Elvas Tower: High consumption coal in Steam Locomotives - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

High consumption coal in Steam Locomotives

#1 User is offline   xavivilla 

  • Apprentice
  • Group: Dispatcher
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 12-May 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails - RailWorks
  • Country:

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:38 AM

I have noticed consumption in Steam Locomotives is extremely high, especially from X3951 versión. Now, for instance, we burn 23,000 lbs of coal...in 15 miles!, whatever locomotive. In my opinión, this is impossible.
Would it be a mistake?

Thank you.

#2 User is offline   longiron 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • Group: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,812
  • Joined: 25-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manasquan, NJ
  • Simulator:Open Rails, MSTS editors
  • Country:

Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:32 AM

Please check out the following thread for more information: http://www.elvastowe...and-coal-usage/

#3 User is offline   Hobo 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Active Member
  • Posts: 618
  • Joined: 19-December 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris,Ont- Canada
  • Simulator:OPEN RAILS & MSTS
  • Country:

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:44 AM

There always seems to be a problem with the operation of a steam locomotive after an engine file code change . WHY ? - - The average Simmer has very few sources of specifications for steamers .
Most use Standard Steam or Steamlocomotive dot and there are very basic specs available . If the engine code for OR is based on those specs then why are there so many ensuing problems ?
The formulas in the code shouldn't require more than those specs available . If some of the extra specs are required by the formulas then why doesn"t OR calculate those internally .

If the Simmer has to redo all his steam engine files ever time that there is a code change - - - this could be 50 or more locomotives - - - I believe you will find the support for the steam section of OR diminish greatly because the average simmer is not a " dyed in the wool " rivet counter , technician or mathematician .

This will especially concern the newer generation of Simmers and many of the old timers also .

Give us a template for the required basic specifications that OR demands for comfortable steam operation and performance .

That will satisfy the majority and then the people that want to enhance their locomotive operation can carry on with their extra modifications .

Don't make the steam locomotive a chore to operate . Remember ORTS is supposed to be a pleasurable event to be enjoyed by all - - - not a chore to be enjoyed by a few dedicated perfectionists .

Just my humble opinion - - - - There's a saying in the plumbing community - - -
" The more complicated you make the plumbing - - The easier it is to plug the drain "

#4 User is offline   copperpen 

  • Vice President
  • Group: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,628
  • Joined: 08-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS & OR
  • Country:

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:56 AM

I find no problems with operating the steam locomotives after a code change. Just to check things out I took the NYC Niagara and a 1300 ton test train out for a run on the CTN test route. As expected, if using a medium to high reverser setting it uses coal very fast indeed. Use a low reverser setting and the coal usage drops dramatically. At 50% reverser with 100% throttle it was using almost 10,000lb/hr whereas at 20% reverser it was only using just over 5000lb/hr and running steadily at 59mph on level track.

I see nothing wrong with the OR steam code regarding fuel and water usage at this point in time. It is all dependent on train weight, track grade and control settings.

As long as the data in the eng file is correct, and the driving style is not heavy handed, there should be no need to go making changes to eng file data unless there is a fundamental change to the OR steam code, and I cant see that happening unless something else is discovered that has been missed out.

#5 User is offline   jmlozano 

  • Apprentice
  • Group: Switchman
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 14-November 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:37 AM

Good morning.
Thank you for your explanations. My good friend Xavi has been writing previous questions until I've been able register.
Perhaps I have not kwnown to explain well this problem.
In Spain, we say "one image is better that one thousand words" But I can't upload two consecutive screenshots (I don't know why) where you could watch what I mean. I would agree with you throttle is very open and cut-off too much high; but you could see with a coal use of 2.8 metric tons per hour, we have used... a 50 % coal capacity tender! in only two minutes trip! Coal capacity tender is 32 metric tons. A simple mathematical operation show us this is impossible.
Well, I hope I've been able explain well what I mean.
Thanks again.

