Model train layouts: Diesel VS Steam


The Dashing Turtle said:
Thanks for the good info. I don't have a lot of experience being around steamers, but the ones I have personally seen put out quite the smoke trail. Glad to know that not all steamers do that.
Click to expand...
In modern times, firemen tend to overfire a little, so the fans can see the smoke from the steam engine. Back in the day, though, a lot of visible smoke could lead to the fireman in question receiving a summons to the office to explain his wastefulness.
 
Then there's this shot. Part of a railfan event, and the photographers were all asking for more smoke. (As I mentioned, we keep the stack clean.) The fireman finally said, "OK, you want smoke, I'll give you smoke!" He then tossed sand into the firebox, which scours out the boiler tubes. Only oil burners do this, it gets rid of the soot buildup by essentially sandblasting the tubes. The results were rather impressive. :)

BH1_4736.JPG
 
The typical look is somewhere in between the two extremes, but closer to the nothing visible end. Here #70 is pulling a train probably 5 cars or so, up a pretty good hill. You can definitely see a haze of smoke, but not the huge billowing clouds you often see.

Again, a freight train working at max capacity on a big grade would be different, and likely have a lot more smoke.

BH1_9628-edit-1200.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
modelbob said:
Then there's this shot. Part of a railfan event, and the photographers were all asking for more smoke. (As I mentioned, we keep the stack clean.) The fireman finally said, "OK, you want smoke, I'll give you smoke!" He then tossed sand into the firebox, which scours out the boiler tubes. Only oil burners do this, it gets rid of the soot buildup by essentially sandblasting the tubes. The results were rather impressive. :)

View attachment 59744
Click to expand...

Wow!!! (Got to get o 10 characters(
 
I'm building my first layout in decades! When I was a kid I had bought one or two steam locos because they are so impressive looking and a vestige of a time my father remembers about trains when he was young.

Today I model diesel only (I model about 20 yrs. ago). I want to model things everyone who sees my layout at least somewhat recognizes (especially my nieces!). Having said that I still love to see a well detailed steam loco so I hope they stay around for the rest of my life anyway!
 
modelbob said:
The typical look is somewhere in between the two extremes, but closer to the nothing visible end. Here #70 is pulling a train probably 5 cars or so, up a pretty good hill. You can definitely see a haze of smoke, but not the huge billowing clouds you often see.

Again, a freight train working at max capacity on a big grade would be different, and likely have a lot more smoke.

View attachment 59746
Click to expand...
Bob, it looks like whoever was firing 70 that day knew what he was doing.
 
bnsf971 said:
RW=Real World.
Click to expand...

O.K. Now I get it, RW = Real World as opposed to NRW = Non Real World. Real World; or, RW is life sized trains, where as non Real World is model railroading? bnsf971, do I have it right now? I guess I'd be smarter at this Acronym Speak, if I had a Smart Phone!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a nice arched, concrete bridge in the background with #70. Rail or road?

Seeing these shots of steam trains emitting smoke, reminded me also of a train watching spot just along from the Auckland City railyards of the time, on the main line south, which nicely combined with a public swimming pool known as the Parnell Baths
Parnell-Baths-by-Adam-Tess1_zpsqwjwurng.png

This was nestled between a headland along the foreshore of Waitemata Harbour, a small bay and the causeway (Waterfront Drive) that carried both the road and rail line. You could watch the trains go by while relaxing in the waters of the pool or stand on the pedestrian bridge you can see across the rails to the road on the other side. Great fun to actually stand directly over the trains as they either accelerated away from the yard/central terminus or coasted inwards.
 
Gomez/bnsf971,

Another question for you: Dashing Turtle also used ETA in a message. In RW, ETA used to mean Estimated Time of Arrival. However, where he has used it, it might not fit that definition! Although Dashing Turtle has saved time by using his acronyms, because acronyms have become so common place and an acronym can have several meanings, they are not helpful to at least me and I think likely many others!

I realize this will look like I am ragging on Dashing Turtle and I really mean no harm to him. This is really just a comment that acronyms are confusing in this day and age!
 
NP2626 said:
Gomez/bnsf971,

Another question for you: Dashing Turtle also used ETA in a message. In RW, ETA used to mean Estimated Time of Arrival. However, where he has used it, it might not fit that definition! Although Dashing Turtle has saved time by using his acronyms, because acronyms have become so common place and an acronym can have several meanings, they are not helpful to at least me and I think likely many others!

I realize this will look like I am ragging on Dashing Turtle and I really mean no harm to him. This is really just a comment that acronyms are confusing in this day and age!
Click to expand...

No offense taken. ETA, as used above as referenced, is "edited to add". Yes in RW, your assessment is accurate, and I frequently use it that way. I participate in several fora. In most, these acronyms are commonly understood. I will try to remember to spell things out here so as to not cause confusion.
 
The Dashing Turtle said:
No offense taken. ETA, as used above as referenced, is "edited to add". Yes in RW, your assessment is accurate, and I frequently use it that way. I participate in several fora. In most, these acronyms are commonly understood. I will try to remember to spell things out here so as to not cause confusion.
Click to expand...
On this forum, as well as several RV owner forums I belong to, the older crowd that participates in them is not as familiar with acronyms as the younger, more tech-savvy generation. Hence the confusion.
 
NP2626 said:
I'm not used to being considered Old, at 66!
Click to expand...
I'm 66, and I enjoy being an Old Fart.

The only problem I have is when I'm admiring a Cute Young Thing and the thought suddenly strikes me that, if I'm very very lucky and the wind is at my back, she'll think I'm harmless.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
The Dashing Turtle said:
Understood. I'm not used to being the young'un at 59
Click to expand...

I didn't have a clue as to how old/young you were. My only thought was that acronyms are not always clear and many have multiple meanings. On forums it is so easy to misinterpret what is being said. So, I felt some clarification was needed.
 
I saw the comments on the smoke yesterday on the phone but really hate trying to reply on it. Takes too long.

When I was growing up, I got to ride on a couple of Northern Pacific steamers. One was the Z-5 Yellowstone. One of its last duties was being used for helper service over Bozeman Pass. That sucker was always belching smoke climbing the 1.8% grade. On the other hand, I also got to ride in a Challenger between Livingston and Helena, MT. I can remember my uncle telling me about how you wanted as little smoke as possible when going through towns. I also remember him chewing out the fireman if there was too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top