M636C wrote:I'm not sure but in at least one of the standard books on the late UP steam locomotives, there were illustrations of angled multiple jet nozzles arranged for double chimneys in locomotives of (at least some of) the UP 800, 3900 and 4000 classes. These appeared to be more or less of LeMaitre design with five nozzles in an annular arrangement. Since the Le Maitre is the "Lem" in Lempor (the "por" being for Porta, of course) there might not be as much room for improvement as expected if the UP were already using the LeMaitre in the late 1940s and 1950s. This is consistent with the large diameter stacks familiar from the HO scale models on the UP 4000 class and the slightly smaller stacks on the FEF-3 (rather than the simpler single nozzle). I knew about the LeMaitre from its use on the British Southern Railway and I was familiar with the resulting large diameter stacks, particularly on the Pacific locomotives. M636C
They had the right idea. So did the Santa Fe with their stack extensions. They got a couple of hundred extra horsepower that way. They were on the verge of putting all the pieces together, but didn't quite make it, before the diesel invasion. The large Sweeny stacks of the UP and the enlarged stacks of the N&W displayed an increasing understanding of the basic idea that the freer the gas flow, the better the engine. The Lempor is indeed a quantum leap from those designs. Porta was working on yet another refinement of the Lempor before he died. He called it the Lemprex. The calculations for it exist but it hasn't been built yet.
According to their (newly updated)website, Vapor locomotive is remanufacturing steam equipment and is introducing their own line (so far all for stationary applications). It does appear that they are aggresively trying to get into the locomotive business and at least be an American competitor to DLM.
http://vaporlocomotive.com/
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
DLM in Switzerland has the capabilities to manufacture both parts and complete locomotives. I imagine that there are still companies in China manufacturing parts for the large number of industrial steamers used there.
As I mentioned in an earlier post T.W Blasingame and Vapour locomotive are two US based firms trying to market new steam (in this case steam/electric) designs. AFAIK neither company has built anything as of yet and in Blasingame's case the owner/designer seems to mainly be interested in licensing the designs to be built by someone else (maybe EMD?LOL).
....Andre:
I have no intention of disputing all the many examples and thoughts you have presented. Lots of them and interesting.
I will say, {again}, that automotive gasoline engines {in general}, right after the 1975 installation of the catalytic converters produced more performance and due at least in part {then}, for reasons I stated in my original post.
I'm sure, later...as you describe changes of various kinds were involved as well.
Pre converter models of Corvette deteriated so badly in HP readings they hardly reached 200 HP....! That figure started back up from that point on....{just as one example}.
Retuning made possible by the converter had an almost immediate effect in advertised HP.
I'm glad they went that route and allowed the engineering wing of producers to put performance back into engines and in many cases since, have surpassed previous HP figures {that were hi compression}, even with non leaded regular gasoline.
Edit: Sorry this comment is a bit OT. of the steam subject.
Quentin
Modelcar wrote: ...Michael, I believe the catalytic converters increased the efficiency of the automotive engines {gasoline}, back about 1975. Their use allowed other polution removing means to be lessened on engines promoting the ability to retune said engines for better performance and economy. Said polition was then "cleaned up" by the converters before passing out into the atmosphere.Wouldn't the effect on diesel engines be similar.....?
...Michael, I believe the catalytic converters increased the efficiency of the automotive engines {gasoline}, back about 1975. Their use allowed other polution removing means to be lessened on engines promoting the ability to retune said engines for better performance and economy. Said polition was then "cleaned up" by the converters before passing out into the atmosphere.
Wouldn't the effect on diesel engines be similar.....?
I'm coming late to this discussion, but let me give you some anecdotal evidence that at least initially, the catalytic converter, while aiding pollution control, had a detrimental effect on engine performance and fuel economy, although part of that may have been the requirement to run on fuel with lower octane. IOW, the engines had to be "detuned" for the switch to unleaded. All the cars listed below complied with whatever California emission standards were in effect at the time.
