Very well said , S.Connor ,!
That's what I have posted time and again .
And *new* should be !new! - not replica .
A classic reciprocating steam locomotive is no engine of mystery by today's technology and CAD / CAM , still , when I look around everybody is reluctant to embark on new design - even that 5AT-Group plans a locomotive evolved from BR class 5 which in turn was a moderate development of Stanier's LMS Black Five of nearly two decades earlier .
Am I the only one not to shy to start on a new design from a white sheet ? Ideally , although not exclusively , I'd use a wheel arrangement unique in the world and realized in American steam locomotive only - I guess you know as we all do , which one I have in mind ...
Regards
Juniatha
What is the future for steam? None if a new generation doesn't get involved.
We are currently looking forward to the greatest steam revival since the 1980's, with 611, 4014, 1309, ect. (Wish 1522 was somewhere in that list) But we will be up a creek without a paddle unless a new generation is involved, as the one that is running this great day for steam will not be around in the long run.
Even with this rebound, more skills, expiriences, and untold stories are dying by the day, when they should have been soaked up and given to a new generation to marvel at and enjoy.
I have to say that one day (may it not be in the near future) we will see excursion locomotives drop their fires, due not to money, regulations, or the physical condition of them, but because there were not people to stand in defiance of these and speak up for them. Physical probelms will not end steam, a lack of passion will.
As I have learned, money is not the drawback for restorations, a lack of people to take action is.
"Fire up 611!" might not have happened if it were not for the individuals who said: "Who cares if there's not enough money, where there's a will, there's a way!"
I think we ought to take after the FTWHS with 765. They are a group with a mission and deliberate intent. They will not take "no" for an answer.
They are also training the next generation; currently there is a group of teens restoring an 0-6-0.
Every group running (steam or deisel) has a great many individuals involved, like the FTWHS, but when they time comes, they's better have a new generation ready, or they will surely be doomed.
If the railfan community is willing to welcome the young with open arms, then we will survive, and find a way to do ANYTHING (PRR T-1, 1522, another Big Boy, anyone?). With motivation, NOTHING will stop us. All we need is people to stand up, and welcome a new generation.
We cannot turn our future away.
And this is why the next generation is important, because WITHOUT A FUTURE, WE WILL HAVE NO PAST.
Actually , as concerns *new* steam in the 21st century , one to start with could be the new built T1 5550 ...
So let's make it the best T1 ever !
awe.... thanks Juniatha.
Joseph ,
herewith I declare :
You *ARE* one steam buff .
no doubt
today
no question about -
Jippy-Yay !
With a "choo-choo"
( O-M-G these colors are auhwful , miss option to compose my own )
Hi Juniatha.
great post by the way. what are the perspectives of steam? well..... i think that we want to run and restore something from a by gone era. I think that we are trying to give show what it was like to run a steam locomotive from back in the day. but to also preserve the history and to enjoy what steam is all about. i don,t think we should them to the ground sot of speak. but to keep them in prime condition. if you put all the money and time and effort to make it look like what it did when it first rolled out of the shop. it makes no sense to go and do the oppsite. you want to keep the engine in tip top shape. take the nickle plate road 2-8-4 765 for example. they restored her to brand new status. they have made shure that they keep her that way. in you question why run main line steam?
well.... why not? we used to do it every day of every moonth of every year. but it is also to show what it was like back then. i think it ,s to have a engine ( streetch their legs ) sort of speak. we wanna relive what it was like to run a big or small steam locomotive on the mail line. we also want to pass on the tridition to the next generation. cause we need to keep steam going. plus running a big steamer on a little distant back and forth.... and back again gets old. we wanna let them free on the tracks they they used to run. plus it was what it supposed to be. no what new steam will we see? gee. yuo put me in a spot.
i think we are in a age where we are seing steamers that used to run back in the 80's and 90's then put on display and then taken off and restored to steam return. i also think that we are seeing the return of the (classic,s). now what i mean by that. I may be 21. but to me the classic,s was the 1980's to the 1990's. where you had the pennsylvania 4-4-0 1223 and 4-4-2 7002. the southern pacific 4-8-4 4449. union pacific 4-8-4 8444. cottten belt 4-8-4 819. milwaukee road 4-8-4 261. reading 4-8-4 2101, 2102. 2101. norfolk and western 4-8-4 611. santa fe 4-8-4 3751. we had others.too. like frisco 4-8-2 1522. norfolk and western 4-8-0 475. great western of colorado 2-10-0 90. frisco 2-10-0 1630. articulated 4-6-6-4 3985 from union pacific and norfolk and westrn 2-8-8-4 1218. and much much more... we have seen and continue to see more of them return. we are now seeing the 611 return. the cotten belt 819 being restored to running order. we are seeing the return of santa fe 4-8-4 2926. we have now two 2-6-6-2t's running in america. the first to run in america was black hills central 2-6-6-2t 110 in hill city. witch i live in rapid city in south dakota. and have been to multiple times. and now clover vally 2-6-6-2t 4. we are seeing a bigger articulateds return as well. cheeapeake and ohio 2-6-6-2 1309. another logging 2-6-6-2 but with a tender return in washington state. we are seing a big boy return as well. we are seeing the return of little engines as well.
Now... what keeps them going and needs to keep them going is us. SO many steamers that should have returned fell short. what the problem with that is the fact is the person give up on it. if you work so hard to only give up is a problem. you need to stay commited in it. because if you give up then that is one engine lost and the heritaige is loseing more people to help. the generation today is more involved ith games and etc. yes a few have taken the reins and keep it going but we need to keep it going.
NOW........ what steam will we want to see in the next comming years? well good question. may i point out tha we have seen new engines built by groups that were scrapped. david klokehas built the jupiters sister. 4-4-0 the Leviathan. and the york for a tourist railroad. now i bet you mean BIGGER engines right?.
well. we got a long way to go. what i mean by that is that we need to catch up with our friends in the u.k. they have been building engines and rebuilding engines for years. they have made brand new boilers for engines. and have even built a brand new 4-6-2 peppercorn class locomotive in the last few years. and have even states that the construction of a prince williams 2-8-2 class. leaves us in the dust. but we can catch up. i think with the T-1trust that is going to build the pennsylvania class 4-4-4-4 class but with a number that wasn,t on the roster. is a good start.
i hope to see ore engines like that. what i think we should make brand new that we haven't seen is this. i think we should rebuild a new york central hudson. i think we should make a brad new stam locomotive that is efficient. now.... that said. there was a programe that was called A.C.E. it involved the cheasapeck and ohio 4-8-4 614. witch was the last coal burning super power steam locomotive made. she was capable of puling a 19 car train at 70mph+ with little or no smoke consistenty. she was proven to be better then the modern diesel. and is still considered. but the point was can a Modern day coal burning steam locomotive be more powerful and efficient than the modern day diesel? the answer with the 614 was yes. but just when she was makeing progress the funding was cut at the worst time. people was just too far shure that a steam engine was done and would not accept the fact that it could. but we now have a second chance. with a group wanting to use a santa fe 4-6-4 and make it run on a renewable fuel. made up of pellets made by chewed up railroad ties. it cannbe done.
well i have enjoyed writting this. thank you for letting me to take the time to write this. sincerally: Joseph Newstead. AKA: Joseph the steam buff.
>> Yes, they are "owned" by the state <<
and *THAT'S* the point .
Full stop .
= J =
DB Schenker is kinda the proverbial 900 lb gorilla of rail freight service in Europe. If you're looking of an example of the "general case", they'd be it. Yes, they are "owned" by the state, but they behave very much like a private enterprise.
So, if you want to compare and contrast European rail freight operation in the general case with that of North America, and understand motive power application, using DB Schenker ain't a bad place to start.
Schenker has to buy "slots" on the national network, same as those small companies operating out of a barn....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Oltmannd
O-M-G DB Schenker is a sub-division of DBAG ; DBAG is successor of both DB and DR ; both were national systems Germany West / East . DB-S was formed simply by DBAG having bought up Schenker .
And as I said there are some private enterprises - again I have to point out the obvious :
This is *NOT* the place to make references to *ALL* those enterprises there are in Europe dealing with rail transport .
What I wrote was *the GENERAL picture*
Inevitably , it is the nature of a general picture that some lesser details get lost and thus it is always possible to point to one of those and remark : you dropped this or that detail !
Do you really want to read a list of some several hundered enterprises and what they deal with ?
Would you go through the list scrutinizingly and compare it with what *you* know of these enterprises and if you see a deviation from what you think is right , sit down get your keyboard and hammer out a correction ?
and if I may ask you : what for ?
Be sure I didn't forget about DB Schenker , I didn't mention for a reason , see above - just lean back and relax , the world goes on turning .
JuniathaMind , practically pure freight hauler railways are virtually non-existent in Europe ( except for some recently sprung up private rail business in a barn as headquarters , their rolling stock consisting of but a handful of locomotives hauling other companies' cars relying on slots allowed on national railways networks )
Well, except for DB Schenker....they are not so small.
I had a nice tour of Machen Yard outside Hamburg a couple years ago. They invest in a lot of "jewelry" order to get their single block, single locomotive, single crewman trains out of the yard and accross the network in a big hurry. Since train productivity is so low, asset turns is the only way to get into the game.
# 142
Hi Oltmannd
quote : >> Diesel locomotives are a good fit for North American freight service on the rail network.<<
I don't know - it sounds a bit like one always having had nothing but sandwiches with just butter on and believing it’s best , never having tasted apple pie with fresh cream on and declining it .
( I used to have lots of cream and cakes in my teen times when it used to be all 'burned' in no time leaving nothing gained by inches nor lbs and turn it down nowadays *in spite* of knowing how delicious it can be if well prepared with good biological ingredients - but that's another story !)
Sure , there are problems with long distance wiring and powering , sure adhesion and raw low speed tractive effort are higher ranking in American railroading ...
In Europe , trains on intensely used mainlines do not run fast just because of the customers asking ( that is a factor , although not with all the shipments , as rightly pointed out ) but because higher speed means higher amount of traffic passed through per hour ! As again has been mentioned in fact it also is a means of harmonizing train succession in view of fast moving passenger service on the same tracks ( time and again it is part of contemplation on future development of rail traffic to physically separate freight trains from passenger trains by using special tracks each ; it has been realized with some new built TGV lines in France and no doubt is technically successful , yet regarded as excessively expensive by other railway's managements ) Last not least , yards are no large enough to accommodate freight trains of lengths as common in the US . Mind , practically pure freight hauler railways are virtually non-existent in Europe ( except for some recently sprung up private rail business in a barn as headquarters , their rolling stock consisting of but a handful of locomotives hauling other companies' cars relying on slots allowed on national railways networks )
# 141
puffyPoint being: when diesels arrived, speed took a hit because the diesels were underpowered relative to their tractive effort. And have been all this time, relatively speaking.
Correct. Another way of putting it would be that steam was overpowered relative to it's starting tractive effort. Maximum train speeds may have taken a hit, but asset velocity did not.
Diesel locomotives are a good fit for North American freight service on the rail network.
# 140
puffyThe slower the speed, the higher the operating cost for all items except fuel. The capital cost for the physical plant remains the same.
Correct. But, by and large,in the world of North American rail freight service, maximum authorized speed has little correlation with asset velocity - which is the thing driving cost. For example, loaded freight shipments only spend about 20% of their time on trains. Also, NS NY to Chicago intermodal schedules do not differ in end to end speed from the original PRR TrucTrain or NYC SuperVan schedules significantly, despite running at much lower HP/ton on a fixed plant with far fewer tracks with a lower MAS.
# 139
This looks like a rate-maker's or traffic manager's view of life.
Revenue in transportation is generated on a unit per distance travelled: ton/mile, pax/mile, etc. Capacity is ability to generate revenue per unit of time. Up the average speed and the capacity increases. That is why the NYC and the Pennsy generated about the same revenue but the Pennsy needed twice the physical plant because it had half the average speed of the NYC.
The slower the speed, the higher the operating cost for all items except fuel. The capital cost for the physical plant remains the same.
Another way of looking at it: when The Great Wall Express was instituted between Beijing and Tianjin as a train set, the service went from 4 trains each way each day to 10 trains each way each day. Same number of seats on the single train set, simply faster speed enabling it to make more trips per unit time.
Same reason that ships now are predominantly container or bulkers. Breakbulk simply spends too much time in port being loaded and offloaded and not enough time in revenue service moving cargo.
Point being: when diesels arrived, speed took a hit because the diesels were underpowered relative to their tractive effort. And have been all this time, relatively speaking. Being simply electric locomotives with self-contained generators, they excelled in the hills and on grades relative to steam but in flat territory they were notably outperformed by steam in the 30mph to 90mph zone. True electrics are another story since they are not self limited in hp. Witness the FS in Milano with 16-20 cars on a passenger train and a single 6000hp electric (back in 1960's). A single diesel would have been 1/3 the hp for the same tractive effort.
# 138
Good response Don, but I don't think I've mischaracterized the current railroad scene at all, and if any of the pros want to correct me on this I stand ready to be corrected.
See, what I think of is the Union Pacific allowing only their own steam on their lines, Why do they do this? Well, Steve Lee explained it several years ago. Big Steve said it was the UP's responsibilities to their shippers that made them adopt the policy. If there were going to be any breakdowns that affected shipments, and the speed of that shipment is irrevelant by the way, the UP was going to have to take responsibility for it since it's THEIR road, and it wouldn't do any good to blame it on any steam preservation group they let out on the line. A UP problem with a UP engine is a lot easier to explain to a customer than saying "Well, those PEOPLE told us they could be trusted!"
Good policy, bad policy, I leave it up to you to judge. Hence my statement that whatever new steam is built is going to have to WORK, and work reliably, or it's never going to get the chance to do anything but chug up and down museum trackage or some lightly trafficked short line.
See where I'm coming from? It's great that there's some Class Ones with some classy ones running them that will allow steam on their 'roads, but always keep in mind that for those folks it's a business, not a playground. Steam ops have got to be as professional as possible, maybe even more professional than the pros themselves.
# 137
J -
Some interesting thoughts, but I think you have mischaracterized US freight railroad operation to some extent.
There are really four distinct markets the US railroads serve. They are intermodal, bulk commodity unit train service, finished automotive vehicles (and auto parts) and "loose carloads".
From last week's stats:
Intermodal = 46%
Coal = 20%
Grain = 4%
Finished vehicle and parts = 3%
everything else = 27%
This somewhat overstates intermodal loading because they are counted by trailer/container, not by rail car. (a common conversion factor is 1.7 boxes = one car load)
The level of service provide tends to be dictated by the value of the commodity. Bulk stuff isn't often worth very much, so slow and steady wins the race. Intermodal boxes are usually loaded with consumer goodies, so it pays to move them pretty quickly.
Intermodal trains tend to get powered by HP/ton standard, which directly correlates with running times. Schedules are set to fit the markets served. For example, NY to Chicago is typicall second morning delivery - which is the same a single driver with a trailer can do - and it fits well with the daily and weekly logistics cycles of the industries involved.. It would not benefit getting the average trains speed on these train up from 35 to 45 (max authorized speed of 60 mph). In fact, as intermodal traffic grew, RRs found that they could lower the HP/ton and lower the max authorized speed from 70 to 60 mph and still compete as well for truckload traffic in the lanes served.
Intermodal is the area where highway truckloads are being converted to rail intermodal at a great rate. The challenge isn't generally to figure out how to run trains faster as it is finding money to build or enlarge intermodal terminals.
Bulk commodity stuff moves in unit trains. These trains are powered to a) get over the ruling grade w/o stalling - primarily and b) move along well enough to not get in the way of the other trains.
The"loose carload" traffic velocity is primarily a function of dwell between trains at classification yards. The speed of the trains is not as important as the design of the train service network to minimize the number of times the trains have to be classified and switched. As this has become better understood, more and more, merchandise trains are being powered more like unit trains and less like intermodal trains.
Fuel is a large cost for the railroads and "speed kills". It's just regular old physics at work. Aero drag goes up with speed squared. Reducing HP/ton has been the primary "lever" that RR management pulls to improve fuel economy - either directly or indirectly.
So, what are the locomotive performance parameters that fit these classes of service? As it turns out, a 4500 HP locomotive with about 150,000# of tractive effort works pretty well in most cases. If you power a unit train with these, and put just enough on to get the train up the hill, it has just enough HP to make decent speed on the flat. If you put them on an intermodal train or, in some cases, merchandise trains to make schedule (HP/ton) you might not come close to needing all 150,000# TE, but the penalty is rather small - a little bit of wasted capital and a little bit of fuel lugging around a couple extra traction motors. There may be substantial gain in utilization having a "universal" locomotive.
If you are willing to have a segregated fleet, then you might field two types of locomotives - as BNSF does.
An example from history: N&W replaced three very different kinds of steam, Y6B for loaded coal, A class for merchandise service, and J class for passenger with one class of diesel locomotive, the GP9.
The ratio of HP/max TE for a GP9 is nearly identical to an SD40 and an SD80MAC (Conrail was right! Everyone else was wrong!), and only a bit higher than that for current production AC locomotives.
#136
Hey, I remembered to number my post! Maybe I'm not getting early-onset Alzheimers after all!
All the tech-talk is very interesting, even if my eyes start to cross a bit, but we may be loosing sight of the forest for the trees.
To return to Juniatha's original postulation running steam in the 21st Century:
OK, I'm a realist, a broken hearted realist, so I know there's no way steam is going to return to daily service. So, steam running in the 21st Century is going to be at the indulgence of the Class One 'roads. If they're going to let a steam engine out for a romp on the mainline certain conditions are going to have to be realized:
1) The locomotive is going to have to be reliable. No embarassing breakdowns that will hold up the freight traffic are going to be tolerated, not even the possibility of same.
2) The steam crews and organizations running said locomtives are going to have to be as hard-core professionally as the real railroaders. If they can't impress the pros with how good they are, they're not getting on the mainline.
