horsepower

[franksolich]

I was reading about the Union Pacific 4-8-8-4 steam locomotives, first built in 1941 and used for about 15 years before being replaced by diesel locomotives (although there remains one, still operable, still on the locomotive rosters, in the Union Pacific shops in Cheyenne, Wyoming).

The strongest steam locomotive ever made.

Anyway, the book said "7500 horsepower."

Okay, I know what "horsepower" is, and that my own motor vehicle has nothing like 7500 horsepower, far from it, but I can't "relate" to 7500 horsepower.

What's something that one commonly sees in civilian (or even military) everyday life at least "sort of" the same as 7500 horsepower?

I know it's a stupid question, but I never alleged myself to be especially bright.

[JohnnyReb]

Some of the largest rock trucks used in strip mining that gross about 700 tons loaded approrch 3,000 horsepower.

Funny thing about steam and electric locomotives. A steam engine will pull more tonnage than it can start off. A diesel/electric locomotive can start off more tonnage than it can pull.

Don't quote me on this because I'm just repeating what someone else said and I haven't been around dragsters in years and years. He said nitro burning rail dragsters now put out around 8,000 horsepower. They broke the 300 mph barrier in a quater several years ago and have shorten the tracks to 1,000 feet now. And now they break 300 mph on the shorter tracks. Now that's getting from point A to point B in a hurry. 

[BattleHymn]

Class 8 tractors (what you seeing pulling trailers down the interstate all day long) usually have between 300-700hp.  The torque number is what is important on these engines, though.  One engine we put together at work, the a 7.6L straight six has horsepower numbers anywhere from the high 100's up into the mid-200's, but the torque number on even the smallest horsepower engine is over 1400ft/lb. 

Funny thing about steam and electric locomotives. A steam engine will pull more tonnage than it can start off. A diesel/electric locomotive can start off more tonnage than it can pull.

I always understood steam power acted on the engine, rather than being created by the engine.  Maybe the parts of the steam engine will break before they can move the load from a stop, where a diesel can gradually apply power?   

[franksolich]

Here's what I consider a reasonably good picture of a 4-8-8-4, although really it doesn't do justice to the sheer size of the thing.



I've never seen one in action, only one just sitting there doing nothing.

The main wheels are more than 6' tall.

Among other details, they were 132' long--I dunno if that includes the tender behind it, though--weighed over 600 tons, carried 28 tons of coal and 25,000 gallons of water.

The book says they were "under-used" by the Union Pacific, without explaining how.  They were used mostly within Wyoming, with sporadic forays into Nebraska on one side and Utah on the other side.

[JohnnyReb]

I always understood steam power acted on the engine, rather than being created by the engine.  Maybe the parts of the steam engine will break before they can move the load from a stop, where a diesel can gradually apply power?   

You have the general idea. It's a matter of traction and a gradual pulling force on the load. Steam engines will break loose and spin, that's why they had sand tanks to put sand on the tracks when they needed more traction on steep grades etc.. The diesel/electric will ease the train into motion but after a while the motors get hot and trip out. That's why you will see several engines on a long train. All the engines aren't pulling at the same time....they're unionized...1/2 are on break at any given time.

[franksolich]

I doubt anybody here's old enough to remember.

Would 28 tons of coal be enough to heat a house during the winter?

[BattleHymn]

My father is old enough to have burned coal.  They burned pea coal and anthracite coal (Pennsylvania winters), and said they averaged 15 tons per winter.  

[JohnnyReb]

"I loaded 16 tons of #9 coal......"

You know, as far as I'm concerned, Jimmy Dean should have stuck with loading coal, his sausage bisquits in my opinion leave a lot to be desired.

[BattleHymn]

Frank,

Did you ever read up on the Peppercorn class locomotive they rebuilt from the original plans in the UK (60163 Tornado)?  They scrapped all the original ones, and never bothered to save even one.  Then, somebody came across the original blueprints, so they recreated one.  What a beautiful machine.

[franksolich]

Did you ever read up on the Peppercorn class locomotive they rebuilt from the original plans in the UK (60163 Tornado)?  They scrapped all the original ones, and never bothered to save even one.  Then, somebody came across the original blueprints, so they recreated one.  What a beautiful machine.

No, I'm not familiar with that.

There's lots and lots of picture books of steam locomotives here, and hundreds of personal photographs of steam locomotives in the family archives, as my older brothers were steam fans--it was easy for them, late 1940s, early 1950s, and living on the main line of the Union Pacific (and curiously, both my father and my mother too, in New York during the 1940s).

I'm too young to have known anything other than diesels.

The only steam locomotive I myself have ever seen in action was back when I was 10 years old, and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy ran a special passenger train through the Sandhills, a one-time deal.  It was, if memory serves me correctly, a 4-6-2, and the passenger cars were from the 1920s, before streamlined ones.

I actually saw that engine huffing and puffing, but again, being 10 years old, I didn't pay attention.

