why

[Boilerbuster]

Here is something that I often ponder about when seeing old steam locomotives pulling passenger trains in alot of the videos that I have watched over time
Why do the Rail roads have to ruin it by putting a Diesl engine into the Consist when most of those Steam engines can pull those Diesl engines backwards anywere they want without any problem. The only Reason they went to Diesl engines is they were more efficient with fuel steam on the other hand is almost unlimited on power making abilities. the Navy uses Steam Propultion on there biggest ships cause the enormus power it provides... Yes Nuclear Reactors do the same thing that A fire Box in a Steam Locomotive does, Boil water.
Just think of it if they could make a Nuclear Reactor Safer and smaller say portable just the possibilitys of them Running Steam locomotives again.... Just a thought.
all they need is a Hyman G Rickover of the Rails
Don Pottorff
Long Live the Steam

[IcyFire]

RE: why

The Diesel is there in case the steamer dies, and they need to get the excursion out of the way for revenue to keep flowing

[ssw]

RE: why

Also for dynamics, and if it can't handle the load

[smp11512]

RE: why

Good Explanations guys I never thought about the Dynamic answer

[Boilerbuster]

RE: why

So what to the have for a back up if the Diesel dies and it was like when there was no Diesel locomotives around they didnt pull the Steam Engines around with anything else. I think it screws up the pictures and shows they have no faith in the Steam engines abilities wich I do if the Mechinics did there job.
The Cumbreys and toltec Dosnt use Diesels and I havnet herd of problems there. yes yes I know they own the track as well and they are the only ones that run on it but still it makes it look like the Steam Engines cant pull anything.
If they had Big Boy out pulling a passenger Excursion I bet they would have a Diesel there as well but Big Boy Could pull a 5 mile loaded freight train at 80 MPH alone, now lets count how many Diesels that it would take to do that same job.
Now as far as the Smaller Locomotives why put more on it then it can pull is my question.
All I have to say is it makes it look like the Steam Engines couldnt Pull anything and also makes it look like the Diesel is doing the work and the Steam Engine is there only for looks.

Don Pottorff
Long Live the Steam

[ertfor3]

RE: why

I heard of one time long ago that the Union Pacific #844 steam locomotive was coming back form an excursion, and came upon a freight train that had broke down. The engineer was asking for help. The #844 was in the area, so the #844 coupled to the rear of the train and pushed it to the next yard. Funny how a steam locomotive was more reliable than a diesel that day. Happy Rails Patrick

[derekmorton]

RE: why

>Also for dynamics, and if it can't handle the load

It is most unlikely that the steam engine can control the dynamics.
And why would the need it, they have steam brakes.

Derek

[IcyFire]

RE: why

ever seen the cab of SP&S 700? it has a control stand for the deisels

http://krugtales.50megs.com/rrpictale/steam700/steam700b.htm

[TrainTrak5000]

RE: why

> So what to the have for a back up if the Diesel dies and it
>was like when there was no Diesel locomotives around they
>didnt pull the Steam Engines around with anything else. I
>think it screws up the pictures and shows they have no faith
>in the Steam engines abilities wich I do if the Mechinics
>did there job.

Steam engines today are 50 years older or more, and they have more moving parts than a diesel locomotive. Diesels are put there to ensure that if something does happen, the train will still move on (remember Murphy's law). And remember, when excursions are run, the engines can be away from shop for days or weeks at a time, with only a tool car to replace damaged parts should something happen. There are no steam repair shops around anymore, so nothing can be done if something breaks on the road; the diesel will have to carry on if such a thing happens.

> The Cumbreys and toltec Dosnt use Diesels and I havnet herd
>of problems there. yes yes I know they own the track as well
>and they are the only ones that run on it

They also have steam locomotive shops which can repair the locomotives right then and there should something happen.

> Now as far as the Smaller Locomotives why put more on it
>then it can pull is my question.

To cover operating and maintainance costs. It takes a lot of money to run and maintain steam locomotives, not to mention the insurance required by the railroads over which the excursions will be run. And to do that, you have to have a lot of people buy tickets, and to keep seat costs as low as possible, you either have to run a lot of excursions or have a lot of seats available. And since the insurance costs are so high for each trip, I would imagine that trip sponsors would elect to just add more cars.

-- Mike Karlik --
-- "Power for you" --
[Link Expired]

[smp11512]

RE: why

Smells like an MSTS activity to me

[Chessie SD50 8563]

Heres why

Being involved in a steam program and learning operation I can comment. (For that mater however I also am involved in Maintance of Diesels)


> So what to the have for a back up if the Diesel dies and it
>was like when there was no Diesel locomotives around they
>didnt pull the Steam Engines around with anything else. I
>think it screws up the pictures and shows they have no faith
>in the Steam engines abilities wich I do if the Mechinics
>did there job.

Steam Locomotives, always have, are, and will be extremely maintance intensive machines. Requiring major lubercation every 100 or so miles. (this is more then the autolube systems can do) Another factor is the skill to manufacture componets for a steam locomotive does not exsist anymore. Steam locomotives are very inprecise machines and require alot of fine tuning, Very little is mass produced on a steamer and much has to be fabricated, and not all will match the schmatics you will have.


> The Cumbreys and toltec Dosnt use Diesels and I havnet herd
>of problems there.

Ohio Central back in the day didnt normally throw a diesel onto excusions, and they had shitloads of maintance to do on them steamers. Just because info is not made public doesnt mean that a locomotive is flawless. If you were to see the shear ammount of upkeep required to keep a steamer runing you would be amazed its FAR more then you realize.