Now quite possibly this may mean new steam and not rebuilt old steam. If new, put all the improvements in 'em you can. Whatever it is, it has to work. Build a new Hudson, a Niagara, a T1, whatever, as long as it looks the way it's supposed to it doesn't matter what's under the skin. Modern metals, roller bearings, hell even a nuclear furnace as a heat source, it has to be reliable and it has to WORK.
That's all.
Oh, and thanks everyone for your responses to my driver diameter question.
#135 (in response to #134... which had no posting number on it when I replied... ;-} )
There is nothing I've mentioned that doesn't have a potential impact on running steam on 21st Century main lines in North America, whether or not you happen to agree with the points in question.
However, as a favor to you, and since this is your thread, I will comply with your expressed request going forward.
This is all very interesting and you're now jumping from slowing down Q2 engines to speeding up super fast passenger trains on new generation high speed track - which however still makes reduction of mass carried on axle highly recommendable if not mandatory for a number of reasons outside considerations of sturdiness of track or flange wear ( Jesus , if you talk about running with flange contact to rails and want to improve by flange lubrication , this is what is being used to bring down wear on severely curved mountain lines - at 150 to180 or 200 mph as now run by these high energy electric trains you have to do *without* actual flange / rail contact )
However you are again hijacking this thread - seems like your own tracking not only bounces with rail-to-rail flange contact but regularly climbs rails too .
I wouldn't mind at all if you'd open up a thread of your own on FRA slab track and related topics of very high speed running - which definitely does not relate to *any* kind of steam since it is exclusively in the range of electric traction . Again , I wouldn't mind a thread on modern electric traction neither but *this* is *not* topical *here* .
May I courteously ask you to respect this now - thank you .
#133
blue streak 1 (from post #131) Overmod I am reasonably convinced that there are systems of top-down slab-track construction that will support even HAL traffic at high speeds while reasonably maintaining 110mph geometry. to run at faster speeds in corridors built with the right track systems and support. Way out thought. If 110 MPH HAL track could be built. 1. Install ECP on any freight trains probably only using intermodals cars. 2. Run HrSR passenger trains on these routes that would blend in with the freights. 3. Limit all axel loadings to passenger standards making it easier to maintain class 6 track. 4. Tightly monitor all cars with WILD and other detectors to prevent premature rail wear. 5. have some trains for roll on roll off tractor trailers that will allow truck drivers to meet HOS rules.
Overmod I am reasonably convinced that there are systems of top-down slab-track construction that will support even HAL traffic at high speeds while reasonably maintaining 110mph geometry. to run at faster speeds in corridors built with the right track systems and support.
I am reasonably convinced that there are systems of top-down slab-track construction that will support even HAL traffic at high speeds while reasonably maintaining 110mph geometry. to run at faster speeds in corridors built with the right track systems and support.
None of this is particularly 'way out' -- I think it shows good thinking on your part. If you have not read about the FRA slab-track testing on the HAL loop, I encourage you to do so now (e-mail me if you need references). There are good (or at least good-sounding) reasons why high-performance slab track, even of a class above 6, may not require the adoption of 'passenger axle-loadings' to hold up well in service -- perhaps even up to 125 mph, not just 110. I suspect that the adoption of magic-wear-rate maintenance, good TOR and flange lubrication, and a few other details may suffice to keep the rail steel and head geometry concerns under control.
Quite a bit of benefit can be derived from PTC implementation in these scenarios -- among other things, it inherently provides flexible-length 'block' following for differently-braked consists.
I consider 110-mph corridors to be a logical place to start transitioning to a practical system of ECP braking. Both 'unit' and intermodal consists will be relatively easy to convert, imho. (I have an intermediate system providing some of the benefits of ECP quick action for single-pipe consists, which may be 'enough' for the required safety aspects when PTC is implemented.)
Even with CTC and judicious fleeting at flexible headway, there's going to be some limitation on scheduling the regional-HSR trains (and I generally dislike the idea of facing moves at potentially over 200 mph closing velocity!) Part of this is helped if there's a reasonably large number of stops in the passenger service, as you can operate a slower 'one-speed' freight service around the 'window' actually occupied by a given passenger consist even though its peak or average running speed be higher.
I'm a fan of putting small detectors on each truck to enable distributed remote monitoring of wheel and bearing condition. You'd backstop this with wayside sound/vibration and temperature detectors, and with out-of-loading-gage detection for slipped loads or suspension distortion, etc. I would also strongly advise the provision of some forms of realtime wheel-turning facility so that any consist operating over a high-speed line essentially have true profiling and no flat spotting on all its wheels, all the time.
Your point 5 is intriguing -- are you suggesting, as I think you are, that you'd run an 'iron highway' that operates as I remember some European tunnel 'crossings' doing -- the trucks are loaded and unloaded circus-style as quickly as the drivers can manage, and the tractors stay coupled up for the duration of the run?
The economics I have seen for this kind of operation (most recently for 'train ferry' service from New Jersey to the Northeast and Long Island bypassing NYC) are not quite good enough, but I'd like to see that change (probably via judicious and heavy peak-hour tolls per truck axle both on crossings and toll roads, and perhaps via more generous interpretation of driver compensation and HOS for the time spent 'riding'.).
I like systems that can load and unload in parallel, like the CargoSpeed trailer system (not the intermodal-railcar CargoSpeed) and the parallel sideloading system I worked out in the mid-'70s. These cut train dwell time down to a few minutes even when large numbers of trailers/containers are being exchanged, and allow multiple tractors/chassis to load and unload simultaneously, and have the potential advantage that low-tare-weight cars can be used, the dead weight of all the tractors need not be carried, and there is no potential fire/explosion hazard from the truck fuel, batteries, etc. At least theoretically it gives drivers at the 'endpoints' more of a chance to work close to home, and I'd think it would allow drivers working out of a particular facility to have more familiarity with the local driving environment, conditions, etc.
And yes, all this should have the potential effect of optimizing operation behind steam.
# 132
( DR Co-Co diesel class )
Hello guys
Ok , I will not offer a word on this subject of diesel – mind it : ! d-i-e-s-e-l ! – powered traction of freight trains in the US :
a – there are different railroad systems in the US , interacting ;
b – they are often more into focusing on bulk traffic not so much handling diverse traffic as RRs in Europe ;
c – they run trains of maximum tonnage by accumulating vast numbers of power units – a direct consequence of specific surrounding conditions in the US , as for instance labor costs , layout of lines , signaling , tracks and train per hour traffic density and other , however generally regarded inefficient by railroad outside the US .
As concerns focus on train speed on European mainlines , I mention just one major point :
Traffic density is generally *much* higher on #1 mainlines in Europe , often so high trains are following each other in block signal distance for hours on end , which asks for precise timing of *all* trains involved *at any point* over the line . Simply to arrive at destination on time just wouldn’t do and a – theoretical – thing like a slow tugging super long freight with a slew of slow diesels up front and spread within the train would cause nothing short of disaster in traffic congestion , in no time holding up trains by the numbers , affecting other trains following held up trains and spreading late running to adjacent lines , so that even days after such an event the effects will be felt and several hundreds of trains will have been affected – the consequential claims for the damage would be beyond any private rail enterprise to pay for . No , there just is *no* line capacity left for any such dilly-dally poke-along trains !
Aspect of very fast passenger train traffic as mentioned by one user has an influence in cases , yet does not explain all of it . ( in fact it has an adverse effect on freight train handling and traffic density in that it implies longer signal block sections and thus tends to expand density of freight traffic ! on fully equipped lines this has been dealt with by means of electronic individual train control )
Besides said traffic density , customers do not want to – or *cannot!* in case of sensible merchandise – wait for their cargo to linger out on the line for days while truck traffic would offer delivery within a day . Modern railways have to compete and since the Fall of the Iron Curtain distances in the EU are increasing with more and more international traffic – in the event to become probably no less than in the US – freight trains have to go fast .
Another aspect is length of freight yard tracks , just not suited to accept US size five digit tonnage trains . Besides , however , especially in mountainous regions , it is considered technically less effective to run vastly long trains which would reach all around half circle turns or extend over several adjacent curves at a time , flange wear – and in the end rail inner edge wear – would become inacceptably high due to the enormous tractive effort needed , causing excessive sideways thrust especially on the leading part of the train as compared to cutting such a load into , say , four or more trains with less flange running resistance , wear and also better handling by the leading engine : there is less surge through the train with brake application / release with less longitudinal thrust accumulation , all of which US freight cars are built especially sturdily and heavily (!) to take up while by watching videos of freight trains up Horse Shoe Curve or other winding mountain lines it appears US RR don’t seem to bother about flange wear nor about resulting train running resistance . Mind , in that context , up-grade freight train speed is like 40 mph on Swiss or Austrian railways for example - this way and only this way it was possible to pass all that cargo over existing old mountain pass lines such as Benner pass , St Gotthard , Simplon as is presently being handled by railways .
However ..! ( and now we’re back to the roots à) .. the one aspect for giving speed a higher status or preference all of you have forgotten about is the very one I had mentioned in the beginning and was the underlying reason for my sketching of preferable train handling with a theoretical modern steam traction :
steam’s typical output curve
with limited starting tractive effort yet hp rate heftily rising with speed increasing and
a clear indication ( as by extrapolating historical development and combining it with improvements partly realized by A Chapelon and others , further improvements possible ) modern steam’s power output curve would be *even more extremely* emphasizing higher speeds with starting tractive effort but showing but mince improvements – all for identical wheel arrangements of course .
All I was saying is : if you would use that type of power you would have basically two ways to choose from : first , do as the diesel powered RRs do and ignore your power’s differing characteristics ; second , accept your power’s output characteristics and adapt traction to make the best of it – and *that!* , mind you , was what I had described in the beginning .
This does not say anything about problems that might be encountered by having to accept other RR’s freight cars maintained and equipped in such ‘economic’ ways as to make them clearly inapt for any speed above some 30 or 40 mph . Logically , fast running implements – and again I did believe this was sine qua non and still mentioning it would be almost insulting to a knowledgeable readership – appropriate track upgrading and maintenance as well as according cars technical upgrading and maintenance for smooth tracking at such speeds .
What commercial water level line speed would I think of with a theoretical modern yet classic type steam traction :
~ 60 mph heavy bulk trains ,
~ 70 mph mixed freight ,
~ 80 mph fast freight
... to offer but a *rough rule of thumb* idea of an appropriate speed range .
What power output @ speed can be expected from modern versions of classic wheel arrangements when designed to service mass per axle rather somewhat reduced relative to the heavy classes of 1940s Super Power :
For example some classic types in a typical modern version all without any fancy onboard stuff
( please do *not* start to argue about plus/minus some inch , ton or hp @ mph , these are but rule of thumb examples , Prof O you know )
Type of wheel arrangement – drive wheel diameter [ins] / engine adhesion mass / engine service mass [t metric] – power output [ihp metric] @ speed [mph]
Mika – 67 / 100 / 140 – 5000 @ ~ 70
Berkshire – 70 / 120 / 190 – 6400 @ ~ 75
Santa Fé – 67 / 125 / 170 – 5700 @ ~ 65
Texas – 70 / 150 / 220 – 7200 @ ~ 70
Allegheny – 70 / 198 / 314 – 9500 @ ~ 65
If that would be enough to compete with diesel traction must be left to each one's consideration or conjecture .
edited a couple of times for corroding typing erroded in posting through the Big Gates of Bill's
# 131
( I'd appreciate if the boys could add their post # by themselves without mom's nursing just as Prof Overmod can , thanx )
#130
daveklepper (#127) I should point out that although the NKP and similar Berkshires were optimum for NKP's fast bridge service, they were (and are) versatile steam locomotives, more versatile than most steam locomotives, have enough power for RELATIVELY low-speed drag service when required, and can be passenger power when required.
I should point out that although the NKP and similar Berkshires were optimum for NKP's fast bridge service, they were (and are) versatile steam locomotives, more versatile than most steam locomotives, have enough power for RELATIVELY low-speed drag service when required, and can be passenger power when required.
That is part of the reason I have such respect for the AMC.
While we are on the strict subject of Berkshire design, I would like to see a revisiting of the A2a Berkshire design, in order to see whether something like that design could in fact be given reasonably flexible versatility over the lower range of practical speeds we were discussing. (Note: not in any way as a 'historic reconstruction' - that can of worms is tight shut.) In light of what the 1938 rebuilding of T&P 610 achieved practically, I remain unconvinced that it is not possible to design a 63"-drivered engine with acceptable augment and inertia forces for those speeds, particularly if modern materials and techniques can be applied.
#129
schlimm (#128)From my observations, European freight trains, at least in Germany, run at much higher speeds than here because of demand for freight cargoes to be, in effect, a conveyor belt for "just in time" manufacturers and industries, even for bulk commodities.
Without in any way disagreeing with the observation:
Implementation of kanban in the United States generally values precision in arrival time FAR above in-transit time or speed. So there is usually considerable value in providing slack time in a rail schedule in order to assure that delivery, by whatever mode it is made, can be truly 'just-in-time'.
I developed several systems in the '70s and '80s to provide accelerated service to minimize the in-transit lag, in part assuming that just-in-time supplier systems were going to catch on, and the inherently higher costs of very fast intermodal service would be justifiable given the potential production economies. That has not been the case in North America at any time I have observed; and the business case for faster ground transportation of express and freight as a common-carrier service (a la Blue Streak Merchandise and later Super-C, the Apollos, Z trains, etc.) has never provided a compelling 'enough' economic case for running enough of a whole railroad to accelerated timings to make the trick work. (And no one, perhaps, is more bitter about this than I am.)
I am reasonably convinced that there are systems of top-down slab-track construction that will support even HAL traffic at high speeds while reasonably maintaining 110mph geometry. (There are also some that won't, but I think testing has established 'which is which' definitively enough...) It remains to be seen whether there will be incentives for freight traffic -- perhaps specialized freight traffic supporting just-in-time-at-both-ends models -- to run at faster speeds in corridors built with the right track systems and support.
# 128
OvermodIn my opinion there is very little commonalty between approaches that work in Europe and those that will be practical here regarding increasing freight road speed. I think those high freight speeds are almost entirely the result of a need to coexist with frequent and fast passenger service
I agree that passenger services running at decent top speeds of 110 mph are difficult on tracks owned by freight lines because the differential is too high. However, I think the reason you give is incorrect. From my observations, European freight trains, at least in Germany, run at much higher speeds than here because of demand for freight cargoes to be, in effect, a conveyor belt for "just in time" manufacturers and industries, even for bulk commodities.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
# 127
I should point out that although the NKP and similar Birksheres were optimum for NKP's fast bridge service, they were (and are) versitile steam locomotives, more versatile than most steam locomotives, have enough power for RELATIVELY low-speed drag service when required, and can be passenger power when required.
#126 (something stripped the tag# out of the original post)
Juniatha ... As I wrote :I will not wander into that , wondering . ( your switching words turned my little joke into something meaningless , thank you )
For those who might not have gotten the 'little joke' (or my turn on it), for poor orn'ry people like you and like I, here is what I consider a good version.
I think the concerns with the operating model are much more with areas other than pure train speed, particularly issues with yarding consists. We might well remember that one of the last successful uses of American mainline steam, on Nickel Plate, involved just the idea of high-speed bridge-line operation, and locomotives optimized for that service. The question I'd raise, specifically in reference to this thread, would be which contemporary American services are best suited for speed-optimized operations, or perhaps for an American version of plandampf that could be speed-optimized on an otherwise QoS-optimized railroad system.
In my opinion there is very little commonalty between approaches that work in Europe and those that will be practical here regarding increasing freight road speed. I think those high freight speeds are almost entirely the result of a need to coexist with frequent and fast passenger service, and would no more be observed in the absence of that requirement than, say, a modern version of the Super C would be observed on the current Transcon. I dearly wish there were more of a market for high-speed scheduled freight service here -- hopefully someone like Don Oltmann will weigh in with where services like the accelerated Z trains, in particular lanes that would suit the practical requirements of reciprocating steam, might be practicable.
# 125
Prof Overmod
>> .. Q2 was already optimized for close to 50 mph anyways <<
Nowheres did I write that no did I intend to mean that . It was but a simple example to point out reduction of speed by reduction drive wheel diameter . I believe everyone could see that , so what are you after by wilfull misinterpretation ?
>> What's this about Niagara cylinder volume on the small side? Something important has been lost in the terseness .. <<
No , it's all in there , just read . As I wrote :I will not wander into that , wondering . ( your switching words turned my little joke into something meaningless , thank you )
As concerns Kiefer's would be aproving to lower boiler pressure , it was of course *not* for improving performance . Instead , it was to be one of the typical end-of-era steam maintenance easing measures since full power output had by then proven to rarely asked of the Niagaras . There were materials problems encountered by boiler maintenance , it was anticipated reducing b p would make things easier in the final years of service . Same with a couple of other classes , often on an individual basis , thus destroying uniformity of power capacity of members of a class with all its questionable effects on service efficiency and reliability . Mind under Pearlman the NYC dropped steam as fast as possible or impossible , no regards to devastation of capital just formerly invested and not yet having returned due profits , nor to amount or good profitability of even more capital to be invested all over again . Revolution instead of evolution usually comes with chaos and destruction and that's just what it all ended up with Penn Central - a merger clashed together by Pearlman , too - if only it blew up after he had wisely left in time , for sure .
>> why there are significant problems with that operating model. <<
Well , I can see a bad moon rising if you try this model of operation with tracks run down as were occasionally shown in posts linking to a video where trains are supposed to be nursed over incredible spots at walking pace and with lots of praying .
Union Pacific could do it , there are some other RRs that could . As I just wrote before in Europe general mainline speed of freight is 120 km/h , fast freight are scheduled 140 km/h or over . No problems encountered .
# 124
Hi Wayne
smaller drivers - lower speed . That's the basic trend if you leave mechanical level of perfection unchanged and thus rpm speel ceiling .
There have been balancing problems met with increasing mass and power of engines and that was another reason for increasing wheel diameter .
