[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

[Advertise on 4chan]

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 35 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: themightofgermanautism.png (391 KB, 1080x619)
391 KB
391 KB PNG
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 cozy

Previous thread >>1763742
what is /slg/'s opinion on Livio Dante Porta?
alright can someone spoonfeed me what the fuck am i looking at lol
wait 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?
File: 1646789779343.jpg (121 KB, 1494x1072)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>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
Good 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.
It'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
File: 1280px-CNR_SL-751.jpg (195 KB, 1280x791)
195 KB
195 KB JPG
what does /slg/ think of the SL7/Pashina class?
File: 438894.jpg (38 KB, 640x480)
38 KB
it's not without its charm
File: Commie train.png (456 KB, 1919x771)
456 KB
456 KB PNG
Anyone know anything about this site? http://www.multipowerinternational.com/standard.html
File: commodore vanderbilt.jpg (382 KB, 1089x600)
382 KB
382 KB JPG
File: 1646692736488.jpg (175 KB, 1024x424)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
File: sn101_edited-1-2.jpg (226 KB, 1200x813)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
Aussie steam
Garratts are wild
File: 3wtt68496vo41.png (2.5 MB, 2048x1604)
2.5 MB
2.5 MB PNG
They'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.
No design is without drawbacks though.
Agreed, 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
>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.
That is the perfect machine for multi track drifting
File: N55701.jpg (120 KB, 1400x635)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
Not 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
File: 5410342355_fbbdf23e75_b.jpg (248 KB, 1024x664)
248 KB
248 KB JPG
wym by mounted on a bogie

How 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?
File: 1640077780668.jpg (213 KB, 2000x1333)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
when 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
File: syss809.jpg (49 KB, 780x381)
49 KB
Not 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)
>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.
>Though the UIC "B2A" also implies the axles are driven separately...
yeah the Belgian Type #3 fucks pretty much every wheel classification system over
File: ple_s9401s.jpg (58 KB, 900x436)
58 KB
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
You did the right thing by containing your power level though
File: 20220513_084141.jpg (3.24 MB, 4000x3000)
3.24 MB
3.24 MB JPG
She's coming along
File: 20220513_084525.jpg (2.43 MB, 4000x2252)
2.43 MB
2.43 MB JPG
File: 20220513_084441.jpg (1.95 MB, 4000x1848)
1.95 MB
1.95 MB JPG
I'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.
Honestly a big shame. One would think they'd at least try to make it a hybrid
It'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.
>the mainlines have nowhere to dump ash/wont let them dump ash
What do they mean by this? Surely there must be some way to dump ash?
I 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
File: prr1361tyronepa.jpg (183 KB, 900x900)
183 KB
183 KB JPG
>confirmed they will be burning coal
extremely based
The 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
If you like easy to run, then get into diesels.
West coast hands typed this post
Coal 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.
Seethe all you want. You know I'm right.

Coal 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.
Right 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.
No but the people who manage them do
Why even build a steam locomotive at this point if this is how you feel about them?
Why 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.
Foamer persecution complex. No person or politician fucking cares about a few dozen steam engines burning a few tons of coal on the weekends.
File: 8580168982_2156ab0096_b.jpg (217 KB, 1023x692)
217 KB
217 KB JPG



It's better to have a plan and not need it than being caught out.
These 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.
>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

>These guys aren't foamers.
Oh I know. I mean actual foamers who think the government is coming for their excursion locomotives.
File: 20220514_105741.jpg (1.87 MB, 4000x1848)
1.87 MB
1.87 MB JPG
Truly cursed
how do they expect to put biomass in an oil burner lmao
the problem is that coal mining is not economical if the heritage sector is the only consumer
File: 80011028526207903980980.jpg (1.04 MB, 1531x1046)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
Way easier yes, but you can't get those juicy "green" carbon credits with petroleum.

>how do they expect to put biomass in an oil burner lmao
You take out the burner and put in a normal grate
In a logical world, yes; but climate activists don't operate on logic.
They 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.
File: algoma_steel9.jpg (50 KB, 600x274)
50 KB
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
Pennsy should have done a 4-10-4
>the problem is that coal mining is not economical if the heritage sector is the only consumer
The 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.

Are the climate activists in the room with us now, anon?
>the problem is that coal mining is not economical if the heritage sector is the only consumer
Then don't make heritage the only consumer. That's just stupid.
File: P38-0002.jpg (303 KB, 1024x532)
303 KB
303 KB JPG
>Not 4-4-4-4 Duplex
It's truly sensible

Nah, 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/?
>I don't think it will be hard to source coal in the quantities heritage operators need
supply and demand anon
less coal mines, more expensive coal
What other customers do you propose?
Mines 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.
File: SR_USA.jpg (74 KB, 694x462)
74 KB
for me it's

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.