This has gone waaaay past decoders and well into prototype discussion. With that being the case, I'm moving it to the Prototype forum...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
LastspikemikeSeems we now have an exceptionally detailed explanation of what I wrote early on in this thread. Essentially, it is impossible to duplicate in our models what the notch throttle does in the prototype.
Just for clarity horsepower and watts are the same thing. Slightly ironic that Watts himself ...
...didn't name the power unit after himself but after a horse ... and horsepower is a pretty silly unit in reality, which horse are you talking about today?
Fuel burned = Watts out to drive the generator = Watts delivered to the traction motors = speed of the train.
The Diesel engine must always waste a lot of fuel increasing its own power before the train speed can increase...
Slippage occurs with all acceleration which explains the varying sounds of rpm and load changes, not the same thing at all.
... the closest analogy seems to be the curious "stepped" CVT automotive transmission. For purely cosmetic reasons (even modern humans can't seem to get their head around driving a car with a properly engineered CVT) automotive engineers applied weird software controls to a CVT to mimic the steps in a geared transmission. There is no sound engineering reason to do so. I am left wondering just how much of this human interface problem led to the otherwise entirely arbitrary 8 step throttle.
I note that the heavily accented Indian text book (and apparently all Indian train engineer instructors always look as if they see the oncoming train at the end of every tunnel, judging purely from their bio photos you understand) ...
... points out that all of this can be automated although only by exiting the generator.
glad to see that we're converging. Overmod, thanks for your patience
OvermodI had thought the governor 'reaching a limit' was in fact one of the inputs to the load regulator, perhaps having priority over some others.
after becoming aware of the "load regulator", i'm now puzzled by what "proportional" means on the wiki page. (i had thought it might be like a series wound motor)
i'm guessing the load regulator normally maximizes field current and generator output power, but reduces it if the govenor reaches a limit. i'm guessing it won't increase the field current above that max value.
it seems there are two options for handling an overloaded motor/gen. reducing rpm doesn't seem practical since it would require changes to the govenor which has a fixed mechanical relationship between those four solenoids controlling target rpm.
so reducing field current seems practical
i think this gets back to your "speedband" where the motor/gen will operate at at a target rpm or some amount less if the motor/gen is overloaded until the traction motors increase speed (you said "accelerate"), reducing the current drawn and allowing the load regulator to restore field current.
i'll suggest field current is controlled using relays to connect a different numbers of field windings. these relays are what i assumed you and others were referring to as solenoids
tstageThis has gone waaaay past decoders and well into prototype discussion.
i've very interested in understanding how to simulate diesel notch settings, in a throttle, not decoder. to do so, the throttle needs to know drawbar force and the tonnage (see ProtoThrottle) which determines mass as well as wheel bearing friction.
drawbar force is basically HP / speed (feet/sec).
and i need to understand the relationship between notch and HP. thanks to Overmod, i now understand that while there may be a target HP for each notch, that HP may be derated if the motor/gen is overloaded because the traction motor current excedes the motor/gen capability in a particular notch.
i need to think if/how to simulate this derating
i'm sure there are not so insignificant details i don't yet understand
2281
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
If you max out the current and the wheels aren;t slipping, the train stalls. The model equivalent is a loco with traction ties trying to pull too many cars. It stalls, and the motor starts heating up. Don't reduce the current, and the motor burns out.
It is possible to stall a prototype locomotive. In the various stories published in Trains and Classic Trains over the years, there have been some where this has happened. Throttle is in the highest notch it can be without exceeding the maximum amps to the traction motors, the wheels aren't slipping, but not enough tractive effort is being produced to move the train.
Modern stuff just adds a whole other layer of complications, with the true microprocessor control, using wheel slip and ground speed radar to deliever the absolute maximum power to the rails without slipping or overloading the motors. In the good old days, it was the engineer watching that ammeter, and notice how they have time limits above the green range, so it was ok to momentarily run higher loads but exceeding that time at the higher current would likely cause damage to something. And the AC traction locos have even more complex control systems, since regulating the speed of an AC motor.
