Interesting photo shops of potential future steam.
http://www.karenparker.net/PixelMagic/pm_cnoj4.htm
http://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/index.html
Overmod That's not a "double boiler", it's a Double Belpaire boiler. It has only one firebox, and only one chamber -- but the chamber is not roughly cylindrical, its corners are flared out roughly like four Belpaire crownsheets joined obtusely at their edges. This gave all-equal-length staybolting in the chamber, but allowed MUCH more enclosed gas area, and hence more tubes and flues -- free area is good. There is a 1/4 scale model of the boiler design at the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis -- I believe it is not presently on public display but it's safe... and there are some pictures on the Web that will show you exactly what's involved. - snippage - Triplex is not going to benefit from any of that Lima-larger-grate business because the drop is not there. The firebox needs to be entirely above the drivers, as on most simple articulateds, and while you can of course accommodate a humongous grate there, you don't have the vertical rise to get best efficiency out of the combustion by the time luminous radiation ceases essentially a couple of inches into the tubes. A Double Beplaire chamber might help, though, by providing larger radiant area for absorption plus the larger free-gas area to allow lower net vacuum draft speed, and hence pick up the fire less.
That's not a "double boiler", it's a Double Belpaire boiler. It has only one firebox, and only one chamber -- but the chamber is not roughly cylindrical, its corners are flared out roughly like four Belpaire crownsheets joined obtusely at their edges. This gave all-equal-length staybolting in the chamber, but allowed MUCH more enclosed gas area, and hence more tubes and flues -- free area is good. There is a 1/4 scale model of the boiler design at the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis -- I believe it is not presently on public display but it's safe... and there are some pictures on the Web that will show you exactly what's involved.
- snippage -
Triplex is not going to benefit from any of that Lima-larger-grate business because the drop is not there. The firebox needs to be entirely above the drivers, as on most simple articulateds, and while you can of course accommodate a humongous grate there, you don't have the vertical rise to get best efficiency out of the combustion by the time luminous radiation ceases essentially a couple of inches into the tubes. A Double Beplaire chamber might help, though, by providing larger radiant area for absorption plus the larger free-gas area to allow lower net vacuum draft speed, and hence pick up the fire less.
I had been wondering why the Belpaire firebox was supposed to be better, ever since reading LaMassena's article in the June 1968 Trains. The increased gas volume and presumably increased radiant heating area makes sense. The article on the D&H high pressure compounds in the June 1967 issue of Trains mentioned that a square foot of heating area in the firebox was worth several in the flues & tubes - wasn't until reading the B&W book on steam some 30 years later that the light came on about radiant heat transfer.
I'm also starting to get the picture about the 4-8-6, especially in regards to a comment about trying to reproduce power plant conditions. The large firebox volume would have allowed for more complete combustion of the coal as well as considerably more radiant heat transfer.
- Erik
erikemThe large firebox volume would have allowed for more complete combustion of the coal as well as considerably more radiant heat transfer.
Increased radiant area is a part of it, but that's not really the 'major' reason why Lima went to those Really Huge Fireboxes Over Six Wheel Trucks. The idea as I understood it was to decrease the gas speed for a given area of the grate, and reduce the tendency for fuel to 'lift', ensure adequate primary air, etc.
If I recall correctly, this was one of Will Woodard's stated reasons for going to the Berkshire instead of 'modifying' the design of the 8000 Mikado for better power/efficiency with a two-wheel trailer. You can also burn lousier-grade fuel and still get proper combustion-gas mass with the bigger grate and better plume length/characteristics.
I've always thought that a good wide firebox and high heating surface was a principal reason for the success of that most wonderful of the Vauclain Compounds, Atlantic City Railroad 1027. (An interesting contemporary reference with information otherwise difficult to come by is here:
Modern Locomotives (Scientific American, 1902)
Equal mass of coal to be fired per hour can give a lighter fire on the larger grates, too.
