I think the original suggestion was hydraulic actuation of the valve gear after the pattern of a Sikorsky helicopter, which was answered by the historical example of Meier Mattern valve gear. The suggestion that it was hydraulically actuated is probably all a person needs to know about it, considering that helicopters are incredibly maintenance intensive.
The last time helicopter tech was applied to a train was the United Aircraft, Sikorsky Division, TurboTrain. I would not apply the dreaded epithat "unsuccessful" on it, but let us just say the TurboTrain had its "issues."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
OvermodNo, a name meaning that would have to be something like 'Rursylvania' ...the original term for the region was 'ultra sylvam', beyond the forest (later changed to 'trans' meaning something like 'across to the other side of'). In semantics (and Latin) sometimes the little details do have to be observed... ... which is why PRR could symbolically also be spelled Pensylvania RR - the railroad in the land of five forests ... ... but wouldn't 'Pentsylvania' have been a better pun in that case?
Observing those little details a wee bit more carefully, it should be quinque silvarum, which sort of kills the possibility of any more puns, Gott sei Dank.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmObserving those little details a wee bit more carefully, it should be quinque silvarum, which sort of kills the possibility of any more puns ...
Quintsylvania? (works if you torture it enough...) <ducks for cover>
all this information is interesting and applicable to understanding the problems with various approaches to control of steam distribution, and all contributions to this understanding should be welcome, since comparisons with what was used on the t1s and what might be used on 5500 are useful.
JuniathaOvermod the problem is you *always* seem to need to make a controversy of everything . If I was to say for example "Tonight ( no , not *this* night of course ) there is a full moon up there" you'd say , "No it's not just tonight it's up there but its always full , only one cannot see it fully , and besides one does only see one side so one can never see all 360° of the moon and therefor never see it fully !" .
Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they are not.
Overmod Juniatha No, I'd just say what Heinlein would -- 'it's full on this side'. (Before I get tagged again for not referencing old white guy names post-'76ers might not recognize, that's Robert Anson Heinlein, an ex-Navy guy who wrote SF) schlimm Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they are not. Fortunately I am not like them.
Juniatha
No, I'd just say what Heinlein would -- 'it's full on this side'. (Before I get tagged again for not referencing old white guy names post-'76ers might not recognize, that's Robert Anson Heinlein, an ex-Navy guy who wrote SF)
schlimm Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they are not.
Fortunately I am not like them.
Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they have no sense of sarcasm.
schlimm Fortunately I am not like them. Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they have no sense of sarcasm.
You just demonstrated that you are one of that self-elect confraternity.
[/sarc] (guess I need to provide the tag for some people.)
There's a new thread just for this exquisite byplay -- please go there and use it from here on out.
Overmod schlimm Fortunately I am not like them. Oh dear me!! Didn't you know, some people are always right? Except when they have no sense of sarcasm. You just demonstrated that you are one of that self-elect confraternity. [/sarc] (guess I need to provide the tag for some people.) There's a new thread just for this exquisite byplay -- please go there and use it from here on out.
schlimm Some folks can only dish out rude or dismissive or conteptuous remarks to others, but get controlling when the tables are turned. I apologize to all for this brief diversion, but Overmod brought it on himself, although I am quite certain he will deny that.
Some folks can only dish out rude or dismissive or conteptuous remarks to others, but get controlling when the tables are turned. I apologize to all for this brief diversion, but Overmod brought it on himself, although I am quite certain he will deny that.
You're right: the rude, dismissive, contemptuous (note sp.) folks certainly would say I'd deny that.
Now go put this post in the correct thread. (Sorry if that comes across as 'controlling')
[Edit: never mind, I'll do it.]
It is a internet forum for crying out loud.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I hope I'm not the only person confused by the premise of this restoration(bad choice of words for what's going on). If the goal is to show what can be done with steam in the modern era, why do they seem to be pursuing a replication of what was avilable in the last century?
I fail to understand why you would work with mechanical linkage and gearboxes as your solution.
I would assume that you can place encoders on each engine. With the feedback available, taking it to your microprocessor, it would seem that you could send signals for actuation to the appropriate valves. This should stop slips, maximize steam usage, and provide appropriate steam at all speeds.
Steam into New York's Pennsylvania Station was not an option. Not so in Transylvania.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZLPJuy9oyQ
ChuckHawkins would assume that you can place encoders on each engine. With the feedback available, taking it to your microprocessor, it would seem that you could send signals for actuation to the appropriate valves. This should stop slips, maximize steam usage, and provide appropriate steam at all speeds.
This approach is very true -- the problem is not that the system can't be made to work remarkably well, it's that when the system fails, the consequences are exceptionally dire. And there are many catastrophic points of potential failure in a control system of this type! About the last thing any practical railroad could want is a locomotive that can be completely incapacitated on the main by any number of simple failures, or that can suddenly experience full (or no) steam pressure on one or the other faces of one or more pistons... or that can pass abruptly from coasting bypass to high compression or vice versa without warning.