Mainline steam should go fast in a contemplation about contemporary revenue service , that's how I see it . Since steam's maximum tractive effort is much more limited than diesel-electric's multi-unit traction and steam performs best at decently elevated speeds , a hypothetical RR using modern steam ( yet classic concept - no nuke juke nor geared booster clustered type of ) would have to use high speed capacity of steam to produce ton-miles abounding . Btw , in Europe general mainline travelling speed of freight trains is 120 km/h ( 75 mph ) with electric traction , fast freight may be scheduled for 140 km/h ( 87 mph ) or above too . Sure you could do that with clusters of diesels per train - yet , you could do it with but one big steamer as they do it with but one modern electric . Just imagine ...
#123
Juniatha to finish the short feet Q2 matter
to finish the short feet Q2 matter
But it was finished already.
However, since you have brought it back up again, a short and concise answer turns out to be that the Q2 was already optimized for close to 50 mph anyway. According to the actual data from the test-plant runs, p.89, the peak of the DBHP curve at 130,000lb/hr (item 47) is reached at almost exactly that speed.
So the folks historically claiming the Q2 made its peak power at much higher speed appear to turn out to be about as right as those claiming the T1 was impossibly slippery.
"Improvements" on a Q2 would best be made in, say, reducing the ridiculous amount of dead space, or implementing better compression control, and adjusting the power developed by the front engine downward at least 4% -- by whatever method actually works to accomplish that. (And, arguably, keeping the engines dephased!)
And let that be the end of the Q2 discussion in this thread, where I thought we agreed it did not belong.
That’s why I had written a railroad supposed to use steam traction in a modern world in a way building upon and extending development of classic steam would ... best run trains in a way significantly differing from what diesel powered railways do – in a nutshell : basically replacing tonnage by speed as prime ruling factor .
Remains to be seen if you actually find an American railroad that would find a need to run that way. Plenty of cogent arguments have been made on this forum as to why there are significant problems with that operating model. How do you propose to overcome them? (Note: I do consider this an 'appropriate' subject for the current thread, as any 21st-Century operation of steam on main line freights would certainly seem to benefit from speed-optimized operation.)
>> whether derating the boiler pressure, ... would have benefited a Q2 as much as a Niagara << Let’s leave that standing as one of your more cryptic sentences and I will not wander into wondering how >> derating boiler pressure .. would have benefited .. a Niagara << in view of their cylinder volume already having been pretty clearly on the small side with a resulting adhesion factor > 4 , only just adequate for the NYC lines profile with water level or nearly having been given predominant consideration in design of this 4-8-4 and , consequently , having asked for > 50 % cut-off for full power output *at high speed* !
Let’s leave that standing as one of your more cryptic sentences and I will not wander into wondering how >> derating boiler pressure .. would have benefited .. a Niagara << in view of their cylinder volume already having been pretty clearly on the small side with a resulting adhesion factor > 4 , only just adequate for the NYC lines profile with water level or nearly having been given predominant consideration in design of this 4-8-4 and , consequently , having asked for > 50 % cut-off for full power output *at high speed* !
You can choose not to wonder as you wander, but Kiefer approved the idea of reducing boiler pressure from 285 to 265, for a variety of reasons (which, by your own logic, I do not feel I need to repeat in detail), and quite frankly I would trust his assessment over yours regarding what was needed for operation to meet contemporary NYC requirements. What's this about Niagara cylinder volume on the small side? Something important has been lost in the terseness...
Sorry I didn't have time to write a shorter reply
But any reply is good to see.
# 122
Yes, here is the very basic, simple rule that is normally true:
Larger Driver Diameter = More Speed, Lower Tractive Effort
Smaller Driver Diameter = Higher Tractive Effort, Lower Speed
Of course, tractive effort and speed are determined by more than just driver size. Cylinder size, stroke length, boiler pressure, and a number of other things. That equation above is just what you can infer about a locomotive by looking at the divers.
# 121
Hi Juniatha!
Pardon a question from a raw amateur at this, and someone who only knows what he's read in the history books, but aren't small drivers and speed mutually exclusive? That seems to be where this conversations going with folks talking about 63" drivers. I would think bigger is better for speed, say the 70" or larger range.
Also, wouldn't there be balancing problems with smaller diameter drivers? I've read of instances where main-line steam locomotives with balancing problems had them resolved by the simple addition of several inches to driver diameter.
Considering this is a mainline steam thread I'd assume we'd want to have new steam hustling down the line as fast as possible. Maybe even leaving a few diesels choking on coal dust?
Wayne
# 120
Edited version , some sentences revised , some words revised for better readability and understanding of points – please read again if you should have read original text
>> On a Q2 I think I'd reduce both bore and stroke on both engines, with the rough expectation of keeping the mass flow the 'same' at a given road speed <<
You may reduce cylinder volume by shortening stroke or diameter or by each some of both . From your remark >> keeping mass flow the same at a given road speed << I conclude you talk of cylinder volume to be reduced in proportion to reduction of drive wheel diameter ( resulting in same adhesion factor ) At *same road speed* this would demand same cut-off to be used for same volume ( not necessarily mass , mind it ) of steam to be passed through cylinders – for simplification in this theoretical consideration disregarding varying influence of throttling through given valve gear at different rpm speeds .
Reduced cylinder volume would thus largely nullify the effect aimed at with reduction of drive wheel diameter since again the same amount of steam , namely nominal boiler steaming capacity , will only be useable at *same* road speed not a lower one as intended .
Looking at *same rpm speed* , logically the engine with smaller cylinder volume cannot help being inferior in output compared with the original one since at same rpm speed as with the original engine , same volume of steam cannot be passed through the reduced cylinder volume whereby it doesn’t matter if cylinder diameter or stroke was reduced or both – except for using longer cut-off ! This however can only incompletely make up for lost cylinder volume since the original engine as built already had to use pretty long cut-off for full output – an attempt to increase mean steam pressure in cylinder to compensate for smaller cylinder volume by lengthening cut-off will thus soon meet a limit while truncated expansion will sensibly increase specific steam consumption . Consequently , maximum output at same boiler steaming capacity would really be reduced with reduced cylinder volume – which is simple logic if you come to think of the steam engine like any heat engine at a certain typical level of refinement can only produce so much power per unit of volume of work space .
A reduction of wheel diameter combined with concordant reduction in cylinder volume thus cannot lead to the desired shifting of ( unchanged ?) maximum output to lower speed range . It would however lead to a number of design headaches that were avoided with the larger wheels – you mention two of them : mass inertia and dimensioning of wheel centers and material thickness between axle and main pin fits , see second and third quotation .
Taking a look at the other one of principal theoretical choices : reducing drive wheel diameter with cylinder volume kept unchanged ( as previously assuming boiler pressure unchanged of course )
*This way* optimum point of power output *could* – theoretically – have been shifted to somewhat lower road speed range at same rpm speed , say from 50 mph with 69” wheels reduced back to the original Mika-typical 63” : 45.65 mph – a reduction of 4.35 mph or , as with wheels diameters , 91.3 % the former speed .
However , disregarding said problems of mass inertia and dimensioning of wheel centers and material thickness between axle and main pin fits , adhesion factor ( am definition ) will rise in proportion to reduction of wheel diameter and thus speed for same rpm running . While this may not look dramatic in my example as above , it sure will if wheel diameter reduction is to be carried further to make a more notable difference in speed ranges !
Thus , clearly , method of compressing optimum output speed range by reducing wheel diameter is severely being contained by limit of adhesion – which was already fully exploitable in most designs as they were ; smaller wheel diameter at unchanged cylinder volume only serves to produce a more slip-prone engine meeting virtually the same limits of adhesion and thus power output at any given speed in the lower range as the original engine .
Summing up : Reduction of drive wheel diameter is no practical way to shift steam’s optimum of performance towards lower speed range . Already adhesion , not cylinder power , has regularly defined limit of power output of any properly proportioned classic types of steam from standing start all over the lower speed range , even into medium speeds in cases of high performance locomotives . Further , optimum output is only reached when working at a decent degree of expansion , i e at tractive effort lower that adhesion limit and thus logically full boiler output was best used but in the upper speed range at *any* rate . There simply is no way optimum power output can be shifted towards lower speed by tampering with some major dimensions .
That’s why I had written a railroad supposed to use steam traction in a modern world by building upon and extending development of classic steam would effectively run trains in a way significantly differing from what diesel powered railways do – in a nutshell : in order to maximize ton-miles production , basically replace max tonnage by max speed as prime ruling factor .
Looks like I should add a word in general about my comments at times written in somewhat dry or laconic words : without further explanation or remarks they may appear like ad-hoc opinion , yet they are not . Usually they are but concise extracts from much wider contemplations backed by long and repeated pondering of related and inter-relating points in steam design and construction ; my comments are as terse as they are because I have long since spent much thought on concerning points ; the comments thus are but laconic glimpses to answer a specific question or point that has sprung up , without going into details or reasoning because I feel most users are not really into reading what thoughts I had spent on the larger range of tech topics influential in that specific matter .
>> and use full lightweight rods and valve gear <<
Because mass forces in drive gear increases by increase squared of rpm speed , essential reduction of reciprocating and revolving masses quickly becomes vital with smaller drive wheels , only to contain increase of mass forces at *same road speed* as of original engine without yet having gained any advantage in low speed performance .
>> Long-term strength of the wheel center, especially at the axle and pin fits, and adequate securement of the balance masses, would have a great deal to do with determination of the 'most effective' range of "lower" driver diameters.<<
Improving sturdiness and longevity of these in view of increasing stress in ever more powerful locomotives in fact was a major drive for using increasing drive wheel diameters in development of the high performance freight steam locomotive in America all through the early1930s to the end in 1949 . In relation to maximum power outputs about tripled during that period an increase from a Mike’s typical 63” wheels to 69” in 2-10-4 and 2-6-6-4 types , in cases even 70” to 74” must be considered moderate and sensibly measured .
>> whether derating the boiler pressure, ... would have benefited a Q2 as much as a Niagara <<
Let’s leave that standing as one of your more cryptic sentences and I will not wander into wondering how >> derating boiler pressure .. would have benefited .. a Niagara << in view of their cylinder volume already having been pretty clearly on the small side with a resulting adhesion factor of > 4 , cylinder volume only just adequate for NYC lines profile with water level or nearly having been given predominant consideration in design of this 4-8-4 and , consequently , having asked for > 50 % cut-off for full power output *at high speed* !
#119
If we have to discuss 4-6-4Ts, and by extension 4-4-0s (;-}), let's at least raise the operative issue with respect to mainline operation. Note that this involves operation in the United States, and not in Britain or Europe where both conditions and historic locomotives are different.
I don't recall if the issue of cost-effective operation size has been brought up in this thread, and a quick review didn't seem to show it there. The cost of insurance coverage alone puts a hard limit on how 'small' a mainline operation can be, and therefore how many tickets need to be sold, cars provided to carry the ticketholders, and so forth. Meanwhile, increasing congestion and, perhaps, one-speed or fleeting operation probably require reasonable accelerative power with the required longer consists, and while this *might* be achieved with light high-horsepower locomotives, with correct train-handling skill, I think it is increasingly unlikely that the right skills would be consistently applied in the 'right places' and that confusion and delay would often result.
All this within the constraint that operation provide minimal track damage, problems for other trains, or other problems for potential 'host' railroads.
This suggests a middle ground for continued main-line steam operation, in a locomotive size that supports a healthy number of potential excursions per year on an ongoing basis, including the continued appeal needed. What do we think that 'practical' size range should be?
It's been mentioned that a rebuilt K4 may be too small to accomplish this (but is too large for practical operation on a shorter tourist line (say, Strasburg) in between mainline excursions. On the other hand, I firmly believe something like a replica NYC 5344, fitted with a more modern high-speed reversible booster, would be fully capable. I find it particularly interesting that the 'new' NS steam program finds value in putting a feedwater heater on a 'legacy' 2-8-2 for excursion service.
#118
BARFlyer(quoting #110) ... Anthracite coal has the most BTU per ton of any carbon fuel on Earth.
... Anthracite coal has the most BTU per ton of any carbon fuel on Earth.
But it's the effective rate of heat release that's the operative problem. (See Sinclair's Development of the Locomotive Engine for some of the issues and approaches).
Adding in Uranium nitride can extract even more energy.
As the orals committee said to Craig Stoll, 'could you be more specific?' How are you planning to utilize uranium nitride(s) and what do you hope to accomplish with the use of such material?
Another upgrade could be to power the thing with small Thorium reactor which has been done in a car already. While not nearly as reactive as uranium, a 1lb nugget could power a 4-6-4T for 5 years in regular service under 100 miles a day.
PLEASE tell me this has nothing to do with Charles Stevens or Laser Power Systems. Or those guys at this place, with their 'rear earth metals' and magic gas-turbine heating system
Yes, you can shield natural thorium with tinfoil, but look at its heat release rate! The classical thorium cycle involves 'breeding' Th-232 to Th-233 with neutron flux ... but that involves much more shielding. As does the subsequent energy extraction out of the Th-233 decay. It's attractive to design cycles that involve only charged particles (no primary gamma) and I'm sure erikem can explain why these are desirable for power generation -- albeit electrical generation, not just thermal release -- but implementing these on locomotives is not cost-effective, and I don't think ever will be made cost-effective. (We could discuss aspects of nuclear safety on reciprocating steam locomotives, but there isn't much point!)
I do know in Northern Maine where paper mills once thrived on the Bangor and Aroostook railroad, they now make Bio Coal from wood pulp. It's called Thermogen.
This is an example of a torrefied fuel, similar to what the Project 130 people are doing. It's primarily intended at present as an additive that improves aspects of bituminous-coal combustion -- not as a fuel in its own right (although it is substantially carbon-neutral once production has ramped up).
It would be interesting to see a detailed comparison between what's required to burn anthracite vs. various levels of torrefied product on a reciprocating locomotive. I'm not sure, however, that either would represent a practical alternative, let alone a cost-effective one, for a working six-coupled tank locomotive...
Take it easy Rich 'ol buddy, just trying to inject a little levity here.
At any rate, I'm not saying Steamtown has to do anything with that 4-6-4T, just loan it out to someone who will, like the thorium reactor boys.
If it glows in the dark when they get it back, well, just think how much money they'll save on exterior lighting.
Dream on. Not going to happen. Recently had a guided tour of the backshop at Steamtown.
Do a reality check. Go there for a tour and see what is needed and how expensive it is.
Forget opinions.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
You know, there's a perfectly good 4-6-4T sittling idle up at Steamtown not being used, it's been there for years, sounds like someone should go up there and have a heat-to-heart with those folks and tell them of the good they can do mankind if they hand it over for experimental purposes.
I mean, come on, THEY'RE not doing anything with it!
#114 The reactor core may be the size of a suitcase, but the shield would be much larger. FWIW, I do have a degree in Nuclear Engineering.
- Erik
#113 @ ERIKEM >>There are rectors the size of a suitcase for thorium, and have been for a few years. Aside from the "shock value" of it, the 4-6-4T loco is ideal size for new steam usage
Hooooo boy, a steam locomotive with a nuclear reactor, thorium or otherwise, rollin' down the mainline. I can't wait to hear what the NIMBY's would have to say about that one!
#111 Have you any idea of what a pain it is to develop a shield for fission spectrum neutrons that will fit in a standard loading gauge?
#110
Guess Ill add some here. For modern Passenger use , and as originally designed a 4-6-4T engine is ideal and very cost effective to build. Anthracite coal has the most BTU per ton of any carbon fuel on Earth. Adding in Uranium nitride can extract even more energy. Improving fireboxes and shakers can retain even more heat. Keeping the loco short means less wear on the tires and front trucks. Another upgrade could be to power the thing with small Thorium reactor which has been done in a car already. While not nearly as reactive as uranium, a 1lb nugget could power a 4-6-4T for 5 years in regular service under 100 miles a day.
PIc of CN 4-6-4T , only one in the world left
https://www.flickr.com/photos/milantram/3857122462/in/photostream/
There was a university trying to retrofit a Steamer for biomass a few years ago. I do know in Northern Maine where paper mills once thrived on the Bangor and Aroostook railroad, they now make Bio Coal from wood pulp. Its called Thermogen. While it would be interesting to see how it "stacks up" to real Anthrcite coal, its main market is overseas as they can afford to have the stuff made.
#109
Juniatha Overmod : ohh-kayii , if you insist on it : por favor would you mind to specify about your smaller wheel diameter was it - -a- meant to go with same dxs cylinders , same bp - or -b- with reduced bp or / and stroke according to reduced wheel diameter ?
Overmod : ohh-kayii , if you insist on it : por favor would you mind to specify about your smaller wheel diameter was it -
-a- meant to go with same dxs cylinders , same bp - or
-b- with reduced bp or / and stroke according to reduced wheel diameter ?
As a merely illustrative example, and moreover only an analogy, it really doesn't matter other than 'smaller' (essentially meaning higher cyclic at a given road speed). As you and I agree that using the example of a Q2 means nothing in the modern context; the bore, stroke, and probably pressure and steam-circuit for a new locomotive would be designed to suit the chosen wheel diameter. Long-term strength of the wheel center, especially at the axle and pin fits, and adequate securement of the balance masses, would have a great deal to do with determination of the 'most effective' range of "lower" driver diameters.
(On a Q2 I think I'd reduce both bore and stroke on both engines, with the rough expectation of keeping the mass flow the 'same' at a given road speed, and use full lightweight rods and valve gear; it would remain to be seen whether derating the boiler pressure, building new boiler shells, etc. would have benefited a Q2 as much as a Niagara. But none of this properly belongs in this thread.)
With regard to the 4-4-0: might I suggest the Schools class as a pretty good starting point? We even had Repton here as a potential guinea pig (or firsthand source of dimensions) -- but she is now safely home and away from us "improvers"!
Hi Ulrich
oh , hey - well that's something ! cute-nice for a small haul tourists line for example .
Yet , I'd like to see a 'modernized' 4-4-0 built with Walschaerts and piston valves for high superheating - *gee* - possibly oil-fired - or actually LNG-fired , too .. 2000 ihp straight from the cylinders , chee-chee-chee ..