Some interesting information from Republic Locomotive:
http://www.republiclocomotive.com/ac-traction-vs-dc-traction.html#:~:text=The%20AC%20drive%20works%20by,which%20powers%20AC%20traction%20motors.&text=AC%20traction%20for%20locomotives%20is,over%20the%20old%20DC%20systems.
Note the AC systems work like a switch mode power supply - AC in, rectified to DC, then converted back to AC. (minus the final step of converting back to DC) This may sound horribly inefficient to the average person, but in truth, a switchmode power supply is generally way more efficient for a given current output than a monolithic transformer and rectifier.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
gregc tstage This has gone waaaay past decoders and well into prototype discussion. i've very interested in understanding how to simulate diesel notch settings, in a throttle, not decoder.
tstage This has gone waaaay past decoders and well into prototype discussion.
i've very interested in understanding how to simulate diesel notch settings, in a throttle, not decoder.
I agree with the moderator's decision to move this thread because you need to differentiate between scale model operations and prototype mechanics. If these two totally different forms of discussion become blurred, the forum becomes chaotic where anything goes.
Rich
Alton Junction
LastspikemikeHP is defined in ft lbs (in itself a silly unit being 12 inches moving 16 oz ...)
I cheerfully grant you the silliness of the way we learned this unit. There has been a fairly determined amount of trying to get this unit expressed as 'lb-ft' or whatever; the problem is that I learned foot-pounds of torque and no matter how I try, that's where it stays. (I'm a cgs man, so newton-meters squared is impossibly coarse without decimals, and gram-centimeters as hopeless as pascals; I won't even go where SI tells me and use gram-millimeters. THOSE are sillier units, at least if you want to do coherent design without constantly checking magnitudes...)
While I will not argue that the units are silly other than having a certain haptic facility, they're really no sillier than, say, one ninety-millionth of an erroneous measurement of the circumference of the Earth at Paris, or a fractional number of wavelengths of a monochromatic emission line of a krypton isotope.
I would argue, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that standardizing the meter around the length of a pendulum beating one second at the equator is the least 'silly' of any of these length measurements. If you accept that something scientifically based and common-sense reproduceable is less silly.
550 ft lbs per second is a silly unit for power. The fact that it is arbitrary and not related in any way to the real world establishes that beyond argument.
Of course for more fun we can go into how silly 'pounds-force' as distinct from 'pounds-mass' is in the English system. I was learning physics during the era when folks tried using 'poundals' to make a stab at distinction. Didn't really help. And we still do need a better separation of the two senses.
Fuel burned = Watts out to drive the generator = Watts delivered to the traction motors = speed of the train ... "You forgot something. See if you can figure out what that is..." ... Hmmm, just what might that be and why might I choose to omit it? Any schoolboy understands that equations are not directional and any permutation of the elements said to be equal is equally valid. Therefore, your attempt at critique falls somewhat flat.
The context makes my meaning very clear. Any added factors would defeat the purpose of the "equation". Reverse the equations if you doubt that.
The Diesel engine must always waste a lot of fuel increasing its own power before the train speed can increase ... you may take it as given that I read very carefully. It is surprising how often people do not write what they mean and still read their own words as if they had. I am quite familiar with driving vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines and manual gearboxes. The topic at hand is the characteristics of transmissions for these massive Diesel engines.
Slippage has several meanings. The meaning clear from the context I was using is the difference between engine rpm and wheel speed. Accommodating that, especially from rest, is why a transmission is required in the first place.
I repeat, diesel electric engines use generator/traction motors as an automatic transmission with infinitely variable ratios. And no need for a separate clutch device. They are inefficient compared to a purely mechanical or purely electric transmission ...
