Subject:
|
Re: Streamlining (was Re: New MOC: Dark Red LMS 4F 0-6-0 Freight Locomotive)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:52:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
814 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > I'm not sure that lack of streamlining in US locomotives is due to lack
> > of emission controls. I suspect it's far more because trains aren't
> > operated at speeds which require it.
>
> I didn't know that - it's surprising actually, given the distances over
> which freight can be hauled in the US. I know the trains can be extremely
> long, and it's an old movie cliché for escaped convicts with their legs
> chained together to still be able to jump on a moving train, but I had
> assumed the trains do get up a reasonable amount of speed. Articulated
> lorries (trucks) use some aerodynamic features (like an air dam on the roof
> ahead of a container) even if they rarely have a chance to get up to 70mph.
> I suppose it's not as big a consideration as the drag from a great line of
> rolling stock though.
Right. At 70 MPH, (a typical top speed for a fast freight such as TOFC or
doublestacks that are on a manifest or symbol freight) in the US, and at
typical horsepower to weight ratios, the drag from the doublestacks or
trailers far exeeds the drag from the nose of the locos. So unless someone
comes up with a scheme that streamlines the whole train, it's not worth
bothering to do much with the loco nose. And that scheme's not going to
happen, in my view, until and unless trailer lengths and container sizes
become much more standardised than they are now.
In other words..., never... containers will continue gradually getting
longer by oddball increments, as will trailers, in my view, as long as
lobbyists continue to roam the halls of congress. Hence no way to easily
streamline.
On the other hand, at 150+ MPH (a typical top speed for Acela when it's
running right) and typical horsepower to weight ratios for passenger service
(much higher horsepower, much faster acceleration) streamlining DOES pay.
And Acela is highly streamlined. As much or more so than the TGV or Thalys
or Eurostar is, although perhaps not as much as the very latest Shinkasens.
Remember streamlining is more than just the shape of the nose, it's the
whole train. The TGV is quite messy in the roof area, even if the nose is
more steeply sloped than the Acela nose, so I would submit it is probably
less BTU efficient.
US Railroads (even, dare I say it, Amtrak) are not as stupid about fuel as
some people think.
Hope that helps.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
