carnej1I do think some of those industrial processes produce sufficient steam, after all such industries were major users of Fireless cookers back in the early-to-mid 20th century, and there are still a few active operations in Europe (Germany mainly).
It's not so much the 'sufficient' mass flow of steam as it is the temperature/pressure. The older fireless cookers generally involved fairly short working distance, and lower working pressures, and MUCH more primitive construction (it was cheap then, maybe not so cheap now). If you're going to the expense of new construction, I'd be tempted to say that the net cost of OTS diesel gensets plus fuel to run them in this service might be cheaper than the fancy Voith tech to make use of the 'free' heat and water in the process steam. 'Net' here would involve overall cost net of operation, but not necessarily full 'well-to-wheel' welfare economic analysis. You can shift a lot of cars with a Trackmobile for what it would cost to build a rail-only fireless locomotive... and the resale value of the Trackmobile for anyone without process-steam hookup would be higher, I suspect.
Not criticizing either the idea or the infrastructure - just noting that the economic analysis should be done with data when assessing the idea.
My fantasy locomotive is as "off the shelf" as I could conceive...
The consideration with the Voith system is just how 'off the shelf' all the pieces of the design would actually be. It's a situation similar imho to the 'active suspension' that SKF, the bearing company, has acquired the rights to. (Or the Bose suspension!) In both those cases, you have a manufacturing company, but they don't make the stuff yet. And there might be both costs and risk involved in being the 'first of the early adopters'. (Don't ask me how I know about this, but I have a pre-9/15/2003 Power Cerebral Accident engine in my truck, which hasn't run reliably for over 6 years now...)
There was an interesting article in the January 2009 issue of "Trains" about the economics of importing new- build fireless engines from Europe (both DLM and Dampflokwerk Meiningen have said they could build them) for industrial use, so that's what I was thinking about. Roy Blanchard(IIRC, he is active in steam preservation/restoration), who wrote the article said the ROI might be favorable given high prices for Diesel fuel.
Often a bit dangerous to use 'high cost of Diesel fuel' in a commercial context. Here it's appropriate, because a plant wouldn't have any reason to use a 'fuel surcharge' to recover some of the additional fuel cost. On the other hand, if there's any possible deduction in taxes for 'fuel cost' or increases... there goes at least some of the attractiveness of the 'alternative energy' approach, except in terms of cash flow. (I still think there is a prospective market for relatively-unrefined Fischer-Tropsch synthesis product, especially now that there is So Much Natural Gas supposed to be running around out there begging to be used for synthesis, but, absent an effective use for the unrefined product (it would be for external-combustion firing) that market will be slow to develop and dependent on a chicken-and-egg-situation critical mass of adoption...)
That might be a more realistic alternative than what I was suggesting but it's fun to speculate...
Well, while we're speculating: it might make sense to develop SOME of the propulsion enthalpy from a reservoir of overcritical water, even if the water doesn't have the full heat to make the right mass flow of 'traction' steam. You'd then need onboard heating of the water, perhaps in a once-through setup of smaller size than a typical flash boiler. I use just this approach in my house, with a water heater set to right at the point where radiant losses start to bite (about 95 degrees F, inside the lagging blanket), with the desuperheat of the GSHP in that water, and final 'tempering' rise made through an on-demand tankless heater.
While there historically hasn't been enough 'heat' in diesel exhaust to make power steam (consider the Kitson-Still and the Russian experiments in 'teploparavoz') the situation might well be different if the water is already at high, overcritical preheat. Or if the diesel exhaust is useful in generating appropriate superheat...
Juniatha Wishing Merry Christmas to all of you and your beloved ones ! Sincerely Juniatha
Wishing
Merry Christmas
to all of you and your beloved ones !
Sincerely
Juniatha
And a very merry Christmas to you as well.
- Erik
An interesting page I came across with some (kind of far out, IMHO) speculation about future use of steam traction (and "Near steam" too!):
http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm
The "Germinal Material" folio includes a short science fiction-al description of Garrat type locomotives running through the Australian outback using Pritchard uniflow engines powered by cryogenic nitrogen (?!). The author favors this rather than steam expansion engines due to the arid conditions.
The author also describes steam locomotives which use some type of interchangeable,containerized thermal battery pack to produce steam as the dominant type of motive power in other areas.
I suspect that he is familiar with Harry Valentine's writings.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
And a Merry Christmas to you too, Juniatha! Glad you're busy, beats the alternative!
Wayne
carnej1 An interesting page I came across with some (kind of far out, IMHO) speculation about future use of steam traction (and "Near steam" too!): http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm
G'day. Thanks all for a very enjoyable Boxing Day reading your interesting thread {after Overmod mentioned it to me.} As to my own activity I admit I'm guilty as charged. Well at least when water is not the working fluid under-consideration. However for water as working fluid options I felt my proposals where all rather conventional. The only difference between my (posted) speculation and what has been covered in this thread, is the burning of Pyrolysis Oil [unrefined BioOil] instead of coal or bunker-oil. So I found the chat here about blowers especially instructive.
As to the subject of this thread "provided steam development had continued beyond 1945 , say into 1952 .. 54 - might / would / should then have been the next step-up in fast passenger steam power" especially here in Australia (or at least outside of North America's grandiose loading gauges) I have a few bets .
First would have to be an incremental series of the [New South Wales Government Railways] NSWGR AC38 tender proposal. Starting with a copy of the Algerian Railways 231-132AT-1 [2-C-1+1-C-2 French built Beyer-Garratt] locomotives. Then by a few steps a full realization of same along the familiar Porta / Wardale line of improvements.
Second bet goes to a push-pull railcar passenger set configuration (akin to the current diesel XPT sets) following along the lines of Sentil Wagon Works examples that went to South America prior to World War 2.
Third and final bet would be on variation of the British Hush-Hush updated along the lines of Andre Chapelon research.
All the best, W.Shawn Gray.
A few points:
Passenger power for North America would have been deprecated, even in the absence of a diesel alternative, due to the massive falling off of demand from the latter half of the '40s through the '50s. It's possible that a 'corrected' version of divided-drive would have been the short-term development path (we have drawings for NYC and ACL, for example, ATSF at least considered the idea, and B&O had their own 'take' on the idea that went as far as boiler construction and a test motor, even though the George Emerson duplex wasn't exactly a long-term answer) -- I do not have actual drawings of what Riley Deem was proposing, but it isn't difficult to figure out a method of conjugating engines in slip.
The AC38 is something of a 'holy grail' on steam_tech: we know at least one model was built, but it could have been 'fantasy' details. Was the running gear actually going to be common with the C38 Pacifics?
