Imaginary Locomotives

[62613]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The operating department people would not be very happy with that! 

Indeed! They wouldn't be happy with the CME's department taking a loco and set of coaches away from revenue - earning service (their main function, surely?) so that they can apparently "Play trains". And that's in fact what happened, isn't it, on at least one occasion.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

Indeed! They wouldn't be happy with the CME's department taking a loco and set of coaches away from revenue - earning service (their main function, surely?) so that they can apparently "Play trains". And that's in fact what happened, isn't it, on at least one occasion.

 

The comparison would have to be made using service trains. I suppose there might have been a Newcastle train at a different time of day to the Silver Jubilee?

 

Mallard's record run was on a Sunday, when the Coronation did not run, so engine and carriages were "spare". This was part of an ongoing series of brake trials. So the operating department was not deprived, apart from being one A4 down on the Monday, I suppose.

[rodent279]

Just an idle thought- the foregoing discussions suggest to me that streamlining of the frontal area, and the rear, is likely to have more effect on shorter trains, such as 2-3 car DMU's.  Reason being that the proportion of the total power absorption due to wind resistance at the front (and rear) is higher than with a long train such as an 8 car + loco Coro/SJ set, or a twelve car normal unstreamlined set.

[DenysW]

57 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

is likely to have more effect on shorter trains,

I've not seen data (I'll have to read that Johansen report more carefully) about the relative contribution of the loco and the carriages to rolling resistance due to air. But yes, add a spoiler (sportscar style) at the back of the last carriage on your Imaginary Express - if you can fit it into the loading gauge.

[tythatguy1312]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Just an idle thought- the foregoing discussions suggest to me that streamlining of the frontal area, and the rear, is likely to have more effect on shorter trains, such as 2-3 car DMU's.  Reason being that the proportion of the total power absorption due to wind resistance at the front (and rear) is higher than with a long train such as an 8 car + loco Coro/SJ set, or a twelve car normal unstreamlined set.

this is also the logic behind why freight trains cause more turbulence. As a train gets longer and requires more couplings, the gaps between the vehicles add up quickly and cause huge amounts of air resistance. On a 4 car train streamlining the front end will make a significant difference, but a 16 coach train requires between-coach streamlining to deal with the most significant parts of air resistance... which raises the question as to if an Unstreamlined A4/A1/1 could match Mallard on Stoke bank with just the Coronation rake, ignoring the massive drag causer which is the Dynamometer car.

Edited January 7, 2023 by tythatguy1312

[Northmoor]

27 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

this is also the logic behind why freight trains cause more turbulence. As a train gets longer and requires more couplings, the gaps between the vehicles add up quickly and cause huge amounts of air resistance. On a 4 car train streamlining the front end will make a significant difference, but a 16 coach train requires between-coach streamlining to deal with the most significant parts of air resistance... which raises the question as to if an Unstreamlined A4/A1/1 could match Mallard on Stoke bank with just the Coronation rake, ignoring the massive drag causer which is the Dynamometer car.

Which explains why so much power is required to pull a 30+ bogie container train at up to 75mph.  The drag induced by the gap between every box must be horrific (and wow, you can feel the turbulence when one comes through your station at speed!).

[DenysW]

A few pages back (I can't find it) we were asked the combined imaginary locomotives/imaginary railways question which I've rephrased to "what if the Bristol & Exeter Railway in 1846-1849 (when its relations with GWR were at a low) or in 1875 (to finance mixed gauge) had been taken over by the Midland instead of GWR? Would it have changed the Midlands locomotives and/or the policies behind them?"

 

My gut feel is not, but, especially the early take-over, might well have restricted GWR to Bristol & Wales, and left Somerset, Devon, & Cornwall to LSWR.

[Mike 84C]

I often watch the container trains on the GN/GE joint and wonder how 9f's or Thompson Pacifics would have managed these trains?  My gut feeling is not ever so well!

[tythatguy1312]

55 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

I often watch the container trains on the GN/GE joint and wonder how 9f's or Thompson Pacifics would have managed these trains?  My gut feeling is not ever so well!

I'd be hopeful for the Thompson Pacifics' ability considering their routine employment on fast freights but the wheelslip can't help them. They could give it a good try though

[The Johnster]

23 hours ago, DenysW said:

and may depend on wind-strength and direction on the day.

