How would You build a 6000 HP Locomotive ?

[Erieee]

  My thoughts of how to build a locomotive are shown in the two HO models that I have built.These were built on what I saw was a weakness in High Horse Power Six Axle Units. I was at the test track of a builder when they were trying to develope a computer program to prevent excessive wheel slipping both starting and at speed..With my back ground as a locomotive journeyman electrician ,qualified engineer and modeler I went this direction.

   6000 HP available for traction.Tier two or better complient engine. AC Alternator,On Board Computer for control systems.I would facture in a program to cut the power of the smallest two or more wheels at speed to increase the speed as more power would go to less motors and  increase wheel life.The completed locomotive should be at the maximum wheel to rail weight to maintain the greatest adheasion for traction.

   B-B+B-B ,,Bolsters with 46" wheels.This allows for more HP of the larger engine to be used at lower speeds.A big problem as 1200 HP under the best conditions is all you can use up to  seven miles an hour.Larger wheels increase the footprint on the rail head for better traction, Longer wheel life,Easier on track because of flexibility of the B-B..It would ride like a (fill in the blank). The Collision Safety factor would also be increased.The building and shop aspects would be minimal and would not involve a major overhauling to put into production.The present locomotive builders would only need an eight foot increase in length (About all that present builders have available for assembly).The bolster assemblies could rolled under the assembled locomotive when completed as the over all length is a concern with building this concept locomotive.

   My only real world changes would be a standard control stand with Old World length Brake Valve Handles. I dislike the Joy Sticks as it takes the feel and increases wrist movement.

    WHATS YOUR THOUGHTS ????. 

   The only feature that major railroads wanted that I didn't build into my models was a cab at both ends to allow bi directional advantage.

 

[Last Chance]

Double the Cabs, double the electronics and double the stuff that can go wrong in the goodly bits.

I dont confess to understand how to build a 6000 HP engine. If you put a motor between the wheels and drive it with electricity, you need to cool the motor and keep the electric current from destroying the materials that the motor is made of.. copper?

If you can generate the juice and lay it onto a motor made of materials that is impervious to heat and have a way to dump excessive heat safely you can probably generate more at the rail.

Super cooling technology might be very helpful here. A giant compressor with temperatures down to ... -100 or so to each of the motors under the locomotive will provide this cooling. So you can force much current through them with a greater tolerance for thermal failure while lowering resistance in the conductive material.

Wheelship is just going to have to be dealt with. You can have a gazillion wheels on the rail head but only so much force can be applied to each wheel before it breaks traction with the rail.

So... add wheels. Centipedes come to mind.

Why stop at just 6000? Have one unit a big brawny desiel or something and have the second unit a big gas turbine or something that can carry the whole thing more effective at speed similar to what our Warships do these days.

Ride quality is irrevelant. In trucking we can put a cab with airride onto fred flintstone's STONE wheeled car and make a good comfortable ride for Fred. So the Railroads needs to isolate and allow the cab to float within tolerances allowing the cables and bits to flex and reach. This should reduce noise as well.

Back to double cabs. The UK Folks have done this for years. Simply drop one of thier Bodies onto a American Chassis and make it all work. We dont need those great big fancy cabs do we?

Finally but not last. Forget Tier two. Think about totally removing desiel as a fuel. That will make the engine compliant whatever California wants to do with thier emissions. That might mean forgoing range of thousand miles and only refueling every 300 miles. The railroads would just simply have to suck it up and make it happen.

[carnej1]

 If you search google patents there is a patent held by GE for a "Energy Storage booster unit" which esentially describes a standard GE locomotive frame with a storage battery system rather than a prime mover and related components. They were proposing to use this as a "road slug" coupled to 1 or 2 AC6000CW units (or AC4400CW) so that all units were electrically connected in a "hybrid configuration" i.e all traction motors could receive power from both the alternators and batteries and the batteries would recharge through regenerative braking.. Since then GE has changed the concept to focus on developing battery technology that is compact enough to fit on the locomotive itself(the Hybrid Evolution demonstrator).

 Back at the beginning of the SD90MAC program I recall reading a quote from an EMD engineer who stated that they believed that the success of the 6000HP units would lead to market demand for 7,000-7,500 HP in a single unit. I assumed this anticipated the development of a 20 cylinder version of the 265H engine. I wondered if they were thinking about a six axle locomotive or a "DD100MAC" (my understanding is the "DD" referred to the 4 axle trucks rather than "double diesel").

 Of course given that the 6000 HP locomotives have not been regarded as particularly succesfull in North America (we'll see what happens with the Chinese units) all of this is just idle speculation...

[gabe]

I wouldn't.  I would have, instead, purchase two medium-mileaged SD-40-2s, and took the savings and put it into the market before it came to its senses today--it seemed surprised that the G-7 would infact take substantial steps to avert this crisis, go figure. 

Judging by the success of the SD-90, I would probably get three times the use, and 1/3 of the maintenance and spend a heck of a lot less.

Gabe

[Modelcar]

.....And have some back up if they were working together and one went off line.

