the germans built a working V-8 steam engine that was not saved after the end of world war II. it was envisioned to be used as the building block for multiple use steam engines. ie multiple engines controlled by one pilot as is some times used to call a euro engineer. I am sure GM would not have wanted this 2 come about. not then or now?
rbandr the germans built a working V-8 steam engine that was not saved after the end of world war II. it was envisioned to be used as the building block for multiple use steam engines. ie multiple engines controlled by one pilot as is some times used to call a euro engineer. I am sure GM would not have wanted this 2 come about. not then or now?
Why's that? GM already had a better answer to steam of any kind, including the Besler designs or the International rail motor that did not depend on a firetube boiler (as the 19 1001 did) or on a great number of precise parts in each motor with the valve gear synchronized by a great number more precise parts.
The roughly contemporary American counterpart of the German motor locomotive was the proposed B&O W-1 class, engines also by Besler. This design progressed to the point that the boiler and at least one of the motors was built for testing -- but it was not 'proceeded with' because, in a word, the EMD EA was a better solution for B&O, even at its higher cost for a chronically cash-starved railroad.
It would be difficult to coordinate multiple units of DR class 19, particularly since the particular topic of this thread, the selective 'depowering' of some of the motors on the locomotive, or on some of the locomotives in a "MUed" consist, would be technically difficult if not practically unworkable given American maintenance practices. It is difficult to imagine running steam boiler-equipped consists with the trailing units 'unattended' unless oil fuel were used, perhaps adapting the systems used on the LBE push-pull train locomotives. Then take up the question of water supply.
Now go back and look at the copetitive advantages that Dilworth, Hamilton et al. were putting into the competitive approach to road power. It was simply a much better way of getting most of the parts of the job done. GM needed no 'conspiracy' to get it to displace steam, any more than they actually needed NCL to get streetcar lines to replace their old physical plant with the new monococque diesel coaches...
There were evidently people in the United States interested enough in 19 1001 to have her brought over here after the War. However, things changed so dramatically even by the time the locomotive arrived here that no one cared to take it up. DB was offered the locomotive for the cost of shipping it back -- but declined. It was probably scrapped as an expedient piece of PR due to scrap requirements during the Korean War... but no one cared enough to pay the scrap price to preserve it, which I think is pretty telling.
I think the OP stems from a misunderstanding of how steam engines work. The Genset type diesel, where you can have one, two or three diesel motors running to generate power, isn't at all like a steam engine. A Mallet isn't two steam engines, with two fires and two boilers. If it was, maybe there would be a way to turn one engine "off" when not needed. But a Mallet or articulated engine is one engine - with one boiler, one firebox - and two sets of drivers.
Besides, it seems to me that if you stopped sending steam to two cylinders, you'd have to send twice as much to the other two to compensate...so you'd still be using the same amount of steam.
Actually, a Mallet is two engines. Two sets of valves, pistons, rods, and drivers. They are under one boiler, but the boiler furnishes steam to two engines.
-Crandell
Just to ampllify on this, saying a Mallet "has" two engines would be a better way to put it, making the technical distinction a bit more clear. If you have problems with the semantics, remember that a Mallet is technically a 'locomotive', to distinguish it from confusion with the technical use of the term 'engine' which is substantially as Crandell has described it.
Duplex-drive locomotives also are said to have two 'engines', even though there is no hinged physical separation between the chassis of the engines.
If you want to distinguish a separate term such as 'motor unit' or whatever to allow you to make continued reservation of the term 'engine' for the locomotive as a whole, and define your term as such in discussion, you are certainly free to do so. Just don't start claiming it's a correction... ;-}
wjstix ... it seems to me that if you stopped sending steam to two cylinders, you'd have to send twice as much to the other two to compensate...so you'd still be using the same amount of steam.
