Steam Locomotive Ideas

[alucia]

Just want to get this out of the way, I know these ideas, if implemented at all, would be a while in the works, as depending, they would either tie in to the Locomotive Customization unlock, or would be making new steam locomotives outright, and I know Altfuture wants to get a smaller steamer out first.

All that said, I wanted to share these ideas.

Aside from the obvious headlight, pilot/cowcatcher, paintjob, and other cosmetics that would probably be customizable, the main Ideas I have are about locomotive power.

Namely, the number of cylinders the locomotive has: the standard 2, all the way up to 3 or 4 cylinders total (hence why I understand these would take a while to implement).

Increasing power on the steam locomotive for heavier trains would be the point of these modifications, hopefully without increasing size too much (on top of me just having really come to like the UP 9000 class's exhaust beat recently). While I don't know to much about this, just looking at the SH282's model seems to imply there is space for at least one inside cylinder, though I know this would still require the model to be reworked a bit (mainly the frame, as I just noticed it is a lot more built up than any other steam locomotive I know of).

(Note: something interesting, is that contrary to what seems obvious about how this would affect wheel slip, some 3-cylinder designs were actually less prone to wheel slip than an equivalent 2-cylinder engine, not entirely sure why.)

If there is not room for these kinds of modifications on the current 2-8-2 locomotive, might I also put the suggestion forth for a 4-8-2 Mountain type locomotive? It seems like this wheel arrangement was decently popular in France, at least, and would certainly fit on this map, not being too much larger than the current locomotive, not to mention definitely being able to fit 4 cylinders, thanks to the 4 wheel leading truck providing support for that.

If anyone else has some ideas, feel free to mention them, and comment on the ideas that I put forth. Like I mentioned before, I just wanted to get these ideas off my chest.

[Lord Cool]

If you were to simply add another cylinder, the SH282 locomotive would likely end up under-boilered and steam poorly, as the same boiler now has 1.5 x the volume of high pressure (live steam) cylinders to feed. To resolve this you would either have to increase boiler pressure (so that a given volume of steam can do more work) or increase the size of the boiler and grate area (so that more steam can be generated). The absolute practical limit for a stay bolt fire-tube boiler is ~350 psi, and higher pressure usually means much higher maintenance, so sooner or later the only option would be to increase the size of the boiler and grate, and this is one of the reasons why steam locomotives in particular would benefit from having a larger gauge / loading gauge. Also, adding another cylinder would likely require an additional leading axle to help carry the extra weight (depending on maximum allowable axle weight).

An alternative option if you really wanted to have 3 cylinders would be to reduce the size of the 2 outside ones and have 3 smaller cylinders, which have the same overall swept volume as 2 larger outside cylinders. I don’t think this would increase power, but it would make the locomotive run smoother.

One of the reasons why some European and in particular UK steam locomotives used inside cylinders was because of their smaller loading gauge, which meant that the maximum possible size of the outside cylinders was quite constrained. Therefore to make up sufficient total cylinder volume, inside cylinders were often necessary, particularly on the larger express locomotives.

Lastly, I don’t think the game should be limited to just 4 cylinders. If someone creative enough out there wants to make a 6 or 8 cylinder locomotive for example, then that should be possible.

[alucia]

Originally posted by Lord Cool:

If you were to simply add another cylinder, the SH282 locomotive would likely end up under-boilered and steam poorly, as the same boiler now has 1.5 x the volume of high pressure (live steam) cylinders to feed. To resolve this you would either have to increase boiler pressure (so that a given volume of steam can do more work) or increase the size of the boiler and grate area (so that more steam can be generated). The absolute practical limit for a fire-tube boiler is ~350 psi, and higher pressure usually means much higher maintenance, so sooner or later the only option would be to increase the size of the boiler and grate, and this is one of the reasons why steam locomotives in particular would benefit from having a larger gauge / loading gauge. Also, adding another cylinder would likely require an additional leading axle to help carry the extra weight (depending on maximum allowable axle weight).