RME
I had thought about the lower gas velocity doing nice things for the coal on the grate, making it a lot easier to keep a clean stack. The longer time spent in the firebox would help with more complete combustion, leading to lower fuel consumption and probably lower emissions (soot and cinders).
erikem I had thought about the lower gas velocity doing nice things for the coal on the grate, making it a lot easier to keep a clean stack. The longer time spent in the firebox would help with more complete combustion, leading to lower fuel consumption and probably lower emissions (soot and cinders). - Erik
Yes, and there's a little bit more involved with proportioning the various parts. You want fairly high gas velocity within the tubes and flues, for better heat transfer. You want to avoid unburned fuel and cinders (the stuff that used to be called 'sparks' in Professor Goss's day) falling down and blocking the lowest rows of tube mouths. But you also want as long, and slow, a combustion-gas plume as you can manage.
The late Lima boiler designs can accomplish all these things pretty well.
Another thing I would like to consider is the possibility of electronic (vs. mechanical) control that would enable MU capability. Recently had the thought and decided to throw it out there.
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
BNSFandSP Another thing I would like to consider is the possibility of electronic (vs. mechanical) control that would enable MU capability. Recently had the thought and decided to throw it out.
Another thing I would like to consider is the possibility of electronic (vs. mechanical) control that would enable MU capability. Recently had the thought and decided to throw it out.
Out of curiosity: What was the reason you decided to throw it out?
Remember, 'automation' on steam locomotives has a fairly long history, even if we restrict examples to actually-built locomotives. (Note that this is NOT a discussion of controlling MUed diesels from a steam-locomotive cab; that's essentially trivial).
Automatic cutoff was actually designed and implemented before Valve Pilots, around the end of WWI. This used simple feedback from locomotive back pressure readings -- and was very successful in tests.
Norfolk and Western made a complete testbed out of the M2 'automatics' -- the coal-fired switcher that was supposed to be able to compete with diesel-switcher economies. Later, some of the TE1 automatic (Bailey) boiler controls were as close as you'd need for autonomic firing control. Compare some of the overseas push-pull steam trains. See also the operation of the locomotive with Franklin type D, which only used a forward/backward handle and no separate cutoff lever -- the steam equivalent of a diesel with fully-automatic transition....
My reason for abandoning trailing steam MU was that it couldn't be made 'safe' enough to satisfy either current legislation or the hordes of hungry lawyers who would arrive when -- not if -- something went wrong with the very complex systems needed. It's technically possible to build something that would run in trail, but you'd either want to use the DPU approach or proportional electric or pneumatic control, not that relay-digital EMD eight-notch system -- implementing THAT is a much more difficult exercise than doing the thing right from first principles for steam.
O5 Hopeful Interesting photo shops of potential future steam. http://www.karenparker.net/PixelMagic/pm_cnoj4.htm http://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/index.html
The "Burlington Northern ACE4000 4-4-4-4" as it appears to be a straight proposal per L.D.Porta ACE3000 variations seems highly plausible.
In his preamble the creator Richard Leonard notes "Admittedly, "steam tech" types and other experts will take exception to some of these ideas, or features thereof. Please remember, this is all in fun! "
Regarding most of the rest of the collection, to my eye (as un-experienced as it is of North American steam locos) they all seem plausible things that could have been constructed if history so continued with steam traction that little longer. The one exception being the "Pennsylvania Railroad T1 as a Garratt" which makes no sense at all to this garratt fan. I just can not see what the advantages of this arrangement could possibly be. But as pure fun, it is a humorous inclusion.
What do other think? Shawn
W.Shawn GrayWhat do other think? Shawn
Karen Parker's Pixel Magic is well-known, both for its humorous side and for some very good anticipated development... but most of the 'designs' are not intended to be rigorously exact.
The NYC C-1 would almost certainly have looked like a long Niagara (cf. the clearance diagram) rather than wear the Dreyfuss-style nose and skirting as she has it. The one I think is closest to an 'evolutionary study' is the one that put 72" drivers under an A2a boiler. That one would have had legs...