 

This is more important than might be thought.  I can recall class 120 dmus unable to manage more than 50mph on the Gwent Levels in strong, but not quite gale, force headwinds, four engines running, and was guard on a Hymek-hauled down train of empty 21ton hoppers blown to a standstill by storm-force sidewinds on the embankment between Stoke Gifford and Patchway, pinned there for nearly an hour while I was concerned that one of them might have blown over onto the up, which Bristol Panel had closed on my advice; they were rocking in the gusts to the extent that the windward side wheels were lifting off the rail and banging back down again.  This was in wind speeds of 70mph or so, maybe 90 in the gusts.  Air in a bad mood is a force to be reckoned with.

 

A sidewind crossing the track at around 90 degrees will affect a moving train as if it was striking diagonally from the front relative to the train.  To counteract that with streamlining, one would have to shape the train, locomotive and stock, to cope with this, and the loading gauge will not allow you to do this without disastrously compromising both the size and power of the loco's boiler and the seating capacity, hence the profit-generating ability, of the coaches. 

 

The only thing you can do to reduce the wind resistance of the train is to shape the front and rear faces and enclose spaces underneath and between the vehicles, and the usual approach for high speed trains is to have permanently coupled sets with streamlined cabs at each end.  A flat end at the back will create suction which will increase the drag on the train, so the rear has to be streamlined as well as the front; of course, this also has the advantage of facilitating bi-directional working, the driver simply changes cabs.  There's not much you can do about side winds, the effect of which will vary according to the curvature of the track and whatever shelter is offered by objects or geography upwind of it, though some of the more recent Shinkansen routes are largely in cuttings or tunnels, primarily to reduce ambient noise but this must have a beneficial sheltering effect on crosswindy days.  The LNER 'Coronation' sets, with an A4 at the front, enclosed spaces between and beneath the stock, and the beavertail observation car at the rear, are a step in this direction, but probably did not regularly achieve service speeds of an order that much difference was made.  Fuel savings in strong winds may have resulted, but there are so many other variable factors involved in steam locomotive running (driving technique, firing technique, coal quality on the day, prima donna injectors, water temperature in cold weather, atmospheric pressure, adverse signals, TROS) that objective data is next to impossible to obtain; an operating main line railway is not a laboratory wind tunnel, and that's before some idiot passenger forgets to close a door droplight or opens a sliding ventilator and ruins it all...  No two days are the same.

 

 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Mike 84C said:

I often watch the container trains on the GN/GE joint and wonder how 9f's or Thompson Pacifics would have managed these trains?  My gut feeling is not ever so well!

 

I reckon a double-chimneyed 9F with mechanical stoking or oil firing, roller bearings, possibly Caprotti valve gear, bogie tenders because there are no water troughs any more, and a bit of Chapelon/Porta working up would be able to manage, and the 6'2" diameter driving wheel Thompsons or Bullied MNs would make a fair fist of it as well.  Managing efficiently  might be a different question, though, and the emissions regulations would have to be chucked out the window!

 

It might be worth providing some sort of complete-train-length covering/cowling over the containers to improve wind resistance and make the trains more slippery, but the type 5 deisels can manage the trains well enough and the cost effectiveness study would be between that of providing the covers and the fuel savings on the locomotives, or leaving things as they are which is apparently satisfactory since nobody's ever done it!  With electric traction, the fuel consumption goalposts are moved, and there are probably fewer savings to be had.  The covers would take time and equipment at the terminals to deploy and to remove on arrival before unloading could take place; time is money in a just-in-time distribution network, and equipment is expensive and something else to go wrong.  International Channel Tunnel traffic would need it to be standardised across Eurasia or removed/provided at Dolland's or Sangatte.

Edited January 7, 2023 by The Johnster

[rockershovel]

Hence those 3-part telescopic covers on steel coil Wagons?

 

See also previous comments somewhere, about effects of wind on trains in East Anglia?

[MikeOxon]

In all the recent  discussion of streamlining, I'm surprised no-one has commented on the GWR railcars,  I think the early versions were particularly attractive, before the 'bean counters' stepped in and replaced all those curves with flat panels.  Imagine a 'Cornish Riviera' express based on power cars of this style - streamlined at both ends, with Centenary type carriages in between.

[rodent279]

Now that is an idea that I like!

