Thoughts on the future of the real DHR how it could affect our version of it

[narrowgauge]

I have been thinking about the DHR and our portrayal of it and what the future holds for them both. My mind started going down this track, just blowing smoke but it may be of interest.

Consider a near future world where oil has become too expensive to use for transport fuel, what there is, is reserved for conversion to plastics to feed the world wide hunger for electronics. India is reputed to have the largest coal reserves in the world , so with coal fired power stations and possibly new nuclear ones, electricity would seem to be an assured source of transport energy.

Existing railway routes would be electrified with catenary and there would be a corresponding increase in coverage following the almost worldwide demise of personal auto transport, road freight and passenger air transport. Short country spur connecting lines could be equipped with battery powered rail cars. By this time, battery technology would have surpassed today’s level so coupled with solar panels; non-catenary electric rail transport is feasible. Third rail is not to be considered

So, that is the world we are looking at. How does it affect our DHR. Could we or should we make this a project

The DHR, like other hill railways still provide access to hill towns, in our case Darjeeling, and as there are no other rail lines to it, and the Cart road is almost bare of cars and trucks, the Indian Government is faced with two choices, 1: Abandon Darjeeling and all the towns down to the plains, or 2: Support the DHR and the changes needed to perform its now vital function of supporting the hill town.

It should be remembered that by now the hill population could have doubled or even trebled making the task even more onerous. Darjeeling and surrounds are important to India for religious reasons and being almost on the Northern border could be lost to India if abandoned.

I suggest that they could only accept the second choice. What would they do?

1: Relay the track to the same gauge but heavier rail.
2: Build improved protection against earth and rock slides.
3: Place wind generators wherever possible to help with local power loads
4: Lay catenary from top to bottom and use electric passenger sets and freight locos. (Discuss this, there could be problems)
OR
4: They could revert to steam using advanced versions of the B class and possible modern versions of the Garratt, or the Kitson Meyer principle which may be better on the tight curves.
4a: Passengers could be conveyed using battery electric cars, a consist of passenger cars and a separate battery box/ power car combination vehicle. These would only run short legs, at each small town they would uncouple the battery/power car and connect a charged one to continue. Coming down hill could probably be done without recharging, using regenerative braking. Urgent light freight could also be carried the same way
4b: Although not railway related, cable transport would be re-established.

Should we consider a project to reflect these and other probable changes in a 'futureized' version of the DHR?

Peter

 

[gremlin1812]

I have been thinking about the DHR and our portrayal of it and what the future holds for them both.

G'day Peter, I did not know that there were two versions, there is the original from the DHR site and the TS12 update but essentially they are the same. Is there one I have missed out on?
Regards
Barrie

 

[wva-usa]

Since biocoal is a renewable energy source and also CO2-neutral, steam powered locomotives could return to the rails in the future, performing work in places where catenary isn't installed. But their form would likely be a bit different from the steam locomotives of the 20th century.

 

[narrowgauge]

Barrie

There is only one DHR route, and essentially three build versions, the original made for TRS2004, then an update that took it to trainz-build 2.7 and now the latest that brought it up to build 2.9. What you see now is exactly the same as the original.The only changes have been to make the route compatible with the later requirements, there were no changes to the appearance or function of the route. Each of those stages still exist.

What I discussed in my rambling was the possibility of making a future based version based on what-if oil ran out. Then there would be two distinct versions, the unchanged original and the new version based on the original but altered to reflect the possible what-if changes.

Trainz makes it possible to portray the past, I see it as a way of portraying a possible future involving trains. For a long time tha DHR was 'frozen in time' , I am suggesting that we unfreeze it and project it beyond 'now'. Man's changes superimposed onto an almost unchangeable land. It could be a major task and come to nothing, it is just a thought.

wva-usa

We have a perfect canvas to show what could happen and how a nation reacts to it in a completely non-political way.

Peter

 

[clam1952]

Interesting Idea, especially as the DHR is currently split in half due to the landslip problems as is the Hill Cart road so they are going to have to do something to get the line repaired, it appears though that nothing is currently happening. The DHR is an International heritage site so something will probably get done at some point.

Modern Garratt type locomotive? there is actually a project in the UK, from the guy who initiated the Ffestiniogs New build Manning Wardle Lyd, for a new design Loco based on features from the Garratt and Fairlie designs. Info in following link, need to scroll down a long way to see the article, Fairratt a new modern Steam Locomotive project http://www.launcestonsr.co.uk/news.html. Reason I'm mentioning this is it includes a draft schematic for the design and it's a 2ft loco. With the designers Track record on loco's this is quite likely to get built. Even if it doesn't it could make an interesting template for a "new" Trainz DHR loco?

 

[teddytoot]

An interesting project. Fairratt? It looks more like a Kitson-Meyer to me, even down to the rear exhaust funnel.

 

[frogpipe]

Electric is an interesting idea. Maryland and Pennsylvania RR had short lived dreams of electrification in the early 20th century, prior to WWII. Aside from probably driving the whole affair into receivership - I've often wondered how things might have gone if they had.

 

[narrowgauge]

Malc

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure that this will be much of an advance in steam loco design but we can only wait and see.

I'll stick my neck out and give my idea of the way to go.

I would suggest a two bogie design with a flat-pack high speed eight cylinder (opposed four) under the boiler driving the axles through a variable capacity hydraulic pump at each end of the crankshaft which in turn drives hydraulic motors on each axle. The axle motors would be connected in series so that all axles are constrained to rotate at the same speed. The variable gear effect of the hydraulic pump would maximise starting effort and then allow high speed running. The steam 'motor' would be optimised to run in one direction, reversing would be done by changing the oil flow. The steam motor would be single acting short stroke and would not need crosshead slides and piston rod seals. Valving would be by poppet valves with variable timing. In effect a standard combustion engine design. The entire motor assembly could be designed to slide out to one side for service, hydraulic lines would have self sealing couplers so a service would be a slide one out and slide one in affair. The motor could be serviced and tested in the shop while the engine is still in service with the replacement motor unit.