Yes, improving an Algerian Garratt (or perhaps a Meyer variant following the original Vernon Smith 'duplex' idea, with smaller drivers on the boiler-side engine) would be the logical follow-on to a loading-gage-maxed eight-coupled locomotive. You would preserve the Cossart 'salmon-rod' valve drive for horizontal balance, perhaps even with OC poppets.
The only question is whether passenger service, much of anywhere, needs six-axle steam power at high speed. The train length is limited by factors such as platform length, and weight is limited by a variety of factors. The closest thing to this model is the Chessie service as expanded in the late '40s (which IIRC postulated trains as long as 32 cars, combined into one consist for parts of the run) and this of course was never put into practice. I am not familiar with any heavy 'head-end' traffic that would give longer passenger consists, either. And there would have been great reason to discount fast, heavy running with steam over very much of the NSWGR trackage... even if the double-Garratt were no more capable than doubleheaded C38s. And you have the typical problem with Brobdingnagian passenger locomotives (let's bring up the C&O M-1 while we're here!) that they aren't particularly economical to use, either in capital or operating cost, on shorter-than-enormous consists. (Cf. the Niagaras in practical NYC service...)
I don't think a Sentinel is much of a long-term solution for anything; the Besler motor train was at least as mature a prototype for consideration, and was in parallel with early diesel development for motor trains and hence received much the same consideration as a design as it would in the 'absence' of dieselization at that time (mid-to-late '30s). I was not of the opinion that the South American Sentinels, or really any other Sentinel designs, were particularly preferable in the kinds of service generally operated by steam. Yes, it would have been interesting to see how the Woolnough boiler held up; yes, it would have been interesting to see how Abner Doble rather than the Beslers built a practical high-speed individual-axle motor. But as an alternative to locomotive-hauled push-pull trains it would be falling short, both on cost and operating flexibility.
Perhaps better contenders for 'bidirectional' fast trains would be the lightweight trains run with 2-4-2s in Germany before the war, or the French suburban consists run with 2-8-4T and 4-8-4T power. In particular, the 19 1001 would have made an interesting tank engine for this sort of thing, as 'remoting' its valve gear in particular would have been a trivial additional exercise.
If I recall correctly, ASLEF would have blacked any service that separated driver (in the 'push' cab) and fireman (at the backhead) even in the presence of good reliable interphone and signal communication through the train. So that might not have been a contender in Britain even if fast locomotive/lightweight consist design hadn't been the 'model' for postwar development.
LNER 10000 had problems other than those Chapelonian development would address. I personally think there's no point in going to the cost and complexity of a Yarrow without high pressure, and to make that workable you'd need compounding. Is there enough room in the British loading gage for the Smith-style compounding on, say, 242 A1, even with proportional IP injection? Especially given the need for better cylinder insulation? Would you retain the weird articulated trailing truck, with the clear need to carry equalization from the drivers to at least the first axle in that truck?
Perhaps interestingly (according to Fryer) LNER experimented very carefully with boosters in the '20s... and did not consider them particularly useful, even well before dieselization was even a glimmer on the horizon. So even as attractive as that idea might seem for making a 4-6-4 temporarily into the equal of a 4-8-4 but only as needed... t'wouldn't have been.
Do you have drawings or other details for how these three proposals would be designed?
More than usually, I welcome criticism and comments on this part of the thread/topic...
RME
Forgot to mention a couple of other details that were problematic on LNER 10000 as built:
Gastightness of the combustion space was supposed to be the big problem that wasn't effectively solved with contemporary materials. I have always suspected that some part of this was involved with the unusual-to-say-the-least method of "air preheating" tried on the locomotive. What materials and techniques that would have been cost-effective in postwar Britain would have been used?
I note in passing that an updated 10000 was certainly something that Riddles could have considered in designing the Standards. He did not. That tells me something...
G'day Robert, et al,
Overmod A few points: Passenger power for North America would have been deprecated, even in the absence of a diesel alternative, due to the massive falling off of demand from the latter half of the '40s through the '50s.
Passenger power for North America would have been deprecated, even in the absence of a diesel alternative, due to the massive falling off of demand from the latter half of the '40s through the '50s.
The economic socio-political reason for that would not have been the same if diesel technology had faltered in the transition to rail-transport. But that is another big what-if to look at another day.<SNIP>
Overmod...The AC38 is something of a 'holy grail' on steam_tech: we know at least one model was built, but it could have been 'fantasy' details. Was the running gear actually going to be common with the C38 Pacifics?
That really got me digging. I went back and read much of the interesting chat about AC38 proposal~tender in the steam_tech archieves. I can confirm first that the running-gear for the AC38 was very differnt to that of the later C38 locomotive. Per the following details.
Locomotive various Data Source
231-132BT C.F.Algerian
AC38 NSWGR
NSWGRC38
AD60 NSWGR
First Bldg. Year
1934
proposal 1938
1943
1952
Gauge 1435mm
Standard
ft
4' 8½”
Wheel Arrangement
4-6-2+2-6-4
4-6-4+4-6-4
'4-6-2
4-8-4+4-8-4
(2 C1 )(1 C2 ) h4t
(2 C2 )(2 C2 ) h4t
2' C1' h
(2 D2 )(2 D2 ) h4t
Length (over all)
mm
29,432
34366
23,279
33,121
(over all)
ft. in.
96 ft. 6â…ž in.
112 ft. 9 in.
76 ft. 4½ in.
108 ft. 8 in.
Tender
not applicable for Garratts
(less tender)
Max Boiler Diameter
6' 10 3/4
7' 2
(2209 mm) 7' 3
Leading Wheel Ø
1,000
914
in.
36
Driving Wheel Ø
1,800
1778
1,753
1,397
71
70
69
55
Trailing Wheel Ø
1200
Cylinder Ø
490
495
546
489
19¼
19½
21½
Piston Stroke Bore
660
26
Valve Gear &Valves
Cossart with Poppet Valves
Walschaert with Piston Valves
Max. Axle Loading
Mp
18,4
16 / 18
23,2
Ton
18.2
19
16
Weight on drivers
Adhesive Weight
(111.0 tonnes)
114 t.
68.5 t.
128
lb.
241000
150000
Weight (total)
216 Mp
256
205 t.
