Steam engines are way cooler and if given a chance could be cleaner and better that diesel, it's just water boiling and rising up, that stuff happens naturally to water after rain.
>>1245235You forgot about the part where you have to heat said water...
>>1245235Steam engines had their day. They're not coming back. Whatever replaces the diesel won't be boiling water.
>inefficient>very high maintenance>takes more manpower than diesels>extremely polluting>terrible performance even compared to much smaller diesels
>>1245240Steam engines are very widely used still, just not on vehicles. Modern steam engines are extremely efficient, more efficient than even the best internal combustion engines. However, they are huge and require an enormous amount of water to operate, making them too heavy for practical use in any vehicle. They were ok to use on trains when there was no alternative, because trains themselves are huge and extremely heavy, so rail systems are built to minimize how often a train has to speed up or slow down, and they are never expected to accelerate quickly. However, for something like cars, frequent stops and starts are required, and they are expected to be able to accelerate up to cruising speed in seconds.For large scale stationary engines, external combustion outperforms internal combustion by far, which is why almost all modern power plants use their fuel to make high pressure steam, and steam to power a steam turbine.
>>1245244No shit. That's why we're talking about steam locomotives and not power plants in this thread.
>if only we could make stationary steam engines that power the moving part of the train from afar...hmmmm, really makes you think.
>>1245250Ah, carry on then
There's still a niche for steam locomotives, just fireless ones which need to have steam loaded into them from some water superheater and then have the steam stored in the locomotive at low atmospheric pressure inside the loco.These fireless locos are useful for shunting operations since they have very high tractive effort, but since they're shunting, electrification would be out of the question, and the reason they're fireless is because they're operating around highly flamable or reactive materials. Fireless steam locomotives are still in limited use in chemical plants, where they shunt in taker wagons from a mainline to the plant.
>>1245259Based, although hydro-electricity is even more efficient as a power source for electrified rail.
>>1245380A lot of them were used in pharmaceutical plants, where a lot of steam would be generated already through chemical processes, and the risk of chemical fires was too great.The UK highstreet chemist, Boots, used to own pharmaceutical plants before they outsourced it to other companies. For shunting operations inside plants, they used fireless locos.Smaller shunters such as those used for hauling 2-3 wagons of delicate materials have since been replaced with battery operated shunters, such as in places like Sellafield in the UK.
>>1245383As said, only a few fireless locos are still in use in chemical plants. Here, the loco is hauling sodium carbonate, but other chemicals which are far more reactive required specialist rolling stock.
>>1245381>he cares about where a train's electricity comes from
>>1245235They're really fucking cool in a way that diesels can never be, Anon, but there's a reason every railroad dropped them like a hot potato when the diesels came around. They're nowhere near as practical.Still, wish we had saved more of them, late-model steam especially. Late-model steam was the fucking coolest. You got all the crazy or elegant designs as a last-ditch effort to compete with the diesels. The Big Boys, NW 611, PRR T1, were all incredibly unique locomotive designs. We're amazingly lucky to 2/3 of them today.
>>1245398It's really a shame that of the steam locomotives that didn't get scrapped, very few of them are operational and only a few of those could be feasibly made operational.
>>1245398Isn't there a group building a new T1 from the original plans?
>>1245426Yes and the chances of it happening are close to 0
God i live this strange thing.
Why are there no diesel engines that just emulate steam engines using a small waterbox for show? I understand why there aren't industrial/commercial ones, but what about the luxury consumer train lines? An art deco styled diesel would be badass. Or the rare steam-diesel hybrid.I swear, the wrong assholes win the lottery. If I had several hundred million dollars, I'd immediately cement my position as the most autistic lottery winner by blowing half of it on making a single train.
>>1245622There are tons of them on miniature railways, minus the waterbox. In fact the oldest working diesel locomotive is steam-outline.
>>1245413There a quite a few floating around the United States. There are the standard gauge eight coupled locos that get a lot of press, but there are also quite a few smaller steam locomotives still running out there, especially industrial tank locomotives made by H K Porter and Vulcan Ironworks. One of my favorites is a one off 4-6-2 Pacific built for the Little River Railroad by Baldwin. The LRRR #110 is the smallest standard gauge Pacific built in the US weighing in at 99.5 tons empty. It was built in 1911 and has been in near continuous service except for a 20 year period of storage starting in the late 1950's. It's early life was spent hauling passenger trains on logging logging railroads in Tennessee and was built with rough track and tight curves in mind. The center drivers are blind and the #110 is particularly sure-footed over rough track.
>>1245459Cramptons are basically steam dragsters.
4-4-0 best steam
>>1245442Mate, have you looked out a window lately? Trump's the president, private companies are running passenger trains, and nothing makes sense anymore. It has a chance.
>>1246404Edwardian 4-4-0s > all
>>12463772-8-2 > 4-6-4
>>1245442Tell that to the BritsThey've got several new-build projects going on at the same time
100 years after one of the worst railroad disasters in Sweden, the locomotive of the train that derailed in a landslide returned to where it all happened.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get%C3%A5_railroad_disaster
>>1245235a nuke steam engine would be pretty neat
>>1246418Shame hardly any survived. It would make a nice change seeing some of them on heritage lines as opposed to standard 4 tanks & black 5's.
Victorian Railways X Class
>>1245442They have the tender, the cab, some bits of the front, a driving wheel, and parts of the boiler. It might just happen.
Bumping with GT 2 x 4/4. None of these absolute units survive, just need a mad Kraut rich enough to want to build one.
