Hi Gregory, my debating mate!
On (08 Jul 97) Gregory Procter wrote to Alec Cameron...
 GP> the outputs of the majority of steamers. Dynometer cars were common 
enough
 GP> but
 GP> they could not measure constant outputs due to inconsistant track
 GP> conditions.
Could you define this inability to measure? As you are being technical then I
shall try and be tech. too:
"Constant outputs" are not really constant in practice, these are up and down
yo yo style due to movements in the prime drive mechanism [crankpin 
ovements,
and limited momentum of flywheel/ loco mass] and there are oscillations as
train draftgear moves longitudinally, and the track dances up down, left
right. The dynamometer instrumentation responds usefully to all of that and
the measurement succeeds.
That instrumentation has to record coincident values of roadspeed and drawbar
force. NOTHING ELSE needs to be recorded, to find the HP / KW delivered by 
he
loco coupling. Of course there is tons of additional instrumentation that
records lots of other variables to give useful info.
 GP> The differences in springing you mention are due to individually sprung
 GP> axles
 GP> on the steamer, compared to equallised suspension and two stage 
pringing
 GP> on
 GP> your Co'Co'. Plenty of steam locos had equalisation in conjunction with
 GP> their
 GP> springing. eg the "American" type from the 1840's on, right up to the 
last
 GP> of
 GP> the French and German types around 1950s. (I must admit to not knowing 
how
 GP> the
 GP> USRA types were sprung)
You should take a close look at these conventional steamer "springs", which 
are
terribly stiff and lack freedom in directional travel. Comparing these with a
common diesel elec or straight elec loco springing, is really educational.
Like comparing the springs of a T Ford with those of any 1990s automobile. 
he
Ford had two springs, one at front and one at rear, and probably no shocks. I
don't have to tell you about the beautifully elastic, damped, independent
durable springing of today's cars. Much of this has been passed back into 
oco
design, and modern locos have both soft springing and lateral shock absorbers
to limit sway and buffeting.
"Equalising" is common is all manner of vehicles even baby prams, it is no 
ay
a high tech achievement. Applied in the days of Cobb & Co horse coaches, it
assured that most of the wheels kept contact with the ground under the most
atrocious conditions. But in a normal steam loco I think the left equalising 
is
isolated from the right side equalising, so the suspension is far from
independent. Standard Co Co trucks these days are not only almost fully
independent at each axle box, but are damped and I guess some even have self
steering axles as in many railroad freight and passenger cars.
 GP> I have a video of the German ICE from the cab, a coin on edge on the
 GP> consol
 GP> doesn't move at 400Km/hr.
I think you made this comment as testimony of track excellence. I would read
that as a proof of good vehicle suspension, which of course can be "tuned" to
the home track conditions. That same ICE might travel quite poorly on US or 
K
tracks. No doubt the future will see active train suspensions that react to
track conditions automatically. But the passengers will have these, years
ahead of loco crew!
When the tilt train was in daily experimental service in NSW last year,
standard XPT [IC125] Bo Bo locos were at each end. The unfortunate drivers 
ad
to lurch thru corners at unreal speeds, they didn't have the sweet ride of 
he
passengers behind!
Our speedboards around Bundanoon, were increased from the usual two to three:
representing standard trains, XPT, and Tilt formations. The speed board 
hapes
as well as the numerals identified appropriate board. For tilt train, the
                                   ___
board shape was a parallelogram!  /  /
                                /__/
                                 |
 GP> The C- truck is far from rigid, one axle
 AC> may rise while its partner falls, thus maintaining hefty contact with
 AC> the [slippery?] rail. A bit like independent front suspension on an
 AC> auto, versus beam axle.
 GP> The same thing can, and has been done with steam locos.
Yeah. Experimental, limited service projects. With trucks possibly borrowed
from standard diesel production. Adaptation not innovation. Compromise. 
oring
design.
 GP> Yes, well that's where we started, considering if it was practical to
 GP> bring back
 GP> the steam locomotive, either in its old form, or with a 1997 design.
 GP> I suggested that by using present day technology and design, a steamer
 GP> could be
 GP> practical under the right conditions.
Your hopes will be realized when the oil runs out. I look forward to Boeing
making a steam driven aeroplane, it is such a long time since the last one
flew........
And I do hanker for a steam operated telephone.
 GP> We, (and I include the USA, Europe, the UK and NZ etc.) have an overall
 GP> drop in
 GP> living standards,........
======
 GP> at differently productive tasks. There are several other alternatives, 
but
 GP> Adolf, Idi and co. aren't generally popular at present!
[Adolf was a great achiever. Politicians have learned some useful lessons 
rom
him.]
You left out the important alternative of living a frugal life, staying at
home and not riding on wheels.
 GP> NZ's, so perhaps Railroads = Politics?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Cheers....ALEC
What the world needs now, is more WCs 
...     Me drive? I'll take the train as the good Lord intended!  ^oo   oo^oo 
  oo^
--- PPoint 1.92
---------------