Steam Cutoff in Driver

I have a few more questions now.

1. How is horsepower and mph affected when the cutoff is moved from 75 to say 37?
2. What powers the blowers and and what are they used for?

1. Not horsepower but tractive effort...
With 75% cut-off, the amount of steam entering the cylinders is quite large and helps develop lots of power for pulling away from a stop or for climbing hills. As the locomotive picks up speed, the amount of steam needs to be cut back to stop the following:-
a. Unneccessary wastage of coal and water
b. levitating the firebed and sometimes lobbing lumps of coal out of the exhaust with the resulting amusement of lineside fires.
c. turning the inside of the firebox from a fire of a suitable temperature (approx 1200 Celcius) into a veritable blast furnance that can melt iron and thus promote the formation of clinker when such molten materials flow down to the bottom of the firebox and come into contact with the colder zones to be found near the firebars.
d. High back-pressure in the exhaust side of the pistons. this means that the locomotive has to spend some of it's energy forcing the exhaust steam out of the exhaust side of the pistons instead of putting it to good use in pulling.

By changing the cut-off to 37%, you reduce the amount of steam going into the pistons. This reduces the exhaust back-pressure in the pistons thus allowing the locomotive to go faster but has the side effect of reducing the available tractive effort.

it also means that points a to c are also taken care of in most respects.

Any driver who doesn't use the cut-off like they should soon gets a shovel round the head for his trouble...

regards

Harry
 
Tractive Effort and HorsePower

I ran the Big Boy + Tender with full throttle (100% regulator) and recorded the speed after 10 seconds, with the following results:
75% Cutoff, 31 mph times 1.467=45.47 fps (feet per second)
50% Cutoff, 25 mph times 1.467=36.67 fps
25% Cutoff, 15 mph times 1.467= 22 fps

Since acceleration=v/t
75% Cutoff, 4.55 ft/sec/sec
50% Cutoff, 3.67 ft/sec/sec
25% Cutoff, 2.2 ft/sec/sec

Total mass of engine/tender
UP Big Boy Loco mass 544310 kg
UP Big Boy Tender mass 37676 kg
Coal 26500*.86 mass 22790 kg
Water 108500*1 mass 108500 kg
Total Weight 713276 kg * 2.2 lb/kg = 1569207 lb
Mass=Weight/g (g=32.2 ft/sec/sec)
Mass=1569207/32.2 = 48733 slugs

Since F=ma
TE (Tractive Effort)=ma, HorsePower=TE*Speed (in MPH)/375
75% Cutoff, TE=221573 lbs, HorsePower=18317
50% Cutoff, TE=178688 lbs, HorsePower=11913
25% Cutoff, TE=107213 lbs, HorsePower=4289

Bob
 
Hi Bob,

That is some very usefull information.

May I copy and paste it too our Steam Espec thread in Creation support.

Alex
 
I ran the Big Boy + Tender with full throttle (100% regulator) and recorded the speed after 10 seconds, with the following results:
75% Cutoff, 31 mph times 1.467=45.47 fps (feet per second)
50% Cutoff, 25 mph times 1.467=36.67 fps
25% Cutoff, 15 mph times 1.467= 22 fps

Since acceleration=v/t
75% Cutoff, 4.55 ft/sec/sec
50% Cutoff, 3.67 ft/sec/sec
25% Cutoff, 2.2 ft/sec/sec

Total mass of engine/tender
UP Big Boy Loco mass 544310 kg
UP Big Boy Tender mass 37676 kg
Coal 26500*.86 mass 22790 kg
Water 108500*1 mass 108500 kg
Total Weight 713276 kg * 2.2 lb/kg = 1569207 lb
Mass=Weight/g (g=32.2 ft/sec/sec)
Mass=1569207/32.2 = 48733 slugs