These 0-10-0T Rack Locomotives haul coal trains in West Sumatra.they were ordered in 2 phases, first in 1922 and the other in 1964 built by Esslingen,Pic shown depicts both phases left : 1st batch, right : 2nd batchonly 2 locomotives survived, one of them is still running
Did you know that Nigel Gresley's A1s were based off of the PRR K4/29s?
Imma just going to leave this here.
>>1248017I don't see it working, at least not with current solar power tech. However, a hybrid steam/electric might work by putting drive trucks with electric motors under the tender and heating coils in the tender. you could also add batteries to the tender to extend the range. To stay green, burn bio fuels like used cooking oil. The side effect would be steam engine that smells like french fries. pic sort of related. Grand Canyon Railroad steam engines run on used cooking oil.
>>1248074I meant heating coils in the boiler.
>>1248017Fixed it for you
Pic is from the Strasburg railroad. The Strasburg is the oldest continuously operating railroad in t he Western Hemisphere hand has about seven miles of mainline between Strasburg, Pennsylvania and the Norfolk Western mainline in Paradise, Pennsylvania. in the 1970's the Strasburg became a purely Heritage railroad offering steam excursions. In 2010 local businesses approached the railroad about hauling freight. After a cost analysis, the railroad agreed. a 100 year old bridge had to be replaced with a modern concrete span and portions of the track improved to accommodate modern 100 ton+ freight cars. Most freight moves are with diesels, but on days when one or more of the five steam engines are fired for excursion runs, revenue freight is moved by steam.
Santa Fe 3751 based in San Bernardino, California. Currently down since last year for her fifteen year inspection.
>>1248085Favorite pic of SF 3751. This was January of 1999. 3751 was traveling from San Bernardino to LA to pic up her passenger consist for an excursion. Rather than have it dead head on the mainline, the railroad assigned it to pull a 47 car intermodal consist to the LA yards.
>>1248089That video would have been perfect if the guy had shut upJust me
>>1248123wtf kinda abomination is this?
>>1248190That's an example of Maine 2 ft gauge (the one in the pic is now in Edaville, a small Mass. amusement park). The state of Maine had a large 2 ft gauge common carrier network at the turn of the 20th century.
>>1248125I don't disagree.
>>1248259Incedentally, that pic was the prototype for Bachmann's 2-6-0 On-30 locomotive that comes with their starter sets.
This one is kind of unique. Leviathan is a new build, completed in 2012, I believe. Her owner, David Kloke, wanted a 4-4-0 American type, and when he couldn't find one he founded Kloke Locomotive Works and built her.
The Santa Fe 3000 series 2-10-10-2. An odd beast because the oversized smokebox articulates with the front engine.
One of Strasburg's five operational steam locomotives. "Thomas" is a heavily modified H.K. Porter 0-6-0st that weighs 62 tons.
"Thomas" before the rebuild.
>>1248272Alright, I'm going to need some explanation here. Because is that a German engine on a Baltimore and Maryland mainline?
>>1248273>the oversized smokebox articulates with the front engine.You got a source for that?
>>1248300It's the London, Midland and Scottish (LMS) Railway, Princess Coronation Class No. 6229 Duchess of Hamilton imported for the 1939 World's Fair. it did a 3000 mile tour of the US before returning to the UK. Currently displayed at the National Railway Museum in York
>>1248302Wikipedia. Take it for what it's worth.>This class of ten 2-10-10-2 locomotives were actually rebuilt from more conventional 2-10-2 Baldwin-built locomotives by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway in 1911 to 1912.>Although they appeared to have exceedingly long boilers, the barrel in front of the rear set of cylinders actually contained first a primitive firetube superheater for further heating the steam before use; the steam was carried forward from the boiler proper by outside steam pipes as shown in the photograph. Also in this space was a reheater for the high-pressure exhaust before it was fed to the forward low-pressure cylinders.>In front of that, there was a feedwater heater, a space where cold water from the tender could be warmed before being injected into the water proper. This worked similarly to the boiler itself; the firetubes passed through the feedwater tank. The ATSF 2-10-10-2's, #3000 class locomotives, were the largest locomotives in the world from 1911 till possibly early 1914.
>when you need so many drivers, you stick them under the tender
>>1248308Yeah I looked that article up, but it doesn't say that the smokebox articulated with the front engine
>>1248319I read it somewhere else. Hang on a second. Leviathan being hauled to a Heritage railroad.
>>1248323that awkward moment when you build want a full sized steam engine so bad you found a company to fabricate it but you end up building a basic bitch 4-4-0guess you gotta start somewhere
>>1248323Here we go.http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/blwmal00.Html The second locomotive has an articulated boiler, with each section rigidly mounted on its respective frames: The flexible joint consists of fifty rings of high carbon steel, which are ten inches wide and formed with a slight set, so that when placed adjacent to one another they form a series of V-shaped joints. The rings have an outside diameter of seventy-five and one-half inches. They are riveted together at their inner and outer edges, and form a bellow’s-shaped structure which is forty-four and three-quarters inches in length. This is bolted into place between the front and rear boiler sections. An internal flue, forty-four inches in diameter, traverses the flexible connection, and is flared out at the back to fit into the rear boiler section. This flue prevents ashes and cinders from lodging in the flexible joints.
>>1248324He wanted a actual 1860's historic 4-4-0, but nobody would sell him one. So he built it. And he founded a company that builds steam locomotives. They're supposedly working on larger designs now.Pic is John Bull's 1980 live steam run. It was 149 years old at the time
For reasons known only to themselves, someone built a streamlined fireless locomotive.
