Galaxy Express Train setting need help with

lwhitehead wrote:PRR T1 Duplex Drive 4-4-4-4, Raymond Loewy last Steam Engine he created, It's Streamlined, the most advanced Locomotive ever created and most difficult to drive.

A strange choice given your initial requirement for "most Powerful in pulling strength Steam Locomotive in North America." Especially given the maintenance and reliability criticisms of the duplex type in general and the T1s in particular.

Other than the UP Big Boys, both the UP Challenger, and SP 4-8-4 "Northern" class are stronger, faster (in rated speed) and more reliable. The SP 4-8-4 GS 4 Streamliner was even better looking. The Challengers (4-6-6-4) have 50% more tractive effort (without the wheel-slip problems of the T-1s) and the Big Boys have more than double the tractive effort.

Image too big for hotlink

lwhitehead wrote:Ok Firebox power source what could I put in the Steam Loco to have an endless fire,

Fusion or Fission, take your pick. Fission is used in the real world to generate steam for power plants, ships and submarines.

ETA: even the pages I saw yesterday don't show up on a search today! Maybe they'll be back someday?

You can always try the wayback machine?

True, but the engines you linked already use Supper-heated high-pressure steam and "seriously low side" is wildly understating the case. Even Rocket, Robert Stevenson's first true railroad locomotive, was more than four times faster than 8 MPH!

Uhm, you DO realise i hope that that is NOT the top speed of the engine? That´s the standardised working speed for pulling a crapload of cargo.

The point about the wiki quote you made is that the engine could generate enough steam to make FULL use of its maximum pulling power ALL THE TIME on a constant basis. Even the "Big Boy" couldn´t do that, it would have needed a drastically larger boiler for that. Which would have been unrealistic as it had a high pressure boiler, that means using thicker metal, which means a superheavy boiler.
Remember, the Big boy boiler is heavier than that of the 2-10-10-2, despite the fact that it is somewhere between half and 2/3 the size and steam production.

Anyway, that´s why i tried to stress my addition of how difficult it is to know what is actually BETTER.
It´s really one of the reasons steam engines fell out of favour, it was quite hard to get engines that were enough jack of all trades to use them as needed.

And the horrible operating costs of course, hehe.

Which is a pity as steam engines are nice.

The SP 4-8-4 GS 4 Streamliner was even better looking.

Oh yes, that was a VERY good looking engine.

Well the Wiki tab on that Steam Loco said it was the most powerful and fasted Engine creative, PRR T1 still is my First choice but that Engine you mention might be Second choice.


The Firebox, I can't used Nuclear Fuel the Waste would be a problem,

Second Problem the cars: as we know that max speed of a train is due to the length and number of cars the Locomotive pulls, it's one long line on wheels. Since there are two type of Passengers on the Galaxy Express the Riders and the Travelers, the Travelers are the ones know were there going and sleep and eat in the Streamliner cars the Riders are the Passengers who live on the train have there own personal cars and don't know were there going.


The first half of the train is were the normal Streamliners cars are and the Second half are the mix of personal cars of the Riders and Train crew as well, the question is how long can I make this train?.

LW

lwhitehead wrote:Well the Wiki tab on that Steam Loco said it was the most powerful and fasted Engine creative, PRR T1 still is my First choice but that Engine you mention might be Second choice.

1: Wikipedia is an unreliable source. The text says "most powerful" but the stats sidebar says less than half the tractive power of a Big Boy. (and less tractive power than both of the others I referenced.)

2: the Wiki and other sources all mention the high maintenance and wheel slippage problems.