Guys
Whatever the speed limit was and whatever actual speeds or 'speeding' in this case , this is topical of PRR train handling and since PRR steam traction has long since ended and the RR itself has long since ceased to exist for sure this is *not* topical in this thread .
?
But remember that for many years speed limits on the PRR were truly a legal fiction, with T-1's being goosed up to 120mph on passenger trains and freigihts behind M-1 4-8-2's regularly hitting 70mph beween Crestline, Fort Wayne, and Valpariso. And everyone knew what was going on; it wasn't really a secret.
#105
Juniatha ... to me it seems hard to see what "smaller drivers on a Q2 for better service on PRR" [has] to say for operation of classic type steam locomotives in the 21st century ?
This was in reference to the idea of operating steam for freight service, rather than special passenger or enthusiast runs.
PRR had a relatively low freight speed limit, as noted, and more people than I have commented that locomotives with smaller drivers would have made good sense given that constraint. However, transitioning to 21st-Century conditions, there are many cases in modern railroading where restricted speed (say, to 45 mph) is adequate to requirements, particularly if 'one-speed' operation around that speed can be provided.
Given that restriction in road speed, shifting the HP peak of the locomotive to fall no higher than the desired range seems sensible, and one good way to achieve this is to reduce driver diameter, ceteris paribus (assuming, of course, that augment and inertia forces are controlled even at highest service speed). This is also likely to increase acceleration rate over a wide range of service speeds.
That's really all the PRR reduced-driver-size comment was intended to refer to, in context. It was intended analogically, rather than literally.
Getting back to the original posting, I think future efforts should focus on the smaller 4-4-0 engines. They are much smaller and more versatile than the larger engines, but just as impressive. They're also cheaper to build and run than, say, a Big Boy. There's a guy in IL by the name of David Kloke who has built a couple of examples brand new. Beautiful engines.Google David Kloke if you haven't already done so... his craftsmanship is something to behold.
Juniatha Hello folks , dunno - to me it seems hard to see what "smaller drivers on a Q2 for better service on PRR" (oops ??? - at 69 " they already were smaller than those of the N&W A which obviously had no trouble with 70 ") and "CANOLA OIL" ( my goodness ) have to say for operation of classic type steam locomotives in the 21st century ? = J =
Hello folks ,
dunno - to me it seems hard to see what "smaller drivers on a Q2 for better service on PRR" (oops ??? - at 69 " they already were smaller than those of the N&W A which obviously had no trouble with 70 ") and "CANOLA OIL" ( my goodness ) have to say for operation of classic type steam locomotives in the 21st century ?
Well I have to say it's better than to leave the thing to rust out by some park or other.
locobasede # 2 Finally, I'd really like to see a truly clean-burning coal-fired design, or maybe we could get McDonald's to sponsor one fueled used french-fry oil.
# 2
Finally, I'd really like to see a truly clean-burning coal-fired design, or maybe we could get McDonald's to sponsor one fueled used french-fry oil.
Out in Colorado, they have an old steamer running on CANOLA OIL!!! Believe it or not, it's true. This reminded me of the McDonald's french-fry grease thing, because the crew often describes the scent of the burning oil as "French-Fry scented". Just thought that should be thrown out for my own purposes.
#100
I just HAD to have #100.
This comment deserved more attention and respect than it seems to have gotten so far.
JuniathaClassic steam invariably tended towards speed to unreel power – that would still even more be true if really up to date classic steam locomotive types were to be built : most all advance in power would go into speed – so , a hypothetical railroad returning to steam on account of “ Hey , we have coal available in abundance , we want to get rid of the oil price lottery and we are prepared to spend some fuel on somewhat reduced thermal efficiency – not downright low as it was back then !” would have to turn to a dramatically different way of rolling their tonnage – rolling is the word ! rolling thunder it would have to be , avoiding extreme tonnage , freight trains would pass at sustained 60 – 80 mph on trackage of mint alignment , GPS overviewed and signaled to run at incessant follow-up succession with conveyer-belt reliability and precision . Overall tonnage delivered every 24 hours could unquestionably be fully up to diesel traction and competitive in a traffic shifting sense .
Wardale, in the Red Devil book, goes to some length about how the ACE efforts 'should' have been directed toward producing peak locomotive power in the appropriate speed range for the anticipated traffic. It is perfectly practical to design freight power to 'peak' in the 45-to-55 mph range required for current coal-train service, and get faster and prompter acceleration in the process. Would that not provide locomotives better suited to modern operating conditions in the United States?
Some of the discussion involving the duplex-drive Q2s indicated that a smaller driver diameter would have been a substantial improvement, given existing PRR operations. That is just one example of how optimization for slower average freight operations might be made. Not that I'd object to faster operations!
For an interesting 'take' on this operating concept, see the post on 'future railroading' that Don Oltmann put up in his blog, referenced in the post over in General Discussion on "PTC + ECP + DPU - Coal + Intermodal = ?"
#99
This (#98) raises an interesting question that was not really part of the original thread (Juniatha has other threads, of considerable interest, regarding advanced steam concepts, which should also be bumped!) This one involves, as the previous post (#97) addressed, operation of legacy locomotives in modern conditions.
I suspect #1 is not a particularly good option in any legacy context, and particularly for any locomotive retaining a water-leg firebox without active circulation. Thermodynamically, of course, increased pressure is an advantage -- just a relatively minor one for typical locomotive operations, and at a relatively outsized maintenance (and, pun intended, insurance) premium.
Most of the issues with higher pressure are not directly related to riveted construction, so while all-welded construction with any cost-effective modern steel would help somewhat, it's not likely to be enough. We could take up the interesting discussions concerning best staybolt practice (for example, welded a la Tross, with the inside sheet profiled following the bending-moment diagram) but that is really more of a discussion for modern steam technology, not historic preservation.
#2 -- most of the late European improvements went in the opposite direction; the 242 A1, for example, had a four-wheel trailing truck just for weight-distribution reasons. As it happens, I support the idea of large grate area on some types of modern locomotive, but in all probability anything non-articulated will be perfectly satisfactory with no more than a four-wheel trailing truck. I have not run calculations on the mass distribution for the double-Belpaire boiler, but I doubt that with modern axle loading and wheel steels it would be high enough to mandate an extra trailing-truck axle over what would otherwise be needed, even with all the mass of the syphons in addition to Cunningham circulators.
#3 -- Can you be more specific about what you mean by 'better', with examples?
I, personally, still like the idea of poppet valves, and as it turns out most of the 'bugs' in the detail design of the Franklin System appear to have been resolved as early as 1948. On the other hand, `there is a great deal of specialized construction required to implement and to maintain a poppet-valve (or even a drop-valve) setup, even before we start the discussion on continuous-contour RC cams in a locomotive environment. I think it is notable that David Wardale is a proponent of improved piston valves (with radial drive) even in an era of sophisticated and easily-CAD/CAMmed and lost-foam-cast poppetry.
Uniflow has a long and fairly disastrous history in locomotive practice, and there is in my opinion little to recommend its adoption in any modern locomotive. About the only detail that bears copying is the self-aligning LP seat on the Skinner Unaflows with LP poppets ... and that does not relate to the exhaust method. In order to get the compression anywhere near where it needs to be for high-speed running, you need auxiliary exhaust ports -- which probably need to have both timing and duration separate from the inlet valves. You have added a very long piston, acting entirely as reciprocating mass, which makes balance a problem, acting in a very long cylinder casting, which will probably increase locomotive length and complicate the design and implementation of the leading truck.
Uniflow makes much better sense if you are building something like a Paget locomotive, or one of the flavors of motor-locomotive. But that is not what most of the locomotives concerned in the present thread would be using...
#4 -- I happen to agree in principle with this, in at least two ways. I was a strong supporter of Alan Fozard's Turbomotive 2 proposal, back around the turn of the millennium, and I have done some careful initial research into the PRR V1 turbine (which started as a noncondensing locomotive with two mechanical-drive turbines, and then was to be given a variant of the Bowes ship drive.
Again, these would involve significant cost and eliminate some of what makes the steam locomotive attractive to enthusiasts -- in the case of the V1, most of it. The big issue is the effective water rate, which even with the implicit multiple-stage 'compounding' implicit in multistage reaction turbines, is excessively high at low to moderate speeds (if some variable-speed transmission isn't used). This is one area where the Bowes drive can help considerably... just not enough to make up any flexibility difference between the turbine and a good positive-displacement expander.
I won't take up the effectiveness of attempting to condense the exhaust from a 4000-hp-plus locomotive, except to note that railfans aren't likely to favor the result with their fantrip dollars for very long. You'd probably be better off by improving the Rankine-cycle efficiency of conventional locomotives, and use multiple auxiliary tenders.
#5. Every time this has been tried on a locomotive, sooner or later there will be a critical-mixture explosion. Everybody knows explosion doors don't work. It's cute to call a delayed-ignition event a 'puff' but its sequelae on the road aren't going to be quite as containable as they are in a stationary plant. And all this before we get into what happens when the pulverizer jams, or the hot-air feed stops working properly, or the flameholding cuts out, or the balance between forced and induced draft goes transiently out of whack...
PC firing is a comparatively advanced technology, as is the incorporation of torrefied and other biomass fuels, and steam injection to reduce NOx (with a long enough, or effective enough, gas path). The issue is that applying it, PRACTICALLY, to a locomotive expected to earn its keep and not fail on the road even under potentially severe conditions, is not easy, and other alternatives are in my opinion far superior.
#6 -- the issue with the coal turbine was never that separation could not be made effective; it was that 'outliers' in particle size, either from improper crushing or ash aggregation, could not be separated within the available packaging dimensions and with the required TOF of the particles at locomotive firing rates. If you can be specific about how the Shell separators have addressed either of these concerns (and especially if you will provide the patent reference for them) it would be a great help to me. I do have to suspect that if you reduce one of Shell-s separators to the dimensions required in a coal-turbine combustor, and then apply the required firing rate to it, there may be... concerns.
Meanwhile, how were you going to solve the particular problems with ash on the 'other end' of a coal turbine? The ash on the B&W boiler in the N&W TE-1 was already notable as having an irritating 'fines' content (according to Louis Newton, who should know); a high-throughput combustor (with corresponding very high volume of exhaust gas at high speed), even if you posit the advantage of some kind of Rankine-cycle bottoming, is still going to cause some containment difficulties on something the size and dimension of a practical road locomotive.
Many of us here are well aware of solutions and technologies in other industries, and have been for decades. The absence of what appears to be innovative proposals does not mean the absence of knowledge, or the existence of hide-bound conservatism and rejection of modern technology and engineering practices (insert other condemnation as appropriate! ;-} ). I have repeatedly found, however, that where an apparently attractive technology has remained unused, there are usually either practical or economic reasons... and often, both.
Railroads pose special design conditions, and not only because of the kind of people and problems involved with them. Be sure that when you design for them, the result is going to be effective in their specific context.
My last should have been #97
#98
On the other end of the spectrum, whatever comes out need to move in the direction of:
1. Seriously higher boiler pressure
2. X-X-6: six wheels under the firebox
3. Better steam distribution: better valve gear, uni-flow path for reciprocating
4. Move toward turbines. Ships did it. Locomotives need to as well, whether direct connected or otherwise.
5.Use of powdered coal similar to coal fired utilities using high tech air mixing nozzles.
6. The coal-fired "gas" turbine is no longer out of the question now that the Shell-patented separators are allowing power recovery trains from catalytic cracker blow-downs.
I find too many people involved here in thinking within the railroad box and not aware of other industries.
Steve
A look at what has actually been going on where the original was to be duplicated may provide a glimpse. Climax #6 on the White Mountain Central will be case in point.
This 50 ton B-B Climax locomotive was built in 1920 as the last piece of motive power for the Beebe River Railroad and used to log some of the very last virgin spruce stands in New Hampshire. It was run until the gears would hardly mesh and was put away in 1927. It was purchase at scrap price in 1950 as the first of a series of geared and rod locomotives and was steamed after 30 years on Christmas Day of 1957. The White Mountain Central was created the next year but this engine was not put to use immediately. But as traffic increased first the 25ton 0-4-0T Porter was replaced with a completely rebuilt 35ton Heisler and when trains got up to 5 cars, the Climax gears were replaced. This continued until a few years ago when it became obvious that the boiler needed serious repair. The owners looked carefully at the impact to their mainstay motive power and decided on total replacement of the boiler rather than repair. A couple of years later the engine's crankshaft failed and had to be replaced. In each case the replacement was clearly higher quality even though it was as close to a duplicate as possible.
This locomotive and its current engineer have been together many times more than the years spent in its original purpose. But there is the constant possibility that increasingly tightened regulations may force and end to this tourist railroad that is a sort of operating logging museum.
# 96
Hi NorthWest
Though I don't have specific data on what the agreed maximum was for powered axle load , I would roughly put it in the vicinity of 80000 lb . Again without specific information , it would appear many railroads have since eased down on maximum axle loads since it had proven in early dieselization it was not advisable to load small diesel wheels the same as larger drive wheels in steam locomotives and then without the 'introducing' lighter loaded leading idler axles of steam locomotives . So , to be sure I would still want to aim at 66000 lb , preferably lower , in a today's classic steam locomotive design .
View on permissible axle loads was largely differing in the US from what was - still is - practice in Europe : while in the US it would appear many RRs permitted high loads on drive wheels of large steam locomotives - then again presenting a considerable congregate vehicle mass - while permitting much lower loads on freight car and passenger coaches axles - or was it simply for freedom of exchange and universal reach ? can't imagine that was the only reason - in Europe what axle load was permitted was permitted if you want from first to last axle in a train - no extra allowance for steam , much as steam designers would have liked it and may have envied their American colleagues !
Presently , although much of mainline track is laid with 43 lb / ft rail and on very solid banquette with steel reinforced concrete sleepers , continuously welded of course , general axle load limit is 22.5 t [metric] i e 50400 lb .
Still, that seems enough for railways having virtually banned six axle electrics not just from construction but from rosters , meanwhile . In the Sixties , every national railway that was asking plenty of power from their modern electric traction had to have their Co-Co types – Austrian ÖBB for the Alpine mainlines , obviously , same with the Swiss SBB-CFF including Bo-Bo-Bo variations , W-German DB with their 150 class freight , then when they introduced 200 km/h service the w/a went express power , too ; likewise Co-Co electrics roamed the French SNCF , naturally in various variations ( shortest joke on locomotive standardization , just one word : SNCF ! ok , could be spelled DBAG , too , these days ) Now , there is but one w/a ruling and that is the universal Bo-Bo type .
Classic steam invariably tended towards speed to unreel power – that would still even more be true if really up to date classic steam locomotive types were to be built : most all advance in power would go into speed – so , a hypothetical railroad returning to steam on account of “ Hey , we have coal available in abundance , we want to get rid of the oil price lottery and we are prepared to spend some fuel on somewhat reduced thermal efficiency – not downright low as it was back then !” would have to turn to a dramatically different way of rolling their tonnage – rolling is the word ! rolling thunder it would have to be , avoiding extreme tonnage , freight trains would pass at sustained 60 – 80 mph on trackage of mint alignment , GPS overviewed and signaled to run at incessant follow-up succession with conveyer-belt reliability and precision . Overall tonnage delivered every 24 hours could unquestionably be fully up to diesel traction and competitive in a traffic shifting sense . It would involve more personnel overall – yet if you have a busy line connection and you’d attract good customers by consistently doing top service : you can’t save as much as you can earn more by a clever business concept …
#95
Ref #86:
Juniatha About the Allegheny : Today very much the same engine - boiler dimensions , pressure , cylinders d x s , drive wheel diameter et all - could be manufactured to about 24 - 26 t axle load limit while the original's was 39 t [metric each] . Yet , that would inevitably affect the engine's adhesion limit tractive effort , same cylinder tractive effort notwithstanding . Or in other words - it would tend to become rather a very powerful and big passenger train engine - especially if steam circuits would be revised ...
About the Allegheny :
Today very much the same engine - boiler dimensions , pressure , cylinders d x s , drive wheel diameter et all - could be manufactured to about 24 - 26 t axle load limit while the original's was 39 t [metric each] . Yet , that would inevitably affect the engine's adhesion limit tractive effort , same cylinder tractive effort notwithstanding . Or in other words - it would tend to become rather a very powerful and big passenger train engine - especially if steam circuits would be revised ...
True...though I would just advocate bringing the weight down to what they were *supposed* to be when built. (Anyone know what that was? I remember there was a scandal when they were overweight...)
Although, intermodal trains, like some of BNSF's UPS Z trains, run consistently at 79MPH. So, once you got it started, would a big passenger engine be not so bad?
# 94
Note the exposed firebox, like I wish to do to your and Dryfuss' J3a. And the runningboard straight to the front steps.
#93
Juniatha, thanks for the link! They actually did a good job with the opening animation, I was expecting something more along the lines of Stephenson Valve Gear when I opened the link .
About your locomotive revisions-what software are you using?
Thanks
NW
# 92
Albums - Ok , now I see why I didn't know them :
Commodores - commonly not played on my table ;
VanHalen - Jeezus , uhm , yeah - uuh- no , thanks !
btw that's a real weird version of an X-whatever typo loco , see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMkFmc1_90E
( sorry , never mind in case they should be your favorites )
We don't disagree on the dual headlight - it was sarcasm allegedly it wold have lead to the dual headlight on later sedans - of which one at least *was* in fact named LTD ( Ford ) and thus seems to have closed the cycle - *g*
#91
The albums:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movin%27On(Commodores_album
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Different_Kind_of_Truth
I guess we'll have to disagree on the Niagara late sealed beam headlights, they just say "diesel switcher" to me (picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_Niagara_1.jpg)
The T1c looks great, thanks for eliminating that horrid running board step!
# *90*
>> that's probably a part of why a picture of one is on two album covers..<<
Oops ? which one's ?
Niagara dual headlights : .. and they were *so* "showing the way" ( ALCO advertising ALCO ) towards beloved typical American automobile twin headlights on Mopar , Ford and Giant Mommy full size sedans of the late 1950s through '60s and '70s ..
