All things considered, compounding worked better in marine & stationary applications as in locomotives whatever savings you got in fuel and water was taken up or exceeded by the costs of maintaining the more complicated compound cylinder/valve arrangements.
Thanks for your comment. A workable superheater was the final nail for compounding. Yet adoption of other marine applications to rail remained a Holy Grail up to the end of steam. There are some things you can't pack into the loading limits, and compounding was certainly one of those things.
@@theimaginationstation1899 Andre Chapelon would disagree with this assessment. In the late steam era, he managed to build some frankly excellent steam locomotives that combined both compounding and superheating technology within the limits of the French loading gauge. Several of them probably still hold the world record for their power to weight ratio compared to other steam locomotives, as well as thermal efficiency (up to 12%, which is phenomenal for a steam locomotive, since most hovered around 6%).
@@andrewlucia865 I'm sure M. Chapelon would, and with good reason - his locomotives may well be the best ever constructed. Yet the North American roads did away with, or simplified their compounds - and utilised superheated simple locomotives through to the end of steam.
Depends of the cost of coal. In France, coal was expensive, as it was either produced locally, in difficult conditions, mines were deep and veins poor, or imported from foreign countries, mainly UK and Germany. There were several trials between simple and compound locomotives through the years, and compound always won, just because of fuel savings and despite its complexity.
That was a masterful explanation of compounding, including those photos and animated cut-away diagrams!🍷 Turns out, it's a great over-simplification to call it simple compounding🤔... until one gets to Part II for comparison. (I watched Part II first, oops) So looking forward to Y6A. TY for this series.❤ 🚂Lawrence
I hope at the end of this compounding series you get to cover the N&W Y6A steam locomotive
The Y6A I saw at St. Louis remains the most impressive locomotive I've ever seen. So it will feature.
Thanks for explaining!
Thanks for the thanks.
very informative video. thanks for sharing.
Thanks Josh!
All things considered, compounding worked better in marine & stationary applications as in locomotives whatever savings you got in fuel and water was taken up or exceeded by the costs of maintaining the more complicated compound cylinder/valve arrangements.
Thanks for your comment. A workable superheater was the final nail for compounding. Yet adoption of other marine applications to rail remained a Holy Grail up to the end of steam. There are some things you can't pack into the loading limits, and compounding was certainly one of those things.
@@theimaginationstation1899 Andre Chapelon would disagree with this assessment. In the late steam era, he managed to build some frankly excellent steam locomotives that combined both compounding and superheating technology within the limits of the French loading gauge. Several of them probably still hold the world record for their power to weight ratio compared to other steam locomotives, as well as thermal efficiency (up to 12%, which is phenomenal for a steam locomotive, since most hovered around 6%).
@@andrewlucia865 I'm sure M. Chapelon would, and with good reason - his locomotives may well be the best ever constructed. Yet the North American roads did away with, or simplified their compounds - and utilised superheated simple locomotives through to the end of steam.
Depends of the cost of coal.
In France, coal was expensive, as it was either produced locally, in difficult conditions, mines were deep and veins poor, or imported from foreign countries, mainly UK and Germany.
There were several trials between simple and compound locomotives through the years, and compound always won, just because of fuel savings and despite its complexity.
That was a masterful explanation of compounding, including those photos and animated cut-away diagrams!🍷 Turns out, it's a great over-simplification to call it simple compounding🤔... until one gets to Part II for comparison. (I watched Part II first, oops) So looking forward to Y6A. TY for this series.❤ 🚂Lawrence
Thanks for watching.
Are you still making a video on the other compound engines?
Yes, did some filming yesterday evening.
So hopefully it's good enough to use.
I won't know until tomorrow.
Thank for the nice explanation
Thanks for watching.
Informative indeed.
Thanks!
Well explained, thanks!
No sweat. There's plenty of other long-winded stuff on my channel. I explain it as if I'm explaining it to myself. Which I kind of am.
Compound locomotives uses the steam twice
Yes, although the TE equation says it's more like they use steam about 1.4 times rather than 2.0 times
@3:58: who woke up the morepork?
I put that in there to check whether people were paying attention.
@@theimaginationstation1899 🤭