erikem wrote: Albeit with somewhat larger grate areas than would be needed with higher grade coal - the NP Yellowstones had the largest grate area of any production US steam locomotive.
Albeit with somewhat larger grate areas than would be needed with higher grade coal - the NP Yellowstones had the largest grate area of any production US steam locomotive.
And the Colstrip coal is perhaps the lowest grade of all the Powder River coal, and even at that, with their larger grates, the NP Steam power ran just fine. running competitive schedules over some of the roughest profiles in the West.
Milwaukee's coal at Roundup, which is considered by some geologists to be the northern edge of Powder River coal (others consider it part of the Fort Union formation), was a higher quality for instance, and the quality of the coal improves in other direction from Colstrip as well.
Are you implying that your conductor won't pick up a coal shovel?
IIRC, they had air conditioned cars on steam-powered trains, so that is not an issue.
The late André Chapelon planned a whole family of modern steam-engines to be built in the late 1930s or after WW II. Among them a ultra-fast (steamlined) ten-wheeler which was rated for 230 km per hour or 142 mph. So he was quite near the 150 mph. Unfortunately, none of his designs was realized, except to prototypes, a 4-8-4 and a 2-6-0 (one prototype each). So it does seem technically possible to run high-speed-steam-trains.
I doubt however it would be the most efficient way to propel high-speed-trains. If you have true high-speed, i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph, you need extra ROW with no freight trains on it. Then, it makes sense to build a HS-ROW with diverging branches in order to distribute the fixed-costs onto a higher number of passengers. And then, it makes sense to string catenary. For example, a HS-ROW from (the suburbs of) Chicago to Cleveland and from there to Pittsburgh would have a branch from Toledo to Detroit (perhaps Toronto) and from somewhere near Toledo to the South to get to Columbus. Another branch could go to Buffalo, the branch-lines perhaps rated for only 100-125 mph.That's the way the French run their HS-system. Trains can follow each other in three-minutes-slots. In a package of trains the non-stop-trains to Cleveland/Pittsburg, to Detroit, to Toronto, to Buffalo and to Columbus would leave Chicago first, let's say at 9.00 a.m., 9.03 a.m., 9.06 a.m., 9.09 a.m. and 9.12 a.m., followed by trains that make stops at several intermediate stations. (Intermediate stations have passing sidings to let the faster trains go through).
martin.knoepfel wrote: The late André Chapelon planned a whole family of modern steam-engines to be built in the late 1930s or after WW II. Among them a ultra-fast (steamlined) ten-wheeler which was rated for 230 km per hour or 142 mph. So he was quite near the 150 mph. Unfortunately, none of his designs was realized, except to prototypes, a 4-8-4 and a 2-6-0 (one prototype each). So it does seem technically possible to run high-speed-steam-trains.
Why a ten wheeler? Was he just trying to pack as big a punch into a single engine as possible? Did Chapelon ever consider the viability of "M.U.ing" steam engines together under one operator?
I doubt however it would be the most efficient way to propel high-speed-trains. If you have true high-speed, i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph, you need extra ROW with no freight trains on it. Then, it makes sense to build a HS-ROW with diverging branches in order to distribute the fixed-costs onto a higher number of passengers. And then, it makes sense to string catenary.
You're under the same notion as most HSR proponents, namely that HSR = passenger trains, and only passenger trains. Why not HSR for freight? Can't a freight train move just as fast as a passenger train? It would certainly eliminate a lot of redudant trackage (e.g. one set of track for freight, one for HSR passengers) if both moved at the same speed.
Don't cargo planes fly at the same cruising speed as passenger jets? Don't lorries move at the same highway spees as autos?
I think the very idea of traveling at that velocity with a steam engine is completely ludicrous, attempting it would certainly be a recipe for disaster. As pointed out, there are way too many massive moving parts involved for a steam locomotive to be feasibly utilized in its customary form even it was possible to attain such speed.
I know that I wouldn't want to ride behind it.
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Ted Marshall wrote: As pointed out, there are way too many massive moving parts involved for a steam locomotive to be feasibly utilized in its customary form even it was possible to attain such speed.
As pointed out, there are way too many massive moving parts involved for a steam locomotive to be feasibly utilized in its customary form even it was possible to attain such speed.
A Jet Engine is a massive moving part, operating at much higher speeds.
Seems to do all right.
It has also benefitted immensely from metalurgical and engineering improvements since 1950.
You don't think Steam would?
And, not you particularly, but who is stuck in the past on these issues?
After all, a diesel engine is a reciprocating machine as well, with many more moving parts, and much less robust moving parts.
