Well, after doing some googling I kind of became aware that apparently some uncles who worked for the RR back when I was a kid, did some exaggerating (10K+ hp etc) to impress the kids. Other than that I had read the book "Twilight of Steam" several years back. So I was writing mostly from memory. It seems like I only go 40 years or so between train rides...
I did notice in my short excursion into RR mania on the web that there is a lot of contradictory information out there. -graywolf Adam Maas wrote: > 7500+ HP is consistent with what I said for steam(which was 6000+HP), > however Virginian's big electrics were north of 10,000HP. And while > Steam does have a whole lot of torque at startup, it actually hits its > torque max at low speed, not at a standing start. Electric traction > motors hit their torque max at 0rpm (That said, DC traction motors have > some issues at very low speeds which could lead to burned out motors in > some situations, AC motors solved those issues, but that didsn't occur > until the 70's and widespread adoption of AC designs happened in the 90's). > > The reason that Diesel-Electrics didn't take over long drags right away > despite the better starting torque per HP was that at low speed and > heavy loads they could actually burn out traction motors quite easily on > 4 axle units, which delayed D_E adoption for road drags. The > introduction of 6 axle C-C units with 6 traction motors solved that > problem (the early 6 axle units were A1A-A1A's with only 4 driven axles, > for smoother rides in passenger service and lighter axle loadings for > light rail) and adoption of them actually happened quicker than for road > use, the SD7 showed up in 1952 and was the first really successful 6 > axle unit, (The FM Trainmaster had superior power but was a maintenance > hog), 8 years later they would be essentially dominant for heavy > hauling. in comparison the FT (the first real road D-E) was introduced > in 1940 but dieselization for road use didn't become dominant until > 12-15 years later. > > Note the Big Boy is the UP's 4-8-8-4 road locomotives. The 2-8-8-2 never > had a widely adopted name. > > The last mainlines to run steam were CN, CP and N&W all of which ran > Steam into 1960. > > Steam Locomotives are a heck of a lot more impressive than diesels > though, I will give them that. > > -Adam > > > graywolf wrote: >> That one you are wrong about, Adam. Norfork-Western ran steam longer >> than anyone, even going as far as building their own locomotives. Their >> main business was hauling coal from the mines to distribution points >> around the US. One of their locomotives could haul a train that 5 D-E's >> could not even start off with. Your HP figures are ridiculous many of >> the largest steam locos had 7.5Khp+. They could spin all 12 to 16 >> drivers on start up if the engineer was not careful. Steam engines have >> almost infinite torque at startup. Also note that the HP goes up as the >> train moves faster since they were direct drive. >> >> The claim has been made that N-W only gave up on steam after the last >> supplier of control valves went out of business. Since they did not seem >> to think it was any problem to build a whole locomotive that does not >> sound likely. I would think it is more a case of they only had about 10% >> or so of the revenue they used to have because coal was no longer a >> mainstream fuel. >> >> >> ***ADDED: If I can believe the stuff I found on the internet, N-W was >> not building their own freight locos, but the passenger ones. Little >> bitty things only capable of 100mph or so. Strangely I thought they >> build 2-8-8-2's but I guess not. However the 2-8-8-2's are what I >> remember their freight trains running. Also I was thinking that was the >> Allegheny, but apparently it was the Big Boy, the Allegheny being an >> 2-6-6-6 (8000hp) run by C&O. Anyway it looks like N-W ran steam up to >> 1960 and was the last mainline RR to switch over, as I thought. In the >> '80's they (by then merged with Southern as Norfolk-Southern) were >> running steam specials until a couple of accidents ran the insurance up >> too high and they stopped.*** >> >> >> As an interesting aside, how many of us remember steam trains from back >> when they were common. I was just a small kid, but the were about the >> most impressive things I remember. Big, loud, smoke and steam spouting >> everywhere, a whistle that made your ears heart (and soot on >> everything). The drivers were more than twice as tall as I was. Yeah! I >> remember. Standing between a couple of those engines ready to roll was >> something I never will forget. >> >> An interesting website: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/ >> >> -graywolf >> >> >> Adam Maas wrote: >>> Brian Dunn wrote: >>>>>> Write time to the X's drive is a bigger issue for me - it took a solid >>>>>> 20 minutes to download each card to the X's Drive II. >>>>> I have the same (Dane-Elec) card in 1Gb configuration. It takes about 3 >>>>> minutes to write a full card (90+) to my PC, which is steam powered. You >>>>> must have a really slow card reader. >>>> Possibly interesting trivia: >>>> >>>> Supposedly steam powered locomotives have massive torque and pulling power >>>> and >>>> can reach crazy speeds. They were phased out for other reasons, such as >>>> maintenance and infrastructure support, but speed wasn't really a >>>> problem... >>>> >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>> Speed wasn't an issue with steam. But low-end pulling power was. Electrics >>> had replaced steam on several coal roads for that reason, and >>> Diesel-Electrics were even better as they lacked the infrastructure support >>> cost of electrics (Although electrics did offer 10,000HP single units). >>> >>> Steam's advantage wasn't torque (It was clearly outmatched by electric >>> traction motors at low speeds) but horsepower. A single large steam >>> locomotive has 6000+HP compared to 1350-1500HP per unit of an early >>> diesel-electric unit (3000-4500HP on the average unit today). However >>> Diesel-electrics can MU (Have multiple units under the control of one and >>> operating in sequence) while multiple steam locomotives is an exercise in >>> difficulty. In fact today you can MU with diesel-electric locomotives in >>> the middle and rear of the train via radio link. >>> >>> Steam is maintenance intensive, short ranged and required a lot of >>> infrastructure (Water and fuel, especially water). Diesel-Electrics have >>> them beat on all fronts. And now they're even matching the HP, with 6000HP >>> single units in service (GMD SD90MAC-H and GE AC6000). >>> >>> Steam is a whole lot nicer to look at though. >>> >>> -Adam >>> Sometime railfan. >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