269
47500
451000
when in steam
201 Ton (204000 kg)
Working order (Tons)
212.6 (216.0 tonnes)
260
sans tender
Tender weight
kg
14,224
Fuel
Coal
lb
24,000
(16,256.750 kg)
31,500
(14224 kg)
10.8
16 tons
14.5
14 tons
Water
m³
30
(45,460.9 lt)
37
(42,075 lt)
imp gal
6,600
10000
8,100
9,350
gal US
7,900
9,700
Boiler Pressure
MPa
20 hpz/bar
1.378
1.69
kp/cm²
20
17.25
psi
284
250
245
200
Grate Area
m²
5.4
6.03
4.4
5.9
ft²
58.1
65
47
63.5
Heating surface: Firebox
220
274
(21.89m²) 238
Heating surface: Tubes
2574
142 tubes
2792
dia each
2¼
(l.) 13 ft. 6½"
51.7
(length) 4127
Heating surface: Flues
36 flues
50 flues
139
(5½") 139
Heating Surface Area
281.8
243
2,794
2,614
Superheater Area
36 element
50 element
91
63.17
70.2
69.8
975
680
755
750
TOTAL Heating
Surface Area
350.26
313.2
3,369
Power Transmission
Rods
Power
hpi
3,000
kW
2238.8
Tractive Effort
29.38
55,080 lbs
16.12
23.8
kN
161.02
264.92
29,920
16,425
lbf
65,960
55080
36200
59,560
(@75% BP)
58,200
52700
What I find most interesting in the above data is how much bigger the AC38 would be by comparison to the famous AD60. In the steam_tech I saw comments that the Auzy preference for Garratts was driven by the notorious patchy uninspiring permanent-way here. Not that the quality enjoyed in North America wasn't aspired to, but rather given this countries sparse low population densities it would be impossible to build any business-case for a more world best practice standard of track-work.
Overmod Yes, improving an Algerian Garratt (or perhaps a Meyer variant following the original Vernon Smith 'duplex' idea, with smaller drivers on the boiler-side engine) would be the logical follow-on to a loading-gage-maxed eight-coupled locomotive. You would preserve the Cossart 'salmon-rod' valve drive for horizontal balance, perhaps even with OC poppets. The only question is whether passenger service, much of anywhere, needs six-axle steam power at high speed. The train length is limited by factors such as platform length, and weight is limited by a variety of factors. The closest thing to this model is the Chessie service as expanded in the late '40s (which IIRC postulated trains as long as 32 cars, combined into one consist for parts of the run) and this of course was never put into practice. I am not familiar with any heavy 'head-end' traffic that would give longer passenger consists, either. And there would have been great reason to discount fast, heavy running with steam over very much of the NSWGR trackage... even if the double-Garratt were no more capable than doubleheaded C38s. And you have the typical problem with Brobdingnagian passenger
The only question is whether passenger service, much of anywhere, needs six-axle steam power at high speed. The train length is limited by factors such as platform length, and weight is limited by a variety of factors. The closest thing to this model is the Chessie service as expanded in the late '40s (which IIRC postulated trains as long as 32 cars, combined into one consist for parts of the run) and this of course was never put into practice. I am not familiar with any heavy 'head-end' traffic that would give longer passenger consists, either. And there would have been great reason to discount fast, heavy running with steam over very much of the NSWGR trackage... even if the double-Garratt were no more capable than doubleheaded C38s. And you have the typical problem with Brobdingnagian passenger
Nearly the whole question turns on the steep grades with crazy sharp turns that is the NSWGR trackage. The AC38 was envisaged for the daily express passenger up and down the Great Dividing [mountain] Range. Pulling the four carriage express trains; "The Fish" along with the slower "Chips" and "Summit". These timetable slots where filled soon after WW2 with the electrification of the Western line across the mountain to Lithgow.<SNIP>
Overmod. . .Do you have drawings or other details for how these three proposals would be designed? More than usually, I welcome criticism and comments on this part of the thread/topic... RME
W.Shawn Gray.
W.Shawn Gray... diesel technology development...
Here's my thinking about 'evolution' in fast passenger technology:
1) High-speed diesel engine technology would have developed during the period of interest whether or not the EMD people had pursued the experiment. Granted, even as late as the mid-Twenties, the hp/weight ratio, cost and complexity, etc. of a 'diesel-engine electric locomotive' were not particularly favorable, but (if we can believe Clessie Cummins) PRR was actively interested in large IC-engine power by 1927, and only the death of the 'key' person caused the lack of (practical) experimentation there until the F road-unit era. Might have been with heavy four-cycle power, and not the Kettering two-cycle lightweight engine... but by the late '40s the diesel technology available to, say, Fairbanks-Morse would have been available, and to posit a history in which compression-ignition heat engines as a technology don't exist is to strain engineering credibility too far. (Just as the world might be different had the Baldwin 12- and 8-cylinder engine projects worked out in the '30s... but probably not, as Baldwin's problems did not hinge on the engine technology...)
2) Likewise, you would have to posit the absence first of effective large transport aircraft after the War, first with large piston engines (DC-7C) and then with largely Cold-War-financed turbojet/fan evolution. And you'd have to posit no new private automobile production after the War. And no road-building -- which on the state level in the USA would have been well-advanced even in the absence of either turnpike building or Interstate 'defense' highways under Eisenhower. In between those two, there CAN'T be a sustained market for relatively service-expensive long-distance trains, whether or not there was diesel-electric power to run them. You may recall the numbers from Kiefer's 1946/7 study, which indicated that steam at least as effective as diesel power, even net of all servicing, could be competitive... but also that the falloff in NYC passenger traffic made the Niagaras functionally obsolete early.
3) As you get into higher horsepower, steam capability drops off dramatically in different ways than constant-horsepower diesels. The debacles of high-speed power, both recognized and unrecognized (example of the latter: catastrophic mainpin fractures on Milwaukee F7 Baltics) would have almost certainly kept effective train speed limited to the 100mph range... which isn't sufficient to attract substantial long-distance traffic even if the right-of-way could be cost-effectively kept lined, surfaced, and leveled to take the square-law-incrementing augment forces... are you going to posit that the cost of track gangs wouldn't have gone up dramatically, or the union work rules didn't evolve as they did, or that coal prices didn't either spike up (as they did in the latter '40s) or go back down again afterward (which is less likely if coal were kept as the preferred fuel).
Them's are the points I was trying to emphasize, not just the relative technology of making fast steam power. If you're going to discard any of the history (outside of EMD et al.) you must also amend all the rest of the history to match -- for example, how serious would the competition from interurban railways have become in the '40s if private automobiles had been restricted in capacity or been priced unavailably, or if Electroliner-style technology had been implemented while interurbans were still a preferred mode...
Overmod 2) Likewise, you would have to posit the absence first of effective large transport aircraft after the War, first with large piston engines (DC-7C) and then with largely Cold-War-financed turbojet/fan evolution.
2) Likewise, you would have to posit the absence first of effective large transport aircraft after the War, first with large piston engines (DC-7C) and then with largely Cold-War-financed turbojet/fan evolution.