[PhilJ W]

57 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

In all the recent  discussion of streamlining, I'm surprised no-one has commented on the GWR railcars,  I think the early versions were particularly attractive, before the 'bean counters' stepped in and replaced all those curves with flat panels.  Imagine a 'Cornish Riviera' express based on power cars of this style - streamlined at both ends, with Centenary type carriages in between.

The later ones were built during the war when the skilled workforce required were building aircraft.

[BachelorBoy]

I asked Midjourney AI to create a picture of a "Bulleid pacific steam locomotive"

 

[BachelorBoy]

And here's the Flying Scotsman. I guess the AI wasn't shown many examples of steam locos when it was trained.

 

[rockershovel]

"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do...."

[tythatguy1312]

5 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

I asked Midjourney AI to create a picture of a "Bulleid pacific steam locomotive"

 

that's not real art. You're not an artist. As someone who's close friends with at least 2 real artists, it's frankly insulting seeing this wretched theft of the real artwork of numerous people. Not only that, but it's merely shoved through an algorithm and passed off as "your" "art".

Edited January 8, 2023 by tythatguy1312

[DK123GWR]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

passed off as "your" "art".

I'm not sure that's fair. They were perfectly transparent about how the images were produced:

 

6 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

I asked Midjourney AI to create a picture of a "Bulleid pacific steam locomotive"

 

 

As for 'theft', I've little knowledge of copyright law, its application here, or the extent of Midjourney's compliance with it. However, if the algorithm were only trained on images in the public domain (or with sufficiently liberal licencing conditions) then surely there would surely be no risk of theft.

Edited January 8, 2023 by DK123GWR

[tythatguy1312]

2 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

As for 'theft', I've little knowledge of copyright law, its application here, or the extent of Midjourney's compliance with it. However, if the algorithm were only trained on images in the public domain (or with sufficiently liberal licencing conditions) then surely there would surely be no risk of theft.

my stance that it counts as theft comes from the fact that I've seen AI outright mimicking the watermarks of freelance artists. Although my stance is different for corporations, theft of the artwork of active freelance artists without so much as credit to them is mildly disgusting on a moral level. Whilst that key clue isn't present on this specific case, I've seen dozens of cases of artwork like that being made by real people.

[Compound2632]

20 hours ago, DenysW said:

A few pages back (I can't find it) we were asked the combined imaginary locomotives/imaginary railways question which I've rephrased to "what if the Bristol & Exeter Railway in 1846-1849 (when its relations with GWR were at a low) or in 1875 (to finance mixed gauge) had been taken over by the Midland instead of GWR? Would it have changed the Midlands locomotives and/or the policies behind them?"

 

My gut feel is not, but, especially the early take-over, might well have restricted GWR to Bristol & Wales, and left Somerset, Devon, & Cornwall to LSWR.

 

Restricted to Bristol, the West and North-West Midlands, and South Wales - the principal sources of its wealth. Also, the Broad Gauge would have gone much sooner, following the conversion of the South Wales main line and the laying of mixed gauge to London.

[BachelorBoy]

2 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

that's not real art. You're not an artist. As someone who's close friends with at least 2 real artists, it's frankly insulting seeing this wretched theft of the real artwork of numerous people. Not only that, but it's merely shoved through an algorithm and passed off as "your" "art".

 

I never claimed to be an artist. I was just curious about what AI could "imagine".

 

PS I think you're overreacting. An apology would be nice.

Edited January 8, 2023 by BachelorBoy
added PS

[rodent279]

22 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Which explains why so much power is required to pull a 30+ bogie container train at up to 75mph.  The drag induced by the gap between every box must be horrific (and wow, you can feel the turbulence when one comes through your station at speed!).

I'd imagine the traditional goods train formed of a mix of vans, open wagons & tanks, would offer a fair amount of windage, not that they'd get up to anywhere near the sort of speed where it becomes significant. 

Thought fast fitted freight such as milk, fish or other perishable goods, formed of a long line of vans or tanks, would reach 50-60 mph. With all those gaps between vehicles, and all that running gear underneath,  I'd imaginea 9F or Thompson Pacific would have its work cut out, even at lower speeds.

[tythatguy1312]

3 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'd imaginea 9F or Thompson Pacific would have its work cut out, even at lower speeds.

oh they did, the Thompson pacifics were reportedly worked fairly hard on them. Luckily the more prominent & numerous of the lot, the A2/2's and A2/3's, supposedly retained the P2's enormous reserve of power.