I believe the PRR Garratt has something to do with the inimitable S. Berliner -- look up some of the apocrypha, if you dare. The GG1 'variants' alone are worth the price of admission; someone on here at one point used a bunch of them in an animgif signature that was a hoot (and I don't mean A-200).
Yes, grain of salt.
Overmod I believe the PRR Garratt has something to do with the inimitable S. Berliner -- look up some of the apocrypha, if you dare. The GG1 'variants' alone are worth the price of admission; someone on here at one point used a bunch of them in an animgif signature that was a hoot. Yes, grain of salt. RME
I believe the PRR Garratt has something to do with the inimitable S. Berliner -- look up some of the apocrypha, if you dare. The GG1 'variants' alone are worth the price of admission; someone on here at one point used a bunch of them in an animgif signature that was a hoot.
Yes mate I have already stumbled on S. Berliner's Hysterical Society & Muddle Railroad offering. A great hoot indeed.
All the best. Shawn
Hi everyone
Since winter - photo from January - is finally gone , I will be back soon . Some interesting remarks , notes and comments have been put up in this thread - not exactly down the road I originally wanted to go but just the same .
Guess , I will contribute some humble remarks too - not that I see my words will really live up to everyone's expectations . My idea of the art of engineering in general and steam locomotive design in special I have to say in fact rather focusses on using the least of complexity of machinery , using the smallest number of auxiliaries allowing to reach your aim - rather than including most everything that comes handy - or unhandy , actually - even if it would turn the locomotive into a mechanical wonderland ...
Yet , different people - different ideas : that's what makes engineering a practice of technical art where logic plays an important part ( or at least it should ) still , it's really people's personalities , perspectives and ways of doing things that make wheels turn ...
Oh and b-t-w : I was born in Schenectady , NY , and will always remain an American even though my family had moved to Berlin , Germany , when I was a child . That's why Germans tend to note American colors in my language speaking German while Americans tend to remark on some German tones in my American English - guess it's just Trans-Atlantic ...
Regards
and keep on steaming
Juniatha
( To improve reading I have chosen to increase font size by one step in some postings where the text came out very small - respective posters may freely modify as to their liking )
I KNEW she'd be back! Hot Stuff! Didn't I say she'd be back?
Just like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!
Welcome back Juniatha! Don't stay away so long!
Wayne
Welcome back dear lady. Your posts have been missed. Winter is truly over.
Respectfully, Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Juniatha My idea of the art of engineering in general and steam locomotive design in special I have to say in fact rather focusses on using the least of complexity of machinery , using the smallest number of auxiliaries allowing to reach your aim - rather than including most everything that comes handy - or unhandy , actually - even if it would turn the locomotive into a mechanical wonderland ...
My idea of the art of engineering in general and steam locomotive design in special I have to say in fact rather focusses on using the least of complexity of machinery , using the smallest number of auxiliaries allowing to reach your aim - rather than including most everything that comes handy - or unhandy , actually - even if it would turn the locomotive into a mechanical wonderland ...
Sounds like the Lima 4-8-6 with a reliable set of poppet valves and an low back pressure front end.
I remember you writing that you were born in the US and a vague memory that you spent some time in the SF Bay Area. Being born in Schenectady suggests that one of your parents was working for GE (or perhaps Alco Products) - one of my high school classmates was born in Niskayuna.
As for accents, when my sister and her daughters moved to Sweden for a few months to be with her in-laws, her husband remarked that the older daughter was speaking Swedish with the most horrible American accent. My sister could speak Swedish well enough that most people couldn't tell where she was from.
Anyway, good to hear from you again.
WELCOME BACK.
Best day I've had in months ... and I have had some pretty good days.
erikem Juniatha My idea of the art of engineering in general and steam locomotive design in special I have to say in fact rather focusses on using the least of complexity of machinery , using the smallest number of auxiliaries allowing to reach your aim - rather than including most everything that comes handy - or unhandy , actually - even if it would turn the locomotive into a mechanical wonderland ... Sounds like the Lima 4-8-6 with a reliable set of poppet valves and an low back pressure front end.
