# 331
( 330 ) >> So THAT'S what Mungo Jerry looked like! A werewolf! <<
... and he's got women he's got women he's got nothing but women on his mind !
O-M-G . I quick gotta quit !
( At least I'm far from Mexico - did you get news there are gangs in the streets cutting women's long hair to sell it for making toupets - they do *anything* but *anything* for money , corrupted-to-the-bones souls , zombies , hell-bound I hope !)
Regards
Juniatha
#332
Hi Juniatha!
At the risk of offending any of our neighbors to the south I wouldn't go to Mexico if you paid me. I could go on but I'd get political and this isn't the time or the place.
Wayne
#333(!)
Hello all, I'm back...
First, ACY!
A quick note on the Santa Fe- imho their unstreamlined 4-8-4s were some of the best looking 4-8-4s...
ACYCould a better switcher be designed?
That is an interesting question. Some of the lack of further development I believe is that the URSA 0-8-0 was such a well performing locomotive that it didn't make much sense to spend the valuable time of steam designers on making another switcher.
So, lets look at the advantages of diesel switchers: No ash to dump, less fuel stops, and less maintenance. (This is not an all inclusive list, lets start another thread for that).
To help alleviate some of those issues with steam, I propose the following:
An 0-8-0 with
-Oil firing to eliminate ash,
-A water saddle tank, to carry water, and increase TE,
-Also, a large tender to hold oil and water.
Any thoughts?
NW
Hi Northwest.
Oil firing, or any fuel other than coal, would probably produce savings, if only through the elimination of large and expensive fueling and ash disposal facilities. The saddle tank would produce visibility problems in a service that requires good visibility. Maybe a sort of water-filled skyline casing could be placed atop the boiler, but the sides would have to be clear. The extra water also means extra weight, which could be an issue on some of the light trackage that switchers often had to negotiate. As for the high-capacity tender, we have to remember that it would reduce the engine's hauling capacity, although it would reduce down time due to refueling and watering. Of course, it would increase the engine's range, too. In any case, I doubt that these improvements could have produced an engine that could compete with the diesel in terms of cost.
The basic USRA 0-8-0 still seems like the best all-around switcher ever built. When B&LE wanted a more powerful switcher, they just got out a slide rule and increased everything: driver size; grate area; cylinder stroke; boiler pressure; weight; and tractive effort. When they were done, the result was an engine that still looked an awful lot like its USRA progenitor. Nevertheless, the newest of these was retired when it was only about ten years old. Diesels simply did the job better, cleaner, and cheaper.
We know that some of the last steam holdouts (NKP, N&W, etc.) kept running steam because their big, high-performance engines did their job so well. One of the most important factors in the elimination of steam, in my opinion, was the lack of efficient light-duty engines, and I don't know how such engines could have been designed and sold and operated in the 1950's and 1960's.
Your suggested improvements might have helped steam's cause, but I doubt that they could have produced enough efficiency to prevent ultimate dieselization. I still remember being enthralled by the sight of triple headed B&O Q-4 2-8-2's hauling ore out of Cleveland in 1957, and would love to be able to see it again. But I know steam died when it did for good reasons, and B&O's accountants would have preferred that it happened sooner. Cleveland couldn't handle larger engines; nobody ever produced a medium-sized steam engine that could be operated cheaply; and the diesel salesmen were trying to beat down the door.
#335
Hello ACY,
This thread is a "what if" the US followed some European countries on transitioning, developing new steamers until about 1960, and then slowly phasing them out into the 1970s.
I agree no steam switcher could economically compete with a diesel switcher, even if anti-smoke laws aren't figured in. These laws are also probably a reason a newer switcher wasn't developed.
Regarding light trackage, I believe an 0-6-0 would be better suited.
On the saddle tank, 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 tank engines had them, so there is a precedent. And from my experience in the cab of locomotives, you can't see the pilot over the running boards anyway, so loss of visibility may not be a concern.
But good points on your part-keep it up.
