Talk:Fireless locomotive

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	June 24 2006

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Compressed air locos

In the UK, compressed air locos are called compressed air locos and the term fireless loco is reserved for fireless steam locos. Is this a UK/US usage difference? Biscuittin 07:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Natronlokomotive

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natronlokomotive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.103.7 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From this Google translation I discovered that the "Natronlokomotive" was a rail vehicle propelled by steam generated from the heat given off when water is added to NaOH (Caustic Soda). Sounds like a health & safety nightmare! Unfortunately, the google translation is probably inadequate as the basis for an English article since numerous important details have not translated well.

So, we just need a German-speaking editor to offer help...

In the mean time, the German article could be included as an external link or a summary in a section?

EdJogg (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there were only four engines built, and that they operated only a short time, but had certain advantages over the horse drawn urban railways of the time. I guess there should be a section about experimental alternative designs if we want to include the Natronbahn in this article.

If anyone wants to prepare a draft, I'd be willing to proofread it. I'm just too lazy to do it all on my own, as the German article is quite big compared to what would be appropriate to include here. Or someone just draft up an outline of what to include, and I'll fill in the details.

Oh and about the "health & safety nightmare!": Caustic soda can be bought in any hardware store even today. And back then people weren't as paranoid about chemical substances yet. Also bear in mind that in those times steam boilers still used to blow up regularly, which is not a nice thing if it's moving along the street in front of your house.

--BjKa (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crapipedia

This article states: "intends to operate it as part of a demonstration freight train during Summer 2009." Uh, it's summer 2010 as this is written so how is this speculation encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.235.68 (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the correct response, bearing in mind that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", would be to look up the railway's website, realise that there's no information about the loco, and delete the text from this article, since it is clearly meaningless now. This would have taken little more time than it did for you to post your message.

Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out the error. The article has been corrected. That's how, and why, Wikipedia works.

EdJogg (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compressed air locos again

When air expands it gets cold so there is a risk of icing up the cylinders. I've been told that compressed air locos are always worked at maximum cut-off to minimise expansion of air in the cylinders. This would reduce the risk of icing but would also reduce the efficiency. Can anyone confirm this? Biscuittin (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you are right, and not only that; it would reduce the range between refills. Roly (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder layout

I believe that the reason for putting the cylinders at the back is to equalise weight distribution because, on a fireless loco, there is no firebox to balance the weight of the cylinders. American locos, with the cylinders at the front, would probably be nose-heavy but this could be corrected by ballast under the cab floor. As US railroads usually allow higher axle loads than European ones this would not present any problem. Can anyone confirm this? Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but it doesn't sound right to me. OK, there is no firebox but there is no smoke box either and there is still a cab. Surely, the easiest and best way to ballance the weight on the wheels is to get the wheels in the right position in the first place. There is no firebox to get in the way of the wheels. It does make sense to me to have the cylinders at the cab end, where all the controlls are. However, I'm no expert on these things so I may well be wrong. --Roly (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

France and Belgium

French Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on the fireless loco (locomotive sans foyer) although it is mentioned in the article on Léon Francq. La Meuse, in Belgium, built some very impressive 0-8-0F locos. I will try to write an article for French Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the French article. I hope it is comprehensible. Biscuittin (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dioxide loco

This is original research, so I'm not putting it in the article, but I wonder if anyone has heard of it. The idea is to take a conventional fireless loco, part-fill the drum with water as usual, and then dissolve carbon dioxide in the water under pressure. The engine would then be run like a compressed-air locomotive. Advantage: I think the quantity of energy lost as heat would be smaller than with a compressed-air locomotive. Disadvantage: The drum would contain carbonic acid which would cause rapid corrosion. One might need a non-metallic drum. Biscuittin (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, but it sounds interesting enough to look into some numbers. It seems the carbon dioxide loco may run a little further than one on compressed air. However, the main advantage of fireless steam or compressed air locos is that they are safe in a confined environment. The carbon dioxide loco will emit cold carbon dioxide gas, which will stick to the floor and therefore is particularly unsafe in a confined environment. PiusImpavidus (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fireless locomotive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crownsheet

   Under the heading "Current Use" there is this regarding the crown sheet of a steam loco; "The primary cause of a locomotive boiler explosion is the depletion of boiler water,…, exposing the crown sheet directly to the flames of the firebox, …" Well, no.

  First I am a fully certified steam locomotive fireman so I feel I am qualified to discuss this error.  The crown sheet is ALWAYS exposed to the direct flames in the firebox, that is a large part of what heats the water. Where the problem arises is when the boiler side of the crown sheet is exposed (meaning the water is no longer covering it). The locomotive I normally fire runs a pressure of 190 PSIG and from memory - because Wikipedia does not have a usable steam table anywhere - this is a water temperature of around 385 degrees.  As long as the water covers the crown sheet the metal cannot rise to a temperature that is more than the water or in my example 385 degrees.  When the cool (relative speaking) water runs off of the boiler side of the crown sheet, do to extremely hard braking or a low water level in the boiler, the metal almost immediately reaches firebox temperature.  This softens the steel allowing staybolts to pull through and any thin or weak areas to split.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7705:75E0:3555:EEB3:B289:4C11 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this sentence to clarify the meaning. --Roly (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]