Are you sure that 'reliable set of poppet valves' in 4-8-6 size was achievable in that period? Was still problematic as late as the 3752 experiments, and still had a couple of ticking time-bomb design aspects, such as the effective point-on-the-follower-line-on-the-cam issue, convoluted admission, and bypass/drifting issues...
Reading between the lines, part of Juniatha's ethic is the elimination of complicated stuff to benefit 'thermodynamic efficiency' at the expense of road reliability or crew sanity. Franklin System valve gear is very high on the list of this stuff, even if you can tinker with effective compression control to keep gas cutting down. Franklin type D was a very interesting approach to doing practical simplicity and robustness in poppet gear -- but a great deal of its operative action consisted of allowing more or less stochastic wiredrawing in the steam flow. On the flip side, if you wanted MU-style coordinated throttles, this setup would provide it much easier and cheaper than some fancy servo system on a shifting-cam box. I suspect that the approach of using double piston valves would work better in the period under discussion.
I do question whether a six-wheel trailing truck is necessary for a proper Double Belpaire setup on a practically-sized locomotive. The Niagara, with relatively crude steam supply and only single valves, already produced more high-speed HP than a single train required. Much of the work Chapelon did in improving steam efficiency would lead to a reduction in required grate area, hence firebox mass (look at 242 A1 for an example); better circulation would reduce the required water-leg space and increase practical radiant uptake without quench; welded boiler reduces weight on chassis. I would also look very hard at the welded construction Bulleid used for his syphons.
The extra axle, longer frame, and heavier required construction is an awfully extreme way to accomplish what the AAR knew by 1949 was a better answer -- wash and size the fuel, and don't let it crumble to fines in storage and handling...
Low back pressure -- you'll have no objection from me. But be certain that you don't corrupt the 'automatic action' scaling exhaust to required draft over a wide range of speed. Having to reintroduce superheater dampers, or fancy flaps and doors in the ashpan area, are not likely to produce better crew conditions...
I'm going to continue defending Snyder preheaters and Cunningham circulators, precisely because these increase efficiency WITHOUT involving additional complexity or introducing moving parts or exotic materials. I'll also defend the asynchronous-compound idea, to an extent, even though it involves more parts (and a turbine) -- it's relatively simple and straightforward. I would also defend noncondensing turbines DURING THAT PERIOD as being a better approach than reciprocating steam for high-speed, high-horsepower service.
But much of the 'fancy' stuff -- FGR and inline preheat to the throat; GPCS of just about any kind; Franco-Crosti economizing -- probably even some flavors of FWH and ESI -- come under Juniatha's Principle (let's call it that, unless she'd rather have something else under her name). Chapelon provided us with a relatively simple way to improve Mallet performance (N&W was independently doing some of this with the 'booster valve' and IF WE ASSUME materials and maintenance standards were up to scratch in the early '50s there is no reason why a 2-8-8-2 (or larger) could not have been effectively run at higher speed.
So far we have not discussed how older and smaller power would be improved. We do have some guides on where the bang for the buck would go. Some of the experience from across the Atlantic might have been useful in this period; more than a few railroads discovered that it made better sense to rebuild old power for non-mainline use. (We can invoke the American tax policy here that made rebuilding preferable, but optimized use of fancy gadgets to increase the new-construction portion of the cost...
Well, I go to Roanoke for three days, don't pay attention my e-mail, and look what happens? The transatlantic, international voice we've been waiting for returns. Welcome back, Juniatha!! I was getting worried by the long silence.
DRS
Just to bring up another item quickly: we should NOT dismiss turbines as necessarily 'unconventional' or overcomplicated in our period of discussion.
