E pur si muove. Publication is not demonstration of correctness. Making fun of Fowler does not dismiss him merely because it suits your ego. I have six years of Latin and no need to consult Wikipedia references on the subject as my sole justification. Period. End of diversion (I hope).
“Ancillaries” is a well-understood engineering term for devices that serve (the term, for those unfamiliar with Latin, derives from ancilla, maid) peripherally to the primary purpose of a machine or system. As, for example, the hydroboost pump or air-conditioning compressor on an automobile. It is certainly possible to use the term ‘auxiliaries’ (meaning devices that assist or help the primary function) for that functionality if you want, and in fact I would welcome establishing this distinction between the two terms here. It is, however, not objectively wrong to choose one exclusively over the other in the general context of this kind of discussion, far less is it a subject for sarcasm. End of that diversion, I hope.
Let’s get the subject back on the original topic … don’t spare us the nuissance of reading your comments, as they are… at least, the ones concerning steam design are… the most important part of this thread.
One thing that needs to be made clear, however, is this: Are we merely discussing new wheel arrangements and the like, or are we also discussing the detail and systems improvements that would have been seen in the period under discussion? Since I for one, and hopefully everyone else reading this, has ‘taken the pledge’ not to raise further contention (aside from legitimate disagreement on the facts) there should be no further drift, and I’d like to think no further discord … but we sh
I believe Firelock asked where would the N&W have gone with steam in the next decade (1960’s?) if they continued with steam. I don’t think the issue was how many drivers, size, etc. If steam were still around the technology of today with metal, mechanical technology and the purity of manufacturing, steam locomotives would have been built much better than back in the day. Similar to the improvements seen in automobile manufacture.
I had relatives who worked at the Juniata Shops and I was fortunate enough to have some live long enough to talk this nosey little kid about his passion of trains. They, along with other accounts of steam I have read or discussed related the frustration of how much of steams enery was wasted. One account I read said that 97% of steams energy flew out the stack. I am sure many of you read of this frustration with locomotive design people trying to invent ways to harness this energy, use it more efficiently and improve on a locotives overall efficiency. Didn’t happen, ideas fail but other things did (avoiding off topic) and so the" progress of the progression" of steam halted. Today we can only theorize and state a bunch of smart stuff usually found in algebra class between all those parenthesis.
As steam came to an end railroads were discovering that bigger was not always better and that bigger in some instances created more problems with things such as the physical plant. Had the steam hold outs, the N&W, PRR, and a few others continued on I think technology would have improved the ability and efficiency of exisiting successful locomotives such as an 8 wheeler. The experimenting with turbine, steam electrics and such that the N&W, PRR, C&O and UP were doing would have continued, but it came to a halt, that off topic guy came around using some oil product.
Personally, if the steam technology were to continue the
I’m still interested. The issue with the Gresley conjugated valve gear’s third cylinder cutoff would be the biggest barrier to further North American three cylinder steam. While the high speed wearing of the middle cylinder (that disabled Mallard on her record run) wouldn’t have been as critical in North America, having a pretty inaccessible middle cylinder need maintenance more than the others would be unacceptable.
The UP’s solution of putting roller bearings IIRC did ease maintenance but did not fix the cutoff issues. The second solution of a “double Walschaerts” gear seemed to fix most of the problems. I am interested in what method you would use.
The LNER’s solution of decreasing inner cylinder diameter is also interesting to consider, but it didn’t seem to fix the problems on the Great Northern when she was converted to a A1/1.
It wasn’t wear on the inside cylinder that caused Mallard’s problem, it was damage to the inside big end (admittedly that was a poor detail design).
The inertia loading in a lever conjugation gear, at American scale, is likely to produce enough deflection to show the problems… at high cyclic rpm. To SOME extent this can be overcome with the Australian-style rack-and-pinion versions of conjugation gear, but only if the shafts are made very stiff to limit torque whip.
But at substantially increased locomotive weight, and maintenance complexity. Juniatha has already addressed several approaches to this (as early as 2006, IIRC). I will not repeat my points about using roller bearings on lever ends or other partial-arc applications.
The catch with most forms of multiple Walschaerts/Heusinger is that it is difficult to get the ‘action’ forward to a middle valve cylinder facing exclusively forward – one of the points of the Gresley gear.
That is often the fate of that kind of kludge. Decreasing the cylinder diameter [especially for t
As usual , Overmod has had an overwhelming mode to step in and answer the question for me before I even had a chance to read the question - and so be it .
My God, that Algerian Garrett has got to be one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen! No wonder De Gaulle pulled the French out of Algeria in 1958! Mon dieu and sacre’ bleu!
Oh, hi Juniatha! It’s me again!