[gabe]

.....And have some back up if they were working together and one went off line.

The way I see it, I would still be left with 3000 hp, whereas the 6000 hp unit would be left with 0 were it to go off line . . .

[Last Chance]

Or simply build 6 locos of a thousand horse each and draw bar them together Container car style. Or better yet articulate em together mine hauler style.

Install any kind of power supply in a modular fashion where you just unhook it, fork lift the dead plant out and shove a new one in. Should not take more than a hour at most.

Finally if we are really gutsy, follow US Naval Practice for high speed gearing and drive trains. Turn the entire locomotive into a shay style drive system that can be driven by any two of the 6 power units across the entire engine at any speed. Maybe have two shafts inside the center of the vehicle's longitual axis and have either shaft articulated and able to drive all the wheels availible to the unit.

Finally find a way to install a sterling engine on each power plant and figure out how to really make one end of that sterling engine really hot and drive the entire choo choo that way. Im thinking perhaps a downsized portable weapons laser somewhat casterated and able to apply this heat.

Or better yet... Hae the Sterlings make contact with the traction motors which really get hot. The hotter you make it the better it runs, the problem becomes cooling the whole rig. In fact, gang several sterlings onto each axle so that all together can share the work.

I take this idea of sterling engine from this month's issue of Popular Mechanics where they have 30+ foot solar dishes driving sterlings.

Probably call the whole engine "Hotsix 2008" because it's gotta be hot in order to go. And that I thought about it this year. The more I think about it, I think I can see how such a engine might be built.

Regarding length. Why stop at 95 feet for one engine build when you can start with a new truck at whatever length it is... 12 feet? And start adding on the necessary Sterling Engine technology until you get it to work on one frame of whatever length? 30 feet?

Then articulate the frame onto the next one and keep going until you have the required horsepower for the job. Maybe 8 trucks total riding on... 150 feet worth of frame, engines, supply and controls. Why stop at 6 grand of horse? Think BIG... so that if one of the sterlings should fail the remaining units in the new locomotive can take over the load.

Again we can always make heat. The problem is doing it safely and as dum-dum proof as possible so any place is a good place to service the unit modular style. Just need a truck big enough to fork lift the dead unit out and drop a new one in. No need for the Jenk's Shop in Little Rock to do anything except maintain a pile of spare sterlingpacks ready to go.

In the Ball Bearing Plant I am building, there is a part of a building called the Induction Shop, that is simply a coil of heavy wire around a part to be hardened. Run electricity through it and voila! HOT HOT HOT!!!! Just stick a induction on the heat end of the Sterling.

Then you need to think about how much electricity you need to make to feed enough sterlings to make the while thing roll. If you want to dynamic brake it, instead of giant wasteful radiators and cooling fans, just force the heat back into the sterlings.

What would it look like? Not much. A set of power trucks on the track and a series of boxes above them... Probably like a FP45 chopped up like a giant loaf of bread.

[tomikawaTT]

How would I build a 6000 (plus) horsepower locomotive?

I would take two 4-4/4-4 triple-expansion compound steam engines with all the Withuhn enhancements, sling a modern high-pressure boiler between them, equip said boiler with all the antipollution devices found on modern fixed power plant units, put a bunker and tank adjacent to the coal input end of the boiler and a larger water tank at the other end.  Two cabs, one at each end, with remote enhanced computer control of the machinery for maximum efficiency.

Any resemblance to a Bayer-Garratt would, I'm sure, be coincidental...

(Nobody said they had to be 6000 diseasel horsepower)

Chuck

[Modelcar]

.....I believe from what I've read in past few years the RR's aren't really interested in having 6,000 horsepower on one chassis.  Maybe a 6000 hp engine {on one chassis}, made up of 3 power plant/gen sets would be a better combination to produce that 6,000 hp. 

Two of them mu'd together producing 12,000 hp in notch 8 when needed and then have each power plant of 2,000 hp {automatically}, shut down {in motion}, as the duty cycle is calling for.  Save fuel and ware and tear on engine/gensets.

[Anonymous]

How would I build a 6000 (plus) horsepower locomotive?

I would take two 4-4/4-4 triple-expansion compound steam engines with all the Withuhn enhancements, sling a modern high-pressure boiler between them, equip said boiler with all the antipollution devices found on modern fixed power plant units, put a bunker and tank adjacent to the coal input end of the boiler and a larger water tank at the other end.  Two cabs, one at each end, with remote enhanced computer control of the machinery for maximum efficiency.

Any resemblance to a Bayer-Garratt would, I'm sure, be coincidental...

(Nobody said they had to be 6000 diseasel horsepower)

Chuck

I agree with that.

Erieee, do you have any pictures of your engines?

[Lyon_Wonder]

I'd probably trust a 16-GEVO over a 16-256H, considering the latter's poor reputation in Class 1 service on UP.

[edbenton]

For MAX TE I would use a 16cyl GEVO however use 4 4 axle trucks under her.  Put them on a span bolster that way the weight is spread out and so she could take a tighter turning radius.  Give her 5000 gallons of fuel plus all the morden equipment like a good isolated cab and also a set of Airride seat bases.  Along with AC and Electric heat instead of hot water heat.  Put a APU for zero start on her for no idle laws and also put standard 110 i the cab for stuff like a refrig and a microwave in it.