V1 design (with the mechanical drive), even pre-Bowes Drive, was charted as superior to anything but a Q2 with booster engaged, and then only up to about because there was only fixed ratio drive to the V1's 16 wheels. (Put a booster on it, and you'd get comparable or greater starting TE, admittedly with higher water rate for a few seconds). On the other hand... the 'all those brakeshoes' issues that turned out to apply to the Centipede would apply just as much to the V1...
Meanwhile, we have the evidence in Sweden for comparatively small locomotives, again with noncondensing turbines. And there is the Turbomotive for what in the United States would be medium scale.
I have questioned whether the N&W TE-1 would have taken its final form in the absence of dieselization (e.g. the use of the C-C+C-C span bolster arrangement with 'typical' diesel trucks). It went from the V1's direct drive to electric drive in the same basic chassis by 1951 -- despite Baldwin's poor experience with electric drive on STEs in the late '40s, and Dave Stephenson's input on this will be extremely valuable. The leaps and bounds in effective turbine metallurgy during the evolution of turbojet engines in the early Cold War period could only improve the practicality of the actual power turbines.
I'd have been interested to see -- complexity or not -- whether Holcroft-Anderson could be made to work with comparatively constant but larger-volume mass flow of turbine exhaust. If so, it would probably address the specific water-rate problem that was the big strike against the V1 in freight service.
Remember that the actual turbines for the S2 and V1 had their entire design outsourced to Westinghouse, in (I believe) a different division from the railroad electrical equipment. It is possible that extensive amounts of work on the turbine detail design was made between 'greenlighting' in 1944 and the time of cancellation; we do know that the records are probably destroyed (as some of the ones for the Jawn Henry were preserved, by a dumpster-diver, and I find it likely that all the locomotive steam-turbine files would be kept in about the same general locations and disposed of at about the same time.) If that were so, the adoption of turbines in the absence of practical dieselization might have been both relatively rapid and widespread. Let's hear some thoughts.
Let me also recap that unconjugated duplexes would never be practical at North American power, probably even on welded rail. Even at FA of 5 or over. Practically speaking, I think normal 2-cylinder engines of comparable size and power are practical, with lightweight running gear and N&W J-style balancing, up to most practical scheduled steam speed; you would only need duplexes for extended very high speed, or (on freight) for service where a full Challenger or 2-6-6-x of proper design would be excessive. (Keep in mind that a conventional articulated design capable of more DBHP per driving axle than the Q2 would not be particularly difficult to design if desired.)
(Interesting to consider what something on the scale of an Algerian Garratt might be worth on a road like PRR -- 'downsized' to give T1-like power out of two smaller six-wheel engines, and with the wide grate and big chamber to give lazy firing at high draft and gas speed...)
Overmod, you've made a very good point about how far steam turbine development might have gone if there had been no dieselization. Certainly the ones made were "buggy" but those bugs could probably have been worked out had the desire to do so been there. But the diesels came and...
I'm just curious on what Roanoke had come up with if steam was allowed to continue. The Y7 simple 2-8-8-2 was on the drawing board, who knows what it would have been like if it had been built. They stopped at 14 J's, they may have continued modernization of the J as well as the A. There may also have been modern subclasses of the J and A. Since the N&W designers were practically the best in their field, they would certainly have kept to work at producing more efficient, more powerful locomotives.
By the 40's N&W's designers and builders WERE the best! Even an engineer from Lima Locomotive Works said it: "N&W?. There's nothing we can teach them about building steam engines!
Virginia steel, Virginia coal, Virginia brains, guts, and spirit! Imagine what General Lee could have done with a Class J, or A or Y6b for that matter.
friend611I'm just curious on what Roanoke had come up with if steam was allowed to continue.
Well, we know, don't we? Non-condensing turbine-electrics.
The Y7 simple 2-8-8-2 was on the drawing board, who knows what it would have been like if it had been built.
Niven and Pournelle's Rod Blaine had the answer: Who could pass up a straight line like that? Superb. I believe enough is known about the design to re-create it (Dave Stephenson for one would know) and it is probably the closest thing to a MODERN coal-train locomotive (e.g. one competitive with DPU'd diesels on modern aluminum hopper and gon consists, runnable at track speed where practical).
