Imaginary Locomotives

[rodent279]

It surely would be possible to have a hinged lid that covered the coal space? Even if it didn't stop all the fine dust, it would at least stop large lumps from flying out and braining the fireman!

[Flying Pig]

3 hours 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.

 

Put a telephone wire over the tracks with a pantograph at each end of the train and a receiver in each cab.  

[iands]

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Put a telephone wire over the tracks with a pantograph at each end of the train and a receiver in each cab.  

Which is what they did with the 76s on the Woodhead route, only they used the OLE rather than a separate telephone wire.

[rodent279]

5 minutes ago, iands said:

Which is what they did with the 76s on the Woodhead route, only they used the OLE rather than a separate telephone wire.

I believe that was not for MU working as such, it was just to allow two crews in non-MU fitted locos working in tandem to talk to each other.

[iands]

4 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I believe that was not for MU working as such, it was just to allow two crews in non-MU fitted locos working in tandem to talk to each other.

Indeed. Apologies if I've confused the issue.

[rockershovel]

4 hours 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.

 

Hence, presumably, the tender cabs on the BR Standard 2MT 2-6-0. Interestingly enough, these locos appear to have had a reputation for draughty, dirty cabs and were reportedly much disliked by enginemen on that account. 

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, rodent279 said:

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?

With oil burning one man operation is possible, then a cab forward design could be used with a tender at the smoke box end. A 9F with the fuel oil carried in a belly tank beneath the boiler and a large bogie mounted tender with or without a cab at the outer end.  

[The Johnster]

One man operation of steam locomotives is highly unadvisable for any but the smallest of those that have actually ever been built; but it could be done with a completely new design.  Modern electronics allows feedback control of boiler management, even coal fired at a push, and computer programming of it linked to GPS will be able to predict higher demands on the boiler and increase fuel feed and pressure in preparation for them (such as approaching a gradient).  One could even link in the signalling so that the boiler management system can anticipate signal checks as well as speed restrictions.  Thus a loco can be built with a cab either end and controls for the driver not dissimilar to the ones he is familiar with on diesel or electric traction.  Electronic automatic feedback could also look after water injection to the boiler and ejection from cylinders (assuming a basically Stephensonian layout), so the loco could be single manned in the same way as any other loco in current commercial 'normal' use.

 

Whether or not there is any economic case for commercial operation of such a locomotive beyond heritage steam operation for it's own sake is another matter, and beyond my O level economics to comment on.  Steam does however have some advantages; the initial cost is low, even with feedback servos, pumps, and circuitry, and this suitable for irregular applications such as freight on the Cambrian or for use when the electric is off for whatever reason.  Efficiently driven, as they would be it the feedback BMS is performing correctly, they emit a lot of steam, which is basically hot water that condenses into clouds of cooler water which drops out as, well, clean water; it is only when fuel is being actively burned that waste gases or solid pollutants are emitted, and the solids do not go far from the railway, so they may be practical in some environments where this is a concern.  

 

Assuming a Stephensonian basis, I would imagine a Beyer-Garratt layout which would enable all the hot parts to be kept well away from the cabs.  B-Gs are a proven format with high route availability and the ability to pack a lot of power into an admittedly long but flexible frame, and lend themselves to a 'cab at both ends' layout.  I am envisioning a 4-8-4+4-8-4 arrangement with cylinders placed at the inner ends of the coupled wheels, diamater about 5'8" for UK loading gauge for fast freight work. the loco to be able to haul 2,500 tons trailing at 75mph or 1,500 tons trailing at 90mph.  All roller bearings, full Porta/Chapelon/Kylechap, one exhaust for each cylinder, fuel not specified but full emission control and limitation, hammer blow restricted as much as possible, air train brakes.  Body shell to resemble cross section of class 59/66 with roof incorporating smoke/steam lifting device/apparatus in order to keep loco, and train, behind exhaust stacks clean.

 

And a chime whistle like the one off a Selkirk that they blew for me in the National Canadian Railway Museum in Ottowa in 1986 that the said could be heard 40 miles away on a still night, which froze my blood and raised the hairs on my scalp, yeah, that, I want that one!

Edited September 3, 2020 by The Johnster

[rodent279]

Why not use steam turbines instead of reciprocating engines? In a B-G format, you could have a mixture of turbines for full load, reciprocating for part load & starting, blending the two drive systems electronically.