# 336
( # 333) >> -A water saddle tank, to carry water, and increase TE, <<
Hi NW
To increase t.e. in a classic reciprocating steam locomotive – I presume you are focussing not on cylinder t.e. but on t.e. at actual rail adhesion limit – basically you need to increase adhesion mass . Now , since maximum axle load always finds its limit permitted on given track structure , it made no difference how this limit was being attained : by large boiler , by lead between frames , by extra water tank of whatever shape .
Since you wanted to keep a tender in spite of saddle tanks , it was preferable to make boiler as large as to attain axle load limit – combined with the necessary dimensioning of frames and vehicle structure , self-understood , yet explicitly noted here lest someone will type a comment on it – and add a tender of sufficient size .
So , it seems , as long as eight-coupled sufficed and the choice was direct drive , an 0-8-0 with eight wheel bogie tender was pretty much the simplest and most successful configuration .
If you consider such an engine without pony trucks still had but ½ of all axles available for adhesion and you wanted to change that , you might think of an 0-8-8-0 Meyer tank engine ( having two power bogies , that is ) with side tanks to distribute supplies mass over length of engine . This would go through switches and tight curves a lot easier and smoother plus provide superior adhesion even with tanks near empty .
#337
Juniatha-
I had forgotten about the axle load limit-engine weight connection. Thank you for pointing that out!
What is your opinion on using two tender boosters and enlarging the tender, while eliminating the side tanks?
# 338
on ( # 337 ) >> two tender boosters <<
Unfortunately tender boosters belong to the kind of extra units I consider not at all beneficial or harmonizing with the general concept of the classic steam locomotive . Because of the tender's substantial variation of vehicle mass during work with supplies being used up , this would demand special t.e. controls , too - all in all a lot of complication , extra mass and disturbance of a balanced design . Besides , for a number of reasons booster steam motors tend to be 'steam guzzlers' .
I proposed a Meyer tank - C-C or D-D - for a bogie type of - yet largely - classic steam engine because of better riding through tight switches and curves in yards than did a stiff 0-8-0 . It also offers full adhesion as in a diesel or electric engine .
#339
Hello,
First, no disrespect was intended in post #337. My apologies if it seemed that way. The wording has been edited to sound more friendly.
I'm wondering if a geared steam locomotive would have been considered, as they also have full weight on powered axles. I think the NP had them, but I think they were used just as logging locomotives.
Your point on the Meyer locomotive is valid and good. Was there ever one built for North American service?
On tender boosters, I agree that they are not great. Besides the points you mention, maintenance is a headache!
# 340
Baldwin built a 65 ton 0-4-0t in the mid 1930's with automatic oil firing for one man operation. When in service around Eddystone, it was claimed that this locomotive used only 35% of the equivalent fuel used by a coal fired engine performing the same work. The automatic firing was designed to cut back as the boiler approached safety valve setting, preventing the pops from lifting and wasting steam. It was said to consume an average of 4 gallons of bunker C oil per hour in this service. I'm guessing interplant switching at Baldwin locomotive Works was not too intensive. Typical of most industrial plant switching. Beyond the initial press given, I've seen nothing further on this engine. I'm pretty sure it had a relatively long service life, retiring from Standard Steel Works and now residing at a museum in the mid-west (I think, gotta look that up). Whether the auto-firing mechanism stood the test of service, I'd love to know. A virtual duplicate, sans the automatic firing, was built for the Seaboard Air Line, and survived in service until 1958 or 59, switching tightly curved industrial trackage in Charleston, SC(?). I'm guessing one reason the SAL didn't opt for auto-firing was because of the units 65 ton weight, union rules dictated a fireman.
What I derived from this experiment in motive power was that Baldwin was already heavily invested in Diesel technology, and felt that steam in the yard was doomed. Though it does seem that 4 gallons of bunker C per hour surely had to beat the fuel costs of any internal combustion power available in the 1930's.
#341
Forgot to put #340 on the last post. 'scuse please.
# 342
( # 337 / 339 )
No problem at all -
don't think twice , it's alright .
A geared power bogie full adhesion steam engine would be good for shunting , too ...
#343
rfpjohn, that is quite interesting. Is there an explanation on how this firing system worked?