I would think that the DC-6's and Convair 240's would have been the compettiors to high speed long distance passenger trains (both powered by the P&W Double Wasp) rather than the DC-7 series, which were designed for transcontinental and intercontinental routes and were powered by the more tempermental Wright Turbo-Compund.
P.S. My last piston engined airliner flight was on an UAL DC-6 in July 1968.
P.P.S. The DC-7C and L-1649 were the last piston engine airliners to be designed in the US, both were significantly quieter than previous airliners due to an extra five feet of wing spliced between the fuselage and the inboard engines. As mentioned before, they were very specialized designs and ended up having a very short service life, much like the PRR T-1.
Overmod And you'd have to posit no new private automobile production after the War. And no road-building -- which on the state level in the USA would have been well-advanced even in the absence of either turnpike building or Interstate 'defense' highways under Eisenhower. In between those two, there CAN'T be a sustained market for relatively service-expensive long-distance trains, whether or not there was diesel-electric power to run them. You may recall the numbers from Kiefer's 1946/7 study, which indicated that steam at least as effective as diesel power, even net of all servicing, could be competitive... but also that the falloff in NYC passenger traffic made the Niagaras functionally obsolete early.
And you'd have to posit no new private automobile production after the War. And no road-building -- which on the state level in the USA would have been well-advanced even in the absence of either turnpike building or Interstate 'defense' highways under Eisenhower. In between those two, there CAN'T be a sustained market for relatively service-expensive long-distance trains, whether or not there was diesel-electric power to run them. You may recall the numbers from Kiefer's 1946/7 study, which indicated that steam at least as effective as diesel power, even net of all servicing, could be competitive... but also that the falloff in NYC passenger traffic made the Niagaras functionally obsolete early.
One of the things that made providing fast passenger traffic less desirable for the RR's was the ICC rule requiring ATS or cab-signaling for operating above 79 MPH. The increased costs costs from installation, maintenance and property tax outweighed the loss of revenue from reduced running speeds.
The post war coal miners strike made steam a lot less attractive as oil production was less likely to be interrupted by the actions of a single union.
The key issue with roads was the limited access highway, particularly when built to built to bypass towns and small cities. Having to deal with speed zones and stoplights significantly limited the end to end average speed of a long auto trip. One example was that the AT&SF San Diegans were doing good business prior to the completion of I-5 ca 1964 as the downtown to downtown time on the San Diegan was competitive with driving prior to I-5's completion.
One advantage of travel by train vs auto was air conditioning, which was pretty rare in cars prior to the late 1950's. I also wonder if many interurbans would have lasted longer if they installed air-conditioning in the 1930's.
erikem One advantage of travel by train vs auto was air conditioning, which was pretty rare in cars prior to the late 1950's. I also wonder if many interurbans would have lasted longer if they installed air-conditioning in the 1930's. - Erik
Considering the finances of the interurbans that were still running in mid to late 1930's, the installation of air conditioning at that time would have been quite unlikely.
Maybe this is off topic, but I have the impression that steamships are pretty much on the way out, and that "freight" (i.e. cargo ships) is pretty much all these huge low-speed (reversible?) 2-stroke Diesels with direct drive to a single prop? That warships are pretty much all gas turbine apart from the steam-driven nuclear navy? That newer, more efficient gas turbines, perhaps powered with liquified natural gas, might displace the Diesels in the faster cargo ships such as container ships?
Even the steamships had given up on coal and gone to oil firing a long time ago? That oil firing of steam and even the fuel used in the newer Diesels is in question owing to the desire of regulatory authorities in First World countries wanting to clamp down on the emissions of ocean ships?
Trains and especially steam locomotives have quite the fan following and hence forums such as this -- are there steam ship enthusiasts who muse about the might-have-beens? My initial Google searches aren't turning much up.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Maybe this is off topic, but I have the impression that steamships are pretty much on the way out, and that "freight" (i.e. cargo ships) is pretty much all these huge low-speed (reversible?) 2-stroke Diesels with direct drive to a single prop? That warships are pretty much all gas turbine apart from the steam-driven nuclear navy? That newer, more efficient gas turbines, perhaps powered with liquified natural gas, might displace the Diesels in the faster cargo ships such as container ships? Even the steamships had given up on coal and gone to oil firing a long time ago? That oil firing of steam and even the fuel used in the newer Diesels is in question owing to the desire of regulatory authorities in First World countries wanting to clamp down on the emissions of ocean ships? Trains and especially steam locomotives have quite the fan following and hence forums such as this -- are there steam ship enthusiasts who muse about the might-have-beens? My initial Google searches aren't turning much up.
Not that I am an expert on Marine Propulsion systems but there is a single coal fired bulk carrier steamship in service in the US :
http://www.intship.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Belt_Bulk_Specs_ISH.pdf
I am familiar with this vessel as it was originally built and operated by a local electric utility in my area and was a frequent sight in our local waters.
I have, over the years, found online documentation about proposals for new build steamships burning coal due to high costs of petroleum based marine fuels (which are generally "bunker" type heavy fuel rather than diesel even though they are burned in diesel powerplants). It does not seem that the global shipping industry was that interested in the ideas (shades of some of the "bring back steam" discussions/debates we have had on these forums).
There is a recent proposal to build steam powered container ships which use refuse derived fuel(i.e processed municipal trash):
http://www.westlogistics.com/download/5%20BIMCO.pdf
This does not seem to be something the industry is going to embrace...
There were some gas turbine powered container ships built back in the 60's but rising fuel prices made them unattractive compared to diesel powerplants (they wound up as reserve maritime resupply ships for the US DOD)..
There is a great deal of R&D going on in LNG fuel for ship use, either using gas turbines(in fact,there are some LNG tankers so equipped) or in dual fuel diesels..
OvermodAre you SURE those container ships were gas turbine? Because if they were the SL-7s they were built with steam turbines... there is or was an interesting article on the Web involving water treatment for the Foster-Wheeler boilers they used. It's possible that the ships have been refitted with some kind of GTCC replacing the original steam-generation system -- but I'd think that would be unlikely; you'd need to synchronize the gas and steam turbines on the final drive, or use steam bottoming for ancillaries (which are probablly better served via electricity generated by the modern generation of ceramic turbines optimized for that function). Oil firing makes it relatively simple to implement separately fired superheaters -- a great advantage, if you have the packaging space and operating regimen for it. Ships spend most of their time at fairly constant speed and load -- container ships in particular wouldn't be operating at speed in a sea state where the props are surfacing... ;-O Be interesting to see what's co-fired with the refuse -- one of the very immediate possibilities is 'bio-coal' torrefied fuel as described in the ATSF 3463 threads. RME
Well I was half-right. Seatrain lines did commission a class of four Gas Turbine powered container ships in the early 1970's but they never wound up as maritime pre-positioning ships, instead they were repowered with diesel engines and sold to another line when Seatrain went out of business:
http://www.seabreezes.co.im/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=269%3Aseatrain-gas-turbine-ships&catid=34%3Aships&Itemid=56
I'm doubtful that we'll see what is co-fired with the refuse as so far the West logistics ship is a paper proposal that the global shipping industry does not appear to be interested in investing money into..
