Imaginary Locomotives

[Flying Pig]

37 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Electric motors on each axle,

 

In which case, could you not just replace the boiler with a big motor/generator and flywheel for energy storage and do away with the steam altogether?  That would give regenerative braking too.  For starting off the wire, the flywheel could be spun up from a shore supply.  You could probably fit all the equipment on the loco frames and scrap the tender.

[AlfaZagato]

24 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

In which case, could you not just replace the boiler with a big motor/generator and flywheel for energy storage and do away with the steam altogether?  That would give regenerative braking too.  For starting off the wire, the flywheel could be spun up from a shore supply.  You could probably fit all the equipment on the loco frames and scrap the tender.

But then we just have a 71 with worse route availability.   Who said I was trying to be practical.

[Satan's Goldfish]

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

In which case, could you not just replace the boiler with a big motor/generator and flywheel for energy storage and do away with the steam altogether?  That would give regenerative braking too.  For starting off the wire, the flywheel could be spun up from a shore supply.  You could probably fit all the equipment on the loco frames and scrap the tender.

 

Use the tender to hold batteries so the flywheel can be spun up from it's own supply rather than the infrastructure cost of a shore supply. Batteries dead? Just get a couple of jumper cables and a Ford Escort van to jump start the 9f...

[Joseph the L&YR lover]

200 tenders for every loco?

[rodent279]

I guess an electric boiler wouldn't need a "firebox" as we know it-the boiler could be cylindrical all the way, no need for it to taper, and the elements could replace the tubes, but with some tubes retained for superheating.

Another economy would be the ability to work in multiple.

As an aside, I guess the answer is no, but did anyone ever try some sort of multiple unit connection for steam locos?

[RLBH]

48 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

As an aside, I guess the answer is no, but did anyone ever try some sort of multiple unit connection for steam locos?

Given the existence of push-pull systems for steam locos, I imagine it could probably be done by someone sufficiently demented. Probably the result of the Midland trying to make pairs of Compound 4-4-0s more economical still on large trains.. Fireman on each loco, driver only on the lead unit?

Edited September 2, 2020 by RLBH

[Northmoor]

11 minutes ago, RLBH said:

Given the existence of push-pull systems for steam locos, I imagine it could probably be done by someone sufficiently demented. Probably the result of the Midland trying to make pairs of Compound 4-4-0s more economical still on large trains.. Fireman on each loco, driver only on the lead unit?

The mechanical connection between the locos would be "interesting".  Imagine driving a loco with not just one stiff reverser, but two.....

[Joseph the L&YR lover]

2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

The mechanical connection between the locos would be "interesting".  Imagine driving a loco with not just one stiff reverser, but two.....

that's why they come with a wrench and a sledge hammer

[Zomboid]

6 hours ago, rodent279 said:

As an aside, I guess the answer is no, but did anyone ever try some sort of multiple unit connection for steam locos

Model live steam points a way on that - servo controlled regulator and reverser. No reason why that approach couldn't be taken at a larger scale. No reason why the driver would need to be on a loco at all, they could just sit in a DVT with the loco pushing. With modern sensors and electric firing (ok, you could use oil...) there'd be no need for a fireman either.

[AlfaZagato]

I think the unions disagree with you there.

 

I think the biggest problem for steam MW would be the inaccuracy in steam-era work.   Even modern builds, such as Tornado, can be inconsistent in operation.

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, RLBH said:

Given the existence of push-pull systems for steam locos, I imagine it could probably be done by someone sufficiently demented. Probably the result of the Midland trying to make pairs of Compound 4-4-0s more economical still on large trains.. Fireman on each loco, driver only on the lead unit?

 

6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

The mechanical connection between the locos would be "interesting".  Imagine driving a loco with not just one stiff reverser, but two.....

 

51 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Model live steam points a way on that - servo controlled regulator and reverser. No reason why that approach couldn't be taken at a larger scale. No reason why the driver would need to be on a loco at all, they could just sit in a DVT with the loco pushing. With modern sensors and electric firing (ok, you could use oil...) there'd be no need for a fireman either.

