Talk:Compound locomotive

separate topic for GWR 4 cylinder simple expansion locomotives?

While it is interesting information, I find that the detail on non-compound GWR locomotive development (eg Star/Castle/King 4 cylinder simple expansion classes) is of little relevance to this topic. Perhaps it should be handled in a separate but linked topic?

Agree. All three of the classes of locomotive mentioned have pages of their own and the “de Glehn trials” by the GWR are covered, albeit briefly, in the Star Class article. One way could be to expand the information on that page. Moonraker88 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, so why has nothing been done since August? Allow me to point out that the discussion on simples takes up 248 words out of a total of 1058 i.e. about a quarter of the article. Whether the Nicholson/Samuel "continuous expansion" locomotive is strictly-speaking a compound locomotive is a moot point. The real pioneer of compounding is Anatole Mallet, so perhaps there should be a word on him. I am happy to participate in improving this article if there is still someone out there.--John of Paris 19:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the forenames of Smith from Frederick George to Walter Mackersie. Also eliminated the link, but a page on W.M. Smith would be worth doing not only re compounds but his work on piston valves. Furthermore Deeley compounds can hardly be considered as Smith/Johnson ones with "slight modifications" - basic engine unit layout was the same but there were radical differences between the two types (coupled wheelbase, grate area, pressure all increased)--John of Paris 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new version

Am trying to rewrite a new version but have encountered an edit conflict with Zzrbiker. Can I ask him and others to read the new contribution and we discuss whether it's worth developing or whether we go back to work on the older version? That will be hard to patch up. My main aim in rewriting most of it was to centre the article on its subject, which has not been the case up to now, even after the "Great Western" paragraphs were heavily edited. To give an example, Wardale has no place in the history of the compound system and I am sure he would agree on that as he has never seen the necessity for it, whereas his mentor, Porta certainly did (as far as I can see this was their main bone of contention). As the article stood, apart from the paragraph on Chapelon's 242A 1 it was altogether a negative take on the subject, certainly not neutral. Why describe compounds as "uncommon"? If we cover the historical period from 1890-1940, compounds, whilst in the minority were by no means a rarity: hundreds were built and successfully operated by many railways throughout the world. They have their place in history and we should try to present as clearly as possible what they were and did.--John of Paris 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict - my only concern was the loss of specific references for some of the information on 242A1, given that use of inline references is one of the criteria for Good Article standards. I agree that the article was quite negative in its POV, and seems to have been largely edited by someone who sees the Great Western Railway as the benchmark for all locomotive practice (thus anything the GWR did not develop was not worth developing). I think the article is a lot better as a result of the latest edits, and if anything has so much new and relevant detail that the History section probably needs some subheadings!

I'd like to perhaps include (or for others to include) further details on the 160A1 locomotive (which like 242A1 achieved 12% thermal efficiency), maybe further information on the 240Ps (which had the highest power/weigh ratio of any steam locomotive) and if possible find further details of the postwar Czech 4-8-2s (which were based on Chalepon's principals and achieved similar levels of efficiency).

Zzrbiker 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, that's what I thought had happened. As I am new to Wickipedia editing I am also grateful to Moonraker for quickly following up to normalise the citations. Re the Great Western bits, I am still waiting to see the Star Class updated - we all have our hobby-horses, if we didn't we wouldn't be here. The thing is to keep them reined in and give the others a fair crack of the whip and make sure that well-researched contributions are not tampered with even if they disturb our pet theories. My own view is that this Compound locomotive article should always be kept short and to the point with links to more detailed articles dealing with specific designers and locomotive types, in other words we whet appetites and open doors. For instance, a thing to do quickly would be to transfer all my "shopping list" of Webb compound wheel arrangements into the Francis Webb article, just pointing out here that he used two distinct layouts. One bit of hair-splitting is that compound strictly-speaking only means double expansion. It is the most common form of multiple expansion, which can be double, triple, quadruple... This applies to mostly to marine applications, but of course there have been rare instances of triple expansion for railway locomotives. According to Nock (The Premier Line), Webb even tried it in 1895 on that long-suffering Trevithick single, naming the poor thing Triplex with desastrous results, but usually triple expansion remained at the project stage, the most recent and feasible being Porta's Third Generation Steam (TGS) scheme of the 1980s and Chapelon had plans drawn up in the 1930s. Agree about 160A1 and the 240Ps. A couple of years ago I worked on a faithful translation of an article in the old French Rail Magazine of Chapelons personal correspondence in which he describes the tests of 160A1 and I may have found an outlet, although such is not easy. As for your your comment below on La locomotive à Vapeur you no doubt know you can get Carpenter's translated version from Camden Miniature Steam Services [http//www.camdenmin.co.uk/]. It's beautifully produced and well worth having just for its own sake - ask Santa.--John of Paris 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other thing I think we do need to have to ensure a neutral article is a detailed discussion of the problems associated with compounding (eg additional complexity in manufacture, operation and maintenance) and the associated reasons for it not being more widely adopted (eg, relatively low cost of coal and high cost of labour in many countries). These are briefly touched on in the opening paragraph(s), but needs further discussion and exposition with examples. (eg the SNCF 141R vs 141P case study of maintenance economy outweighing fuel economy) Zzrbiker 23:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet did this complexity come from compounding per se or the inter-war French engineering approach and maintenance methods? The difference between the 141R and 141 P was as much one of engineering and maintenance methods as between simple and compound. Carpenter furthermore points out that it was impossible to make a fair comparison between the two Mikado types, as the 141Ps, being more powerful, were worked to their limits, and were given heavier and faster trains to work, so their maintenance was bound to be more onerous. So they were are comparing apples with oranges. More valid would be to compare the two types of Nord de Caso 4-6-4: 232R were 3-cylinder simples whilst 232S were 4-cylinder compounds. 232S were more sure-footed and used less coal and water. As for maintenance, at the beginning, both these types had sophisticated rotary cam valve gear and Lentz poppets. That was needless complication and the best of them all was the post-war 232U1, 4-cylinder compound with with Walschaert's valve gear. But what really makes any final assessment of simple-vs-compound very difficult is the fact that Chapelon was never able to build his post-war designs where he really set out to reconcile American mechanical efficiency and maintenance methods with French thermal efficiency. If he had succeeded (and there was every chance that he would have), the argument was settled once and for all. However, the story of steam is an "unfinished symphony", so we really have nothing to go on. Also when you start talking economics, where do you stop? What about things like the effect of locomotives on the track and on bridges and in that field compounds were really beneficial. The only thing we can fairly do in a Wikipedia article on is to explain what compounding was and what was the thinking behind it. How much more neutral can you be?--John of Paris 03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re 242 A1

