Steam that could have been
This once was Juniatha's thread What steam we haven't seen - relaunch
This is like what steam we haven't seen but allows unconventionals
This is a historical thread for new steam locomotives post on Extreem steam III for new steam locomotives.
Some cool stuff here. Let's encourage him.
I did not find the patent reference for the electric booster in the first references. Can you provide the patent numbers?
Be advised that historically DC traction motors are not happy under an ashpan. They don't like the heat soak or the ash/blowdown leakage, and coal dust is conducive to flashovers and other problems. And it is difficult to rig cooling-air ducts with appropriate properties as well as the necessary 'swing' to work in that area. I think you would be better served to adopt Porta's version of the Lewty booster...
One little note: the Besler engines (as designed for the B&O W1) were not V2's; they were parallel-cylinder. (The V2s were on the German motor locomotives.) I'm not sure about how viable those motors would be in practical road service (see previous posts in these threads on the general subject!)
There is a great wealth of historical precedent for "MU control" of steam locomotives from the period between 1920 and 1928, in the heyday of automatic train control. (Note that ATC penalty braking on steam locomotives involved modulation of throttle and brake to work). All the technical files for Frank Sprague's train-control company are preserved at the New York Public Library.
Meanwhile, a practical device for automatic cutoff control based on back-pressure was designed and demonstrated in the early Twenties. This is the other piece of the puzzle making full autonomic train control a possibility. Now concentrate on slip control.
(All this involves the use of relatively contemporary technology, rather than modern technology and design approaches. Note that much of the automatic control in the Cook '219 patent was presaged by Doble's and Besler's work on steam automobiles.
I am not a very strong proponent of MUing steam locomotives together - -there are too many complexities and not enough bottom-line financial reward, and in the contemporary model for maintaining steam power much of the special control systems would work no better than the butterfly valves used on the Q2s. Plenty of people disagree with my assessment. I encourage them to make themselves right.
Welcome to the forums -- and keep commenting!
Thank you I am going with the Besler steam truck instead of the Lewty booster but the locomotive's guide wheels and the tender will still have the trackshan motors and heat the boiler. This is a real technology that belongs to T.W. Blasingame, Inc. Go to http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/news/Steam%20Page%20Release%206-13-2005.pdf for the PDF.
Is this the Besler steam truck as on the New Haven cars, with the longitudinal cylinders? Or is this referencing the engine out of the 'truck' project being researched in Germany during the '30s with Doble... which was an actual truck (aka 'lorry' in British English) for road use?
Be careful using some of Tom's approaches. There are some thermodynamic issues with power density in that regenerative braking scheme, and a boiler near popping off is NOT really the place you want to start dumping dynamic-braking heat. We've discussed some better ways to use the traction-motor 'braking' power on those 'carrying axles'...
woups duplicate post! :)
Overmod, are you referencing the battery storage system?
NorthWestOvermod, are you referencing the battery storage system?
No, this is the system where the current generated by the traction motors in 'dynamic' is directed to heating elements in circulating tubes, inside tor connected to the convection section of the boiler. Think of grids designed to transfer heat to water instead of air...
Works just like dynamic from the braking perspective, doesn't require expensive and heavy battery pack to convert the power into a form that can be used later for useful traction, etc. The catch, as I said, is that it develops peak pressure and temperature progressively as you go downhill (and don't need to be working steam), so some part of the boiler structure has to be relatively oversized, or made intentionally much stronger than nominal boiler pressure would require. In the system as originally designed, there were no supplemental DB grids for those times you'd have to keep using dynamic with the boilier actively popping off -- the effective water rate being a relatively expensive alternative to air cooling at that point...
The system can be modified somewhat to include energy storage, to assist with feedwater heating, and even by having the elements in the circulation path from an injector. (You can't heat the water up to the point it goes through the check valve into the boiler, but once it's inside you can at least theoretically heat it enough to balance the drop in steam pressure resulting from heavy injector use... so recovery at the top of a steep grade could be made with a bit less thermal cycling.