This would be true if the object were to make the same peak power from the locomotive during the 'interruption' in steam flow to one or more engines. But what Paul was saying is something quite different, and in part specific to the way locomotives operate. He is saying that precisely at those times the full output of the locomotive is NOT required, it may be better to operate with one engine (probably the rear one on a Mallet or simple articulated) at full power, with its valve gear positioned for more admission, and with the other one configured to use proportionally less steam (right down to 'drifting' level or even with flow cut off) instead of changing settings proportionally on both engines to achieve the same instantaneous or demanded drawbar HP. This is not a concern either of peak power or peak TE, but it is a concern with general train handling for loads below the full capacity of the locomotive, specifically including operating profiles with relatively steep grades but substantial downhill running. It's also a concern where valves or valve gear are not precise, or optimizable, for effective operation at short cutoff.
If we think of a 2-6-6-4 as a "Berk and a half" with the running gear divided somewhat differently, what Paul is saying may be clearer: if the locomotive is operated as a long 2-6-4 with a variable-power six-coupled booster capable of operation as efficient as the 'main' engine at all speeds, Paul would say that the baseline use of water (and fuel) can be lower than with both engines working together continuously.
(Implicitly included here is the recognized issue that an engine smaller than six-coupled is more than usually difficult to keep controlled, so dividing the drive into 'eight and four' is going to lead to more operational issues than it solves. That's not a point Paul raised, but it's useful to consider it in context.)
I do not know why you had to bring up GM and NCL in a discussion of steam. There were specific streetcar lines that would have been kept if economics and city planning considerations had governed. Roy Chalk wanted to keep the all-PCC well maintained Washington DC streetcars but Congress voted a law to force bus replacement. NCL actually wanted to keep Townsend-Catonsville and one other line (Elliot City?) running but Baltimore revised its one-way street plan, which would have required much major track reconfiguration at considerable expense. Now streetcars are returning to DC and have in effect already returned to Baltimore.
But I second you on zero "conspiracy" regarding bus replacement of streetcars. GM and its NCL partners migiht be accused of aggressive business practices, but the only conspiracy, and a consent decree and fine concerned the exclusion of other bus manufactures, and was not related to streetcar replacement.
daveklepperI do not know why you had to bring up GM and NCL in a discussion of steam.
It was initiated by the closing comment from rbandr:
I am sure GM would not have wanted this 2 come about. not then or now?
There's a fairly common 'conspiracy theory' that much of dieselization (with EMD power) was driven by GM threatening (implicitly or explicitly depending on who tells the story) to withhold their new-automobile shipping from any road that retained stesm, or did not buy EMD products. What I wanted to illustrate with the bus comparison was that innovative technology and design was much more likely to have produced the observed 'market success' -- both in the design of the E and then F and GP locomotives, and in the design of the monococque buses with Austin's V-drive and practical diesel power.
In essence, adding just a bit to Dave's comment, the 'conspiracy' if I remember correctly was to establish sweetheart deals for parts and support that favored GM -- wasn't there a similar problem for many years with key parts of the EMD 567 engines being 'dealer-only' at an artificially high profit margin? That doesn't (significantly, imho) affect the underlying efficiencies and economies that made even first-generation diesel power preferable over steam.
As an architectural acoustical consultant, I did work closely with both Eero Sarinan and Minoru Yamasaki, and both turned out to be favored architects of Pat Maginnis and did some work for the NYNH&H, as well as GM, with both having offices in the Detroit area. Eero was fond of telling the story that he used to pull up to the GM office parking lot in downtown Detroit in his rather beatup looking Plymoth Suburban station-wagon, until he got a note from his GM contact they would prefer him to arrive in a GM product.
In the early 1960's, all switching locomotives on B&O's Akron Division were Alcos. Except at Lordstown, Ohio, where GM has (has) a stamping plant. That plant was switched by EMD switchers. At that time, a B&O shop electrician in Akron told me an Alco showed up to switch the plant when it opened, and the crew was ordered off the property and told to come back with an EMD. I can't vouch for the story's accuracy, but it's consistent with other things I've heard. If it's not accurate, it's a fun story anyway.