Here's another one of my T1 variations , T1c , again in a twilight of steam 'ingloomination' when great engines became heroic as they kept soldiering on through increasingly adverse times ...
Side remark : light setting may or may not accord with actual exposition of Englewood - however point is the setting-sun evening light *as such* symbolizing transition in a more metaphysical way
With regards
#89
Juniatha, amazing work!
I kind of like the fin, that's probably a part of why a picture of one is on two album covers...
The unstreamlined Hudsons are also good lookers, well proportioned, and with perfect headlight placement (unlike the Niagaras...that later sealed beam headlight is awful...and its position on the front...imho the NYC should have followed the Hudsons' looks.)
Ooooooo, the Hudson Valley with a Hudson rolling along it! That's the Bear Mountain Bridge in the background. I walked it many years ago hiking the Appalachian Trail, it's one of the few bridges in the US with a pedestrian toll, ten cents as I recall.
A very historic area, to the right and out of view were the sites of two Revolutionary War forts, Forts Clinton and Montgomery. They protected the original chain stretched across the Hudson River that was placed to prevent the British navy from penetrating the Hudson Highlands. The chain was just about where the bridge is now. The British took both forts after a sharp fight in October of 1777, broke the chain and let it drop to the river bottom, where it lies to this day.
Beautiful country up that way, especially when the leaves are beginning to turn as they are in the painting. More a fijord than a river the Hudson's been called "Americas Rhine". I've never been to the Rhine but one of my uncles crossed it in 1945, although he wasn't there sightseeing, if you know what I mean.
Hey, what's wrong with the nose fin on the Dreyfuss? I LIKE the nose fin on the Hudson! Anyone who doesn't like the Dreyfuss Hudson probably doesn't like chocolate ice cream either!
Juniatha >> "it's still rock and roll to me..." << I’ve heard this song before - only , who's the singer ?
>> "it's still rock and roll to me..." <<
I’ve heard this song before - only , who's the singer ?
Billy Joel
@ NorthWest / CSSHEGEWISCH
# 85
K4sPRR
Daveklepper
>> The nose "fin" is like a girl with a ring in her nose. Unnatural. Why hide the tender trucks if you are exposing the drivers? Why follow the angle of the bottom of the firebox, looks out of place with all the horizonta lines. <<
Can’t see the analogy – a vertical fin is like a horizontal ring ? a big machete-like sickle is like a tiny hanger ?
In medieval times , dancing bears were shown around wearing a leash ring through the nose – I don’t understand people wearing something akin to that in their face for everybody to see .
What the Dreyfuss sickle reminds me of is an ancient Roman Empire soldier’s helmet ( casque ) – I had earlier written about it already , if in a sarcastic way ; like the pyramids both side of the Atlantic Ocean – in ancient Egypt and in Middle-America – sickled casques both sides the Atlantic might be taken ( or mistaken ?) as an indication there *has been* an island of Atlantis in antediluvian times – *g* . However , in fact it took up the way the Iroquois warriors had their hair cut and since they had been living in those eastern areas it may really be seen as a revenant in certain ways . It was thus quite a martial attribute and as such quite in contrast to a thing like a nose ring . It very well complimented the ‘skyline’ casing on the boiler and in a bold yet logic form provided to it a start up at the front end .
Hiding the tender trucks seems something that came handy and obviously was an effort to sort of ‘amalgamate’ the tender with the train . Note : so often in graphics steam locomotives are depicted without a tender at all , the – mostly pretty open – cab being right in front of the leading car . It seems to have been an ideal for designers ever since to ‘do away’ with that ‘thing’ , at least to make it disappear from view , see the Century stripes on tender sides but not on engne valances . The theme of emphasizing on the large powered wheels and rods yet silently letting carrying wheels slip into oblivion was taken up with the paint scheme first of all – the idea had been kind of suggested by engine design since at least the trailing carrying wheels were largely hidden behind truck frame and so were the tender wheels .
The shape of these side valances on the engine was quite ingenious to me as it repeated in a snappy stylish way the shape and position of firebox and combustion chamber – just ever so slightly over-emphasizing on it , promoting the character of increased power contained in this engine as compared with previous Hudson types .
I have modified an already quite cute view of a Dreyfuss Hudson on depot track , mainly extending the Twentieth Century sides stipes over the engine valances and taking away some of the tender skirting . Also , I colorized the b&w in a quasi-solarization illumination reflective style ...
However , if you ask me all was well with the regular Hudson :
( name of painter presently unknown , I will try to find out ; colors and angles improved by =J=
# 84
JuniathaI think folks parted into Dreyfuss and Loewy supporters the way they parted into Beatles / Rolling Stones fans
Not really...."it's still rock and roll to me..."
# 83
daveklepper What I don't like about the Dryfuss J3A. The nose "fin" is like a girl with a ring in her nose. Unnatural. Why hide the tender trucks if you are exposing the drivers? Why follow the angle of the bottom of the firebox, looks out of place with all the horizonta lines.
What I don't like about the Dryfuss J3A. The nose "fin" is like a girl with a ring in her nose. Unnatural. Why hide the tender trucks if you are exposing the drivers? Why follow the angle of the bottom of the firebox, looks out of place with all the horizonta lines.
Your nose ring analogy makes me wonder if, in the unlikely event a new design 21st century steam locomotive design is built (a la the 5AT), it should have a "nose fin" as way to attract the under 30 crowd to the joys of railfanning..
After all, nose rings are perfectly natural to them...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
# 82
#81
CSSHEGEWISCH #80 Alleghenies were noted for their very high axle loads (snipped)
#80
Alleghenies were noted for their very high axle loads (snipped)
True, sadly. But, today, do we have any lighter alloys to possibly make a new one less heavy?
Alleghenies were noted for their very high axle loads and as such would be probably even more restricted than a Big Boy over where they could run. That being said, it would be interesting to see them in intermodal service and showing off their design capabilities beyond dragging 160 cars of coal to Lake Erie.
# 79
Ok , K4SPRR
thanks for reply , I accept your 'revision' -
and : no insult intended , neither .
As for the Dreyfuss J-3a : I feel the design was quite good in that it did not conceal the fact it was a steam locomotive - only objectionable thing to me would be cover over tender bogies making tender somewhat bulkier than it needed to be ...
I think folks parted into Dreyfuss and Loewy supporters the way they parted into Beatles / Rolling Stones fans and do part into 'Beamer' and Mercedes drivers or what have you ... well , as long as we can smile about ourselves being like it , it's half bad .
NorthWest
>> How about steaming up a 2-6-6-6? It would be fun to see what she would do with today's stack trains...<<
Oh-yeah - would be great , no doubt !
#78
On the 21st Century steam developments, C&O 1309 may be rebuilt to run on the Western Maryland Scenic!
How about steaming up a 2-6-6-6? It would be fun to see what she would do with today's stack trains...
Juniathaoriginal Loewy design theme around the front end
I was comparing it to more than just your reference to the front end, if you had read my post you would have noted the word "revisions". Certainly no offense was intended as I did mention how more sleek it looked and unfortunately it could not retain such on the actual locomotive. Yes, I read it...OK...move on.
# 76
@ K4SPRR
To quote from my post # 70 : „I have tried to stay with the original Loewy design theme around the frontend ..”
To quote from your post # 75 : >> The revisions are reminisent of Loewy's original conceptual design ..<<
Now , what a surprise ! it is reminiscent of Loewy’s when I intended to stay close to Loewy’s .
However I guess you didn’t bother to read the explanatory notes anyways , never mind , it's ok .
# 75 ( ref #70)
The revisions are reminisent of Loewy's original conceptual design of the T-1, application of some of the appliances and the PRR proposed changes took away the more sleek look. The sleek design is more appealing as in your touchup. The side mounted keystone near the front cylinder looks out of place, also it would be too close to the keystone mounted on the front. Suggest moving it back more in the area of the cab, tender or eliminated.
The crew would appreciate your moving the cab back, the less bulkhead the better...more room as you suggested, and in cab overheating. Some locomotive designs were tough on the crew as they vertually sat along side the firebox
The impressive Dryfuss NYC Hudson, as suggested, could use some work to be more complimentary of the unique nose job. You see this distinctive mod front then suddenly the drivers on it appear they stick out like a girl with knobby knee's in a mini-skirt. Curious to see how you would blend it all together.
# 74
Clean up the Dreyfuss J-3a's? I dont think there's much to clean up Dave, except maybe some of the external plumbling on the port side, and maybe that had to be left exposed for a good reason.
Personally, I LIKE the Dreyfuss Hudsons as they are, but if they're not to your taste that's OK, that's what makes a horse race, as they say. Then again I liked the T-1 as it was until I saw Juniatha's face-lift of the same, so you could be right.
# 73
Great job, Now clean up the Dryfuss Century J-3a's!
# 72
Juniatha!!! The T2a is beautiful! Amazing. That made my day.
JuniathaI have done away with the outboard frames bogie
Thank you! After seeing pictures of the SAR 520s, I've wondered why they chose the outside frame...IMHO every engine looks better with an inside frame front truck (if two axle).
These are wonderful. Your photograph wizardry is some of the best I've seen. Beautiful. If only...
# 71
I flipped back and forth several times between the pictures of your postulated T-1's and the original. You know what? Yours look a lot better, more balanced, more harmonious, and there's no reason it wouldn't have worked, not that I can see. Aeronautical engineers have a saying which I'm sure you know, "If it looks good, it'll fly good!", and your T-1's certainly look like flyers.
Seems odd to say, but the original has kind of a stumpy, cluttered look compared to your remodels.
Young lady, you were born too late. Had you lived in the 1940's you might have saved steam!
Well, maybe some racing stripes on the remodels would look cool, but thet may be going too far!
# *70*
Hi everybody
Here is my pixure from my ‘Steam we haven’t Seen’ series – this time again a study on the Pennsylvania T1 Duplex . I know , some would say "ah but this belongs to 'the other' thread !" - yet while I could have done that , I see this more as a proposal to possible ventilating a new built T-class Duplex when contemplating to make up for major loco classes lost in the years of heedless transition ..
T1b :
I have done away with the outboard frames bogie and repositioned the first set of cylinder blocks so we have two identical drive sets as I have commented before I prefer for dual drive set locomotives ( or multi-set , to be sure )
The resultant position of the hind bogie axle between-below cylinders had been realized by the deGlehn Atlantics and others ; without having made an exact study on track conditions prevalent of the Pennsy mainlines I think it should not present a problem especially with cast steel engine bed as they had it where cylinder-to-frames connection is a consistent one and the cylinders are of small diameter with the Duplex and 300 psi b.p. notably since the rear wheels of the bogie are positioned slightly in advance of cylinders while in the deGlehn Atlantics and 4-6-0s they had been directly underneath them .
The firebox appears to be large – yet at closer look you will see it’s mainly the cab has been repositioned to the rear to have more space for the crew with less intruding boiler back side .
The tender – as I had written at various points before – has been lightened to fit on 2 x 6 wheel bogies , mass saving coming not just from somewhat smaller water & coal compartments but at least as much by doing away with the heavy cast steel water bottom frame in favour of a self-supporting uni-body structure with but a light backbone to take up longitudinal positive / negative traction / mass surge forces .
The lower supplies should be made up by more efficient combustion ( no prolonged running under black smoke ribbon , generally white or light grey trail of steam ) and low ssc ( specific steam consumption ) by really linking up without fear of loosing effective draughting as was the case in the T1 as built – quite in contradiction to expansion rates aimed at with application of poppet valve gear .
Doing away with the lateral water pockets making the original tender sides reach down makes the tender *look* much lighter with but a small loss of water capacity . With the uni-body design a smooth , rounded-edged bottom of water tank would be preferable to the rather cleft bottom as built which was more prone to rust consumption and clogging up by residue deposits from standing water .
I have tried to stay with the original Loewy design theme around the front end yet have aimed at lightening the rather bulky lower casing which so contrasts with the exceedingly slender looking boiler front wedge , at the same time providing optical logic to its shape which in my view it partly lacks in its original form . The air pumps I have repositioned sideways above the bogie , there is a little edge showing behind the lower edge of the front casing , the shape-disturbing ‘horns’ in that casing have thus disappeared , the shape of the casing is harmonized with the smoke box wedge in that latter now stands free of the upward angle of steps to running board .
T2a :
Since I was at it , I gave it a second thought , re-installing the original express duplex wheel diameter of 84 ins and accordingly lengthening the engine in this section . 5 % larger wheels may not sound sensational , yet it eases rpm mass inertia by 10 % for any given speed and that does make a difference at 100 mph plus .
If you ask me , the 84 ins wheel sets look more express-like and are more up to the still largish tender proportions , making the whole locomotive more harmonious in appearance .
Oh , and for sure I would have applied *effective* load balancing between drive sets and make sure I have a well adapting engine suspension in front bogie and rear truck , too , ensuring equal and constant adhesion mass on both sets at all times - complete with effective sanding to all powered wheels .
T1 as built , same view for comparison :
Facing the inevitable “dig it – original is best!” comment , yet hoping for some deeper contemplations , too ..
# 69
Uhm .. one thing that came to mind about those cast steel one piece engine beds complete with cylinders and brackets et all : this was a specially developed technology later lost , it was sort of a craftsmanship not unlike bell casting in special foundries yet demanding special skills in founding and venting these extra large pieces . This is one thing not easy to repeat - question is if it has to : the European counterpart had been fully welded frames structure - as I had posted those drawings - that could provide a way to obtain a principally equivalent structure , and likely it would be lighter for same sturdiness , although characteristics somewhat differ from the inherently very stiff , very rigid cast steel structure - not necessarily a disadvantage since large cast one piece structures tend to developing cracks in consequence of irregular tension or stress while a welded structure made up of relatively mild steel will be more forgiving by elastic bending or - if overloaded - plastic deformation , which still would be better to repair .
Also , a welded structure made up of cut out plain steel plates can easily be manufactured as a one-off piece without high first costs such as with casting .
Consequent question about normalizing such large structures ( this also applies to fully welded boilers ) : it simply wasn't done when building the fully welded boilers and frames structures of DB / DR 1950s standard steam loco types - and in contrary to what should have been expected it didn't prove a problem ( there sure must have been adjustments made in vehicle setup , though , during the settling period while normalizing out in service while boilers seem to have normalized pretty well enough and progressively under the alternating hot & cold service circles )
( .. and next : another one from my 'Steam we haven't Seen' pixures series coming up )
# 68
( # 67 : Harald & Wolf )
Hmm - well , at least a steam locomotive shouldn't sink .. except for they had violated axle load limits by a most exceedingly excessive exaggeration and it leaving concrete it would go on a journey to the muddle of the earth ..
sending you
a choo-ey-choo
#67
Hi Juniatha! A SHIPYARD! Dammit, why didn't I think of that? Me with a shelf full of ship books, including one on modern sail with photos of some of those very ships you mentioned.
Of course a ship yard. they can do large steel castings, form and weld heavy gauge steel, they know boilers, all they need should be the plans.
The only shipyard here in the US I know of is Newport News Shipbuilding, they build carriers for the Navy. There's another yard in Pascagoula Mississippi but the name escapes me. I'm sure there's others here in the US.
And of course there's good old Harland and Wolf of Belfast. There was nothing wrong with the "Titanic" when she left Harland and Wolf, that's for certain!
# 66
( # 65 )
Well ..
ship builders could ...
Some time in 1992 ( or was it 93 / 94 ?) a friend of mine had ontacted the Polish ship builders at Gdanska , the shipyard Lech Walesa had come from , the founder of Solidarnosc and later Polish minister president . At the Stocznia Gdańska he met the project manager a woman mechanical engineer who was ready and willing to build a new welded tender body and a welded frames structure for a new steam locomotive he had put up a design for to be built largely by using ( then ) existing DR standard main components , such as tender bogies , cylinders , wheel sets , Krauss-Helmholtz bogie and Adams radial axle , rods , 1960s type welded combustion chamber boiler and all the auxiliaries . This is the shipyard following Lenin shipyard , follower of the German works of Schichau who had built locomotives , too . See
http://www.gdanskshipyard.pl/en.html
they don’t mention it but they have also built new deep sea sailing ships , see
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocznia_Gda%C5%84ska
sailing ships names ( year built ) , quoted from the site :
What builder could be addressed in the US ?
#65
Hi Juniatha! Yes, that is the problem isn't it? If a replica steam engine's going to be built, I mean a BIG steam engine, a K4, a Hudson, a Niagara, just who's to build it? And where? I don't know.
Certainly there's David Kloke building his 4-4-0's. I won't say it's easy, but those are small engines, well within the capabilities of a well equipped manufacturing facility and machine shop. the big 'uns, that's another matter.
# 64
Uhm ... ok , now - shall we come back on steam ..?
I know , I can be so insisting , sometimes ...
Looking forward to some inspiring ideas on what *new* classic steam we should have build ( maybe the aircraft replica site linked to in 'the other' thread would fit here , too [ I'd like to have a DeHavilland Comet 4-4 .. *g* .. but I'm afraid they'd say "sorry , but that one's ever so slightly beyond scope" ] and where is the company to address for building replicas of most any steam someone might want ? )
#63
Remember the wise words of the late Michael Crighton, the author of "Jurassic Park:
"This earth operates on cycles Man can't possibly imagine or understand. Man can't destroy the planet, he can only destroy himself."
So pass that coal! The hot dogs are waiting!
AND I just remembered, someone a while back, I don't know who, said there's almost nothing to compare with the scent of coal smoke, hot coffee, and a good cigar, especially if you're enjoying the same in the cab of a steam engine.
# 62
on those latest deviations
That reminds me of the old joke of the comet – after having travelled far and long through space on its mysterious orbit – passing earth again after 225,000 years ..:
“Hi –”
sings comet Metabird since she speaks seven sun systems languages fluently
“– ol’blu oddball ! what’s up in this region – how are you ?”
“Uuuh-huh” makes earth hardly audible “don’t ask me , I don’t feel well ..”
