How is the 1989-built Chinese USRA Mikado more efficient?

I have heard reports that the three (well, two) 1989 Mikados from Tang-Shan works in China are more efficient than the American-built products from the 1920s. Aren't they the same USRA designs? What did the Chinese do to improve the design?

-otto-

Although the Chinese engines are based on 1920's design, remember that here in the US the locomotive manufactuers here were constantly improving the engines making them more fuel efficient, more reliable and increasing boiler horsepower. I'm sure these types of improvements were being done by the Chinese. Such innovations of better superheating of steam, front end throttles, stokers, even better design of the exhaust nozzles all affect efficiency as well as the use of combustion chambers, water siphons and other devices to transfer more heat from the flue gases to the water. We stopped steam locomotive designing in the 1940's, the Chinese had another 30+ years to test out more ideas and improvements. I don't know actually what they have done, but a combination of tweaks and small improvements add up to better efficiency. One example, the use modern style drivers which are not just balanced but cross-balanced as on the super power steam improves reliability. As good as the Chinese engines are, they are still plagued by the same problem that was the downfall of steam, very labor intensive to repair and upkeep. Only a few years after these engines were built, China ended their steam engine production.

_______

Bob

They SYs aren't USRA copies, they are smaller than the USRA light Mike. I remember reading (wow, was it that far back, in '89?) is that they were copied from a 1918 Alco design that went to South Manchuria.

It is interesting to compare the modern drivers with the older style trailing truck, and the spoked wheels in the lead truck, trailing truck and tender trucks. I've often wondered what one would look like with a square tender (or the existing one, squared up and without handrails), a more conventional cab, the markers on the pilot beam removed instead of painted out, and the compressor exhaust going up the stack. (That compressor exhaust change could be a miniscule efficiency device, using the steam to procuce draft while sitting, allowing the blower to be cut back a tiny bit. Every drop helps, right?)

I don't know if 142 is stoker equipped, although the agent that handles the Chinese equipment offers a stoker; WMSR 734 has one, in fact.

I'm curious to see how the 142 does over at Black River's Bel-Del operation this summer.

Back about 1990, I had the good fortune of riding on this locomotive. It is not stoker equipped, the larger classes such as the JF,JS and QJ were. Its throttle is a copy of a Chambers and is mounted in the dome with an outside connected throttle rod. It has 36 superheater units as opposed to 24 which was more typical of US practice of a type A superheater. This, I am told, is Russian practice. The tender is a practical design for the type of service it was designed for, industrial switching. It is similar to a clear vision type used on our switch engines. You can see backing up very well with it. An important feature when running in reverse on a tourist operation with no turning facilities.The boiler is welded, not rivited. It uses a Russian designed drifting valve, also. I think the name of it is a" Tropomov" valve. The other thing I remember about the locomotive is that it was equipped with a "traction increaser". All it did was change the equalizer points of the lead and trailing truck to put an additional 6 tons on the drivers.
LF

I really dislike the tenders that the Chinese built with the handrails and all... was hoping one of the railroad sheet metal shops around here would square it off and make it look more American...

-otto-

Why change everything just to make it look like every other American steamer? It's nice to have something different.

When NYSW was using the 142 on some of the longer trips there was a concern about water capacity in that tender. Squaring it up would have added more than a few gallons, and getting rid of the handrails would have improved its looks. The cab isn't all that noticeable, unless you are looking for it.

Yo steamtrayn, if I wanted different, I woulda asked fer different! ;)

If you're going to letter it SUSQUEHANNA and number it into the NYSW series, then by golly, it better look American!!

Moot point anyway, I guess...

-otto-

About as American looking as PRR's French-built steamer?

I think the SYs are very interesting. I also think they and all the other
"modern" Chinese locomotives look very American. Ever notice that a QJ class 2-10-2 bears strong resemblance to say UP 844 ? To me the chinese engines almost looked like a continuation of what we were doing in this country near to the end of steam.

Aesthetics aside, I don't know what technological improvements the SY's really have to offer, nor am I certain that was really the reason the Chinese continued to build them. I think they continued to build them so late because they fit well into the Industrial infrastructure they had, and they had proven to be reliable and last long service lives.

Like someone else said, they incorporate Boxpok type ( I think ) drivers, but I don't think the pilot or trailing trucks have roller bearings, I don't know about the driving wheels. The Qjs were said to have a throttle design that is more modern than what was used in the U.S. I don't think the engines really though aside from their use of welded construction in various areas are any more advanced that a Norfolk and Western J class or a NYC Niagara.

This is news to me that ANYONE was actually MANUFACTURING steam engine locomotives! I am shocked and amazed by this! I say more power to em'!

It was to China's benefit to continue with steam traction anyway, what with their vast coal supply. Kept them independent of the oil consortia. (Of course, the other way to do it would have been to fully electrify, but that most likely would have put a lot of their vast population out of work as well as added infrastructure that would have pushed out living quarters for the aforementioned vast population, and of course, require them to import traciton motors...)

Very strange. While its easy to see from this link where China got ideas for improved steam design, they apparently were a little slow to realize what this guy was giving them.

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/wardale.html

Student of Porta, who was a student of Chapelon.

When we chased the 142 up in Vermont a few years back, the one thing I recall was the awful sound of her bell!

I don't know if it was made of steel, or what, but it sure had no tone to it, just a horrid clank sound.

Anyone know if they ever changed it to something more pleasing?

Greetings:
The bell on 1647/142 is indeed bronze. It is from a CB&Q locomotive, probably a 2-10-4. I obtained the bell via trade when I restored a CB&Q locomotive in Ottawa, IL. When we got the 1647 we had to put a bell on it and a front mount bell was the easiest to mount (and I happened to have one in my garage). It might not have a clear sound, but it does the job and looks nice.
J. David