... the curious "stepped" CVT automotive transmission [...] I am left wondering just how much of this human interface problem led to the otherwise entirely arbitrary 8 step throttle ... "An interesting analogy" ... Yes it is, and very useful since the engineering idea behind both is exactiy the same. A steam engine as implemented solved the problem of the requirement for slippage between the fire and the wheels by introducing a fairly simple heat storage device: boiler, creating a handy and powerful working fluid that could exert force without moving.
If you take the Karman transmission as an example, there is no 'slip' because the combustion engine drives nothing but a hydraulic pump, and the pump can be regulated in its load to suit the characteristics of the engine at any practical commencement of load. This pump essentially compresses hydraulic fluid against dry nitrogen at tens of thousands of psi behind a diaphragm, and builds up a reserve of high-pressure oil. This is then metered to the traction motors as desired to produce torque -- and while the pressure can be sustained, effective horsepower can be in the Ludicrous+ range, adhesion and rotational-speed limited only. Were this storage not available, all you'd have would be a hydrostatic transmission, and we all know how wasteful those usually are.
Likewise as soon as you introduce a hybrid battery into a motor-generator-traction motor system, all sorts of advantages related to motor operation come into effect, based on asynchronous loading and demand.
In the case of the external-combustion engine, even the very short 'reserve' in a flash-boiler setup with good load following, like Abner Doble's, has the quality you mention (that the pressure is assumed to be 'available at suitable mass flow' to produce power in the engine). This is the principal reason people claim 'a steam motor produces much more horsepower than even a good IC motor' -- the steam engine burns its fuel externally, in a better configuration with what can be a longer time, and is not limited to efficient combustion to heat-expanding dry gases inside the 'reaction vessel'. There have been, here and there, attempts to burn larger amounts of fuel in IC engines (twin and triple staged turbos being one example) or conversely to mimick the more efficient combustion in a diesel cycle in a continuous burner (Velox and a couple of forced-draft fired powerplants being examples, although not particularly high-compression-ratio as you might imagine). This volumetric limitation is really the thing you're discussing when you say "an internal combustion engine cannot do this" . But it isn't quite the same thing as discussing inefficiencies of a relatively small generating plant, distribution architecture, and geared motors on a self-contained locomotive. Note that third rail and catenary are energized by some greater source of power, which (coincidentally) usually happens to have higher net thermal efficiency due to lack of restrictions on packaging size, complexity, and weight (to name but a few considerations) and, usually, a very careful implementation of the Rankine cycle. Note also that EPRI found that in a number of part-load turndown situations a compression-ignition engine genset could be more efficient than the 'best' alternatives.
Where this comes up out of semantics is when a more capable locomotive has to be MUed with something, probably based on a diesel, that uses the 8-notch convention. You will note that straight electrics, designed as such, use a very different kind of MU control, and have a very different way of controlling 'notches'. The sorts of control-signal synthesis needed to adapt a typical straight electric to "MU" to control trailing diesels effectively look suspiciously like what the topic of this thread is asking.
"I tend to think of it as somewhat analogous to the synthesized or piped-in exhaust roar in some modern cars that would otherwise be Dustbuster-quiet." ... Well, that would be misleading. Piped in intake noise (exhaust isn't usually piped in, btw) has no engineering drawbacks, it's just a silly thing to want.
As I think I noted at some length, the 'steps' are introduced into a CVT primarily for marketing and 'feel-good' reasons, not engineering ones. Part of this is that CVTs for performance applications remain relatively 'too expensive' compared to fundamentally inferior hydrokinetic or mechanical transmissions that can transmit more torque or handle abrupt power transitions more effectively, so some drivers likely come to equate CVT with relatively tiny little engines and relative restrictions on hard acceleration, and gear selection with higher performance.
The irony is the planetary gearbox is being designed to achieve constant velocity effects by adding ratios, in order to converge on the ideal infinite ratio gearbox.
We hear similar complaints from drivers about those, the most comical to me being drivers who complain about not being able to tell which gear the car is in, presumably from engine noise. This in a car equipped with an 8 speed AUTOMATIC.
Wow, you do realize the first person in an argument to make an ad hominem attack loses automatically eh? Good job I'm not having an argument much less trying to win it.