Listen, I don’t know if this comes under “Extreme Steam” but I was perusing my copy of Ron Zeils “Twilight of World Steam” and in the Bulgarian section there’s a photo of a 2-12-4T. I thought Union Pacific was the only 'road that tried a 12-coupled design. Do you know anything about this one?
Oh, and everyone, I’m not going to get into a discussion of Latin. The only Latin I know is Pope Francis’ phone number. Ecum-Spiri-Two-Two-0.
Don’t take offense anyone, I’m Catholic as well, although if you look up the definition of “Good Catholic” in the dictionary you’re not likely to find my picture there.
Sorry, didn’t mean to drift the thread, but I think if the thread takes on the trajectory of a pin-ball from time to time that’s a good thing, it means there’s a lively discussion going on.
It’s probably safe to say that that the UP was the only road to have production quantities of 12 coupled locomotives. The Russians made a one-off of a 14 coupled locomotive, not sure if it was for sound technical reasons or for bragging rights.
Based on photos and descriptions, I believe that it was mostly a Soviet Union propaganda tool. It derailed on curves, was too heavy for the track, broke couplers with its power, and was too big for turntables. It being the longest wheelbase in the world at the time (until surpassed by the PRR S1) also seems to support the publicity tool theory. (That I suspect was also much of the reason the S-1 was built).
Firelock
Regarding X-12-Xs, IIRC an 0-12-0 was built for the Philadelphia and Reading.
Also, in Germany the Wüttemberg Class Ks were 2-12-0s
Not an ‘answer’, just some comments on a post in the thread. Please don’t let that stop you from providing the answer, since you are evidently so inclined after all.
Oh, and guys, it’s drifting again. I did not put the Algerian Garratt in there for anything other than an illustration of Cossart gear … and discussions of European 12-coupled engines, while fascinating in their place, have little if anything to do with the topic of this thread…
Overmod, please think twice before you put a picture of an ugly monster like that Algerian Garrett on the Forum again! I passed half a glass of Coca-Cola through my nose when I saw the picture of that horror! Think that was fun? Think again!
Maybe it serves me right for muli-tasking. Eating a pizza, drinking Coke, and doing the Forum all at once.
E pur si muove. Publication is not demonstration of correctness. <<
It does prove regular use of the word or term or form of plural in the case of “Duplex” – word used as a noun , a special naming defining a locomotive type and therefore needing to appear in plural if said locomotives duplicate .
Making fun of Fowler does not dismiss him merely because it suits your ego. <<
O-M-G , I will not answer this , full stop .
I have six years of Latin and no need to consult Wikipedia references on the subject as my sole justification.<<
However you seem to have a need to criticize for the sake of criticizing , disregarding reasonable discussion of a topic .
Period. End of diversion (I hope). <<
Ok , now that things turn out not so well for you in that off-topic issue of blaming me for using incorrect forms of words – issue raised in reply of my having mentioned my wondering about your particularly not writing proper technical term but using instead some words in a very special way , stretching their regular meaning , to put it this way – now you want to drop the subject .
The same way as with the issue about my allegedly oh-so-wrong use of the term “simple expansion Mallet” : strangely , as soon as I had posted that scan of Wiener`s book showing his using the term much the same way … there was silence , everyone had just dropped the subject silently . None of those having criticized me stood up to criticize Wiener !
Oh , I can see why ! No , not so easy , sorry , you have asked for it and now after having taken the bashing patiently yet in vain for so long , I feel it`s enough :
Concerning some of the words in focus , I have here some scans of pages in Locomotive Cyclopedia 41 with page explaining meaning of “auxiliaries …” and also page where alphabetic
Let this be a lesson, never EVER mess with a granddaughter of a square-rigger skipper! One uses real brass knuckles, the other uses figuratives. It’s in the blood. It took some doing to get those ships 'round the Horn, and various ways of persuasion of men and ship.
Keep on sluggin’, slugger!
Wayne
PS: Lady Firestorm’s an ally of Juniatha. DON’T make Lady Firestorm mad! Don’t make her get on this Forum in a bad mood!
I’m going to say one thing more, not addressed to anyone in particular, but “if the shoe fits, wear it.”
Several months ago when Juniatha was off the “screen” a number of you were crying “Where’s Juniatha? Where’d she go?” Tells me she was missed, and missed badly.
The question is, did some of you want her back for her insights and expertise, or did you want her back so you could practice one-upmanship? Or to show off your own knowledge? O what a genius you were? About everything?
You see, at this point I’ve got sort of a proprietary interest in this young lady. We’ve corresponded, exchanged thoughts on things, and become as close as electronics will let us. So let me tell you that as a childless couple if Lady Firestorm and I could choose a daughter, Juniatha would be the one. Make of that what you will. This young woman WILL be treated with respect. Do you read me? Good.