CSSHEGEWISCH Considering the finances of the interurbans that were still running in mid to late 1930's, the installation of air conditioning at that time would have been quite unlikely.
The optimal time would have been the late 1920's to maybe early 1931 when there was still some money being spent on interurbans. Considering the impact air conditioning had on conventional rail travel, it might have made an impact on interurban traffic. FWIW, Northern Ohio Traction was running electrically driven refigerator cars in 1926.
My main point was that air-conditioning was one amenity available on passenger trains that wasn't really available in automobiles until the mid-1950's and wasn't common until the mid to late 1960's. Unfortunately for the high speed passenger train market, pressurized airliners automatically had a form of air-conditioning.
Way back last year (2012) on 24 July (at 1:42 AM) in the {possibly reaching a conclusion soon} thread 'ATSF 3463 Rebuild Project' Juniatha convincingly asserted;-
Juniatha . . . By these aspects of efficiency and performance alone - not to speak of prohibitive costs of revamping infrastructure , as mentioned by some in this discussion - IMHO it would be absolutely beyond any serious consideration to propose a return of steam on a commercial basis . This would be like prosing to solve energy questions of today's aviation by returning to piston engine propeller planes like a Super Connie 'modernized' with piston engines tuned to present day high performance standards ( about twice the power then ) and consuming 'bio' oil , in other words consuming our food plants . I'd like to see a power-boosted hi-performance Super-Hyper Connie take off - yet as a darling of classic plane lovers only . With Mickey Mouse attemps like that we will never come to solve the challenging questions of our time ! Why , with oil becoming ever more scarce as inevitably it must with limited resources and limited capacity of atmosphere , too , mind it , American railroads sooner or late will have to realize the diesel locomotive has become outdated , too , and has to be replaced - those who realize according measures and modernizations first will benefit from it and will be among the winners .
. . . By these aspects of efficiency and performance alone - not to speak of prohibitive costs of revamping infrastructure , as mentioned by some in this discussion - IMHO it would be absolutely beyond any serious consideration to propose a return of steam on a commercial basis . This would be like prosing to solve energy questions of today's aviation by returning to piston engine propeller planes like a Super Connie 'modernized' with piston engines tuned to present day high performance standards ( about twice the power then ) and consuming 'bio' oil , in other words consuming our food plants . I'd like to see a power-boosted hi-performance Super-Hyper Connie take off - yet as a darling of classic plane lovers only . With Mickey Mouse attemps like that we will never come to solve the challenging questions of our time ! Why , with oil becoming ever more scarce as inevitably it must with limited resources and limited capacity of atmosphere , too , mind it , American railroads sooner or late will have to realize the diesel locomotive has become outdated , too , and has to be replaced - those who realize according measures and modernizations first will benefit from it and will be among the winners .
Forty years ago when I first pondered likely interactions of biosphere with human ambitions for pointers to future scenarios, I would have fully agreed with Juniatha's logic. While a boyish love of steam trains would have wished otherwise, even back then I knew that to be a romantic delusion. But I have since learnt that reality may in truth be far stranger than fiction. For in all seriousness I now argue that a commercial return of steam railway traction is the only plausible economic solution for some critical niches in any post-carbon global transportation outlook. I hasten to add this thinking is pitched at the mid to long term, ten to thirty year time frame.
The readership here will be familiar with numerous reasons (I do not intend to reiterate) as to why electric locomotives are destined to become the major muscle of railway fleets world-wide for the 21st century. While diesel locomotives burning fossil oil will quickly become a thing of the past, it does not follow that the vast existing fleets of diesel locomotives will as quickly see the cutter's torch. Undoubtedly there will-be small operational nooks where the justification for burning extremely expensive carbon off-setted synthetic fuel-oil will trounce the significant capital cost in acquiring a new locomotive. Where there will exist reliable supplies of hydrogen many current diesel locomotives will continue a long operational life burning up to 90% hydrogen mixed with a smidgen of synthetic diesoline. Added into any future fleet roster the promised development of fuel-cell locomotive along with various battery hybrids then most railway operations will find a mix to match their commercial requirement without any need to resort to steam-traction, or any other exotic concoction for motive power.
The adjectives; vast, unpopulated or remote dominate the post-carbon transport niches where I believe steam-traction (or other exotic concoction) of motive power, are destined to-be the most commercial and economically sound business solution. Starting with remote railways, as L.D.Porta proved in the case of Rio Turbio Railway there are far-flung locations where even now steam-traction is still viable option over diesel. Likewise there are small railways operations on the Indian subcontinent still ordering custom built steam locomotives from local firms. The economic attractiveness of such examples will only get stronger as the price of crude-oil rises then percolates through long-distant shipping cost.
Long stretches of railway across expanses of negligibly populated landscape pose the other quaint niche where steam-traction may yet prove to be best commercial fit. The high establishment cost of overhead catenary electricity supply will scuttle many a low tonnage, marginal business case for any capital intensive switch to electric traction. With the inevitable return of the extraordinary high global spot prices for non-ferrous metals, there is a significant risk that once again (as previously witnessed) railway electrical infrastructure will overnight morph into a honey pot irresistible to criminals for random pilfering. The more remote a railway line physically is, or lawless a land maybe, the higher the risk that a railway operation could be jeopardised by any criminal theft of non-ferrous electrical conductors. Such clumping of risks would deter most railway managements from implementing any switch to electric tractions, especially if other even more but secure options like steam-traction existed.
Long unpopulated distance also technically and economically militate against the viability of most direct hydrogen power or fuel-cell options. So given a maintainable carbon neutral fuel supply along with a reliable suitable water supply steam-traction appears to be the best fit in those circumstances. If for no reason than the selfish avoidance of knee-jerk derision my analysis invariably attracts I would love to be conclusively proven incorrect.
