Steam loco development in the 21st Century

The only really successful departure from the basic Stephensonian model was the Turbomotive. It wouldn't be a universal solution, but for main line use with high poewer outputs for lengthy periods I think it is the only sensible way to go. Reciprocating engines are so yesterday! I'd therefore combine the basic mechanics of this with a Leader-type bogie design, but adopting Steve's suggestion of cardan shaft drive to the bogies. I don't think it would need to have 6 wheel bogies either.

The Turbomotive wasn't a condensing engine, but the large flat sides of the Leader style body shell could allow for some substantial radiator and the advantages of a condensing system are obvious in terms of range.

Modern technology should also allow automatic firing and boiler water level management, so sparing the fireman the Leader 's firing hell hole.

 

6202 had fixed pitch turbine blades because the technology for constant speed units was in its infancy in the mid 30s. I understand - though I might be horribly wrong - that modern aero engines use variable pitch blades and constant speed units as a matter of course. I'd be most surprised if the technology for aero gas turbines wasn't transferable to a steam turbine, in fact I wouldn't be least bit surprised if weren't possible to actually use an aero gas turbine in a steam application.

Oil firing would be essential for a water tube boiler. All, without fail, all the water tube boilers which followed the conventional locomotive layout for fire-tube boilers, whether for loco or marine applications, were failures. Oil firing offers the possibility to apply heat from the underneath the boiler as per the Sentinel (for loco) and Babcock & Wilcox boilers for marine use. With a Garrett, there would plenty of space underneath the boiler for the burners for what be, in essence a large vertical boiler ( or possibly more then one mounted in-line). I really don't see an issue with the use of oil, sorry.

There are serious issues surrounding the use of compound cylinders within the British loading-gauge. If you would want to equal the power of the best French prototypes you would need to have 2x20" cylinders inside and 2x25" cylinders outside. They will not fit. You can get the 20" cyls to work, but not the 25". The traditional problem of axle journals with 20" inside cyls will probably go away with the use of roller bearings but you are never going to overcome the problem of the outside cyls, not to mention their need for 15-16" piston valves!

6202 was a non condensing loco because the condensing turbine engines that preceded it were failures, but the non-condensing designs were reasonable successes. After the war Henschel developed a really good condenser for railway use but it seemed, when in use, to get clogged up with coal. Oil firing would help this device to reach its potential.

This is a nice forum, I like to extend the imagination from time-to-time, but nothing I see, including my own thoughts, are quite as attractive as Stanier's projected 4-6-4 or Gresley's 4-8-2. This latter engine, but with three independant sets of valve gear, would be really tasty!

Regards

 

I am of the school that a steam loco has to look smell and sound like a steam loco. The sort we have known all our lives.

BUT, the one thing I would never have though of is to make one nuclear powered!

Take, say, 35022, and rebuild it ready for 2150 or whenever the oil runs out. By then, (maybe), nuclear power generators will be available in all sizes. From small, same day dispatch ones from Amazon. Up to massive ones for big industrial use.

In between those sizes, a firebox sized one that can be used to replace the fire in our 35022! So you have a 20th Century steam loco ready for the 22nd Century. With a source of energy that creates steam in the same boiler. So it looks and sounds the same. Add some carbon neutral matter than darkens the smoke and smells like coal, and, BINGO, we have a modern powered steam loco with everything from those used in the 1900s.

Yes. Very far fetched. But maybe some other form of clean heat generation device will be developed that could be used instead of the nuclear generator.

Just hope development reaches that stage before 2150 though....................

 

Is LPG i.e. propane an option as a fuel?
Has it ever been tried? I belive it is much cleaner than oil

Does anyone know of a sound recording of the turbomotive as I have always wondered what it sounded like

Pete

 

There is film of turbomotive on the British Pathe website, but the sound isn't really clear unfotunately.

 

If power outputs (sustained) of some 4400 h.p. are perfectly possible with high pressure cylinders a little over 17.25" in diameter why do you need 20"? Inside low pressure cylinders in excess of 24" in diameter have been used in a rather interesting configuration without restricting the bearing length but the more usual layout has worked at diameters over 25". But why assume a 4 cylinder design?

Reducing specific steam consumption reduces boiler design problems. Water tube is not the only alternative.

As for oil it is the implication of the true cost that is one of the problems. Or put simply, American railroads should be paying seven times what they are paying currenly for their fuel oil. If you want to see a subsidy well, here is a big one. Just think how this ecconomic cost to that country undermines the efficiency of diesel traction. All that energy being expended raising the funding for the fuel. Subsidies distort many things, green credentials included.

 

Hmm, how about keeping the steam locomotive as is, but letting the computer take more control, maybe replace the fireman ?

Automated injectors / firing / temperature, efficiency etc, based upon pre-programmed routes and let the computer account for prevailing conditions controled by the driver (signals, speed restrictions etc).

If a computer can fly a plane, a DLR train, nuclear power station why not a steam locomotive ?


on a different note, steam locomotive development should be based around longevity in todays working environment ie...

Hot for short durations then cold for days between steamings
Water consumption / carrying capability
replacing the oiling corks !
Roller bearings
Coal pushers

 

The figures I had were for a $6 defence expenditure for every $1 of fuel purchased. Even if it could be made to look that it was only half that, it could well totally skewer the pro diesel/ oil firing arguement. As for nuclear power there is a fuel problem. Quantity issue. Security of supply issue. Then you have the thorny problem of insurgency. Also, what have you to defend yourself against if you do not conduct yourself in such a way as to make enemies? However if your lifestyle causes you to consume resources beyond your ability to internally supply then you have a problem. Particularly if you have made enemies. Make friends and influence people? No? well you can always try bombing them.

This thread is about steam for the C21 and for this it depends what you want to achieve but there is no escape from some degree of politics no matter which way you choose.