Imaginary Locomotives

[Corbs]

More nonsense. Class 31+Class 31 = Class 62?

A1A-A1A-A1A

2940hp

Circa 190 tons?

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Corbs

[Satan's Goldfish]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

More nonsense. Class 31+Class 31 = Class 62?

A1A-A1A-A1A

2940hp

Circa 190 tons?

 

Reminds me of when I was messing around articulating things way back on page 24...

 

 

I still have a big soft spot for that bi-mode 37...

[AlfaZagato]

57 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Reminds me of when I was messing around articulating things way back on page 24...

 

 

I still have a big soft spot for that bi-mode 37...

Seems like a good use for the Garratt roads at Toton. 

[Corbs]

Inspired by the bi-mode 37, the 93 (3x31).

 

I used Mk.1 corridor connections.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Corbs

[sir douglas]

the articulated hudswell idea was drawn up just after "Junin" was built, and they also drew up a standard gauge version of junin which before they had actually built any in SG, Ron Redman says in his book that at the time one of the drawing office workers had only recently moved over from Beyer Peacock and was obviously playing around with the garratt idea from his previous job

[AlfaZagato]

So I'll just say it, having no photo-editing to hand, that now we need the Class 210 bi-mode.

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, RLBH said:

Everything apart from the whacking great jumper cables needed to supply power to the traction motors. Which might make the three-unit version exciting, since all three units would become electrically linked.

 

A 'slug' is intended to be used at low speed, when the traction motors are generating maximum torque but the engine isn't having to work hard to do it. The slug has an extra set of traction motors to get things going, but takes power from the locomotive. Perhaps best to think of the Class 20/slug combination as a sort of super-Class 13, with 84,000 pounds of tractive effort but only 1,000 horsepower. Or, indeed, as a powered version of a diesel brake tender. A cabless Class 20 - what the Americans call a 'booster' - to work in main line formations is a very different idea, conceptually, There, the idea is to provide an extra locomotive without the expense of an extra cab.

 

On general principles, I like the 1-Do-1 version of the Class 20 - just need to make it a 1-D-1 with external coupling rods now!

 

Edit: Come to think of it, would a booster need yellow ends? It should never be running as the leading unit, after all....

 

I did a bit of messing around in a spreadsheet last night and guesstimated that a Class 20 with slug could develop that 84,000lb TE up to about 3mph^*. Then I realised that it couldn't, as the main generator would probably not be able to supply sufficient current, or would melt in the attempt. Even EE equipment is mortal, shocking as that may seem.

 

*continuous tractive effort of 25,000lb at 11mph (Wikipedia ) equates to about 730hp at the rail - balance other values for TE and speed to give about the same power. Plenty of other possible factors ignored here - as I say, guesstimated.

[Corbs]

So would likely only work in the 3-unit combo in any case! What was quite funny is I found myself thinking 'what about if you took the master-and-slave version and added a cab', so we can see how these things come back to reality in the end

 

Taking a break from oil power, here's 9F 'Evening Star' with the BR Life Extension Tender (post-clean air act). Coal space is replaced with the pantograph and current collection equipment, feeding to resistance heating elements in the boiler. Obviously it would not be safe to fill up with water from an overhead crane, so the water feed is plugged in to the fitting on the side of the tender, and the internal electric pump fills the tank.

Should it be needed, a conventional tender can be substituted and the loco can operate under coal power.

 

Voila, utilising existing assets to pay them off over a longer period and not throw away the investment so quickly. Could use some of that money saved on electrifying more lines...

Edited February 26, 2019 by Corbs

[Coryton]

 

6 hours ago, RLBH said:

Everything apart from the whacking great jumper cables needed to supply power to the traction motors. Which might make the three-unit version exciting, since all three units would become electrically linked.

 

OK I was thinking multiple working in the traditional sense. I see what you meant now.

 

6 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Yes, I fully agree, but the topic is imaginary locomotives. A touch of the 'neverwazzer'.  We can explore the envelope here to our hearts content. I'm cr*p with the artwork, so that's for other to interpret. My only input is what I'd expect to see of the engineering & aesthetic renditions of a vivid imagination.

 

 

I have no problem with the imaginary locomotive concept and I find it fascinating reading, though in my view the imaginary locomotives should be things which could work, even if in some cases it's hard to imagine why anybody might want them to.

 

Anyway I was making a specific comment to something which I appear to have misinterpreted (see above).