 

The Midland motor train system, adopted by the LMS, used a regulator valve in the steam pipe operated by a vacuum-controlled rod - so yes, a form of servo control. There would be no great difficulty in applying this to control a pair of nominally identical locomotives. However, the valve in the steam pipe would probably play havoc with the efficiency and free-steaming of an express passenger locomotive though not a big deal for a passenger tank engine ambling gently along some branch line.

 

This system provided no means of adjusting the cut-off. On the motor trains, I imagine the driver had the responsibility to set the reverser and the (manual) regulator before heading off to his cab.

[PhilJ W]

On some push-pull systems the fireman could make minor adjustments to the controls. 

[Gibbo675]

48 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

The Midland motor train system, adopted by the LMS, used a regulator valve in the steam pipe operated by a vacuum-controlled rod - so yes, a form of servo control. There would be no great difficulty in applying this to control a pair of nominally identical locomotives. However, the valve in the steam pipe would probably play havoc with the efficiency and free-steaming of an express passenger locomotive though not a big deal for a passenger tank engine ambling gently along some branch line.

 

This system provided no means of adjusting the cut-off. On the motor trains, I imagine the driver had the responsibility to set the reverser and the (manual) regulator before heading off to his cab.

 

13 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

On some push-pull systems the fireman could make minor adjustments to the controls. 

Hi Chaps,

 

In the LMS system the vacuum controlled valve in the steam pipes opened and closed under the control of the driver in the same way that the control of the brake was, these were both operated by the driver from the cab in the coach.

 

On the cab of the locomotive the fireman attended to the fire and the boiler as usual while at the same time opening and closing the actual regulator at stops along with opening and closing the drain cocks, setting the ejector to create the vacuum for the brake and while underway adjusting the cut off appropriately.

 

With the GWR locomotives things were similar although rather than a vacuum control to the pressure of the steam in the steam chests there was a mechanical rod connection using universal joints that ran under the coaches and actuated the regulator handle itself.

 

The clevis of the linkage and the pin pin hole in the regulator handle may be seen to right of the jockey valve linkage.

 

The universal joint may bee seen on the buffer beams of the locomotives to the left of the stem heat cock.

 

Gibbo.

[Compound2632]

@Gibbo given the work being undertaken by the fireman on the Midland / LMS motor trains, he was presumably a passed fireman?

 

I can't help feeling that the Great Western's mechanical system must have required much more attention to keep it in good working order. The Midland experimented with a mechanical system with the old Pullman cars coupled up to M&GN 4-4-0Ts but rather quickly moved on.

[Gibbo675]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@Gibbo given the work being undertaken by the fireman on the Midland / LMS motor trains, he was presumably a passed fireman?

 

I can't help feeling that the Great Western's mechanical system must have required much more attention to keep it in good working order. The Midland experimented with a mechanical system with the old Pullman cars coupled up to M&GN 4-4-0Ts but rather quickly moved on.

Hi Stephen,

 

I don't know that the fireman would have been passed or otherwise, although you may be correct in that assumption. All I do know is that that it is how these trains were worked from speaking to ex Bolton men that did work the push pull fitted trains to Horwich.

 

Gibbo.

[Northmoor]

One thing you couldn't have had - regardless of unions - was single manning of the leading loco.  One of the key roles of a fireman was, between shovelling, to help watch for signals, especially on RH curves where the long boiler greatly reduces the sight line.  Even if the heat source was semi-automatic/oil-fired, a driver could not be expected to keep crossing the cab to watch the road ahead.  Unless you had a cab-leading design, except they would be rejected as too ugly to be allowed to operate in Britain.

[rockershovel]

I’ve heard driving a steam loco described as “controlling a runaway juggernaut using two bath taps”, but the GWR autocoach linkage sounds like a league of its own..

