# 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...
NW
# 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 )
Regards
Juniatha
# 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
Hello,
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.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
#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....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
#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 .
With regards
# 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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.