Union Pacific steam turbine electric locomotives
And I'm off to bed.
What's your guys opinion on the western maryland scenic railroad restoring c&o 1309
>>1248420Pretty much any preserved locomotive being brought back to steam is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. One of the things you get from reading about the transition from stream to diesels was that the railroads were in a big hurry in 1958-1960 to scrap everything and that by 1970 everyone was like, "Holy crap, we should have saved some of those." I look at things like the fact that none of the 285 New York Central J type Hudsons survive and am thankful for everything we do have.In the US a lot of smaller locomotives that ended sold off to branch lines or industrial mining and logging operations survive, but not many of the thousands of mainline giants are still around, much less running.
>>1248232Actually it's an Indonesian sugar hauler that hauls tourists on an old 2ft gauge loop in Carver, Massachusetts.Getting the engine through customs must have been a bitch.
>>1248273>>1248302>>1248308>>1248326I believe it was only 2-6-6-2s that got the hinged boilers (of which there were two types), not the 2-10-10-2s.http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/flexmallet/mallet.htm
>>1248526Yeah, I was going to say that it didn't look American. Kind of like PRR 1515 or PRR 1320.
2' gauge Forney 0-4-4
Name a better looking locomotive. I'll wait.
sometimes, we go too far.
Well, I just learned about something I didn't know before. Norfolk and Western K2 Class 4-8-2.
Another N&W K2.
>>1248546Why the fuck would they want one of Webb's hideously complicated compounds?
>>1249016Because Pennsylvania is weird.
>>1248702>>1249020you're both wrong.
>>1248708There were plans to go further
>>1249090How about a 2-10-10-10-10-10-2?
>>1249074>>1249136That's utterly bonkers
Fuck you, Whyte!
Question about firebox sizes: was the x-X-4 simply a more powerful development of the x-X-2 configuration? Likewise, why did x-X-X-2 mallets exist rather than x-X-X-4?
>>1249231Pretty much. It basically comes down to what you want a specific locomotive to do. The X-X-4 allowed for a deeper, wider firebox, but at the cost of unsprung weight that wasn't putting power to the rails. most of those X-X-X-2 Mallets were creeping along at 30 to 40 miles per hour dragging massive freight trains. The firebox supported by a single axle trailing truck was enough to keep up a full head of steam. If you want to go fast with a big boiler, though, you're going to need that big firebox. Take eight coupled freight locomotives. The 2-8-0 Consolidation type was the freight locomotive of choice at the end of the 19th century. It was capable of hauling pretty massive loads for the time at speeds 30 to 40 miles per hour. The next step up was the 2-8-2 Mikado in the first decade of the 20th century. More firebox, better ability to maintain a head of steam, able to sustain speeds in the 50 to 60 mile per hour range. In the 1920's frieght trains wwre getting longer, cars were geting heavier and traffic demanded more speed, so the 2-8-2 Mikado was expanded into the 2-8-4 Berkshire type with an even larger firebox capable of sustaining speeds of 90 miles per hour. Six coupled passenger locomotives followed a similar evolution with the 4-6-0 Ten Wheeler evolving into the 4-6-2 Pacific and finally the 4-6-4 Hudson with each evolution adding power and speed.
>>1249274>Thousands of tons at 90mphCalling bullshit on thatOnly express passenger engines got to those sorts of speeds with any regularity
>>1249307Not the Ano you're replying to, but there's a difference between producing enough power to be theoretically capable of hitting 90 mph and actually doing so with regularity in revenue service.
>>1249274That is kind of... wrong.the x-X-X-2 mallets rode on very small drivers, so you could put the firebox above them. Even Y6b had it in such a way. Big Boy was kind of an oddball in comparison.On the other hand, passanger locomotives had huge drivers, so the only way to put more firebox was to suspend it on a four wheel truck.
>>1249319fair enough. Of course there were the 4-6-6-4 Challenger, 4-8-8-2 Cab Forward (firebox up front), and 2-6-6-6 Allegheny.
>>1249307Berks were fast freight engines. You didn't put them in front of a drag freight. They usually headed up an express freight train.
>>1249325Most of them shared the feature of 80inch ( or something like that) drivers, so they needed that truck under the firebox.Cab forwards also used their truck for guiding the locomotive in curves.
>>1249326Of course, some railways DID try putting X-X-4 locos on drag freights, which was really a waste. High horsepower is great for fast trains, but for slow ones it's tractive effort that matters.
>>1249274Thanks. Likewise, why would you have 2-X-x over a 4-X-x arrangement? What were the advantages and disadvantages of each? For example, why would a railroad order a Berkshire instead of a Northern or vice versa?
Furthermore what is limited cutoff? What is the advantage of a Belpaire firebox?
>>1249448Well, again, it depends on what the primary use of the locomotive will be and what sort of track and terrain it will be running on. As a general rule 4-X-X were used as passenger locomotives because the extra axle on the pilot truck offered better stability at high speeds. And the two axle pilot truck also supported more out past the drivers meaning you could have a larger, heavier smoke box which would help the draw through the boiler at speed. That's not to say a 4-X-X couldn't haul frieght. Many of them did. But locomotives like the 4-6-2 Pacific, 4-6-4 Hudson, 4-8-2 Mountain and 4-8-4 Northern were used as passenger locomotives. The fastest 4-X-X like the Hudsons and Northerns were 100 mph+ locomotives. Nice having that extra axle guiding while hurtling along at 100 mph.