MichaelSol wrote: A Jet Engine is a massive moving part, operating at much higher speeds.Seems to do all right.It has also benefitted immensely from metalurgical and engineering improvements since 1950.You don't think Steam would?And who is stuck in the past?
And who is stuck in the past?
There is no comparison between a steam locomotive with dozens of extremely heavy rotating and oscilating steel rods, pistons and drivers and a jet turbine engine with lightweight alloy fans turning on a single central axis. Attempting to make such a comparison is equally as ludicrous.
Ted Marshall wrote: There is no comparison between a steam locomotive with dozens of extremely heavy rotating and oscilating steel rods, pistons and drivers and a jet turbine engine with lightweight alloy fans turning on a single central axis. Attempting to make such a comparison is equally as ludicrous.
Ahh. "Ludicrous". The name calling starts.
OK. Your engineering background is ... what?
Here's my problem when people jump in with their "obvious" conclusions.
The biggest Jet engines were generally built with titanium fans. It's not an alloy. It's an element. Currently, the most advanced generation of Jet engines are being designed and built with composites. They are likewise not alloys. They are also not metals.
The biggest Jet engines were generally never built with alloys.
Steel on the other hand is, in fact, an alloy.
You've got just about every single metalurgical fact in your short analysis backwards.
The GE90-115B Jet engine weighs over nine tons. Whether that qualifies as "extremely heavy" is subjective, but by the standards of any given moving part in a Steam engine, that's a big, heavy, high speed moving part. Like a Steam locomotive, when something fails, it's pretty spectacular but generally much more catastrophic. There are at least two such big moving parts on any aircraft that uses them. The moving parts alone weigh nearly 19 tons on a modern trans-oceanic commercial Jet aircraft.
The point, however, is that the GE90-115B could not be built in 1950. Simply impossible. The design and manufacture of Jet engines has benefitted from enormous technological advances since that time. The logical flaw regarding discussions of Steam power is the automatic assumption -- based on zero evidence and impossible logic --that of all of the metalurgical, manufacturing, and engine power source developments since 1950, only Steam locomotive design could and would benefit from none of them.
Perhaps there is a useful application of the word "ludicrous" and I think that idea might be it.
If the same "logic" -- I use the word loosely -- applied to Jet engine development, where would we be today? Lockheed Electras, perhaps?
As an observer, I think I see a disparity in the usage of terms, in understanding, experience, and so on that is making both of you misunderstand each other in a significant way. I think I see some rigidity and intolerance in the mix, too.
The ball that gets bounced around in this topic without seeming to make any points for the user is that reciprocating steam can't be now what it was. It can only be what it was then. Micheal's point, I think/hope, is that it could be much more, but only with some re-visiting with new know-how. It may or may not be reciprocating and still do what seems sensible today, or it could be turbine technology applied using steam, but on a locomotive. I think Ted feels that reciprocating steam in the 50's couldn't practically be used for the work required in trains today, certainly at speeds required to compete with aircraft for pax miles. I see that both of you could certainly be right. Michael is impatient with statements and claims by people who appear to mix their terms and concepts injudiciously (if innocently). Ted says rod-driven locos of yesteryear are best left as the wonderful antiques they are. I don't think Michael would disagree, but he is saying let's move the walls out a fair bit and see what new room we have.
I don't know if that makes sense. But it doesn't appear from Ted's last that he thought Michael was being conciliatory, and feels that Michael appears to have missed Ted's interest in moving the topic along on common ground..if it can be established. Ted would like to establish it with a gentler approach.
-Crandell
First off: I have no real engineering background:
Norman Saxon wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote: The late André Chapelon planned a whole family of modern steam-engines to be built in the late 1930s or after WW II. Among them a ultra-fast (steamlined) ten-wheeler which was rated for 230 km per hour or 142 mph. So he was quite near the 150 mph. Unfortunately, none of his designs was realized, except to prototypes, a 4-8-4 and a 2-6-0 (one prototype each). So it does seem technically possible to run high-speed-steam-trains. Why a ten wheeler? Was he just trying to pack as big a punch into a single engine as possible? Did Chapelon ever consider the viability of "M.U.ing" steam engines together under one operator?I doubt however it would be the most efficient way to propel high-speed-trains. If you have true high-speed, i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph, you need extra ROW with no freight trains on it. Then, it makes sense to build a HS-ROW with diverging branches in order to distribute the fixed-costs onto a higher number of passengers. And then, it makes sense to string catenary. You're under the same notion as most HSR proponents, namely that HSR = passenger trains, and only passenger trains. Why not HSR for freight? Can't a freight train move just as fast as a passenger train? It would certainly eliminate a lot of redudant trackage (e.g. one set of track for freight, one for HSR passengers) if both moved at the same speed. Don't cargo planes fly at the same cruising speed as passenger jets? Don't lorries move at the same highway spees as autos?
