Car Stuff

[sstabeler]

Heh. A bog-standard shunter has more horsepower in the prime mover than the vast majority of cars - and it has a maximum speed of 15mph.

I'm 99% sure that the horsepower in a single cylinder on a train is comparable to most cars, actually

[Chromatix]

Let's see. Take a few examples from British railways:

Class 08 - 450hp English Electric prime mover, I6. That's 75hp per cylinder.
Class 27 - 1250hp Sulzer prime mover, I6. That's 208hp per cylinder.
Class 33 - 1500hp Sulzer prime mover, I8. That's 188hp per cylinder.
Class 37 - 1750hp English Electric prime mover, V12. That's 145hp per cylinder.
Class 40 - 2000hp English Electric prime mover, V16. That's 125hp per cylinder.
Class 43 - 2250hp Paxman Valenta prime move, V12. That's 188hp per cylinder.
Class 47 - 2500hp Sulzer prime mover (derated), H12. That's 208hp per cylinder.
Class 50 - 2700hp English Electric prime mover, V16. That's 168hp per cylinder.
Class 55 - 3300hp across 2x Napier prime movers, D18 each. That's 92hp per cylinder.
Class 58 - 3300hp Ruston-Paxman prime mover, V12. That's 275hp per cylinder.
Class 66 - 3300hp GM-EMD prime mover, V12. That's 275hp per cylinder.

So, quite a wide range of values, reflecting both progress over time and differing design strategies between manufacturers. EE consistently used smaller cylinders than Sulzer, for example, while (most remarkably) the Ruston-Paxman engine in the 58 is a direct descendant of the EE engine in the 37, while developing double the power. Meanwhile the Class 66 is representative of common American locomotives, being a pretty straight derivative of the SD40-2.

It looks as though typical values for power-per-cylinder range from 145hp to 275hp. Outliers like the decidedly early Class 40, the very cheap and conservative shunters, and the very exotic Class 55 can be discounted. Even 145hp is decent for a family car, I think...

[Argabarga]

Well, I think it's pointless to argue, since that was no mere shunter, that was a six-axle road locomotive, with two others lashed up behind it pulling what, at rough count, was about 80 cars worth of shipping containers. I still say he wins Maybe not in the 1/4 mile, but definitely at the dynometer.

I've also discovered a new and interesting "problem" I didn't exactly forsee with the car, I can't stop and get gas without people asking questions and wanting to know the specs :P nobody ever asked me about back when it was a bit more beat up.

[protege]

I've also discovered a new and interesting "problem" I didn't exactly forsee with the car, I can't stop and get gas without people asking questions and wanting to know the specs :P nobody ever asked me about back when it was a bit more beat up.

I've noticed that too, with my project car. When the MG was still a mess, nobody stopped to talk about it. Now that it's mostly restored, people can't get enough of it. Just about everyone wants to talk about it, or claims to have owned one years ago. Even in 1980, when that car first came into the family...most people ignored it. You could still get a roadster (factory closed in '80, the company quit importing cars to the US in ' 79), so it was just another "old car." Not so now

Oh, and that locomotive? That's a new-ish GE ES44AC, part of the "Evolution" series, which depending on configuration, throws out 4,000 to 6,200 horsepower! That's a whopping 333 to 388 per cylinder

Arga, the car looks great! I too did the "locomotive and car shot" awhile back, oddly enough against an NS locomotive somewhere along the Monongahela Line.

[Argabarga]

Thanks.

I've been shooting train pics at that spot for a long time. How long? Since U-boats in Conrail blue were hauling loads of truck trailers though there since the tunnels at Spruce Creek meant no double-stacks until 1998.

[sld72382]

Nice job. One thing I have to thank you for: putting the "correct" size wheels on the car. I hate seeing those big "dub" wheels on the classics!

[wolfie]

Hey, I've seen Classics with 22.5" (and even 24.5") wheels, and they looked pretty good. Of course, they were Freightliner Classics, and those are the 2 standard rim sizes for heavy trucks.

[protege]

I hate seeing those big "dub" wheels on the classics!

I'm not a fan of them either. Some of the classic styles--like oversized Torque Thrusts actually look pretty good on 1960s classics. But, some owners choose to jack up their rides, and throw 22-24 inch rims under them. The car looks nice, since the paint is usually perfect. But, jacking up the car makes it look stupid...not to mention that I'm sure now corners like an overladen hippo!

As for shooting trains, when Conrail was still around...it seemed that I never had a car or camera at the same time. The exception was when I took a photography class in college--Conrail's ex-Monongahela main through town was a few blocks away. I'd walk down there during class (we got some free time outside), and shoot locomotives, freight cars, and anything else. That would have been 1995-96, the NS "invasion" hadn't happened yet.