Subject:
|
Re: Stupid question about steam engines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:22:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2026 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> Of course, more wasn't better. More wheels meant less weight per wheel thus
> protecting rails which couldn't support that much weight.
It doesn't matter! It is FOA which matters, if you have 100 powered wheels or
2 powered wheels, if you have the same weight above them, you can deliver the
same torque to the track to start the train.
(FOA=Factor Of Adhesion, Tractive Effort/Weight on driving wheels)
FOA's below 3 with steam are _very_ slippery, 4 was a common FOA with steam.
Diesels go down to 2-2.5 FOA, because the power is available constant
throughout the wheel revolution (same with geared steam, FOA can be lower, for
example the 100 HP Sentinels were rated at 14000 Lb TE and a weight of 33000
Lb, ballasted)
James P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Stupid question about steam engines
|
| (...) I wasn't referring to power so much as overall weight bearing down upon the rails themselves. So if you had rails on a soft bed, you couldn't utilize engines whose weight wasn't distributed over X amount of drivers/and or unpowered wheels; it (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Stupid question about steam engines
|
| Of course, more wasn't better. More wheels meant less weight per wheel thus protecting rails which couldn't support that much weight. Generally speaking, this is why Euro..er stuff has more wheels per pound than US stuff. So actually, less is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
