Talk:Heilmann locomotive

English sources

It looks like the descriptions by E.Hospitalier (Eduoard) were also given in english eg [1] - however I haven't been able to find an online version that is freely available - if anyone does please add them.Imgaril (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A few other references Le chemin de fer électrique, système Heilmann, La Nature, 1891 , La locomotive Heilmann , La Nature, 1897 - probably superfluous. Also Le règne de l'électricité / par Gaston Bonnefont p.280 Imgaril (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Horspower

I removed the convert for some of the horsepower figures from french sources just in case. If someone wants to re-add the conversion then the code is

{{convert|1|CV|W|sigfig=4}}

which gives

1 metric horsepower (735.5 W)

For more general info see Template:Convert

for metric hp, for non metric just use hp. 14:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Field weakening

I realise that the sentence

Electric speed and load control was obtained by reducing the main generator's field excitation current coming from the 10kW dynamo using a twelve step drum rheostat

might be confusing. This type of speed control is well known - I've added a note about the Ward Leonard control which may help - there really should be an article on this, or it mentioned in some article - but I couldn't find it - if someone can fix this then please remove the note, and link to the right place. (The speed control method needs mentioning though as it is one of the most important features of the electric system ) Imgaril (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There isn't (AFAIK) an article on it. I've just been expanding Field coil and couldn't find anything when I went looking. I agree that there ought to be something. I'm not sure that Ward Leonard control is correct though - (motor) field weakening is a much simpler form of this. As the Heilmann locomotive only had one generator, then it may well have used something like Ward Leonard, but that would be quite novel for its time and might even warrant a mention on the W-L page. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Field weakening (in British electric trains at least) before the days of semiconductor control was usually by the crude, but effective, use of variable resistances. These resistances were varied either as switched steps (a notched controller) or as the more expensive rheostat. I've got a really old book on electric motor control somewhere, must dig it out. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Heilmann's (if I read correctly) use (only) field control in the main generator for speed control. The connection I made was that the method used is like Ward Leonard except a steam engine replaces the driver motor, (and the generator excitation comes from a separate steam engine/DC generator). The steam engine was supposed to run at constant speed too which I understand is similar.

I agree it's probably worth mentioning on the WL page - this book notes the similarity Heilmann, Ward Leonard and the electric railway .. also later (1897) Heilman used a pure electric system same book p.45 basically a cycloconverter driven by DC with speed control : quote: "...it was the Ward-Leonard principle with a direct current primary supply" (fairly unambigious - seems to assume all WL systems use a AC drive)

I think that the idea is probably not Heilmanns - and more likely Charles Eugene Lancelot Brown or someone else from Brown, Boveri & Cie which is where he got his 'electrics' from. Heilmann's patents [2] mostly relate to steam-electric traction, distributed traction, and the use of a electric transmissions for high speed trains.

I've no idea if the invention was independently made, copied or whatever. Imgaril (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Drop some notes here in case it needs to go in;

• Ch. Jacquin (1894), "La locomotive électrique Heilmann", p.472 - "Fusée" - comments on the smoothness of starting; p.472-3 - "Fusée" - expected to be driven by 2 persons - more info on this + how to start the engine; p.474 prior tests of three phase motors; p.475 expenditure on the prototype given as 300,000 francs; p.476 CV electric estimated at 500-500 on flat, and 650 on the slopes (in the tests) ie operating at rated power given - but quotes 1200CV rating for generator, and a two hourly rating for motors of 250A (cf 150A max in tests), and claims boiler is capable of 1200CV - states engine is limiting factor powerwise - blames limited power of engine of short piston throw, due to tranverse design, and states that the the societe Heilmann became aware of lack of power when the construction of locomotive was far advanced - states Heilmann's hope to build a second locomotive ~1300CV ; p.477 - notes mass (118t) as disadvantage compared to current steam locos at ~100t max

Beuzeville

Is it Beuzeville-la-Grenier or Beuzeville ?? [3] mentions Beuzeville-Bréaute ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imgaril (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 September 2011

Or indeed any of the others listed at fr:Beuzeville (homonymie). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It definitely is Bréauté-Beuzeville. the other candidate is on the wrong side of the Seine, on the wrong line (Paris-Fécamp). Fabriced28 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Weight of test train

The article says "The test train consisted of the locomotive (fully fueled to 188 tonnes), four new first class carriages, a dynamometer car, and two vans containing one tonne of batteries between them; the total train weight was 173 to 183 tonnes, depending on passenger levels." Should that be "the total train weight was 361 to 371 tonnes" ? And maybe "(fully fueled and weighing 188 tonnes)" to avoid the impression that it carried 188 tonnes of fuel. Ning-ning (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In railway literature, the train weight normally excludes the locomotive. In the specific case of a test train, it would certainly exclude the locomotive, because the testing engineers will be interested in the hauling capabilities of the locomotive under test. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, should the first bit read something like "The test train hauled by the locomotive (which had been fully fueled to 188 tonnes) consisted of…". I must admit, I would have thought the Test Engineers would include the weight of the loco, since it has to haul its own weight around as well. Ning-ning (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake - it should have read "118 tonnes". Regarding the weight I think I have been told in the past that the standard way to quote weight is 3/4 full.. (if that's the case the infobox probably needs the figure of 100+(0.75*18) added. )

From the sources I got an 'empty' loco weight of 100t, a full weight of 118t (which matches the given fuel and water caps of 6t and 12t). A source also gave the boiler capacity as 7t - I assume this is included in the 'empty' weight.