>>1249462Sorry, didn't answer about the 2-X-X. They were largely freight engines. The Berks were unusual in they were 2-X-X and we're fast by any measure. The evolution of the Berkshire, the 2-10-4 Texas types, were more typical and initially had top speeds of 40 mph though some were later modified to reach higher speeds.
>>1249450Limited cutoff sort of has me scratching my head. It's part of the Super Power concept by Lima. If I understand it correctly, it means shorter valve travel meaning more "horsepower" and less "torque." The advantage was supposed to be less fuel used because there was less steam used at lower speeds. It also meant you didn't want to put a locomotive with limited cutoff in front of a drag frieght. Again I'm not sure I fully grasp the concept. I do know it was largely abandoned by the mid 30's. The Belpaire firebox's rectangular top offered better flow through the boiler because heat likes to rise. The disadvantage of the design was that the stay bolts that keep the boiler from flying apart can't be arranged in the optimum radial pattern for strength. As long as you compensate for it, it generally isn't a problem. Pennsylvania was famous for using Belpaire fireboxes on pretty much everything they ran and did well with them.
Could a steam engine offer any kind of engine braking?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201802/09/WS5a7cea42a3106e7dcc13bb07_8.html>An approaching cacophony of rattles and blasts of steam tore through the silence of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region. Noises from another era.>Then it appeared, clattering and shuddering at 30 kilometers per hour-one of China's few surviving steam trains at the Sandaoling coal mine in Hami prefecture, currently the biggest steam locomotive operation in the country.china literally, LITERALLY has steam operations in the current year
>>1249503Yes. It's called "counter steam braking." It can only be done on locomotives with cylinder type valves and has to be done by someone who knows the specific locomotive it's being done on well. The engineer effectively reverses the locomotive while still moving. This requires a skilled touch on the throttle and knowing exactly when to reverse. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing can break things pretty badly.
>>1249534Sounds like just using air is preferable then
>>1249309That's true, but the anon I was replying to suggested that 90mph revenue runs were a regular thing>>1249326Yeah I know that, but fast freights were in the 50-70mph range, not 90mph
>>1249448As steam locomotives were always purpose built (whence there are now 3 locomotive models where then you would have 50 on the same railroad ) it always comes down to horsepower and traction.4-X-x allows you to carry some extra length of a boiler while still maintaining fairly flexible frame. More boiler means more horsepower. If you don't need extra traction from drivers then 4-8-2 arrangement makes more sense then 2-10-2 when they carry the same boiler.
>>1249074>The Engine Centipede
Color photo of N&W K2.
>>1248266built in 2009. Guy also built a second called the York.
>>1249074This is lightly more sane. Though one wonders if you could hybridize some of the design aspects of a Garratt and Bullied's Leader. Have a deep firebox and the coal bunker hang in the middle, and have the boiler and a water tank/freedwater heater/condenser on top of the drivers. Could be a bogie style, could be more mallet like, but the point would be to put the highest variable weight in the center, and fixed weight over the drivers.
Why are locomotive pistons generally located ahead of the drivers? I know SP cab forwards had them "the wrong way" because of the reversed cab orientation, but that didn't seem to affect their operation--but in US, they were an anomaly.
>>1249768having the mechanical operations facing forward caused excessive wear on the Q1
>>1249768Someone answer me
>>1249768Because of the locomotive layout. You, essentially, have:Firebox -> boiler -> chimney ( for the exhaust gases )boiler -> collector -> oveheater -> cylinders ( for steam ).If you take a look at how these are arranged, it assures shortest possible runs for the high pressure pipes, so least mechanical troubles and most efficiency.
>>1250140So there's no mechanical disadvantage to having the pistons aft of the drivers?
>>1250386Depends if you consider loss of pressure to be a mechanical disadvantage. If you provide the same pressure into the cylinders then they would be no disadvantage. By moving the pistons away from the collector they will loose pressure so for the same system a rear piston will be less efficient.
Could the 844 beat the Mallard's speed record if given the chance?
>>1250394So there's no reason any steam engine couldn't run full speed/power in reverse except for the tender being in the way, right?
>>1250418Nope. Some were used in reverse ( such as german class 42s ) but with a speed limit. Riding gear ( especially the non-driven trucks ) were almost always designed for riding in one direction. Front truck was to lead the locomotive _into_ a curve and the rear was to get it out and to carry the firebox.Two exceptions are tank engines, of course, and garatts.>>1250409No.>>1250386There is thermal one. Longer pipes - more sealing issues ( live steam goes into cylinders at full pressure, so in the range of 200-300 psi ) more dirt issues and heat loss. Moreover - having a reprocating, sliding mass next to a source of dirt and dust, which the firebox is, is not a good thing.Mechanically however - there is no issue. Garratts are an example.
>>1250409No.The big american haulers and dual-use locomotives aren't optimized for speed enough. Even back when the Class I's did both passenger and freight, their dual-use locomotives would sacrifice some speed for power as to not be completely useless in freight operation.If you want to look for American locomotives that could possibly beat the Mallard, you need to look East, at the dedicated passenger locomotives. The PRR's a gold-mine of experimental steam technology. Baldwin threw out all the conventional wisdom and went all-in with unconventional designs in the twilight of the steam era as a last-ditch effort to keep steam on the rails. The PRR, optimistic about its future (and unaware of their approaching doom) was more than willing to bankroll these efforts. Thus you got crazy, off-the-wall designs that represented the apex of fast steam technology. If anyone could've cooked the duck, they could.