[sir douglas]

maybe the only use for electric powered steam is perhaps one day far in the future, we still want to see mainline steam but there is no more coal or there is a complete ban on usage and mining

[eldomtom2]

There have been experiments in America using biomass as a fuel for steam locos, which seems a more practical solution.

[The Johnster]

The GW's mechanical auto linkage had to have a degree of play in it so that the trains could negotiate curves, and because of this was limited to 2 coaches maximum at each end of the loco,  I am not able to state that passed firemen were needed, but certainly experienced firemen were preferred.  Auto work means that the fireman is alone in the loco cab for at least half of the duty, and for the whole duty if the train is a 'sandwich' with auto coaches on both sides of the loco.  In the case of a trailer-trailer-loco-trailer-trailer formation, which meant 70' trailers for the Plymouth area workings, the fireman is responsible, in addition to his own duties, for the reverser, cut off, ejectors, and in many cases the final movement of the regulator handle as well.  Route knowledge and experience are highly desirable; don't forget the bulk of the GW's auto work was on tightly timed and heavily loaded suburban services rather than the traditional 48xx and a trailer ambling along some bucolic branch, fireman looking at the scenery and chewing a piece of grass...

 

I know very little about other railways' push pull work, save that it was not based on mechanical systems of rods and universal joints like the GW's.  I would imagine vaccum, compressed air, or even steam could be used to achieve control of the loco from the driving cabs, but would also imagine that experienced firemen were preferred for the same reason; even if he is not required to manage tasks normally the job of the driver, he is still alone in the cab for considerable periods.

[RLBH]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

However, the valve in the steam pipe would probably play havoc with the efficiency and free-steaming of an express passenger locomotive

Hey, I didn't say it was a good idea, only that it could probably be made to work. Plenty of bad ideas have been implemented with some degree of success because someone thought it worthwhile.

 

Thinking about it, multiple working of steam locos just gets you an articulated duplex with separate boilers for each engine.

[rodent279]

Now if we'd had reliable, safety-critical, two way radio, say in the 1920's, it could have been easy. Would we have seen push-pull express trains, with say a Duchess or Royal Scot on one end, and a DVT on the other, like the class 86/87 + DVT combos? Obviously some thought would need to go into making such a loco fit for running at speed in reverse, if only for the comfort of the fireman.

I guess if a loco has to come off the train and be serviced at the end of a run, then there's little advantage. If however, it could do say London-Birmingham & return without servicing, then maybe there would have been a worthwhile saving in motive power requirements, if not in manpower.

Edited September 3, 2020 by rodent279

[Gibbo675]

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Now if we'd had reliable, safety-critical, two way radio, say in the 1920's, it could have been easy. Would we have seen push-pull express trains, with say a Duchess or Royal Scot on one end, and a DVT on the other, like the class 86/87 + DVT combos? Obviously some thought would need to go into making such a loco fit for running at speed in reverse, if only for the comfort of the fireman.

I guess if a loco has to come off the train and be serviced at the end of a run, then there's little advantage. If however, it could do say London-Birmingham & return without servicing, then maybe there would have been a worthwhile saving in motive power requirements, if not in manpower.

Hi Rodent,

 

I take it you have never worked tender first at speed, in the sleet, in winter. It would take you a week to both thaw out and scrub the coal dust out of your ears !

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

4 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rodent,

 

I take it you have never worked tender first at speed, in the sleet, in winter. It would take you a week to both thaw out and scrub the coal dust out of your ears !

 

Gibbo.

Nope, correct, I haven't, and don't envy you if you have!

I guess oil firing, or mechanical firing using crushed coal would help there. Some sort of wind shield/screen would still be necessary though. Maybe some thought would have to be given to firehole design as well, if still manually coal fired.

But assuming these issues were solved, could a loco such as a Royal Scot be made to work as effectively at speed in both directions?

[Corbs]

Would an enclosed cab/tender cab have prevented that?