[rockershovel]

Aren’t there some modern Swiss rack steam locos employing one man operation? 

[AlfaZagato]

The rack locomotives are normally (but not always) tiny, and have some degree of automatic braking as a safety feature.   Speeds are significantly less, as well.   

[The Johnster]

15 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Why not use steam turbines instead of reciprocating engines? In a B-G format, you could have a mixture of turbines for full load, reciprocating for part load & starting, blending the two drive systems electronically.

Sure, why not.  My point was that steam raising and boiler management can, with the combination of feedback automated control and anticipation of demands on the boiler with GPS, that aspect of the loco’s operation is taken out of the driver’s hands and his workload is reduced sufficiently for single manning.  The method by which the power is transmitted to the track, which I assumed to be reciprocating and Stephensonian can be anything you like and whatever the loco’s designer feels is appropriate to the work required!

Edited September 4, 2020 by The Johnster

[Zomboid]

Automatically supervised boilers would be possible these days. Power station boilers aren't completely autonomous, but they are remotely controlled with a high degree of automation. The comparatively tiddly little things on a train could easily be operated in the same manner.

 

How far away are we from a reimagined Leader? Bulleid was just ahead of his time there...

[PhilJ W]

Didn't the Americans have a steam turbine electric running in the 1950's?

Found it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_steam_turbine_locomotives

Edited September 4, 2020 by PhilJ W

[PenrithBeacon]

The Pennsylvania S2, wiki has a page on it

[MikeOxon]

Also an article about HO models, including video at http://www.rcgrabbag.com/overland-models-up-steam-turbine-number-1/

[MikeOxon]

If Gresley and Stanier could have pooled their experiments, we might have seen a water-tube boiler steam-turbine locomotive like this:

 

 

Mike

Edited March 28 by MikeOxon
Restore image

[BernardTPM]

NBL built a steam turbine electric in 1910.

[PenrithBeacon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_S2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_steam_turbine_locomotives

https://www.lner.info/locos/Experimental/ReidMacLeod.php

 

There are lots of references on www

[rodent279]

6 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

If Gresley and Stanier could have pooled their experiments, we might have seen a water-tube boiler steam-turbine locomotive like this:

 

Mike

Now that looks convincing!

[Northmoor]

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Automatically supervised boilers would be possible these days. Power station boilers aren't completely autonomous, but they are remotely controlled with a high degree of automation. The comparatively tiddly little things on a train could easily be operated in the same manner.

 

I'm not sure they are really the same thing.  Drax's boilers might be monitored by a few people in a control room, but there's a small team of people involved in getting that coal from the stockpile into the boiler (this would be considerably easier it the fuel was oil).  The boiler also has to run at what is in comparison with a locomotive, a near constant steam production rate.  Plus the guys in the Drax control room don't have to keep looking out of the window every few seconds to check it isn't going to crash into anything.

[rockershovel]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I'm not sure they are really the same thing.  Drax's boilers might be monitored by a few people in a control room, but there's a small team of people involved in getting that coal from the stockpile into the boiler (this would be considerably easier it the fuel was oil).  The boiler also has to run at what is in comparison with a locomotive, a near constant steam production rate.  Plus the guys in the Drax control room don't have to keep looking out of the window every few seconds to check it isn't going to crash into anything.

 

.. true, but they don’t have a shelf over the firedoor to keep their tea can warm either. Nor can they cook bacon on their shovels....

[Suzie]

59 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

.. true, but they don’t have a shelf over the firedoor to keep their tea can warm either. Nor can they cook bacon on their shovels....

Does that mean for the modern steam loco cab interior we will need a cooking ring, a microwave oven and an electric kettle as part of the cab interior detail?

[rodent279]

20 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

If Gresley and Stanier could have pooled their experiments, we might have seen a water-tube boiler steam-turbine locomotive like this:

 

Mike

I really do like this. Since the LMS & LNER were already cooperating with the testing station at Rugby, it's entirely possible they would have collaborated on future loco development, and something similar to the BR Standard range would have evolved.

[PenrithBeacon]

The Yarrow boiler was, IIRC, designed for marine purposes, but it's reliability was a problem as it was in this. the sole application to railway use. It was very susceptible to vibration and shock.