In late 1972, I bought a 1973 Ford Pinto station wagon (which, IIRC, didn't have the same problems as the 3 door hatchback in a rear end collision). Some of the specs are as follows:
Engine: 2000 CC (approximately 122 CID) inline 4, two barrel carburetor
Fuel required: 91 Octane leaded gasoline
Rated Horsepower: 86 (derated from 100 HP in the 1972 model) probably in preparation for engines of that design to burn unleaded fuel in 1975 and later.
Transmission: 4 speed manual
Observed highway MPG (from memory) 29-30
Five years later, I traded that car in for a 1977 Toyota Corolla SR-5 Liftback
Engine: 1600 CC (aproximately 97 CID) inline 4, two barrel carburetor
Fuel: 87 octane unleaded
Rated horsepower output: 73
Transmission: 5 speed manual
Observed highway MPG: 25-27
Smaller engine, lower horsepower and a significant decrease in fuel mileage.
Things, however have changed quite a bit since then.
2002 Honda Odyssey minivan (currently has 120K miles)
Engine: 3500 CC (approximately 215 CI) V6 , computer controlled fuel injection
Rated horsepower output: 240
Transmission: 5 speed automatic
Observed highway mileage: 24-25 (and this in a time when speed limits are back to where they were prior to the 1973 oil shortage).
More than 3 times the horsepower of the '77 Toyota, nearly 2.5 times the engine displacement and fuel mileage only about 10% worse. Carries up to 7 people vs. 4 and weighs probably 1500 lbs more than the Corolla.
My parents had a 1958 Chevy Brookwood station wagon, which was approximately the same weight as the 2002 Odyssey listed above.
Engine: 283 CID V-8 (approximately 4600 CC), 2 barrel carburetor
Fuel: 91 octane leaded
Rated horsepower: 195
Transmission: 2 speed Powerglide automatic
Observed highway mileage: 15-17
The Odyssey, by way of comparisin, has an approximately 24% smaller displacement, 23% more horsepower and about a 50% increase in fuel mileage.
All the vehicles mentioned above had/have the factory installed exhaust system.
It's conjecture on my part since I'm not an engineer, but it would appear that combustion technology has come a long way in the last 50 years probably driven in large part by the switch over in the last 20-25 years to precisely metered fuel injection into the cylinder coupled with computer controlled ignition. A carburetor is a brute force and ignorance method of getting fuel (and air) into a cylinder and when coupled with the old breaker-point ignition suffers in comparison. It works, but it's not the optimal solution. I don't know this for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me if engineers also figured out how to streamline the gas flow through the converter without sacrificing the converter's performance and thus reducing back-pressure. Layman that I am, I would ascribe the more efficient fuel use of the modern automobile to advances in combustion technology rather than the use of the catalytic converter.
And, just to keep this on topic, this thread was the first I'd heard that #3985 was being equipped with a double Lempor exhaust, probably because I hang out more on the MR forums. I'd sure like to see the performance and economy statistics for this engine when she's back on the road. I'd like to believe that the UP wouldn't spend so much money on modifying #3985 if they weren't going to use her as a test bed, but that remains to be seen.
Since Wardale did start a project on Chinese QJ #8001 back in the 80's, I wonder if the two in the US will be treated to at least some of the improvements he was going to make. I'm not that much of an historical purist. Anything that improves a steam locomotive and keeps it in service at lower overall cost is OK in my book.
BTW, did anyone here ever read Bill Withuhn's article in the June, 1974 (IIRC) Trains. I believe it was entitled "Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?".
Andre
tomikawaTT wrote: Point of order: SAR is 3'6" gauge, not meter gauge.
Point of order: SAR is 3'6" gauge, not meter gauge.
Thanks for the correction.
Again, at some point there is going to have to be a different direction taken by the transportation industry as a whole. The price of oil is primary and the fact that oil is becoming a political pawn in World affairs is another serious issue regardless of the actual World supply. The price ber barrel not withstanding the supply is increasingly coming under the control of socialist and other collective governments. To me it is senseless not to develop our plentiful and secure domestic supply of coal.
wsherrick wrote:Another thing to look at besides back pressure is the greatly increased vacuum produced by the Lempor in comparison with the old style nozzles. I'm sure that is also a large factor when it comes to boiler capacity.
