D1 and DD1

[Just Crazy Jim]

Was cruising through some old newspapers at the local public library and saw mention of the Pennsylvania RR's "new electric" (new in 1911) D1 (4-4-0) and DD1 (4-4-0+0-4-4). The DD1 is clearly the precursor of the GG1 and every bit as reliable. So reliable, that the L5 (vaguely like the EP-2 Bipolar for looks) that was supposed to replace it couldn't compete.

The design was so successful that until the idea of jackshafts and siderods were abandoned, the DD1 was the template for almost every electric locomotive that saw major service in the US. Heck, most DD1s remained in service until 1950, and the last paired unit was in service until 1978.

For historical importance, if not for the DD1, New York City's Pennsylvania Station would never have been built. Sure, it's long gone now, but for a glorious moment when Coal was King and railroads ruled, you could not ask for a better illustration of how one locomotive design made the hustle and bustle of the 20th century's greatest metropolis a reality. Notice how few automobiles are in the street in the photograph of the exterior of Pennsylvania Station (1911).

Before the DD1, tunnels resulted in some crazy designs...

Which kept the engineer and fireman from choking to death on the smoke, but didn't do much for the passengers. I can't find the details for how often a passenger died on a trip through a tunnel, but there are more than a few references in newspapers and fiction from the period of passengers dying from asphyxia in railway tunnels. And in a American Experience episode about teenage hobos, one fellow gives a riveting account of being caught on the roof of a box car just as the train entered a tunnel. So electric locomotive + tunnel = good idea.


When I get my Blender-hat on, I am so going to make this.

[Gumboots]

Those are great. I never knew anyone had built an electric loco based on steam loco running gear. I suppose it seemed obvious to them at the time, and if it worked then that's good enough.

And yes, steam locos in long tunnels could be a very bad thing. There are stories over here too, about that.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Take a look at the N&W LC1 units in this thread.

Very similar design. They have a semi-permanent 2-4-4-2+2-4-4-2 arrangement with side rods. If you look closely at the 3rd Photo, you can see a third wheel seated between the drivers that replaced the visible jackshaft. Hidden from view, a jackshaft worked a crank axle like the piston on the Hurricane and the B&O 0-4-0 Grasshopper, turning a non-driving wheel, which communicated power to the drivers by means of the siderods, which the B&O 0-4-0 Grasshopper also used. At least that's the 1914 design.

In a later stage, no good documentation on when it was changed, they replaced the jackshaft and off-set axle with a geared set-up. The units hauled 300+ coal trains a year averaging 3,054 short tons (2,771 metric tonnes). I am guessing that after hauling that kind of load for a while, the metal fatigue on that power axle must have been unbelievable. Geared drive would definitely be the better way to go.

[Gumboots]

Yeah I got how it worked. The shot of one stripped of bodywork makes it pretty clear. I just hadn't seen any done that way before. They were never used over here AFAIK. I suppose I should check on that, as I've never taken an interest in the earliest Australian electrics.

With all the gear hanging off the side it's almost enough to make an electric lovable. All they need now is steam coming out everywhere and some decent choof choof noises.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Heh, I have it on good authority that they had a sound not strongly dissimilar from a steam loco. But, if they were moving fast, not loud enough to warn a man he was "in peril of his life, unless the driver was kind enough to sound the whistle".

[Just Crazy Jim]

Been reading more about the real world use of jackshaft electrics. It seems that units like the DD1 and N&W LC1 were every bit as powerful as their steam-powered peers, sometimes with significantly more power on grades than steam.

The Baldwin-Westinghouse/N&W LC1s were hauling as a single paired unit what had required THREE Alco Class Z1/Z1a 2-6-6-2s to achieve in the same time on a 2.5% average grade, by the time the N&W ceased electric operations in 1950, the LC1s were hauling what would have taken four or five Alco Class Z1/Z1a 2-6-6-2s.

In June 1914 the electrified district handled 272 trains averaging 2,896 short tons (2,627 t) of coal. Each train required three Class Z1 locomotives. In June 1915, with electric operation only partially implemented, this rose to 397 trains averaging 3,054 short tons (2,771 t), a 60 percent increase. In normal operation two LC-1 boxcabs could handle each train.