An alternative option if you really wanted to have 3 cylinders would be to reduce the size of the 2 outside ones and have 3 smaller cylinders, which have the same overall swept volume as 2 larger outside cylinders. I don’t think this would increase power, but it would make the locomotive run smoother.

One of the reasons why some European and in particular UK steam locomotives used inside cylinders was because of their smaller loading gauge, which meant that the maximum possible size of the outside cylinders was quite constrained. Therefore to make up sufficient total cylinder volume, inside cylinders were often necessary, particularly on the larger express locomotives.

Lastly, I don’t think the game should be limited to just 4 cylinders. If someone creative enough out there wants to make a 6 or 8 cylinder locomotive for example, then that should be possible.

I am aware of the issues with providing steam for the cylinders, which is why it's a good thing that I only suggested the current 2-8-2 get a third cylinder as an upgrade option, as you could pair that with a larger firebox, considering the current models firebox is way too narrow on a locomotive with a two wheel trailing truck. 3 smaller cylinders would also work.

And, like I mentioned in the original post, if there is no room for extra cylinders (or the single axle could not support it), the devs could possibly add in (after they add in the smaller steamer they want to add in) a 4-8-2 Mountain type locomotive, which should provide more than enough support for up to 4 cylinders.

As for cylinder count, that was referencing single-frame locomotives. While yes, up to 8 (or even more if someone wants to go absolutely crazy) cylinders should be possible, they would need to be on articulated locomotives (either Beyer-Garratt or Mallet style articulation), because cylinders near the firebox, as the Pennsylvania Railroad found out with the Q1 Duplex design, are really not a good design choice. Unless you want to use tandem cylinders arranged with 2 cylinders per piston spindle to get 8 cylinders on a single frame, but that would probably need a 6-wheel leading truck to support them, and a ridiculously powerful boiler for the size of the locomotive.

[Lord Cool]

It’s interesting that you noticed the firebox is too small on the SH282 model. I had noticed that, and it’s one of the things that could do with being updated for the “Steam Locomotive Improvements” goal at 56K. At the moment the firebox doesn’t look right, and seems sized for a tank engine or 19th century era 2-6-0 or 2-8-0, were the width is confined to being between the wheels, which doesn’t make sense on a tender engine with a trailing axle. From looks of it at the moment the fire-grate area can’t be more than 20-25 sq ft, which is too small for a 100 ton / 220,000 lb engine.

As for the maximum number of cylinders, I was actually thinking of broad gauge designs, such as trying recreate what steam locomotives might have been if 5.5ft or 7ft gauge had become standard In Europe and USA for example, as I think eventually if a world editor comes out you won’t be restricted to creating just standard gauge stuff.

[alucia]

Originally posted by Lord Cool:

It’s interesting that you noticed the firebox is too small on the SH282 model. I had noticed that, and it’s one of the things that could do with being updated for the “Steam Locomotive Improvements” goal at 56K. At the moment the firebox doesn’t look right, and seems sized for a tank engine or 19th century era 2-6-0 or 2-8-0, were the width is confined to being between the wheels, which doesn’t make sense on a tender engine with a trailing axle. From looks of it at the moment the fire-grate area can’t be more than 20-25 sq ft, which is too small for a 100 ton / 220,000 lb engine.

As for the maximum number of cylinders, I was actually thinking of broad gauge designs, such as trying recreate what steam locomotives might have been if 5.5ft or 7ft gauge had become standard In Europe and USA for example, as I think eventually if a world editor comes out you won’t be restricted to creating just standard gauge stuff.

I actually noticed the firebox quite a while ago, and even started a thread to point it out (if you want to find it, its called (Steam Locomotive Model Issues), it would be pretty far back in the list, as it was last year) and also pointed out an issue I had noticed with the cranks (set at 180 degrees at the moment), the devs did say that they could probably fix those when they get to improving the steam locomotive in general, though it seems the crank offset was an accident.