Since F=ma
TE (Tractive Effort)=ma, HorsePower=TE*Speed (in MPH)/375
75% Cutoff, TE=221573 lbs, HorsePower=18317
50% Cutoff, TE=178688 lbs, HorsePower=11913
25% Cutoff, TE=107213 lbs, HorsePower=4289

Bob
Your accelerations are average over 10 sec so the TE you calc is also average. I know from testing this one that the TE curve at 75% cutoff produced in Trainz actually has a pretty steep slope so the max TE is quite a bit larger than the average over this time period. The BigBoys could develop about 5000 hp so 18000+ is really unrealistic. Since the 221573 lbs is the average TE a better estimate of the hp might be at the avg speed of 15.5mph or 9000+ but still way over.

The problem is not with your figures Bob it's with the steam physics in the game. I calculate the tractive force produced the same way you've done it here calculating the force required to accelerate the mass plus adding in the axle, rolling and air resistances as I normally calculate at the drive wheel rather than drawbar. I use a custom cab script that writes out the data at 0.25 sec intervals.

221,573 lbs is not bad for a loco that was rated 135,000 lbs at starting. Actually I measured more than that in TRS2004 closer to 300,000 lbs starting out. That was the 1st one I ever tested an it started me on this multi year rant on how "accurate" the steam physics is. Of course we can do better now in setting them up but it has taken years and the basic flaws are still there. Train resistance won't amount to too much for just the loco and tender - from about 1500 lbs at starting to 3000 lbs at 31 mph in Trainz.

Bob Pearson
 
Last edited:
I did a test of several locos pulling 50 loaded IC 4 bay hoppers to get a feel for how some of them would perform with a heavy load on a level track. The consist weighed 5647.3 metric tons. The weight column includes the locomotive and consist. Steam locomotives also include the tender and its coal and water. Tractive effort and horsepower vary with speed, throttle setting, and other factors. The values listed in the table are TE and HP for the instant in time when the speed was recorded. Note from the last two entries that one DD40X is equivalent to four GP38-2s. Diesels were run with full throttle. Steam with full regulator and 75% cutoff.

Loco_Table.JPG
 
Last edited:
Bob, the resistance of the 50 car consist will add quite a bit to the TE you calculate. In Trainz it amounts to approx 13900 lbs at 0 mph, 22900 at 16 mph and 30300 at 27 mph. Did you include it in the figures shown or are they just the force to accelerate the train?

The TE produced by diesels can be calculated directly from the throttle-power curves in the engine spec. Trainz uses linear intepolation of those values. Curves are TE in kN vs speed in m/s per notch setting. Steam locos don't have that luxury and have to be determined by tests like these.

Bob Pearson
 
The rolling resistance formula at http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/blclas.Html is
R=1.5+(106+2V)/(W+1)+.001V²
where R is lbs/car ton, W is car weight in tons and V is speed in MPH. The loaded IC 4 Bay Hopper is 124.2395 short tons. Using the BigBoy data from the table above:
at 27 MPH the formula gives 293.4965 lbs/car ton. 50 cars total 14674.82 lbs. Big Boy numbers without and with rolling resistance are:
Without ---- wt=13993267 lbs, TE=191212 lbs, HP=13757
With -------- wt=14015053 lbs, TE=191510 lbs, HP=13788
Adding rolling resistance only increases TE and HP by 0.16% so I ignored it in the table.
To compare this formulas results with yours, for 50 cars weighing 124.2395 tons each, I get the following:
0 MPH - 14576 lbs
16 MPH - 17753 lbs
27 MPH - 21783 lbs

Bob
 
The numbers I quoted are based on what the game calculates which I based on a number of tests carried out in TRS2004. The game follows the standard Davis formulas as I have mentioned before. The values it calculates are a bit on the high side as you can see. This is primarily because the values in the motor section of the default wagon spec are set that way. They could easily be changed but neither Auran nor enough users it seems are very much concerned about it.

I take some issue with the way you treated the resistance force in calculating the acceleration. It is a force not a mass (it does not add to the weight of the train). Resistance is primarlily a frictional force acting in opposition to the motion - it is directed opposite to the direction of the tractive force supplied by the loco.