The figure of 173-183tonnes includes the locomotive - it's all in the source - which includes a breakdown of the individual weights - loco:118t, carriages 8 tonnes (4 of), dyanometer (sic) 6 tonnes, 2 wagons 8 tonnes each, + 1 tonne of accumulators (batteries), and a max passenger loading of 10 tonnes..

Imgaril (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about France, but in the UK, loco weights are quoted in "working order". The exact definition of this varies between railway companies, but is typically taken as meaning that: the coal bunker and water tanks are full; the boiler is filled to between 1/2 way up the gauge glass and the top nut (so "3/4 full" could mean "3/4 way up the gauge"); the fire is laid in the grate (presumably "working order" also means that the fire has to be lit, although the flames will make little difference unless the hot air in the firebox and smokebox is lighter than cold); the moving parts are lubricated and oil/grease reservoirs filled. Some unscrupulous locomotive engineers deliberately weighed larger locos when low on fuel and water, in order to be able to quote a lighter weight to the Chief Civil Engineer, so that the range of action could be less restricted. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Run from St-Lazare to Mantes

I have seen a variety of french original sources and have little doubt that eight carriages were used on this run, with people aboard. A dynamometer van was used on the Beuzeville run. By the way Mantes-la-Jolie is appropriately 55km from Paris, unlike Nantes, which is not even on the same rail branch. A report from a Scottish paper on a French event can hardly be more accurate than a french report on the very same event. Fabriced28 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I confused your edit with the earlier test run. There is a diagram from the 9 May run here [4] - the related article is here http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.cgi?ECCMC6.64/796/100/919/902/919 .

The google books link isn't accessible for me. If there is an alternative source please add. The link above quotes a train weight of 60-80 t which can match 8 carriages, but I didn't find it explicitly say 8 carriages, though I may have missed it.Imgaril (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Must be local licence limit from google, sorry. I have another source (http://www.histoire-entreprises.fr/he-le-magazine/la-fusee-electrique-de-heilmann/) but it's not as precise (doesn't cite the historical source as the book does). They both report 8 cars, however. And another (http://trielmemoirehistoire.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189:le-chemin-de-fer-dargenteuil-a-mantes-quatrieme-partie-une-machine-davant-garde&catid=18:sur-lhistoire-locale-et-trielloise&Itemid=25) describes the previous test run of 1 mai 1984 in detail, with already 7 carriages. The only thing unclear to me is which Mantes station was reached during the 9 Mai run: embranchement, mantes-station ? And if "Mantes-embranchement" is the current main station, which is my opinion. By the way, I will definitely translate this work (and adapt sources) for the french wikipedia. So thanks for the work! Fabriced28 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the dynanometer record from 9 May should help with the "which Mantes?" question - fig 6 bottom left - it is arrived from "Nimay" and calles at "Nantes S^T." before arriving at "Nantes EMB^T" - I don't know if these are the same as the current stations as I don't know the history of the line.Imgaril (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Names are Limay, Mantes-Station and Mantes-Embranchement (or Emb^t). Distance between the last two is 1.2km, and it is the same distance between current Mantes-Station and Mantes-La-Jolie. Kilometric points are slightly different due to changes in the Paris-Le Havre line, but I vote for Mantes-la-Jolie. I did not see the bottom curves until you pointed out the "dynamometer record". I had just seen the profile of the line! Fabriced28 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Balance

The article states "His design used a balanced steam engine to drive the locomotive" without further explaining how the steam engine was balanced. The two cylinders of the Heilmann engine are acting on one flywheel, rather than the two driving wheels of a steam locomotive, so that the oscillatory movements etc, are lessened by the distance between the connecting rods being much smaller- or something like that. Anyway, it's a standard stationary steam engine is it not? On an unrelated note, I bet the working conditions were pretty uncomfortable; coal fire on one side, electric heating on the other, with the air filled with ozone and the smell of hot oil! Ning-ning (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Two types of engine were used -if you read on you will see that the first units used a " two-cylinder horizontal compound steam engine with transversely mounted cylinders". The second versions used triple expansion engines - I never got round to expanding or referencing that section - but that engine is also a balanced design. There are images here of both and here of the 'mark2' (fig.9) note how it looks similar from the side to a EMD two stroke diesel..(coincidence) - the 'mark 2' is a six cylinder inline engine - I haven't got off hand somewhere where it says it is balance - but that is stated explicity somewhere - you can see that the engine is of a design that is balanceable. Note that both use different sized cylinders eg Mk1 deep link from Douglas Self 's site - to get them properly balanced they must have added weights (or the thicker construction on the high pressure cyclinder makes up for its smaller size?) ?? - anyway it is possible to totally balance this engine - if (and this seems to be the design) since the "connecting rods" are the same length - the high and low pressure cylinders have the same throw - but different bores.

