Baldwin Quintaplex?

My God, What were they thinking...
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/quadruplex/quadrapl.htmFrank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, CumbresEngineer, Jul-10-04, 11:10 PM, (1) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, ATSF107, Jul-10-04, 11:59 PM, (2) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, AtlanicPacificGarrett, Jul-11-04, 05:07 AM, (3) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, Jonatan, Jul-11-04, 05:37 AM, (4) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, NewEnglandRailFan, Jul-11-04, 09:20 AM, (5) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, Jonatan, Jul-11-04, 10:23 AM, (6) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, AtlanicPacificGarrett, Jul-11-04, 12:23 PM, (7) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, R742, Jul-12-04, 07:18 AM, (13) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, KeltikSylk, Jul-11-04, 12:43 PM, (8) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, mjs2101, Jul-11-04, 10:58 PM, (10) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, AtlanicPacificGarrett, Jul-12-04, 00:52 AM, (11) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, CalebR, Jul-11-04, 12:59 PM, (9) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, ASR_Q301, Jul-12-04, 05:15 AM, (12) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, TexasWestern70Mac, Jul-12-04, 09:33 PM, (14) RE: Baldwin Quintaplex?, ssw, Jul-12-04, 10:19 PM, (15)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

HAHA! I like the 2-10-10-10-10-10-2!! They're crazy...Kevin Bush,

I will have my hand on the throttle of a K-36 very soon Mon Freunds!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>My God, What were they thinking...
Not much? Or maybe, "Hey, let's build a ridicoulusly large locomotive, charge a lot of money for it, and see if anyone buys it!

Zach Lybrand
President and Founder of the Fort Worth Locomotive Shops
All we need one more custom sounds & cabs and one more modeler! PM me if you want to apply!
ATSF 107 http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=48426

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Although most of my projects are historical, Here are some of my fictious-could-have-been Atlantic & Pacific Quinplex-Cabforward, Passenger Garrett, and Triplex Garretts circa 1940-1950. They are still in the works and not done by any means, least of all texturing 8-)...
The main concederation about a quinplex with 57in or 63in drivers is the engine, aside the problems with producing enough steam and not leaking it all before getting to the cylinders, is that it will be very heavy, close to 70,000lbs/axil easy and could top out with 3000+ tons on a 2.2% grade... The issue then is not the thermodynamics but the simple fact that the couplers will not stand 390,000+lbs tractive effort. Both my Triplex Garrett and the Quinplex are limited to about 68,000-69,000lbs/driver and about 360,000lbs TE, steam era couplers were a little weaker. Notice on the Quinplex the "modern" design of the cab-ahead with the low oil bunker in front over the lead set of drivers, and large water tank in the rear.
The Passenger version has a cab at the very front with a water tank over the front frame behind. This version also hase a large water tender behind the rear engine and a second cab at the rear of the boiler for firing front the bunker ing teh rear engine. The passenger engine has 73in drivers and about 28,000gal on water on board. This allows for long distances between water stops and high speed when the engine is not working hard. The large water capacity comes into play when working hard at low speeds in mountain territory when the engine is not very effient.

One model not shown here is my 2-10-2+2-10-2 with 57in drivers which looks like a ATSF 3000 class 2-10-2's frames in a Garrett configuration. The 2-10-2+2-10-2 is an older design from about 1920/1930 and much lighter on the rails, about 40-50,000lbs/driver All of these models are being built in Gmax, and .eng files will be tweeked for manuel firing.Jason

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40f10ae60c060946.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40f10af20c123045.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40f10b4e0cf1660f.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-04 AT 05:44 AM (EST)

Hey, where are you from? 3DTrains or what? Never seen any other build a Cab-Forwards or is this a new one?Welcome aboard! And watch out for that Kevin Bush guy. He will ridicule you with his: "IT'S NOT PROTOTYPICAL, IT'S JUNK!" so ignore him./JonatanSteam rules!