>yes yes I know they own the track as well
>and they are the only ones that run on it but still it makes
>it look like the Steam Engines cant pull anything.
>If they had Big Boy out pulling a passenger Excursion I bet
>they would have a Diesel there as well but Big Boy Could
>pull a 5 mile loaded freight train at 80 MPH alone, now lets
>count how many Diesels that it would take to do that same
>job.

I might have to remind you that the train in question was ONLY 4800 TONS.....

Most frieghts today wiegh from 8900 (rack) to 19000 tons (coal) and are pointed by 1-3 Diesels in the 3500-4400 Range. Diesels can go Hundreds of miles without refueling, THe big boy could only go 25 miles. Comaprity a SD70 puts out close to the same tractive effort as a big boy and if geared highly will do the same job. Th diesel also pulls off a much higher Adheasion factor.

> Now as far as the Smaller Locomotives why put more on it
>then it can pull is my question.
> All I have to say is it makes it look like the Steam
>Engines couldnt Pull anything and also makes it look like
>the Diesel is doing the work and the Steam Engine is there
>only for looks.

As much as I hate to say this. Alot of times that happens :-(


>
>Don Pottorff
>Long Live the Steam

[Chessie SD50 8563]

RE: why

>>Also for dynamics, and if it can't handle the load
>
>It is most unlikely that the steam engine can control the
>dynamics.
>And why would the need it, they have steam brakes.
>
>Derek

No offence but explain to me what a steam brake is. I've been around steam a little while now, and while I am still learning I have never heard of such a device.


(note throwing the reverser to a direction oposite of your direction of travel is not a correct answer, its a good way to distroy a piston head, liner, or the reversing equipment. Seen pictures of the end results and its not preaty.)

[Chessie SD50 8563]

RE: why

>I heard of one time long ago that the Union Pacific #844
>steam locomotive was coming back form an excursion, and came
>upon a freight train that had broke down. The engineer was
>asking for help. The #844 was in the area, so the #844
>coupled to the rear of the train and pushed it to the next
>yard. Funny how a steam locomotive was more reliable than a
>diesel that day. Happy Rails Patrick

a SD60M suffered a computer failure.


but take a fleet of 100 FEF-3 and a fleet of 100 SD60M's run em both on simular trains for a year. and get back to me. WHich one had a better up time, cost less to maintain, ect ect. THe winner is self explainitory.

It was kick ass seeing 844 pulling that stack train though!

[Newton Kid]

RE: why

Item 1:
Those who want to talk about steam vs: diesel power need to go to Phil Krugs WEB site and see several of the articles he has written. Power, expecially at starting, is all based on tractive effort. I would agree that the UP Challenger probably can start and outpull one modern diesel. I doubt it would outpull two.

Item 2:
If there is a diesel following the steam there are one of two controls. Either the steam engineer has control using controls installed for the purpose or there will be a crew in the diesel. Ether way, the diesel is under control when the steamer is running. Given the high volume on traffic on most rail lines the railroads do not want to tie up their tracks because a steam engine failed. Not to mention if there are hundreds of people on the train, have them stranded on the property.

Item 3:
It was not until around 1940 did any steam engines go long distances. The ususal practice was to run them about 150 to 200 miles, cut them off and replace them with an engine that had been completely serviced. In the 1940, with their oil fired 4-8-4 Santa Fe finally started running steam engines from Chicago to Los Angelos withou an engine change. Today the Big New Santa Fe runs every train between these two point without changing engines, unless they break down.

Item 4:
Steam brakes. Early steam engines had brakes that were set by sending steam directly to the brake cylinders. I believed that some trains in Europe used vacuum brakes for most of the steam era. The vacuum would be generated by the steam flowing through an ejector which would suck the air from the lines. In the US when they went to air brakes as standard equipment the steam brakes disappeared and were replaced by steam powered air compressors.

[Chessie SD50 8563]

RE: why

>Item 1:
>Those who want to talk about steam vs: diesel power need to
>go to Phil Krugs WEB site and see several of the articles he
>has written. Power, expecially at starting, is all based on
>tractive effort. I would agree that the UP Challenger
>probably can start and outpull one modern diesel. I doubt
>it would outpull two.
>

Semi Modern diesels will out pull a challenger, Krugs website supports this


>Item 2:
>If there is a diesel following the steam there are one of
>two controls. Either the steam engineer has control using
>controls installed for the purpose or there will be a crew
>in the diesel. Ether way, the diesel is under control when
>the steamer is running. Given the high volume on traffic on
>most rail lines the railroads do not want to tie up their
>tracks because a steam engine failed. Not to mention if
>there are hundreds of people on the train, have them
>stranded on the property.
>
Thrus is why we have Diesel tacked onto excusions

>Item 3:
>It was not until around 1940 did any steam engines go long
>distances. The ususal practice was to run them about 150 to
>200 miles, cut them off and replace them with an engine that
>had been completely serviced. In the 1940, with their oil
>fired 4-8-4 Santa Fe finally started running steam engines
>from Chicago to Los Angelos withou an engine change. Today
>the Big New Santa Fe runs every train between these two
>point without changing engines, unless they break down.
>
You still had to refuel them very few hundred miles or less and relube them.

>Item 4:
>Steam brakes. Early steam engines had brakes that were set
>by sending steam directly to the brake cylinders. I
>believed that some trains in Europe used vacuum brakes for
>most of the steam era. The vacuum would be generated by the
>steam flowing through an ejector which would suck the air
>from the lines. In the US when they went to air brakes as
>standard equipment the steam brakes disappeared and were
>replaced by steam powered air compressors.

Yes but Steam powered conventional brake systems were a early invention and not quite a Dynamic brake like device. more of a Indipendent Brake style device.