C
Carlos E.R.
Guest
On 2023-02-19 19:31, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Wow. I don\'t remember ever seeing that one.
¿How was the coal fed, maybe automatic? Wait, the article says the
firebox is at the front, too. But the tender is behind. Weird.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
[\"Followup-To:\" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On 2023-02-18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/02/2023 12:37, Max Demian wrote:
Steam locos were not rated in horsepower, but \'tractive effort\' . How
many tons of pull they could generate before the wheels slipped.
Sort of. The important factor is tractive effort; but horsepower was a
known factor as well.
Indeed. From Audel\'s volume 1:
\"Horse Power - This unit was introduced by James Watt to measure the
power of his steam engines; defined as 33,000 ft. lbs. per minute.\"
Audels Engineers and Mechanics Guide Vol 1. pg 78.
https://archive.org/details/audelsengineersm01grahrich/page/78/mode/2up
The first two volumes are a fascinating introduction into the theory
and mechanics of steam engines.
That\'s why they had a lot of driving wheels - at least four, generally 6
and up to 8.
10 and 12 were also used out west. And don\'t forget the articulated
options that had 12 or 16 (6 or 8 total drive axles). I think one of
the eastern roads went with a triplex design of 2-6-6-6-2 or something
like that; but it didn\'t work all that well (too steam hungry).
My favorite (At the California Railway Museum in Sacramento):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2
It\'s much larger than it appears in the picture (look for the
placcard holders alongside for a sense of scale).
The cab was forward of the stack to avoid suffocating the drivers
in the long sierra tunnels.
Wow. I don\'t remember ever seeing that one.
¿How was the coal fed, maybe automatic? Wait, the article says the
firebox is at the front, too. But the tender is behind. Weird.
--
Cheers, Carlos.