There seems a lot of steam railway fans.  I'm assuming their main attraction is, unlike diesels, one could actually see the working parts working, nothing's covered up.  I know I myself am that way with other things; if I can see its guts working, I'm attracted; if the working parts are all covered up, I'm ho-hum and go on to something else.

I suspect steam locomotives were more human, more "living things," than diesels appear today, and that that's part of their attraction too.

[NHSparky]

I doubt anybody here's old enough to remember.

Would 28 tons of coal be enough to heat a house during the winter?

Enough to do probably most of my neighborhood.

I have a pretty good-sized house, and most winters I can heat it for 400-500 gallons of heating oil.  For those who don't use heating oil, I give you the following:

Table 1 – Average Btu Content of Fuels
Electricity:
1 KW 3,412 Btu/hr
Natural Gas:
1 Cubic Foot of Natural Gas 1,030 Btu’s
1 CCF = 100 Cu Ft = 1 Therm 103,000 Btu’s
1 MCF = 1,000 Cu Ft = 10 Therms 1,034,000 Btu’s = 1.034 MMBtu’s
Propane:
1 Gal Propane 91,600 Btu’s
1 Cu Ft Propane 2,500 Btu’s
Gasoline:
1 Gal of Gasoline (mid grade) 125,000 Btu’s
Ethanol:
1 Gal of Ethanol 76,000 Btu’s
Fuel Oil:
1 Gal of #1 Kerosene 135,000 Btu’s
1 Gal of #2 Fuel Oil 138,000 Btu’s
1 Gal of #4 Fuel Oil 145,000 Btu’s
1 Gal of #6 Fuel Oil 150,000 Btu’s
Other:
Wood (air dried) 20,000,000/cord or 8,000/pound
Pellets (for pellet stoves; premium) 16,500,000/ton
Coal 28,000,000/ton

These standards of measurement make comparisons of fuel types possible. For
example:

· The heat content of one gallon of fuel oil roughly equals that of 41 kWh of electricity,
137 cubic feet of natural gas, 1.5 gallons of propane, 17.5 pounds of air-dried wood,
17 pounds of pellets, a gallon of kerosene, or 10 pounds of coal.

· One million Btu’s is the heat equivalent of approximately 7 gallons of No. 2 heating oil or
kerosene, 293 kWh of electricity, 976 cubic feet of natural gas, 11 gallons of propane,
125 pounds of air-dried wood, 121 pounds of pellets, or 71 pounds of coal.

http://www.mainepublicservice.com/media/3467/fuel%20and%20energy.pdf

[BattleHymn]

They run a steam locomotive every now and again into town every year or so.  I can hear the whistle from my house, and it is pretty eerie! I believe it is has something to do with the old Frisco line.  

About a mile from here, there is a 4-8-4 on rails in a park.  That's the biggest steam locomotive I've seen in person.  I have never seen one actually being ran, though.  

I think I know what you mean about the "living things" that steam locomotives have that newer ones do not.  I feel the same way about older automobiles, versus newer ones.

[franksolich]

Did I interpret this correctly?

Twenty-eight tons of coal would be about the same as circa 5,000 gallons of regular-grade gasoline?

I'm trying to put this into a "picture" I can understand.

[Carl]

Horsepower is in its basic definition is a measure of work done.
Without looking it up to be exact it is the force used to lift or move a certain pound weight a specific distance in a given amount of time.

It alone however can be misleading as a torque curve for a given engine also plays a huge role in things.

In short you can buy a 20 horsepower lawn tractor that has a very small torque curve or you can buy a John Deere model A tractor built in the 40s and also rated at 20 (or so) horsepower with a 321 cid 2 cylinder engine and can plow a field.

[franksolich]

They run a steam locomotive every now and again into town every year or so.  I can hear the whistle from my house, and it is pretty eerie! I believe it is has something to do with the old Frisco line.  

About a mile from here, there is a 4-8-4 on rails in a park.  That's the biggest steam locomotive I've seen in person.  I have never seen one actually being ran, though.  

I think I know what you mean about the "living things" that steam locomotives have that newer ones do not.  I feel the same way about older automobiles, versus newer ones.

The last I read, a few years ago, the Union Pacific still has three operable steam locomotives, all of them in good working order, and kept in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

There's a 4-8-4 on their "active duty" roster, just like all their diesels, and is actually used more than one might imagine.  The 4-8-4s were in their time used mainly for freight trains, 4-6-2s in the eastern states for passenger trains; I dunno what the main passenger-train locomotive was that the Union Pacific used.

There's a 4-6-6-4 and a 4-8-8-4 on the roster, but not active duty; in other words, they can be immediately fired up and ready to go.

As for being able to see something work, years ago when I collected old clocks, their main attraction to me was that one could sit there and actually see all their working parts work, rather than being covered up.  Ditto for automobiles and farm machiney; if I can see the working parts in motion, it's better than a Hollywood epic.

But if they're covered up, they hold no interest.

[franksolich]

Horsepower is in its basic definition is a measure of work done.
Without looking it up to be exact it is the force used to lift or move a certain pound weight a specific distance in a given amount of time.