That’s all I have to say. Next posting I’ll be back to my usual irreverant wise-ass self.
The interesting thing is that I felt exactly the same way, then and all this time up to now: I was looking forward to trade ideas with someone genuinely interested in modern steam design who was willing to talk about it on an open forum. So yes, insights and expertise, and hopefully friendship too. That the person involved was female only added more delight: just to know that there was such a person in the world was enough. (And I also confess that, since my own daughter decided it was uncool for a girl to like trains (yet), and my son is ‘in the autism spectrum’ I thought it was an opportunity to share some of the work I have done over a comparatively long period of time in steam design with someone who would ‘run with the ball’ after I am no longer involved.
Now, I am from New York, where (as you know) we are prone to speak frankly, use sarcasm as terms of endearment and ‘bust chops’, and occasionally provide drinks of water from firehoses to people we accept as at least our peers, part of the same confraternity. It works, or should work, just the same in specialty engineering as it does in, say, the theatre, or the exercise-equipment design community. It most certainly does NOT mean that I have any intent of being a small tin god of an internet forum someplace, far less that I enjoy showing people up like the trolls and flamers on /. or one of the old chat groups, blessedly now only alive in memory. I will
As a hopeless romantic about steam, whether it could have stayed around longer, made some kind of comeback during the “Oil Crisis”, or may return in some shape or form, please, please, tell me more about the Algerian Garratt, the Cossart Valve Gear, and the “salmon” rods.
Are the salmon rods on that 180-deg eccentric crank a solution to 2-cylinder dynamic balance and dynamic augment problems, that we don’t need 3-cylinder machines, the Pennsy S-2/LMS Turbomotive turbine, the conjugated duplex, or some manner of high-speed Heisler geared drive to power bogies?
Where can I get more information on the Cossart valve gear – separate piston valves for exhaust and admission? Hollingsworth talked about the Cossart system being “electrically actuated” – is this true or the result of a misunderstanding. If the Cossart system doesn’t require a 90-deg offset drive from the crosshead, does that mean the valves could be driven from the crosshead, and the only purpose of the “salmon rod” is driver balancing?
It is a little misleading to refer to Cossart valves as piston valves, although they certainly are that by definition.
This description is based on my memory of a second generation photocopy of an article in “Locomotive Railway Carriage and Wagon Review” for (if I recall correctly) 1931. Although I have quite extensive literature on French steam, I haven’t found a French description of the system. Certainly my translation of Chapelon’s “Locomotive a Vapeur” doesn’t give it more than a cursory description (probably because it was only applied to simple rather than compound locomotives).
The valve gear layout is very similar to contemporary Caprotti installations, with two valves, one inlet and one exhaust side by side at each end of the cylinder, both with their valve stems verti
I think the discussion of Cossart is not ‘off-topic’ because the gear might have been adopted for some postwar American applications.
A reasonably full description is here, Cossart’s American patent application (of 1932) for the system. Uncharitably, but with some historical precedent for the ways patent-protected devices came to be adopted by ‘cash-strapped’ railroads, I would note that this gear would have been coming out of patent protection at just the time America abandoned new steam construction; the likely marketer (Franklin) was already heavily invested in poppet valves…
I had thought this is why they were called ‘drop valves’ – not just because of the vertical motion.
First of all I want to thank Firelock for his making aim accurate and it seems we are all heading to resume matters steam at an envisaged extra lease of life through the 1950s - which isn’t exactly ‘modern steam’ which might be interesting to discuss in another thread I may open if there are users interested .
@ Paul M M636C Overmod
As concerns the question on Cossart poppet valve gear , Overmod had again stepped in - or jumped forward - whatever - so I don’t have to cover that , other than by a personal remark .
I think , Cossart poppet valve gear was not really on the list of the American builders , they fiddled with the Franklins , however : for peace let’s assume someone in some office had at one bright day shouted “Cossart ! WoW ! Yeah ! Cossart , that’s it !” And then they would have rebuilt the Franklin engines with their too small valves into Cossart with too small valves and made test runs , found trifle differences , started discussing them and …
found it inconclusive …
Because : Franklin , Cossart , Lenz or what have you : without adequate cross sections and a minimum of inner streamlining the one would not help any better than the other .
And , btw , the drawings show what small lifts the valves offer - a piston valve actuated by Walschaerts was not really inferior because at the point of opening a port it was already travelling at speed and in - then - ‘modern’ layouts of long lap valve gear the valve over travelled the ports width and by the travelling speed involved in this , it already gave quite rapid port opening .
However , I feel the discussion will now circle around poppet valve gear and their relative virtues and that is but a side aspect of what types of steam the builders might have turned out had the railways bought steam for another couple of years .
My personal thinking is , non of all these fancier