Another thing to look at besides back pressure is the greatly increased vacuum produced by the Lempor in comparison with the old style nozzles. I'm sure that is also a large factor when it comes to boiler capacity.
Didn't think of that aspect, but it does make sense. Maybe the Lempor could have saved the Triplex design - which had huge problems with maintaining steam.
Shortly after WWII, Andre Chapelon increased the power of the SNCF 'Liberation' 2-8-2s about 10% with some minor valve re-timing and the equivalent of porting and polishing the exhaust system. The reciprocating steam locomotive was set aside long before it reached its full potential.
There has now been some 65 years since anybody in America did any serious design work on a locomotive-size boiler that could stand the stresses of rail application. Likewise, there have been improvements on the other end, in the machinery to use the boiler's output. I can't help wondering what kind of smooth-running, track-friendly superlocomotive could be developed if the funding was there.
OTOH, much as I like their looks, I just don't see reciprocating steam making a comeback. Electric drive is just too versatile.
Chuck
On the Red Devil the increase in horsepower was well over 20%. It is amazing that the Red Devil is about 2/3rds the size of the C&O 614 and after it's conversion had horsepower outputs up to 5000. This is for a engine on a 3',3" gauge!
I agree it would be interesting to see what would happen to a Y6b as well.
With an 11 psi reduction in back pressure, I'd be surprised if the UP didn't get at least 5% more power out of the 3985. I would expect that under most operating conditions, the increase in power will come from less work needed to drive the steam out of piston during the 'exhaust' stroke. At the higher cut-offs, there would be some extra energy extracted due to increased expansion of the steam.
What would have been really interesting is to see the Lempor exhaust on a Y6b.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Can anyone tell me of all of the high-tech exhaust systems, which one has the most street-cred? Is it Porta's Lempor? What about Giesel's oblong stack?
I hope you can read the graph it is rather fuzzy. The line on the left is the peformance of the Lempor and the line on the far right is the United States Master Mechanic standard exhaust. Chapelon's is in the middle. As you can see the Lempor is far more efficient than the others. The vacuum produced by each is the vertical line and cylinder back pressure in PSI is the horizontal line. The reduction in backpressure by over 11 pounds between a. "standard," exhaust and the Lempor yeilds a big increase in horsepower for the same steam used. Maybe one of our resident posters with engineering experience can calculate how much of an increase that would represent on a given locomotive. The Challenger would be a good example since it has just been fitted with a double Lempor.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Are there some reasonable leads on how I might purchase The Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam by Wardale? I believe it is both out of print and a British publisher, but any leads on used book dealers would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. Wardale's book is going to be reissued this year. If you go to the 5at project site and look in the articles section there is a link to a publisher in England that you can order it from. They also have an excellent book on Dante Porta which I am looking foward to reading once it finally gets here.
On several of the points you make I can agree. My concern with the D&S is their future. I would hate them to get slapped with unsupportable restrictions which could ruin them.
As far as the Challenger goes. I don't know what they're doing with it. I'm certain that a big part of it is to gain data. I don't expect to see the Challenger out in regular service.
