HOME | DD
PaxAeternum — Gooch Equalised Goods 0-10-0
Published: 2016-01-12 03:39:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 2228; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 9
Redirect to original
Description
An even larger locomotive, same as the Crawler but with a longer firebox and two more wheels, with underhung equalisers for the rearmost drivers. Capable of pulling one hundred fully laden coal wagons at a speed of forty miles per hour.Related content
Comments: 24
Pardon me for asking, but why are the buffers non-symmetrical?
I've never seen that done before...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
an error on my part, these are meant to be symmetrical.
However there have indeed been asymmetrical buffers, look up "the importance of Anna's design" for the small 18" gauge saddletank engines with the offset asymetrically positioned buffers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see. I thought it must have something to do with steeply banked curves or something ridiculous like that...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A truly beautiful and fascinating concept and drawing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It may just be my ignorance showing here, but aren't the siderods a little on the thin side for a beast capable of hauling 13,000 tons of coal and hoppers? Awesome none-the-less!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
oh also never did I say 13,000 tons, that is a load that a pair of double headed 9F's would struggle to pull. THis locomotive is capable of something more like 800-1000. The heaviest train ever pulled by steam in ENgland thusfar has been 2178 tons
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
2178 tons? That’s it? I do believe that I as an American have overestimated the pulling power of a British locomotive. I was expecting something around at least 10,000 tons I mean that’s less than an average American freight train. P.S. I might sound like I’m bragging but I’ve done this as a joke you know America and Britain have that rivalry so this is how I continue it. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You try making something with a 100 PSI boiler pull that much in 1840.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know how I can do it! I’ll do what they did to get the A4 Mallard to reach 126 mph I’ll make it go downhill! XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You mentioned 100 fully laden coal cars, which, in current-day Canada, equates to around 13,000 tons fully laden; more if you have access to a rotary dumper and don't require drop-bottom cars (101 tons of coal each, empty weight is between 45,000 and 61,000 lb.), as bathtub gons can carry 116 tons each, but I'm not sure what they weigh empty. I don't know the weight of the heaviest train ever pulled by steam in Canada, but as of 2010 the typical CPR coal train (pulled by modern diesels) was 129 cars, which I would estimate conservatively equates to approximately 16,500 tons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ah well I do apologize. let me clarify, this locomotive is supposed to date from about 1845 and be built in England. A "coal wagon" of the time would look something like this; modelengineeringwebsite.com/S%… and it would weigh far, far less than anything we have today. Even a modern truck designed to carry coal in england is not all that much larger; mike.da2c.org/igg/rail/4-rstoc…
I can see now why we were having such misunderstandings, you are talking about immense modern four-axle affairs that probably weigh more when empty than a small british wagon does when full.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not the same scale I see 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The side-rods are forged of course, and their strength really isn't relevant to the tonnage of the train being pulled because of course the wheels they couple will slip or spin long before the rods are brought to the point of breaking by the load.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But that doesn't allow for a safety margin should one of the sanding nozzles block and one set of wheels have significantly more traction than the other. I can only assume that the pistons are inboard (quite uncommon in North America) and drive all ten axles with much larger connecting rods?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you will find this to be an issue of almost no consequence because sand does not increase the adhesion factor of a locomotive all that much and that because of the nature of sand almost never will all wheels have equal amount of adhesion factor increase when the sander is running normally. Again, design tolerances of siderods are made to be far in excess of those in normal working. Take a look at the siderods on this comparatively massive and very modern Czech locomotive www.ceskedrahy.cz/assets/tisko…
And no on this engine the only inside connecting is the mainrods to the crossheads, there is one crank axle, that being the middle one. The spacing between the second and third set of driving wheels is to make room for the inside motion of course. Inside siderods are a very high maintenance item and mean that every axle must then be a crank axle which complicates everything structurally and is a counterbalancing nightmare. Only two locomotives in the world had internal siderods, and one of those was a 2-4-6-2 of the PLM technically made a 2-10-2 by internal siderods connecting the first and second set of drivers between driven axle 2 and driven axle 3. mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/…
the internal siderods can be seen here in this works view of the same machine. www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LO…
they are very unconventional and offer no advantages whatsoever compared to external siderods. Not to mention the siderods on that engine were subjected to forces far more tremendous than anything you have suggested resulting from varied adhesion on different wheels, as in the PLM 2-10-2 above the forces of thrust on the HP cylinders acted on the rear drivers while the forces of thrust on the LP cylinders worked out of phase with those on the front drivers, therefore the siderods were subjected to extreme angular tension and compression that changed rapidly every revolution. Other locomotives that suffered from this were Deglehn compounds and the GWR four-cylinder locomotives such as Stars, Castles and Kings, where again the siderods had to bear the forces of two completely independent and otherwise uncommon crank axles. When I say that I mean you have cylinders with cranks on multiple axles rather than one axle sharing them all. This animation explains. www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4kN5G… You will see on this particular example of the king class, the inner cylinders hook up to the first driving axle with internal cranks and the outer cylinders hook up to the second driving axle with outside crankpins, leaving the siderods to reconcile the tremendous differential forces between each axle. These locomotives did not break siderods and they were very nearly perfectly counterbalanced.
Despite all I said above, Siderod breakage was no more common on these engines than it was on normally layed out locomotives.
Does this help?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My original statement was based on my observation of CN T2a Number 4100, a 2-10-2, which is preserved at the the Canadian Railway Museum (Exporail) in Saint-Constant, Québec. The Canadian National T2a had a tractive effort upwards of 80,000 lb. (91,735 with booster), and it had side rods that were significantly larger than those on this CPR Royal Hudson: fav.me/d9qbfr3 . Unfortunately, I don’t think I took any pictures of T2a 4100, or my filing system is so far gone that any that I did take can be considered lost for all eternity. From what I remember, the T2a side rods dwarfed those of the H1 2850 in the linked image. I do not design steam engines for a living, so I can’t comment on if the T2a side rods are overkill, I can only share what observational knowledge I do have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh no, the siderods on the locomotive you pointed out need to be that way because of the tremendous forces.
Keep in mind that those engines run in excess of 225 PSI boiler pressure and have cylinders that are immense, they are late designs. The locomotive in my drawing above is a fictitious what-if design dating from 1845 in the west of England and has a boiler that works at 100 PSI. Tractive effort of the thing would most likely be somewhere around 15,000 to 20,000 LbF at most.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
275 PSI if I recall, but I hadn't realized this was an 1800s design. I have a picture for you then
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Big Bertha's grandmother who hails from the West!
Marvelous engine, Alex.
One hundred fully laden coal wagons, you say?
How much does each weigh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those are the most massive equalizing levers ever fitted to a locomotive. Except for that one with bigger ones...
This is amazing and epic but I have this weird urge to see a version with inside side rods.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gahaahahahahaahaha that is the most accurate statement ever made, besides the more accurate-er one : >
GAHAHAHA YES I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN
👍: 0 ⏩: 0