The acceleration is calculated by dividing the train mass by the net force acting on the train. F = MA as you indicated before where F is the net force. In this case F is equal to the tractive force produced by the loco minus the sum of the resistance forces of all cars and locos in the train. So F = TE - R.
It should be like this:
F = (TE-R) = M/A. Which gives us TE = M/A + R

So the effect of the resistance is much larger than you have indicated above. If we only consider the consist resistance in calculating R the TE we calculate is the drawbar pull. If we add in the loco and tender resistance we will have TE at the drive wheels.

For the BB your resistance will increase the drawbar TE and HP value by 7.7% not 0.16%. Not a huge amount but still significant. In the game based on my calc the BB's output is about 11% more than you calculated. For the other locos it can be much larger. Looking at the Frisco for instance, your resistance value at 0 mph is about 46% of the TE you calculated at 4.8 mph. The calculation is not correct unless the resistance force is included in the way I indicated. The formula I show above is what I use in all my calcs.

Bob Pearson
 
Last edited:
Bob,
My face is really red. My only excuse for how I handled rolling resistance is I was awake all night at my computer messing with Trainz. I'm also really old:'(. Is there any chance I could get a copy of the script you wrote for running performance tests? I used to do a little programming in C about 20 years ago and would like to try my hand at writing Trainz scripts now that I'm retired.

Bob
 
I've left a trail of mistakes over the forums in the past several years so you're in good company. 8-)

I've been thinking about setting up something for other people to use for a while now and just about 6 wks ago decided I definitely want to go forward on this. It consists of 3 things right now: 1) A loco test script that runs the tests and writes out data to the jetlog file. It does very few calculations other that what's necessary to collect and write out data. 2)The data has to be read from the jetlog file after the Trainz session is ended. I have a short Python script that does it for me now. I started using Python maybe 7 years ago and haven't used much else since. 3) The output from that gets imported into excel where the calculations are done and plots generated. I'd like to move this part into the Python script and turn it into a utility to post process the tests.

It won't be any time too soon - I've got 2 projects I want to finish up 1st - but I'll be happy to send you a copy of the cab script and program to read the jetlog file when I start cleaning it up for public consumption.

Bob Pearson
 
Bob,
One last question. The Davies equations and the Baldwin charts all use radius or diameter of the drivers in their calculations. The Auran espec doesn't seem to use them. You have any idea why/how?

Bob
 
Trainz uses linear intepolation of those values. Curves are TE in kN vs speed in m/s per notch setting. Steam locos don't have that luxury and have to be determined by tests like these.

Bob Pearson

Heh..

That's why, if you look at one of my original engine files (before I sent them off to the creators who were going to use them), there are figures for every single mph between 0 and 140mph... I just don't trust the physics engine enough to get it right first time.

regards

Harry
 
Bob, that's the million dollar question. I've found no answers and if Auran knows anything they kept very quiet. As far as the inner workings of the steam-physics is concerned they have divulged nothing in the last 4 years.

I certainly would have included drive wheel diameter in the spec. I don't see how they can calc an accurate TE without it. They would also need to either calculate a stroke length from the cylinder volumes and piston area you input or calculate the swept volume in the cylinder from the same volumes. It is possible to show with a few tests that they don't do either to calculate TE. This is a bit discouaging as I don't see how an accurate output can be generated.

Some other evidence indicates that the system uses a 2m dia drive wheel in the calcs for all steam locos. This can be verified visually in driver and in a script by reading the steam cycle param and calculating distance traveled as it cycles betwen 0 and 2 pi. It would seem to indicate that a wheel dia is used but it's just not the actual one. Since they don't use the input cyl vol or calculated stroke lengh from the input to determine work performed with each stroke they have to do it some other way.