wsherrick wrote: Bucyrus wrote: This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency---and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency. Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me. Don't be depressed. There are several Challengers sitting in parks, rusting away, perfectly authentic, useful only to the birds perching on their steam domes.From your posts, I think you are a good man who really cares about steam engines and history and I respect that. But if a railroad ever has the misfortune of being run by railfans, it will soon be broke. If a railroad ever gave any credence to railfans, that railroad would soon be bankrupt. What depresses me are museums. They really do. I've been to several and it makes me sad to see all of those locomotives standing out a pasture, solemnly rusting away, dead and cold never to function again. How interesting is that? What's the point of having all of them like the Illinois Museum for example, one stuffed and mounted engine is enough to show how big they are. Something that is designed to be functional is only interesting to me if it is functioning. Perhaps it is because my point of view is different. I don't look at the Challenger as an antique, but a living, viable piece of equipment, just like the people who built it did. I see the D&S locomotives in the same light. They are functioning to perform the service of transportation. That's what they were built to do. Yes they are historic and they serve in that function as well. They perform their task very well, but since we have been talking about the D&S's problems with the town and the eviro-whacko's they need to invest in the best option to insure their existence or the railroad could BECOME history. I did a lot of investigation and read back issues of the Durango Herald, etc. and there it said that the owner of the D&S is going to spend over a million dollars to address the smoke issue. A scrubber in the roundhouse isn't historically accurate either. I can't understand for the life of me why this man can't try changing the way he operates his railroad (such as banking the fires instead of keeping them steamed up all night for example) before he blows such a big wad of cash which could put the viability of the Railroad in jeopardy. Modernizing the locomotives and examining ways to improve methods is in my mind the only logical, prudent (and cheaper) course of action. Go ahead spend the 250 grand each to modify the locomotives if this man decides to do that he'll never look back. It doesn't make them any less historic or change their character-it makes them more viable. Should an engine operating today that was built without a superheater but got one later in its life, be put back to running on wet steam? If it later got an electric headlight and piston valves, should it be rebuilt with slide valves and an oil lamp. The answer is obviously no.I believe that the UP is a different case than the D&S altogether. They have spent a car load of money doing these modifications to the Challenger and I can't believe it is just for the occasional excursion. If so, why not modify the 844? It is the first engine in the excursion roster and it hasn't been modified. So why do it to the Challenger and why the clamp down on the publicity about it? Maybe, just maybe somebody at Union Pacific has got a clue. The Challenger might become even more historic in its future role, whatever that may be. I know it's really hard not to think of steam as a historic thing and not look at in any future light other than excursion service. That is the status quo mind set and it is hard to break out of that box.David Wardale with the 5at project is getting hassled in England by the, "Preservation Set," because he is building on something totally new. Since steam is only viewed by the common person at present as an excursion tool, he is building it in that context with the full intention of once the World sees just how superior this new engine will be, the foundation will be set to sell steam for everyday use. Incidentally they have a freight version of the 5at hiding behind the curtain. I find it astounding that he has to take this approach, but he does and I understand it.
Bucyrus wrote: This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency---and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency. Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me.
This gets into one very controversial aspect of the discussion of steam art advancement. I am all for the scientific and engineering advancement of steam and its reconsideration of use for railroad motive power. I also love the historic age of steam and the diesel era as well. However, I am absolutely opposed to the modernization of historic steam antiques. There is no reason to make these engines capable of moving more tonnage or burning less fuel unless it is in the mind of ones who fail to understand the point of preserving historically authentic antiques.
I have heard all the arguments; that these operators must compromise authenticity for the pragmatism of operating efficiency---and that the upgrades are hidden so the public will never know. And besides, the riding customers are mostly not railfans, and hardly know anything about railroads, let alone steam locomotives.
As I mentioned previously, the Durango & Silverton has been offered strong recommendations to modify their locomotives with GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts. At this time, they seem inclined to turn down the proposal in favor of addressing the overnight smoke nuisance with scrubbers. At one point Wasatch Railroad Contractors and the Smoke Mitigation Taskforce were both soliciting public input on solutions for the smoke issue. I made it clear to both groups that I was opposed to destroying historical authenticity of the locomotives by radical upgrades in pursuit of efficiency.
Shutdown discussions notwithstanding, hearing that UP has added a Lempor exhaust to their Challenger depresses me.
Don't be depressed. There are several Challengers sitting in parks, rusting away, perfectly authentic, useful only to the birds perching on their steam domes.
From your posts, I think you are a good man who really cares about steam engines and history and I respect that. But if a railroad ever has the misfortune of being run by railfans, it will soon be broke. If a railroad ever gave any credence to railfans, that railroad would soon be bankrupt.
What depresses me are museums. They really do. I've been to several and it makes me sad to see all of those locomotives standing out a pasture, solemnly rusting away, dead and cold never to function again. How interesting is that? What's the point of having all of them like the Illinois Museum for example, one stuffed and mounted engine is enough to show how big they are.
