Who wouldn't want to ride behind 150 mph steam?

[marknewton]

.....Ok, it's similar.....but the journals on an internal combustion engine have support on either end of the journal or piston pin....!

As do those on a steam loco. What do you think the difference is?

Mark.

[edblysard]

Mike,

If I remember correctly, the original content of this thread was about 150 mph steam power, not your expertise on titanium turbine blades.

But seeing as how you brought up the subject....

 

 

You may want to go back and read my joking comment about the Australians...

I never claimed any knowledge about the properties of titanium,

I simply pointed out that according to you, the Australian Transport Safety Board had been mistaken about the blade, and suggested you write them a note to inform them of their mistake.

It was a tongue in cheek joke.

Duh...

Wow, all those non-existent degrees and you can't comprehend simply English?

I note you failed to answer the main question asked of you, namely state your credentials.

Didn't think you would, or could.

 

What is your fixation with Futuremodal?

Or do you simply miss the convenience of your "Little Buddy"?

 

Don't flatter yourself about cyberstalking, or any form of "stalking" for that matter...you'r really not worth the effort.

 

I was simply wondering why you feel that you have the right to demand of others they provide their credentials, while at the same time refusing to provide yours.

It is an honest question, no hidden agenda, and yet you fail to answer, which suggest you have no credentials to produce.

Of course, you could prove me wrong by simply listing them.

 

[MichaelSol]

Actually, Mike, all but two of the Clowntown folks have engineering degrees, in fact, most of them have several advanced degrees in many disciplines.

Myself and one other being the exceptions.

Futuremodal created the clowntown: a small group of individuals who would show up on every single thread he ever posted on: it consisted of Ken Strawbridge, you, Jay Eaton and Tom Diehl. Simply because he had opinions and defended them and you disagreed with him.

Throughout it all, none of you has ever betrayed an ounce of engineering background.

Posting, as with "Titanium" here, on whatever nitwit thing you could think of to Google that day simply as a thin disguise for your personal attacks on him, or Idaho, or whatever fool thing you decided to distract any given thread from.

It was offensive beyond belief and wrecked many a good discussion.

And this thread repeats the old pattern: "Edblysard Pontificates on His Knowledge of Titanum."

Oh really?  Thanks for the info. It must have been building up for a long time; just been itching to comment on Titanium issues, haven't you?

It is the reductio ad absurdum of why you feel a real "need" to post on some threads, but I think your post does, finally, show your motive for posting here. Not a thing to actually do with the thread topic, does it? The motive is clear. It's your personal grudge festering, as it has for years, in exactly the same fashion that it did with Dave Smith.

However, obviously you think the idea of a "clowntown" includes a lot more people than I do. Interesting. I am sure they would be flattered.

Mr. Potter was kind enough to answer your question, so shouldn't you extend the same courtesy?

I didn't ask him the question. Interesting that you thought I did. I take his comments at face value because he's obviously not here pursuing his personal agendas, brings a knowledge value to the discussion, and has never shown any inclination to cascade through multiple threads cyberstalking Dave Smith or anyone else as you did and, as shown today, continue to do.

 

[Anonymous]

From what I gather, exceeding 100 mph was no big deal for many of the 4-4-0, 4-6-0, and 4-4-2 types in the 1880-1900 era.  I am guessing that this happened routinely for a variety of reasons.  It is left to conjecture, however, since these little speed records could not be proclaimed because they were against the rules.  When the M&StL took delivery of their new high-wheeled moguls in the late 1890s, they did publicly proclaim in the newspapers that the engines were capable of hauling their passenger trains at 80 mph.  Yet nowhere did their speed limit allow anything close to that speed.  So if they were willing to admit by implication, speeding to that extent, I have to wonder how fast they might have occasionally gone without admitting it. 

[edblysard]

Actually, Mike, all but two of the Clowntown folks have engineering degrees, in fact, most of them have several advanced degrees in many disciplines.

Myself and one other being the exceptions.

 

They earn their living using their degrees; one of them is even a lawyer, practicing law in an actual court, as opposed to doing real estate contracts.

Of course, your engineering degree is from....what university or college?