In my opinion it should be possible to incorporate some elements of this type into the tubes and manifolds of a Cunningham circulator, and crank up the circulating volume to the optimal rating of the jet pump.
Yes it is the Besler steam truck as on the New Haven cars. It would have a auxiliary device. I will have to read! I think this has been mentioned before but David Wardale mentioned using mixed power, one powerful steam locomotive and from it's cab controlling additional diesel locomotives I think Having a locomotive that has this capability and all of the creature comforts of a diesel locomotive would be a good idea. If your going to do this today I would put this locomotive http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/lvm/lvm801.htm.htm on this chasey http://www.dlm-ag.ch/en/locomotives/85-projekte-normalspur?format=pdf with side tanks but that would be this http://5at.co.uk/index.php/the-locomotive/options/8att-2-8-4t.html with a water canteen.
One thing to watch with the New Haven power trucks was the comparatively long rigid wheelbase; another was relatively increased mass 'low down' leading to greater lateral shock on the track structure.
As you read, look up 'monomoteur bogies' and the general practice of modern truck design for ideas, and keep in mind how to adjust the particular system you want to use to the location it's applied (which is one of the potential joys of the Lewty booster).
Control of MU diesels from the cab of a steam locomotive is very old tech at this point. There are a few improvements that could have been made (some of them along the lines of the technology in Valve Pilot devices) that would harmonize the characteristics of the steam locomotive with the diesel consist for train handling. Ask me off-list for some of those details.
In the modern context, this is accomplished very simply by using DPU control from the steam-locomotive cab. This is much less complicated than the older systems, which essentially required a separate control stand (like that in a contemporary diesel equipped for MU) that was not linked to the steam-locomotive throttle and cutoff controls.
I suspect that 'comfort cabs' might have come to be applied to steam locomotives at some point... but even diesels had a long, fairly hard, way to go in the '50s and '60s! My own opinion is that 'cab-forward' designs have been largely eliminated as design desiderata on steam locomotives now that cheap and reliable forward-vision cameras and synthetic-vision systems have evolved. In my opinion the cab environment should actually be 'air-conditioned' and not just have improved heating/loss as on the Porta locomotive designs.
Be careful when using pin-guided trucks under both ends of a steam locomotive. Both the Reading and the Germans came to some grief when trying this approach; the lateral guiding stability compared to a conventional Delta arrangement is much smaller. If you do want to keep an 'Adams bogie' under the bunker, one interesting German approach for bidirectional high-speed design involved using an air cylinder to move the truck pivot point; this or a similar approach might easily be applied to the 8ATT design to make it more stable running bunker-first at even Network-Rail-optimized speed. I don't have the specific technical details for the German 4-6-4T at hand but I suspect I know someone who can give them to you...
Thank you I do not like cab-forwards. :)
What about multiple unit control requiring only 1 crew member to a locomotive and a engineer in either the lead locomotive or a control car no unattended firing.
Easily done, and commented on fairly extensively in the various 'modern steam' threads here.
As noted, all the necessary equipment to run steam locomotives 'together' had been developed by the early 1920s, and the necessary (analog) improvements in things like control amplifiers were developed in conjunction with radio, automatic train control, and long-distance telephony in the decade of the '20s.
Integration with EMD-style MU control to control diesels (from the analog throttle and cutoff controls) is a bit more difficult, because the "throttle" position is essentially digitally determined (4 relays, 4-bit control for the eight notches) and loading rate is only incidentally associated with the governor settings -- so you need either a cam or electronic approximation of its functionality to get control without weird short-term latency effects. But in my opinion, nothing that couldn't be practical in the '30s.
The interesting thing is that it's not that difficult (albeit with different mechanisms) to control the steam locomotive relative to MU diesel control input. You need an air throttle (like the ThrottleMaster) and precision reverse with a modified Valve Pilot device, with quick and positive transition from one reverse position to another, and reasonably positive 'locking' or position-holding.