Something that is designed to be functional is only interesting to me if it is functioning. Perhaps it is because my point of view is different. I don't look at the Challenger as an antique, but a living, viable piece of equipment, just like the people who built it did. I see the D&S locomotives in the same light. They are functioning to perform the service of transportation. That's what they were built to do. Yes they are historic and they serve in that function as well. They perform their task very well, but since we have been talking about the D&S's problems with the town and the eviro-whacko's they need to invest in the best option to insure their existence or the railroad could BECOME history. I did a lot of investigation and read back issues of the Durango Herald, etc. and there it said that the owner of the D&S is going to spend over a million dollars to address the smoke issue. A scrubber in the roundhouse isn't historically accurate either. I can't understand for the life of me why this man can't try changing the way he operates his railroad (such as banking the fires instead of keeping them steamed up all night for example) before he blows such a big wad of cash which could put the viability of the Railroad in jeopardy. Modernizing the locomotives and examining ways to improve methods is in my mind the only logical, prudent (and cheaper) course of action. Go ahead spend the 250 grand each to modify the locomotives if this man decides to do that he'll never look back. It doesn't make them any less historic or change their character-it makes them more viable. Should an engine operating today that was built without a superheater but got one later in its life, be put back to running on wet steam? If it later got an electric headlight and piston valves, should it be rebuilt with slide valves and an oil lamp. The answer is obviously no.
I believe that the UP is a different case than the D&S altogether. They have spent a car load of money doing these modifications to the Challenger and I can't believe it is just for the occasional excursion. If so, why not modify the 844? It is the first engine in the excursion roster and it hasn't been modified. So why do it to the Challenger and why the clamp down on the publicity about it?
Maybe, just maybe somebody at Union Pacific has got a clue. The Challenger might become even more historic in its future role, whatever that may be.
I know it's really hard not to think of steam as a historic thing and not look at in any future light other than excursion service. That is the status quo mind set and it is hard to break out of that box.
David Wardale with the 5at project is getting hassled in England by the, "Preservation Set," because he is building on something totally new. Since steam is only viewed by the common person at present as an excursion tool, he is building it in that context with the full intention of once the World sees just how superior this new engine will be, the foundation will be set to sell steam for everyday use. Incidentally they have a freight version of the 5at hiding behind the curtain. I find it astounding that he has to take this approach, but he does and I understand it.
I understand your point of view, but I believe you are mischaracterizing some of what I said. I don't see any analogy between those who want historical authenticity telling the D&S so, and railfans telling the railroads how to operate.
Also, I have no trouble at all breaking out of the box and looking at steam as a future development for applications other than excursion service. And at the same time, I can look at steam as an historical thing. I am not, however, able to reconcile the two opposing principles. In fact, it seems to me that those who believe they can reconcile them are actually dismissing the historical principle rather than reconciling it with modern steam. For example, you say that adding GP fireboxes and Lempor exhausts to the D&S engines "doesn't make them any less historic or change their character-it makes them more viable." I disagree. It might make them more viable, but it also does indeed change their historic character. It does not completely destroy their historical character, but it destroys a lot of it.
I also disagree with your assertion that the D&S locomotives are functioning to perform the service of transportation. In a way it is true because people are being transported, but the objective is recreation, the fun of the ride, and the mountain scenery, not the need to get from point A to point B.
I too prefer seeing engines operating, as opposed to stuffed and mounted, however, I regard the fact that they were saved from scrap to be stuffed and mounted to be a major achievement even if the ultimate success of return to operation is not achieved. You suggested that one stuffed and mounted engine is all you need because just one would suffice to show how big steam locomotives are. A stuffed and mounted engine tells me a lot more than just how big locomotives are, and I think the more that were saved, the better off we were.
I never intended to suggest that all rebuilt locomotives be rebuilt to their as-manufactured configuration despite the fact that they were upgraded periodically by the railroad owner during their service lives. And I realize that some modern materials are typically used in even so-called historic restorations. I would not object to that kind of minor compromise.
