Steam loco general /slg/Previous thread hit image limit>steam posting>de facto autistics anonymous meetings>arguing about things neither person understands>narrow gauge is cozyPrevious thread >>1763742
what is /slg/'s opinion on Livio Dante Porta?
>>1791071alright can someone spoonfeed me what the fuck am i looking at lol
>>1791071wait is it a 2-4-4-2? are there hidden linkages for the two pairs of unconnected drivers, or are they on the other side?
>>1791159>our boilers won't explode this time guys look how much we spent on tubes they're so nice they definitely won't explode at all
>>1791569Good ideas, but unfortunately he was a man swimming against the current.Maybe if oil becomes very scarce steam might have a renaissance. But it's also likely that in a peak oil scenario nuclear power + electrification will become more common.
>>1791638>>1791613It's individually driven wheel sets. No idea if they are connected on the other side or even if there are other pairs of cylinders on the other side. Odd contraption for sure.
Have some weird valve gear.LMS Black 5 44767 with outside Stephenson Valve Gear. Built as part of Ivatt's experiments into improving the already great Black 5.
The unique BR Standard 8P, the Duke of Gloucester. Currently one of two operational locomotives with Caprotti valve gear and the only 3 cylindered example.
And the final one, Gresley conjugated valve gear.Meant to be a convenient workaround to a 3 rd set of valve gear for the centre cylinder, it could create as many problems as it solved. In pic related it's the horizontal bar found in front of the cylinder valves between the pilot and smokebox
what does /slg/ think of the SL7/Pashina class?
>>1792430it's not without its charm
Anyone know anything about this site? http://www.multipowerinternational.com/standard.html
>>1795068Garratts are wild
>>1795080They're a very simple, but logical concept.Slap a thicc boiler between the two engines and adding fuel and water on the spare spaces on top of the engines.
>>1795093No design is without drawbacks though.
>>1795147Agreed, but for most of the world Garratts were the most common articulated design.Only issue with them is that they're tank engines. Steam locos need a tender for them to go appreciable distances. Getting coal from the tender would be an issue, though if they were oil fired it would be fine. Must admit I do like Mallets but they're pretty impractical outside of North America
>>1795273>Agreed, but for most of the world Garratts were the most common articulated design.Probably in part because they could be craned and shipped from Europe to colonial territories in sections of actionable weight.>Steam locos need a tender for them to go appreciable distances.Garratts also lose weight over the drive axles and therefore traction in the process of using up fuels.
>>1791733That is the perfect machine for multi track drifting
>>1795284Not just that, but you can get a big, fat parallel boiler with a huge firebox that's only restricted by the overall loading gauge. No need to worry about trying to fit wheels under it like a Mallet, Meyer, Fairlie, etc.It's a big advantage to the design, as large grates and wide boilers are the best shapes to generate more power. Unless you have a loading gauge like the US or Russia, it's a struggle to try and fit everything in.This is a SAR GL class Garratt, and has a 75sqft grate, which is fairly small for the US but absolutely enormous anywhere else. If US railroads took it up, there would have been monstrosities that make the Allegheny look puny
The Whyte notation is shit and I'm tired of pretending it isn't. It completely disregards what's mounted on a bogie and what isn't.t. UIC Chad
>>1796596wym by mounted on a bogie
>>17970264-4-0How do you know whether any part of it is on a bogie or whether it's completely rigid. Actually how do you know which part of it is driven in the first place? Why can't you just say 2B or 2'B so everyone knows what you mean?
>>1797039when i hear "4-4-0" i think of 19th century american locomotives or edwardian era british locos, context makes it make more sense but i get your point
>>1797039Not to mention weird things like this...the best whyte could do would be "0-6(2)-0"? "0-4-0+2-2-0" would imply two engines, not a single engine with an undiven axle in the middle. Though the UIC "B2A" also implies the axles are driven separately...Side note, when it comes to diesels, does anyone else prefer to keep the "o" suffix (ie Bo-Bo vs B-B for an EMD F unit) for diesel locos even though US tends to drop it? (Since it applies to pretty much all US locos anyway)
>>1797412>does anyone else prefer to keep the "o" suffix (ie Bo-Bo vs B-B for an EMD F unit)No. Makes me think of BoBo the clown.
>>1797412>Though the UIC "B2A" also implies the axles are driven separately...yeah the Belgian Type #3 fucks pretty much every wheel classification system over
Got bullied for my love of choo choo by a friend of mine. Not sure if they were just doing some light teasing but my autistic ass got silently butthurt by them and I didn't want to have a spurgout over it
>>1799029You did the right thing by containing your power level though
She's coming along
>>1799472I'll see what the Trust has to say in a few hours
Bad news. The T1 will soley be an oil burner. Their reasoning was because the Big Boy shit-eaters were okay with that conversion. I guess this is the price of appeasing the Class 1's that will probably come up with new restrictions post-production.