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

So would likely only work in the 3-unit combo in any case! What was quite funny is I found myself thinking 'what about if you took the master-and-slave version and added a cab', so we can see how these things come back to reality in the end

 

Taking a break from oil power, here's 9F 'Evening Star' with the BR Life Extension Tender (post-clean air act). Coal space is replaced with the pantograph and current collection equipment, feeding to resistance heating elements in the boiler. Obviously it would not be safe to fill up with water from an overhead crane, so the water feed is plugged in to the fitting on the side of the tender, and the internal electric pump fills the tank.

Should it be needed, a conventional tender can be substituted and the loco can operate under coal power.

 

Voila, utilising existing assets to pay them off over a longer period and not throw away the investment so quickly. Could use some of that money saved on electrifying more lines...

Like it.

 

This has probably been mentioned before:

Edited February 26, 2019 by melmerby

[Corbs]

That was where the idea came from, I forgot to add the link!

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

[BlueLightning]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

So would likely only work in the 3-unit combo in any case! What was quite funny is I found myself thinking 'what about if you took the master-and-slave version and added a cab', so we can see how these things come back to reality in the end

 

Taking a break from oil power, here's 9F 'Evening Star' with the BR Life Extension Tender (post-clean air act). Coal space is replaced with the pantograph and current collection equipment, feeding to resistance heating elements in the boiler. Obviously it would not be safe to fill up with water from an overhead crane, so the water feed is plugged in to the fitting on the side of the tender, and the internal electric pump fills the tank.

Should it be needed, a conventional tender can be substituted and the loco can operate under coal power.

 

Voila, utilising existing assets to pay them off over a longer period and not throw away the investment so quickly. Could use some of that money saved on electrifying more lines...

 

I love it and I want one!! Now where is my 9f...................

 

Gary

[Compound2632]

On 23/02/2019 at 23:36, RLBH said:

Of course, to follow the EMD example, you take two of them, omit the cabs, then put another two single-cabbed Class 50s on two-axle bogies at the outside ends, and use the whole lot to drag 10,000 tonnes up Shap. This might need to be an export job.

 

Would all of a 10,000 ton train be on the 4 miles of 1:75 at once?

 

If one made the train long enough, the proportion of it on the 1:75 would become so small that the effect of the steep grade would become negligible...

[rodent279]

34 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

 

I love it and I want one!! Now where is my 9f...................

 

Gary

Now that's an interesting idea. I guess with an electrically powered boiler you'd dispense with the firebox, and just have tubes with elements in. You can also pre- heat the water.

Because you haven't got a fire, you don't need draughting, so you don't need a blast pipe. You can in fact have a condenser, and expand the steam as efficiently as possible. You then wouldn't need a tender in the conventional sense, or a smokebox, and could in fact have cabs at either end.

The logical conclusion is to replace the cylinders with turbines. An interesting proposition. Can we crowdfund one? Are there any unrestored 9F's?

Edited February 26, 2019 by rodent279

[melmerby]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Would all of a 10,000 ton train be on the 4 miles of 1:75 at once?

 

Taking a high capacity bogie wagon capable of carrying e.g. coal.

In the UK with an max axle load of about 22.5 tons that's 90 tons in all and about 50ft long

that's about 110 wagons which is about a mile long. Give or take a bit on weights and measures!

[Gibbo675]

2 hours ago, Corbs said:

So would likely only work in the 3-unit combo in any case! What was quite funny is I found myself thinking 'what about if you took the master-and-slave version and added a cab', so we can see how these things come back to reality in the end

 

Taking a break from oil power, here's 9F 'Evening Star' with the BR Life Extension Tender (post-clean air act). Coal space is replaced with the pantograph and current collection equipment, feeding to resistance heating elements in the boiler. Obviously it would not be safe to fill up with water from an overhead crane, so the water feed is plugged in to the fitting on the side of the tender, and the internal electric pump fills the tank.

Should it be needed, a conventional tender can be substituted and the loco can operate under coal power.

 

Voila, utilising existing assets to pay them off over a longer period and not throw away the investment so quickly. Could use some of that money saved on electrifying more lines...

HI Corbs,

 

When running on the main line with 45407 some years back I was once asked why did we not have a pantograph and a heating element to save coal. The chap wasn't joking either, and also couldn't understand that it wasn't really practical or even efficient to do such a modification.

 

So supposing that the power station is coal fired it would seem that you are proposing a locomotive that will take coal from the colliery to the power station, so that the power station may burn the coal to heat the water, that will then expand the steam in a turbine, to generate electricity that will in turn heat the water in the locomotives boiler, to then be expanded in reciprocating engines of that locomotive that is taking the coal to the power station ?