>>1250435It still might if the T1 Trust gets their way.
>>1250431>>1250435It's just that I saw this Train simulator race between 844 and Mallard, and when 844 broke its steam chest, it started accelerating and overtaking Mallard. That's why I asked.
>>1249307>Calling bullshit on that>Only express passenger engines got to those sorts of speeds with any regularityBuilt for 90 did 60-70 in actual service. Design performance versus practice. And there were places where they could find their performance cap out west in the US and Canada. The potential was often limited by the rolling stock and how much load they had.Now days you are lucky if you have a passenger train that can go over 79mph.
>>1246437Since this is the only board that would care about this kind of thing...That model for the Fallout 4 steam engine was taken from the artist's existing portfolio, like circa 2010, and just got cleaned up. Don't try to read anything off the model. It's not like they looked at existing concepts or tried to design their own atomic loco from scratch.Adam Adamowicz would have. God, I miss him.
>>1248190the cutest kind
>>1250465Would anyone actually let them?
>>1250435There's a recorded fine for the Pennsylvania 6-4-4-6 S1 Class traveling at 140 mph on the mainline. This not an official speed record, but the Pennsy did pay the fine.
>>1250552There is an issue with accuracy here and for Pennsy it was a matter of prestige. In the form of "oopsie, look how fast we are going" kind of prestige.There are apocryphal reports of steam engines breaking all kinds of records in the US railroads and it is quite possible that the actual record is above the 126mph. Those weird Pennsy and NYC locomotives could, probably, speed up to 126+.That being said - no dyno measurement means no reward. Bongs were dilligent, thus they get the trophy.
>>1250546Publicity is a good thing and quality of infrastructure now is much higher then in the forties. So - yeah. They might. Especially if they sell it as some sort of charity.
>>1250568Yeah, but they'd want half-a-dozen safety systems and you'd have to shut down most of whatever line they were on. Plus there's only 33 miles at the moment where you can actually go above 125 mph.
>>1250567I simply don't care about the speed record official or not, American locomotives were better in every way than their British counterparts
>>1250568>quality of infrastructure now is much higher then in the fortiesAbsolutely untrue with the exception of welded rail
>>1250599Except looks. And they were built for different countries with different needs and requirements, so comparing them is rather stupid. Horses for courses, after all.
>>1250607>Except looks.Nope not even there. British locomotives look like toys to me.
>>1250618They look elegant.
>>1248077At a minimum this would give new meaning to the phrase 'train wreck'
What's the feasibility of nuclear steam turbine engine locomotive?
>>1250607Don't forget, Britain having a stupidly tiny loading gauge.>>1250626I prefer the French ones in that regard
>>1250750Chapélon was one of the best steam engine designers ever.I’d love to see his 6000hp steam engine range be built, especially the 2-10-4
>>1250667There was a semiserious proposal using an aqueous reactor type. The X-12.atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/to-peoria-by-atom.html
>>1250824More recently, sandia nationa labs work on krusty is leading to a new heat pipe based design called Kilopower. The next step after Kilopower is Megapower, a roughly container sized reactor, using a combo of heatpipes and supercritical CO2 power cycles. sCO2 turbines are stupid small for their rated power, and due to the hot sCO2 cycle, direct air cooling is readily feasible. Arguably if someone wanted to try, Megapower isn't a bad start.At least compared to HOLOs, which is all sorts of strange...osf.io/c2ur8/Not to mention the crazy Boeing patent for a pulsed laser fusion jet engine, which could be used as a turboshaft I suppose.
>>1250597Well, the T1 trust is going to equip PTC, like basically all of the steam operators are required to do now, so that takes care of the safety system requirement.I've been told that the only exception steam locomotives will get for PTC implementation is that they will not be required to have an automatic throttle cut-off. That'll be up to the engineer. The brakes will still deploy automatically, but not the throttle. This is apparently due to some quirk of steam engine design where pulling the throttle to zero so quickly can cause equipment damage.If Amtrak continues to be an ass about excursions in the year 202X, they can always try the Pueblo train testing facility. I'm pretty sure they have a testing loop with a large enough radius to being the T1 to top speed.>>1250600Eh, it varies. Most track maintenance is nowhere near the old standards, yes, but in the areas where speed has remained a priority modern computer precision kicks the ass of the precision they had back then.One of my favorite railroads, the FEC, has track on their mainline that would absolutely blow away anything they ran back in the streamliner days. Course, the FEC's such a freaking oddball of a railroad that it's not really a fair comparison; they're basically an old-fashioned Class I that's managed to survive intact without being merged.
>>1250600Modern trackage carries four-five times the tonnage the old stick rail did and still remains well done. Where machines laid the track ( so every mainline these days ) the quality of the track is superb.In ye'olde times maintenance of fixed plant was done so dilligently because rails, ballast and other stuff were pure garbage in comparison to what gets laid today.
>>1250908>>1250974The machines are better and more precise, if you can get track & time to fix the problem. The undercutter comes through once a year, if that, on most subdivisions and is only there for a week before it goes to the next. Only the worst mud spots get it, habitual spots reappear not to mention new spots that get a 25 slow order slapped on them for months or more.We definitely carry more tonnage now and it shows, there is no emphasis on keeping speeds up or minimizing the slow orders, the mantra is to do as little as possible to get your annual bonus.
>>1250991In the old times railroads were doing the same goddamn thing. It's called 'capitalism' where you want to get most $$ in profits for least $$ in investments.
