|
I'm in Denver at the moment and went to see Big Boy 4005 in the transport museum today. It was pretty good, but unfortunately it's basically impossible to get a nice shot of because there's nowhere to stand back far enough. It was a pretty decent museum but be warned - if your interest is mainly locos and not so much cars, motorbikes and old-timey bicycles then it's probably not worth the admission.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
~Coxy posted:I'm in Denver at the moment and went to see Big Boy 4005 in the transport museum today. Is the Forney (SP?) Museum still around? good lord, that place gave me the creeps back in the day. Some sweet sweet old cars in there though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
That was it! They moved to a new building though, so I assume it used to be even dodgier. Some of the wax figures are still pretty creepy though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Oh thats what that is. Here I hauled this on the 12th. Whoa, is that some kind of new version of the MP36PH?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
On the subject of passenger motive power, the MBTA is getting a bunch of these delivered soon: They put out 4,650 hp, which I believe makes them the most powerful 4 axle diesel electrics in the world? Pity they're so ugly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Where does the front ladder on the pink one go. The second one goes to a door?, the front one goes up to some hand rails. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 03:17
|
|
Wibbleman posted:Where does the front ladder on the pink one go. The second one goes to a door?, the front one goes up to some hand rails. Probably for the conductor to ride
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Wibbleman posted:Where does the front ladder on the pink one go. The second one goes to a door?, the front one goes up to some hand rails. For the homeless guy to get up to the windshield to wash it for his dollar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Practical joke for the new guy, see if he climbs up the wrong ladder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
NoWake posted:Ahh just look at all those perfect rails and perfect ties Make it so you sit in the truck for a few hours waiting for a train. Then you call the DS and they tell you they have 1 more Z train to get through, which turns into 3 more trains. After this, you finally get track and time for 30 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 00:43
|
|
Do any of the sims have MOW operations?
|
StandardVC10 posted:Whoa, is that some kind of new version of the MP36PH? Looks like part of the fuel tank has fallen off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Whoa, is that some kind of new version of the MP36PH? edit: A review of key features makes this appear to be a MP36PH-3C then a review of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPI_MPXpress#MP36PH-3C shows me this quote:SunRail's version will differ from the norm as in addition to being refurbished, it will have a switcher-like body unlike the fully enclosed body standard to the MPXpress locomotives. The streamlined cab will still remain in place though. So yep. B4Ctom1 fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Well, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:Well, poo poo.  Edit: I know smilie-only replies are sometimes frowned upon but I feel like this is an appropriate situation for it. Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
This was much more entertaining on Friday night. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWwencgdvwI seems appropriate. So using an Indian accent for the terrorist train and framing this with Islamic spiritual music.. classy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
From reddit:quote:That, I am honestly not sure of. We have another thing called the HpTa (horse power per ton analyzer) if by some chance you aren't tonned out, the company will helpfully add additional throttle restrictions so you run as though you are tonned out. For example, the train is normally 14000 tons, with two units that on paper show 4400 horsepower each. Now today though, there aren't as many cars, and not as many are loaded, and now the train tonnage is around 10000. Instead of saying, okay, we can actually make some decent time with this train at 0.9 HpT, the company will say you are not allowed to use maximum throttle, you are restricted to the 7th notch, as that will bring your HpT closer to 0.6. Saving fuel. Somehow. Holy poo poo, is that true? That blows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Sounds like the BN. UP uses TPA (tons per equvilant powered axle) and FCS 50. With out going into detail and I'm also on my phone, its basically you can only use notch 5 to maintain speed over 50. Under 50 you can use what ever it takes. Its a velocity/fuel savings calculator that is a good compromise. But usually certain super hot Z trains get exempted on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Illinois Railway Museum trip report. It's good and not too expensive; I had a good time. Unfortunately it is out in Union IL, and the roads are pretty crappy to get there. Secondly, it used to be an electric railway museum and the collection reflects that. The steamers are all in a single shed stacked head to toe, and half of them are all Northerns. Still, they have their own line and regularly run trains up and down it, and riding on them is free with admission. It would be much better to visit when the whole line is running with steam, as opposed to half the line (closed for filming) with an electric subway car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
In defense of IRM's mostly electric operations, it costs the museum a helluva lot less to give people real train rides using an assortment of old "L" cars / interurbans / streetcars than using diesels every day of the week (let alone steam). For some reason lots of filmmakers decided they wanted to film out at IRM this year. A new show on ABC called "Betrayal" shot a short segment there in May or so (a drama about people cheating on each other apparently - the trailer is on youtube, and you can see the scene shot at the museum). Then a chase scene for the next Transformers movie was shot there maybe a month ago, and the stuff being shot out there this week is a commuter train wreck for the "Chicago Fire" show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
I've been to the Illinois Railway Museum a few times, but sadly never when they have steam operating  Pretty cool otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
This picture seems to fit the thread title of "Locomotive Insanity" well:
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
bytebark posted:In defense of IRM's mostly electric operations, it costs the museum a helluva lot less to give people real train rides using an assortment of old "L" cars / interurbans / streetcars than using diesels every day of the week (let alone steam). I can't believe they're making another loving Transformers movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 11:53