“Why ?” jauntily insists the comet for she always has but moments to spend while incessantly traveling at 1/12 the speed of light
“I see you don’t look as sparkling white and blue as you did last time – what happened ?”
“Ooh-” aches earth , “I’m sick , I’ve got Homo Sapiens ! and it’s become worse recently ..”
“Ah , that one !” the comet says lightly , almost sounding relieved and adds
“Never mind , old bluball , that doesn't lasts too long – if it worsens that means it’s in it’s final stage and then it will pass by soon !” , turning her tail already flashes by the sun and into space beyond – sending an airy farewell
“So long – see you next time , bye now !” she disappears in the immense blackness of the unknown ..
#61
And you can warm a can, nicely, on the engine block. Do not, however, leave a can of baked beans on the block too long. It will open automatically and serve itself all over the inside of the hood!
But more on topic, Mr. Firelock, I am very much of the same mind as you. Man is just an annoying upstart in the worlds long history. If things get too out of kilter, the ol' globe will right her self, whether man survives the adjustment or not! So, yes, by all means throw coal on those grates! Steam generated by any other method just don't smell right! (Except maybe a good wood fire)
#60
Hi Juniatha! Let's keep in mind the ultimate advantage a coal-fired steamer has over a diesel. A diesel has no firebox you can roast hot dogs in, or a backhead you can fry bacon on!
OK, MAYBE you could fry bacon on a diesel exhaust manifold but I wouldn't guarantee the taste.
It'd be fun. I'll bring the hot dogs, the buns, the mustard and the potato chips. You bring the beer.
# 59
Well , Firelock , in the presence of N&W 611 in steam and ready to go we will agree that a little coal fire on a steam locomotive's grate won't do no harm - and if it does we're prepared to go doomsdaying and pay the price - *after the ride* , for sure .
" Now why should we have to go doomsdaying , too , with you steam buffs - all because you couldn't leave those old sooty monsters alone ! "
cry the diesel fans . And it's true , it's a shame , isn't it ...
(Who's up for # 60 ? )
#58
Ah dear lady, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the global warming thing. All I can say is the last few vocanic eruptions pumped a lot more crud into the atmosphere than man's done lately and we're still here. As I've said before I'm an amateur historian and I think I've got history on my side. Uh history, you ARE on my side, aren't you? You around? Where'd you go? Oh, back on the bookshelf with 499 of your sisters you silly little muse!
Oh, I HAVE been shot at before, but that's another story.
With Clio's complements, Wayne
# 57
answering on # 56 :I will not shoot you , Firelock , sure not , I think we all want to have you around some more - but !the consumption of oxygen by mankind due to technological heat processes as against times before technology was being developed - and that is what the bio system was balanced for ! - has been increased by some 100 times per person - plus the number of humans has multiplied by - well - just incredible and totally out of proportion . There are cities in the Third World with more inhabitants than there were .. umph , I change my example from what was on my mind .. in all of Europe just about a century or two ago .
This sort of thing cannot go on without severe consequences and in these times with peak oil past we begin to feel it - only its starting very gently , very slowly , and with all those fluctuations that had been there is still scope for denying the truth , but don't deceive yourself , we will live to see it swell to awesome and awful size and then there is no more denying .
The Titanic didn't sink in a few minutes - yet was doomed the very moment the hulk had been ripped open . Still , there was time for those who wanted to pretend everything would turn out well to keep dining , talking , promenading , taking a shower , dressing for the evening , going to bed , playing cards or what have you . All those finally woke up to the unthinkable when they saw the water trickle over the floor and never leaving no more but gaining and gaining until the last one understood it would just be the third class sinking but *all* the ship without exception .
With Kassandra's compliments
#56
I just wish people would quit pickin' on coal, the original biomass fuel, as a fuel for steam locomotives. Look, you burn the coal, boil the water, make steam, run the train. What could be more simple and "organic" than that? Who knows what kind of demons and devils are at work under the hood of a diesel? Besides, who doesn't like the smell of coal smoke? Kind of like the smell of burning leaves in autumn that everyone misses so much.
Just so everyone knows, I DO believe in global warming and climate change, there's plenty of historic and geologic evidence to show it's happened plenty of times on the past, along with global cooling. What I DON'T believe is that mankind has anything to to with what's an apparantly normal cycle for this planet. Man? Who's a pimple on the butt of the world? Please.
So shoot me.
#55
JuniathaLeave the forests alone , let the jungles live , use wind and solar energy for what have you and let us have a glimpse of steam at it's best - the dark honey is well spent on the rare bliss of it ...
Agreed!
# 54
# 53 NorthWest Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:48 PM:
>> .. but it is better than the bunker C some steamers burn. And it is cheap and in abundant supply! <<
Yep , NorthWest - and ,sorry , that's how it smells , too !
Once you have gotten a breeze of heavy bunker C oil , I think you dig pan waste - it has an air of abundance of energy and in combination with the deep base , subwoofing of the burners is *sooo* fitting for big steam - it's the completion of the warm embracing that's so thrilling about feeling a live big steam locomotives right before you !
Leave the forests alone , let the jungles live , use wind and solar energy for what have you and let us have a glimpse of steam at it's best - the dark honey is well spent on the rare bliss of it ...
#53
Firelock76 #49 As the salty old roundhouse foreman said when dieselization began: "Where you gonna get the cinders for yer yard track ballast if you stop usin' coal?"
#49
As the salty old roundhouse foreman said when dieselization began:
"Where you gonna get the cinders for yer yard track ballast if you stop usin' coal?"
52 class
>> But you knew all that, you are testing us? <<
Paul ,
I'm afraid you're so right - 'twas but a joke , though with a background I have to say , if you know which thread and issue I mean ( it's gone for good now ) ... 'twas but a friendly turn of a card ( alas , parsing the project ..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4K6j0m2mxE
..night falls over the dark roundhouses with their high windows amber glow and their sinister black steely steeds of uncanny voices .. I think it’s steam within a dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1zVojw3IkU
But what does the raven appear for ? Indeed,strange days have found us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NleFEDHmdhs
E=MD² ? Teodora singing ... ( not Russian , it's Bulgarian , I guess - they use kyrillic letters , too ; although she is Roumanian )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DsuhiQbP5A
# 51
Juniatha Btw : what do*you*mean by >> steam coal << ? Could it be coal mining by using steam pressure for fracking ? ( no , sure not , it’s carbonized steam using too much superheating and palm oil for cylinder lubrubbing – no , ‘coursenotsorry )
Btw : what do*you*mean by >> steam coal << ? Could it be coal mining by using steam pressure for fracking ? ( no , sure not , it’s carbonized steam using too much superheating and palm oil for cylinder lubrubbing – no , ‘coursenotsorry )
"Steam coal" is a slang or informal term for coal that is well-suited to combustion in a boiler, such as a steam locomotive boiler, for raising steam. An important quality is not too much ash and that the ash that is there melts at a high temperature to prevent formation of clinker. Clinker that clogs the entry of combustion air into the firebed is the bane of locomotive firemen (yes, men) of all lands and cultures. Low volatiles may help in reducing the amount of visible smoke when burnt in a locomotive boiler.
"Metalurgical coal" is probably a more technical term for coal, when made into coke, is of a satisfactory high-carbon composition and makes a fluffy coke for use in a blast furnace to make iron from iron ore. It probably needs to be low ash and the ash having a chemical composition that doesn't confound the blast furnace chemistry.
But you knew all that, you are testing us?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
***# 50***
# 46 Overmod on Wed, Aug 7 2013 5:12 PM
>> "Carbon emissions" doesn't mean sooting or smoke, it means 'containing the element carbon' <<
Well , ok – but what he *meant* was solid carbon – i.e. unburnt particles or partly burnt particles ,soot escaping the chimney and producing a cloud of smoke *as black as coal* - or .. carbon as you remarked quite rightly .
>> Interestingly, steam locomotive soot and unburnt fines represent less of a 'global warming' hazard than does gaseous CO2, and less of a health hazard than nanoparticulates in diesel exhaust... <<
That’s an important point , I fully agree with that !
#48 NorthWest on Thu, Aug 8 2013 1:01 AM
>> For carbon neutral steam ..<<
Can’t ‘believe’ in ‘carbon neutral’ combustion of carbons – *any* ( !! ) plants used for this latest fraud only grow where *other* plants had grown before which now are taken away for these ‘carbon neutral carbon production plants’ – and that’s not even accounting for carbon burnt in heat generation for processing these plants into useable oils !
#48
Yes, coal produces carbon emissions, but some is better than others. Appalachian coal is better than the lignite that UP fired their locomotives with (some say it was mostly mud!).
For carbon neutral steam, used restaurant oil is likely the best fuel.
# 47
Yep, coal has lots of carbon, and if it doesn't look like coal when you're finished with it, and you've moved a train some in the process, you have freed up tons of carbon and placed it back in nature other than as coal. Some is worse than others, but you still need to meet the calorific requirement to move train X between points A and B. That may be with 20 tons or 25 tons, but the result either way will be lots of carbon footprint. Or, emissions.
# 46
Lois -- if you fire with Pocahontas coal, the result is almost ALL carbon emissions. "Carbon emissions" doesn't mean sooting or smoke, it means 'containing the element carbon' -- which is the major constituent of any steam coal. More specifically, the emissions are carbon dioxide (complete carbon combustion) and carbon monoxide (incomplete carbon combustion, as from reducing atmosphere/insufficient O2 in the combustion plume, or early quench).
Interestingly, steam locomotive soot and unburnt fines represent less of a 'global warming' hazard than does gaseous CO2, and less of a health hazard than nanoparticulates in diesel exhaust...
#44
Firelock, alcohol is used as a fuel in model steam locomotives (most about G scale), so there is a precedent...but think of the cost of gallons per mile...
To balance out Juniatha's eastern steam power a few posts back, I propose a NP Z-6. And a rebuild of the NP 2626. What a good looking locomotive!
# 43
CSSHEGEWISCH Moonshine, or at least something close to it, is already being used as a motor fuel. It's called ethanol.
Moonshine, or at least something close to it, is already being used as a motor fuel. It's called ethanol.
C'mon man, don't over analyze this, I'm just trying to make a joke here! BTW, moonshine's got a lot more ZAP to it than plain old ethanol. Wow! Had some stuff from Georgia one time courtesy of a fellow Marine.
# 42
Hello,
Firelock76 Yes, it's a shame about the poor old S-1, a short life because someone didn't do all the math to figure out how they were going to turn the poor girl around. Still, it's hard to believe the stodgy, conservative old Pennsy put out something like that. Maybe the Worlds Fair of 1939 had something to do with it
Yes, it's a shame about the poor old S-1, a short life because someone didn't do all the math to figure out how they were going to turn the poor girl around.
Still, it's hard to believe the stodgy, conservative old Pennsy put out something like that. Maybe the Worlds Fair of 1939 had something to do with it
Firelock,
I think the 1939 fair is the exact reason she was built that long. She was the longest rigid frame locomotive ever built, and so the world record may have been more a factor in her design than practicalities like turning her...
# 41
Think small. A 2-4-2, 2-4-2T, or 0-4-4T Forney.
How about a totally radical concept?
Build a chassis with a 0-4-0 or 2-4-2T wheel arrangement. Take a 21st century industrial gas fired boiler and place it on top. Surround the boiler with an historically accurate steam dummy wooden body. When the boiler needs maintenance, pull it off and put another one on the chassis.
If fuel is a problem, use a fireless system with a storage tank instead of a boiler. You can use an electric heater, plug the locomotive in at night, and have a supply of steam ready in the morning.
Then there are compressed air locomotives....
Kevin
*# 40*
# 39
Well OK now, I've suggested waste motor oil as an alternative locomotive fuel. Too nasty some say. I thought waste vegetable oil would be a good alternative since it would leave a "French Fry" scent down the main line. No good another poster said, it still smells like any other petroleum product.
Right. Then let me suggest a resurrection of a fine old American cottage industry, centered in the Appalachian Mountain regions. That's right brothers and sisters, I'm talkin' MOONSHINE! Ever had any? Potent stuff! Trust the Firelock on this one.
As the old song goes...
"Willie the Gambler drove a '59 Rambler, each winter it'd freeze up blue!
But all last winter he went roarin' through the timber just by mixin' in some Mountain Dew!"
Hey. we want energy independence, right? Fracking's supposed to be bad, right? We've got to use something!
Juniatha made a suggestion some months ago about using "Bommerlunder" but I'm sure the Germans need all they can make over there. They've got their own steamers to worry about.
I heard they used "Bommerlunder" to fuel the Me-163 but that's another story.
# 38
Still, it's hard to believe the stodgy, conservative old Pennsy put out something like that. Maybe the Worlds Fair of 1939 had something to do with it, you know with all the futuristic stuff going on there. Mom went to the '39 Fair, well it was easy, she's a New York City girl, and she's still waiting for her personal robot! Mom says the '39 Fair was a LOT better than the one in 1964.
Ah 1939, the year movie buffs cal the "Watershed Year." More classic films were released in 1939 than any year before or since, too many to go into. Sorry, starting to drift!
It's still a pity the S-1 wasn't saved. C'est la vie.
PS: I STILL love the way it looks! Art Deco on steroids!
# 37
About Long Tall Sally-One :
Here’s Raymond the Lionlike as he admires his 'Streamline-1' ArtDeco Monster :
http://www.raymondloewy.org/gallery/vid_loc_high.html
Here’s a site with a collection of S1 photos and a so-so- text ( don’t take it too seriously ) I think she looks best on that full moon calendar painting :
http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/sunday-streamline-14-the-big
What I have always wondered about Loewy's styling is : why did Loewy make this tender engine to look like a tank engine with side tanks ? just look at these huge plain plates that cover up high wheels like an ungainly medium legth skirt : no style , no shape nor meaning , the sheets are but giant metal curtains . When in the end Crestline shop (?) had cut it all away the engine looked so much better around the dual drive sets – although the front remained a pretty messy mixture of droopy bulbous curves and short straight lines that go nowheres .
To me , this engine's contouring tells of the limits of an industrial designer’s scope to really get ‚the feeling‘ for what a steam locomotive was and what to do with given proportions and shapes of technical elements .
Good riding / derailing :
From her sheer length of engine wheel base over bogie / Delta truck she should have been a fair enough high speed straight-on runner – on the other hand , length is not all there is to high speed running and triple axle bogies are not ideal for it – at least not without some special arrangements for the middle axle . So I wouldn’t dare to say neither way …
Since she had been one of a few American loco classes having higher than 80 in drive wheels and having had power abounding she still remains my favorite for steam speed record .. if ! .. PRR would have had her in mint condition , had the straightest , level part of their Crestline – Chicago mainline refurbished to 120 plus mph mint condition and then had released her for an all power high speed run until acceleration would level out . What speed then ? .. no , you won’t read no figures from me !
The problem of derailing afaik was virulent only on the quickly laid loop at Crestline ( and probably other end of line , too ) plus a few known bad spots of sagged rail or kink in tight curve in station trackwork . To be fair , these troubles should rather be attributed to clearly inadequate quality of trackwork rather than to the engine . No question , for each and every type of locomotive adequate trackwork is indispensable , this is , has been and always will be sine qua non and applied to a plain 4-4-0 as it did to this 6-4-4-6 engine .
It would have been a great show had they stowed her away in some shed on the vast area of Altoona Works and only re-discovered her recently . However , for sure they would restore her with all those curtain plate side valances , complete with those ‚cheap thrill speed stripes‘ ( sorry Raymond ) et all . Horrible – no , I think then she’s better gone for good !
Maybe she roams the Eternal Mainlines West of steam – she was a poor wayfaring stranger while travelling through this world of woe , there is no sickness , no toil or danger in that bright land to which she’s gone .. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV4XrbiS9R0
Whatever , anyways , that would be over the rainbow :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RDmXsGeiF8
Why Eva Cassidy ? Well just listen I guess she ‚speaks‘ for herself - and btw she also performed the above song , if you prefer :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sDyE98AGzw&list=PLC89F05DF3FC1AE69
‚The best die young‘
RIP
# 36
Calling Pennsy's S-1 unreal is putting it mildly! That thing looked like something out of science fiction! It was cool though, too bad it wasn't preserved.
The S-1 WAS a good running engine, though, I've never read anything anywhere that said it wasn't. The problem was its size, just a little too big. Too big for any of the PRR's turntables and marginal on the "wyes". It frequently de-railed on wyes to the fury of the yard crews. "If this @#$%&!!! de-rails one more time!!!!!" "ARGHHHH!!!"
Too bad, the S-1 was a flyer on the Crestline racetrack.
# 35
Hi everyone,
( reply to # 34 ) The Madame Queen - ok , she was the first of the big Santa Fé engines , however the later ones were even better ...
I for one would like to see resurrected a Q2 as the best of the Duplexi and final word in PRR fast freight , of course the unreal S1 6-4-4-6 - rather than a T1 - however with certain wanting features vastly improved , the S2 with improved drive unit to improve riding and performance , lower instant steaming load when starting , and if have one more wish free : last not least a Niagara with vastly improved cylinder tribology , exhaust and draughting . It's pretty much East Coast oriented if you like - I leave it to other contributors to balance it out ... *g*
More than anything historic however I'd like to see a *well designed* *good looking* new type like one of my ...
but that's another story
#34
Firelock, an article in Trains a couple years ago indicated that the restaurant oil powered locomotives smelled just like petroleum powered steamers.
Going back to other locomotives, I would like to see a GN 2-8-8-0, or 2-6-8-0, as they were such interesting locomotives.
I would also like to see the Madame Queen restored.
# 33
Well OK, waste oil was just a shot in the dark. You can get away with it because steam locomotives are exempt from environmental smoke laws. They can put on the biggest "Burning of Rome" smoke effects, as the late lamented Lucius Beebe used to call them and there isn't a thing the most "gungi" EPA agent can do about it. Hee, hee, hee!