>>1250996EPIC response good sirEven though trains ran faster years ago and there were double or triple the number of track gangs fixing bad spots quickly and no one was deferring maintenance to get a bonus at the end of the yearPost paystub or stfu
>>1250908>like basically all of the steam operators are required to do nowEven on heritage lines? In the UK you can get an exemption if you're one (and all of them do).
>>1251009If you're hauling passengers, no exception.It's a big contributor to the difficulties steam excursions have been facing recently, second only to Amtrak's stonewalling of them.To put it into UK terms, the excursions aren't being allowed to use the passenger mainlines anymore. They can negotiate with the private freight railways (with varying success), but the national passenger rail network's off-limits now thanks to Anderson.
Why does Amtrak owe you space on their mainlines?
>>1251023It doesn't. No-one says that Amtrak can't kick off the operators - they clearly have the authority to do so. What people are asking is: why?Anderson claims it's for capacity, but I don't buy that. We're not talking about the NEC here. These are lightly-scheduled long-distance trains. The freight companies are really the ones that should be grumbling, not Amtrak.There's some logic in the discontinuance of hitching private cars to the back of trains - there are actual time penalties that incurs. But I've yet to understand the justification for preventing excursions independently of regular Amtrak service.The ONE GOOD THING to come out of the disastrous privatization of BR is the open-access mandate. As long as you can pay the cost, you get a time slot. Doesn't matter if your train's steam, diesel, or electric: if it can physically run on the tracks you paid for, you can run it there.
>>1251022Ah, are you talking about steam operators on the mainline? You can't get an exemption for that in the UK. But do heritage lines separate from the main network need PTC?
>>1251031You would need to deal with the owners of the mainlines then, not Amtrak
>>1251138Yes.If you're carrying passengers in the US after December 31st, you must have PTC. There are no exceptions for any type of passenger operation.Small freight lines (Class IIs and IIIs) DO get an exception as long as they don't have Amtrak or carry certain amounts of hazardous freight on that particular line, but no passenger railroad under FRA jurisdiction will be allowed to go PTC-less.
Video of Union Pacific #3985 4-6-6-4 Challenger pulling 143 double stack well cars up Archer Hill at 35 mph in 2008.https://youtu.be/XhgHrDbN4EU
>>1250750>Britain having a stupidly tiny loading gauge.they always look so much bigger when people aren't in the photo
>>1251240>Pulling the lightest trains with the exception of empties and pigsThat's supposed to impress me?
>>1251250I really don't give two shits what you think. It's a steam locomotive operating on a modern mainline hauling modern frieght. I think it's pretty cool. You can go beat off to the forty billion variants of the SD70 for all I care. Have fun.
>>1251235Huh. In the UK heritage lines don't even have to stuff like AWS (or meet disabillity legislation), but they are nearly always restricted to a maximum of 25mph. There's also no sign of it changing, but then I don't think America really has the conception of a railway run by amateurs for the sake of historical preservation the same way the UK.
>>1251277It's not impressive. If it was hauling 100 cars of coal, that would be impressive
>>1251328We do. There are a number of heritage railroads around the country. The one closest to me is the North Alabama Railroad Museum. They have 7 miles of line north of the city of Huntsville and run excursions. They're not connected to any other railroad so they get all kinds of exemptions and thief operations are entirely by volunteers.
>>1251401I hope you don't expect a six axle steam locomotive to outpull a modern diesel. Big boy would get owned by a current 4400hp diesel. Challenger even more so.Also - 8 images of captcha in a row. Fuck you google.
>>1251432Sounds pretty small fry compared to the volunteer-run operations in the UK.>they get all kinds of exemptionsBut presumably not an exemption from PTC?
>digital PTC screens in a steam locomotive
>>1251699For the most part, there's very little that can be done with regards to this.In the UK, steam locomotives have to fitted with AWS and TPWS to be legally allowed to run on the mainlines.In Ireland, the law allows for steam locomotives to be exempted from having CAWS.In Germany, steam locomotives have to be fitted with PZB 90, and while a lot of steam locomotives were initally fitted with Induzi, which was a precusor system, PZB 90 is a software upgrade to the system.In France, steam locomotives have to be fitted with KVB in order to operate on the conventional lines, even though Le Crocodile is still in use in some parts of France as a form of redundancy.In Scotland, the Radio Electronic Token Block system's implementation meant that any trains going into Scottish Highland lines needed to have a radio system and RETB system as well. This includes Steam Locomotives, which have managed to fit both inside.In Wales, the Cambrian Line replaced its RETB system with a ETCS Level 2 system, in order to allow for a modernised signalling system. No steam locomotive has run on the Cambrian Line since the introduction of the ETCS system as it would mandate not only the metrification of the dials and instruments on board for km/h, but would also necessitate a digital display system to be able to indicate cab signalling for movement authority and speed limits.With the modernisation of train protection systems, it's going to be much harder to have steam trains which don't have some kind of modern cab signalling, especially in Europe as ETCS starts taking over. ETCS Level 1 is being implemented across several rail corridors in Europe, but new lines are getting Level 2. It's only a matter of time before Level 3 starts being implemented.
>>1251244This is how British loading gauge feels to an american,
The Germans (who else) had to come up with an insane and completely megalomaniac scheme to build the biggest and most badass train ever with a 3000mm gauge. Gauges up to 4 meters were considered, there were even ideas with 9-meter gauge with 4-storey waggons.