... all of this can be automated although only by exiting the generator. ... "I am not sure, again, what this sentence is meant to express. Do you mean accelerating the engine? Accelerating the train with the least fuel consumption? "Exiting the generator" (probably an alternator) meaning what, exactly, and by what means for what purpose?" ... Ah, that may be because you have difficulty seeing a joke...
I had to go buy more popcorn, but there is still more Coke and Mountain Dew in the train room frig.
I was reminded of this discussion Sunday as I cut the grass on my GRAVELY tractor.
It has a throttle and a governor, it responds to changes in load up to the selected throttle "notch". Because of the recent heavy rains, the governor was doing lots of load adjustments........
In fact, after 24 years of service I just replaced the original Kohler M18 engine with a new Kohler Command Pro 730 a few months ago.
While different from a railroad locomotive, it is a unique and interesting piece of engineering, not like other garden tractors.
I wonder what Mike knows about GRAVELY G series rear engine riders.......
Sheldon
Everything, of course.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I was reminded of this discussion Sunday as I cut the grass on my GRAVELY tractor. I wonder what Mike knows about GRAVELY G series rear engine riders.......
Bayfield Transfer Railway Everything, of course.
Lastspikemike I have zero interest in "being right" and I am always right... On the occasions where a poster shows that I may be wrong I simply change my own opinion to accord with the correct information... Posting incorrect information to a board like this leads to posts that correct that information not just for the original poster but everyone who reads it... My ego is unassailable, in case you missed that... There are some very authoritative people posting to this board and I've learned a lot already, becoming "righter" myself in the process... I spent a lot of time reading this and several other related forums before choosing this one to join.
I have zero interest in "being right" and I am always right...
On the occasions where a poster shows that I may be wrong I simply change my own opinion to accord with the correct information...
Posting incorrect information to a board like this leads to posts that correct that information not just for the original poster but everyone who reads it...
My ego is unassailable, in case you missed that...
There are some very authoritative people posting to this board and I've learned a lot already, becoming "righter" myself in the process...
I spent a lot of time reading this and several other related forums before choosing this one to join.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI wonder what Mike knows about GRAVELY G series rear engine riders.......
I am on the edge of my seat waiting to find out.
I ran out of popcorn on the last page about 1/3 of the way down.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Well, so much for this thread. After that last post, this is going to get shut down.As for the fast an efficient new automatic transmissions - you'll have my manual when my right arm or left leg falls off! They may shift faster and be more efficient but they aren't FUN. You can have your future sterile people movers and self-driving living rooms.
Happened on some scanned Gravely brochures - cigar lighters! Those sure were different times. Some of those new all electric (battery) riders have a USB port for charging your phone - what are you doing using your phone while operating power equipment? Running the trains down in the basement?
rrinker Happened on some scanned Gravely brochures - cigar lighters! Those sure were different times. Some of those new all electric (battery) riders have a USB port for charging your phone - what are you doing using your phone while operating power equipment? Running the trains down in the basement? --
Happened on some scanned Gravely brochures - cigar lighters! Those sure were different times. Some of those new all electric (battery) riders have a USB port for charging your phone - what are you doing using your phone while operating power equipment? Running the trains down in the basement? --
I had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere.
Now that would be too cool.
richhotrainI had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere.
we figured out how to do remote ops using a Wifi throttle and jmri, remote displatcher display program and a zoom call. just running trains from one staging area to another. also doing remote dispatching using VNC
now that NJ is allowing groups of 10+ to meet in person (with masks), in person op sessions are continueing. but the remote op capability is also being used (hybrid ops) by some operators who don't want to be in person or just save driving.
uninitialized screen that would show occupied blocks in red and clear signal routes in green
gregc richhotrain I had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere. we figured out how to do remote ops using a Wifi throttle and jmri, remote displatcher display program and a zoom call. just running trains from one staging area to another.
richhotrain I had never given that a thought, but a model railroader could run trains in his basement while he is at work elsewhere.
we figured out how to do remote ops using a Wifi throttle and jmri, remote displatcher display program and a zoom call. just running trains from one staging area to another.
rrinker ...As for the fast an efficient new automatic transmissions - you'll have my manual when my right arm or left leg falls off! They may shift faster and be more efficient but they aren't FUN. You can have your future sterile people movers and self-driving living rooms....