So it seems to me that the boys at PopTop were not exactly doing much research on Electrics, but went with the myth that they were weaker compared to contemporary steam and diesel, whereas the truth is they were simply just more expensive to build and maintain and the infrastructure cost more to set up and maintain. This became a killing fact in the post-war years of the 1950s when the oil companies flooded the market with cheap diesel, whereas before WW2, almost all diesel was bio-diesel, not a petroleum distillate. Before WW2, diesel power was the subject of ridicule because it cost far too much to run and also suffered the "weak" myth.

Aside: I have no idea what the petro companies did with the fractional that they made diesel from in the years before World War II, but from what I have read it was mostly sold as a generally ineffective bug spray, like "Flit"

So I am thinking, based on the historical record, the GG1 (and other electrics) may not be the wimps on grades that we see in-game.

PS
I'm thinking about making doubles of the 2-D-2 and the GG1 with pulling power and free weight based on real world values. This may require much more thought and discussion before I settle on the idea. I don't want to insert electric units that take off like a Tokyo Bullet Train in 1904, but I do want to see them get a reasonable representation that reflects reality, not perpetuates the "electric is weak" myth.

[Gumboots]

Who said electric is weak? The first electric in the game is already one of the super engines for its time.

[RulerofRails]

Did you forget about the EP-2 Bipolar? It does a reasonable job on grades while being more expensive to run and maintain. It's the most expensive steamer in the game.

I honestly think that whoever setup the default locos didn't realize the difference loco+tender weight makes on fuel cost. They just gave electrics a better fuel rating than diesel and steam. In consequence, with their light weights their fuel costs are low. Most electrics cost about $0.05 or so per mile. Diesels are mainly in the $0.08 to $0.12 range, while post-1900 steamers are almost exclusively $0.10+, with an average up around $0.15 (for 1.05 locos).

So the electrics are probably a bit too cheap, especially when compared to steam, but once it matters are perhaps balanced well against the diesels when considering the extra electric track cost and subsequent maintenance. After all, one of the main aspects of this game is the rags-to-riches growth story. With the current setup, electric track will pay off in the long run, but provides less short-term ROI which gives a slower than possible growth curve.

I never thought the 2-D-2 was an under-performer either. Before Coast to Coast gave us the P8, I used it a fair bit. But then again, even way back before I understood the cause, I have known about the terrible fuel economy of the Pacific (Atlantic and H10 are better, but still can't be used the way that 19th century locos can) and Northern steamers. So these steamers were unfortunately priced out of the competition for my selection of loco type for general hauling duties.

Somebody did a second more powerful version of the 2-D-2 called "Omega". Available from the New Engines section.

Agree that the GG1 is a bit weak on grades after 1950. Seems to be assigned as a passenger train which wasn't their only use in real life. Although, with 4 cars in D-era I used it to achieve high average speed service on flattish ground routes in Blackhawk's "The Juice Train" for TM.

Side-note:
Also, there is a 0-6-0 "Hercules" mentioned in this thread, with a PK4, but no .car or .lco files to make it run.

[Just Crazy Jim]

The "Hercules 0-6-0" seems to be the Baldwin 0-6-0. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be the 1842 GWR Hercules Class 0-6-0 (a tank engine), there is a Tender in the PK4. Not sure if I made the CAR and LCO files correctly, but it seems the tender is not showing, which may be as intended by the original file maker. The Hercules060L_NE_A.dds is the beauty shot of the Baldwin 0-6-0, so I know I got the loco part right.

[Just Crazy Jim]

found a period photo of a 2-D-2.

And this info in slightly different format in two references:
The New York Central 2-D-2 is 43 feet long, 14 feet 9 1/2 inches high, and weighs 115 tons. It is equipped with four 550-horse-power motors (total 2,200 HP) giving a draw-bar pull of 29,400 pounds and a speed of 60 miles per hour.

The Pennsylvania DD1 is built in two halves for flexibility and either half may be replaced during repairs. The complete paired-unit is 64 feet 11 inches long and weighs 157 tons. The combined unit is powered by four 1,000-horse-power motors (total 4,000 HP), giving a draw-bar pull of 79,200 pounds and a speed of 60 miles per hour.
(Sources: Henry Chase, The Wonder Book of Knowledge, Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1917. -and- P. Ransome-Wallis, Concise Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives, New York: Hawthorn Books, 1959.)