You claim to have a degree in mechanical engineering and one in chemical engineering, and railway engineering...from what schools?

You asked what degree I had in mechanical engineering...the answer is none, and I now ask the same question of you.

 

You always  insist that others provide their bona fides and educational experience before they are be allowed to comment on anything you utter, but you never answer the same question or provide your credentials when it is asked of you.

So, where did you earn you degree(s), and at what level?

 

Its not a unreasonable question, and I find it hard to believe anyone would be ashamed to say where they went to school, so I can only take your refusal to answer such questions as an admission that you actually don't posses any of the bona fides you demand others show.

 

Mr. Potter was kind enough to answer your question, so shouldn't you extend the same courtesy?

 

And before you claim I am attacking you, I am not; I am simply asking you a straightforward question.

 

What advanced degrees do you posses, and what institutions issued them to you?

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.

And you claimed what about titanium blades? The clowntown I refer to has a very few inhabitants. None of them have engineering degrees.

 

[Modelcar]

.....Ok, it's similar.....but the journals on an internal combustion engine have support on either end of the journal or piston pin....!  And rods in internal comb. engines generally have lighter material in them.  And of course miniture in size compared to locomotive drive rods.  Just my

I'm not one that is implying anyone to build a "new" steam engine design.  Although, it sure would be possible to improve on 60 - 100 year old designs.

[Anonymous]

....It is difficult to understand how the supporting journals of the drive rods could support without getting over stressed.....the flailing rods at such speeds.  Especially back when the rod material would have been heavier material.

I also find it difficult to believe a modern designed steam engine would even think of using that mechanical technology.

It is a part of every internal combustion engine.  It worked to over 100 mph, over 100 years ago.  Why do you think it is a show-stopper today?

If you think it wouild not work today, what technology do you think would work today?

[Modelcar]

....It is difficult to understand how the supporting journals of the drive rods could support without getting over stressed.....the flailing rods at such speeds.  Especially back when the rod material would have been heavier material.

I also find it difficult to believe a modern designed steam engine would even think of using that mechanical technology.

[MichaelSol]

There is no inherent speed limit that is imposed on a reciprocating engine by its rods and crank pins.  It is a mistake to look at the flailing rods of a steam locomotive and assume that they represent an extreme out of balance condition that threatens to tear the machine apart at speed.  It is true that the rods and crank pins constitute an eccentric loading to the rotating wheels, but the objective is to counterbalance that load with the lead filled counterweights.  

The only challenge is to provide sufficient counterbalance to get the job done.  Locomotive rods need strength, and with strength comes weight.  There is only so much room to fit the counterbalance weight.  So there has sometimes been difficulty in achieving perfect counterbalance.  Therefore, if an exotic material is needed, it is needed for the rods.  There are, no doubt, several different types of materials and processes that have been developed since the end of steam age that could be applied to the rods of a modern locomotive in order to perfect the dynamic balance.   

The test runs of the Hiawatha noted that "the faster she went, the better she rode" as they got up around 112 mph. The fact is that the NYC J3 static tested at 139 mph. It ran just fine and did not threaten to fly apart. A 150 mph steam engine was entirely feasible 60 years ago -- but impractical for any actual service for the same reasons that a 150 mph train service on regular passenger runs on regular tracks remains impractical today from the standpoint of serving a market and the distance and time necessary to accelerate and brake, not to mention trackbed. Modern materials and engineering would no doubt improve on the capability, but the point of the exercise was to illuminate the fact that a steam engine at 150 mph can still operate more cheaply than a diesel-electric at 50 mph, which underscores the remarkable economic efficiency, today, of steam (or rather, coal-fired) locomotion.

 

 

[Anonymous]

There is no inherent speed limit that is imposed on a reciprocating engine by its rods and crank pins.  It is a mistake to look at the flailing rods of a steam locomotive and assume that they represent an extreme out of balance condition that threatens to tear the machine apart at speed.  It is true that the rods and crank pins constitute an eccentric loading to the rotating wheels, but the objective is to counterbalance that load with the lead filled counterweights.  