Remember that your system -- the encoders, actuators, PLC/processors, power supply, interconnect bus, etc. -- is going to be operating in a high-shock, dusty, wet, environment, maintained by people who are likely emphatically NOT NASA grade technicians or computer science/EE majors, and who are directed by people who are likely to buy from the lowest bidder and cut maintenance whenever they can...
In my opinion, if you are wise, you will provide a proportional mechanical system that provides 'default' valve actuation, and then do any fancy high-speed modulation of timing, duration, etc. via something like variable followers or secondary actuators in the valvetrain. Franklin type B or B-2 gear, or the drive-arm and shaft setup for type D, can be equipped to accomplish this comparatively easily (with any or a combination of sensor and actuator technologies). Note that a good Gray-coded rotary encoder of high precision can be incorporated into the Franklin or Reidinger-style gearbox very easily.
I further believe that for high-speed service you will want to provide a means of timing the valves that is separate from the means that physically moves them -- a relatively simple version of this principle being Corliss valves, which are spring-driven and need only be tripped like an escapement to cycle open or closed. It is not difficult to extend that principle to give valve opening and closing that can be modulated separately from timing and/or duration (there was at least one development of this in the late '90s, in Australia, that featured very complex motion of a physical valve via an automatic mechanism which cycled at each 'trip' and was autonomously regulated and powered).
Part of the 'fun' in past discussions of T1 "improvement" was to use only the systems and technologies that were available in the '40s and early '50s. Some very good proportional servo approaches for rotary and linear encoders existed then, as did rather good analog control methods (see gun directors, for example, or the system that was used for slip detection on the Q2 duplexes (note: NOT the system that implemented the slip control, which had significant problems).
Part of the confusion involved here is that there are a couple of contemporary projects involving modern steam. Project 130 is the CSR 'demonstration' project intended to reach 130 mph, which perhaps intentionally says it's intended to develop high-speed modern solid-fuel-burning locomotive power for Amtrak. (They carefully do not say that such 'new' locomotives will probably be very different from any reciprocating steam locomotive, let alone a modified ATSF Hudson design.)
The T1 Trust is the organization building a 'new' T1 -- with the explicit aim of keeping it as close as possible to the locomotive the PRR built, and making only the bare minimum of changes to make the locomotive workable and easy to service in a modern environment. There is no current intention to make the locomotive an 'ultimate' or 'extreme' demonstration of what's possible with a double-Atlantic duplex configuration; as noted elsewhere, such a locomotive would be very different from a T1 in a number of respects.
Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
OvermodPlease advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
Perhaps some improvements in syntax could illuminate the rather murky prose? :-} Your use of a "sarcasm" emo apparently makes one immune (in your mind, at least) from charges being the author of snarky comments.
Oh good Lord, don't anyone even THINK of putting micro-processors, computers, or any gee-wizardry into steam locomotives! My job's not railroad related but I've had to deal with plenty of over-engineered equipment over the years and some of it's enough to make a grown man cry.
KISS rule, baby. And remember what Mr. Scott once said:
"The more ye complicate the plumbin' the easier it is to stop up the drain!"
Oh, and Pennsylvania? It means "Penn's Woods."
@ Firelock
Awrl-ride , there ! PeNNsylvania , for being one of the financial 'Megalosaurus' of early times of the United States in development , he just 'bought' (?) this land and called it his’ - so Woody Guthrie's "This land is your land .." ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s ) did no longer apply ..
and I will slam on brakes real hard against a head of steam here - long old Sally-One must come to a screeching stop , no regards to smoke rising .
As concerns T1 electronically controlled electric actuation of valves : sure , and I'd make it programmable and remote controlled , too , so in case it starts to go astray it can be messed with from the diner’s or (and?) from home base to make the confusion complete - not to forget to beef up parameters a trifle bit by making allowances for such things as road altitude and degree of inclination , type of track and rail , air temperature and moisture , type of performance to be chosen in at least 12 steps between 'absolutely smooth' and 'positively sporty' - not to mention those influencing elements I have just this minute allowed to drop from my mind .
Geeee .. I wonder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA
or if you prefer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg84L84uop8&index=34&list=RDTOSZwEwl_1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_wrFI-Kbxk
or for chill out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD9E79TO8pU
Uhm - cheers (?)
= J =
schlimm Overmod Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
Overmod Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-}
There are certainly improvements in syntax that could make some of my prose in that post clearer. If you 'advise' as requested, with specific references to specific syntactic problems or issues, rather than putting the missing 'n' in your supposed sarcasm, I'll be happy to make the effort.
Question, with so many stuffed and mounted great locomotives around the country why should we spend any $ to replicate a failed design rather than restore some deserving still existing power? None of my $ to this till there is an operating CB&Q S3 running and even then questionable.