Tom
ACY In the early 1960's, all switching locomotives on B&O's Akron Division were Alcos. Except at Lordstown, Ohio, where GM has (has) a stamping plant. That plant was switched by EMD switchers. At that time, a B&O shop electrician in Akron told me an Alco showed up to switch the plant when it opened, and the crew was ordered off the property and told to come back with an EMD. I can't vouch for the story's accuracy, but it's consistent with other things I've heard. If it's not accurate, it's a fun story anyway. Tom
In the late 70's GE had a plant in Columbia, MD which was served by the B&O yard at Jessup, MD. Jessup got allocated GE engines from the C&O roster. Crews hated them - but you have to please your large customers or the end up being small customers - if you are still in business.
At that point in time, Baltimore Terminal was using Fairbanks Morse yard power and transitioning to EMD as the FM's began their march to the scrapers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod wjstix ... it seems to me that if you stopped sending steam to two cylinders, you'd have to send twice as much to the other two to compensate...so you'd still be using the same amount of steam. This would be true if the object were to make the same peak power from the locomotive during the 'interruption' in steam flow to one or more engines. But what Paul was saying is something quite different, and in part specific to the way locomotives operate. He is saying that precisely at those times the full output of the locomotive is NOT required, it may be better to operate with one engine (probably the rear one on a Mallet or simple articulated) at full power, with its valve gear positioned for more admission, and with the other one configured to use proportionally less steam (right down to 'drifting' level or even with flow cut off) instead of changing settings proportionally on both engines to achieve the same instantaneous or demanded drawbar HP. This is not a concern either of peak power or peak TE, but it is a concern with general train handling for loads below the full capacity of the locomotive, specifically including operating profiles with relatively steep grades but substantial downhill running. It's also a concern where valves or valve gear are not precise, or optimizable, for effective operation at short cutoff. If we think of a 2-6-6-4 as a "Berk and a half" with the running gear divided somewhat differently, what Paul is saying may be clearer: if the locomotive is operated as a long 2-6-4 with a variable-power six-coupled booster capable of operation as efficient as the 'main' engine at all speeds, Paul would say that the baseline use of water (and fuel) can be lower than with both engines working together continuously. (Implicitly included here is the recognized issue that an engine smaller than six-coupled is more than usually difficult to keep controlled, so dividing the drive into 'eight and four' is going to lead to more operational issues than it solves. That's not a point Paul raised, but it's useful to consider it in context.)
wjstixThat means 15% of the X goes to each of the four cylinders - 60% divided by 4. If you "turn off" two cylinders, you still need 60% of X to pull the train, so you'd send 30% of X to the two working cylinders - 60% now divided by 2.
You seem to think that the same losses occur with four cylinders as with two, and that reverse and valve arrangements will be precise down to very short cutoff. (There may also be issues associated with increased lubrication requirements if both engines are under steam, but I suspect these would be minimal.)
I thought that Paul clearly stated that his locomotive was much more powerful (in cylinder hp terms) than one engine at full throttle and best economic cutoff would produce. As with a booster: the 'whole' locomotive would be capable of starting any train it could pull -- and need both engines operating at relatively full 'capacity' at low speed to do that -- but then be able to move the train over the road with one engine operating up at the peak of its efficiency curve. So the question then becomes whether it's more cost-effective to run one engine (probably the rear one) at full power, and use the forward engine only as 'make up' (vs. adjusting the two engines in sync, as in normal operation).
The real issue is whether one engine uses the available boiler steam more efficiently than two at lower load, not whether there's not ample steam for the cylinders. It's explicitly a part-load-optimization discussion, not a maximum-performance question.
it is just the laws of inertia. the drivers were needed to move heavy loads over hill and dale. ask any passenger engineer who ran steam. once moving it takes less energy to keep it moving. i.e. inertia
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.