The only challenge is to provide sufficient counterbalance to get the job done.  Locomotive rods need strength, and with strength comes weight.  There is only so much room to fit the counterbalance weight.  So there has sometimes been difficulty in achieving perfect counterbalance.  Therefore, if an exotic material is needed, it is needed for the rods.  There are, no doubt, several different types of materials and processes that have been developed since the end of steam age that could be applied to the rods of a modern locomotive in order to perfect the dynamic balance.   

[marknewton]

Gentlemen:

 There is still more here to be vetted. 

To remove all doubt, the most advanced steam in North America had automatic stokers which would direct feed coal from the tender to the firebox.

There's no such thing as an automatic stoker for a steam loco. Any mechanical stoker you care to name is operated and regulated by the fireman.

PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant. Right?

Wrong. Think NP. Build your loco with a big enough grate and a combustion chamber or Gaines wall.

Mark.

[MichaelSol]

Mike, Mike,...

Slow down and take a load off before you blow a gasket...no need to get so steamed.

Clowntown...that's cute...been saving that insult up for a special day?

Changing the thread name to "edblysard speaks to the World on Titanium" was indeed the comic thought for the day ...

[edblysard]

Mike, Mike,...

Slow down and take a load off before you blow a gasket...no need to get so steamed.

Clowntown...that's cute...been saving that insult up for a special day?

 

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.

 

[sfrr]

Hmmmm...

Whoa! Cahoool!

Ouch...

 

Now stop fighting, you both say your professional, yet, your bickering like a bunch of children on a train forum.  Just look at yourselves...

 

Best regards,

Mike

[MichaelSol]

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.

Railfans are a distinctive breed. I've never seen so much arguing over such petty points by so few who are so inexperienced.

Rolls Royce spent a great deal of time and effort trying to modify their blades. I don't know why, titanium worked just fine. They went through a variety of alloys and finally ended up with a composite formulation. That process was time-consuming and expensive. RR considered the composite better than the alloys, and went to production with that. And then the problems started. Yes, that was with the composite finally used, but my reference is to the expensive alloy testing program at RR, which found the alloys deficient compared to the composite. After the operational problems with the composite, Rolls subsequently returned to using pure titanium. If there is not a message in that saga, then you are looking for something else and it doesn't have anything to do with alloys.

Our project reviewed anything involved with government airtankers, among other things, and the L1011 was proposed as a tanker. If I am recalling correctly, and I might not be, it was originally proposed as a tanker, and the passenger version came out of that. We tested aircraft metals through a fatigue testing protocol using ASTM standards and a "run to failure" metric. Titanium is a remarkable metal and its alloys can have very interesting properties. However, in each instance, a positive attribute of a given alloy over the pure stuff seemed to have a downside in other operating environments. Primarily, while alloys could have longer fatigue life than pure titanium, they were less consistent in that regard whereas pure titanium had a fatigue life that was remarkably consistent under all conditions we tested for.

Whether this was due to manufacturing problems, or inherent in the alloys themselves, we did not determine. Titanium alloys were new ideas and there was not a lot of history or experience available on them. Composites were completely new in this application. We had quite a discussion with ASTM over whether the testing standard we were using for metals was appropriate for composites, for instance. Rolls was covering new ground, but the moral of the story is that it chose the composite over the alloys and ultimately returned to using the pure stuff.

And the POINT, oh yes, the point: metalurgical technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. It is to me the peculiar feature of the people here that they cannot conceive of improvements to a machine based on those improvements if it happens to use coal as the fuel.

 

 

 

[MichaelSol]

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?

In a subsequent post, you reference your degree with the caveat, "not that it matters." My current profession means what to you?

[MichaelSol]

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.

And you claimed what about titanium blades? The clowntown I refer to has a very few inhabitants. None of them have engineering degrees.

 

[JayPotter]

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.

[JayPotter]

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.

[JayPotter]

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]

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.

 

[edblysard]

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.

[jeaton]

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).

[timz]

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?

[martin.knoepfel]

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. 

[Anonymous]

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!

:)

 

[MichaelSol]

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.

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.

 

 

[timz]

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.

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.

[JayPotter]

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?

[MichaelSol]

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.