Imaginary Locomotives

[rockershovel]

Would horizontally opposed cylinders (similar to the way a Subaru boxer engine balances itself) help at all? Not sure how you'd implement that on a steam engine, but it's a thought!

I suppose it would be something like a Heisler? Or longitudinally, like a Douglas motorcycle? Don’t know how you’d get either within the loading gauge, though.

 

I suspect that a lot of the reason the Stephenson configuration was successful, was that it allows for components of useful dimensions to be accommodated within the available space.

[Coryton]

Would tunnels be a problem for wireless communication within a train - all line of sight?

 

 

Unless you are doing short range communications from vehicle to vehicle, I would have thought that the propagation is going to be different in a tunnel.

 

I'm sure I've heard of various radio tests being done to see how things would work in tunnels.

[Zomboid]

The routes which need hyper power will be a lot of the famous mountain crossings (Donner, Tehachapi, Cascades, Tennessee pass etc), where tunnels will be plentiful.

 

One would assume they thought of this and allowed for it in the design of the scheme.

[iands]

Unless you are doing short range communications from vehicle to vehicle, I would have thought that the propagation is going to be different in a tunnel.

 

I'm sure I've heard of various radio tests being done to see how things would work in tunnels.

Depends a lot on how the tunnel is constructed and the frequencies to be used. Going back a few years whilst GSMR was being developed, a local Radio Amateur group did some tests at GSM frequencies in Standege tunnel and found that with an antenna at the Marsden end at those particular frequencies the tunnel acted like a waveguide and the signal propogated along the tunnel to the Diggle end very well. But that was on a Sunday with no traffic. Radio acts in very strange ways at times and when you introduce trains into the tunnel environment it can, and invariably does, affect the radio signal in various ways.

 

Regards, Ian.

[The Johnster]

There are probably ways to significantly reduce or even eliminate hammer blow, but as long as you have conventional pistons reciprocating in cylinders it will be a force to be reckoned with.  Maybe some work can be done to dampen it, with sprung connection between anything that moves and the frame with transmits the shockwaves to the wheels and then the track, but I suspect that this is, if possible, going to make the locomotive far too complex to build, operate, or maintain.  Ultimately, IMHO, and regrettably, steam railway power is a blind alley because of this, but the existing state of the art could still be improved upon if anyone had the time, cash, and will to put into it.

[PhilJ W]

I suppose it would be something like a Heisler? Or longitudinally, like a Douglas motorcycle? Don’t know how you’d get either within the loading gauge, though.

 

I suspect that a lot of the reason the Stephenson configuration was successful, was that it allows for components of useful dimensions to be accommodated within the available space.

The Sentinel engine was placed under the floor like the later DMU's and also like most DMU's drove via Cardan shafts. Any hammer blow would be taken up by the crankshaft rather than be transmitted to the track.

[Coryton]

The routes which need hyper power will be a lot of the famous mountain crossings (Donner, Tehachapi, Cascades, Tennessee pass etc), where tunnels will be plentiful.

 

 

Are tunnels plentiful on these routes? I'm not familiar with them, but in general in the US they tended to go round things rather than through them.

 

I presume it's one reason that it was practical to increase loading gauges to take double stack container trains - not that much in the way of tunnels and overbridges in much of the US. (Though I know there have been cases where tunnels have been converted into cuttings for that purpose).

[john new]

There are probably ways to significantly reduce or even eliminate hammer blow, but as long as you have conventional pistons reciprocating in cylinders it will be a force to be reckoned with.  Maybe some work can be done to dampen it, with sprung connection between anything that moves and the frame with transmits the shockwaves to the wheels and then the track, but I suspect that this is, if possible, going to make the locomotive far too complex to build, operate, or maintain.  Ultimately, IMHO, and regrettably, steam railway power is a blind alley because of this, but the existing state of the art could still be improved upon if anyone had the time, cash, and will to put into it.

 

Interestingly if you go right back to George Stephenson's very earliest locomotives he tried, then abandoned, steam pressure springing via pistons in vertical cylinders which, for a raft of reasons, not least of which that the sprung effect changed the valve timings as the whole thing moved on the springs. 140 odd years on BMC then brought out hydraulic springing on cars! (Minis, 1100s et al)

[Mr_Tilt]

To be pedantic I think Citroen beat the Moulton/BMC Hydrolastic springs by some years. Their 1954 Traction Avant used hydro-pneumatic rear suspension and it was later extended it to the iconic DS model in 1955.  

 

Alex Moulton invented the somewhat simpler Hydrolastic system in the late 50s which was first used on the BMC 1100 which was introduced in 1962.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Mr_Tilt

[Zomboid]

Are tunnels plentiful on these routes? I'm not familiar with them, but in general in the US they tended to go round things rather than through them.