On the other hand, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it would have been comparatively easy to apply some of the later Chapelon improvements to a 'perfected' Y-class chassis, and then give the front and rear engines the low-mass treatment. The "45 mph" claim for the Y class was something of an overstatement -- well before that speed, the thing starts making less TE than a NYC Hudson. Balancing the compounding with variable IP injection, and lightening the rodwork, would produce a very interesting locomotive, and some have felt this would have fulfilled almost any need for N&W freight.
Personally, of course, the highest flower of N&W design was the A with roller rods. One great experiment that IMHO should have been tried (turbine experiments took its place) was the adaptation of the Q2 boiler (almost certainly with welded construction at the time the idea was being proposed, and made out of the 'right' kind of steel). That combination with high-rpm-capable running gear and good valves would have been a model for what was possible with good high-speed articulated power...
They stopped at 14 J's, they may have continued modernization of the J as well as the A.
The big thing remaining to make the engine 'improved' (imho) would be proper poppet valves, and it may be notable that N&W didn't adopt them. Snyders, Cunningham, and the other easy mods to improve the Rankine-cycle efficiency and bring the effective water rate down. Etc. I do wonder how Glaze et al. would have continued with detail improvements of the J design.
Oh yes: if the J designers had been producing these locomotives in Bob Lee's era, their counterparts in government would have used good Virginia thinking and common sense, never have let those South Carolinians buffalo them into stupidity in the first place. Even otherwise (leaving out politics on a railroad board) -- those engine designs DEPENDED on good track, especially the J, and even a short period of the sort of neglect Southern railroads experienced during the late unpleasantness would have resulted in a somewhat different assessment...
Hi Overmod! Good point on welded boilers. It's been said that if steam lasted another decade you would have seen a lot more welded boilers, if not all boilers being manufactured by welding.
I could go a bit futher on Classes A, J and Y in the Civil War era but I don't want to turn this into a Civil War thread. That's been done!
On the other hand I'm sure General Lee wouldn't have taken the risk of running them on poorly maintained track. Stonewall Jackson might have been just "gungi" enough to try it though!
Firelock76 It's been said that if steam lasted another decade you would have seen a lot more welded boilers, if not all boilers being manufactured by welding.
It's been said that if steam lasted another decade you would have seen a lot more welded boilers, if not all boilers being manufactured by welding.
Decade? I'd have expected every new locomotive of any reasonably large size built after 1950 to be all-welded. It WAS that much better. Remember Juniatha's point about the Alco normalizing furnace at Schenectady -- scrapped in such haste after new big steam turned out to be dead?
Learning curve on getting all the stresses calculated right -- that might take a few more years, and some trial and error. (Note that the Tornado people still didn't quite get this right!). But it would have gotten there. The potential weight advantage alone (with crew wages paid proportional to engine weight) might have been significant.
Hi folks
long time - no hear , sorry my resouces of spare time are pretty scarces these - uhm - times .
As a contribution to the discussion wether a Triplex could have a deep firebox ( behind drivers , that s ) see my draft of a 2-8-8+8+8-6 ( powered wheel in bold ) .
This is a test , if it doesn't come out readable , you may check the text picture and drafts at their URL . So I post it now an see what will be - gee . There is a self-explaining table of basic data of the proposals and the drafts below , plus again in vertical to overcome limits of width .
You will see that inevitably , the Triplex bears the signs of a monster engine , the 2x8 Mallet is fundamentally more harmonious - my views reflect in the naming , the one a mythical creature , the other an awesome yet very real animal .
More descriptive text to come ...
With regards
reposted again to sort out some bugs in text and table caused by format conversion and deleting of some figures by my fiddling with the posting
So - once again the simplified form of -
(but already I see it changes things after pressing *POST* button - I give up !