Yes - both steam engines used were standard stationary engine designs.

The exposed dynamo look pretty scary too- no indication on any drawing of a cover or safety cage.Imgaril (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- misunderstanding on my part, thinking that the cylinders were side-by-side instead of transversely opposed. In both versions weight is balanced through symmetry; I presume the rotating and reciprocating forces were balanced by weights on the flywheel. Ning-ning (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to clarify (when I said it was balancable) - the design keeps the centre of mass in one place (again assuming equal cylinder and connecting rod weights) - but there is a 'see-sawing' rotational vibration due to the "connecting rods" moving up and down (one moves up as the other goes down)- I don't think this can be balanced with a single cylinder pair without using a contra-rotating balance wheel. at all - though I'm starting to confuse myself.

The engine is not perfectly balanced - but tries to be.. - the second attempt uses a much better engine which is close to a modern inline straight six (excluding different cyclinder pressures and construction which complicates things).

Any further queries need the attention of an engine expert. - I'm having to work this out without actually knowing all the details of the steam engine..Imgaril (talk)

Links to articles on this engine arrangement, or stationary generating steam engines would have been useful - but I couldn't find anything - some people call it an "opposed piston" engine for obvious reasons, but the article Opposed-piston engine is about something completely different. Sorry I can make it clearer, but an article on steam engines would be out of my depth.Imgaril (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Boxer engine Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just found a seven page description of the Willans triple-expansion engine, complete with a diagram looking like a steam-punk wedding cake. The writer describes it as a single-acting steam engine with all the parts in compression, by which I take it that the connecting rod gets pushed down by the piston, and then it pushes up the piston. I wasn't doing anything next week anyway… Ning-ning (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean to get round to the Willans engine some time. Fascinating engine. It was just about the final development of the high-speed steam engine (which I also need to finish writing) It had the valves of a high-speed engine, avoiding the problems of wire-drawing if the inlet steam is throttled by restricted ports. In the Willans of course, these were the Willans' distinctive central spindle valve. Like many other high-speed engines it had an enclosed crankcase and improved lubrication, which in turn encouraged single-acting engines. In the Willans though, this was taken to extremes and the tandem cylinders were cascaded, which thanks to that combined spindle valve was an elegantly compact system. Below the bottom piston there's also a buffer cylinder, in which air was compressed to cushion the end of the stroke.

I love your description of it as "a steampunk wedding cake" too. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it a "boxer engine" - I thought that boxer engines had the 180 banks staggered relative to one another - I'm fairly certain that with this engine the piston centres are co-linear -with one connecting rod "forked" to allow this -

Les deux cylindres, qui sont places a egale distance de l'abre, sont calcule pour fournir a peu pres le meme travail. Le piston du grande cylindre porte une grosse bielle reliee a une manivelle unique. Le piston du petit cylindre possede deux bielles de faible section actionnant deux manivelles qui se trouvent a 180 de la manivelle du grande cylinder [5]

(it then goes on to describe a 5 to 6mm additional oscillation of the some combination of the mechanism (Afin d'eviter l'usure des surfaces frottantes, les tirroirs sont soumis a un mouvement lent et regulier, qui leur donne un deplacement longitudinal de 5 a 6 mm.) - to limit wear - is there a general name for this (in english) - is there any article which cover this?Imgaril (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Having to use an automatic translator for this, but I think what the last sentence is referring to is a regular displacement of the rubbing surface so that the wear is spread over a larger surface area. I think this technique may be used in clock-making- that's the area I would search first. Ning-ning (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A boxer engine has a clear definition, which is buried beneath another wikipedia article. It is a flat engine, where opposing pistons "fire" together. For a steam engine or a two stroke, this means any flat engine. For a four stroke though, there's a convention (and another convention opposing it - it's far from unanimous) that a flat engine is only a boxer if opposing cylinders still fire together, i.e. it it's no longer a boxer if their firing pulses are spaced out by 360°.

As to crankpin and cylinder alignment, then there are several ways to achieve this(look at Commons under Connecting rods): some offset, some not. I've not seen a distinction made between the two as to "boxeriness". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both, - the clockmaking example rings a bell for me too.Imgaril (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Self's site

It has moved to http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/heilmann/heilmann.htm - if links go dead this can be used. the errors and typos still remain though :)

Imgaril (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Brakes

I rather precipitately removed "disc brake" from the infobox because the new image clearly shows spoked wheels, standard for the period. However "disc brake" in the text has a reference, available online, which indeed reads "an early type of disc brake". To comply with WP:VNT I should RV this.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The source appears competent and they use "disc brake". There's no reason why disc brakes can't be used with spoked wheels - there's already a traction motor mounted on that axle, maybe there's a separate-disc disc brake mounted between the wheels too? I wonder if The Engineer has anything useful on Westinghouse brakes of this period? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)