The waste vegetable oil? You know maybe if places like McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King and other places realized just how hungry people would get after a run-by of a steam locomotive that smells like hot French fries they'd give the waste oil away just for marketing purposes!
Now tell me there's some folks out there who can go past a MickeyD's without just TASTING those fries in their minds!
#32
Regarding # 27: If I understand correctly, you were using three mechanical speeds, rather than the diesel-hydraulic method of filling and draining torque converters. What were you using as a clutch, and what arrangements were you using for torsional shock in the driveline?
I had thought that oil firing on the A would permit some overloading of the boiler (albeit with much poorer net efficiency) to give acceleration to higher speed. But the principal difference was in the arrangement of main and side rods on the A vs. the F7 (or, come to think of it, the T1). A possible advantage here is that the main and side rod can be 'fork and blade' (with common sleeve on the pin) giving even closer and more direct transmission; it might be interesting to see how a late-Thirties implementation of lightweight rods would differ from the version installed on the As as built... but I don't think there is much question that the running gear would support very high rotational speed with lower augment than an arrangement where the main rods have to bear entirely outboard of the side rods.
I think I noted VERY carefully that I would never dare ask the people at VN to touch the 05, let alone start tinkering with it! I would deserve the bolt if I did...
With respect to #28: LNG has problems both with physical density and with heat content. For example, you will need very careful arrangements to preheat the fuel, and to keep water out of any part of the cryo arrangement especially when refueling. I believe that much of the 'practical' research into NG locomotives has concentrated on CNG for some of these reasons, although some of the hydrogen-fuel projects have gone a long way toward providing (and perhaps even to an extent costing-down) reasonably good refueling methods for cryogenics.
Perhaps interestingly, there are now a couple of multiple-reflective-shield insulation systems that make LNG storage much less difficult. But it is still NOT a particularly good fuel for firing legacy steam locomotives, in my opinion.
Waste oil is reasonable for use on cash-strapped tourist lines and the like, where the volume of combustion gas actually released does not pose a major health hazard. Some of the problems with 'pollutant' materials, like detergent constituents or additives in the original oil or contaminant materials, can be addressed by treatment at the time the waste oil is centrifugally filtered. I admit that I have a problem with the idea of burning 'run-of-sump' waste lube oil without centrifuging and treating it first.
I expect waste oil to have the same general drawback as WVO in that when demand increases, the price of the fuel (even unfiltered) goes up, and availability goes down (there are similar conditions for less-refined 'biodiesel' products suitable for external-combustion burning, and I expect them to be observed with respect to stocks for torrefied fuels when those become common).
#31
Sorry about the geared steam diversion...I had wrongfully assumed that since it was classic logging steam a larger version would be acceptable. But thank you for your detailed reply, one of those if only it had been tried ideas...
I think that for oil burning steam locomotives, waste restaurant cooking oil will likely see more and more use, as it is quite cheap and usually carbon neutral. But there are issues with greater corrosion. It will be interesting to see if greater adoption takes place, as steam locomotive fuel consumption of gallons per mile gets pricy quickly...
# 30
LNG - hhmmmh, alright , very clean combustion !
waste oil / used motor oil ? - oohm !
( it contains all kinds of toxic ingredients making it a health hazard to burn )
# 29
Firelock76 # 28 Then there's waste oil as an untapped resource. The Morris County Central, a now-defunct tourist line in New Jersey back in the '60's and '70's ran its steamers on waste oil recovered from gas stations. The stuff was free for the asking, gas stations and auto repair shops were only to glad to have someone to take it off their hands.
# 28 Then there's waste oil as an untapped resource. The Morris County Central, a now-defunct tourist line in New Jersey back in the '60's and '70's ran its steamers on waste oil recovered from gas stations. The stuff was free for the asking, gas stations and auto repair shops were only to glad to have someone to take it off their hands.
Some modern tourist lines do use recycled oil, Black Hills Central being prominent in my mind. If you count Grand Canyon's restaurant oil powered steam (home of the steam-powered french fry) there's another.
# 28
Fuels! I forgot fuels!
OK, as crazy as this sounds how about liquified natural gas as a fuel? I think a lot of us have ridden behind some good sized three-foot gauge amusement park steamers fueled with propane. Why not LNG?
Then there's waste oil as an untapped resource. The Morris County Central, a now-defunct tourist line in New Jersey back in the '60's and '70's ran its steamers on waste oil recovered from gas stations. The stuff was free for the asking, gas stations and auto repair shops were only to glad to have someone to take it off their hands.
Hey, just kicking around some ideas.
# 27
Hi folks
Interesting array of suggestions and ideas . I have some thoughts of my own which I will have to assort for a concise little comment .
Basically let's assume , for instance Bill is prepared to open his Big Gates and provide funding for a really nice new type or re-erection of a steamy steel steed . Although I'm not sure what Win8 would do for ( or with ) a steam loco's boiler electronically surveyed .
NorthWest : a gear drive full adhesion design is not a classic direct drive reciprocating engine .
Yet , to cover that in a nutshell : anything like a Shay would be out-dated . I had once put up a draft with drive much resembling that of modern diesel-hydraulics - only that with a steam engine a simple drive gear with three speeds suffices . For a steam motor I would preferably have a V6 or V8 sitting midways in framework below tubes section of boiler and driving from one end of crank shaft ( V6 ) or middle of crank shaft ( V8 ) on gear box ( from which cardan shafts run to the power bogies ) , however *never* drive from both ends of crank shaft as this could submit the crank shaft to very high inertial torque forces if with slippage one power bogie takes up grip while the other continues to spin wheels . The layout can be made suiting for a tank engine looking pretty classic from lateral rectangular tanks upwards - actually mine looked like a typical medium large Continental tank engine with two large diesel unit type of power bogies below the tanks . For better accessibility the steam motor could be made a boxer B6 or B8 and hung below main frames . It was meant for miscellaneous services from shunting to branch line all sorts of trains running . Its exhaust , starting say a local passenger train would have been that of a very small drivered engine with lots of tractive effort - i. e. starting quickly and gaining rapidly in pace rushing out an increasingly racing purr until it all becomes blurred in a continuous hush . By all means in its spacious fully enclosed cab it should be equipped with double controls both directions . Since cautiously I would consider the machinery to tend to be more dust & abrasives sensitive than conventional engines - although fully enclosed concept of motor might well indicate the contrary - I would opt for oil-firing if at all economically sensible .
More comments on our beloved 'high roller' classic reci-racing steely steeds later ..
Overmod : ask the Nürnberger Verkehrsmuseum for proposing to modify 05 002 : oh-yeah , however don't forget to wear a safety helmet the quality workers at a wharf do wear to protect against any possibilities like one odd 2 in bolt clanking-banging down from 60 ft above - *g*
F-7 .. A class .. T1 .. ? all of them fast and fine engines on their day . Although the Milwaukee Road A class Atlantics performed admirably , they lacked the power reserves of the larger engines to overcome wind resistance in the vicinity of 120 .. 125 mph - so if engines will run fast enough rpm speeds freely the larger ones would always stand a better chance to reach the highest traveling speeds - provided a number of peripheral conditions were put straight and vehicle guiding secured smooth running .
Keep on steaming
#26
I would like to see a large scale quill-drive steam locomotive built. This would involve a Berkshire sized boiler sitting on a pair of 6 wheel trucks, powered by side mounted cylinders at a shallow angle powering the drive shaft., like the Hiesler layout. Also, attach the tender axles to the drive shaft. To keep piston speeds acceptable, run the shaft through transmissions. This would help solve reciprocal track blow, and keep all weight on powered axles.
#25
eagle1030 # 23 middle I really do want to see the record broken now since modern instruments would make the run indisputable (too many mallard-didnt-actually-do-it-but-this-one-did sites out there). And for that, an F7 would be my choice. Yes, it's more expensive than an A, but the highest numbers I've ever seen for an A is in the 110 range. An F7 at least was close to 120.
# 23 middle I really do want to see the record broken now since modern instruments would make the run indisputable (too many mallard-didnt-actually-do-it-but-this-one-did sites out there). And for that, an F7 would be my choice. Yes, it's more expensive than an A, but the highest numbers I've ever seen for an A is in the 110 range. An F7 at least was close to 120.
I have seen numbers as high as 128 for the Milwaukee A [EDIT - the reference is Alfred Bruce of Alco, who should know, on p.293 of his book. What he actually said was 'pegged at 128 mph' and that might well have been higher...] I see no part of that locomotive that is not designed for equivalent or higher speed compared to its counterpart on an F7.
There is also the question of a modern replacement for the alloy steel used in the original F7 boiler.
Of course, if you REALLY want to establish a proof of higher speed than Mallard's record, start by contacting Verkehrsmuseum Nürnberg ... <ducks for cover> Of course that is technically off topic, because I can't imagine them modifying the historic artifact itself for modern improvement ... but you could certainly use it as a guide to build an "05 004" and the appropriate changes to be made on this would itself constitute an interesting discussion, or even thread.
eagle1030 # 23 down Back on topic, would a modern steam engine, instead of being so reliant on crew knowledge and skill, use programming to achieve efficiency? E.g., a program connecting the throttle, reverser, and stoker feed that could be set for max efficiency or max power, similarish to modern cars' sport, normal, and eco modes.
We discussed this to death -- several times -- over on steam_tech. You would need something like a ThrottleMaster (which is a historical item for a prospective restoration) to do the throttle for this. The reverse, of course, needs little more than a modern instantiation of what the Valve Pilot system was meant to do (now no longer necessary to approximate things using a cam) However, to get automatic load following within the chosen 'mode', you'd need sensors for things like drawbar load, steam pressure (with some rate-of-change buffering), injector setting, perhaps back pressure (as in the automatic cutoff system from the Twenties), and a few other things. Remember that the analogy is not quite exact between what happens for IC engines and on a steam locomotive.
The stoker feed is a much more complex problem than you think, and probably requires both artificial intelligence/expert system implementation and some 'awareness' of route (easily done technically, say via GPS location and "knowledge' of the route profile and requirements) as even with a load-following system instead of an 'automatic' one suitable for unattended operation would need this. I'd assume cubic dollars to implement, and a host of little sensors and actuators to fail or degrade. I'd leave this 'semi-automatic' with settings that work a bit like stops on an organ for the stoker-engine speed and the jets, with the understanding that the fireman could tweak things from there as necessary. (I proposed at one point that you could adapt the circuits in some luxury-car memory seats to do this, as they have upward of eight 'channels' and three switch-selectable groups of settings...)
In my opinion, no one but a fool would attempt to run GPCS for typical American service on a typical American-sized locomotive without computer assist. But that's another story.
#24
eagle1030 #23 E.g., a program connecting the throttle, reverser, and stoker feed that could be set for max efficiency or max power
In addition, this would provide the capability for MU operation and DPUs, although an unmanned boiler a mile away could be an issue...
On the subject of locomotive modifications, I'd like to see as much as possible to be the same for new excursion locomotives and refurbished ones. It makes sense to do welded boilers and non-asbestos boiler jackets, sort of like the modern improvements made on Tornado, but keep most of the design for historical accuracy.
Another thing: Placing heat and water tolerant sensors in certain places to stop problems before they start, in a proactive warning system. Might also increase time between full rebuildings.
# 23
friend611 -
Although it would be very interesting to see how far you could push a Y6a, and 2156 is in good condition, if it were ever pulled out of the museum, it would only steam as it did in the 50's due to the fact that it's the only Y6 left and it would be controversial to modify it. It'd be like sticking 80-inchers on the 611.
NorthWest -
I really do want to see the record broken now since modern instruments would make the run indisputable (too many mallard-didnt-actually-do-it-but-this-one-did sites out there). And for that, an F7 would be my choice. Yes, it's more expensive than an A, but the highest numbers I've ever seen for an A is in the 110 range. An F7 at least was close to 120.
Although if someone wanted to absolutely destroy the record, a T1 would be sweet overkill.
Back on topic, would a modern steam engine, instead of being so reliant on crew knowledge and skill, use programming to achieve efficiency? E.g., a program connecting the throttle, reverser, and stoker feed that could be set for max efficiency or max power, similarish to modern cars' sport, normal, and eco modes.
# 22
Every restored classic car I've seen lately could be used as a "daily driver." Are they likely to be used as such. Of course not. Those that own them usually have too much money in them to use them that way. It makes much more sense to have a new car as a daily use car and the classic for fun.
In the same vein, no operating steam locomotive today is used as a "daily driver", (the Strasburg Railroad excepted) unless it's excursion season, and even then it's usually weekend only operation. Remember what I said about workhorses and showhorses? When the excursion season's over the showhorse goes back to the stable for grooming and prep work for the next season. There isn't any steam locomotive around today that's getting pounded like it did back in the old days.
Mind you, I wouldn't mind having a classic car as a daily driver. If I was driving one of those tanks from the '40's or '50's and someone with a 21st Century job runs into me I just KNOW who's going to get the worst of it! I almost got wiped out twice today as it is but that's another story.
By the way, did you know the .357 Magnum was developed to shoot through the auto bodies of the 1930's? You could shoot through todays auto bodies with a BB gun!
Please don't get the wrong impression. I'm NOT anti-new steam, far from it. If replicas of Hudsons, Hiawathas, Niagaras, T1's, and maybe the Jersey Central's "Blue Comet" started rolling out of someones erecting shop I'd be as happy as a pig in "you-know-what". But for all practical purposes I just can't see it happening.
Then again, is is America. If there's someone out there who sees a market for new steam and has the financial resources to make it happen, well then anything's possible.
# 21
Firelock76 # 17 It's the same with folks who restore classic cars as a hobby. Money is of secondary importance, they really don't expect to make the money back they put into the vehicle, it's the love of the thing that makes it worth while. Ever been to a car show and seen the spec sheets in front of the resorations? Ususally when you get to the "cost" part its says "You don't want to know!" or "?".
# 17
It's the same with folks who restore classic cars as a hobby. Money is of secondary importance, they really don't expect to make the money back they put into the vehicle, it's the love of the thing that makes it worth while. Ever been to a car show and seen the spec sheets in front of the resorations? Ususally when you get to the "cost" part its says "You don't want to know!" or "?".
The one thing about restored classic cars. Are they restored to a condition where they could be your "daily driver"? Or are they restored to a condition where you can trailer them out to a show and maybe, maybe, start them up and drive them in a parade? Once a year?
Would a restored classic car "hold up" to anything beyond the most casual use?
There is probably a steam locomotive counterpart to these concerns.
#20
Overmod, yes, but I like the looks of the F7s better than the A's. And the point of no modifications is to see if perhaps they could have reached 126 MPH in service.
But, I'd also like to see any streamlined steam locomotive that the whole class was scrapped rebuilt, such as the NH's I-5s, ATSF's Blue Goose, a full Dreyfuss-cased 4-6-4, the list goes on...
# 19
I'd love to see the 5AT Design built to US standards....I'm (to quote another Forum Member) a bit of a"Steam Dilettante" so I do not feel qualified to critique the design, I just think it's (or was) an exciting project....
#18
May I humbly submit that a slightly modified Milwaukee class A 4-4-2 would be a faster locomotive, and require less capital to (re)construct?
#17
I had to think a bit on what I was going to say on this. Juniatha's made some very good points. So, let me say this.
In the classic steam days when a locomotive was termed "worn out" I think what they really meant was "beyond economical repair". Well, everyone who's owned a car is familiar with THAT phrase! The beyond economical repair term really doesn't apply to steam locomotives operating today. Bear with me here. Steam locomotives today have gone from being workhorses to showhorses, they're kept alive not because of what they can do but because of what they are, historic artefacts. Therefore, as long as the skills and funding are there to keep them alive they'll be kept alive, one way or another.
But going a bit further, new steam? If there's new steam at all it will probably be replicas of 19th Century types like David Kloke's building. They're small and a very well equipped machine shop and manufacturing facility can turn them out. The future restorations may be on the order of what John and Barney Gramling are doing, bringing small and easily transportable 0-4-0 tank engines back to life.
But big steam, I just don't know. As much as I'd like to see a new J1 Hudson, or a Niagara, or a Pennsy T1 I just can't see it happening. Where could you build it? Who's got the expertise nowadays to build one from scratch? Who's got the machinery to do it with? It's all gone. Even the Chinese have shut down steam production and done who-knows-what with the tools of the trade.
And of course new big steam pre-supposes a sympathetic big host railroad to run it on. Another big 'if."
I'm not trying to be negative here, there's a lot of positives. Look at it this way. Steam locomotives were built to last, and if they're well cared for they'll last a very, very long time. The big steam we've got today is likely to be around for quite a while. I'm just thankful for what's in existance today and the people doing the Lord's work keeping them alive.
I hope I made sense.
#16
I don't have much time, so look for more later. I would like to see a Milwaukee Road F7 4-6-4, built to a completely unmodified design, same color and all, just to see if it could break the steam speed record.
#15
Testing to make sure the color for the numbering system works. Thanks for numbering everything so far.
# 14
One request if you don't mind :
For better assorting earlier posts and later answers may I ask everybody to post a consecutively running posting number to the top of their posts - I have added them up so far now . For numbering you may choose any color and format you like , only the keep to it , so it is easier associated with your posts .
Then , if you quote please put the number of that posting you quote in front of the quotation .
You will have to add these numbers to your own post and to the quoted text by hand , the forums software does not support this feature at the moment .
# 13
There is not that much difference between the 2156 as preserved and a Y6b, since the firebox and chamber mods have been done. Personally, I think it is a shame all the Y6b locomotives were lost. On the other hand, in terms of preservation integrity I think 2156 should be kept a Y6a, just upgraded where necessary, quietly, to give Y6b maintenance integrity...
The engine would probably not have run over 60 mph with the stock compounding, even with the booster valve. In my opinion, though, there are a couple of techniques that can be used to get it to run that fast, and I have described them in some detail in earlier threads. Interestingly, very few of these mods make a serious diffference to either the appearance or the general construction of the locomotive. (The principle is to meter enough superheated steam into the IP receiver that the phase and duration of the LP piston thrust matches with that of the HP engine under variable running conditions...)