Train gifs from Dans Railroad Gif RoundhouseNever trust computers. If you do, they will betray you.I'm the steam freak, ph34r me!!

My E-mail jonatan.gronoset@telia.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Hey, where are you from? 3DTrains or what? Never seen any
>other build a Cab-Forwards or is this a new one? You mean 3DTS?-Dave

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yeah, can't seem to get the two right. >_</JonatanSteam rules!

Train gifs from Dans Railroad Gif RoundhouseNever trust computers. If you do, they will betray you.I'm the steam freak, ph34r me!!

My E-mail jonatan.gronoset@telia.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Hey, where are you from? 3DTrains or what? Never seen any other build a Cab-Forwards or is this a new one?Nope. Brandnew, not finished yet but not 3DTS or 3DTrain>And watch out for that Kevin Bush guy. He will ridicule you with his: "IT'S NOT PROTOTYPICAL, IT'S JUNK!" so ignore him.
BTW Note that the models are based on a certant RR's standards.One on these days I'll hit you all with my prototypical engines and cars. These AP engines are a couple years old and I may finish them in my "spare time"... haha 8-) What spare time?Jason

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Jonatan wrote >Never seen any other build a Cab-Forwards.Gday heres a couple from our Italian friends at http://www.ildeposito.net/
Cheers
Shane

------------------------------
When all else fails
Read the instructions

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Jason,I'm glad to see someone is as crazy about these giant (and oddball) locomotives as I am.I know they are not "prototypical", but they are awesome. I'm adding them to my MSTS collection of wall art (other wise no one will believe they exist). 70,000 pounds per axle? Yikes! Is there any rail (or bridge) in existance that can take that kind of beating?I think that's it is safe to say that if the idea had worked, we may have really seen something like this at least once. At least until an MU system for steamers came along.It didn't work out that way of course, but still, all the gas and steam turbines that came instead were just as "weird". If deisels hadn't held sway, who knows what wild and wonderful contraptions might have shown up. Witness, Ross Rowlands ACE 3000.Since you have all the running gear already made, have you thought of building the Erie or Virginian "Triplexi"...

I made the mistake of trying to build this as my first TSM project and then discovered I didn't know enough to make it work. It's been a year or so and I'm still not sure I've learned enough.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

WOW, those are some very interesting designs you have there Jason!Sadly I am not too familiar with the Garrett design, but with this configuration, does it allow for the engines to handle tighter curves? or would the be the same as a standard articulated engine?I hope you will release them oneday, for they definitely would make an unique addition to MSTS!Mykel

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Here is a site that covers Garretts, mainly the narrow gauge types in Africa and India. The idea was to get a huge coal firebox and boiler on a 3ft narrow gauge track that had to have light axil loading. With my MSTS engines having ~70,000lbs/axil does put them out of this definition, but that is the legal limit in the US as I understand it. http://users.powernet.co.uk/hamilton/source.htmlNotice in some of the photos at the website that the drivers are not close together as on most heavy American std gauge engines, this I believe was to spread out the weight over more rail.Jason

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

GOOD LORD! I have never seen a loco like that before.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yeah, SP were the only ones with brains!! Having the cabforward meant the cab didnt fill up with smoke. It was a very nice design which unfortunatly didnt catch on Great looking model too! >Mike Forster<
Perth, Western Australiapacificnational_nr103@hotmail.com
http://www.trainweb.org/aussiepix

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

didn't catch on to other roads, but between the ac4, ac6 and ac12, there were over 300 built....... many roads had steamers and or diesels that no one else had..... the particular road needed it, but others may not have.......railroads may do unique things to help certain conditons, which for the most part, is only unique to a certain railroad, and often times only a few subdivisions, the cab fowards operated mostly in the sierras ........Hauling America one pixel at a time
Bill Hemb; train sim repainter

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yeah, but even the SP screwed up and built a few backwards! (AC-9)Bradley Linda
Waco, Texas

TKW Paint Shop

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.