Their logic is certainly something else. The Trust wants to follow the business model like 611 does - going to different places like Steamtown etc for a year at a time instead of doing mainline excursions that dont make money. Keep in mind the 611 is a coal burner. But they also want to go to oil burning because the mainlines have nowhere to dump ash/wont let them dump ash. They also seem to think more and more steam locomotives will be converted to oil burning. Not sure why they think most steam owners have that kind of money. Also find it interesting they've had no communication with the Reading & Northern.
>>1799530Honestly a big shame. One would think they'd at least try to make it a hybrid
>>1799556It's like they're trying to go for Big Boy 2.0, but that doesn't fit the planned business model. They're going to great lengths to make the thing compatible for both Class 1s and shortlines with tighter curves and to keep such design modifications from being too noticeable. The only mainline excursions they're considering at the moment is doubleheading with the K4 out of Altoona which is coal burning herself. I get that they need to make this decision now before more work is done and being oil fired would allow the T1 to run under her own power to these places - but these people are betting on the idea the Class 1 won't just make up a new excuse to keep her towed on the mainline. The fact that they've had no communication with a railroad like the Reading and Northern - a relatively large steam friendly railroad - is concerning.
>>1799542>the mainlines have nowhere to dump ash/wont let them dump ashWhat do they mean by this? Surely there must be some way to dump ash?
>>1799597I think it's more like there is no way to do it that will appease the class 1s. Btw, the 1361 restoration continues to look promising and confirmed they will be burning coal
>>1799619>confirmed they will be burning coalextremely based
>>1799623The people who took over that museum board are old school and intend to run the 1361 across the Commonwealth shortlines. They know what they're doing and know the cancer that the Class 1s currently are. One used to be Norfolk Southern's CEO. They didn't say any place specific to avoid making premature promises but they sounded optimistic. Very likley Strasburg and Everret (thier owner is on the board) at least. There are a lot here afterall. The T1 Trust seems to be going for more mass appeal. I think they saw thier donations stats trending towards younger people and figured that demographic wouldn't care or notice as much about oil vs coal. I was talking to thier founder (before finding out about the oil) and he seemed very excited about younger people funding the project
Running oil makes everything so much easier. It's just not something you should give a shit about
>>1799663If you like easy to run, then get into diesels.
>>1799663West coast hands typed this post
>>1799663Coal firing is absolutely part of the charm of steam locomotives especially here on the East Coast. The bigger issue is thier conflicting reasoning. I suspect the real reason is likely that thier home they have for the locomotive (should be announced later this year) will be no where near the east coast. It also calls into question if they really intend to treat the T1 like the 611, going to smaller railroads for months or a year at a time, or really intend to run her on mainline excursions charging +$1000 starting price for tickets. At that point she's just a shorter, shittier 4014.
>>1799672>>1799692Seethe all you want. You know I'm right.>>1799774Coal smells nice, but given the availability and comparative difficulty of coal firing it should be no wonder that they'd want to go with oil instead. You can get a fill-up anywhere, the fire is easier and faster to control, there's no ash, no shoveling, less of a mess in the flues, and no mechanical stoker is needed.
>>1799796Right about what? You think the crews that volunteer to operate these things care about what's easier to operate?
They've actually updated thier website. At least I didn't see this a few days ago in the faq.>The locomotive will be used as a test bed for alternative environmentally friendly fuels to allow operation of America’s steam locomotives into the foreseeable future. The locomotive would be a national touring education center when complete while testing coal alternative fuel sources such as torrefied biomass, natural gas, vegetable oil, recycled oils and propane. As well as fuel sources being tested, combustion and drafting would also be tested for increased combustion performance and reduction in carbon output. Results would be shared with operators around the country as well as plans for coal to other fuel conversions.lmao
>>1799813No but the people who manage them do
>>1799820Why even build a steam locomotive at this point if this is how you feel about them?
>>1799903Why not? It's not a crazy idea to test if the fuel used makes it easier to run/more environmentally friendly.Especially as governments worldwide are looking to reduce coal use, it's worthwhile to get some data on alternative fuels before jurisdictions outright ban coal or the supply dries up.
>>1799913Foamer persecution complex. No person or politician fucking cares about a few dozen steam engines burning a few tons of coal on the weekends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1EWpCQP7eE&list=TLPQMTQwNTIwMjJLjgfeEtts5ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePpG4tVHSMQ&list=TLPQMTQwNTIwMjJLjgfeEtts5ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0izTlCTHJc&list=TLPQMTQwNTIwMjJLjgfeEtts5g>>1799931It's better to have a plan and not need it than being caught out.