Once you have the ability to get to an automatic or semi-automatic set of firing controls in case of 'anomaly', much of the objection to MU operation of steam goes away. What you are left with then is the necessary union agreements... and it might have been interesting to see whether the union 'take' on MUed steam power with a fireman on each unit might have been. In my opinion, utterly pointless to imagine a 'team B-unit' as (1) you need the cab and most of the control systems for the "fireman", and the additional (air) followers for throttle, reverse, independent, etc. are almost trivial in cost; and (2) there is far less operating economy with the size of a 'unit' being as large as it would LIKELY have to be with automated steam at appropriate scale employing multiple attendants... with the operating economy to match contemporary diesels net of all costs.
Thank you Overmod!
@ users Overmod and dinodanthetrainman
You are - again - hiking the thread !
This thread , to repeat what can be read in my intro :
This is *not* about unconventionals !
Your posts belong to the thread 'Extreem Steam - about unconventionals II'
which I had especially set up for Overmod to blow his mind about plenty of unconventional and extra drives applications , auxiliaries and appurtenances .
Because of this hiking I have given up posting anything in this thread anymore , especially I see no use in posting some *conventional* ( i.e. in lin with 1940s Super Power steam as built ) designs of mine like the 4-10-6 I wanted to post if discussion would have proceeded in the direction described in my intro to this thread .
Since nothing about *conventional* or classic steam is coming forward in this thread I will herewith close it .
Thanks to everyone who contributed to the theme .
Regards
= J =
Juniatha @ users Overmod and dinodanthetrainman You are - again - hiking the thread !
The problem is that this is now Dinodanthetrainman's thread, somewhat confusingly titled with Juniatha's original thread title, one word added.
In my opinion, this thread, with all the posts in it, needs to be retitled to SOMETHING that is not one of Juniatha's names. Or Dinodanthetrainman needs to make up a new thread title and 'recover' all the unsuitable-for-Juniatha's-thread postings into that new thread.
Otherwise there will be a great deal of what the Controller called 'confusion and delay' as people go forward and backward trying to figure out who is doing what in which thread.
My preference would be to have three 'open' threads going forward:
One thread that is conventional evolution of reciprocating locomotives from the late '40s on: no turbines, no fancy Porta SGS, no 'eclectic' designing. That would be, for example, a safe home for Juniatha's 4-10-6 and some of the other evolutionary designs she has done.
A second thread for 'unconventional' advances in steam motive power from the late '40s on. Some of which were clearly superior to reciprocating steam in a number of ways -- just not as 'good' as electrics or diesels. Note that this would be essentially a HISTORICAL thread: no developments that were not practical with contemporary technology, in contemporary service, with contemporary types of maintenance, etc.
The third thread is one of the 'Extreeem steam' threads -- pick it, II or III. (Now that we have two, we could decide on some sort of formal difference, and I'll let Juniatha decide what she'd want that to be since she originated them both). Perhaps one of them should get the engineered designs, and the other get the wild mega-Garratt and regenerative-steam-braked proposals...
But the situation as it is is untenable, and should be fixed.
RME
Ok considering all of that.
First off how did this happen don't get me wrong I am glad i didn't want to see this thread go.
Second I agree with Overmod
Overmod Juniatha @ users Overmod and dinodanthetrainman You are - again - hiking the thread ! In my opinion, this thread, with all the posts in it, needs to be retitled to SOMETHING that is not one of Juniatha's names. Or Dinodanthetrainman needs to make up a new thread title and 'recover' all the unsuitable-for-Juniatha's-thread postings into that new thread. Otherwise there will be a great deal of what the Controller called 'confusion and delay' as people go forward and backward trying to figure out who is doing what in which thread. My preference would be to have three 'open' threads going forward: One thread that is conventional evolution of reciprocating locomotives from the late '40s on: no turbines, no fancy Porta SGS, no 'eclectic' designing. That would be, for example, a safe home for Juniatha's 4-10-6 and some of the other evolutionary designs she has done. A second thread for 'unconventional' advances in steam motive power from the late '40s on. Some of which were clearly superior to reciprocating steam in a number of ways -- just not as 'good' as electrics or diesels. Note that this would be essentially a HISTORICAL thread: no developments that were not practical with contemporary technology, in contemporary service, with contemporary types of maintenance, etc. The third thread is one of the 'Extreeem steam' threads -- pick it, II or III. (Now that we have two, we could decide on some sort of formal difference, and I'll let Juniatha decide what she'd want that to be since she originated them both). But the situation as it is is untenable, and should be fixed. RME
The third thread is one of the 'Extreeem steam' threads -- pick it, II or III. (Now that we have two, we could decide on some sort of formal difference, and I'll let Juniatha decide what she'd want that to be since she originated them both).