Yes, but for 90 percent of the lorries, and all of the jets, the cargo is prtected, covered, and mpving in the same direction at the same time. Or so is the argument I;ve heard against High speed freight. I tried it in a fictitious Mordel Railroad once, ther research given to me was the amount of freoght creating an even longerr stopping rate, and the open cars. If your running units of boxcars, or tank cars, or hoppers, then the streamlining works. You mix them, or throw in flatcars, gondolas, or intermodel, and it skewers. Also, do you really want a semi trailer on a flatcar whipping through the alleghanies at 100 or even the 150? Can you ( the RR company) guarnetee it will still be on said flatcar, in the same position instead of having flailed sideways when the train stops? And what's stopping the two or three high containers from becoming a sailboat? And yes, I know the intermodals blow through, I'm on the route for bothe the Schneider Express and the Pacer Stacktrain. They do haul aft, I sit between Terre Haute and Avon. There's nothing along the way til you get to one of those. But 70 is not 150. Planes can make the great speeds because the cargo is together in the same container. (the plane body) And as to "lorries" The open trailer trucks that are loaded are often not travelling as fasst as the one's with box trailers.
Steam M.U.ing. You mean the way they did the articulateds?
Here's my take on modern steam, Science can enhance the locomotive. But the physics haven't changed since 1950, or anything 50. The guts of a diesel, at least theat I know of, aren't covering such a large, uneven area as a drive rod. Even a fan is still occupying the same places, and a pidston has a smaller area, less range for something to go catasrophically wrong. (If it's going to go that route, it will, but for the most part, less unprotected movement) To help me understand what I;m saying, I'll point to the camelbacks. Yes, they are about 80 years too far back, ut it;s the physics, and the same concern of things coming flying up at you and cleaving you in half.
-Morgan
selector wrote: I don't know if that makes sense. But it doesn't appear from Ted's last that he thought Michael was being conciliatory, and feels that Michael appears to have missed Ted's interest in moving the topic along on common ground..if it can be established. Ted would like to establish it with a gentler approach.
What I object to is "absolute" knowledge. Above, it is represented by the conclusion "there is no comparison ..." and "ludicrous". "Steam is dead" falls into that category. These are the people that would have been defending the US Patent Office's 1899 declaration: "everything that could be invented has been invented."
And that was a statement made by someone who ostensibly knew what they were talking about, not someone who pretends the knowledge of "alloys" in jet engines without the faintest idea of what an alloy is or what is used in jet engines but feels the compelling urge to comment anyway as though that represents a contribution to the conversation.
Now, with a ten year career on my resume in Government R&D, which just happened to include managing a corrosion, surface chemistry, and metal fatigue testing laboratory for aircraft metal and parts, as part of wind tunnel testing facility, which included program certification of actual aircraft for experimental as well as commercial certification for government, Air Force, and contractor use, including both propeller and jet engine aircraft, yes, I did and do find it somewhat confrontational for someone to pretend to lecture me as to why there can be "no comparison" and as to what passes for "ludicrous" and particularly when he bases it on his own professed knowledge of "alloys". And follows it up with a condescending "I hope you feel better" as though he knew something to begin with.
The comment underscored a perennial defect in these steam threads, which has become a sore spot for me, of the astonishing hypocrisy of what passes for "analysis" here; a methodology of freezing one technology at seventy years ago, while touting a modern technology of today or even tomorrow as being "proof" of the "absolute" proposition, for which "no comparison" can be made even as no one seems to be able to refute the economic comparisons which are as clear and stark as daylight can make them. The "logic" of the discussions would not pass muster in a class of six graders, but for some reason continues to exist as the standard here.
And yes, as I get older, I get crankier about sloppy thinking. Ask my kids or students. And that is because I have a lengthening experience with the results of sloppy thinking, and the costs to people and society, including frictional costs, when people talk without any idea of what they are talking about, and don't take even a minimal amount of time to simply educate themselves before they talk.
And I don't mean this to be specifically aimed at Ted Marshall, but he uses an arrogant terminology -- "there can be no comparison" and "ludicrous" -- and in any specialty area such as engineering, economics, you name it, its one thing to have an opinion; it's painting a target on yourself to enter the fray with a minimum of competence and a maximum of opinion on the topic.
