Subject:
|
Re: Stupid question about steam engines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:58:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> 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 would simply push the rails apart. Are we talking about 2 different • things?
>
> -John
>
> >
> >
> > 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)
Picking up on what James has written, the uneven power pulses of a traditional
steam engine hammer the track - this eventually pushes the rails apart/sinks
them. It's quite amazing to witness the damage done to a light railway even
with the correct light engines used on them. Diesels and Electrics do not
produce these forces in anything like the same magnitude, of course, so most
railway track maintenance teams have an easier time than their Grandfathers!
Jon
> > James P
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