3: The 140 MPH speed is hearsay and well beyond the rated top speed of 100 MPH. The SP GS-4 Streamliner have a rated top speed of 110 and probably exceeded that by 10% or so for short spans in ideal circumstances.

lwhitehead wrote:The Firebox, I can't used Nuclear Fuel the Waste would be a problem,

Why not? There are methods for dealing with radioactive waste that are non-problematic. Research "Vitrification" and "reprocessing" of nuclear fuels. The French use vitrification and burial in deep bore-shafts, IIRC. Your engine is going to need periodic overhauls and inspections at a depot level facility; nuclear fuel replacement and handling can be centralized so there's no "waste" problem out on the rails to worry about.

lwhitehead wrote:The first half of the train is were the normal Streamliners cars are and the Second half are the mix of personal cars of the Riders and Train crew as well, the question is how long can I make this train?.

1: The cars should be steam-punk versions of AMTRAK's high-speed passenger cars; i.e. gyro-stabilized cars that bank into turns and offer little air and rolling resistance.

2: Figure out how heavy your cars are and how strong your couplings/draw bars are. Divide the tractive power rating of your engine by the average weight and consider the lowest draw-bar rating (weak draw bars should be at the rear of the train where they don't pull the full weight of the train.)

3: consider your average track condition/type/maintenance. You can pull more weight/cars faster over good rails than you can bad rails.

4: Read up on historic passenger trains. 100 cars was considered a huge freight consist; that was generally slow and ponderous -- about a quarter of passenger speeds. Without looking up actual numbers, the SP Cascade/Shasta Daylights (steam GS-4 streamliners) that ran through my home town in the 50's seemed to be in the fifteen to twenty car range. (Memories 50 years old and post-stroke should be taken with a grain of salt -- look up the numbers.)

5: For a fantasy/SF venue, you can probably double the numbers without getting death threats from steam buffs.

I'm traveling at present so can't check my library, but there was a great series regarding trains on Mars. Huge nuclear powered passenger/freight trains that were owned and operated by multi generational families. From memory the families were of a discrete group (gypsy/Jewish ?).

Weird Harold wrote:Why not? There are methods for dealing with radioactive waste that are non-problematic. Research "Vitrification" and "reprocessing" of nuclear fuels. The French use vitrification and burial in deep bore-shafts, IIRC. Your engine is going to need periodic overhauls and inspections at a depot level facility; nuclear fuel replacement and handling can be centralized so there's no "waste" problem out on the rails to worry about.

There are obvious problems associated with putting nuclear reactors into situations where they may crash into things. Far better to put those reactors into fixed places and run power lines over the tracks

The E wrote:There are obvious problems associated with putting nuclear reactors into situations where they may crash into things. Far better to put those reactors into fixed places and run power lines over the tracks

Well sure, but that wouldn't be much of a steampunk venue, would it.

Weird Harold wrote:

lwhitehead wrote:The first half of the train is were the normal Streamliners cars are and the Second half are the mix of personal cars of the Riders and Train crew as well, the question is how long can I make this train?.

3: consider your average track condition/type/maintenance. You can pull more weight/cars faster over good rails than you can bad rails.

4: Read up on historic passenger trains. 100 cars was considered a huge freight consist; that was generally slow and ponderous -- about a quarter of passenger speeds. Without looking up actual numbers, the SP Cascade/Shasta Daylights (steam GS-4 streamliners) that ran through my home town in the 50's seemed to be in the fifteen to twenty car range. (Memories 50 years old and post-stroke should be taken with a grain of salt -- look up the numbers.)

5: For a fantasy/SF venue, you can probably double the numbers without getting death threats from steam buffs.

Addendum:

Been watching train videos on youtube. I noticed that train stations are probably going to have to be considered in your train length. Station platforms have to be long enough for all the cars on your train, or you have to provide some other method of getting people on and off of your trains.

The E wrote:Have you considered nuclear reactors?

IIRC, thorium reactors have less problems with radiation than uranium types. I haven't found an explanation for that yet. Also, they are easy to shut down. For transportation, they might make sense due to less shielding requirements. I wonder if it would be possible to make a design with less equipment needed to change the power from nuclear to driving power. H. Beam Piper posited a direct nuclear to electrical conversion, but even an order of magnitude simplification would be nice.