Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

They certainly wouldn't run on coal. The only reason that this would happen if if they found that a steam based transmission was more efficient than any current system fitted to a diesel or electric loco.

I understand what you mean - I was thinking more along the lines of small branch lines, probably near heritage railways to assist maintenance. Coal may still run at that point as the nearby heritage lines would have some on hand anyway. Probably tank engines, like the 14XX class of the Great Western, which could give any modern EMU a run for its money in terms of speed.

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heilmann steam electric locos are considered by some to be the predecessor of the present diesel electrics. A steam boiler using bio-fuels to power a steam engine driving a generator could be the eco-green power unit the railways need. Back to steam locos, but not as we know them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

The Heilmann steam electric locos are considered by some to be the predecessor of the present diesel electrics. A steam boiler using bio-fuels to power a steam engine driving a generator could be the eco-green power unit the railways need. Back to steam locos, but not as we know them.

That is a very good point Sheffield - though I doubt conventional steam fans like myself would enjoy it as much as the originals! Little-used lines would have some appeal returned to them if steam (and first-gen diesels) were to be employed outright, with modern diesels acting as ‘Thunderbird’ locomotives. A number of heritage railways have a fair amount of stock certified for mainline use, making this vision more feasible than we might think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I understand what you mean - I was thinking more along the lines of small branch lines, probably near heritage railways to assist maintenance. Coal may still run at that point as the nearby heritage lines would have some on hand anyway. Probably tank engines, like the 14XX class of the Great Western, which could give any modern EMU a run for its money in terms of speed.

A 14xx would be very rapidly left behind a modern EMU beyond about 30mph.  Autotrains seemed quick compared to anything of their era, but a modern 3/4-car EMU is four times as long and at least four times the power output (and it can deliver that power at 100mph).  A 14xx with four coaches would be painfully slow.

I love steam but some of the claims made for it by fans of main line operation are amusing, like saying because some service managed to accelerate to 70 mph in five miles, it shows steam doesn't hold up regular services.  A modern EMU can comfortably accelerate to 80mph and stop in the same distance (and can continue doing that every day for twenty years without needing rebuilding).

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Coal fired steam will be unfeasible in the very near future, and the heritage locos are going to have to be converted to oil firing anyway.  I doubt steam would be viable on a daily WTT basis on any route where modern traction is used; modern trains clear sections much more quickly, even Pacers.  That said. I'd back a 56xx with 5 Colletts on in acceleration from 0-25mph against just about anything on flanged wheels; pocket rockets, and a 64xx with two trailers was pretty quick off the mark as well.  J69 'buckjumpers' were famous for this. 

 

It might be possible where line speeds are low, though, if there are other factors such as toursim or replacing electric services when the power is off are in play, as this is where modern traction loses it's speed and power advantages over steam.  Newport-Ebbw Vale, perhaps?  Locos are likely to be sub 5' driving wheel diameter types with good T.E. and acceleration, and the Ivatt/Riddles 2MT classes seem most likely candidates, or new oil fired builds based on them.  These would be powerful enough for the traffic on such branches.

 

There is, I believe, room for improvement within the boundaries of the conventional Stephensonian reciprocating steam locomotive, even beyond the Porta/Wardale developments.  There is now available feedback controld technology that could effectively manage fuel and steam production in response to GPS positioning and prompts from the driver, and very effective day and night video monitoring of the view ahead or to the rear from both sides of the cab, so single manning with the cab in the conventional position becomes a safe and practical proposition.  Such locos may yet appear on heritage lines, and NR routes that lend themselves to this sort of operation (St Ives branch, IoW?).

 

I was watching an 'Impossible Engineering' thing on tv yesterday about the railway to Lhasa across the 4.000m+ Tibetan plateau, and it ocurred to me that water evaporates into steam at much lower temperatures at such high altitudes (you can't make hot tea or soup at Everest South Col).  One wonders how a QJ would perform up there; it would presumably need less fuel to produce steam, which I assume would have the same expansive properties as sea level steam.  Wind resistance must be lower up there as well (though people are still occasionally blown off Everest), which would further increase the effectiveness of the locos.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

A 14xx would be very rapidly left behind a modern EMU beyond about 30mph.  Autotrains seemed quick compared to anything of their era, but a modern 3/4-car EMU is four times as long and at least four times the power output (and it can deliver that power at 100mph).  A 14xx with four coaches would be painfully slow.

