On (04 Jul 97) Gregory Procter wrote to Alec Cameron...
>> CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGE <<
 GP> drastically, perhaps by as much as 50% for steel on steel. The system 
ou
 GP> talk
 GP> about can only slip for a very small percentage of the time or the train
 GP> would
 GP> grind to a halt!
Not at all. The train accelerates thru the period of controlled wheelslip and
the wheelslip progressively disappears at a suitable increased train speed.
 GP>  We're comparing apples and pears here.
I think it's OK to compare apples and pears, if it is nourishment vs cost, 
nd
attractive flavours that count.
A 1997 steam locomotive could
 GP> be
 GP>  designed with individual axle drive on two axle bogies, with
 GP> positive
 GP> creep,
 GP>  MUing, single driver, modern ashpan and grate  operation etc. all
 GP> the                                                            ^^^
 GP>  advantages that the Diesel and electric have.
      ^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, this is Don Quixote stuff. And isn't it a bit naive, to expect to win
all the advantages....? Such as a resale market?
^^^
 AC> You might like to consider, why this hasn't been done.
 GP> That's easy! To be competitive, the steamer would have to be proven and 
be
 GP> sold
 GP> in sufficient numbers to be near the price of the big Diesel loco
 GP> builders.
 GP> It's like electric cars, GM has them for sale, based on petrol engined
 GP> cars, but
 GP> the price is 10-15 times that of the petrol car, even though the 
lectric
 GP> is
 GP> simpler.
Thanks for coming down to earth. But at least there are buyers for the GM 
lec
car, it is a practical machine. The design burden for a steam loco to be
accepted in the Western world is overwhelming. 
Thanks for the debate. I hope others may join in. There's a lot more to
railfanning than taking photos!  Cheers....ALEC
... ........BUNDANOON, on a highlands crest: Each day cool, next day colder.
--- PPoint 1.92
---------------