 

I presume it's one reason that it was practical to increase loading gauges to take double stack container trains - not that much in the way of tunnels and overbridges in much of the US. (Though I know there have been cases where tunnels have been converted into cuttings for that purpose).

I don't know about those specific routes in detail, but going round things only takes you so far when crossing the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains is the challenge.

[TT3]

However nice it looks there is nothing revolutionary about the rebuild.

It just best practice from the later days of steam locomotive operation applied to an earlier very basic design.

It has grease roller bearings, fully balanced, oil-fired, insulated boiler and steam circuit to minimise losses etc.

The mods have increased power output to 2200hp (from 1600hp) and raised the top speed from 80kph to a more respectable 100kph (62mph)

I notice the boiler pressure and cylinder size has not been altered.

 

BTW it now looks faintly Australian to me!

 

keith

 

Well I guess a bit NSWGR, has a a bit of C38 about it. Of course VR steam was much better looking.

[Niels]

I did some cleaning on my download archive and found this.

It has probably been made by me as it is rather primitive.

 

https://i.imgur.com/QnlK5Tp.jpg

 

I still find the possibilities of a Raven like front wheel drive Pacific interesting

Edited May 1, 2018 by Niels

[brack]

Whenever Raven's name comes up it just reminds me of the biggest missed opportunity in our railway history - had he successfully electrified the ecml before grouping I suspect that it might've resulted in further main line electrification elsewhere, both on the north eastern/LNER and other railways.

What would an LMS or GWR electric main line loco look like?

[DCB]

To be pedantic I think Citroen beat the Moulton/BMC Hydrolastic springs by some years. Their 1954 Traction Avant used hydro-pneumatic rear suspension and it was later extended it to the iconic DS model in 1955.  

 

Alex Moulton invented the somewhat simpler Hydrolastic system in the late 50s which was first used on the BMC 1100 which was introduced in 1962.

I always thought it was the devil himself who designed this fiendishly evil inter coupling between front and rear wheels. The 2 door 1100 actually had springs to hold the tail down.   The seeds of Rovers demise were sown with this ridiculously complicated ineffective system, They used to make people sea sick and they handling was awful on radial tyres though actually very good on cross plies.

[rockershovel]

I always thought it was the devil himself who designed this fiendishly evil inter coupling between front and rear wheels. The 2 door 1100 actually had springs to hold the tail down. The seeds of Rovers demise were sown with this ridiculously complicated ineffective system, They used to make people sea sick and they handling was awful on radial tyres though actually very good on cross plies.

I don’t know about that, specifically, but I’d certainly agree that the flourishing of over-complex, insufficiently developed or plain misconceived ideas, at a time when the Japanese were re-defining the game by concentrating on Engineering basics, quality control and production engineering advances was a fundamental error around that time.

 

Last night, I watched a programme about British Airways, which spent some time over the Comet and its troubled development. It’s common to blame the failure of British aircraft design around that time, on the lack of knowledge of high-altitude, Jet-propelled design, and that’s true: but there’s another issue which wasn’t discussed.

 

Reference was made, to the steep take-off and landing angles of the Comet. These WERE a feature, but they were inherited from an earlier design brief, envisaging the Comet as successor to earlier prop-driven designs which were derived from military designs and “served the Empire” meaning that among other things, they were designed to cope with short runways.

 

The Americans simply discarded that whole concept, reasoning that if a plane were good enough, people would build airfields to suit. They further realised that the power needed to achieve such departure angles was expensive, and not necessary in the wider scheme of things.

 

They THEN correctly deduced that engine servicing costs were critical, in a way which didn’t really apply to military usage, and the best place for engines was outside the wing, in a pod. NOW you can update the engine as well, without being constrained to fit it inside the airframe.

 

The Americans were also able to thing BIG, specifically the Boeing 747, which changed everything. The British didn’t even understand the question.

Edited May 2, 2018 by rockershovel

[Zomboid]

Whenever Raven's name comes up it just reminds me of the biggest missed opportunity in our railway history - had he successfully electrified the ecml before grouping I suspect that it might've resulted in further main line electrification elsewhere, both on the north eastern/LNER and other railways.

What would an LMS or GWR electric main line loco look like?

I suspect the locos would have been quite boxy and functional in appearance, though any express passenger types might have had some effort put into styling them, particularly in the streamliner era.