It alone however can be misleading as a torque curve for a given engine also plays a huge role in things.

In short you can buy a 20 horsepower lawn tractor that has a very small torque curve or you can buy a John Deere model A tractor built in the 40s and also rated at 20 (or so) horsepower with a 321 cid 2 cylinder engine and can plow a field.

I can't find it for the 4-8-8-4 locomotive of the Union Pacific, but according to this book, there is a number from 1911, from the 2-10-10-2s used by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, in which the traction force was 111,600 pounds.  (The 4-8-8-4s came into being in 1941, thirty years later.)

[Chris_]

But if they're covered up, they hold no interest.

They do the same thing to cars now, ostensibly as a way to reduce noise pollution.

[franksolich]

They do the same thing to cars now, ostensibly as a way to reduce noise pollution.

I have lots of photographs of the parents, circa 1940, with streamlined steam locomotives of the New York Central and those electric units from the Pennsylvania Railroad, but they don't hold any fascination, because all's covered up.

I dunno if steam locomotives beginning in the late 1930s were covered up for any reason other than the then-"streamlining" fad.

[BattleHymn]

I have lots of photographs of the parents, circa 1940, with streamlined steam locomotives of the New York Central and those electric units from the Pennsylvania Railroad, but they don't hold any fascination, because all's covered up.

I dunno if steam locomotives beginning in the late 1930s were covered up for any reason other than the then-"streamlining" fad.

Do you have any good photographs you'd be willing to post of the streamlined steam locomotives?  Those are pretty, but in a different, less mechanical way.   

[franksolich]

Do you have any good photographs you'd be willing to post of the streamlined steam locomotives?  Those are pretty, but in a different, less mechanical way.   

Yeah, I do, and I plan to scan and post them here circa Wednesday or Thursday, Thanksgiving Eve and Thanksgiving.  I don't have the time to dig them out and scan them at the moment.

But I'll find some good ones and get them up.

[FreeBorn]

Those UP "Big Boys" are truly marvelous and stunning examples of engineering, and just plain freakin' huge ta boot.

The New York Central ran several 4-6-4 "Hudson" locomotives, the biggest on that line into the 1960's. Several other lines ran Hudsons too. A few are still operational.

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/hudson/

A few years back I checked out a multi tape VHS set from the library on the NYC line in its steam days. Cool stuff.
These giants from the latter days of steam were the apex of engineering in their day. Forget the images in old western movies where the fireman would be shoveling coal by hand into the fire box and water was added at the depot from a tower with the train at a standstill. These latter day monsters were way past that. Coal was constantly fed from the tender to the firebox by an automatic auger, the guy with the shovel was out of a job by then. Water could be taken on by a Hudson at 70 mph via a scoop that lowered down into a trough between the tracks that might be a mile or more long at a rate of hundreds of gallons in seconds.

http://jimquest.com/writ/trains/pans/scoop2.htm

If kids in the 60's and 70's held astronauts as being the stuff of legend the same could be said for the way kids in decades past looked up to railroad engineers, they were like rock stars. My dad tells of running to the outskirts of town when the whistle was heard and the daily was rolling by his home town. The engineer would throw flares down to the boys as the train passed. I can imagine the uproar if something like that were to happen today, tossing a handful of flares to ten year old boys! 

[BattleHymn]

Yeah, I do, and I plan to scan and post them here circa Wednesday or Thursday, Thanksgiving Eve and Thanksgiving.  I don't have the time to dig them out and scan them at the moment.

But I'll find some good ones and get them up.

OK, thank you!  Also, I didn't mean to sound impatient, if I did.  Your pictures are always interesting.    

[BattleHymn]

Water could be taken on by a Hudson at 70 mph via a scoop that lowered down into a trough between the tracks that might be a mile or more long at a rate of hundreds of gallons in seconds.

There's a new one to add to the list of horrific ways to die:  death by steam locomotive water scoop.   

[franksolich]

Ooops, I see I messed up on my terminology; I was going by memory of what I read, and the memory's not always accurate.

It wasn't 4-6-2s used in the eastern states for passenger trains, although they had been, earlier.

It was 4-6-4 "Hudsons," as you described, sir.

I was thinking the Hudson was a 4-6-2, but I was wrong.

I'm not sure why the trailing wheels were of such importance, but for reasons of physics, obviously they were.

For example, while a 2-8-0 could be used to pull a passenger train, if one didn't have to use it, one didn't.  

I'm curious as to the rationale--there obviously is an eminently practical reason--for trailing wheels; I just assume they were good for equilibrium and stability, but beyond that, I have no idea.

[franksolich]

OK, thank you!  Also, I didn't mean to sound impatient, if I did.  Your pictures are always interesting.    

No, you didn't sound impatient, no way.

Actually I'd anticipated someone would ask, and so had already planned to; it's just that this evening I'm involved with too many other things that involve earning my keep.

So look again in a couple of days; they'll be here.