>>1251699What's wrong with that? It's just some small screens and that in the cab, the actual operation of the locomotive doesn't change a bit. Besides, in the UK at least preserved lines can operate without it.>>1251235Do you have a source on this? I can't find anything about US heritage railroads fitting PTC except one article about two locomotive owners doing it to continue operating on the mainline, not doing it to continue operating on heritage railroads.
>>1251728There isn't really a distinction between "mainline" and "heritage" railroads in the US. Narrow-gauge steam railroads like the Durango and Silverton are the exception, not the rule.Most American steam operations run over active railroads still in commercial use. Whether they contract with Amtrak or negotiate directly with the owner of the right-of-way, these are active rail lines (if perhaps lightly-used) and are treated as such. The mainline vs. heritage distinction as exists in the UK has no direct American counterpart.
>>1251728>>1251751Mainly having any kind of digital control system in a steam engine is lame and gay
>>1251764It's got precedence. For example, the Pennsylvania Railroad was a world leader in electronic signals and equipped many of their steam engines with them.This is the same idea, just with more advanced technology.
>>1251751>Narrow-gauge steam railroads like the Durango and Silverton are the exception, not the rule.Do these have to fit PTC though?
>>1251769Nigga that's a GG1
>>1251771So I went and looked it up and you're right. There does appear to be an exemption for "non-mainline" operators. The reason I put that term in quotes is I feel like the term mainline has a different connotation here in the US than in the UK. Union Pacific's steamers may not run on the "mainline" of the railroad, but they still need PTC if they're pulling passengers over Union Pacific tracks. On the other hand, nobody's going to be breaking down the doors of Disneyland's headhouse demanding their railroad become PTC compliant any time soon.
>>1251772I found one with the signals. On the right side of the cab.
>>1251787I knew you were correct but I wanted to give you a hard time
>>1251789I'm not even the one that posted the GG1 but thanks.
>>1251795I was the one that posted the gg1, and I found the exact same picture as you, only to get the duplicate image error message because you posted it a few seconds earlier.
>>1251786"Mainline" in the UK when talking about these matters usually means Network Rail. There isn't really a different connotation, it still means the "proper" rail lines in this context.
>>1251437Modern locomotives outperform 70 year old designs. This is an amazing insight. Maybe next you could tell us how modern turbofan engine jetliners out preform 70 year old piston powered aircraft and how a modern Honda Civic is superior to a Ford Model T.
>>1251442I'll ask the next time I'm over there.
Why didn't Garratts catch on in the US?
>>1252020Same way that tank engines didn't catch on.Long distances and heavy loads need big fuel and water supplies, far more than a locomotive could carry without a tender
TYPE C62,LARGEST and STRONGEST STEAM LOCO in JAPAN.
>>1252669Garratts had tenders though
By the way, everyone.A little cool event happened a while ago that Steam Locomotive and Shinkansen run in parallel.People who want to know more can search Twitter or something "SLこまち(SL Komachi)".People who love steam locomotives should have seen it.
>>1245235>Coal is one of the most polluting fuels there is.>Never going to be as efficient as diesel, although later steam engines managed to improve their efficiency.>Takes 3 hours to start up. Diesels, you just press a button.>Got to rake out the ashes at the end of the day as well. Generally just more labour intensive.Yes, I love steam as much as anyone, but if you're trying to run a business, diesel or electric makes much more sense.
>>1252673>STRONGEST STEAM LOCOIsn't that a bit like winning the special olympics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voXW9Ll6nlsUP just finished the front half of the 4014
>>1252674They had water tenders, so they still didn't have enough coal capacity.You need the coal close to the firebox as it doesn't flow like water does, though oil feeling would solve this
>>1252987Have you seen a Garratt before?
>>1252997Yeah.Just wondering how you would propose to get coal from the front to the back, or how you'd get 30-40 tons of coal on the rear power unit
>>1253001Rear tender next to the cab holds the coalDo you think they never existed anon?
>>1253037thats not a tender, a tender is a separate wagon
>>1253044Oh, you're just autistic. My bad
>>1253050https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_(rail)>get btfo>just call the other guy autistic
>>1253051>Literally being this autistic about terminology while also being a complete dumbass about GarrattsNothing personnel
>>1251908Do you understand the concept of a 'context'?
>>1253001Jet pulverizer and air pipe blast feed, as in some late steam age prototypes?
>>1253037As in a separate container with its own wheels or are you talking about the bunker over the rear set of driving wheels?
>>1253215Actually, what would work is mechanical stoker from a separate container into the rear bunker, which then has a stoker into the firebox.At that point you may as well have a mallet
>>1253215Stop sperging faggot>>1253218There's no reason why the bunker couldn't be enlarged to North American standards
>>1251713>In France, steam locomotives have to be fitted with KVB in order to operate on the conventional lines, even though Le Crocodile is still in use in some parts of France as a form of redundancy.For the few steam locomotives still allowed to run on conventional lines in France, none have been equipped with KVB (and good luck to fit one).
Let me try this again: is there any reason why the Garratt was never tested or used in North America?
>>1253772Probably not-invented-here syndrome? same with condensing tenders.
>>1252910Well either that or being the valedictorian of your graduating class since they amount to the same thing.
>>1253986Pretty good reason. Shame, it would have been cool to see a US-sized Garratt
Anyone here like articulateds?
>>1253986Mallets weren't invented in the US either though
>>1254201I pronounce it with a hard 'T' at the end b/c that's how I grew up saying it. "Malley" just doesn't sound right even though it is.
