Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

A reconstruction is unlikely but not impossible, as there area good few 9Fs around in varying states of decrepitude that might donate frames and wheels.  You’d need a complete scratchbuild boiler, and cylinders, though, and it ‘d be a lot of money and work. 

 

Indeed, why bother when one can see a preserved example in action and get a holiday in Italy into the bargain!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a Crosti 9F - but an FS 741 class 2-8-0. Although set in Italy some scenes in the last ten minutes of that film were shot in Spain as well necessitating fitting cosmetic smoke deflectors to 2-8-0 with a normal boiler as the sequences shot in Spain utilised a RENFE 141F 2-8-2 which was so fitted.  

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of Italian steam, perhaps someone can confirm this: Italian railways (FS) has never formally stopped using steam traction.  It has retained some usable examples which are available for "preserved" operations, with all other operations converted to diesel or electrified, but there was never an actual plan to abolish it altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2019 at 19:01, Northmoor said:

Congratulations Corbs, that is without question the ugliest locomotive anyone has created so far on this thread.  I'm going off to look at some photos of highly-polished Big Four locomotives, hoping it will settle my stomach.

 

Not even close, if this Iberian horror is any guide..

 

E8E32A79-2CED-4AD3-AD63-773174526979.jpeg.272f6274e18c4f5e8dd33927d8e94303.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

That was an Italian Crosti boilered 2-8-0, and probably the only believable part of the film...  

 

I remember one from a family holiday in 1966 as station pilot at Venice.  

 

A reconstruction is unlikely but not impossible, as there area good few 9Fs around in varying states of decrepitude that might donate frames and wheels.  You’d need a complete scratchbuild boiler, and cylinders, though, and it ‘d be a lot of money and work. 

Wasn't the Crosti 9F main boiler similar to a Clan boiler?

Edited by rodent279
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

On the subject of Italian steam, perhaps someone can confirm this: Italian railways (FS) has never formally stopped using steam traction.  It has retained some usable examples which are available for "preserved" operations, with all other operations converted to diesel or electrified, but there was never an actual plan to abolish it altogether.

I understand this is the case; FS has never claimed to have abolished steam and steam locos have been kept in ‘service’.  The Union Pacific does something similar; 844 has never been withdrawn from service.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I understand this is the case; FS has never claimed to have abolished steam and steam locos have been kept in ‘service’.  The Union Pacific does something similar; 844 has never been withdrawn from service.

Union Pacific also occasionally chuck out one of their steam locomotives in revenue service to avoid a light locomotive positioning move. On one occasion 3985 hauled a 143-car intermodal train, apparently in part because the client who booked most of the train's capacity was known to be a steam enthusiast.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

Not even close, if this Iberian horror is any guide..

 

E8E32A79-2CED-4AD3-AD63-773174526979.jpeg.272f6274e18c4f5e8dd33927d8e94303.jpeg

Hi Rockershovel,

 

This contraption needs its very own "Ugly Locomotives" thread.

 

Gibbo.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

Not even close, if this Iberian horror is any guide..

 

E8E32A79-2CED-4AD3-AD63-773174526979.jpeg.272f6274e18c4f5e8dd33927d8e94303.jpeg

Please tell me thats imaginary...

It's nearly as bad as

cloudmwcr5.JPG

 

Sometimes I suspect the ideas people come up with on this thread are much more plausible than some of the bizarre things that actually got built.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, brack said:

Please tell me thats imaginary...

It's nearly as bad as

cloudmwcr5.JPG

 

Sometimes I suspect the ideas people come up with on this thread are much more plausible than some of the bizarre things that actually got built.

Its real sure enough, it was built for the steeply graded Pikes Peak Railway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Its real sure enough, it was built for the steeply graded Pikes Peak Railway.

 

Mt washington cog railway no.5 I'd thought. Still looks very primitive and weird, particularly when compared to the swiss built rack locos we're used to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, rodent279 said:

60kV? 6kV surely?

60KV DC should be possible now given that 50KV AC has been used in a few places around the world. The lower currents should preclude a lot of the interference problems normally associated with DC, and the higher voltage without transformers should make it really cheap to install.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Suzie said:

60KV DC should be possible now given that 50KV AC has been used in a few places around the world. The lower currents should preclude a lot of the interference problems normally associated with DC, and the higher voltage without transformers should make it really cheap to install.

Every bridge would need rebuilding for that kind of voltage. And I'm not sure if 60kV DC switchgear even exists; HVDC links such as the one to France are switched on the AC side of the transformer/ rectifier/ inverter kit. Even if it does there's almost no chance you'd fit it on a train.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Every bridge would need rebuilding for that kind of voltage. And I'm not sure if 60kV DC switchgear even exists; HVDC links such as the one to France are switched on the AC side of the transformer/ rectifier/ inverter kit. Even if it does there's almost no chance you'd fit it on a train.

Good point!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Speaking of Franco-Crosti boilers, which I know aren't Imaginery, does anyone know if they had any application outside of rail traction?

Feedwater heaters using exhaust gases are used on pretty much every non-rail steam plant, but not the exhaust steam element of a Franco-Crosti boiler. That's because of the different constraints on landbased and marine boilers - there's plenty of space for extra tubes to heat the feedwater, but the plants invariably run condensing so there's no meaningful exhaust steam.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Speaking of Franco-Crosti boilers, which I know aren't Imaginery, does anyone know if they had any application outside of rail traction?

Franco Crosti tried to cool smoke lower than dew-point of sulphuric acid.Unless You use noble metal for that end of boiler,it was a bad idea.

Edited by Niels
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It's not as bad as those horrendous USA tanks the Southern bought

Those were a pretty big step up in aesthetics compared to those rather awful bulleid 060s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 09:35, DavidB-AU said:

Wouldn't affect the cosmetic appearance much but I wonder how some of these remarkably sensible designs would perform with double Kylchap or Lempor ejectors...

In principle an exhaust system designed for minimal back pressure in the cylinder at exhaust, and maximum entrainment and ejection of the flue gasses should be of advantage. The caveat being that to obtain this advantage, other key aspects of the design: grate draughting, grate area, flue cross sections, superheater ratio, need to be correct for optimum results.

 

A good example was the LMS trial of a Kylchap ejector on their Jubilee 4-6-0. It did the job at the front end alright. But the draughting, flue proportions and superheater ratio between them, all designed for free steaming with the  normal single blast pipe, gave the crew an impractical loco. When even modest power outputs were required the efficient entrainment lifted the fire. There was plentiful power if the fireman could move coal into the firebox quickly enough, until the smokebox choked with ash and part burned coal. And even had these design aspects been optimised for the Kylchap ejector:

 

Dick Hardy of fond memory, would tell the tale of being on a Kylchap A4 footplate while an LMR driver attempted to move it through a stage on LMR rails. He drove as he would on a Black Five, turn and a half up on the reverser, and power adjustment on a part open regulator, and was going nowhere while repeatedly sending the fire up the exhaust, while his mate shovelled navvy style, and grousing about what a useless machine it was. Eventually Mr Hardy intervened to demonstrate how a well designed locomotive should be operated, all the regulator, minimum cut off for the power required, thin white hot fire,  the superheater good and hot, and away she flew. The crew have to know how too.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.