BuslistQuestion, with so many stuffed and mounted great locomotives around the country why should we spend any $ to replicate a failed design rather than restore some deserving still existing power?
The T1 Trust has their own explanations for both these questions -- why the T1 at all, and why the T1 instead of other deserving power that could be 'built from scratch' (the 'short list' including the J1e or S1b).
The T1 was very far from a 'failed design', contrary to a great deal of ancient railfan 'wisdom'. There are solutions, using nothing better than contemporary technology or work, that address most of the substantial problems, including that of high-speed slipping at maximum trailing load. I for one think it makes sense -- as far as restoring any big steam locomotive makes sense -- to work with re-creating and perhaps improving an innovative design rather than spending All That Money on something relatively conventional. [Note that I CAREFULLY avoid questions like 'why not spend All That Money on selected restoration projects rather than a complete new build'. The Trust is getting its money from sources that don't care as much about those other restorations, meritorious though they may be in absolute terms, and long-term it's not a zero-sum game for the pittance of available grant money and railfan donations).
One key difference is that the T1 appears to appeal to a much wider demographic than most steam locomotives -- even N&W 611 doesn't have the 'wicked cool factor' the Trust has observed in its marketing approaches. (Closest thing on the Burlington would be a S-4A ... but that's another story ;-} )
And in case anybody is wondering -- I don't think a replicated T1 design is a basis for the CSR/SRI 'Amtrak-compatible passenger locomotive' design, any more than the Ripley Hudson would be...
Failed design? Didn't the Supreme Court once lay out what constituted "fighting words"?
The thing about the T-1 is all of the apocryphal tales told of clocking 120+ MPH on some road foreman's watch with 1200 trailing tons and all of that.
The T-1 was the pinnacle of high-speed passenger steam during the waning years of steam and perhaps the waning years of passenger service and certainly the waning years of 100+ MPH speeds outside of electrified territory in the U.S. What about the Norfolk and Western J or the NYC Niagara, you may ask, but what about them? Great locomotives, high-horsepower passenger steam but not at the tippy top of the pinnacle of high-speed steam.
It doesn't matter that they were judged "unsuccessfull" (I hate the word, it is too glib a dismissal.). These divided-drive poppet-valved high-drivered speedsters have a certain glamor of no other locomotive, steam or Diesel or whatever.
T-1mania is a combination of nostalgia, wistfullness and wishful thinking of what might have been or what could have been. Trains Magazine once characterized the T-1 as a "dinosaur", but what they meant was not just an extinct species, but the meanest, baddest, fiercest meat-eating dinosaur of them all just before the meteor crashed down and ended their reign.
Your question is like, "What is the big deal about the T-Rex, from the fossils we see it suffered from arthritis and a tendency for bone fractures and would have gone extinct anyway, even without the meteor (or Diesel)."
Your question is like, "Why go to the trouble to find, excavate, reconstruct, and exhibit the bones of a monster-killer like the T-Rex when other more prosaic dinosaur fossils are more readily available and so much easier to work with"?
Paul Milenkovic Failed design? Didn't the Supreme Court once lay out what constituted "fighting words"? The thing about the T-1 is all of the apocryphal tales told of clocking 120+ MPH on some road foreman's watch with 1200 trailing tons and all of that. The T-1 was the pinnacle of high-speed passenger steam during the waning years of steam and perhaps the waning years of passenger service and certainly the waning years of 100+ MPH speeds outside of electrified territory in the U.S. What about the Norfolk and Western J or the NYC Niagara, you may ask, but what about them? Great locomotives, high-horsepower passenger steam but not at the tippy top of the pinnacle of high-speed steam. It doesn't matter that they were judged "unsuccessfull" (I hate the word, it is too glib a dismissal.). These divided-drive poppet-valved high-drivered speedsters have a certain glamor of no other locomotive, steam or Diesel or whatever. T-1mania is a combination of nostalgia, wistfullness and wishful thinking of what might have been or what could have been. Trains Magazine once characterized the T-1 as a "dinosaur", but what they meant was not just an extinct species, but the meanest, baddest, fiercest meat-eating dinosaur of them all just before the meteor crashed down and ended their reign. Your question is like, "What is the big deal about the T-Rex, from the fossils we see it suffered from arthritis and a tendency for bone fractures and would have gone extinct anyway, even without the meteor (or Diesel)." Your question is like, "Why go to the trouble to find, excavate, reconstruct, and exhibit the bones of a monster-killer like the T-Rex when other more prosaic dinosaur fossils are more readily available and so much easier to work with"?
Don't know if you realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines, not something with questionable glamor (their filthy condition at the end of their lives indicated the esteem they were held in by their owner compared to the relative cleanliness of a lowly K4) brought back to life!