If the case can be made for modern steam that can replace diesels, why not just go ahead and build it and prove the point? It seems like wishful thinking that the UP is going to bridge that gap by modernizing their Challenger.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I guess I don't have a problem with the Lempor ejector nozzle on the UP Challenger.These locomotives are antiques yes, and they are historical recreations of the heydey of steam, yes as well, but the alternate history in which steam stayed around another 10 years and locomotives got fitted with those ejectors is also part of the history.Try this analogy. Suppose there was some group of wealthy EAA types who somehow got ahold and restored to flight status a B-36, complete with those monster R-4460 radial piston engines driving pusher props and those outboard jet engines. Suppose some maniacs with time on their hands actually built the Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) upgrade to the turbo-charging system of those engines that had been planned but never done. Not quite sure what the VDT was, but it seems to be a kind of turbocharger that used the engine exhaust for supplemental jet thrust to the propulsive force of the engine.If there were some maniacs with enough time and money to do this, I would say, more power to them rather than complain that they are corrupting a one-of-a-kind antique aircraft. Likewise with putting fancy ejectors or firebox systems on the Colorado narrow gauge of the UP Northern or Challenger locomotives. Those systems are all part of the history of steam as they were conceptualized in many cases but not applied.This is almost like saying, no, don't hot-rod a 1932 flat-head V-8 Ford with chromed carbs, manifold headers, and other performance parts. The 1932 Ford is a priceless antique and the Beach Boys committed sacriledge by memorializing the highly modified Deuce Couple in song.
I guess I don't have a problem with the Lempor ejector nozzle on the UP Challenger.
These locomotives are antiques yes, and they are historical recreations of the heydey of steam, yes as well, but the alternate history in which steam stayed around another 10 years and locomotives got fitted with those ejectors is also part of the history.
Try this analogy. Suppose there was some group of wealthy EAA types who somehow got ahold and restored to flight status a B-36, complete with those monster R-4460 radial piston engines driving pusher props and those outboard jet engines. Suppose some maniacs with time on their hands actually built the Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) upgrade to the turbo-charging system of those engines that had been planned but never done. Not quite sure what the VDT was, but it seems to be a kind of turbocharger that used the engine exhaust for supplemental jet thrust to the propulsive force of the engine.
If there were some maniacs with enough time and money to do this, I would say, more power to them rather than complain that they are corrupting a one-of-a-kind antique aircraft. Likewise with putting fancy ejectors or firebox systems on the Colorado narrow gauge of the UP Northern or Challenger locomotives. Those systems are all part of the history of steam as they were conceptualized in many cases but not applied.
This is almost like saying, no, don't hot-rod a 1932 flat-head V-8 Ford with chromed carbs, manifold headers, and other performance parts. The 1932 Ford is a priceless antique and the Beach Boys committed sacriledge by memorializing the highly modified Deuce Couple in song.
I know this can be like splitting hairs. Certainly locomotive owners can do anything they want with their locomotives. But if they are using them to attract the public for an experience that is something other than transportation, then I think it pays to analyze what that experience is and what most of the public want it to be. I am only offering my one vote in the matter. I want the experience to be historically authentic as if frozen in time. Others may want only the thrill of the ride, and may not ever care whether is it steam, no matter if modern steam or original antique.
Wasatch Railroad Contractors made the argument that railroads continuously upgraded their operations over their entire history, so this continual upgrading is a part of railroad history and should be preserved as well. Therefore, they argued, rail preservationists were being hypocrites for refusing to embrace the practice on continual upgrades to their equipment. But how do you preserve something if you upgrade it into something else?
Railroad preservation and railroad industry are two different businesses with two completely different missions. It makes perfect sense to upgrade locomotives if you are using them for the purpose of transportation of passengers or freight. But the customers of D&S are not buying transportation. They are buying an experience preserved in a time capsule. If D&S were to emulate railroad practice of continual upgrade, they would dieselize.