Still looking for the relevant data on period steam and diesel. Let's just say the information in Concise Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives is presented rather haphazardly in a wall of text that is frequently abused with "meaningful" diagrams. Whereas the information in The Wonder Book of Knowledge is easily located, but painfully terse.

[Gumboots]

Yeah the "Hercules" is just a bunch of stats hanging off a Baldwin asset. It has no modelling or skinning work done to it, and I have no idea how relevant the stats are.

The problem with steam from that period is that horsepower figures will be hard to come by. All you'll usually get is "tractive effort", which may or may not be related to power at any particular speed, depending on how good or bad the loco was as an entire thermodynamic system.

[Gumboots]

I found this in the Railroad Digest from 1901. None of these would be superheated, since that didn't come in for another decade.

Austrian Locomotives at the Paris Exposition
Revue Generale des Chenims du fer, July, 1001, page 50.

There were six locomotives exhibited at the Paris Exposition in the Austrian section at Vincennes.

( 1. ) A compound express locomotive for heavy grades, of the 10-wheel, or 4-0-0 class. The work developed at the tire of the driving wheels of these engine.s has been upwards of 1,000 hp. On some trial runs a train of 207 gross tons was hauled at a speed of 40 miles an hour over a 1 per cent, grade, which corresponds to about 1,300 hp.

Among the peculiar features of this engine is the fact that the connected domes, which are usually put on the boilers of Austrian State Railway locomotives, are here replaced by a cylindrical reservoir, in communication with the interior of the shell, by means of two necks. This reservoir has a diameter of 19% in. and contains the throttle valve.

The engine is a two-cylinder compound with the cylinders between the frames. The valve seats are vertical. The high pressure valve is of the ordinary type, but the low-pressure is fitted with a Trick port. The Walschaert valve motion is used. and so connected between the two sides that there is a difference of 15 per cent between the points of cut-off in the two cylinders. At starting, full steam pressure can be admitted to both cylinders through .9 of the stroke, the Gijlsdorf starting valve being used...

(3.) An express passenger locomotive of the Atlantic or 4-4-2 type. It is used on the line from Vienna to Cracovia, hauling trains of from 150 to 180 gross tons at an average speed of about 50 miles an hour. In service it has surmounted a grade of .26 per cent, and 5 miles long at a speed of 50 miles an hour, with a train weighing 203 tons. At the time the cut-off ranged from 18 to 23 per cent of the stroke and the indicated horsepower was 1,027. The locomotive burns fuel of an inferior quality containing from 10 to 25 per cent, of ash. This necessitated a large grate of about 31 square feet area. As the weight per axle was not allowed to be more than 14 gross tons the trailing wheel was put under the rear end of the firebox...

(5.) An eight-wheel ( 4-4-0 1 compound express locomotive. The cylinders are 19 in. for the high pressure and 30 in. in diameter for the low pressures. The weight is 55.7 gross tons, of which 28.7 tons are on the driving wheels. The machine is designed to haul trains of from 230 to 290 tons over 1 per cent grades, which it is said can be done at a speed of 25 miles an hour.

[Gumboots]

This is a bit later than you want, being from 1935 test data, but indicates the problem with "tractive effort". This rating was the same before and after the modifications, even though the modified form of the loco was far more powerful. FWIW this loco (Victorian Railways S class) has a nominal tractive effort of 41,670 lbf at 85% boiler pressure (3 cylinders, of 20.5 x 28 inches, on 73" drivers).

Initial tests with prototype S300 revealed only average performance for a locomotive of such size. Further detailed study revealed that insufficient valve travel and narrow port openings were impairing performance, and based on this study improvements were made to the three S class locomotives that followed S300, including a reported change from the 4 5⁄8 in (117 mm) travel, 1 1⁄16 in (27 mm) lap valve gear shared with the N and X class locomotives to a 6 in (152 mm) travel, 1 1⁄4 in (32 mm) lap valve gear.[32]

In April 1935, S303 was equipped with VR's Modified Front End for improved drafting and reduced cylinder back pressure. Tests showed an indicated horsepower increase from 1,560 hp (1,160 kW) to 1,920 hp (1,430 kW) at 30 mph (48 km/h) as a result of these changes. Smoke deflectors were fitted the following month to compensate for the reduced uplift of smoke from the redesigned exhaust, and between July 1935 and July 1936 the remainder of the class was similarly upgraded.