Roller-bearing rods are something of a waste on a Y6, BUT what you want is lightweight rods with the sleeve design that UP developed in the late '30s (it is detailed in Bruce's book on the steam locomotive in America, discussion and 'sketch 3' on pp.218-220) and good positive lubrication. This will give you the balance advantages of lighter-weight rods without the high expense of roller bearings. (I would go to rolling-element bearings on all the joints in the valve gear, of course, but that is more for maintenance optimization than higher performance.)
Snyder preheater and Cunningham circulator will fit neatly on the engine, and I think belong there. This would be a good poster child to do experiments with modulated compression control, too. We should take this up in the N&W thread, though, rather than here exclusively.
# 12
friend611My choice would be the N&W Y6b as regards to rebuilding a lost locomotive. Perhaps some tuning so the engine could run up to 63 mph (as I have heard reported with the Y6) and beyond if necessary. Roller bearing rods, maybe? Though we do have Y6a 2156, if we can get it out of St. Louis, and 1218 is not a lost cause either. Once 611 is established in service, there may be a movement to return 1218 (and possibly 2156) to operation. Lois
Lois:
I have no idea IF the 1218 will run 'Mainline' again. I would say that the events of yesterday: 23 June 2013, concerning the 4018 and UP RR 's Heritage Steam Program, might even, very, well play a roll in that chain of events!
Those events, COULD, possibly add some weight to the argument FOR return of 1218 to an active status with NS's Steam Heritage Fleet ( 21st Century Steam). Seeing 611 and 1218 coupler to coupler, on an excursion train would be fantastic!
The next couple of years promises to be a 'red letter' ones ; for the railfan community, and steam power on the mainlines.
# 11
My choice would be the N&W Y6b as regards to rebuilding a lost locomotive. Perhaps some tuning so the engine could run up to 63 mph (as I have heard reported with the Y6) and beyond if necessary. Roller bearing rods, maybe? Though we do have Y6a 2156, if we can get it out of St. Louis, and 1218 is not a lost cause either. Once 611 is established in service, there may be a movement to return 1218 (and possibly 2156) to operation. Lois
# 10
Paul Milenkovic Overmod Paul: the ACE 3000 is verging on the 'box' that Juniatha wants to avoid. It needs to have about double the indicated power to be a practical 'modern diesel' alternative, operationally (leave out fuel considerations for the moment) and at that power the condensing situation becomes hopeless without using greywater on the condensing elements, and 'politically difficult' with -- consider where the greywater comes from, and then explain how the foggy dew coming off the condensers has come to be... If the object is a passenger engine for excursions, fan trips, and who knows, so manner of regular service where a steam locomotive is part of the appeal, yes, by all means avoid the dreaded Diesel-like box. If the object is that of the ACE 3000, i.e., burning coal to make the train go, who cares?
Overmod Paul: the ACE 3000 is verging on the 'box' that Juniatha wants to avoid. It needs to have about double the indicated power to be a practical 'modern diesel' alternative, operationally (leave out fuel considerations for the moment) and at that power the condensing situation becomes hopeless without using greywater on the condensing elements, and 'politically difficult' with -- consider where the greywater comes from, and then explain how the foggy dew coming off the condensers has come to be...
Paul: the ACE 3000 is verging on the 'box' that Juniatha wants to avoid. It needs to have about double the indicated power to be a practical 'modern diesel' alternative, operationally (leave out fuel considerations for the moment) and at that power the condensing situation becomes hopeless without using greywater on the condensing elements, and 'politically difficult' with -- consider where the greywater comes from, and then explain how the foggy dew coming off the condensers has come to be...
If the object is a passenger engine for excursions, fan trips, and who knows, so manner of regular service where a steam locomotive is part of the appeal, yes, by all means avoid the dreaded Diesel-like box.
If the object is that of the ACE 3000, i.e., burning coal to make the train go, who cares?
I am a card-carrying developer of diesel-like coal-fired locomotives, and have been for quite some time. The point is that Juniatha has specifically asked that these sorts of thing NOT be discussed in this thread.
The ACE 3000 is a special case in that it has reciprocating running gear. Just not enough of it to be competitive with diesels (we assume their fuel is "renewable" -- either biodiesel or synthesized from natural gas, which puts a Bekenstein bound on what the system will cost).
The other thing is that boxes or no boxes, prior experience may give some insight into the pros and cons of various approaches. That is why I have little patience with the blanket dismissal "it was unsuccessful." Unsuccessful at what and for what reason? Could the thing be made successful with modern technological advances?
For the ACE 3000, no, I don't think so (for a number of reasons). You will note that even Porta was going away from that design, in favor of a 2-10-2 or 2-10-0, by the latter stages of the project.
I could write you books on the subject, and on the details, rather than a blanket summary. But everyone starts holding up the crucifixes and the garlic and making warding gestures when I say that.
With respect to condensing, to get the "thermodynamic cycle" advantage of rejecting heat at a lower temperature than 212 deg F, condenser cooling probably needs some kind of water supply, and railroad applications tended to be "dry cooling tower" condensers because getting rid of the requirement to fill water is the whole point of condensers in the mobile applications.
The principal point of the condensers isn't thermodynamic advantage, it's water rate (and hence extended range, and decreased cost and trouble for feedwater treatment). The point of the greywater is that it's free or low-cost, and the surfaces it contacts are not critical for corrosion or tolerance. (It might also work as the primary cooling for Holcroft-Anderson style 'recompression', which is somewhat easier to make work with turbines than with traditional reciprocating drive, but that's another story.)
BIG problem with the ACE 3000 was that its pathetic little condenser was already too small for 3000 equivalent hp for many of the projected services. And, of course, when its condenser choked at 110 in the shade, the exhaust had to be routed right to atmosphere. This did NOT make for happy operations, especially with the pathetic little water reserve provided in the design. Additional water tenders remove even more of the supposed operating advantages over diesels...
But still, there was that GE/UP steam turbine electric, 2000 (or was it 2500) HP in each of two (rather largish) locomotive units. And oil fired (Bunker C oil, I believe, as with the UP gas turbines and most of the older oil-fired steam, at least back in the day a "waste product" of refining -- the push for "light oil" (Diesel fuel) is that the EPA doesn't seem to want Bunker C burned anywhere anyhow anymore).
It was 2500 hp per unit, and the steam generators used would happily run on light/gas oil (Diesel) -- in fact, would probably be easier to fire and regulate on that fuel than on heavy oil. Bunker C went out as a fuel when there were improvements in chemical cracking and other processing that made it useful as a feedstock -- take away the SUBSTANTIAL price differential between diesel and heavy oil, and it doesn't even make sense to arrange co-fueling with heavy fuel in compression-ignition motors where it is most economically burned to produce power.
I happened to like that locomotive -- I have a model of it on my desk. But it was NOT successful.
The verdict on that pair of experimental units is "unsuccessful" but unsuccessful how?
Not the equal of a 4-8-4; you rapidly ran into the same issues as any other fixed-hp electrical final drive. A thousand little subsystems, failure in any one of which gave you a hard road failure. Lots and lots and LOTS of capital expenditure, which as you know is the major stated reason why the Baldwin 6000 hp modular diesel was 'unsuccessful'.
Note that I haven't even gotten into how successfully the condensation ran. It didn't.
... maybe that boiler was a successful advance?
That boiler was a delight. It was just too small, and had no steam reserve to speak of, and required distilled feedwater (1500 psi, up in the range where silica becomes a turbine contaminant), and in any case burning fuel to get heat transfer to make steam that goes in a turbine to make electricity -- even at long expansion -- is a great way round for a comparatively small plant. See the earlier comments about 'power stations on wheels'...
Then there was the Jawn Henry. Maybe you don't want to go turbine-electric and want to use a more conventional piston driver set, but maybe the water tube high-pressure boiler would be useful in another setting?
That has in fact been studied, and the boiler scales well to about 6000 hp, but not much larger than that. Modern control systems would eliminate most of the relay-logic foibles; better fuel quality (as had been promulgated half a decade before the TE-1 was tested) would have solved the fuel plugging problems... most of the time, anyway. But the ash arrangements were just plain wrong, and while they might have been fixed, there's no convenient place on that chassis to put them.
I agree that it's a shame the uprated GE-electrics version of the locomotive was not tested, as so many of the failures were related to Westinghouse build quality. But we can read between the lines, too: in a little more than a year of testing, and not much operating advantage over an 'improved' Y6, ALL the traction motors ... and remember, those were Westinghouse hexapole motors, hard to kill ... had been substantially damaged. I don't see anything short of full synthesized AC drive that gets around the general nest of problems ... and that was science fiction in the '50s for heavy locomotive power.
# 9
The verdict on that pair of experimental units is "unsuccessful" but unsuccessful how? Although the power output (2000 HP?) of each locomotive was small (could a Northern put out 6000 HP along with a thick cloud of black smoke from over firing?), the boiler seemed rather compact. Maybe the condensers were the unsuccessful part (heard about problems of freezing pipes in cold weather), but maybe that boiler was a successful advance?
# 8
I like the idea of a standardized modern 2-8-2. Roller bearings on all axles, welded boiler, 2 cylinder, piston valves and how about a gas producer firebox/ Lempor exhaust combo to cut down on abrasives drawn through the flues and to ensure more complete burning of fuel? For fuel, I'm thinking a biomass/coal mix.
While we're at it, let's take this boiler package and adapt it to a 4-6-2 frame for higher speed applications, ala PRR K4s/ L1s. One step further, perhaps a 2-10-0, low drivered version for heavier graded, low speed applications.
Locobasede's idea for a commuter tank locomotive is quite intriguing, also. A modest sized 2-6-2T, in the 90 ton range, perhaps 60" drivers. Perfect for short turn around commuter service, maybe taking a turn on a light local freight during off peak hours. Sign me up for a couple. I'll put it on Visa.
# 7
daveklepper I don't know that the boiler capacity was the issue. I understand the S-2 could handle the Broadway's schedule pretty well.
I don't know that the boiler capacity was the issue. I understand the S-2 could handle the Broadway's schedule pretty well.
Boiler capacity, and draft induction, were never a problem. Staybolting, and some of the internal material proportioning, was.
I understood the problems to be low speed and low power inefficiency and ash damage to turbine blades.
ASH damage to steam turbine blades?
That's the BCR coal turbine you're thinking of. Which is a very, very different thing from the S2.
There was plenty of power at low speed, it was just that the slip inherent in a reaction turbine (with an impulse Curtis first stage, which even requires some slip to work at low shaft speed) meant high mass flow. The sudden high mass flow of steam, and then the great increase in induced draft from All That Mass Exiting All Those Stacks, were the issue that led to the popping staybolts.
Welded boiler would probably not have helped the problem, and welded hollow staybolting a la Leader wouldn't have worked properly in a firebox and chamber that size, with that level of thermal (and to a lesser extent, pressure) cycling.
The 'right' solution, as it was on the V1, was to put a transmission between the turbine and the drive, which would allow the turbine to work at optimal rpm regardless of road speed (and not incidentally allowed full-power reverse with one interposed gear up near the pinion). A better approach in my opinion would be to use two symmetrical power turbines either side of the pinion, with HP admission close in, and the very large required exhaust plena and ducts outside.
So a better, and probably more box-like, result is going to be involved, and in my opinion that ought to be an asynchronous compound (with the boosting TMs on the 'tender unit', and road-slug connections, etc.) But I am not going to 'think inside the box' as it were... that's for a different thread from this one.
# 6
K4sPRR So the new one, I propose, should take on the look of the S2 with modern day smarts about turbine technology.
So the new one, I propose, should take on the look of the S2 with modern day smarts about turbine technology.
Is the new steam locomotive for passenger service and the experience of riding behind a steam locomotive? Or is the new steam locomotive something on the lines of the ACE 3000, that is, a kind of Diesel fuel replacement in times of high energy prices?
If one is to build new for the passenger market, there was that British steam engine that was a completely new build of an existing design, and then there is the 5AT, a clean-sheet-of-paper-design that ran out of money before being built. I like the innovation in the 5AT, but the light-oil firing, probably the low-cost solution given the expense of small deliveries of coal, I don't know, that sounds like "cheating." You might as well have a Diesel "B unit" disguised as the tender to a "for show" steamer that just makes its own wheels turn. If there was an affordable way to use solid fuel (compressed switch grass pellets!) . . .
If this is an ACE3000 kind of thing, I like the idea of Porta's Generation 0 (Superpower), Generation 1 (best ideas from Chapelon, etc), Generation 2 (turbines, condensers). I get the sense that there is a lot of improvement to be made to the Stephenson type locomotive before you get to far ahead of yourself trying too many advanced concepts all at once. Porta wanted the ACE3000 project, which was testing a Gen 0, to build the Gen 1 first, but their never-built design was definitely Gen 2 and probably "a bridge too far" given the limited engineering funds.
# 5
I don't know that the boiler capacitiy was the issue. I understand the S-2 could handle the Broadway's schedule pretty well.
I think these proglems can be overcome.
It was a good looking locomotive. The reason for the six-wheel trucks was wartime limitations on the use of lightweight steel. Otherwise, it would been a 4-8-4. With proportionatly more weight on drivers, it would have been a better locomotive.
# 4
Juniatha What would be your favorite proposal for new steam to be built ?
What would be your favorite proposal for new steam to be built ?
If new, I would like to see someone take on the challenge of constructing a locomotive that picks up where the experimenting with turbine locomotives left off. The PRR S2 had some promise when it came specifically to the turbine, its problems developed with an inadequate boiler supporting the "motoring" of the turbine. They were closing in on the problems but dropped the project due to that diesel thing showing up. The 6-8-6 wheel arraingment may reconsidered be with todays technologies prompting a new thinking of weight and balancing of the overall locomotive.
The N&W "Jawn Henry" also showed some promise, but its overall appearance looked more like a cheese box than a traditional steamer. So the new one, I propose, should take on the look of the S2 with modern day smarts about turbine technology. It too, but not to the extent of the S2, had some starting and low speed issued, but credit to the N&W thinking they didn't shut the door on her as quickly as the PRR did with the S2.
New steam turbine technology will need a fresh look at alternative fuels (get real, coal in this governmental thinking is out) could bring about some posibilites. The turbine concept was an infant when abandonded and I think should be given a fresh look.
# 3
With very limited funds available, I see more hope in keeping what we have running, replacing parts as they where out, even going for a new boiler when necessary, starting from scratch . Talk to the people who do the work, at Strasburg, at the UP, and I think they will agree. How long has 844 been running? Cannot it continue for at least 50 years more, and why not 100? The return of the N&W J seems pretty assured.
My hope is that eventually all the big 6 or big 7 will realize the promotionaly power of steam, realizing that short of running their own top quality passenger trains again and getting people to use them, steam may be their best PR tool in reaching the non-freight-shipping-and-receiving public.
This does not preclude sensible modernizaton, and this can be done in all cases without destorying esthetics.
That's a fun question on so many levels, Juniatha. (As usual.) I'd like to see some of the most modern steam from the 1940s-1960s configured to meet 21st century operating standards. Or someone willing to take another look at a design that didn't quite meet expectations. The Duke of Gloucester group accomplished wonders when they reworked a relatively small percentage of the original design's components.
One reply mentioned the New York Central's Niagara, which certainly deserves consideration as one of the most accomplished North American steam locomotive designs. The big three N&W designs would be fun to see again.
Your proposal doesn't mention money, so I'm figuring a weekly play in each of the major lotteries of the world must be envisioned. Or we can look at your idea another way. Instead of going big, what if some enterprising team went much smaller and came up with a classic steam design derived from locomotives used in, say, commuter service. The railway could have several locomotives of the same design (e.g., a double-ended tank like a 2-6-2T or 4-6-4T), but with the details carefully worked out for most efficient operation.
And what about aesthetics? "Elephant ears"? Tall drivers? Tidy boiler or one with piping running everywhere? Should all the locomotives in the stud look the same or should some adopt profiles last seen in several different railroads or even countries?
# 1
What I'd like to see happen is a continual rebuilding and improvement of the existing locomotives, including substantial rebuilding where and as needed. There's an old joke about 'grandfather's hammer -- two new heads, five new handles, but just as good as the day it was made' that applies to locomotives in a sense. Take NYC 5344, the Hudson most deserving of preservation in my opinion. Very little of the original engine that rolled out of Schenectady remained by the end. That would be the same with most of the truly significant locomotives ... eventually, perhaps, the boiler plate will have thinned, or the frame casting "crystallized" or some other very expensive part will need replacing, but where there is money there can be a rebuilding of anything necessary.
The most significant reason why 'historic' locomotives have had to be taken out of service is insurance cost. I think the second most significant reason is failure of an organization to support repairs and operation wholeheartedly. (A substantial amount of money appears to have been thrown at K4 1361, and while I don't propose to open up that can of worms again, money alone was not the reason why things have happened the way they have).
I take it the scope of this question is leaving out the 3463 project (which has its own threads anyway).
Best 'bang for the buck' would probably be to build some version of the 5AT, since all the hard design work has been done, and some very good thinking has gone into where and for what this locomotive could be operated. I'd expect it to be light-oil (diesel) fired, for the same reasons as for 8055, and probably have some kind of biodiesel tie-in to make the relatively low thermodynamic efficiency. Second best would probably be to revive the Turbomotive 2 project, as both the turbine engineering and the geartrain fabrication have become largely costed-down.
As far as historical locomotives: the toss-up for me is between a modernized 240P and an even-more-modernized 242 A1. Yes, I'd like to see a Niagara (and I have some ideas about what I'd do to it) and of all the modern large 4-8-4 designs that one has about the smallest clearances. Interestingly enough, it's also been demonstrated that you can get 2-8-0 fuel economy and water rate out of that locomotive if your load and performance needs are also 2-8-0 sized...
Of course a modernized T-class 4-4-4-4 would be on my list, but where would you run it?
Note that all the above is predicated on the market for revived/modern steam being for excursion service. If designing for Plandampf or similar service, something reasonably close to Juniatha's modern 2-8-2 might be worth considering.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.