I'm with you 110% on that one, Randy!
Wayne
doctorwayneI'm with you 110% on that one, Randy!
There are still plenty of times I enjoy a good manual transmission! (And in trucks, too). But for really quick driving, of the sort where torque-vectoring becomes important, similar optimization of transmission operation is (at least to me) valuable without destroying the joy of fast driving with best controlled acceleration
Overmod doctorwayne I'm with you 110% on that one, Randy! Although there is something to be said for the enjoyment of very fast driving without having to heel-and-toe and double-clutch and keep speeds in gears in your awareness while picking lines and watching the road. And even a good manual transmission can become wearing if you drive in stop-and-go traffic that requires more than one upshift to close gaps... There are still plenty of times I enjoy a good manual transmission! (And in trucks, too). But for really quick driving, of the sort where torque-vectoring becomes important, similar optimization of transmission operation is (at least to me) valuable without destroying the joy of fast driving with best controlled acceleration
doctorwayne I'm with you 110% on that one, Randy!
Although there is something to be said for the enjoyment of very fast driving without having to heel-and-toe and double-clutch and keep speeds in gears in your awareness while picking lines and watching the road. And even a good manual transmission can become wearing if you drive in stop-and-go traffic that requires more than one upshift to close gaps...
I drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one:
But I do enjoy my FORD FLEX LIMITED with all wheel drive, 6 speed auto w/paddle shfters, and twin turbo Eccoboost.
It is lots of fun driving a station wagon that goes 0-60 in 5 seconds and does 15 second 1/4 mile.
The Nova was only a little faster.......I restored and hot rodded the Nova from the ground up myself at age 20, then drove it for eight years.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one:
Overmod ATLANTIC CENTRAL I drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one: Every time you show me that car in that picture I have to stop a moment. Did you say you started with the 327/350hp in that car? Perfect rims and Moons, too...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I drove good old fashioned American mussle cars with V8's and four speeds for many years, they were fun, like this one:
Every time you show me that car in that picture I have to stop a moment. Did you say you started with the 327/350hp in that car? Perfect rims and Moons, too...
And the moons were genuine Chevy with the Bow Tie.
The engine was a 283, but it had 327/350 heads and cam which gave it 9.5:1 compression, Edelbrock aluminum intake, Holley 600 cfm with vacuum secondaries, modified ignition curve, breakerless ignition, Hooker headers.
It prefered SUNOCO Premium......
The transmission was a Muncie M20 with the low 1st gear, the rear was 3.08:1
The clutch was the standard Corvette bent finger design supplied with most 327 Vettes.
An unusual setup but it worked well in that light car.
0-60 mph - under 5 seconds
standing 1/4 mile - 14.4 seconds
observed top end on the installed 160 mph Corvette speedometer - 135 mph
All in street trim on FR70-14 tires, thru dual exhausts to the rear corners, Corvair turbo mufflers. Aftermarket anti-sway bars front and rear.
"normal" driving fuel economy - 20 mpg combined/24 mpg highway
Were there faster cars on the street? Sure. Were there faster cars that were also civilized daily drivers like this was? Not many.
The blonde in the front seat is the first wife, and she was already the wife.....
Not sure I'df even want to try going that fast on bias ply tires.
Except for 2 instnaces, I've always had a manual car. My first car was an autoamtic, and when my kids were small, we had the requisite minivan, and the second generation ones didn't come with the turbo manual (plus the ex was absolutely hopeless at driving manual). Didn't stay a 1 car family long, I found a second gen RX-7 manual. Got a huge dicount because of "electrical problems" - the wiring harness connector to the warnign light/clock module needed the solder joints reflowed. Took me 5 minutes to fix. Even if the module was friend, a new one and I would have still been ahead on the deal.