As for the gauge, that just reminded me of the 3 meter track width that Germany, during ww2, started work on but never completed. The possibilities if a world and train editor tool are added, and someone makes 3 meter gauge (the trains were planed to be nearly 20 ft (6.1 meters) wide, and it would not surprise me if three decks would have been possible for passenger trains, these trains would have been more like land-based ships, considering promenades of all things were apparently conceptualized) just make me hopeful that we actually get that far with this game, and makes me wonder just what a 3 meter gauge reciprocating steam locomotive would have looked like. I hope that this game gets far enough that making something like that with an editor tool can be possible, because that would be epic.

[James 296]

Originally posted by Lord Cool:

If you were to simply add another cylinder, the SH282 locomotive would likely end up under-boilered and steam poorly, as the same boiler now has 1.5 x the volume of high pressure (live steam) cylinders to feed. To resolve this you would either have to increase boiler pressure (so that a given volume of steam can do more work) or increase the size of the boiler and grate area (so that more steam can be generated). The absolute practical limit for a fire-tube boiler is ~350 psi, and higher pressure usually means much higher maintenance, so sooner or later the only option would be to increase the size of the boiler and grate, and this is one of the reasons why steam locomotives in particular would benefit from having a larger gauge / loading gauge.

just one little niggle in this argument.....what about compound steam locos like for example the N&W Y6As, since right now we don't have to worry about track maintenance, being able to use the same amount of steam twice (just at lower pressures in the outside cylinders)

edit: I use "amount" instead of "volume" as steam can change in volume with heat and/or pressure

[alucia]

Compounds are an option, but that is mostly good at increasing efficiency, the lower pressures of the outside cylinders and the small size of the inside cylinders would not increase power as much as 4 high pressure cylinders. it's an option to be sure, it would increase power, but not by all that much, perhaps closer to a 3-cylinder non-compounding engine. Compounds, to be honest, are probably best for high speed passenger engines, due to their higher efficiency.

[James 296]

Originally posted by alucia:

Compounds are an option, but that is mostly good at increasing efficiency, the lower pressures of the outside cylinders and the small size of the inside cylinders would not increase power as much as 4 high pressure cylinders. it's an option to be sure, it would increase power, but not by all that much, perhaps closer to a 3-cylinder non-compounding engine. Compounds, to be honest, are probably best for high speed passenger engines, due to their higher efficiency.

actually compounds are terrible for high speed due to the increased "hammer effect" the lower pressure the has. wish I had more of knowledge of it but I do know it chews through track, wheel bearings, and locomotive frames like nobody's business. Due to the very high maintenance costs, is a the reason why N&W converted a large number of Y6As to Y6A2/Y6Bs

personally I'd rather they let us chose the number & size of driving wheels. 10, 36 inch, drivers will pull alot more then just simply increasing the number # of cylinders (which can cause track adhesion issues aka wheel slip). Or allow us to simply increase the operating boiler pressure. which would probably be a lot easier for the devs to model as it would just be a simple steam pressure gauge change.....

[alucia]

Hm, wasn't aware of that. I am pretty sure there was a German/Prussian passenger locomotive that was a compound engine, though I am not aware of any specifics. Also pretty sure there were at least a couple passenger compounds here in the US as well, though again, I don't know specifics. (EDIT: could not find anything on track or frame issues, though maintenance on compounds was more difficult due to the setup.)

As for # of cylinders, I mentioned in my Original Post that 3 cylinder locomotives, for whatever reason, seem less prone to wheel slip than an equivalent 2 cylinder engine. Size of drivers I can see being possible, but not the number of them, as you might as well just add in a new locomotive in that case.

[James 296]

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

granted this was more common among american locos as balancing the pistons, rods and wheels (aka the rotating mass) was...shall I say, not a high priority unless it was a flagship passenger loco like the NYC's New York Century Limited. As long as it did not shake the loco apart (or cause too much damage) at normal operating speeds, American rail companies were quite happy with crews having a slighty bumpy ride. As far as Frame issues, take the Y6A for example, it was only a problem on the first few that came out and was quickly fixed by increasing the frame thickness on the rest of the production.