 

Not wishing to rain upon your parade, you may wish to consider the following:

 

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

 

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

 

https://www.skm-eleksys.com/2011/03/transmission-line-parameters-resistance.html

 

I have to say I would be very interested to see the rating in watts a suitable heating element would have to be to raise the required amount of steam.

 

I thought I was crackers !

 

Gibbo.

[Coryton]

32 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

HI Corbs,

 

When running on the main line with 45407 some years back I was once asked why did we not have a pantograph and a heating element to save coal. The chap wasn't joking either, and also couldn't understand that it wasn't really practical or even efficient to do such a modification.

 

So supposing that the power station is coal fired it would seem that you are proposing a locomotive that will take coal from the colliery to the power station, so that the power station may burn the coal to heat the water, that will then expand the steam in a turbine, to generate electricity that will in turn heat the water in the locomotives boiler, to then be expanded in reciprocating engines of that locomotive that is taking the coal to the power station ?

 

Not wishing to rain upon your parade, you may wish to consider the following:

 

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

 

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

 

https://www.skm-eleksys.com/2011/03/transmission-line-parameters-resistance.html

 

I have to say I would be very interested to see the rating in watts a suitable heating element would have to be to raise the required amount of steam.

 

I thought I was crackers !

 

Gibbo.

 

Not at all efficient....but maybe the time will come when if we want to run steam engines something like this will be the only option. 

[Corbs]

The irony of moving the combustion point further away was not lost on me  

 

One thing I've clearly omitted are the heating elements on the running plate, the Swiss locos in the example above have quite prominent ones.

 

From the article:

"The Swiss Federal Railways had a highly electrified system during the Second World War, but retained little 0-6-0 tank engines for shunting. Due to war conditions coal was in short supply, but hydro-electricity remained plentiful. Therefore some of these small steam locomotives were converted to raise steam by electric heating. Power was taken at 15 kV, 16.6 Hz from overhead lines by a pantograph, and fed to resistance heating elements in the boiler, via two transformers rated together at 480 kW. Water feed was by normal steam injectors. These unique locomotives also retained the capability of being fired by coal in the usual way."

"Weight was increased by 7 tonnes to 42 tonnes so new springs were fitted. The savings were 700 to 1200kg coal a day. 300kg steam at 12 bars per hour could be generated. The heaters were the two boxes on the frame ahead of the coal bunker. The water was pumped from the boiler low point through the heaters and back into the boiler. Startup from cold took only 1 hour, as a small coal fire was kept going. The costs for the conversion was 100,000 Swiss Franks per Engine. Electric lighting was fitted, with a battery charged from the overhead wire."

 

Something tells me you'd need more than 480kw for a 9F...

 

[rodent279]

If you assume boiler efficiency at 65%, then with a loco developing say 2000 kw indicated power, at say 50% efficiency for a turbine, you are going to need a 4000kw boiler. At 65% efficiency that's 6153kw, or around 8000hp, required from the elements.

Not sure what sort of efficiency you could expect from a well designed steam turbine, but I think 50% would be on the high side.

[Corbs]

My made-up reason for the loco (extending the life of an existing asset rather than building a new one) becomes somewhat obsolete when turbines, double cabs etc. are introduced  

I mean, obviously the whole thing is ludicrous and very much plays into the sunk costs fallacy By the time one has built the tender and electrical system, adapted the loco with wiring and heating elements, and rebuilt the water supply system across the required operating area, I may as well have just dug the copper out of the ground and built the electric locomotives instead!

But it looks cool, which is the main thing.

[tomparryharry]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Taking a high capacity bogie wagon capable of carrying e.g. coal.

In the UK with an max axle load of about 22.5 tons that's 90 tons in all and about 50ft long

that's about 110 wagons which is about a mile long. Give or take a bit on weights and measures!

 

"So, what you're saying is, we need another pannier....."

[rodent279]

I don't think it's that daft, since the efficiency of the boiler would probably be a whole load higher, as you wouldn't be throwing heat out of the chimney instead of using it to heat water. Likewise, you wouldn't need to have to exhaust steam to atmosphere to get a draught, with all the attendant problems of back pressure. Plus you could use a condenser and re-use the water.

I'm sure Bulleid must have thought about it. If he had, I reckon it would have liked something like the Leader.

[RLBH]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Would all of a 10,000 ton train be on the 4 miles of 1:75 at once?

It works out as 115 fully loaded Freightliner flats, which total 2,200 metres long, not counting the locomotives).

[AlfaZagato]

All of you needing these silly locomotives for such short trains.   Let me tell you here stateside...

[Corbs]

Well they might struggle a bit as they drag the remains of every bridge, signal gantry, platform and hill up the line!