I think that this one should be the this one should be the second thread kiping all past post as a resource.
This page is the only relevant results for any Google search lima stillborns like the 4-8-6 I hopped to find drawings or plans. The only problem is I do not know how to rename a thread
This is good, and you've solved the thread retitling problem. But now we have two threads with identical titles, one with all the old posts, and a second one with the 'junior Jawn' proposal.
I recommend that you rename one of them to something different of your choice, perhaps reflecting 'alternate history' of particular lines of steam development vs. what's possible with current practice.
I too would like to see blueprints of the actual 4-8-6. There is a tantalizing pencil drawing of what is obviously a derivation of the locomotive at the Casey Jones Museum in Jackson, Tennessee (it's of a 4-10-6 with external Cardan-shaft valve drive); there is a Karen Parker take on a 4-8-6 (but this uses an Allegheny firebox and trailer grafted on, which is manifestly wrong-sized); there is the famous 'long compression' advertisement that Hirsimaki features in his book on Lima. I have seen a copy of what is basically a Greenbrier J3a modified with the larger firebox (note how the driver size 'fits') but I don't think this was an 'official' Lima drawing. That does not mean there's nothing on the Web, just that I haven't seen it.
We'll just have to wait for Juniatha to decide to show us her 4-10-6 details.
friend611Would this include discussion of the N&W Y7? lois
In my opinion, it certainly would. Be aware that Juniatha has already commented at some length on the Y7 'as designed', in one of the older threads, and those comments are worth reviewing before taking up the discussion anew.
Much of what the Y7 could have accomplished in practical N&W service was achieved by the 'late' Y6 improvements, and the booster valve. In my opinion, much of the remaining advantage of 'simple' over advanced compound could have been made with comparatively simple control changes to a booster-valve system, having the effect of equalizing equivalent piston thrust between HP and LP over the full range of service speeds, and taking advantage of better materials and lightening techniques in the running gear to reduce dynamic augment on the LP engine to acceptable levels.
I think that much of the detail design of the Y7, particularly parts of its boiler, would have been changed if the development had continued. (I am still waiting expectantly to read that part of Voyce Glaze's notes that deal with the evolving Y7.) I do see very little advantage for a simple-expansion 2-8-8-2 over an improved 2-6-6-x, however, for any service not within the capability of an 'improved' Y6 at lower water rate.
In any case, adopting the PRR V1 layout for a locomotive with '16 drivers' would have led to a better locomotive all around... but that is another story, and one which had a very different ending on N&W.
The Y7 would almost certainly never have been a compound design; the purpose was to obtain a relatively high-speed 16-coupled engine (with minimal weight on 'idle' axles) for faster line freight service. You will recall that the thing which 'cancelled' the Y7 was the proposed Government restriction on train length that Ed King mentioned in his book on the A. But perhaps more importantly, after that restriction was lifted... and then, during the war years... the Y7 remained cancelled. We could speculate on the reasons for that, but as I have no direct knowledge, I defer to the N&W experts here.
friend611Speculation on this subject has been covered in other threads, and it appears to me that N&W put its eggs in one basket with its "big three" A, J and Y6- and was content with the development of the Y6 and A for freight power, that is, until Jawn Henry. This focus may be one of the reasons that the Y7 was never revived.
