Be careful. D&H did nave the 'first' true welded boiler (in 1937; the ASME code approval for welded stress-relieved locomotive boilers coming in 1943), and the welded boiler did go on a 2-8-0, but it wasn't the 1403 that had it: that locomotive was built half a decade earlier, in 1933.
500psi was actually on the conservative side, especially considering the triple expansion; NYC had a sizable (and good-looking!) 4-8-4 two years earlier that ran at 850psi...
Paul_D_North_Jr Fortunately, looks like the Magazine Index search function is working again: . - PDN.
Fortunately, looks like the Magazine Index search function is working again: .
- PDN.
Fortunately, looks like the Magazine Index search function is working again:
In the 3rd article it discussed a couple of very high-pressure compounds. Also complicated - one - L. F. Loree? - had 4 cylinders, 1 at each 'corner', and a welded boiler for 500 psi, IIRC. See:
https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-dl-w-1403.html
See also:
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/USAhp/USAhp.htm
Do a little search for D&H compound locomotives, Loree, Horatio Allen, etc. for more information.
Fred Westing. Yep, he's the one!
Let's just wrap up the "Tale Of The Triplex" by saying it was a noble effort. But then, so was Pickett's Charge.
Leonor Loree? Well let's just say he was a brilliant railroader in his youth, but he stayed on the job just a little too long. He was one of the examples I gave to myself when I reached the conclusion it was time to retire.
And just for you Mod-man, here's an HO Erie Triplex...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avYmDH9NX5o
Flintlock76My information on the Triplex came from a book on Baldwin steam locomotives written by a gent who worked at Baldwin
Bet it was Fred Westing. He didn't know much of the stuff I have told you.
The issue of variable weight was 'known' just as it was to Beyer Peacock on the Garratts ... didn't change the issue regarding capacity for their use as higher-speed road engines. Remember that the V1 was specifically 'not proceeded with' because even with a huge tender and separate water bottle, it could only run about 130 miles before needing 'replenishment' if operated at its design horsepower against train resistance. One presumes a Triplex would not be used for high-speed freight (its diameter speed and practical augment both being ridiculous for that application, even if the hinge in its Mallet chassis were implemented correctly) so you can expect it would involve high mass flow.
Meanwhile, Westing completely dodged the real problem with the variable fuel and water: the fact that adhesion dynamically changed and therefore so did the propensity to slip even at levels of FA approaching economic waste. The situation on the Triplexes was supposedly 'addressed' because the engine was an obligate full compound: if the middle engine did not slip, any tendency for the rear engine to do so (by being transiently under-loaded) would result in rapid exhaustion of receiver pressure and hence re-establishment of adhesion. (This was a stated design feature for Mallets as a class, also). The catch is that you have to boost the exhaust, perhaps substantially, to keep its LP expansion comparable to what the HP engine is producing, and that mechanism muct be made 'automatic' in slips. (Again, not impossible or even difficult, but something outside the purview of even 20/20 hindsight at Baldwin...)
The lack of stoker alone would explain a 'failure' -- see the subsequent course of the ICC 'legislation' mandating its installation on a range of engines that "didn't" need them (according to Loree and the PRR morons who allowed design of the K5 as built, for example).
Note that Westing thought it was 'insufficient drafting' in terms of steam energy that was the "problem" between the 'too many legs' and the 'not enough steam'. He did not know enough about front ends or optimization thereof to know that even disposing of half the 'used' steam out the rear did not necessarily mean the draft would be insufficient. The thing could have been designed to work -- admittedly not very well by the cohort of Baldwin people working on these compounds at the time, but it really isn't that much of an engineering problem. Then again, so could any number of the ATSF compounds which really didn't have the fuel burning capacity to make enough steam. But there's a fairly established history of ATSF designing wacky unbuildable stuff that Baldwin had to keep reining in at actual build time, 325psi pressure out of early-Twenties boiler construction being one highly memorable example.
There were stories in Railroad Magazine about what the men thought of Triplexes (or Mother Hubbard articulated pusher power in winter!) and it was not, not, not positive. I would directly submit that the story would have been radically different simply with provision of an effective stoker -- something that really didn't exist yet in 1914 -- but you'd still have to carefully get around the men's likely prejudice against an engine that 'did the work' of three crews' worth of union brothers...
Well, there's fast and there's fast. For a drag freight of the era anything in the 25 to 35 mph range would have been good enough, but the Triplex couldn't even manage that, not for long anyway.
My information on the Triplex came from a book on Baldwin steam locomotives written by a gent who worked at Baldwin, although not at the time the Triplexes were built. If I remember correctly he stated one of the problems was poor drafting, it just couldn't get enough draft though the firebox to get it as hot as it should have been. And of course there was no mechanical stoker, the poor fireboy had to work like a madman just to keep what they had hot. The author also addressed the issue of loss of traction on the rear engine under the tender saying it wasn't an issue, Baldwin had figured on the loss of coal and water weight affecting traction and built the tenders accordingly.