I love steam but some of the claims made for it by fans of main line operation are amusing, like saying because some service managed to accelerate to 70 mph in five miles, it shows steam doesn't hold up regular services.  A modern EMU can comfortably accelerate to 80mph and stop in the same distance (and can continue doing that every day for twenty years without needing rebuilding).

And a14xx wouldn't be left standing just by an EMU. Standing in Berlin Ostbahnhof a couple of years ago, I watched a class 189(?) electric loco accelerate out of the station. I stood at the loco end as it moved off, and by the time the last of 8 26m coaches passed me, the train was doing an estimated 40mph, and accelerating rapidly.

Returning to Köln the following day, our class 101 hauled 12 coach train left Hannover, and reached around 90mph in around 2 miles. The anchors then went on hard, and I mean hard, and we stopped in about 800m. There is no steam loco that would be able to match that.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I understand what you mean - I was thinking more along the lines of small branch lines, probably near heritage railways to assist maintenance. Coal may still run at that point as the nearby heritage lines would have some on hand anyway. Probably tank engines, like the 14XX class of the Great Western, which could give any modern EMU a run for its money in terms of speed.

In addition to the points set out by Northmoor regarding the loss of capacity, you have to consider the other costs. Maintaining a unique steam locomotive operating an intense service (operating a 'real' branch line requires much more frequent services and higher speeds than trundling along a heritage line at 25mph) would be incredibly expensive - partly due to the difficulty in finding the parts and people required. The costs of maintaining a steam locomotive can be justified by preservationists as the objective for them is to see the locomotive running. The objective of TOCs is to make money and the objective of government (should be) to deliver the highest quality rail service possible. Using unreliable locomotives with high running and maintenance costs does not help to acheive either of these. Remember that there is a good reason that the early diesels have mostly been withdrawn - it is because modern diesel and electric locomotives (and MUs) do the same job far better and at a lower cost.

 

I should also point out that my remarks about coal are not only inspired by the relative lack of domestic supplies. While the environmental impact of railway preservation is miniscule due to the tiny size of the sector, we should not under any circumstances be expanding the use of coal. This includes running regular service trains using a traditional steam locomotive (note that I'm not talking about markinng special occasions or acting as a Thunderbird - both roles previously performed by Tornado - but day-to-day opertations for a sustained period). Doing so when more environmentally friendly options also have a lower cost is unforgiveable.

 

If somebody were to develop a steam locomotive which offered an advantage over electric or diesel-electric designs, it would most likely have a turbine-based transmission (fundamentally similar to the LMS turbomotive, but most likely with significant developments). This would be turned by steam produced by heating water - either by burning diesel or using electricity from OHLE/third rail sources. However, I am not aware of any locomotive which operates in this way, and I would imagine that by the time the technology was made as efficient as current electric and diesel-electric designs, electric tracition in particular will have been developed much further, and diesel traction will hopefully be the exception rather than the rule.

 

That said, I wouldn't be averse to a generous application of rule one if somebody wanted to go ahead and create a model railway featuring advanced steam traction.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I can well imagine legislation coming in to force, to curb the use of steam locomotives. Not now, but in about 20 years hence. There are a couple of factors, including such things as emissions control, and the skill of the people to actually make it run. As the dearth of coal quality continues, so the skill to run it increases, sometimes with serious results.  Funnily enough, the actual skills base required to maintain continues to rise despite natural wastage. 

 

Money, however, is the biggest issue.  I can think of several locomotives laid up with restoration 'on the go.' What might well happen, is steam traction being curtailed by the ever- increasing emissions targets as the CO2 requirement reaches ever higher.    

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Heritage steam is a drop in the ocean as a contributor to global warming and atmospheric pollution compared to almost all other daily human activities such as keeping warm at home, driving to the supermarket, deliveries to and from supermarkets, etc. It seems highly disproportionate to make it a scapegoat simply on account of it using a small amount of coal.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is the matter that heritage railways are a major part of the tourist industry. I don't think there will be legislation. 

 

I can't argue with that, but restrictions (if applied)  would seriously harm the industry. 

 

Covid-19, anyone?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Heritage steam is a drop in the ocean as a contributor to global warming and atmospheric pollution compared to almost all other daily human activities such as keeping warm at home, driving to the supermarket, deliveries to and from supermarkets, etc. It seems highly disproportionate to make it a scapegoat simply on account of it using a small amount of coal.