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:This picture seems to fit the thread title of "Locomotive Insanity" well: This is awesome, and yet it makes me very sad. The promise of the "future" back in America's heyday was great. Our grandparents had saved the world and were investing in America's future, so that their children would have a better tomorrow. And what did their children, our parents, do to further that legacy? They poo poo on everything their parents did for them, gutted unions and the labor movement, got greedy and gave corporations and the rich all of the power and look at the loving mess we are in because of their short-sightedness. Our infrastructure hasn't been touched since WW2, all of the funding we poured into science and technology has all but dried up, and its only now, in their twilight, that our parent's generation have only started to realize their colossal mistake because they dismantled the very social safety net that their parents broke their backs to build for them. I'll get off my soapbox now, but goddamn it makes me sad to think that the rest of the world is going to pass us by and we'll still be stuck cleaning up the mess our parents made. Maybe our children will get to ride on bullet trains powered by renewable energy...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:This picture seems to fit the thread title of "Locomotive Insanity" well: OK, the fact that I have a PoliSci degree and very little technical knowledge is going to be on massive display here, but: Why NOT nuclear trains? I'm assuming that the #1 issue is cooling, since everything nuclear powered seems to need a huge amount of water to stay cool and is either located next to a body of water (every power generating reactor I can think of), or is floating in a body of water (the Navy). Is safety an issue too? We don't want a nuclear train to derail and have very bad things happen? I'm not sure what kind of containment or automatic SCRAMing capability you'd need. But if you can produce a reactor that doesn't need gross amounts of room temp water to stay cool, and has some kind of failsafe on it in case of an accident, trains seem like an ideal land -based application of nuclear propulsion. I assume that's too big of an IF to be addressed, though. stealie72 fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
First guess: NIMBYs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:OK, the fact that I have a PoliSci degree and very little technical knowledge is going to be on massive display here, but: Why NOT nuclear trains? Because it's easier, safer, and more efficient to just have nuclear reactors power electrified rails.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:
You could make it aircooled, the faster you go the better the cooling!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
The short explanation is that air-cooled reactors are each a rolling Chernobyl waiting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:Because it's easier, safer, and more efficient to just have nuclear reactors power electrified rails. The only real answer to why nuclear-powered locomotives aren't a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Brother Jonathan posted:Because it's easier, safer, and more efficient to just have nuclear reactors power electrified rails. I've wondered about that, but would continent-spanning electric rails have their own massive set of downsides that keep them from being practical/safe? It would be awesome if everything could run off a third rail or a transit-type overhead wire. EightBit posted:The short explanation is that air-cooled reactors are each a rolling Chernobyl waiting to happen. That's sort of what I figured, but I wondered if it's an inherent problem, or a problem with our current level of nuclear technology. All of this daydreaming comes from wondering how to not run trains on fossil fuels, because trains seem like the most sensible transport to use alternate fuels (as opposed to cars, planes, etc).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
For more information about air cooled nuclear reactors, see this awesome (and terrifying) wiki entry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:For more information about air cooled nuclear reactors, see this awesome (and terrifying) wiki entry. HAH. That was all entirely controlled. How about one that broke out of control and caught fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:I've wondered about that, but would continent-spanning electric rails have their own massive set of downsides that keep them from being practical/safe? It would be awesome if everything could run off a third rail or a transit-type overhead wire. Japan is all overhead wire including freight and was nuclear powered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:For more information about air cooled nuclear reactors, see this awesome (and terrifying) wiki entry. I am all for a nuclear ramjet train that poisons everything around it with fission products. EXTREME TRANSPORT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Trains derail with frightening regularity. Nuclear reactors require extensive training and oversight to operate. Crew size would likely go up. Unions would be in a place to hold the railroads over a barrel forever. Reactors weigh a significant amount. Coolant weighs a significant amount. The cost per locomotive would increase exponentially and would likely require a government license to build and operate. Because power costs more, you can't afford as many locomotives so you have to run longer faster trains in order to keep volume up. Spent nuclear fuel has long term costs associated that probably bring its actual cost closer to or greater than diesel per ton/mile or whatever metric you want to use. The cost to the customer increases(significantly) for little real service gain. You still need to operate diesel-electric engines to service local industry and do yard work. etc. edit: Atomic locomotives would be pretty cool but if it was so infeasible that the Russians didn't make one than there is no way they would have in America. CharlesM posted:Japan is all overhead wire including freight and was nuclear powered. Japan is much smaller and more densely populated than the United States. I'm at the REDI right now for a HAZMAT class. Tons of new conductors wandering the halls in yellow hats and new trainmasters sitting in endless classes. As lovely as being a trainmaster might be, I still want to transfer out of intermodal when I can. I loving hate sitting in an office staring at a computer screen waiting for something to happen. vains fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
There's also the fact that any reactor that would fit on a train would need to be using some form of highly enriched fuel. Power generation reactors don't have size restrictions, so they can use less enriched fuel, which isn't suitable for making bombs. All nuclear submarines use highly enriched fuel due to their size. This would make every train a possible target for attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:For more information about air cooled nuclear reactors, see this awesome (and terrifying) wiki entry. Ah, the flying crowbar. What the great minds of the RAND Corporation would get up to in the 50s and early 60s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Pfft just replace the fireboxes on traditional steam locos with closed cycle reactors and a heat exchanger (if you are nice). Most atomic locos would be steam / electric hybrids unless they want to to jack up atomic batteries. I just want to see my Uranium Pacific Big boys ok 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:edit: Atomic locomotives would be pretty cool but if it was so infeasible that the Russians didn't make one than there is no way they would have in America. Well, that ends the discussion for sure. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:53
|
|