- Shawn
W.Shawn Gray Way back last year (2012) on 24 July (at 1:42 AM) in the {possibly reaching a conclusion soon} thread 'ATSF 3463 Rebuild Project' Juniatha convincingly asserted;- Juniatha . . . By these aspects of efficiency and performance alone - not to speak of prohibitive costs of revamping infrastructure , as mentioned by some in this discussion - IMHO it would be absolutely beyond any serious consideration to propose a return of steam on a commercial basis . This would be like prosing to solve energy questions of today's aviation by returning to piston engine propeller planes like a Super Connie 'modernized' with piston engines tuned to present day high performance standards ( about twice the power then ) and consuming 'bio' oil , in other words consuming our food plants . I'd like to see a power-boosted hi-performance Super-Hyper Connie take off - yet as a darling of classic plane lovers only . With Mickey Mouse attemps like that we will never come to solve the challenging questions of our time ! Why , with oil becoming ever more scarce as inevitably it must with limited resources and limited capacity of atmosphere , too , mind it , American railroads sooner or late will have to realize the diesel locomotive has become outdated , too , and has to be replaced - those who realize according measures and modernizations first will benefit from it and will be among the winners . Forty years ago when I first pondered likely interactions of biosphere with human ambitions for pointers to future scenarios, I would have fully agreed with Juniatha's logic. While a boyish love of steam trains would have wished otherwise, even back then I knew that to be a romantic delusion. But I have since learnt that reality may in truth be far stranger than fiction. For in all seriousness I now argue that a commercial return of steam railway traction is the only plausible economic solution for some critical niches in any post-carbon global transportation outlook. I hasten to add this thinking is pitched at the mid to long term, ten to thirty year time frame. The readership here will be familiar with numerous reasons (I do not intend to reiterate) as to why electric locomotives are destined to become the major muscle of railway fleets world-wide for the 21st century. While diesel locomotives burning fossil oil will quickly become a thing of the past, it does not follow that the vast existing fleets of diesel locomotives will as quickly see the cutter's torch. Undoubtedly there will-be small operational nooks where the justification for burning extremely expensive carbon off-setted synthetic fuel-oil will trounce the significant capital cost in acquiring a new locomotive. Where there will exist reliable supplies of hydrogen many current diesel locomotives will continue a long operational life burning up to 90% hydrogen mixed with a smidgen of synthetic diesoline. Added into any future fleet roster the promised development of fuel-cell locomotive along with various battery hybrids then most railway operations will find a mix to match their commercial requirement without any need to resort to steam-traction, or any other exotic concoction for motive power. The adjectives; vast, unpopulated or remote dominate the post-carbon transport niches where I believe steam-traction (or other exotic concoction) of motive power, are destined to-be the most commercial and economically sound business solution. Starting with remote railways, as L.D.Porta proved in the case of Rio Turbio Railway there are far-flung locations where even now steam-traction is still viable option over diesel. Likewise there are small railways operations on the Indian subcontinent still ordering custom built steam locomotives from local firms. The economic attractiveness of such examples will only get stronger as the price of crude-oil rises then percolates through long-distant shipping cost. Long stretches of railway across expanses of negligibly populated landscape pose the other quaint niche where steam-traction may yet prove to be best commercial fit. The high establishment cost of overhead catenary electricity supply will scuttle many a low tonnage, marginal business case for any capital intensive switch to electric traction. With the inevitable return of the extraordinary high global spot prices for non-ferrous metals, there is a significant risk that once again (as previously witnessed) railway electrical infrastructure will overnight morph into a honey pot irresistible to criminals for random pilfering. The more remote a railway line physically is, or lawless a land maybe, the higher the risk that a railway operation could be jeopardised by any criminal theft of non-ferrous electrical conductors. Such clumping of risks would deter most railway managements from implementing any switch to electric tractions, especially if other even more but secure options like steam-traction existed. Long unpopulated distance also technically and economically militate against the viability of most direct hydrogen power or fuel-cell options. So given a maintainable carbon neutral fuel supply along with a reliable suitable water supply steam-traction appears to be the best fit in those circumstances. If for no reason than the selfish avoidance of knee-jerk derision my analysis invariably attracts I would love to be conclusively proven incorrect. - Shawn
I really have no intention of starting an off topic debate about this but the "peak oil" prognosticators did not foresee the rapid development of advanced oil recovery techniques that are opening up vast deposits of previously uneconomical petroleum reserves. Short of a major effort by governments to ban fossil fuels (IMHO that is doubtful,regardless of any political debates) I just don't see the collapse in oil production that some of the Advanced Steam Technology affionados seem to think is inevitable.
If we're talking the long term future, I think it's conceivable that energy storage systems such as supercapacitators and superconducting flywheels could advance to the point that they offer a power density comparable to internal (or external, for that matter) combustion engines. So perhaps the biomass would be used in a thermal power plant and used to charge up storage systems for mobile use on ground vehicles. Of course that's idle speculation but then, so is predicting a re-transition to external combustion for railway traction.
Well, there's 'plenty of oil' from alternative sources... at $3+ US per gallon delivered. All that's happened with the 'shift' in peak oil is a longer run for high-cost (world-market is the excuse) fuel.
The logical liquid fuel from natural gas is methanol, which is (delightfully) the preferred fuel for direct-steam (catalytic) generation. By definition the expanders using this form of "combustion" are steam engines. I very carefully worked over the practical details and thermodynamics of this for a number of catalyst configurations. Unfortunately, the TATP problem (look it up if you don't recognize the acronym) still remains a deal-killer for any cycle involving even moderately 'enriched' H2O2.
The market for steam power (see also the Planndampf thread) is really where Porta said it would be: Third World power where renewables or relatively low-grade biomass are available at a realistic cost, but refined petroleum isn't. I have an argument in principle with advanced combustion systems, generally along the lines of what Wardale observed with the ongoing care and maintenance of the Red Devil -- only some of this can be overcome with reasonable materials science and tech spec. But I really don't see any point in high-speed passenger or freight power, and (as noted) it makes better sense to burn most forms of biomass for electrical power, efficiently in boilers and plant that are stationary, and then use that electricity either for traction or liquid 'carrier' fuel synthesis or concentration.
Supercapacitors are an inherently low-voltage technology; flywheels of ANY configuration that fit on railroad vehicles are intermediate-term storage at best (look at the bearing technology alone needed to deal with even conventional power density... or the consequences of quench in the bearings...ouch!) The technology nobody's mentioned is the analogue to fuel cell that involves pumped electrolyte or liquid anode/cathode... one example being the zinc-air battery. Some research has been done on this, but if you want 'liquid fuel-like' power density at required rate of energy release (remember this is the bugbear of displacer/Sterling engines!) out of a chemical system that survives road condition, that's likely to be it.
Steam BOTTOMING remains an interesting technology, if costed down to where it can be provided cost-effectively.