And in southeastern PA, home of stop and go traffic - doesn't bother me. Other than the occasional moron. I learned from my truck driver neighbor. You shouldn't have to shift in long lines. Especially since I can hit nearly 60 in my current car in first before hitting the rev limiter. But the main thing is, let the gap get big enough, then cruise just off idle in first, if you do it right, you'll catch up to the alst car ahead of yuou just as the line moves again, opening the gap back up. So stop and go traffic doesn't really bother me.
Randy.
FR70-14 is a steel belted radial tire, from before metric tire sizes.......
OvermodAlthough there is something to be said for the enjoyment of very fast driving without having to heel-and-toe and double-clutch and keep speeds in gears in your awareness while picking lines and watching the road. And even a good manual transmission can become wearing if you drive in stop-and-go traffic that requires more than one upshift to close gaps...
I'm not bothered by stop and go, although I don't see too much of it around here. I don't mind driving fast, either, but in this day and age, there are few places around here where you can do it for sustained distances.My pleasure is on twisty roads, usually at speeds higher than the limit, but nothing dangerous.
I've owned only two vehicles with automatics (both vans, and both bought used), and both re-sold after less than two months of ownership. They were okay, but I no longer had need of them.I had my share of muscle cars, too, but the novelty wore off pretty quickly when I began to get police escorts on my drive to work. The funny thing was that I only ever bothered once to drag race, beating some guy in a Super Bee. Mine was a '69 Chevelle SS, 396, 375 HP, and 4.55 rear end, the only vehicle I've ever owned that I would consider "quick", and I seldom used it as such. Top speed was a shade over 90mph, and gas milelage on Sunoco's best varied between 4 and 10mpg.
My '71 Datsun 1200 was not quick, but it was faster than the Chevelle, and got 41 mpg on regular. Fast for that car was 93mph and the 93mph was verified by the cop who followed me for almost 15 miles before he pulled me over, but after a fairly long chat about the merits of the car - he was thinking of buying one - he let me off with a $20.00 fine and no demerit points. Nicest cop I've ever met. I kept that Datsun for 17 years, putting well over 300,000 miles on it, and I'd race just about anybody at a stoplight - didn't beat many, but always had a blast.
My '66 Corvair (before the Chevelle) was more fun to drive than the Chevelle, and a lot faster, too, altough certainly no dragster. It was a much better-handling car, too, which is why I like the curvy roads, I think. Ralph Nader must've had his head up his butt, as that car could take any curve just like a marble down a drain pipe. I learned that it was fast when I somehow managed to get onto a highway which was due to open the next day, I think. I don't recall how I got on (or off) without anyone stopping me, but the lady in the seat beside me was a bit skittish when I went into a fairly tight curve at just over a hundred, and pretty-much freaking-out as we exited it at just over 140 (with another 1000rpm before redline).
My current ride, a 16 year-old Mazda 3 isn't especially quick, but it's at least as fast as the Corvair (as witnessed on the speedometer, and likely faster, as it won't automatically cut-out when it exceeds the redline limit). It gets between 30-35mpg, handles even better than the Corvair, and is just a joy to drive, whether on twisty backroads or long and otherwise tedious highway journeys.
The drive-by-wire for cars with standard transmissions has pretty-well sucked the joy out of driving the current cars with standard transmissions, which is a good reason for me to take care of the car I have.
I do like it when these threads keep shifting gears, though, and as one topic fades, another develops...just like having a gab-fest with friends, where the topic ranges all over the place.
doctorwayneMy '66 Corvair (before the Chevelle) was more fun to drive than the Chevelle, and a lot faster, too, altough certainly no dragster. It was a much better-handling car, too, which is why I like the curvy roads, I think. Ralph Nader must've had his head up his butt, as that car could take any curve just like a marble down a drain pipe.