As far as number of drivers, American rail companies were some of the first to really standardize-"ish", their locos as this made getting parts a lot easier (and cheaper) to get. Take the PRR K4s for example, that cab, boiler, smokebox, cylinder setup, pilot wheels, and frame (with some modifications) was used among 3 or 4 different locos with 2, 6, and 8 driver wheel arrangements...don't remember if they played round with 10 wheels through...

Through if you really want to see how a standardize steam loco works with just changing the driver size in order to fit more(or less) drivers underneath, look up what the germans did with there's in the 30/40s. I swear the german's are mechanical geniuses....to bad their top leadership was bats**t crazy..

edit: just want to add some of the stuff I'm talking about should be classifed as hearsay as I get it from backwoods internet, non-internet publications, old timers who were/are the sons and daughters of people who worked on the railroads at the time. Sadly most of the records have either been a) lost, b) destroyed or c) are stuck in some private collection. (look up A3 tornado).

[alucia]

I actually was aware of hammer blow forces, I just was not aware that the low pressure cylinders on compounds required heavier drive components. As for the rest, that is interesting, though I still think that modifying the drivers on the locomotive is a bit odd, and a bit more work than necessary. Funnily enough, in that article it mentioned that 4-cylinder Locomotives can be fully balanced, so I think that a 4-Cylinder single frame compound 4-8-2 Mountain type could work quite well for High Speed, Heavy Passenger work. (Aaand now I am Imagining a 8-cylinder compound variant of the PRR S1 Class 6-4-4-6 Duplex, though I know that is rather silly, and would probably not be able to fit the internal cylinders. My imagination, when it comes to steam locomotives can just take off sometimes.)

[James 296]

oh no, I wasn't saying they couldn't be balanced, when done right (the brits did wonders with compound steam) . the N&W Y6A is one those oddies that no matter what they tried, they just couldn't quite get the compound to work correctly. And even when they finally did, the maintenance costs were so high that N&W just gave up on the idea entirely. American steam loco history is littered with compounds, most being failures, but few success like UPs 4-12-2 9000 class.

Fun Fact: did you know UP(Union Pacific) tested compound steam on their Challengers and Big Boys at one point.

Steam locomotive history is a funny thing, where one company/nation failed at something another company/nation succeeded. Take for example superheating, the french invented it but failed spectacularly at it (till the 1920s), the brits had limited success, but the americans....oh boy, we da*n near married the thing . By 1910, even our tiny 0-4-0 industry shunters started to have superheaters in them....

And don't worry about imagination, I've thought of a tri-compound(5 cylinder) 4-8-6 loco with the pilot and trailing bogies having electric motors in them, would be interesting. So you're not the only one with a wild steam loco imagination in here

[alucia]

Just a correction, the 9000 Class was a 3-cylinder design, but they were not compounds, you can tell because of the distinctive 3-beat exhaust they had.

But yeah, steam locomotives had an eclectic history, depending on country.

(Edit: Warning, Rambling Ahead)

And speaking of imagination...... 4-8-8-4 + 4-8-8-4 (Double Big Boy) 8-cylinder Garratt + Mallet style articulation, 5-frame locomotive (with two canteen cars (Aux Water Tenders)), built to American loading gauge. I don't even know how I would go about estimating how powerful that locomotive would be (easily over 10,000 HP), but it's something I thought up, and worse, I have had passing thoughts about a 4-10-10-6 + 6-10-10-4 as well. I have actually thought about getting 3D modeling software just to try to pin down a design for the first one. (Note: even these would pale in comparison to what the Germans thought up for the largest locomotive proposal for their planned Breitspurbahn network, which was a gargantuan 4-12-12-4 + 10-10 + 10-10 + 4-12-12-4, .......I don't even have a clue what that would have looked like, though I suspect that the 3-meter track gauge (probably dual gauged as well, a 4 rail gauge would spread out the weight of a train that size better than just a two rail gauge could) would have actually allowed locomotives that were Larger Still.) With regards to electric motors to assist steamers, I usually thought of powering the tender axles rather than the pilot or trailing wheels (well, occasionally the trailing wheels), simply because its more axles, and could probably fit a larger turbo-generator in the tender, especially if the tender is a dual frame articulated tender.

