woodenhead Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 As I see it the more hot moving parts a machine has the more maintenance it will require and the more likely something is to fail - why have lots of locomotives burning biocoal to create energy and all the attendant complexity of carrying your fuel, power generation and traction in one unit when you could use the same biocoal in a power station to deliver electricity to drive simple electric traction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 So they are wrecking a historic locomotive. Can you imagine the fuss if somebody decided to "rebuild" an A4 in this way? The loco seems to be in pretty parlous condition already judging by pics I've found on the 'net. And there is another member of the class preserved in working order (but only one, unlike enough A4s to run a mainline service for a day - if they all worked). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Why even start with an old locomotive, it's not as if they are a dime a dozen - if it actually proved to be as good as they claim they would have to new build surely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 9, 2012 Wonder what the "coaling tower" would be called !! Brit15 It would be the "public toilet" and they would charge passengers 30p each to refuel the locos! The yobbos that vault over the turnstiles could be thrown whole into the fire, thus improving the travel environment for everyone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium QWILPEN Posted June 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 9, 2012 Simplicity is the keyword.....Boiling water into steam then using it to push pistons. It is the means of boiling the water that tends to be expensive. The most useless waste created is sh*t and it'll never run out so maybe there is some calorific value in poo if it can be extracted.... this is not new we have been doing this in the UK for years see link from 2008. http://processengineering.theengineer.co.uk/scottish-sewage-to-fuel-plant-notes-maintenance-gains/306122.article Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 It's late and I'm tired, but am I reading this right? Are they really saying that the low speeds on the US rail network are because they have to use diesel-electric traction rather than steam? This doesn't seem to have stopped BR and it's successors from operating a large fleet of 125mph diesel trains. Remember that this is from a press release from the people wanting the project to proceed What they're saying as I read it is steam trains could go fast, faster than the diesels we have in the US now there fore that is the answer. As I understand it there are very few diesel passnger locos as such in the US, the design base tends to be towards something that will handle freight first and foremost. It was perhaps notable that of the "US" originated locos in the current British inventory, the only one designed for high speed passenger running was built in Spain. This expertise is perhaps not required in the North American continent at the moment..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.