D.C. was their backyard) to get the EM1 design approved for production.
-interesting and plausible theory.
The years stood yet not still, and with a late 2-8-8-4 design the B&O take much of it as an advantage,
which seemed to have been paid out.
-The doom for UP-engines was, all the 800, 3900 and 4000 class was, at the end of WW2, accumulated running and maint. cost. was quite a percantage ( 3/4 or so ) of their whole purchasing costs... running those 4000 class especially, though they moved quite some tons.
They had the facility anyway ( mostly Cheyenne ), but after steam disappeared, I can tell exactly what happened with the RR-Town...
...1963, there was little left of it ;-)
-I very appreciate, that your nice Big Country still give nice reserve places for Big Engines...
Lars LocoSurprisingly, those "smallest" Yellowstone's were even were longer than the " big"M3/M4...
Surprisingly, those "smallest" Yellowstone's were even were longer than the " big"M3/M4...
locobasede Good morning, Boyd, and everyone else: I am the compiler of the data to which you referred in your post. It is extracted from a larger database that covers as many of the world's locomotives as there is data available. Wes Barris has been kind enough to host my data for several years. In addition to devising the process through which we could post as much data per locomotive as we do, Wes flags the obvious inaccuracies and passes along comments from visitors. Please also note that he offers his own commentary about many of the arrangements and classes on the home pages for each of those sections. During all of the time Wes has hosted the data, he has displayed my name and my email address. Several visitors to that site have contacted me through the email address with corrections, comments, questions, and points of discussion. Any of those contacts would tell you if asked that I respond positively, accept the comments willingly, and incorporate them readily. A review of the commentary on most of the entries will show the primary source's full bibliographic cite. In addition, I will include the identity of the person who contacted me with a correction and usually will quote him or her verbatim. In short, my door is always open and that stance does not reflect a recent change in policy.To respond to your specific inquiry about minimum rail weight. That's an actual calculation I unearthed in the Chicago & Eastern Illinois' Data on Locomotive Equipment book dated October 1, 1912. It is admittedly a simplistic calculation: Weight of drivers/number of drivers, which is divided by 3000. That result is multiplied by 10.Their example is 103,000 weight on the drivers/4 drivers = 27,750.27,750/3,000 = 8.58.8.58 x 10 = 85.8, which the Data Book describes as weight permissible per weight of rail. That's it. It's obviously a debatable formula, but my point is that it came from a book used by an operator in real-time railroading. I cannot tell you that those assigning the locomotives in fact believed that this was the only number they need; like you, Boyd, I doubt it. For one thing, the constant used in the calculation (3,000) undoubtedly changed at some point after 1912, or should have. But like most of the rest of the data I've included, it's sourced and the sources typically represent my attempt to convey what operators or knowledgeable commentators knew (or thought they knew) at the time this particular class was in service. (I'll admit to exceptions to that claim and offer no excuses other than lack of editorial resources.) As far as the minimum rail weight given for the C & O Allegheny. Doesn't the figure (141 lb/yard) underscore the weight problem that's been discussed when we take into account your comments about the actual weight/yard used at the time? Again, I welcome any comments about any of the entries. All of the designs that have been discussed in this thread have data and commentary available at steamlocomotive.com. Steve LlansoLocobasedelocobase@comcast.net
Good morning, Boyd, and everyone else:
I am the compiler of the data to which you referred in your post. It is extracted from a larger database that covers as many of the world's locomotives as there is data available.
Wes Barris has been kind enough to host my data for several years. In addition to devising the process through which we could post as much data per locomotive as we do, Wes flags the obvious inaccuracies and passes along comments from visitors. Please also note that he offers his own commentary about many of the arrangements and classes on the home pages for each of those sections.
During all of the time Wes has hosted the data, he has displayed my name and my email address. Several visitors to that site have contacted me through the email address with corrections, comments, questions, and points of discussion. Any of those contacts would tell you if asked that I respond positively, accept the comments willingly, and incorporate them readily.
A review of the commentary on most of the entries will show the primary source's full bibliographic cite. In addition, I will include the identity of the person who contacted me with a correction and usually will quote him or her verbatim.
In short, my door is always open and that stance does not reflect a recent change in policy.
To respond to your specific inquiry about minimum rail weight. That's an actual calculation I unearthed in the Chicago & Eastern Illinois' Data on Locomotive Equipment book dated October 1, 1912. It is admittedly a simplistic calculation:
Weight of drivers/number of drivers, which is divided by 3000. That result is multiplied by 10.
Their example is 103,000 weight on the drivers/4 drivers = 27,750.
27,750/3,000 = 8.58.
8.58 x 10 = 85.8, which the Data Book describes as weight permissible per weight of rail.
That's it. It's obviously a debatable formula, but my point is that it came from a book used by an operator in real-time railroading. I cannot tell you that those assigning the locomotives in fact believed that this was the only number they need; like you, Boyd, I doubt it. For one thing, the constant used in the calculation (3,000) undoubtedly changed at some point after 1912, or should have.
But like most of the rest of the data I've included, it's sourced and the sources typically represent my attempt to convey what operators or knowledgeable commentators knew (or thought they knew) at the time this particular class was in service. (I'll admit to exceptions to that claim and offer no excuses other than lack of editorial resources.)
As far as the minimum rail weight given for the C & O Allegheny. Doesn't the figure (141 lb/yard) underscore the weight problem that's been discussed when we take into account your comments about the actual weight/yard used at the time?
Again, I welcome any comments about any of the entries. All of the designs that have been discussed in this thread have data and commentary available at steamlocomotive.com.
Steve Llanso
Locobase
delocobase@comcast.net
Thank you Steve, for reply. Now, were those figures updated? Or where they specific to their own RR's?
A last thought on the idea of a T-1 on the NY&LB. Just possibly the turntable at South Amboy just wasn't long enough? At Bay Head there was a loop and complete trains were turned.
GP40-2I wouldn't consider the Big Boy scaled up at all
that is, why they were called the boys... big to attempt, but not grown up enough, yet...
young and wild ;-)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.