G'day Juniatha, Crandell et al,
Juniatha Hi Crandell At this point I have to admit , in my 'walk on the wild side' type of private (pre-)engineering me too I had put up a concept of a Triplex , and just because of this very point - supplies vanishing & and tender adhesion mass alleviating - I had carried it just one step further , figuring if you can have two axles coupled in front of the main driver you could as well have the same on the back side of it - makes for a 10 coupled unit . You'd think I configured it to be a 2-8-8+10-2 ? Naw-naw-naw , sir - not with my way of thinking ! Ten coupled once introduced , I immediately thought "Why not have it on all the three engine units ?" Mind my previous mentioning preference for identical sets throughout . So I ended up with a 2-10-10+10-2 - all simple expansion . Sure enough there was that vanishing adhesion mass problem again .
Hi Crandell
At this point I have to admit , in my 'walk on the wild side' type of private (pre-)engineering me too I had put up a concept of a Triplex , and just because of this very point - supplies vanishing & and tender adhesion mass alleviating - I had carried it just one step further , figuring if you can have two axles coupled in front of the main driver you could as well have the same on the back side of it - makes for a 10 coupled unit .
You'd think I configured it to be a 2-8-8+10-2 ?
Naw-naw-naw , sir - not with my way of thinking ! Ten coupled once introduced , I immediately thought "Why not have it on all the three engine units ?" Mind my previous mentioning preference for identical sets throughout . So I ended up with a 2-10-10+10-2 - all simple expansion . Sure enough there was that vanishing adhesion mass problem again .
<SNIP>
Juniatha Maybe I'll put up that old side view picture of back then , if you'd care to see it ? Regards Juniatha
Maybe I'll put up that old side view picture of back then , if you'd care to see it ?
Regards
Well this guy in Auz for one would love to see that picture.
Thanks, W.Shawn
G'day Juniatha, Paul et al,
Paul Milenkovic Juniatha You know , at that time I was not all too much concerned about how such an assembly could be put together in actual construction practice and what it would mean to extract one unit for an overhaul in case of wear or breakage . The effects of time did not loom too large in my thoughts back then - yet it was not without charme and I think it wasn't a bad idea in principle - although it clearly would have demanded more in-depth attention to details , mostly about manufacturing , design and shaping of parts and ease of mounting / dismantling . You or some others could always build it in "zoo gauge" (12" narrow gauge or whatever is popular for amusement parks and zoos featuring steam railroad lines traversing the ground).
Juniatha You know , at that time I was not all too much concerned about how such an assembly could be put together in actual construction practice and what it would mean to extract one unit for an overhaul in case of wear or breakage . The effects of time did not loom too large in my thoughts back then - yet it was not without charme and I think it wasn't a bad idea in principle - although it clearly would have demanded more in-depth attention to details , mostly about manufacturing , design and shaping of parts and ease of mounting / dismantling .
You know , at that time I was not all too much concerned about how such an assembly could be put together in actual construction practice and what it would mean to extract one unit for an overhaul in case of wear or breakage . The effects of time did not loom too large in my thoughts back then - yet it was not without charme and I think it wasn't a bad idea in principle - although it clearly would have demanded more in-depth attention to details , mostly about manufacturing , design and shaping of parts and ease of mounting / dismantling .
You or some others could always build it in "zoo gauge" (12" narrow gauge or whatever is popular for amusement parks and zoos featuring steam railroad lines traversing the ground).
Paul Milenkovic . . . there are people who would have the money, skills, and opportunity to build Juniatha's Triplex Dream Locomotive (Traum Lokomotiv?).
Before going down any Zoo gauge or amusement park route a possibly more enlightening, or educational option would be to build a highly accurate 3D virtual simulation of the locomotive in a computer. With CAD-CAM [computer aided design & computer aided manufacturing], artificial intelligence and physics simulation software it would be possible to do a long of interesting stuff. Besides just running the model in an off the self train-sim package you could also do finite analysis of all the static & dynamic masses in the locomotive, analysis of performance or thermodynamic &c. Obviously we are not talking peanuts here, but could be the next best thing to full-scale masterpiece of railway muscle.
(Maybe the virtual simulation could go some-way to answering the question the ATSF 3463 rebuild intended to explore.)
W.Shawn
Before going down any Zoo gauge or amusement park route a possibly more enlightening, or educational option would be to build a highly accurate 3D virtual simulation of the locomotive in a computer. With CAD-CAM [computer aided design & computer aided manufacturing], artificial intelligence and physics simulation software it would be possible to do a long of interesting stuff...
Efforts to do exactly this, in more than one suite of 3D CAD package, are happening. This is generally more 'telling' than building a model, especially when considering CFD of the actual boiler -- most scale models have either simplified or different methods of boiler construction, combustion, etc.
Besides just running the model in an off-the-shelf train simulation package...
This is a different use of physics modeling than we'd want to use for design; most of the train-simulator software I know about requires that you know the working parameters, and develop the model from them, rather than going the other way. You could use a kind of analogue to Newton's Method (or, moderately more 'precisely', numerical solutions to differential-equation-described complex situations ;-}) but there would be no guarantee of optimizing all the variables without a GREAT deal of comparison. You would need to confirm that good data had been used to generate the actual models, too.
...you could also do finite analysis of all the static & dynamic masses in the locomotive, analysis of performance or thermodynamic &c. Obviously we are not talking peanuts here...
Actually, the cost of implementing the solution is comparatively little, even including the training time and materials to learn the software effectively. Note for example that AutoCAD now offers a very large number of its solutions, particularly including Inventor, "free" if you register appropriately. You might not build detailed presentations with these... or use them for commercial purposes... but for the situations we're considering they are perfectly workable. Just spend a few moments on eBay looking at used quad-core and eight-core processors to get an idea how cheaply the software can be run.
Needless to say, there should be extensive modeling in the computer before any actual construction work is undertaken. That's true even if there aren't good deterministic models for some of the physics involved... at the very least, you're providing the engineering equivalent of due diligence. (As a non-snide aside, the issue with high-speed slipping on duplex locomotives can be easily diagnosed with the 'right' model and physical suspension modeling -- and the various approaches to address the problem modeled, with stresses, and compared...)
Consider very extensive modeling in CAD, and subsequent physical modeling in the computer, prolegomena to ANY actual development work, to say nothing of physical modifications to the locomotive should that begin... <VBG>
Just for fun, and to illustrate some of what's available 'out there' -- here's a link to some reference material for the Comsol multiphysics environment:
http://www.comsol.com/offers/conference2012papers/?utm_source=Desktop+Engineering&utm_campaign=us_de_jan13&utm_medium=Demail&utm_content=1
Enjoy!
Overmod Just for fun, and to illustrate some of what's available 'out there' -- here's a link to some reference material for the Comsol multiphysics environment: http://www.comsol.com/offers/conference2012papers/?utm_source=Desktop+Engineering&utm_campaign=us_de_jan13&utm_medium=Demail&utm_content=1 Enjoy!