Maybe they assume a stroke length say 1m. This with the 2m dia driver would result in the game's TE being out by a contant factor 2 x actual stroke /actual dia. In the tests I've run the only thing that has a constant multiplier effect on the TE produced that could compensate for this is piston area. Just one more argument that indicates using an actual piston area in the input is not the correct way to do it.

I wish it were as simple as I indicate here but the inflow to the cylinders has a big effect on the starting TE produced. The cylinder vol effects the flow and therefore also effects starting TE. So piston area, inflow and cylinder vol set the starting TE (edit: forgot to indicate we'll set boiler pressure to match prototype and hold that - everything else it seems is subject to change). Cylinder vol and inflow set the water consumption. (edit:remember the 2m dia driver they seem to use - to get correct steam consumption a correction factor would have to applied to get correct number of strokes per unit distance traveled based on that item that wasn't input, wheel dia - tests also seem to indicated this isn't done so cylinder vol generally has to be changed to compensate for it.) And then we have to fix what happens at the high speed end. Its slowly comming together but it could have been so much easier if they had done it right from the start. And why couldn't they give us any guidance. Eric's group spent months trying to make sense out of this and we still don't know.

Sorry for the rant,
Bob Pearson

PS I won't go into some other evidence that indicates expansion isn't modeld and therefore cutoff settings generally won't track with the real loco as far as TE and HP output goes.
 
Last edited:
Bob,
I've been looking at the standard equation for tractive effort, TE=(C² x S x .85P)/D, and wondered how they derived it. An examination of the geometry of a driver and the connecting rod connection gives the following:
The force on the piston is piston area times boiler pressure, PA x BP. The distance from the rod attachment pivot point to the center of the axle is half of the stroke, S/2. The resulting torque is:
Torque=Force x arm length = PA x BP x S/2.
TE=Torque/radius of the wheel=(PA x BP x S/2)/(D/2). Simplifying this becomes:
TE=(PA x S x BP)/D
Piston area equals (C/2)² x Pi = C² x Pi/4 = C² x .79. Substituting into TE results in
TE=(C² x S x .79P)/D
which makes me wonder where did the .85 come from?

Bob
 
Last edited:
On further reflection, the force PA x BP is not a constant but is a function of the position of the connecting rod position and the rotation of the wheel. This force is sinusoidal in amplitude. The attachment points of the connecting rods to the wheels on opposing sides of each axle are at 90° to each other, hence, the total force to each drive wheel is:
F x Sin(a) + F x Cos(a). Sin(a) and Cos(a) vary between 0 to 1 to 0 to 1 to 0 for each complete revolution. The average value for a sinusoidal wave is 0.637 so the force becomes F x [.637 + .637]=1.274 F. The TE equation derived in the previous post becomes:
TE=1.274(C² x S x .79P)/D
Since 1.274 x .79 = 1
TE=(C² x S² x P)/D
The boiler pressure is not applied for the entire cycle since the max cutoff is 75%. Perhaps that is the reason for the ..85 in the original equation. I guess they knew what they were doing after all.:)

Bob
 
Bob, the formula gives the average TE produced over 1 rotation of the drive wheels. It is easier to derrive it by equating the total work produced by the cylinders in 1 complete revolution of the drive wheel to the work done in moving the loco a distance equal to the circumference of the drive wheel. Actually a sinusodial variation of torque is only applicable with infinitely long connecting rods. With normal connecting rod geometry the actual variation is a lot more complicated.

The steam pressure in the cylinder varies form boiler pressure due to a number of reasons not just cutoff. If you want to know the TE at any point in the cycle you need to construct an indicator diagram that gives the pressure acting on both sides of the piston at any point in the stroke and use that with the crank, connection rod and piston grometry to calculate it.