....Paul M. mentioning the B-36.....Remember them and also remember the very unusual sound they made as they passed over many years ago. Sort of a resonating, pulsating deep bass sound.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
MichaelSol wrote: wsherrick wrote: So now that the UP has put a double Lempor on the Challenger and done extensive firebox and running gear changes. I am excited to see just how much of an increase in horsepower the Challenger will achieve and how much fuel they will be saving. Don't be too surprised if you don't see it on a long double stack train this summer during its testing.This sounds more like a research project than maintaining a historic relic ....
wsherrick wrote: So now that the UP has put a double Lempor on the Challenger and done extensive firebox and running gear changes. I am excited to see just how much of an increase in horsepower the Challenger will achieve and how much fuel they will be saving. Don't be too surprised if you don't see it on a long double stack train this summer during its testing.
So now that the UP has put a double Lempor on the Challenger and done extensive firebox and running gear changes. I am excited to see just how much of an increase in horsepower the Challenger will achieve and how much fuel they will be saving. Don't be too surprised if you don't see it on a long double stack train this summer during its testing.
Yes, I quite agree. This,"treasured antique," as some put it earlier in this thread, has been significantly altered from its original design at a substantial cost to the company. I'm inclined to believe that this money wasn't spent for the occasional happy excursion.
The other odd thing about this work is the Union Pacific has been extremely secretive about it. Nigel Day is involved and he shut down a discussion about the Challenger in the Railway Preservation News Forum.
Another item to look at when comparing a new steam locomotive to a traditional one is what Porta and other call the, "Steam Circut." I don't have the mathmatical skills to go through the formulas about how it works, but maybe some of the engineering types could jump in and help.
What I do know from being a fireman on a hard working locomotive is the draft is of key importance to the performance of the engine. I have had the coal literally sucked off the shovel as the coal was being placed in the fire. It is really neat to see the lumps of coal burst into flame as soon as they leave the shovel and head for the grate, but neat is not always efficient. According to Wardale and others, the front end design of the standard locomotive is hopelessly poor as well as the valves, steam chests and assorted pipes. In this region is where most of the loss of power occurs as the steam is travelling from the boiler to end up chugging up the stack.
The idea is to have the steam pressure in the cylinders as close to that of the boiler as possible, but there is in the best conditions over a fifteen pound loss of steam pressure by the time the steam makes it to the cylinder. It may not sound like a lot but it is a tremendous loss of power. I believe that every (somebody check me on this) five pound loss of pressure in the cylinder translates into a loss of over five tons of piston thrust. That's quite a lot. The idea then is find out where this loss is occurring. Most of it is due to excessive back pressure formed as the piston is trying to force steam out of the exhaust. This back pressure is due to several causes that compound with one another. It has been found that there are three main culprits: Constriction in the steam passages heading in and out of the steam chest, constriction in the dry pipe and super heater headers and worst of all the constriction in the exhaust nozzle.
Porta after many years of experimentation, along with the emerging science of fluid mechanics developed the Lempor exhaust configuration to solve these problems. The standard nozzle is terribly inefficient not only because of back pressure but the fact that exhausting steam blasting out of it under normal conditions accelerates to supersonic speed. This causes a sonic boom inside the smokebox that has a severe negative effect on the draft. This is called, "shock loss," I believe. You hear this when the engine is working at a long cutoff. People love to hear this massive stack talk, but it is evidence of an enormous amount of power loss. The common practice of putting a bridge across the nozzle to increase draft only makes everything worse.
The Lempor is a revolutionary concept like the Gas Combuster Firebox. The Lempor has four exhaust ports that end up in four De Val nozzles. Each exhaust port has a baffle in it called a, Kordina," this creates the,"Kordina Effect." In other words what happens is the Kordina prevents steam from each cylinder combining with the steam from the opposite one and as each pulse of steam exhausts it creates a vacuum to remove any back pressure from the opposite cylinder as it is exhausting. From here the steam en trains the smoke box gasses in a much slower manner and thus is much more efficient. The steam actually en trains the smoke rather than punching through it, also the sonic boom is eliminated. This nozzle and petticoat arrangement also insures an even draft through all of the flues, thus the boiler efficiency is increased by a large margin. The common straight stack doesn't work well with the Lempor and engines that get them get large funnel shaped stacks. Sort of like a Sweeny stack found on many UP locomotives. For the Lempor to work it's best a different configuration in the valves are needed. The entry and exhaust ports must be made larger and as open as possible. The steam chests are also made longer with larger ports. All of these things combined cause a dramatic reduction in back pressure and increase in cylinder efficiency, leading to a doubling of draw bar horsepower for a lot less steam.