I made the link live for you (all you have to do is hit ENTER after you paste it).
Hello,
I'm reluctant to reopen an old thread, but I don't think this would fit in the other thread...
Okay- my Extreeem Steeam! Locomotive:
Everything forward of the tender stays the same, except for the rear truck. This locomotive would have two tenders. The first would be half oil, half water. The second would be half water, the second half batteries. The rear truck of the locomotive and the four tender trucks would have traction motors.
Advantages-
-Regenerative braking would provide power for the motors to provide TE for train starting, and ease wheel wear. They would cut out at a set speed. Dynamic brakes could be used once batteries filled.
-Steam that would be used in the rear truck booster could be converted to electricity as well.
-Third rail shoes could help in cities, powering the locomotives, and avoiding anti-smoke laws.
-Greater range by more water capacity.
-Things I'm missing...
Disadvantages-
-Maintenance
-Greater length that would make roundhouses no longer workable.
-Greater weight to haul around.
-Probably wouldn't work with 40s battery technology.
So, is my mashing of steam and electric practical, or is there a huge problem(s) I'm missing?
You failed to mention a power source for the traction motors on the tender beyond third-rail shoes. You would still need a sizable main generator/alternator (linked to a steam turbine?) to supply enough electricity for these motors to be useful.
Once underway, the traction motors would cut out. They are there to combat a couple problems with steam: starting TE, and tread wear with no dynamic/regenerative brakes. While a locomotive is idle, steam that would otherwise be wasted could be used to charge the batteries, and regenerative braking would be used as well. Sort of on the road slug principal, but with batteries.
But, some steam would need to be diverted in order to always power the motors in order to eliminate extra resistance underway.
This is exactly the place for this kind of discussion -- and if you open the old thread, readers get the older context too, instead of having to hunt for it or, more likely, trying to repeat it.
First: this is a better idea than you think -- in my opinion it would have been the salvation of the big RENFE 4-8-4s. Take the idea to a logical conclusion: the part of the tender connected to the engine is almost all fuel, like a more extreme version of a PT, with most of the water in a double-ended A-tank. When the locomotive is to be turned or hostled, the A-tank is disconnected -- this takes care of much of the turntable-length issue, and roundhouse stall length. More than one A-tank becomes easy for extended running.
Second: for a general comparison of battery technology, you might look at the 'tripower' locomotives of the 1920s. The capacity problem is not as terrible as it may appear at first glance if the system is primarily used for boosting, but I think you are proposing to use the system for continuous boost when needed as well as regenerative braking. The danger in this is that railroads will consider the additional power 'normal' in making up trainlengths to make full use of their investment -- which will make reliability of the system more essential, and I suspect reliability of '40s TMs connected to large (recycled WWII submarine?) batteries might be less than stellar. Don't forget that these batteries will require water and periodic hydrometer testing, will be venting a considerable amount of gas with estremely wide explosion limit in air (see useful table here) and acid leaks are going to pose a maintenance issue you'd need to be aware of. You will also need to cool it during periods of high draw, perhaps actively with heat exchangers in the electrolyte space. The current draw inder load, and the amount of current to be 'sunk' in regeneration, are out of proportion to the levels seen in automotive practice; you MUST make the actual calculations to see what your peak currents can be.
Now that we are over here in this thread, we can relax some of the '40s assumptions. Better battery chemistry is a 'plus' here (although you still get relatively lousy 'bang for the buck' out of it) and some of the charging issues are potentially helped with OTS equipment from hybrid vehicles that can be adapted to some of the specific issues, particularly the charge rate control during high-rate regenerative braking. Both the TMs and inverter systems for AC drives can be made relatively water and crap proof, and the system can be modulated to produce effective torque and effective braking contribution right down to zero speed. At even more cost.
I would be tempted to design this thing differently -- perhaps in the following general way:
Build the A-tank units as if they were road slugs -- control cab, etc. -- and make a substantial percentage of their 'adhesive weight' water mass. You will baffle it well, of course, and carry it as low as possible to keep the SDP40F problems from recurring (!!)
Use the motors extensively for dynamic braking rather than boosting. (You will rapidly run into the terrible consequences of reliance on DB if you aren't careful -- see the recent incidents on Seventeen Mile Grade for a good discussion why). Instead of batteries, consider the use of short sections of cat or third rail only in locations where boosting will be required -- or regenerated power can be recovered practically.
You might have some fun by adopting some of the things that were proposed for the GE "MATEs" (the original road, as opposed to yard/hump, slugs). One of these was crew dormitory space, like a more sensible version of the 'corridor tender' idea used in the UK. Would need some careful union approvals that would probably not be forthcoming in the '40s or '50s -- and might be of decidedly little usefulness in many contexts -- but might be a better solution than tender 'doghouses'.
Big issue is getting DC traction motors to live under water tanks. I notice you chose oil fuel, perhaps after having read about the coal-dust issue on the C&O turbines. TM cooling is going to be a critical issue (remember that this turned out to be a critical issue on the Baldwin Centipedes)
Things that are lost with longer tender arrangements;
Some weight and train-factor characteristics (more non-revenue weight)
Siding restrictions on train length (by however many cars now won't fit)
Engine use restrictions (when there is an insufficient number of tender units for any reason) or the same sort of problem you see with earlier 'married' locomotives assembled out of dedicated units (itself usually a management 'dodge' to get a multiunit locomotive approved by the union as a single engine). If one bad bearing or seized TM takes the whole tender out of service, or holds up the whole locomotive on the road or in the shop -- money will be drooling between your fingers.
I do recommend that you find references on Russell Brown's 'asynchronous compound' idea (it was previously the 'Paragon locomotive' in a less-developed format) when looking at ways to power this system. By the time you get exhaust off a tender booster, you have very little energy to run a practical traction generator, let alone something that will do much more than excite the fields on four trucks' worth of 746s or whatever. Even if you had the mass flow at low pressure, you'd need a plenum alone close to AAR plate C clearances...and volumetric efficiency in your valves, turbine throttles, or whatever to match.
I have missed some points, so please remind me what they are.
Okay- next thought.
What about expanding on the Shay principal?
Have 6 large cylinders on the tender, 3 on each side, powered by a full size boiler on the locomotive. Power 4 3-axle trucks (2 on the locomotive, 2 on the tender) by quill drives on both sides of the engine. This engine would likely be a slow speed locomotive, as Shays were, if there was no other gearing between the pistons and the drive shaft, to keep piston speeds reasonable. Best for helper service, with high TE?
Thoughts?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.