Work is simply force times the distance thru which it moves. Work produced in a cylinder per stroke is the piston area x the steam pressure x the stroke length. The cylinders are double acting so there are 2 power strokes per rotation. Most locos have 2 cylinders but we can indicate number of cylinders as n so the total work is W = n x 2 x PA x P x S. Piston area is pi x C^2 / 4 following your notation. So W = n x pi x C^2 x P x S / 2. (edit: I mention swept volume in a previous post. It is equal to the volume in the cylinder the piston moves thru during the stroke so it's equal to the PA x S and the work done is equal to the swept volume times the pressure.)

We set the average force produced at the rail in moving the loco to TE and the distance traveled is the circumference of drive wheels with diameter D which is pi x D. So the work done is W = TE x pi x D. equating the 2 works gives us:
TE x pi x D = n x pi x C^2 x P x S / 2
TE = n x C^2 x P x S / (2 x D)
If the loco has 2 cylinders then this gives TE = C^2 x P x S / D

P represent the average pressure acting on both sides (back pressure on the exhaust side) of the piston during the the full stroke. If the piston moved at an extreemely slow speed it would be close to boiler pressure. It is usually called the mean effective pressure (MEP) and is always less that the boiler presure. The formula can be used to calculate TE at any speed if the MEP at that speed is known. (Edit: For a given loco MEP is mostly a function of boiler pressure, cutoff setting and piston speed. Calculation of it for a specific loco and speed would require knowledge the valve and piping geometry and details of the valve setup. Not a rivial undertaking by any means. Since piston speed is directly related to loco speed due to direct coupling with the drive wheels, MEP is very dependent on loco speed.) So we end up with:

TE = C^2 x MEP x S / D

The MEP = 0.85 x P (with P representing boiler pressure) normally seen is just an historic standard value for starting/low speed conditions. Some steam locos towards the end of the steam era could in fact develop TE values equivalent to coefficents of 0.92 or a bit higher. It is based on pressure loss from boiler to cylinder and a further reduction due to pressure drop during expansion after cutoff and back pressure and compression effects when the exhaust value closes before the end of the stroke or if the admission valve opens before the start of the stroke. If the valve gear operated with a designed reduced cutoff then the standard coefficient would be reduced accordingly.

In the US maximum cutoff was assumed to be 90% for most locos even though the valve gear was set up to get 82-87% at maximum. The following table is from R. Johnson's book The Steam Locomotive and provides the values that were used by Baldwin in the 1940's. The 75% used as the default max in Trainz wasn't universally used particularly in the US. The max CO value in Trainz can be changed if it is desired to do it for some reason. I think it's better to keep it for now due to other problems like incorrect handling of steam expansion.

Code:
 CO      K
90%    0.85
80%    0.80
70%    0.74
60%    0.68
50%    0.60

Engines designed with reduced max CO often had auxilary ports to admit additional steam at low speeds when starting. Their rated TE would be calculated using an adjusted K value.

Bob Pearson
 
Last edited:
Spiffy101, apologies for rambling on in the post before my last. I was specifically responding to Bob's question about why the drive wheel diameter wasn't a required input in the steam-engine spec. I'll summerize my response here:

I believe the drive wheel diameter should have been a required input in the steam-engine spec and I don't know why it wasn't. I don't see how an accurate TE is simulated without it. From testing and observation it seems Auran uses a 2 meter diameter drive wheel in their simulation and I also believe an assumed stroke length even though an actual one can be calculated from the data that is input. I don't see any way to determine what stroke length is actually used. However it and the 2m drive wheel diameter result in the TE simulated in the game being incorrect by at least a multiplicative constant factor. (In TRS2004) the only way I see to correct this is to use an adjusted piston area.

I'll add - for TRS2006 the new steam-power values can also be used to correct this. But other flaws still remain.

In the last set of posts that Bob and I have typed it's possible to see without understanding everything that the loco's drive wheel diameter and stroke length are important parameters in calculating the TE produced by the loco. The fact that I don't find them used in Auran's steam physics implementation I find discouraging.

I often tend to take these things too seriously and loose sight of the fact that Trainz is after all just a game.

Bob Pearson
 
Last edited:
Back
Top