>>1799931These guys aren't foamers. At least one describes himself as a venture capitalist to put things into perspective. You know they probably got promised a deal by some company trying to promote some bullshit green idea that will never make it past the planning stages. Anyone who thinks this thing will ever burn anything other than bunker oil is delusional.
>>1799962>It's better to have a plan and not need it than being caught out.Plan B is just burning regular oil if coal use becomes a problem. Way easier than all that dumb green shit>>1799964>These guys aren't foamers.Oh I know. I mean actual foamers who think the government is coming for their excursion locomotives.
>>1799820how do they expect to put biomass in an oil burner lmao>>1799931the problem is that coal mining is not economical if the heritage sector is the only consumer
>>1799985Way easier yes, but you can't get those juicy "green" carbon credits with petroleum.>>1800059>how do they expect to put biomass in an oil burner lmaoYou take out the burner and put in a normal grate
>>1799931In a logical world, yes; but climate activists don't operate on logic.
>>1800059>>1800064They don't ever intend to run it on green shit. This is just an appeal to the under 30 crowd. They'll claim it wasn't practical and just run it on bunker oil.
Let's say in some alternate timeline Wilbert Awdry was born and raised in the US, but still had the same adoration for trains. If The Railway Series came to fruition using North American prototypes, which engines would be best suited for the engines?>Thomas - Montreal Locomotive Works/Alco 0-6-0T >Gordon - A Hudson (Either a NYC J1 or a CP Royal Hudson)>Henry - Not really sure here, I wanna say a K4 but I feel like there's a better choice >Edward - A 4-4-0 (One of the more "modern" looking ones like the NYC 999 rather than the stereotypical wild west ones)>James - Definitely a Mogul. >Percy - HK Porter 0-6-0 Dockside Saddle Tank
>>1800031Pennsy should have done a 4-10-4
>>1800059>the problem is that coal mining is not economical if the heritage sector is the only consumerThe big mines for power plants will close down eventually (who knows when), but there are a ton of smaller open pit operations that will be around. I don't think it will be hard to source coal in the quantities heritage operators need.>>1800072Are the climate activists in the room with us now, anon?
>>1800059>the problem is that coal mining is not economical if the heritage sector is the only consumerThen don't make heritage the only consumer. That's just stupid.
>>1800031>4-8-4 >Not 4-4-4-4 DuplexIt's truly sensible>>1800100Nah, the Q2 as a 2-6-6-4 or S1 boiler on a Yellowstone frame would've been far better. The Q1 and Q2 were both dead-end developments.*This post has been sanctioned*
what is the best wartime locomotive design /slg/?
>>1800208>I don't think it will be hard to source coal in the quantities heritage operators needsupply and demand anonless coal mines, more expensive coal>>1800322What other customers do you propose?
>>1800725Mines would theoretically shutter because of lack of demand. The biggest coal consumers are power plants. Even so, the US alone exports tremendous quantities of coal so at least some of the mines here will continue to operate for international trade. But you can mine coal with a small dragline and a crew of a few men economically right now.
>>1800392for me it's
>>1800091Henry would be a Santa Fe heavy Pacific.
>>1800828Those drivers look awful
>>1800725I think you overestimate how much coal the heritage railroads use and how easily they would be able obtain it even if coal consumption for electricity was outright banned. Hell there probably would be enough stockpiles left after such a ban to outlast the useful lives of most heritage locomotives still up and running. Ultimately it would still probably be cheaper and or practical than converting your +100 year old locomotive to burn bunker oil. Also if you're so concerned about green zealots banning your coal what makes you think burning bunker oil would be any better?
>>1800843Made for the ATSF by LFM in Kansas. I'm a Scullin man meself.
>>1800996Welsh railways are already running out of coal https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/coal-crisis-welsh-heritage-railways-23974166
>>1801090Did the train stop in the middle of the road to unlaod the passengers?
Green Steam engine.
>New York Central got to have one of their engines in Thomas the Tank Engine but not the PennsyREEEEEEE
>>1801462Is that Gordon? Wtf?!
We should be honest with ourselves, it's time to scrap 3801.
>>1801489Connor, an American engine in CGI Thomas the Tank Engine
>>1801462I'm not even a Thomas fan and I know they've had a K4 character.
>>1801541One can be forgiven for forgetting Hank existed considering he was in Late HiT era which is often ignored by Thomas fans
>>1801563Why the fuck is this giving me uncanny valley? Something is wrong with this but I don't know why and it scares me
>>1801500why's that then
Don't mess with the devils buddy, we're number one.
>>1801600>Don't mess with the devils buddy, we're number one.Check'd and kek'd. Very nice
>>1801166No, I don't believe so. Just passing through from Central's station
>>1801500American's truly built the best locomotives.