What I think more interesting is the parallel 'track' that was taken with reciprocating-steam evolution during the period when the turbine project was under way. And I say 'evolved' advisedly: I think the eggs were put squarely in the turbine basket for everything 'new' except the M2 Automatic project, certainly after about 1951, and a subject for discussion is how this situation may have changed when it became increasingly apparent that the BLH-Westinghouse version of the STE was going to be an operational disaster, but that costs and limitations of reciprocating steam were increasingly difficult to accommodate.
Another subject of possible interest (about which I'm ill-equipped to comment) is the extent to which N&W could have adapted their facilities to turn out substantial components of steam-turbine locomotives, particularly if the 'switch' to GE electrics mentioned by Louis Newton had come to pass. There's a lot involved in transitioning to 600 psi water-tube fabrication... but nothing I think of showstopping difficulty. Where I see the critical issue arising is this: If Westinghouse hexapole motors were being cooked, GE's motors were not likely to stand up any better. Meanwhile, N&W had been taken in by Baldwin's assertion -- I have a stronger word for it! -- that the 4500hp TE1 as capable of relatively high-speed operation in service. In order to make a STE design 'competitive' with a proportional-admission Y6 variant (which I believe would have been capable of working up to 50 mph compound with reasonable efficiency) some fairly substantial engineering changes would have been necessary. Seems to me at least plausible that a recursion to the sort of hybrid mechanical drive for the V1 might have been reconsidered, in light of the rather dramatic failures of contemporary electric drive observed first on C&O and then later in the end-stage testing of the TE1 -- this being largely separate from main-generator considerations, important as those were.
I firmly believe most of the difficulties with the steam side of the watertube system could have been overcome, and we know from other sources that the boiler design would 'scale' to 6000hp equivalent. It might be interesting to contemplate a 2-8-0+2-8-0 with TE/speed characteristics following those PRR calculated for the V1... which were, at nominal 8000shp, starting TE above 115,000 lb, and 25,000lb remaining at 85 mph...
... and if you don't happen to like the watertube-boiler limitations, N&W could easily improve the Q2 boiler design... here was a bully reason to check how that boiler would fit one of the N&W chassis arrangements to deliver Allegheny-size power without Allegheny overweight... or even adapt a regular boiler to the turbine chassis at less heroic water rate requirements. After the late '40s this would have become as serious a maintenance cluster as it was anywhere else, but it was something N&W did longer and arguably better than anyone else could...
In any case, I think a big simple-expansion 2-8-8-2 is lacking in performance envelope by comparison. In my not-so-humble opinion. Not that it was in any way a bad design... just that the future, by the time it became 'buildable', had moved to better possibilities. (I repeat that if there had been a reason to build it for wartime service, it would have been valuable not just on N&W but elsewhere in the nation... so there is more to the story than we easily see.)
I think the N&W and the PRR both could have benefited from a class of 2-10-4 larger than the PRR J class if this class of locomotive had double Kylpor exhaust, feedwater heater, air preheater, mechanical lubricator, a practical water treatment roller bearings, if it could MU with diesels, if it had a 8 axle tender and 6 axle water canteen. Then that is the best I can come up with.
I have came to realize advantages of a Lewty booster.
Here are some locomotive consepts.
dinodanthetrainman if it could MU with diesels,
if it could MU with diesels,
If that is one of the requirements of a modern steam locomotive design, why build it in the first place?
CSSHEGEWISCH dinodanthetrainman if it could MU with diesels,
There were a couple of never built designs of Northerns for Union Pacific, nicknamed by fans as 'Super 800's'. A design from 1942, and an expanded version with several enhancements from 1945.
War priorities and then dieselization ended both of these before they got off the drawing boards.
Leo_AmesThere were a couple of never built designs of Northerns for Union Pacific, nicknamed by fans as 'Super 800's'. A design from 1942, and an expanded version with several enhancements from 1945.
You might know this: Who has detail drawings of the four-stack arrangement that was supposed to be on the FEF-4s?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.