 

Would the GWR have user copper for the pans? Could you just stick pans on 10000 for the LMS design?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Whenever Raven's name comes up it just reminds me of the biggest missed opportunity in our railway history - had he successfully electrified the ecml before grouping I suspect that it might've resulted in further main line electrification elsewhere, both on the north eastern/LNER and other railways.

What would a ...GWR electric main line loco look like?

 Well it would have been different of course. We are not going for pick up methods based on sliding contacts on rails or overhead wires when it is far better to have a fixed connection. So, Swindon is going to develop the Cable Reel Auto Plugger method. The departing train is plugged in, and the cable unwinds as it moves away. At whatever proves to be the practical limit for cable length the plug auto releases into an appliance between the running lines presented ready for the next train in the opposite direction. The train going onward picks up the plug waiting at the next appliance and on we go. There will be small technical difficulties to overcome, but from a concern responsible for such past wonders as the wrong gauge and atmospheric propulsion, CRAP from Swindon will work...

[Joseph_Pestell]

 Could you just stick pans on 10000 for the LMS design?

 

I think that would almost certainly have been the answer. And a similar but shorter B-B for lesser duties.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 Well it would have been different of course. We are not going for pick up methods based on sliding contacts on rails or overhead wires when it is far better to have a fixed connection. So, Swindon is going to develop the Cable Reel Auto Plugger method. The departing train is plugged in, and the cable unwinds as it moves away. At whatever proves to be the practical limit for cable length the plug auto releases into an appliance between the running lines presented ready for the next train in the opposite direction. The train going onward picks up the plug waiting at the next appliance and on we go. There will be small technical difficulties to overcome, but from a concern responsible for such past wonders as the wrong gauge and atmospheric propulsion, CRAP from Swindon will work...

 

No. By then the GWR was much more sensible and also very publicity minded. They would have had third-rail electric with a centre rail so as to match Hornby-Dublo.

[TheQ]

you mean not stud contact?

[Joseph_Pestell]

you mean not stud contact?

Would not have been allowed. Too German.

[runs as required]

The Americans simply discarded that whole concept, reasoning that if a plane were good enough, people would build airfields to suit. They further realised that the power needed to achieve such departure angles was expensive, and not necessary in the wider scheme of tgs.

 

They THEN correctly deduced that engine servicing costs were critical, in a way which didn’t really apply to military usage, and the best place for engines was outside the wing, in a pod. NOW you can update the engine as well, without being constrained to fit it inside the airframe.

 

The Americans were also able to thing BIG, specifically the Boeing 747, which changed everything. The British didn’t even understand the question.

OT

I had the good fortune to work around the world with an interesting British Architects and Civil Engineers for the middle years of my career who did understand the question.

Norman and Dawbarn (based in Brixton) made themselves a nice little earner from the early thirties laying out overseas airports iterativly - changing either airport location (as mushrooming third word cities expanded) or the configuration of airfields as planes morphed up from grass runway DC3s.

I remember flying out to East Africa with the senior partner in a Comet 4 with him savouring what work would be coming our way as those rival 707s multiplied - and a few years later spent a long night calculating the impact of the forthcoming 747s on world air terminals. I think we were the first to put arrivals on top of departures as the most economical configuration.

Historically N&D (as part of the Airwork combine) advised the Southern Railway on their interwar investments in airtravel; Gatwick and the Victoria airt terminal date from this collaboration. They did however get it wrong eventually for the SR in a big way in forecasting that the postwar London airport would be on the present site of the Swanley by-pass and the SR built a whole spur and sidings off to serve it from the former Chatham branch near Eynsford.

dh

Edited May 2, 2018 by runs as required

[john new]

Whenever Raven's name comes up it just reminds me of the biggest missed opportunity in our railway history - had he successfully electrified the ecml before grouping I suspect that it might've resulted in further main line electrification elsewhere, both on the north eastern/LNER and other railways.

What would an LMS or GWR electric main line loco look like?

 

The NER and the GWR both proposed early main line electrification schemes. Sadly in both cases the economic conditions of the time were not favourable for implementation.

[runs as required]

The NER and the GWR both proposed early main line electrification schemes. Sadly in both cases the economic conditions of the time were not favourable for implementation.

And don't forget Derby - they got closer than the GW ever did (with just one side of a Hammersmith and City electric credited to them).

Deeley actually built an OHL prototype to Heysham

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The Americans were also able to thing BIG, specifically the Boeing 747, which changed everything. The British didn’t even understand the question.

 

Too much of the post WWII civil aviation design in the UK went for the wrong 'big'. Think of the dosh wasted on the Bristol Brabazon, Saunders Roe Princess and our gloriously unprofitable even if technically very capable Concorde. The sole bright star was Vickers nifty little Viscount.