# 344
A Meyer is a pretty good suggestion. Are there any advantages over Garret? As for geared full adhesion, perhaps a heisler would be a viable alterative. No flexible steam joints, no hammering of one rail (shay) or complex drive shaft arrangement (shay or climax). One could even three truck it for additional fuel capacity, though I guess you would still be dealing with diminishing tractive effort as the tender emptied. Couldn't slip any more than the rest of the wheels!
As for my earlier post, I think I was mistaken about the experimental Baldwin being preserved. The engine I assumed was it is probably a different 0-4-0t, built the same year. The SAL engine, however, did survive in a park in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, though the pictures look pretty rough.
Why is DRGW narrow gauge in my mind right now?
NORTHWEST
The article didn't go into any detail, unfortunately. I have to wonder how they dealt with tubes sooting up in low draft yard work. Did the engineer have to periodically manually sand them? Did the blower automatically come on and adjust to varying demand? Perhaps 1930's automation tech was a bit too Rube Goldburg-ish for real world railroad environment.
Maybe that's why it was a one ride pony.
#344?
#346
rfpjohnPerhaps 1930's automation tech was a bit too Rube Goldburg-ish for real world railroad environment.
I suspect so. Also, the fact that the EMC SC was introduced at this time, and the Alco HH series was going strong may have had something to do with it...
Juniatha, what is your opinion on Fairlie locomotives? I know they were built in North America, but the Meyer is far more compact, an advantage in switching...
#347
rfpjohnWhy is DRGW narrow gauge in my mind right now?
Having thought about this for a while, iirc there was some narrow gauge Mason bogies built for Colorado railroads. Is this what you are thinking of?
Oh, BTW, I proposed a Hyper-Heisler in another thread, and think that a C-C-C one would be perfect for transfer service...
Actually the 340 series of posts brought little consolidations to mind. Maybe damp rail conditions cause my mind to slip.
Also, those Baldwin 0-4-0t's I spoke of weighed 54.5tons rather than a track crushing 65 tons. Thought that didn't sound right! Those little saddletankers had no superheaters, popped off at 180psi and I could find no mention of feedwater heaters. I suppose they used ordinary injectors. I don't know if the boiler feed was automatic, too. Kind of makes me wonder if a few more gadgets would have brought even more impressive economy. Maybe the maintainence tradeoff wasn't worth it on such a small application.
Mr. NORTHWEST, I like the hyper-heisler idea. I never thought about three axle trucks for a Heisler, but why not? Just another connecting rod link! Which thread was that in?
#348 (can't seem to remember to put the number up first)
#349 (originally written as #343, but look how things progressed...)
rfpjohnA Meyer is a pretty good suggestion. Are there any advantages over Garret?
I think the most significant one is the greatly shorter wheelbase. In a Garratt the entire length of the boiler is cradled between the engines. The Meyer (or the Golwe) puts only the firebox between them; the forward engine is located in the 'conventional' position under the boiler and supports it. This gives the same large, deep, and unrestricted firebox arrangement possible on the Garratt, with much less overhang or increased engine length than in that design. Lionel Wiener (in "Articulated Locomotives") has a good discussion of the various types.
Another advantage applicable to a Meyer or Golwe comes when smaller drivers are used, with geared drive (as Juniatha was indicating). As in the PRR V1 turbine, this may allow a much larger boiler for a given loading gauge, and while this may not exactly equal what is possible on a Garratt it can come as close as necessary for good steam generation for the two engines.
The exhaust from a conventional reciprocating forward engine is, of course, closely adjacent to the smokebox, and supply from the superheater header is likewise close. You still have the problem of getting supply and exhaust lines around the firebox to the rear engine, and the exhaust tract from the rear engine, if its cylinders are rear-facing (away from the firebox) as perhaps they should be, may be nearly as long as a Garratt of comparable power.
Use of steam motors with geared drive opens up some perhaps better possibilities for routing the steam lines, although I am not going to distract the discussion with the pros and cons of various geared-drive arrangements now.
Juniatha may take up the issue of three-truck slip on her own; I see two prospective effects. One is that the locomotive as a whole may have a higher propensity to slip in marginal conditions if some of its wheels are chronically underloaded -- this may be augmented if there is any torsional 'slip' or play in the driveline. The other is that relatively greater stress on the universals. gears, etc. of the third-truck arrangement will result if its wheels are chronically losing adhesion when working. As noted previously, one advantage of the Shay's drive is that the offset firebox can be dropped as low as desired (and its ashpan access is unimpeded), whereas the Heisler arrangement requires a central shaft that complicates firebox and ashpan design no matter how it is routed.