#6 User is offline   xavivilla 

  • Apprentice
  • Group: Dispatcher
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 12-May 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails - RailWorks
  • Country:

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:38 AM

This pictures

Attached thumbnail(s)

  • Attached Image: Open Rails 2017-11-15 10-02-32.jpg
  • Attached Image: Open Rails 2017-11-15 10-04-32.jpg


#7 User is offline   slipperman 

  • Conductor
  • Group: Active Member
  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 09-February 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Nottinghamshire
  • Simulator:MSTS & ORTS
  • Country:

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:36 AM

Hi xavi & jmlozano,
Travelling at 42.4 mph, I would have expected the Reverser setting to be quite a lot lower than 71% - something between 30% & 40%.
Also, why is the Engine Brake showing Release 53% - shouldn't it be 100%?

Cheers,
Ged

#8 User is offline   jmlozano 

  • Apprentice
  • Group: Switchman
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 14-November 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:30 AM

Hello.
Well, I was testing a spanish freigth locomotive "Santa Fe" class, in bad conditions: 21" gradient, and pulling 780 metric tons freigth train. I used original route Europe 2 of MSTS. In normal conditions, I never open cut off 70%. I would like 25 - 40%, in according to gradient.
Brakes to 53%? yes, I'm sure I have forgotten release them; I have to learn a lot yet.
I love to study locomotive fisics; test their limits. And for this motive I do these test.

Thank you.

#9 User is offline   steamer_ctn 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • Group: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 24-June 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:09 AM

View Postxavivilla, on 15 November 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

This pictures

In effect the locomotive is exceeding its capabilities.

You will notice that the locomotive is using 42t/h of steam, but only producing 26t/h of steam. Eventually you will start to drop boiler pressure, and stop. This is also the reason why you are using some much coal as the locomotive is attempting to meet your requirements to produce more steam by burning much more coal.

To do a realistic performance test you need to research or find the following info about the steamer -
i) Load
ii) Gradient up which the locomotive is climbing
iii) maximum speed that can be maintained when climbing the grade.

A good working timetable might help with this information.

For example in some testing that the OR test group has done, one older style locomotive could only haul 200 tons up a 1 in 60 grade at a maximum speed of approximately 25mph. More modern locomotives might achieve perhaps 2x this performance as a rough estimate. Often locomotives needed to "double head" on steeper grades if the train tonnage was to be maintained.

Trying to drive flat out up a gradient with too large a load is sure to fail, so in your scenario you will need to either reduce your load or your speed or both.

#10 User is offline   steamer_ctn 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • Group: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 24-June 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:34 AM

View PostHobo, on 14 November 2017 - 07:44 AM, said:

If the engine code for OR is based on those specs then why are there so many ensuing problems ? The formulas in the code shouldn't require more than those specs available . If some of the extra specs are required by the formulas then why doesn"t OR calculate those internally .

The OR code is based upon a philosophy of two types of configurations - BASIC and ADVANCED.

BASIC uses the readily available information such as what you have described This then defines an "average" configuration.

ADVANCED allows "rivet counters" as you call them to explore more deeply the performance of the locomotive.

Steam locomotive were always empirically designed, ie they were built and then tested to check performance. There were a number of design ratios used, however these were only approximations and often varied. Hence no two locomotives ever performed exactly the same.


View PostHobo, on 14 November 2017 - 07:44 AM, said:

If the Simmer has to redo all his steam engine files ever time that there is a code change - - - this could be 50 or more locomotives - - - I believe you will find the support for the steam section of OR diminish greatly because the average simmer is not a " dyed in the wool " rivet counter , technician or mathematician .

There shouldn't be a need to deviate from the BASIC configuration with any of the code changes, unless the user elects to change the settings.

View PostHobo, on 14 November 2017 - 07:44 AM, said:

Don't make the steam locomotive a chore to operate . Remember ORTS is supposed to be a pleasurable event to be enjoyed by all - - - not a chore to be enjoyed by a few dedicated perfectionists .

I agree that it shouldn't be a chore to operate, however some realistic expectations of the locomotives capabilities need to be understood.

For example, it will only cause frustrations for ALL concerned (users, and those trying to assist them), if say, an unrealistic attempt is make to climb a 1 in 30 grade, with a 1000 ton load at 70 mph.

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users