All his words, not mine, and the author was trying to keep it simple. I'm not here to defend or condemn the Triplexes, far from it. They were a nice try, but a dead end is a dead end anyway you look at it.
True, they lasted in service until the late '20s, but that could have meant nothing more than the Erie and Virginian were trying to get their money's worth out of them before they unloaded them. I'd be interested in knowing what the men who actually had to run them thought of them.
[quote user="Flintlock76"]... the Triplexes couldn't go very fast because the boilers couldn't generate enough steam for them to.[/url]
Actually the Triplex couldn't go very fast because it wasn't designed to go very fast. The case for poor steam generation is a bit suspicious, as the HP steam demand is no more than that for a heavy two-cylinder engine (and the Triplex boilers are basically Mallet-sized) and the expansion ratio was nominally better than 2:1 net of piping losses.
Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that the draft from the one pair of LP cylinders 'so involved' would be adequate for effective steam generation from said boiler, and (at least theoretically) the 'scape-pipe setup at the rear could have been designed with pulse tuning to reduce effective back-pressure there too.
The principal issue was that the boiler itself was not designed with proper cognizance of radiant heat uptake; it had the same ridiculous underproportioning of a 'water-cooled firebox' that so many of the ATSF comnpound-Mallets suffered from -- almost an occupational hazard of the first generation of really big power after Old Maud. Design that boiler with a proper arch, long flame path, chamber and circulators/syphons, and implement a little boosted reheat going to the four LP cylinders, and install a proper stoker, and you won't have to bang on the steam-gauge casing more times there are hopper cars in the state of Pennsylvania to have it show a few additional psi...
Not that it wouldn't have helped the actual problem, which was essentially the same thing with the PRR HC1s pulling and 'Big Liz' FF1 pushing: just a bit too much oomph for the cars and draft gear of the day. Slow speed would certainly not have helped condensation in the LP cylinders (and the need to work with cracked-open cylinder cocks as a result) to operate at bone-slow speed as 'conventional' pusher freight service would involve for freight in that era; it would likewise keep effective draft mass flow in a 'fixed' front end ridiculously compromised in a great many weathers.
The idea was to put as much power as possible in the hand of one engineer for over-the-road freights. Theoretically a Triplex could have pulled a freight train of the time five miles long but obviously it was never tried.
I remember reading an account of an early Triplex trial where they tried this with a very long string of cars put together over a period of several days. Off she went... and got a knuckle. Then another and another and then a draft gear. That was the end of the experiment with the thing pulling trains at its 'design' speed.
(Incidentally they were at least as good at higher speed as anything that had a Bethlehem auxiliary locomotive on it; the quartered augment effects at the higher speed imposed by tender-size wheels made the things as bad or worse than certain 0-6-0s at speed. If you want to see how to do slow-speed working, see the picture of a L&NE 2-8-0 plus 02-10-0 with tender boosters cut in, in the Frimbo/Ball Decade of the Trains book. If that doesn't impress you, I'm not sure what would... but three sets of reciprocating gear is not that much more astounding, and the proportion of exhaust steam 'thrown away' via separate exhaust not adding to draft is comparable...
So in the end the only thing they were good for was pusher service.
And they weren't retired there until the Depression started, which is a comparatively long service life for a 'failure' of this supposed magnitude...
We shouldn't forget that these locomotives share with Garratts the problems (1) that variable fuel and water change the adhesion on the 'tender-motor' engine, so if all the valve gears are to be coordinated you have to leave a lot of theoretically-available FA on the table; and (2) that having those high drivers under there severely restricts how much fuel you can carry and where you can water-bottom under the bunker with adequate water for your colossal water rate at any reasonable demand... Pushing on Gulf Summit was like a glorified version of a common commuter district.
I'm surprised the "Classic Streamliners" article didn't come right out and say so, but the Triplexes couldn't go very fast because the boilers couldn't generate enough steam for them to. The original idea behind the Triplex was to put as much power as possible in the hand of one engineer for over-the-road freights. Theoretically a Triplex could have pulled a freight train of the time five miles long but obviously it was never tried. Someone at the Erie must have said "Uh, wait a minute boys..."
On the other hand, this Triplex works pretty well...
http://www.mthtrains.com/premier/spotlight/10_2015/a
Check out the video for the closest we'll ever come to the real thing. Cool!
Paul_D_North_Jr Then there were the Erie and Virginian Triplexes . . . https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-triplex.html - PDN.
https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-triplex.html
Amazed at the SLOW speed ranges for these designs.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Then there were the Erie and Virginian Triplexes . . .
Amazing!
Thank You!
NDGA ' Southern ' Modification. https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/Southern_Class_Ms?file=Sou4537.jpg https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/Southern_Class_Ms?file=Sou4576.jpg Thank You.
Thank You.
