So even in 1949 they used the same fiction as they do today concerning using less coal in favor of electric. “It will save 100,000 tons of coal”. So how many 100’s of thousands of tons of coal did it take to generate the electricity to run the locomotives?
My thought exactly….
The LNER green 2-8-2 on the turntable is “Cock o’ the North”. But enough about me . . .
It’s not the cock up of the north?
I find it pretty funny that the regenerative braking they advertised at Metadyne Control is the exact technology they use on Teslas. Great bunch of pics!
I was hoping somebody would catch that. When I saw the picture in a train site I was thinking the same. The more “innovation” and what they describe as new technology remains rooted in old technology. See the new boss, same as the old boss… same with Paul V’s comment above, takes hellava more coal to generate electricity to get the same Kw energy a steam train carries to generate Kw locally.
takes hellava more coal to generate electricity to get the same Kw energy a steam train carries to generate Kw locally.
Please show your math CederQ.
It might be true for internal combustion vs electric but steam locomotives are simply not that efficient.
You show your math. If you “differ” from any statement I made, come up with facts, graphs, charts and some moxie to refute me than some lame rhetoric of me showing my math.
So even in 1949 they used the same fiction as they do today concerning using less coal in favor of electric. “It will save 100,000 tons of coal”. So how many 100’s of thousands of tons of coal did it take to generate the electricity to run the locomotives?
My thought exactly….
The LNER green 2-8-2 on the turntable is “Cock o’ the North”. But enough about me . . .
It’s not the cock up of the north?
I find it pretty funny that the regenerative braking they advertised at Metadyne Control is the exact technology they use on Teslas. Great bunch of pics!
I was hoping somebody would catch that. When I saw the picture in a train site I was thinking the same. The more “innovation” and what they describe as new technology remains rooted in old technology. See the new boss, same as the old boss… same with Paul V’s comment above, takes hellava more coal to generate electricity to get the same Kw energy a steam train carries to generate Kw locally.
takes hellava more coal to generate electricity to get the same Kw energy a steam train carries to generate Kw locally.
Please show your math CederQ.
It might be true for internal combustion vs electric but steam locomotives are simply not that efficient.
You show your math. If you “differ” from any statement I made, come up with facts, graphs, charts and some moxie to refute me than some lame rhetoric of me showing my math.
OK,
https://worldwiderails.com/how-efficient-are-steam-locomotives/
Calls steam locomotive efficiency at 5% energy conversion to reactive effort. I’ve seen numbers elsewhere up to 17% for late post WWII locos, so we’ll use that number.
Coal fired power station efficiency of electricity generation averages about 38%
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en19-efficiency-of-conventional-thermal/en19-efficiency-of-conventional-thermal
Table 2
I’ll spot you 5%, so we’ll use 33%
Transmission losses to the pantograph are about 7% (93% efficiency)
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/
That is for all including domestic, so is conservative.
Electric locomotive efficiency is about 90% https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrification-of-u.s.-railways-pie-in-the-sky-or-realistic-goal this says 95%, but again let’s be conservative.
So 0.9*0.93*0.33=27.6%
Versus 17%…….
The Pennsy T1 duplex was one helluva impressive loco.
Is the tunnel in #9 that from which Oddball and his motley crew (Kelly’s Hero’s) emerged while on their way to the gold?
Belching black smoke!!!
Great set of pics from the old country! Thanks!
I like Brit Rail, why I show a lot of it.