I am not sure I would characterize a high-speed Heisler drive train as being notably less "complex" than other kinds of geared locomotive... you wouldn't use the expedient of outside rods on the trucks, as the dynamic-augment 'wobble' of the quartering would produce hammer blow at relatively low road speed. Fortunately central gearing is not *that* much of an issue.
EDIT: The three-axle trucks might be, perhaps should be, designed the way the prospective six-wheel trucks for the Willamette locomotive were: essentially a slightly-extended B truck frame with a driven Bissel at the outer end, and splined shaft drive to it as a continuation of the B-truck's drive. (I would NOT want to do this as an outboard extension of a conventional Heisler rodded-truck arrangement, but even then it would likely be an improvement on trucks with three rod-coupled axles...)
#350
Oil firing for a shop switcher using a conventional staybolted firebox volume and firetube boiler is not a difficult exercise in control -- nothing like what is required with a monotube. The 'reservoir' of overcritical water in the barrel would provide most of the short-term power-excursion requirement in that service, similar to how a "fireless cooker" works, so rather simple two-limit feedback control, as on thermostatic temperature control, would work for pressure control.
In practice you would want something a bit more complex, particularly if firing Bunker C, because the turndown ratio is limited in most of the burner designs. It would be interesting to see how the Baldwin design handled flameholding or re-ignition. Some older designs used a large bed of broken refractory to "simulate" the coals of a conventional fire, and the very large radiant mass would then provide ample ignition even if fuel delivery were physically interrupted under 'bang-bang' control of the burner feed...
I am a bit surprised no one has resuscitated a discussion of the N&W M2 Automatic's control design. Many aspects of that design are applicable to liquid firing control. Granted, that's a state of the art vastly beyond what Baldwin had available, but relevant in the wider picture of firing relatively small engines efficiently.
# 351
RPF John
>> Why is DRGW narrow gauge in my mind right now? <<
Dunno .. you tell me ?
Garry-Rat , uups , Garratt : way to heavy for configuring what should be - I presume - a concise , light shunting engine . The bridge frame and distribution of supplies to both ends by default makes for a pretty heavy and lengthy concept of a locomotive – this is only warranted when vehicle units by themselves become relatively complex – such as in most commonly applied 2-6-2 , 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 , 4-8-2 w/a . Further , having cylinders far out each end means steam supply by long life / exhaust steam pipes , flexible ones , too , with inevitable heat content losses . It would just not be warranted with a small and simple w/a such as a C-C or D-D to make it into a triple articulated and separate vehicle engine units that way by using a bridge frame to pose boiler on and then ballast vehicle units by supplies , by default causing uneven distribution of axle loads over service hours because of supplies being consumed . With w/a having carrying axles all this can be much better compensated and its inherent complexity better suits the rather largish Garratt concept .
The Meyer type differed from the Golwe type in that it didn’t necessarily have firebox between bogies . In a Meyer concept locomotive the rearward unit’s cylinders could still be in front of the firebox since the boiler was arranged much as in any other tank engine , that is over most of main frame length , with but a short rear supplies compartment and much of feed water reserves alongside boiler . That way , the concept avoided inconvenience of long steam pipes passing firebox or ashpan ( mostly done by diverting them to outside of frames where they are exposed to rupture in case of even minor flank contact accident )
The double bogie concept offers all that could be asked for – no triple truck distribution needed nor would it be of any advantage . I’m aware of the Lima geared locos even having four trucks – even that could be met by the D-D w/a and it would be much lighter and simpler .