MiningmanIt is a disappointment to find out that all ten horns aren't used together to produce a unique sound.
Imagine a ten-note chord. And the interaction between the notes.
You don't want to imagine what it would sound like with some of the bells out of tune...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Well they could find it objectionable in Quebec but in Montreal they would be mostly amused.
It is a disappointment to find out that all ten horns aren't used together to produce a unique sound.
Paul of Covington I was hoping they had equipped the cab with a keyboard so the horns could be played like a calliope on a steamboat.
I was hoping they had equipped the cab with a keyboard so the horns could be played like a calliope on a steamboat.
Johnny
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
NIMBY's!
I figured there had to be a good reason for that unit being so horny.
Overmod Miningman That's quite an array of horns... now we need an audio clip! Alas, it turns out that the 'extra horns' are not there to play 'O Canada' or to blow a separate crossing signal in bilingual French. As explained in a post on Trainorders: The extra set of horns are there due to NIMBY issues. The ... units will be used on the extension to Terrebonne and Mascouche and the yard where the equipment will overnight is located in a residential area. To appease the local residents, the trains will not be allowed to test their horns when entering service in the early morning so the extra set is there “just in case”. The new line to Mascouche will be diesel powered but the trains will enter/leave Central Station from the north through the 3 mile electrified Mount Royal Tunnel line. http://www.amt.qc.ca/uploadedImages/AMT/Site_Usager/Train/BlocDroit/Train_Map_Agrandi.jpg?n=7501 So what you actually have there is two complete sets of horns, one of which is only a reserve for the other. There are a number of AMT 'horn clips' on YouTube, but they're all just ordinary sounding chords. The locomotives have a similar array.
Miningman That's quite an array of horns... now we need an audio clip!
Alas, it turns out that the 'extra horns' are not there to play 'O Canada' or to blow a separate crossing signal in bilingual French.
As explained in a post on Trainorders:
The extra set of horns are there due to NIMBY issues. The ... units will be used on the extension to Terrebonne and Mascouche and the yard where the equipment will overnight is located in a residential area. To appease the local residents, the trains will not be allowed to test their horns when entering service in the early morning so the extra set is there “just in case”. The new line to Mascouche will be diesel powered but the trains will enter/leave Central Station from the north through the 3 mile electrified Mount Royal Tunnel line. http://www.amt.qc.ca/uploadedImages/AMT/Site_Usager/Train/BlocDroit/Train_Map_Agrandi.jpg?n=7501
The ... units will be used on the extension to Terrebonne and Mascouche and the yard where the equipment will overnight is located in a residential area. To appease the local residents, the trains will not be allowed to test their horns when entering service in the early morning so the extra set is there “just in case”. The new line to Mascouche will be diesel powered but the trains will enter/leave Central Station from the north through the 3 mile electrified Mount Royal Tunnel line. http://www.amt.qc.ca/uploadedImages/AMT/Site_Usager/Train/BlocDroit/Train_Map_Agrandi.jpg?n=7501
So what you actually have there is two complete sets of horns, one of which is only a reserve for the other. There are a number of AMT 'horn clips' on YouTube, but they're all just ordinary sounding chords. The locomotives have a similar array.
Both of which will be a liability when they don't blow when needed to warn a NIMBY that gets in the middle of the track on the morning's first run.
MiningmanThat's quite an array of horns... now we need an audio clip!
That's quite an array of horns... now we need an audio clip!
I don't know if Southern boys invented restrictor plates, I doubt it, 'cause nobody likes 'em except for NASCAR officials!
Somebody asked Darrell Waltrip "How many NASCAR officials are there trackside during races?"
Darrell's response? "Too many!"
Flintlock76Shows what happens when you turn a bunch of Southern boys loose in a fully-equipped machine shop.
Yeah, you get the railroad equivalent of the Hunley, although admittedly less lethal. These were the Southern boys who would go on to invent the restrictor plate.
No motor tenders ever really worked as intended, even the ones built by English engineers (who should have known better, but so often didn't) and Northerners like Henderson (who did know better, but did anyway).
A better solution was the booster engine, and perhaps a better solution still was the motor locomotive. Just not motor locomotives designed by Californians...
Wow! That's the first I've ever seen of something like that!
Shows what happens when you turn a bunch of Southern boys loose in a fully-equipped machine shop. And when they were through with steam locomotive modifications they invented NASCAR!
Can they haul water and hew wood?
Who watches that Kardashian stuff? I don't get it.
Dude-- Heck of a rock slide blockage. Need some highball miners to muck that out. Then you need my class to do some ground control, good project for them.
Yes,
It has rained here for 24 hours,
Many Highways closed East, West and North.
Boys, let me tell you, I always enjoy popping in here for a little "Canadian Content," 'cause God knows the American press never seems to pay any attention to what goes on north of the border.
Maybe they would if the Kardashians moved up there? You can have 'em if you want 'em!
It's the rainy season in the Fraser Canyon.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.