This design would have variable power by changing steam flow and cutoff, and stepless variable gear ratio through the hydraulic pump. No hammer blow on the track, no need for big wheels for high speed, or heavy connecting and coupling rods thrashing around. No need for an oil-around with a completely sealed pump lubricated steam motor and self lubricated drives

What do you think.

John

I think you are right. It is a longer wheel base Kitson-Meyer. I don't see any Fairlie in the design at all but the increased fuel and water capacity would be an advantage over the basic K-M design. I can forsee some slipping problems of the two axle bogie wne the fuel/water load is low. Interesting to see how they cure that with the proposed traction control. One thing I don't like is the lack of pilots. The VR Garratt had pilot bogies at the outer ends but nothing to guide whichever steam unit was trailing, and was reputedly a track destroyer. This is more critical on the tight radius curves of a narrow gauge line.

Frogpipe

Catenary would probably be the better solution to but the lush growth could be a problem. While our DHR portrayed the lower section as almost park-like, while in reality, as seen in the DVDs, the train runs through a green tunnel in many places.

Peter

 

[ZecMurphy]

Not only were the G's (VR Garratt's) track destroyers, they're flange destroyers as well...

The pony tracks are most certainly not dead weight, they help to guide the driving wheels into a curve, which greatly reduces the flange wear on the driving wheels. The leading and centre driving wheels on each engine unit wear normally, whilst the 'rear' drivers (the 'inner' ones) had worn about twice as fast. PBR installed flange lubricators (graphite sticks IIRC) to help combat this, but last I heard they were still wearing faster than the leading driving wheels. The NA's, with poly trucks at both ends, don't have this issue.

Remember, driving wheels are generally larger, and hence the wheel tires are a lot more expensive than pony trucks...

Regards

 

[clam1952]

Now that seems like a very revolutionary idea, sounds quite feasible, I like the idea of using hydraulics and anything that reduces track wear or damage has got to be an advantage,
I assume that it probably wouldn't need too much in the way of a boiler compared to a conventional design?

Track destroyers? Having been in the coach directly behind a Fairlie actually two of them doubleheading, a single and a double back in November, Having a clear view out of the end of the cariage with the loco a couple of feet away they do leap about a lot and I mean a lot! you can see them constantly hunting side to side, can't be good for the Track, thinking gauge widening? or the power bogies for that matter, although I know the Ffestiniog / Welsh Highland are mostly using track more appropriate for 3ft gauge not 2ft, The NGG16 Garratts seem a lot tamer from an observers point of view, presumably by having leading and trailing bogies. Think from what I've been told, the worst for track hammer is K1 the Tasmania Garratt.

I agree the Fairratt, doesn't really look much like a Garratt or a Fairlie and if it ends up on the WHR it's got to be capable of handling long 1 in 40's in both directions through heavily forested often wet and slippery areas dragging 9 maybe 10 full coaches, I'm a bit skeptical.

 

[narrowgauge]

Malc

It could be more economical. As you are aware, the cutoff on a conventional engine takes the place of varying reduction gearing. Minimum cutoff, highest steam use. The proposed steam 'motor' could run in full cutoff all the time except when extreme drawbar pull is required. Driving the engine would be like driving an automatic car, run the 'motor' up to starting speed in neutral (no pumped oil), then open the throttle and and advance the pump volume at the same time. The 'motor' never has to start a load from a standing start. Remember, the hydraulic pump gives the effect of stepless gear changes from 100:1 to 1:1, this matched with a constant torque from the high speed motor makes it an ideal setup. Reversing is just a matter of swapping the in-out feeds by a spool valve on the pump. This valve could have a mid position that would allow the hydraulic motors to be disconnected from the pumps and run free, recirculatiing oil directly to/from the oil reservoir.

Combine this with electronic control of boiler pressure, water feed and fluidized coal firing and that would really be a modern steam loco.

You want a loco with more power, just lengthen the boiler and add another plug in 'motor' and additional pumps all on the same shaft in a plug-in/plug out' format. The steam motor itself would be a standard unit available as a spare for any sized loco. change the bogie from two axles to three or four. You can't get better unitized construction than that. As each axle has the hydraulic motor built on to the axle the wheel set itself would be a standard unit

This makes stores control simple, everything fits every loco.

Perhaps I should patent this concept.

Peter

 

[HiBaller]

My goodness, Peter. This is a very thought-filled concept. As you know, I'm currently working on the extension that will add a few miles on the south end and take the line all the way down to the termination point at New Jalapiguri Station. Currently, my progress has been stymied by my operating system suddenly telling me that I have an "Illegal Copy of Windows 7" and refusing to update. Once I get that sorted out (I bought the system new), I'll resume working on the subdivision.

Given the relatively flat (as compared to the rest of the route) country I'm now working on, the addition of battery-powered "mules" could work. They'd be stationed all around the local yards, plugged in to charging stations, and ready for use when a consist arrives.

I am in agreeance that catenary 'might' work in areas where the jungle doesn't intrude. Like most jungles/rain forests, the growth rate is very fast and even overnight vines and such could drop and short out overhead wires. I also agree that third-rail is completely out of the question as there is way too high a chance of electrical shock to people, animals, and such.

Put me down as being on board to at least study ways and means that our TS2012 route (only) could be altered into a 'future' DHR.

Bill