BuslistDon't know if realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines brought back to life!
One of the beauties of America is that Buslist is entitled to his opinion, and it is not wrong; if he wants to spend his money on restoring extant steam to life, more power to him! No one is twisting his arm to get him to become a T1 fan, or contribute to the T1 Trust, or in fact stop advocating that dollars be spent on existing steam rather than replicating a T1.
Not sure, however, that the T1 thread is altogether the right place for repeatedly discussing why NOT to have anything to do with T1s... that's best put in a 'what steam to restore?' thread.
Overmod Buslist Don't know if realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines brought back to life! One of the beauties of America is that Buslist is entitled to his opinion, and it is not wrong; if he wants to spend his money on restoring extant steam to life, more power to him! No one is twisting his arm to get him to become a T1 fan, or contribute to the T1 Trust, or in fact stop advocating that dollars be spent on existing steam rather than replicating a T1. Not sure, however, that the T1 thread is altogether the right place for repeatedly discussing why NOT to have anything to do with T1s... that's best put in a 'what steam to restore?' thread.
Buslist Don't know if realized how you got it right! Not where my $ will go, let's see long lived successful machines brought back to life!
I guess I just don't understand the compulsion to put rare restoration $ into replicating what is in reality only a footnote to the history of the industry, When in reality there are so many (in my mind) more worthy projects. Each one of us has the choice of where to put their hard earned $. So be it!
Overmodschlimm Overmod Please advise if English translation of any of the above is necessary. ;-} Perhaps some improvements in syntax could illuminate the rather murky prose? :-} Your use of a "sarcasm" emo apparently makes one immune (in your mind, at least) from charges being the author of snarky comments. That's not a sarcasm emoticon, it's wry (and a bit self-deprecating) humor -- in other words, not to be taken in full seriousness even by me. Semicolon means 'wink'. Perhaps unsurprisingly, your emoticon, evidently intended to have a very different meaning, does not have that.
Deliberately set to catch your correcting other's posts with condescending comments, as is your apparent wont (and possible need). Most of us also are aware of the meaning of the semicolon in the context of an emo.
Guys ,
one thing's for sure :
#1 - the Duplex concept was an American landmark in the development of the reciprocating steam locomotive , it came late in twilight of steam and that explains most all of the agony these engines found themselves in , yet by an unbiased view this only makes their performances in spite of adverse conditions stand the taller .
#2 - no Duplex has been spared the reefer - a woeful deficiency to all of us friends of steam , at least .
#3 - trying to heal this vacancy is inherently a brave effort and should rightfully be respected even by those who personally might choose to stand off .
#4 - it is an effort worth every pound , since with the demise of the last T1 many of us steam lovers felt no less afflicted than the one-and-only living T1 reincarnation here sings :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6sZWEPGj4
Or that's the way I see it .. ( no ? say , just look at *that* aristocratic nose , those high cheek bones ..)
Don't confuse the nasty condition of a lot of the T-1's at the end of their lives with what the Pennsy men thought of them. Remember, this was at the tail end of the PRR steam era, and the drill by that time was to do just enough maintanance on the steamers to keep them alive until the diesel replacements showed up. They weren't going to waste time and effort on outgoing equiment.
Even on the New York and Long Branch, where the K-4's made their last stand, there were some filthy looking locomotives as well. Some were at the point they had to be double-headed just to make the commuter runs. But hey, the end was coming, everyone knew it, and as the saying goes "you don't throw good money after bad!"
Cher as a T-1? Hmmm, I watched the video, and you know, it kind of fits. Yeah, the nose, the cheek bones, the raven black hair...
I always thought Cher was cool! Anyone remember her video "If I Could Turn Back Time", shot on the battleship USS New Jersey? Man, were those sailors an appreciative audience!
As for electronics, look at the HHP-8s...
Anyway, part of the reason why PRR T1s always look grubby in photos was that they only were in service for less than a decade, most of which was spent under active dieselization. Essentially considered obsolete when new, the plan was simply to keep them running as cheaply as possible until replacements arrived. K4s were generally ratty by the early '50s, too, but there was plenty of time for clean pictures when they were in their prime.
The other thing is, if someday and for whatever reason steam cannot be operated on main lines, the T1 will still exist for future generations to ponder and enjoy, as well as any locomotives that can be fired up with the money.
Firelock76Cher as a T-1? Hmmm, I watched the video, and you know, it kind of fits. Yeah, the nose, the cheek bones, the raven black hair...
.
Oh, steam can be operated on main lines Dave, the problem is you need a sympathetic host railroad for it to happen, either a Class 1 or a regional with enough trackage to make it worthwhile.
Not everyone is a Norfolk-Southern, or a BNSF, and their steam-friendly attitude could change overnight with a change of management. By the same token, CSX's anti-steam attitude could change at any time, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Nothing against CSX, by the way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.