(EDIT: Aaaand Rambling over, sorry if that got annoying.)

[Lord Cool]

Originally posted by alucia:

Just a correction, the 9000 Class was a 3-cylinder design, but they were not compounds, you can tell because of the distinctive 3-beat exhaust they had.

But yeah, steam locomotives had an eclectic history, depending on country.

(Edit: Warning, Rambling Ahead)

And speaking of imagination...... 4-8-8-4 + 4-8-8-4 (Double Big Boy) 8-cylinder Garratt + Mallet style articulation, 5-frame locomotive (with two canteen cars (Aux Water Tenders)), built to American loading gauge. I don't even know how I would go about estimating how powerful that locomotive would be (easily over 10,000 HP), but it's something I thought up, and worse, I have had passing thoughts about a 4-10-10-6 + 6-10-10-4 as well. I have actually thought about getting 3D modeling software just to try to pin down a design for the first one. (Note: even these would pale in comparison to what the Germans thought up for the largest locomotive proposal for their planned Breitspurbahn network, which was a gargantuan 4-12-12-4 + 10-10 + 10-10 + 4-12-12-4, .......I don't even have a clue what that would have looked like, though I suspect that the 3-meter track gauge (probably dual gauged as well, a 4 rail gauge would spread out the weight of a train that size better than just a two rail gauge could) would have actually allowed locomotives that were Larger Still.) With regards to electric motors to assist steamers, I usually thought of powering the tender axles rather than the pilot or trailing wheels (well, occasionally the trailing wheels), simply because its more axles, and could probably fit a larger turbo-generator in the tender, especially if the tender is a dual frame articulated tender.

(EDIT: Aaaand Rambling over, sorry if that got annoying.)

Your quite right about the requirement of spreading the weight over multiple, evenly spaced rails, to point that a double track structure would almost certainly be required for locomotives the size of those used on the Breitspurbahn or larger, and likely long before locomotives even reach 3000mm gauge Breitspurbahn size. This is due to limits related the to effective contact patch size between the wheels and rail and also issues with very wide axles. Another advantage of using a multiple track structure is that it still allows the operation of smaller more conventional single track trains. I think you might get away with a conventional two rail track for anything up to maybe 6-7ft gauge. However, no rail sim I know of has ever simulated giant locomotives spread over multiple tracks (double track, triple track, quadruple track if you really wanted to go mad etc.) So I don’t think we’ll be seeing these in Derail Valley.

Also, as steam locomotives get larger, the amount of water consumed quickly becomes another limiting factor, even with a huge tender. Compounding would likely be essential in an effort to keep the water rate within reasonable limits. The water used has to contain treatment (deoxygenation and anti-foams etc). Scooping water from troughs (full of dirt and leaves and so on) was only done in the very early days with low pressure boilers that only lasted a couple of years.

Also bear in mind that the length of the economizer (boiler barrel full of tubes and flues) is fundamentally limited to ~20-22’ maximum length regardless of how large the firebox is (increasing economizer length beyond this actually reduces efficiency). So the result is that as a traditional shape (“Stephensonian”) steam locomotive size increases, its boiler would get wider and taller but not longer, resulting in locomotives with increasingly short and fat looking boilers and it would look less and less Stephensonian. You could increase the smoke box length up to a point or have a longer firebox. (A forced circulation water-tube firebox with a fire tube economiser seems like a better option for larger designs than the traditional stay bolted firebox)

[alucia]

Originally posted by Lord Cool:

Originally posted by alucia:

Just a correction, the 9000 Class was a 3-cylinder design, but they were not compounds, you can tell because of the distinctive 3-beat exhaust they had.