I'll offer, for anyone who might be interested in it, a quote from an opinion column by Lev Grossman in the 7-21-08 issue of Time magazine. The subject of his column was how increasingly difficult it is for commenters on the Internet to communicate effectively with one another.
"Commenters tend to respond with surprise -- they're shocked, shocked! - when people call them on being not nice. In their social universe, this kind of rhetorical slap-fighting is just how you do business, and anybody who feels otherwise is thin-skinned and humorless. Maybe commenters are just on one side of a cultural disconnect between two incompatible ideas of what the social conventions of the Internet should be. One is based on the standards of real-world, off-line politeness. The other is a kind of communal game in which whoever is cleverest and pushes the most buttons wins."
Mr. Grossman went on to suggest that the "disconnect is probably just temporary" because one of those two sides will eventually become the norm.
If you've ever been a member of a professional society, its easy to see that a different standard of discourse applies among genuine professionals. Partly, that arises out of a respect for the time, experience, and education that goes into acquiring knowledge, and the understanding that proposing some half-baked idea or sloppy proposition is an insult to the profession, and is treated as such.
The internet is really the first time that most people have been able to offer general opinions in a public setting on anything that happens to strike them. This does, indeed, run headlong into an established attitude in any area of expertise that debate and discussion is good; wasting everyone's time is, in fact wasteful, disrespectful and deserves no respect in return.
The collision is inevitable between those two worlds as a result of the internet, and that does not take into account people who just like to argue about everything, for which the internet provides relief for their families, and a plague for everyone else.
MichaelSol wrote:If you've ever been a member of a professional society, its easy to see that a different standard of discourse applies among genuine professionals.
In what profession are you?
Ted Marshall wrote:There is no comparison between a steam locomotive with dozens of extremely heavy rotating and oscilating steel rods, pistons and drivers and a jet turbine engine with lightweight alloy fans turning on a single central axis.
MichaelSol wrote:The biggest Jet engines were generally built with titanium fans. It's not an alloy....The biggest Jet engines were generally never built with alloys....You've got just about every single metalurgical fact in your short analysis backwards.
The biggest Jet engines were generally never built with alloys....
It seems many (most?) big fan blades are titanium alloy-- so his statement was unexceptionable.
timz wrote: Ted Marshall wrote:There is no comparison between a steam locomotive with dozens of extremely heavy rotating and oscilating steel rods, pistons and drivers and a jet turbine engine with lightweight alloy fans turning on a single central axis. MichaelSol wrote:The biggest Jet engines were generally built with titanium fans. It's not an alloy....The biggest Jet engines were generally never built with alloys....You've got just about every single metalurgical fact in your short analysis backwards.It seems many (most?) big fan blades are titanium alloy-- so his statement was unexceptionable.
I'm sure he doesn't need any help and can Google stuff on his own.
In aircraft, titanium alloys are used in fire walls, landing gear, exhaust ducts (helicopters), and hydraulic systems. In the engines fan blades, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the Rolls Royce bankruptcy when it tried alloyed blades on the L1011 engines, pure titanium is typically used. Many writers make the same mistake and assume everything is an alloy of something and so you will see references to "titanium alloys" for the engine blades. It may "seem" like they are, but that's second-hand information that's wrong.
Somebody lost me... Why are we talking about jet engines on a TRAINS forum?
Is Boeing going to use steam to re-power the rotary blades on a 777 Dreamliner???!!! Sweet!
:)
The problem of heavy moving masses in a steam-engine poundering the rails can be solved in part by modern technology, i.e. lighter rods which still have the necessary stability to transmit the pressure of the steam to the wheels. a few years ago, a former German decapod (class 50?) was modernized. among other improvements, it got lighter rods. it is now the most modern steam-engine in Europe, running occasionally in excursion-service.
Why Chapelon designed a ten-wheeler for high-speed-service, I don't know. But the French had several classes of ten-wheelers for fast passenger trains (no high-speed). And of course, you have a higher percentage of the total weight availabe for traction, if you don't have the trailing axle you would have in a Pacific or a Mountain. This may have been a point to consider. Chapelon modernized several classes of locomotives, among them some Pacifics.
BTW, there was a mistake in my post. The other prototype of Chapelonn's designs that has been built was not a 2-6-0 but a 2-12-0 for heavy freight-trains. Only one engine built.
As to high-speed-freight. The question is not, whether this is technically possible or not. it certainly is. the question is whether shippers are willing to pay the higher rates necessary to cover the costs for specialized equipment and for the maintenance of the ROW. For example, freight-cars for high-speed-freight-trains would need disc-brakes like passenger-coaches. No flat wheels on a HS-ROW! Then arises the question of axle-loads. I do not know of any high-speed-passenger-train having axle-loads of 30 tons. I d not see any high-speed-freight outside the mail or parcel-business.
