Seeing as there has been quite bit of discussion about DMUs/EMUs recently, how possible would it have been in theory to build a Steam Multiple Unit? From a health and safety point of view underfloor fires would have been a big no-no but you could have a "fire car" to produce the steam which would then be distributed throught the train to power the wheels.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Steam Multiple Unit
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Try this one: http://www.railmotor93.org/homepage/homepage.html
or that one: http://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/sentinel.shtml
Think HSE wasnt so important in the 1920's!
or that one: http://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/sentinel.shtml
Think HSE wasnt so important in the 1920's!
Ploughman
Established Member
Not forgetting the ex Egyptian Steam Multiple unit at Quainton.
http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/smu.htm
http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/smu.htm
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Yes you have beaten me to it. I seem to remember that the GWR were at the forefront of this sort of thing. Not going for the fastest / sexiest but going for powerful steam engines and practical solutions to boring old branch lines. Only leaves me to point out that these are probably superior to a P*c*r.
The Colonel
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 261
That is the nearest thing you are going to get, but strictly speaking its not a multiple unit as I very much doubt two could be controlled by one driver at the front - more a self contained train.
In theory, there is nothing to prevent a steam power unit (e.g. oil-fueled)from being remote controlled hence a multiple unit should be possible. This could even include remote control of various steam power units. I doubt that fire management would be a real issue. Equally, I doubt such a solution would be cost effective.
Now a steam power-pack running on an environmentally neutral or beneficial heat source ...
Nuclear powered trains?
D5185
New Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 4
You could argue that a Garrett is actually a multiple steam engine, but not within the spirit of the question. However a GWR auto train with two coaches with the auto tank sat in the middle does fit within the spririt of it.
Smudger105e
Member
Although not strictly a MULTIPLE unit I guess...
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Lovely picture of a steam unit that is. Looks as feasable as a P*c*r only it was invented long before. Its still a unit just as a 153 is !.
I was going to say somthing about steam - is it really about coal/alternative fuel ?. Decided to start a new thread ("Future power for trains").
I was going to say somthing about steam - is it really about coal/alternative fuel ?. Decided to start a new thread ("Future power for trains").
Andrew Nelson
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 702
All trains (Electric) are bSteam Powered anyway.
lm321412
Member
Don't show it DfT, we all know where it will be going if they catch sight of it!
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Surely a loco plus auto-coach(es) is, by definition, a multiple unit?
starrymarkb
Established Member
In Switzerland mostly Water powered!Peter Sarf
Established Member
No worries, all we need is someone like Fred Dibnah (bless his soal) to compete against Hitachi.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
We had someone posting a similar thought on here earlier today.
Its simply wrong.
Firstly, much power generation uses steam to transfer the energy from the burners to the turbines by steam, that's true. But it is merely a means to transfer the energy. Some systems use other gasses or fluids under pressure. But the energy comes from the fuel reaction (not the steam, water, gas or other medium).
Secondly, some power generation requires no high pressure gas or fluid channel between energy capture and electric generation. Consider the many hydro electric stations, wind and emerging wave capture.
Thirdly, to refer to the use of steam in a 'simple' coal or oil burning power plant as 'Steam-Powered' is rather misleading: The 'power' is derived from the combustion of the fuel (coal, gas, uranium) and not from the properties of the medium through which energy is transmitted for a tiny proportion of its journey to the consumer.
If you really believed that, then you'd probably be better calling it 'pipe-powered' or 'cable-powered'.
Andrew Nelson
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 702
So, therefore, Steam Locomotives aren't Steam Powered either.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
That really is it. The POWER is provided by fuel, in the case of steam engines the fuel is usually coal but oil or wood has also been commonly used. STEAM is really only the transmission. This is like electric, hydraulic or mechanical transmssions are only the way the power from the diesel fuel, via the internal combustion engine, is transmitted to the wheels. Electric trains are really powered by whatever was used at the power station - can argue though that from the trains point of view electricity is what powers it and what goes on at the power station is not part of the definition.
Thats why I started a thread about future power for trains. Because I thought about the fuel(s) as opposed to the transmission. Steam trains tend to be thought as coal burning boilers that make steam to push pistons in cylinders but any fuel will do - its the transmission that is steam. Diesel trains are thought of in terms of their fuel but not the transmission. But someone else can improve on my ramble.
- Status