The boilers were modified to a design that incorporated a combustion chamber, arch tubes and thermic siphons. However, unlike its close relative the X class Mikado, the S class was not modified with Belpaire fireboxes and retained its round-top boiler shape.

During dynamometer car testing with S301 in 1937, a maximum output of 2,300 drawbar horsepower (1,720 kW) at 45 mph (72 km/h) was recorded.

Edit: Come to think of it, the tractive effort rating here is not much less than the PRR K4 Pacific: roughly 42,000 lbs vs 45,000. I think it'd be fair to assume that when the K4 first rolled out in 1914 it would not have been as efficient as a loco from 2 decades later, so at a guess the power output would have been in the same range as the S class. So around 1900 hp might be about right.

Incidentally RT3's Pacific, which is obviously supposed to be a K4, is a ridiculous caricature of the actual loco. The proportions are so far off that I wonder where they came from.

[Gumboots]

Oh and just to really confuse things, there's the SAR Class 520. Same cylinder size as the Vic S class, but only two of them, yet it made stacks of horses at speed.

The 520 class locomotives were noted for their impressive displays of power and speed. They featured specially balanced driving wheels that while only 66 inches (1,676 mm) in diameter, were designed for 70-mile-per-hour (113 km/h) operation, and were also the first locomotives in Australia to feature Timken roller bearings on all axles.

Class leader 520 attained a speed of 78 miles per hour (126 km/h) between Red Hill and Port Pirie when it entered service on 10 November 1943. Surviving test records show the locomotive was capable of developing an indicated horsepower output of 2,600 horsepower (1,940 kW) at 70 mph while hauling a 510-tonne (500-long-ton) load.

But again, this is later and by then locos had efficiency improvements that weren't around in the 1910's.

[Just Crazy Jim]

All very good to know. It certainly presents a wider context into which the locomotives all fit. The drive for more speed and more pulling power. And the haggling back and forth in the machine shop to nudge one up then the other.

Heh. Just read this on Wikipedia:

Most observers familiar with horses and their capabilities estimate that Watt was either a bit optimistic or intended to underpromise and overdeliver; few horses can maintain that effort for long. Regardless, comparison with a horse proved to be an enduring marketing tool.

[Gumboots]

I was idly thinking about these locos again. I just realised the drive system would be incredibly easy to model, as long as you didn't want the internal motor to be visible.

The connecting rod between the motor and the jackshaft is more of a coupling bar than a connecting rod. In other words, it has no "piston end". It just has an equal offset from an axle at each end. When it was in motion in real life, the angle between this rod and the horizontal coupling bar (from jackshaft to drivewheels) would always be constant, quite unlike the angle between connecting rod and coupling bar on a steam loco.

What this means is in terms of RT3 files you wouldn't even need a separate file for the rod between motor and jackshaft. It would be geometrically correct through its complete motion if the same file did this rod and the horizontal coupling bar. So all it would need is two drivewheel files, the appropriate number of extra bogie files, and two coupling bar files. Nothing else is required to get it 100% realistic.

[Gumboots]

The "Hercules 0-6-0" seems to be the Baldwin 0-6-0. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be the 1842 GWR Hercules Class 0-6-0 (a tank engine), there is a Tender in the PK4. Not sure if I made the CAR and LCO files correctly, but it seems the tender is not showing, which may be as intended by the original file maker. The Hercules060L_NE_A.dds is the beauty shot of the Baldwin 0-6-0, so I know I got the loco part right.

While I'm here, I found out a bit more about the Hercules. It wasn't a tank engine, although a lot of the early GWR 's were. Apparently the Hercules class was simply a Firefly which had the 7 foot driving wheels and front and rear bogies replaced with three sets of 5 foot driving wheels, which incidentally is the same diameter used by the later DX Goods.

Gooch’s First Standard Locomotives

GWR Hercules Class

So this means modelling one for RT3 would be quite easy, since all you'd need to do is grab the Firefly and change the wheels and a bit of the framing.

[Gumboots]

Stumbled across an excellent drawing of the GWR Hercules class: OBJECTS OF ENGINEERING-David Joy drawings
This was made by one of the original engineers, back in 1843, so is going to be accurate. It's also of excellent quality. Anyway, the Hercules doesn't just look quite like a Firefly with different wheels. It also has a completely different firebox, and a few other things.