>>1254121wonder why PRR didn't try though in late era steam?
>>1253772Just reading over the wikipedia page, and I think it wasn't adopted in the US because there wasn't any real advantage to the design on American railroads.So the idea seems to be that by putting more power into an engine you could cram more engine into the same space and save costs by not doubleheading and having to pay two crews.That's not a very big advantage in the US, as outside of the northeast, very few railways were size-constrained. We've always had a very generous loading gauge. So when we needed more power, we just made the locomotive bigger. Curve radius was a bigger deal to us than trackside clearance.>>1254350Ironically, the T1 came about to replace the rising costs the Pennsy was incurring by doubleheading K4s, and I think it proves my point. Not only is it a huge engine, it's not even articulated. Even in the northeast, track clearance was never that big a deal for us.
>>1254371Oh, also: axle loadings. HUGE issue in Europe. Barely even cared about in America.Typical axle load limit in America is roughly 36 US tons (33 tonnes), but there's a push to upgrade to 39 US tons (36 tonnes). In comparison, the UIC spec is rouhly 22 US tons (20 tonnes).So weight's never been that big a deal for us burgers either, which is... not surprising.
>>1245622Well, Disneyland uses a diesel-steam loco on it's railway, which it has because Disney was a massive autist (pioneer of American anime, built a personal railroad in his backyard, built a railway at Disneyland despite being called foolish for doing so, and memed monorails into reality), so there's that.
>>1246437The problem with any nuclear vehicle is the shielding, both to prevent irradiation during operation and to prevent disaster in case of a crash. We have designs for nuclear trains, planes, and rockets, but the shielding required to make them "safe" kills them.
>>1254432Only the Wildlife Express and Hong Kong's railroad are steam-outline diesel, the rest (Land, World, Tokyo, and Paris) are legitimate steam.
>>1254376UIC max axle load is 22.5 tonnes, so 24.8 short tons.
>>1252707For small heritage lines out here where I live, they manage to make it economical. Plenty of fat tourists to haul up the mountain, the engines burn recycled oil, and they have their own machine shop on site.
>>1252707You could probably make a steam engine as efficient as a diesel.Porta inspired modified Hunslet "Austerities" could reach close to 900hp>http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htmIt's an old website but has a lot of good info.
Union Pacific #4014 rebuild update.https://youtu.be/voXW9Ll6nls
Have you guys heard about the Coalition for Sustainable Rail?They've got a project to restore & soup up an old Santa FE 4-6-4 using new methods and theories.If you're interested in the theory they're using to improve performance, give these a read over:https://csrail.org/whitepapers/>>1255871Very nice, will be glorious to see it steaming again
>>1255901Baldwin built Santa Fe Hudsons were beasts. They weren't so much stretched Pacifics as they were cut down Northerns.
What were the reputations of Alco, Baldwin, and Lima? Who was considered the best? Were there any defining characteristics of each?
>>1256035I heard that Alco was the 'worst' of them
>>1255997It’s definitely got an aura of power.CSR are looking at boosting the power so they can get up to 130mph or more
>>1252910The C62 steam locomotive has a maximum speed record of 129 km / h.This is the fastest record as a steam locomotive running on a 1064 mm gauge track.
>>1256035It honestly depends on the era and the locomotives themselves. ALCo was a conglomeration of smaller locomotive builders that came together as a single company, so early in the 20th Century the quality of an ALCo locomotive varied according to which formerly independent shop it came from. By the 1920's older designs had been phased out, older shops had been closed or relegated to manufacturing components and designs had been standardized across the seven formerly independent companies. Lima was the biggest steam manufacturer, ALCo was second ad Baldwin the third largest. New York Central chose ALCo to build the J class Hudsons and ended up buying 265 J1, J2 and J3 Class locomotives. Baldwin vwas more focused on high quality and small orders of specialized locomotives, often designing and building small runs of a class designed specifically for a customer that were as small as a single custom built unit. Lima churned out massive powerhouse locomotives using their "Super Power" design principles for the class one railroads.
Patiently waiting until this Canadian beauty gets to steam again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z8MIXXDPls
Here's the SNCF 160A1.Rebuilt from an old compound 2-10-0, Chapelon added an extra set of drivers and new cylinders, making it a 6 cylinder behemoth. 2 HP cylinders drove the 4th axle, 2 outside LP drove the 3rd axle and 2 inside LP drove the 2nd axle.This locomotive was designed so well that the fuel and coal consumption dropped below 20mph, something that doesn't happen in conventionally designed locomotives and making it perfect for drag freights.It was no slouch either, being able to reach 59mph and output 2750hp
>>1250815http://forum.e-train.fr/trains/download/file.php?id=335429This one?Link is a spec sheet and diagram (all in metric) and I had to go digging through a french forum to find it.Pretty interesting as it shows a 0º/90º/135º pattern for the LP/LP/HP cylinders. Would have thought that the balance would be a bit off.>>1249450A Belpaire originally meant a perpendicular stay connection between the inner firebox and outer firebox, meaning a stronger connection that was easier to manufacture.The Belpaire firebox also had more steam space and surface area at the firebox crown, allowing for greater steam production in a given space.Lima were even planning on making a "double Belpaire" with the lower half of the combustion chamber being squared off to allow for more flues and tubes and increase steam rates, pic related.However, the Belpaire was far more difficult and complicated to fit to the boiler and the square shoulders don't allow boilers near to the maximum loading gauge, which is why many RRs didn't bother with them