Drafts turn out too small on forum page - deleted by = J = June 17th
Text description of proposed Triplex and Mallet types deleted = J = on July 12th
Juniatha,
Thanks for the drawings!
FWIW, the text on the first image is almost unreadable, too few pixels in the JPG - this was after downloading the JPEG and zooming in.
P.S. I hope your lack of time for posting on the forum is from something beneficial to you.
Hi Juniatha, welcome back! VERY interesting, the "Grizzly" and the "Bigfoot" class. They look like they just might have worked, and worked well. Oh, those bloody diesels coming along and ruining all the fun we might have had! "Grizzly" and "Bigfoot" are cool if nothing else. I could imagine the folks at ALCO or N&W looking at the drawings and saying "Hmmmm, you know what..."
Teddy Roosevelt said it best : "...like most Americans, I like BIG things!"
That's quite an imagination you've got! And ditto to what Erik said, hope you're being busy is being very productive for you!
May I suggest revising the tender layout slightly? Use the proven chassis geometry of a pedestal tender, with the pin-guided lead truck around the cylinders just as on a normal locomotive, and an appropriate amount of truck with controlled swing (I'd make it radial up to two axles, to stabilize the rear of the arrangement).
As full a water bottom as you can provide, BUT most of the actual water in an A-tank to the rear (think expanded NYC PT body). You will have some of the difficulty with variable adhesion on the rear engine that a Garratt has, and you can use the liquid-as-ballast approach used so well on ... well, on the Concorde ... to deal with any issues with water consumption in the same way. I presume you are directing some of the tender engine exhaust to the tank water, in which case you might want radiators on the aux tank or tender to get rid of the excess heat in the steam.
The locomotive trailing trucks as you draw them have the wrong curving geometry unless permitted full lateral float, in which case you will need interesting lateral-motion devices (not impossible by any means, just requiring special care in design). If the six-wheel version is radial, it is not quite in the right place for either weight-bearing or for correct zero-deflection curve following (see formula on steam_tech). I am presuming the eight-wheel trailing truck is a span-bolstered B-B arrangement, in which case the bearers and slides are going to be interesting to see, and I would take special care with the ashpan and primary-air arrangements.
I do not think a triple exhaust is the 'right' approach on the lzrger locomotive -- I'd either go to something like a double Kylchap (in which case you would have two oblong stacks) or a four-stack arrangement like the PRR S2 or UP FEF-4.
Please give us an URL to the larger version of the 'full' description; I'd like to read the stats and details.
GLAD you are back!
Hi everybody
Finally , I have reposted that last one that didn't come out readable and but partly . It was frustrating !
The more since I didn't seem to find time to re-layout it as a simple text - that meant to substantially
de-format everything .
sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry folks ..
I'll try to improve !
Even now it doesn't convert correctly into the forums posting window , at least I hope it's readable more or less , I will have to go over it once more - don't know when .
I definitely would have preferred to have it posted as a text picture , had I known I was bound for disaster with that one , I would just have dropped it .
Now , those who may have wondered about that strange rear truck on the Triplex , you will find it explained in the text now.
And for Overmod : no , they are not meant to be compound engines - in the Henderson Erie Triplex compounding with simple 1 : 2 volume ratio HP : LP cylinders was violating balance of power outputs HP / LP vital in a compound and low pressure steam pipes to rear drive unit did nothing to improve a situation of basically increased losses of steam pressure and temperature in that inevitably long line , which is worse in a compound where each expansion stage works on a reduced scope for adiabatic heat drop ( and it works polytrophic of course and likely the Erie engine did dive heavily into the wet steam range , too ) and I'm not speaking of that fundamental mistake , yet excusable in 1914 , of that rear steam preheater and simple stove pipe escape ...
sorry ,
all in a hurry -
don't worry
= J =
Your effort is appreciated.
Hi Juniatha! You know, every time you come on the Forum you continue to amaze. I learn something new with every engineering post of yours.
On the other hand, when I think of the steam 'might-have-beens" I want to break down and cry!
Those lousy diesels!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.