[Tulyar15]

Or simply build 6 locos of a thousand horse each and draw bar them together Container car style. Or better yet articulate em together mine hauler style.

Install any kind of power supply in a modular fashion where you just unhook it, fork lift the dead plant out and shove a new one in. Should not take more than a hour at most.

Finally if we are really gutsy, follow US Naval Practice for high speed gearing and drive trains. Turn the entire locomotive into a shay style drive system that can be driven by any two of the 6 power units across the entire engine at any speed. Maybe have two shafts inside the center of the vehicle's longitual axis and have either shaft articulated and able to drive all the wheels availible to the unit.

I think the "shay" idea has already been tried. Back in the 1950's in Britain there was the Fell diesel, a 2-D-2 beast that had 4 x 500hp Paxman diesel engines the idead being that they could switch on or off however many were needed at a particular time, thus saving fuel. I think in someways it was a bit ahead of its time and it had problems with transmission failures. Its long wheel base was also a problem on some curves, though the problem was reduced by removing its centre coupling rods, making its wheel arrangement 2-B-B-2. Eventually though the loco was written off after oil leaking from one or more engine ignited and burnt out most of its innards.

As for building 6,000hp locos goes, I think most railroads on both sides of the Atlantic seem to prefer 3,000 - 4,000hp machines, and feels its better to have 2 x 3000hp machines than one 6000hp. With electric locos its a different story, even in Britain we have the class 92 electric locos which have a continous rating of 9,000hp.

[trainboyH16-44]

I think that, given the proper tools for the job, I would build a 6000HP locomotive very, very poorly.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[clip] With electric locos its a different story, even in Britain we have the class 92 electric locos which have a continous rating of 9,000hp.

Yup.  I'd start with he greatest of all locomotives (not just electrics), a PRR GG1 - a 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement, rated at 4,820 continuous HP (close to 10,000 HP short-term) if I recall correctly, or about 800 HP per axle.  Add 2 more powered axles = 6,400 HP.  Done !

- Paul North.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

[clip] With electric locos its a different story, even in Britain we have the class 92 electric locos which have a continous rating of 9,000hp.

Yup.  I'd start with he greatest of all locomotives (not just electrics), a PRR GG1 - a 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement, rated at 4,820 continuous HP (close to 10,000 HP short-term) if I recall correctly, or about 800 HP per axle.  Add 2 more powered axles = 6,400 HP.  Done !

- Paul North.

Electric locomotives have the advantage of drawing their power from other than an onboard source, eliminating one limitation but expanding the complexity of getting the power from the source to the wheel.

[MStLfan]

I would not build them, I would buy them from Bombardier, Siemens or Alstom, plant poles every 80 meters or so along the right of way and string wire between the poles and above the track. And buy a lot of electricity instead of diesel fuel. Electrics are already past the 6000 hp mark and around 10000 hp now. They also come in a smaller package than the newest American diesels. No need for increasing shop size, just retrain the people.

However, a Garratt would be much nicer to chase and a Meyer even better....

greetings,

Marc Immeker

(PS mine wouldn't come from Bombardier etc at all but from messrs. Maerklin, Fleischmann and Roco etc......)

[carnej1]

.....I believe from what I've read in past few years the RR's aren't really interested in having 6,000 horsepower on one chassis.  Maybe a 6000 hp engine {on one chassis}, made up of 3 power plant/gen sets would be a better combination to produce that 6,000 hp. 

Two of them mu'd together producing 12,000 hp in notch 8 when needed and then have each power plant of 2,000 hp {automatically}, shut down {in motion}, as the duty cycle is calling for.  Save fuel and ware and tear on engine/gensets.

  Like many ideas we discuss here, Railpower holds a patent that covers high horsepower road freight gensets:

 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ml6bAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=multiple+engine+locomotive#PPA15,M1

They drawing for the freight loco shows a "six pack" of inline diesel engines (and they also mention using gas turbines and other powerplants) and describes a shared power bus(which can send traction current from unit to unit) for multiple locomotives...

 The company do not, however, appear to be trying to market road units at the present time, at least from what I can find online..

[passengerfan]

[clip] With electric locos its a different story, even in Britain we have the class 92 electric locos which have a continous rating of 9,000hp.

Yup.  I'd start with he greatest of all locomotives (not just electrics), a PRR GG1 - a 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement, rated at 4,820 continuous HP (close to 10,000 HP short-term) if I recall correctly, or about 800 HP per axle.  Add 2 more powered axles = 6,400 HP.  Done !

- Paul North.

I would agree with you on that one Paul a 2-D+D-2 electric would be the perfect answer with wire strung from coast to coast.

Al - in - Stockton

[Modelcar]

.....Well at least the idea of "my" 6,000 hp unit might be possible.  Sounds to me like some benefits would be provided by such a design.

Custom tailoring of HP and economy....All automatically.