Re: Steam design challenge 2000

["William Pearce" <ben_issacs@optusnet.com.au>]

      Kevin,.
  Get a copy of the British magazine 'Locomotives International' No.55,
Sept-Oct. 2000, in which there is a very interesting article on this matter
by David Wardale. The design he offers is based on UK loading gauge, axle
loads etc., but it is worth looking at in the context of your challenge.

Regards,

Bill.

"Kevin Sewell" <kevinsewell@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
3a443c76$0$7501$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a443c76$0$7501$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> I'm ¾ through reading a very interesting book called The Illustrated
> Directory of Trains of the World by Brian Hollingsworth. It doesn't cover
> every loco ever built around the world but starting with the very first
> locomotives it documents the progress of locomotive design, and goes into
> interesting detail about why a loco was included and what innovative
> features or technical reasons make it better (or different) to its
> predecessors. From the simple 2 cylinder jobbies to, complex 3 & 4
cylinder
> compounds, right through to Mallets, garretts, steam turbine, and the US
> monsters. Also from the first diseasal and electric, to TGV, ICE, Shin
> Kansen, and current US diesels to 1998.
>
> While the book has its shortfalls (fancy including Vic S class or SA 500
> class but not 38 class!!) each improvement set me to thinking how would we
> design a (reasonably conventional) steam loco today knowing now what we
know
> about design.
>
> So, here's the challenge. What design features should we include which
> satisfy the following restrictions? We're not after exact dimensions or
> measurements, and the fundamental rule is that every inclusion must be
fully
> justified. The one thing this book highlights is that there has always
been
> more than one way to kill a cat, so you must justify your inclusions. For
> example, round top vs. belpaire; 3 vs. more driving axles; 2 vs. more
> cylinders; type of fuel; means of lubrication; ball vs. roller bearings;
> simple vs. compound etc. etc. Let's not get too carried away with fluid
beds
> or gas/steam turbines but keep it fairly conventional. Cost is an issue
only
> to the extent that expensive features will need to be justified in a
payback
> sense. Ultimately we're after a design which is supremely efficient.
>
> ? Assume high quality maintenance in a quality servicing centre and a
ready
> supply of parts.
> ? Assume current mainline gradients and speed restrictions can only be
> improved by 5% (and not more than XPT permissible speeds).
> ? Assume maximum possible convenience for crew and servicing staff.
> ? Assume current NSW loading gauge can only be improved by 5%
> ? Assume able to haul passenger trains of 500 tonnes on Sydney - Melb or
> Syd - Bris routes.
> ? Assume carriages will perform to same standard as loco. You may also
want
> to spec carriages. In many cases around the world the carriages and loco
> were a matched set (e.g SOP, Coronation Scot, SP Daylights)
> ? Assume current comparability between cost of coal and fuel oil. Ignore
> acquisition/delivery costs.
> ? All tooling and technology and materials existing in 2000 are available
to
> us.
> ? Include specs for the tender to match the loco.
>
> I believe its a cop-out to say "just go with diesel". Experience on other
> railways in the world indicated (particularly in the earlier days of
diesel)
> that good steam design made dieselisation marginal. What can this learned
> forum come up with? If it makes the challenge any easier, start with a
1930s
> design (38 class) and improve on it. Or start from a blank drawing board.
Go
> to it! That's your Christmas holiday challenge.
>
> PS. There's going to be many different opinions here. Can we please not
> degenerate to a petty shitfight about 21 inch vs. 21¼ inch cylinders?
>
>
>