Building new "classic" steam

D.Carleton wrote:

jgallaway81 wrote:Why bother with the QJ in the first place?

It’s a fair question. Simply put, the QJ is a known quantity. It has a well documented operating and mechanical history. There are qualified experts on the QJ on three continents. Many parts are still available new. And, of course, modification is easier (cheaper) than building new.

As for the idea of a steam-turbine electric booster, if done correctly you could add another benefit: dynamic braking. Figure out a way to use the heat from the DB to preheat the water going to the boiler and you’ll have a winner.

Even with electric traction start you still need proper quartering of the drivers. Quartering evens the steam demand from the steam engine and provides proper draught which is essential for the firebox.

I'll give you the QJ experts on three continents: I have no knowledge, so I'll let this stand as unchallenged.

1) Depending on the modifications, no building new might not be more expensive. The QJ does not have anywhere near the diameter of the later engines we built. Chapelon, Porta & Wardale all agree that larger diameter, shorter length is the most efficient boiler design.

2) The quartering argument is false, plain and simple. A boiler will even out the drafting charges no matter how they come in sequence. Simple proof: Wardale's time at Datong. "Red Devil & Other Tales of the Steam Era" The section on his time at Datong describes in detail his time there. The tests he was forced to conduct included an engine whose piston valves had been removed. This meant that as soon as the throttle had been opened steam went to the valve chamber and then straight out the stack, with NO pulsations what-so-ever. With the use of a lempor exhaust ejector, the system should be able to create sufficient draft with opposed cranks. While this should help with counter-balancing, I did just think of one negative side-effect: a major increase in the uneven torque of the drive wheels. While this probably would be enough of a reason to go back to quartering, I would investigate upgrading the system to roller-bearing equipped third cylinder.

I know third cylinders were tried and in the major argument against them was the increased maintenance caused by having a set of rods under the boiler. However, I do not know of any such design that employed lightweight forged roller-bearing rods as used at the end of steam on highspeed engines.

A third cylinder adds two additional power strokes to the revolution, thereby helping to even out the torque. If the design can be limited in overall power output (opposed to the standard "more is better" mentality) then one should be able to reduce cylinder size (and hence reciprocating masses) and still obtain the same power output of a classical two cylinder.

There was a new steam engine built in the US in the last 10 years or so; though not built for mainline service, it mirrors an American type 4-4-0 from the 1870's era. I saw a video of it on youtube a while back.

b&m 1566--
I have very vague memories about this. Was it maybe for Walt Disney World?
---
Other steam locomotives for standard gauge (or close to it) built in the U.S. since the end of the steam era include, I think, two for the National Park Service to allow re-enactment of the Golden Spike ceremony at Promontory (maybe in 1970s), and (also I think in the 1970s) one for a well-known short line in New Hampshire with VERY steeply graded track... (Grin!)

I just found the steam engine I was talking about. It has been named Leviathan and it took 8 years to build. It was revealed in 2009, one year after the Tornado. So unless there as been another steam locomotive built since 2009, this is the newest one (though not for main line service).
Here's the website - http://www.leviathan63.com/