>>1801642are you retarded
How much more power/speed could a steam engine with a firebox requiring a 2 axle truck be than a comparable locomotive with a firebox with a single axle? For example, a relatively similar 4-6-2 vs. a 4-6-4?
>>1801600[spoiler]railroad tycoon 3[/spoiler]
>>1801693What do you mean by relativly similar? A locomotive requiring two axles for it's firebox means the firebox is heavier and will have more power than the one requiring a single axle. Especially when comparing locomotives of the same driver configuration like a 464 and a 462
>>1801764The trailing truck supports the firebox. More axles under it means it has a larger firebox.
>>1801773Yes so something with two axles would be more powerful and/or faster as a general rule of thumb.
>>1801780How much more
>>1801781That really depends on a lot of factors. Best bet would be to look into locomotives that were rebuilt with larger fireboxes that resulted in adding an extra axle to the trailing truck and compare the before and after performance. Personally I am not aware of any such rebuilds that didn't also include other upgrades, like the Reading 2-8-0s rebuilt into the 4-8-4 T1.
>>1801792The next time you don't know anything just refrain from posting
>>1801797Okay in other words,you won't get an answer that has a specific value.
>>1801805Fine with me
>>1801566Real model, CGI face
>>1791071>narrow gauge is cozy"No!"
>>1801797Nah he's right about the multiple factors playing a role in performance.If you had a "modern" steam locomotive, with a 2 axle trailing truck and all the best tech, then proceeded to give it a tiny blast pipe, you'd fuck up any chance it had of performing well. Several UK designs never reached their full potential due to this sort of thing, BR 71000 being a prime example, with the change between BR days and post-restoration being remarkable.This is also reflected in the first generation of superpower locomotives. Several had issues with hammer blow created by small drivers, unbalanced forces and the higher speeds they could achieve.
>>1797412Let's just take the L and call it the Type 3, same as every Belgian I carry the guilt of it having come to existance already.
>>1802038>No answers but many wordsPottery
>>1802071Have you ever stopped to consider it's your retarded question that is the problem? You're demanding that people tell you how much more power/speed a 2 axle trailing truck locomotive has over a 1 axle trailing track locomotive without giving any kind of information about the fireboxes themselves. The only conceivable situation I can think of where the information you're seeking would be useful is if you had identical 1axle trailing truck locomotives and wanted to increase the power/speed output of one by enlarging the firebox until a 2nd axle on the trailing truck is required to support the weight.
>>1802088>Have you ever stopped to consider it's your retarded question that is the problem?Stop being autistic ffs. I didn't ask for a comparison of hard data, just an off-the-cuff opinion. Didn't read the rest of your post
>>1802092>just an off-the-cuff opinionso this >>1801780 ?Really don't understand why you're being such an asshat over this.
>>1802095>Really don't understand why you're being such an asshat over this.Mirror
>>1802096I don't think anyone one was being like that to you until you posted this shit >>1801797
>>1802071>Does a bigger firebox make more power>Yes but you've got to get the other aspects right or you'll fuck it upIs that better you cretin?
>>1801797>>1802071>>1802092>>1802096>literal autist Surely not in a train thread?
>>1802100>>1802101>>1802102Good god you are mad
>>1802123It's someone else commentating on your insufferability, fag.
>>1801872Thank you, I knew something was off but I hadn't watch thomas since I was 10 so couldn't tell right away
>>1802227Broad gauge only.
>>1802233>tfw never got to witness victorian railways in the 50s/60swhy live
>>1802235On the subject of VR, does anyone know if the 2nd volume of Steam locomotives of the Victorian Railways was ever published? Or did the authors die or something.
The T-1 with soulhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpiHrGD_6o
>>1802778it's an australian loco. i'm not the seething faggot here you retard
>>1802932shut up u filthy bogan. go roast ur dick on the barbie faggit
forgot to post terriers
Essex steam train & riverboat, a winning combo
AB 788, Kingston Flyer New Zealand. Childhood train
Ja1250 & Ja1240
Here's Pixie, a Bagnall 0-4-0 which ran on Teddy Boston's 97 yard long narrow gauge railway he built in his garden, the Cadeby Light Railway. It spent 42 years going backwards and forwards on the line, I rode on it many times before it closed in 2005.
have a Rio Grande challenger
I'm trying to remember the name of a defunct railroad in the PNW or Northern California, started with "Ray," I believe it was a logging or industrial railroad. Anyone know of it? Wikipedia didn't have it listed among defunct railroads up there.Anyway, have a pic of a Shay fording a river
>>1804361I was there for the Final Fling, maybe on the day that photo was taken.