From '66 to '68 were the magic years... but by then the hatchet job was doing its work, and like the Edsel no one in the aftermarket or the 'pre-owned motor vehicle' market wanted to touch it.
My only experience with a GM car with big-block and 4:55 was when I visited my godfather in Philadelphia, who had been the Episcopal bishop of all things. He had a pagoda Mercedes, a 230 if I remember, that was always in the shop, so he picked me up at 30th St. in a borrowed yellow Pontiac convertible with the 413 tripower, 4-speed and 4:55. From 0 to 10 that thing was the fastest I'd ever gone; I actually looked back for my stomach which had been left about 10' back there.
The only other car I've ever driven that would do that was the E38 BMW 12, in "sport" mode, where it would only average about 15.7mpg but mamma mia would it go from a standing start up to a gear change! (Of course when in 'regular' it went like a normal car but would get over 28mpg indicated at 82mph on cruise... I think something like $12,000 of the list cost of the car was said to be in various fancy electronic and mechanical things to make it run efficiently at speed). I suspect there are plenty of cars from the '60s that did it too, but I missed them all -- sometimes not by much: I can still close my eyes and remember the guy in the White Castle parking lot who was going to sell me his '71 Hemi Cuda convertible for $1500...
Lastspikemike Swing axle jacking does not depend on any tire pressure issue. It's a geometry problem. Mercedes Benz partially solved the problem with the 190/300 series in the 50's by introducing a sprung low pivot single side swing axle. If you experience swing axle jacking in a car with perfectly ok tire pressures, as I have, I assure you it is highly entertaining. The early Porsche 911 and the 356 were both highly prone to rear axle jacking. The Corvair, unsurprisingly given the engineering expertise of GM at the time, was perfectly safe in the hands of a reasonably capable driver. On the other hand the 911 could easily kill an expert driver. Nader was completely wrong. In fact, he exemplifies the lawyer incapable of understanding simple engineering but thoroughly understanding the marketing aspect of politics. I, on the other hand...
Swing axle jacking does not depend on any tire pressure issue. It's a geometry problem. Mercedes Benz partially solved the problem with the 190/300 series in the 50's by introducing a sprung low pivot single side swing axle. If you experience swing axle jacking in a car with perfectly ok tire pressures, as I have, I assure you it is highly entertaining. The early Porsche 911 and the 356 were both highly prone to rear axle jacking. The Corvair, unsurprisingly given the engineering expertise of GM at the time, was perfectly safe in the hands of a reasonably capable driver. On the other hand the 911 could easily kill an expert driver. Nader was completely wrong. In fact, he exemplifies the lawyer incapable of understanding simple engineering but thoroughly understanding the marketing aspect of politics. I, on the other hand...
The government report on the Corvair, quietly released a few years later, concluded that after the recall mods, and the redesign, the Corvair was "as safe or safer" than any car in America.......
And we wonder why Detroit was slow to imbrace smaller more fuel efficient cars with inovative designs.......
But, I for one have no use for small cars. I own cars to carry stuff, and people, not just one or two people, and not just one days groceries. I have spent most of my life living in rural areas. Trucks, full sized cars, and station wagons are the order of the day.
My daily driver weighs 8,000 lbs.
From time to time it has to pull the trailer that carries the 1,200 lb GRAVELY tractor.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut, I for one have no use for small cars.
We are gravitating towards the desire for smaller cars. I loved my Colorado when I bought it to replace my F-150. I did not think I would, but after 12 years with it, I have liked it just fine.
When we replace the Impala, I think a much smaller car will be in order.
My only concern is Hurricane Evacutaion. The Impala has a huge amount of room when the rear seat backs are dropped and all the irreplaceable/uninsurable treasures fit inside just fine.
95% of the time it's just me in my car. 4% of the remaining, it's me and one other person. I hate giant, heavy cars with a passion. SUVs most of all - 99% of SUV owners have no need for such a big vehicle other than to make some sort of statement. For the 1% that actually do need the room - fine. The SUV crazy is artificial, generated by (once again) people making rules with no concern for consequences. For the times I need to carry something, like wood for my layout - I have a truck. Not a huge one, bit big enough to carry plywood. It's a 5 speed manual, too.