Another big benefit of this is a reduction in water consumption of 20% on average. It's amazing to me that you get twice the horsepower and use 80% of the water to do it. These efficiencies that have been measured in rebuilt locomotives would be even more in a new locomotive designed from the ground up.
GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote:... CSX are buying DC motors for the mountainous coal regions for drag service for some reason...That is 100% wrong.You still didn't answer my question about the Y and A on the West End...
wsherrick wrote:... CSX are buying DC motors for the mountainous coal regions for drag service for some reason...
Your word is as good as the engineer I was talking to, both claims are unsubstantiated so if I goofed by quoting this man, I apologize for all. Now these are the some of the specs for Y6b's and A's and this is the last of this conversation because if we are going to talk about AC/DC units and comparing them to 60 years ago, there needs to be another thread started on it. This thread is about the feasibility of modern steam, its characteristics, design and potential for use TODAY and the future that we are barreling toward.
Class A:
Starting Tractive Effort: 114,000 LBS.
Maximum DRAWBAR horsepower: 5,350 @ 40 MPH
Continuous Drawbar horsepower: 5100 between 24 & 64 MPH
Tonnage Ratings: Williamson to Columbus OH-16,000 t0 18,000 tons @ 15 to 30 MPH.
Time Freight Tonnage: 7,500 Tons @ 64 MPH
Class Y6b:
Starting Tractive Effort: 160,000 pounds, 152,000 continuous TE in compound mode.
Maximum Drawbar Horsepower: 5,600 horsepower @ 25 MPH
Continuous Drawbar Horsepower: 5000-5100 between 17 & 34 MPH
Tonnage Rating for a single Y6b on the 1.6% grade between Gln Lynn and Bluefield Summit is 3900 Tons.
Maximum Rating for 2 Y6b's on the same grade is 10,000 to 11,000 Tons
Source: N&W Records, circa 1950
wsherrick wrote: GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Al Krug has this to say...Al Krug didn't test AC's on the Mountain Sub...I did. Like I said, the figures I gave are from ACTUAL service...What don't you guys understand about ACTUAL...MY aren't we combative! I will answer your question about the Y6b on the B&O's west end when you tell me how often a single AC unit goes over the grade and how much it pulls. Or is it more than one unit at a time? And at what speeds does the AC unit produce this "continous tractive effort," and what speeds do these engines produce these horsepower ratings? Any decent size Northern can produce 4000 horsepower for a wide range of speeds
GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Al Krug has this to say...Al Krug didn't test AC's on the Mountain Sub...I did. Like I said, the figures I gave are from ACTUAL service...What don't you guys understand about ACTUAL...
MichaelSol wrote: Al Krug has this to say...
Al Krug has this to say...
MY aren't we combative! I will answer your question about the Y6b on the B&O's west end when you tell me how often a single AC unit goes over the grade and how much it pulls. Or is it more than one unit at a time? And at what speeds does the AC unit produce this "continous tractive effort," and what speeds do these engines produce these horsepower ratings? Any decent size Northern can produce 4000 horsepower for a wide range of speeds
MichaelSol wrote: GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Al Krug has this to say...Al Krug didn't test AC's on the Mountain Sub...I did. Like I said, the figures I gave are from ACTUAL service...What don't you guys understand about ACTUAL...As regards actual fuel costs today ... right on! Those things actually are important. The best machine in the world is worthless if it costs too much trying to do the job ...
As regards actual fuel costs today ... right on! Those things actually are important. The best machine in the world is worthless if it costs too much trying to do the job ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.