In my view , none of the old gear concepts – Heisler , Shay , or other – should be repeated , much better realizations can be learned from diesel-hydraulics . I have seen a nice and compact concept put up by a friend of mine which to quote here I think he will agree – I hope : Under the boiler drum , between bogies positioned at suiting distance , there is a V8 steam motor with simple action pistons (power strokes as in a two cycle IC motor ) with middle drive to reduction gear input shaft cleverly posed below steam motor crank case , from each end of gear box U-jointed transmission shafts run to bogies connecting to bevel gear axles like in diesel-hydraulics . There were two concepts for the motor , one a compound , the other a SE type – in view of smooth torque I would have opted for the SE variation , but he’s such a compound supporter he had even put up draft for an 0-10-0 four cylinder compound shunting and subsidiary lines tank engine .
Edit : paragraphs added
Juniatha # 342 NW ( # 337 / 339 ) No problem at all - don't think twice , it's alright . A geared power bogie full adhesion steam engine would be good for shunting , too ... Regards Juniatha
#352
You know, that stuck in my mind the past few days so I hit the books, specifically George Drury's "Guide to North American Steam Locomotives", and you know what? It's been done!
The New Haven subsidiary 'road the Union Freight Railroad had four Climax geared locomotives they used for switching and deliveries through the streets of Boston between South and North Stations from 1923 until 1946 when they switched to GE 44-tonner diesels. Before the Climaxes they used geared four wheel locomotives. The NH's Climaxes were covered with box cabs, making them look like early box cab diesels.
Also, the Kansas City Southern used two Shays on spurs in Kansas City with very steep grades, some up to 10 per-cent. These were used from 1913 to 1929.
Ain't that somethin'?
#353
Firelock76You know, that stuck in my mind the past few days so I hit the books, specifically George Drury's "Guide to North American Steam Locomotives", and you know what? It's been done!
I think the NYC Shays also come under this general category.
As was explained to me long ago, though, geared engines of the Climax/Heisler/Shay type are not really well-suited to many kinds of switching. Think of the shock through the drivetrain with frequent starting and stopping, changes in direction, making up cuts. And that's BEFORE we start looking at what is involved in kicking cars... or considering the rotational inertia (and back-pressure, if cutoff and throttle are not set right) of the engine, ah, motor, as a loading at the ends of comparatively long, thin shafts with universals in them, with the inertia of a cut of unbraked cars tied to one of the drawbars providing the 'shoving'... I think there are ways 'around' most of these issues, but you have to design accordingly from an early stage in development.
There have been some discussions of this general design issue, and related issues (such as why the early 'hybrid' genset switchers had such abysmal battery issues) over the years in the Locomotives forum, I think. I'd be interested in hearing from some of the Sentinel fans about how well their style of locomotives held up under American-style "marshalling" conditions.
#354
rfpjohn-just a quick description, the Hyper-Heisler is essentially a Berkshire sized boiler and firebox riding on two C trucks. The 45 degree inclination of the cylinders of other Heislers is slightly flattened, and there are transmissions on the driveshaft connected to the wheels to keep driveshaft rpms acceptable.
Overmod-first: for the Hyper Heisler I would use oil firing to help ease the ashpan situation.
Second, there is a picture of one of the modified M2s in the Classic Trains Photo of the Day archive, on page 28. The streamlining and skyline casing make them quite distinctive...
Third, on the driveshaft shock issue, do you have a more detailed suggestion on ways to mitigate the issue?
Juniatha - that concept is interesting...and is probably better for switching with lower shock on the driveshaft...I agree with the SE, and I think most American railroads would chose it as well.
(As a side note to the compound steam motor, a company once offered a compound automobile, with two cylinders with spark plugs and a third larger one where exhaust was directed. Google Compound Automobiles.)
Firelock-that is interesting. I never knew about the KCS and NH having geared locomotives!
# 355
Overmod
>> Think of the shock through the drivetrain with frequent starting and stopping, changes in direction, making up cuts. And that's BEFORE we start looking at what is involved in kicking cars...<<
That’s why I wrote none of the historic forest railroad’s geared typed would be suited for shunting . Frequent starting / change of direction has not been a problem with diesel-hydraulics equipped with U-jointed transmission shafts and closed bevel drives to axles , making it in fact a fully mechanically coupled set of powered axles . No amount of mass of cars to kick will make a difference : the amount of momentary torsion peak load on U-joints of transmission shafts depends solely on kinetic energy by revolving speed x mass of reduction gear and steam motor and value of it’s acceleration / deceleration : that’s not too much to be well within acceptable limits – even if you account for a disfavourable condition of the steam motor working full torque against a sudden deceleration of rotational speed when engine would bump on a string of cars causing a sudden stop to it . With modern viscose clutches you could even install shock buffers in drive train also serving to level out small drive wheel diameter variations between axles which would cause pre-load on fully rigid mechanical coupling . All in all such drives provide no difficulties for design , they *do* have to be properly layouted and dimensioned , though .