It's the same argument with classic cars. There are so few of them that the actual contribution to CO2 emissions is tiny compared to everything else we do in daily life.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Heritage steam is a drop in the ocean as a contributor to global warming and atmospheric pollution compared to almost all other daily human activities such as keeping warm at home, driving to the supermarket, deliveries to and from supermarkets, etc. It seems highly disproportionate to make it a scapegoat simply on account of it using a small amount of coal.

 

I'm not making a scapegoat, but you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will, and someone with more clout than you & me combined.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Heritage steam is a drop in the ocean as a contributor to global warming and atmospheric pollution compared to almost all other daily human activities such as keeping warm at home, driving to the supermarket, deliveries to and from supermarkets, etc. It seems highly disproportionate to make it a scapegoat simply on account of it using a small amount of coal.

Even our population living its lives is a minimal incidental to what corporate interests contribute.   I don't know how prevalent coal-fired electricity is in the UK, but here stateside, coal power is probably the largest contributor to pollution.

 

I think second is air travel.   Even a single 727 causes more damage on a regional flight than I'd wager Bluebell ever has.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There will, I reckon, be emissions legislation from which nobody will be exempt, and this will affect several activites we take for granted now.  Obviously, the use of internal combustion will go the same way as coal fired steam; electricity has to be the source of power and must be cleanly produced, a combination of renewable and nuclear.  Power is required for industrial processes, powering cars, trains, buses, lorries, aircraft, and ships, which will have to be emissions free except for water.

 

Steam has the capacity to be a very clean source of power; it is the gaseous form of water, and when removed from the heat that fuelled it, condenses back into water losslessly.  If water can be heated by electric elements with the electricity cleanly produced and distributed, there may be future rail applications in which steam is a preferred option.  What they are is another thing altogether, but steam traction is cheaper to build and maintain than diesel, so it could be in situations in which electric traction is inappropriate because of it's capital outlay.  There is no reason that a steam powered train cannot equal the speed, power, and acceleration of current traction up to about 100mph, and braking performance comes from the train, not the loco.

 

As for heritage operation, there may be no option but to use compressed air to at least give the appearance of an operating Stephensonian lock.  Boilers and fireboxes would be dummy and cosmetic, but could be used to house air tanks or compressors; the sight and a lot of the sound would be realistic.   The cost of maintaining boilers would be averted.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

You can compress vapour in a gaseous state, but water in its liquid state is much harder.  I'd much rather be hit by a bucket of water, than a bucket of ice.  OUCH!

 

Being struck by the bucket would be very painful either way. At least with the ice the contents wouldn't then slop all over you too.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Steam is a vapour, not a gas.

Steam is only a vapour when you can see it because it has condensed, greatly diluted, in air.  Steam is water above its boiling point, therefore as any physicist will tell you, it has become a gas.  There is such a thing as "Dry Steam", but I was barred from taking Thermodynamics in my final year at Uni, partly because I couldn't get my head around concepts like that....

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Water is a substance made up of two gases hydrogen and oxygen. When you boil water you do not separate out these two gases, they're still bound together but in different form.

Hence steam is not a gas but a different state of water, a vapeous state.

It is possible to have water in three different states, liquid, frozen and vapeous. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Water is a substance made up of two gases hydrogen and oxygen. When you boil water you do not separate out these two gases, they're still bound together but in different form.

Hence steam is not a gas but a different state of water, a vapeous state.

It is possible to have water in three different states, liquid, frozen and vapeous. 

Phosgene is also a gas, you might need a mask for that one though !!!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Water is a substance made up of two gases hydrogen and oxygen. When you boil water you do not separate out these two gases, they're still bound together but in different form.

Hence steam is not a gas but a different state of water, a vapeous state.

It is possible to have water in three different states, liquid, frozen and vapeous. 

No, No and No, in that order.

Water is a liquid made up of two elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen.  You are confused by thinking of them as gases because that is what H2 and O2 would be at room temperature (or indeed any other temperature humans can withstand).  H20 can exist, like any element or molecular compound, in one of three phases: solid, liquid or gas (there's also plasma but that's at extremes of temperature and largely theoretical).  Iron can be a gas if you get it hot enough. 

There is no such thing as a Vapeous phase.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...