But yeah, steam locomotives had an eclectic history, depending on country.

(Edit: Warning, Rambling Ahead)

And speaking of imagination...... 4-8-8-4 + 4-8-8-4 (Double Big Boy) 8-cylinder Garratt + Mallet style articulation, 5-frame locomotive (with two canteen cars (Aux Water Tenders)), built to American loading gauge. I don't even know how I would go about estimating how powerful that locomotive would be (easily over 10,000 HP), but it's something I thought up, and worse, I have had passing thoughts about a 4-10-10-6 + 6-10-10-4 as well. I have actually thought about getting 3D modeling software just to try to pin down a design for the first one. (Note: even these would pale in comparison to what the Germans thought up for the largest locomotive proposal for their planned Breitspurbahn network, which was a gargantuan 4-12-12-4 + 10-10 + 10-10 + 4-12-12-4, .......I don't even have a clue what that would have looked like, though I suspect that the 3-meter track gauge (probably dual gauged as well, a 4 rail gauge would spread out the weight of a train that size better than just a two rail gauge could) would have actually allowed locomotives that were Larger Still.) With regards to electric motors to assist steamers, I usually thought of powering the tender axles rather than the pilot or trailing wheels (well, occasionally the trailing wheels), simply because its more axles, and could probably fit a larger turbo-generator in the tender, especially if the tender is a dual frame articulated tender.

(EDIT: Aaaand Rambling over, sorry if that got annoying.)

Your quite right about the requirement of spreading the weight over multiple, evenly spaced rails, to point that a double track structure would almost certainly be required for locomotives the size of those used on the Breitspurbahn or larger, and likely long before locomotives even reach 3000mm gauge Breitspurbahn size. This is due to limits related the to effective contact patch size between the wheels and rail and also issues with very wide axles. Another advantage of using a multiple track structure is that it still allows the operation of smaller more conventional single track trains. I think you might get away with a conventional two rail track for anything up to maybe 6-7ft gauge. However, no rail sim I know of has ever simulated giant locomotives spread over multiple tracks (double track, triple track, quadruple track if you really wanted to go mad etc.) So I don’t think we’ll be seeing these in Derail Valley.

Also, as steam locomotives get larger, the amount of water consumed quickly becomes another limiting factor, even with a huge tender. Compounding would likely be essential in an effort to keep the water rate within reasonable limits, as the water used has to contain treatment (deoxygenation and anti-foams etc). I think scooping water from troughs (full of dirt and leaves and so on) was only done in the very early days with low pressure boilers that only lasted a couple of years.

Also bear in mind that the length of the economizer (boiler barrel full of tubes and flues) is fundamentally limited to ~20-22’ maximum length regardless of how large the firebox is (increasing economizer length beyond this actually reduces efficiency). So the result is that as a traditional shape (“Stephensonian”) steam locomotive size increases, its boiler would get wider and taller but not longer, resulting in locomotives with increasingly short and fat looking boilers and it would look less and less Stephensonian. You could increase the smoke box length up to a point or have a longer firebox.

I suppose one way to solve the issue of the boilers is to use a Water-Tube design rather than a Fire-Tube design, which could be shaped more like a typical locomotive boiler (for aesthetics) at that size and still allow people to have easier access to clean the boiler out. As for the issue of simulating a train like this, has anyone ever actually tried to make it, modded or otherwise? I do agree it would be a significant undertaking to make it work, but the, let's say Standard Gauge inner track, would follow the contours of the wider track, at least until the standard trains switch off that line, so I don't see why it would be impossible to make something like that work in this game, provided a modder wants to try it out when the appropriate tools get implemented.

EDIT: I realize that Water-Tube boilers never really worked on railroads when tried, but perhaps the size of a 3 meter gauge could make it more feasible.