So my main vehicle, while it has a rear seat, you MIGHT put small kids back there. A couple of years ago, I did have my adult children in there - we were all going to eat and instead of taking two cars, they decided to come with us. My oldest is about my size, the younger one is actually an inch or two taller, but skinny. I don't think they will repeat the experience. But sitting in front - plenty of room, nice comfy seats, and it's a blast to drive. A 2012 model, so the giant infotainment screen was optional - glad I do not have it. The original owner optioned in all the performance and handling options but none of the "only for looks" things.
The thing with locomotives, to get back on topic, is that since the market isn;t huge, there's not a lot of demand for innovation. And it's already many times more efficient than highway truck transport. Surely by now, someone has thought of taking the concept of the Genset locos and using two gensets and a modern set of batteries, instead of stacks of lead acid batteries, in place of the third genset. Short term boost for getting a heavy train moving, then the combined power of the two gensets to keep it going. Possibly pure battery power for short engine moves. The thing is, would it actually buy enough fuel savings to offset the cost? It seems that the current answer is no. There's more money to be had, as well as a greater improvement in energy use and environmental impact, by applying this to something far more common, like passenger cars and trucks.
Diesel-hydraulic was not a complete failure in the US. RDCs for one, have fairly standard heavy vehicle torque converter transmissions. They've gone above and beyond, pulling trailer cars in regular service, which Budd never recommended. The road units tested, maybe not so much. US railroads run long, slow, heavy trains, rather than run more trins that are lighter and faster, so the losses in the hydraulic drive, manifested as heat, were too much for reliable operation. Lots of heavy earthmoving equipment is hydraulic drive - it works fine there. Railroad loads are just too great.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL But, I for one have no use for small cars. We are gravitating towards the desire for smaller cars. I loved my Colorado when I bought it to replace my F-150. I did not think I would, but after 12 years with it, I have liked it just fine. When we replace the Impala, I think a much smaller car will be in order. My only concern is Hurricane Evacutaion. The Impala has a huge amount of room when the rear seat backs are dropped and all the irreplaceable/uninsurable treasures fit inside just fine. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But, I for one have no use for small cars.
I don't know much about the Colorado, we don't see many of them around here.
For me a pickup must have an 8' bed, 4WD, and upright seating. The Toyota trucks I have been in have the seat very lower the floor, don't like that.
I put 240,000 miles on a 2000 F150 before buying the 2015 F250. The F250 already has 120,000 miles.
Since FORD is not making any more FLEX'S, I fear the next car will move us back to a mid size SUV.
I've used gensets in the past. The problem was they were just complete junk. If you could get them to work 2 days in a row, it was a miracle. Plus I never liked the dealy in firing up the engines for when you had to yank a heavy track. When doing that, I need the slack stretched out, then I need the engines to go balls-to-the-wall to get it moving. Not taking time to fire up its individual engines - because by that time something else in the consist is going to slip, drop its load, and you ain't moving anything on that attempt. But mostly - it was the quality of the Gensets. Maybe other roads got them fgured out, but ours were ...ugh...
And I have had trucks and an SUV (body on frame) for most of my life. I like trucks. I always laugh when people criticize others for wanting a truck they "don't need". Many of these people have cars that are more performance-orientated. You really don't need that performance, either, but you wanted it. Same here. I like my trucks, my ground clearance, my room... to each their own. Very few automobiles I don't like, really, even if theya re ones I really wouldn't want.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Well Randy, as I just said above, I would rather have my "station wagon" than an SUV, but SUV'S are the result of government rules decades ago that made it hard for the car companies to continue making useful station wagons .......
My big gripe with most cars is I dislike sitting on a boat cushion on the floor, and my wife's health requires upright seating. I hate cars you fall down into.......big or small.