Firelock
Interesting – I faintly remember the box car like NYC geared engine having ‘rum-bolished’ around in my head , maybe from my father’s ‘Once upon a Time in America’ series .
#356
I can see the points made about the disadvantages of conventional geared steam power in yard service. Never thought about the shock to the drivetrain kicking cars. I can just imagine the frustration on the face of a switchman after giving a spirited kick sign to drive 'em way up the ladder, only to watch the hoghead do his best to wring a powerful, agonizingly slow, acceleration out of his thrashing shay. Couple back up and shove it in the clear!
Transfer or hump service would be a more suitable application for geared power. Although, industry switching is often pretty free of kicking cars, and the flexibility of geared locomotives, coupled with the tractive effort to cope with heavy cuts of cars and heavily graded spurs, makes them quite attractive. Wait a minute. I think just described what geared engines were primarily used for!
I must say, the Meyer design does look pretty promising, if the point is to get the most tractive effort available from a locomotive-tender combination. Still, one has the problem of diminishing weight on the drivers under the tender as fuel and water are used. Also, the photos I've seen of them with the power units spread far enough to allow for a deep, wide firebox seem somewhat lengthy. This would definitely limit use in locations with tight radius curves and close clearances. That would include a lot of industrial trackage.
I can see why it would be very difficult to beat the flexibility of diesel-electric motive power in the yard. Railroads love the idea of being to dispatch a unit off the pit to do a variety of tasks, MU'ed in consist for heavy work or as a single unit for the light stuff.
#357
I type too slow.
# 358
Hi RPF John
To be sure : a Meyer is a *tank* engine - one frame for mounting boiler and supplies plus cab somewhere in between , all that lowered onto two powered bogies with cylinders facing each other near the longitudinal middle of engine .
See :
http://www.trainworldonline.com/upload/iblock/9d8/26841.jpg
Meyer loco - as in contrast to
http://orion.math.iastate.edu/jdhsmith/term/slcicfan72.jpg
Golwé loco .
What you were thinking of probably was nearer to this :
http://www.modelrailroading.nl/Articulation/images/types/meyer/KM%20Beyer_Peacock_FCAB.jpg
a Beyer-Peacock
Mass reduction by consumption of supplies was not a problem much felt with the Meyer type - if perhaps because in narrow gauge realizations , power demand was not as severe relative to size as in mainline engines .
I would actually prefer cylinders of both bogies point forwards , that is : to smokebox end of locomotive .
To have both cylinders facing center was a point when compounding was applied Mallet style .
As will hardly come to your surprise I'd opt for SE action of cylinders , again - as always with articulateds .
The diesel-electric had two essential disadvantages over the diesel-hydraulic as for shunting ( and heavy drag freight where engine may come to a transient stall after starting and stretching train ) :
a - axles are not coupled - this can be fully dealt with by electronic slip control today
b - DC traction motor commutator could suffer burnt spots when stalled at high amps - by asynchronous motors without commutators this no longer is a point ..
Thank you for the illustrations. The Golwe' loco was more the picture in my head. You must admit, it's pretty cool looking! After digging into Mr. Wiener's book, I realized my concept was a bit off.
In the 0-4-4-0t Meyers, what sort of system do they employ to deliver steam to and exhaust from the cylinders?
#359 rfpjon
# 360
Hi RFP John
The Golwé looking good ? .... Upfhmm-ark .. [ swallow , breathe ] .. ok ..
What system to deliver steam to cylinders ?
Well , as far as I heard people talk , they usually had it beamed down and out by Scotty , no ? Seriously : much the same as in any articulated : flexible pipes - with a little more or less steam leaking , depending on maintenance , condition of driving . line curvature , steam pressure and your local weather report ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.