MichaelSol wrote:In the engines fan blades, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the Rolls Royce bankruptcy when it tried alloyed blades on the L1011 engines, pure titanium is typically used. Many writers make the same mistake and assume everything is an alloy of something and so you will see references to "titanium alloys" for the engine blade.
Sounds reasonable-- but page 9 of
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2001/pdf/tr200100445_001.pdf
refers to "Ti6Al4V wrought titanium alloy plate". What might that be-- 6% aluminum and 4% vanadium?
Australian Transport Safety Board
EXAMINATION OF A FAILED FAN BLADE
ROLLS-ROYCE RB211 TRENT 892 TURBOFAN ENGINE
BOEING 777, A6-EMM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On the early evening of 31 January 2001 at Melbourne International Airport, Boeing
777-300 A6-EMM aborted its take-off run at low speed as a result of a failure within
the left (No.1) engine. Although the failure was associated with a large compressor
surge within the engine, no subsequent fire developed and the aircraft was able to
safely return to the terminal building on its remaining serviceable engine.
Blade Manufacture
Analysis and testing of the failed fan blade confirmed its production from a Titanium- Aluminium - Vanadium alloy. While a specification for the blade material was not received from the manufacturer, the alloy did comply with the general elemental composition for a UNS R56400 alloy (Ti6Al4V), which is commonly employed infan blade applications. The root area alloy hardness of around 330 HV was also within the range typically expected for alloys and components of this nature.
Microstructurally, the blade showed no anomalous structures or defects that were contributory to the failure, although the obliteration of the crack origins during the blade release prevented any further investigation in this regard.
A study conducted by the blade manufacturer examined all relevant aspects of the blade's production history. The conclusion reached from this exercise was that the released blade (S/No: RGG16936) was a typical production standard Trent 800 fan blade (P/No: FK30842).
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Wow,
Looks like the Australian Transport Safety Board used the word alloy four times...guess someone needs to write them a note and explain to them they how wrong they are.
23 17 46 11
edblysard wrote: Wow,Looks like the Australian Transport Safety Board used the word alloy four times...guess someone needs to write them a note and explain to them they how wrong they are.
Yup. On a failure.
Do you have any idea why? Or is this one of your bigmouth expositions? What, about this topic, do you actually know anything about? And, do you actually know anything about titanium in aircraft?
I do.
I ran the tests.
Now, anyone who doubts there is a clowntown on Trains, only needs to look at the geniuses who suddenly decided to post on "titanium" failures -- each one of which has zero engineering background -- without even appreciating the irony that they are describing alloy failures, which are avoided by using pure titanium.
The failures are why manufacturers keep returning to pure titanium.
Moderators: note the names. Do you really think they posted here because of their overarching interest in Titanium? Or because they actually know anything about it? Go back to the Futuremodal threads. Same posters. Isn't that odd? And you guys just couldn't do anything about it. Just couldn't figure out why Futuremodal got hostile. Oddest thing, wasn't it? A bunch of fairly bright guys ... but what a mystery. Over and over. Must have been Futuremodal's fault. Right? No accident here, and this is what is killing these forums.
JayPotter wrote: MichaelSol wrote:If you've ever been a member of a professional society, its easy to see that a different standard of discourse applies among genuine professionals.In what profession are you?
Having not received an answer to my question from yesterday, I decided to ask again.
Michael, in what profession are you?
MichaelSol wrote:In the engines fan blades, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the Rolls Royce bankruptcy when it tried alloyed blades on the L1011 engines, pure titanium is typically used.
I did an Internet search under "RB211 Hyfil"; and I found a great many references indicating that Rolls Royce's fan-related problem wasn't that it tried using titanium alloy versus pure titanium but, rather, that it tried using a carbon-reinforced epoxy instead of any form of titanium.
I don't know how accurate any of those references are; but I found one of them particularly interesting. It was an Airliners.net discussion topic entitled "RB-211-22 Composite Use". What I found interesting about it was how low-keyed and progressive, so to speak, the discussion was. It appeared to me that the participants ended up with more collective information than they had at the beginning; and they managed to accomplish that without any real arguing along the way.
MichaelSol wrote:Now, anyone who doubts there is a clowntown on Trains, only needs to look at the geniuses who suddenly decided to post on "titanium" failures -- each one of which has zero engineering background.
To the extent that it matters -- and I don't know why it should -- I have an engineering degree from the Naval Academy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.