Zzrbiker, Are you speaking in metric or "imperial" HP (or whateveryecallit)? Riemsdyjk in Compound Locomotive talks of "5500hp in the cylinders and a little better than 4200hp at the tender drawbar". I too will look for more precise info on this.--John of Paris 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to grab hold of a library copy of Chapelon's 'La locomotive a vapeur' which had some detailed performance data on this locomotive, as did the biography 'Chapelon - genius of French steam'. I thought we'd better leave the HP measure unspecified until we had a reference qualifying what the measure of output was (ihp/cylinder hp, rail hp, or dbhp) but it sounds like you may have this.Zzrbiker 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NB: Interestingly, the German Wikipedia 4-8-4 page quotes 5700PS (ie power measured at the wheels) for 242A1 - although it doesn't cite a source. Zzrbiker 23:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't be at the wheelrim, don't think they measured that at the time, unless it was on the testbed. In any case it would always be less than indicated hp. Perhaps it's just calculated - on what basis?.--John of Paris 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

renaming and expanding article

Why was this article renamed without discussion on this page? I see a large amount of text has been added regarding other forms of steam engine compounding, and I'm not sure personally whether that would have been better in a separate article. Certainly the issue should have been discussed first. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to precipitate re-structuring of the steam engine article, which should be the parent for many others. I had suggested that there should be an article on the compound steam engine in general, to take over some of the functions of compound locomotive, and act as a parent that could be referred to from other articles (traction engine, and steam boat, for example, neither of which logically link to compound locomotive). There was a large and comprehensive section on the subject within steam engine, and my suggestion was that the detail could be moved 'here', allowing the original article to be slimmed-down.

I confess I have not examined the edits yet (not much time at present), but my idea was that compound locomotive would remain as an article, but covering solely railway locomotives -- the history and general principles being moved to the parent compound engine (or compound steam engine) article). I am not knowledgeable about the subject, which is why I have had to leave it to others to implement. If there is consensus that we need two articles (general + loco) perhaps someone can 'do the necessary'? (I am in enough trouble for trying to sort out the steam engine article, which has needed restructuring for two years judging by the talk page comments.)

EdJogg (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your suggested arrangement. The history of this article is apparent in its bias towards railway practice, so strong that perhaps a separate article for locomotives is warranted to give full rein to the railway lobby while maintaining a more balanced general (and perhaps more scientific) approach here. Globbet (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to undo this move. There is really no discussion of compounding here, other than to do with locomotives, that isn't essentially duplicative of the material in steam engine. There's simply a lot more to say about locomotives because the application has design constraints that, in the end, made most types of compounding unsatisfactory-- though nearly everyone tried it. I can't really help with the non-locomotive material, but maybe that's the point. Maybe fixing up steam engine will give a better map as to how to deal with the marine and industrial engines. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

scope of article

This article is heavily concerned with railway locomotives and has far too little about compounding in stationery engines and nothing about marine engines. I have just expanded he Cornish engine article based on two recent articles by Alessandro Nuvolari and Bart Verspagen, but feel that I have reached the limit of my understanding. I have tagged the secion on Hornblower and Woolf as a "section-stub". It would be good if some one could deal with these issues. I will probably not be able to. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Split

Now two articles.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links

A bot has just added a raft of interwiki links at Compound engine. Some articles (eg the French, Dutch, and Russian (and the Swedish, at a pinch)) cover more than just railway locos and are hence OK, however the links to pages covering just railway locomotives should be removed. To resolve this will require the links at the far end to be adjusted (when someone has the time...) The same adjustments will be needed here at Compound locomotive, with the more general engine links removed.

EdJogg (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

French locomotives

Moved from article page by Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

a little addition by a french steam locomotives collector: French railways companies, suffering obvious coal shortage for their locomotives, were continued compound steam engines development until their replacement by diesel and electrical traction. Their directors made the choice, both, of highly qualified and dedicated engine's crews, as well as numerous servicing technicians in rolling stock's shops. It's why, during all the twentieth century, french engineers were leading steam locomotive compound design, simply because they were facing to particular conditions that others great railways companies never encountered. The latest superheated compound engines built for SNCF, was the 141 P class and 241 P class, between 1942 to 1952, it were on duty until 1969 for 141 P to 1976 for 241 P. thank you for correcting spelling and grammatical errors without distorting the meaning of this addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.125.188.54 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011‎