# Live Steam Quadruplex



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Getting ready to leave for Sacramento and then to Maui for three weeks. After that, I will start the plans for my new loco. I was thinking of doing a Triplex and then came across this drawing of a Quad. I roughed in the posible steam routes and have an idea on the flexable boiler setup. It would be butane fired with two boilers and four burners. 1/2" cylinders with maybe superheat on the two furthest cylinders.
I know it sounds crazy but it would be a blast to build.

I would appreciate any input on the idea.

Here is a link
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUS...adrapl.htm

Here is my idea on steam routing


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Why bother with the Flexible connection between the boilers? The frame of the power truck should carry the drawbar forces. 

Looks like firebox restrictions would have affected steam supply, major cause of the Tri's demise in 1:1 

Major plumbing hastle getting coal from rear tender to front firebox. 
I'd be inclined to reverse front boiler and put the cab/firebox just in front of the rear boiler making it a Catapillar instead of a cabforward and inline with the boilers preventing a camelback. 

The two cabs cause me to ponder, larger engines reduced crew sizes, saving money. Yet two independant boilers require two crews.... 

John


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

John 
You are right about the firebox on the triplex. In adition it was compound engine with 36" cylinders on all three engines. 

It loks like the Quad was designed to have the firebox at the rear and the smokebox right behind the forward cab. Not two fireboxes. 
I assume the fireman wouls be in the rear cab and the enginer in the forward cab with controls routed around or through the smoke box. The flexable boiler design was to alow the hot gasses to go from the rear boiler through the front boiler and out a stack behind the front cab... I think. 
I doubt if this would have have worked but with the butane fireing, I think it will work as have it layed out with just a few changes to the original design. I also like the idea of having four smoke stacks 

I am not sure what you mean about eliminating the flex in the boiler. There will be four power trucks with individual articulation points and without a flex joint, the fixed boiler would be over 30" long. I would like to run this on 7' radius track or smaller 

On the Cab Forward, I just think they are cool looking and Accucraft has already done the SP 

Thanks for your input


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

That is basically double-heading a couple of BigBoys that are missing the leading and half the trailing trucks... or Quadruple Heading some 0-8-0's and 0-8-2's. There were 0-8-8-0 engines in hump yard service, but no 0-8-8-2 configurations that I know of or can find on the net.

At any rate I question if the boilers are big enough to supply steam for 4 engines, even with double burners in each.

Sure would be fun to watch it run! One thing though... when I watch a Big Boy running I tend to see one engine with one eye and the other engine with the other eye and my gaze gets all out of sync... watching 4 engines just may tie my optic nerves in a knot!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting! 
from a modeling perspective, it would be a lot easier to have only two sets of working cylinders and drivers, one per boiler, rather than power all four sets of cylinders.. 
could then split the exaust to still get the four working stacks.. 
the other two cylinder and driver sets could be "just along for the ride", and no one would ever be the wiser.. 

Scot


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

The model would be a blast to watch, run, and build. 
Surprisingly, it scales out to only 44" long at 1/32 

Scott, the two engine idea is a good one. If I do go ahead with it, I will go with the four powered trucks but pipe it so two trucks can be cut out if I can't get the steam I need. 
The boilers would be about the same size as the one boiler on my Garratt which works ok on the steam capacity but could be better. 
We made the Garratt burners and I was thinking of maybe using Accucraft Cab Forward burners on this. They seem to work pretty good. 
Anyone have any other ideas on making lots of heat?


----------



## HMeinhold (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill, 
2 thoughts: 
1. You could make 2 pairs of cylinders with a rather small bore, so they just keep the wheels turning and have the other ones do the work. To cut down on steam you could also insulate the 2 sets of "dummies". 
2. Will the exhaust of this beast blow my little Guinness off its feet when it runs on the parallel track? 
Regards


----------



## Shay Gear Head (Jan 3, 2008)

Henner,

Your Guinness will be very clean if that monster goes by with the cylinder cocks open!


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

I would suggest doing alcohol fired boilers using the G1MRA "Project 0-6-0" boiler concept. It's a semi wetside firebox loco style boiler with cross water tubes in the fire box and flue. It steams like crazy and is not difficult to build. This engine would probably use 2.5" OD copper pipe on the boiler. A 1.25" flue with a firebox 4" or 5" long. Six burner pots. That boiler would easily run 4 cylinders.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Somewhere, wish I could recall where, I remember seeing a drawing of a proposed-but-never-built quadruplex that was basically a cross between a Garratt and a pair of Mallets. That would have been an impressive beast too!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

It was your mention of 2 boilers that caused my mind's eye to wander... 
I saw 2 boilers nose to nose... 

Never mind... 

John


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Henner 
Good idea on the cylinders. I don't know about blowing you off the track but the track might need reinforcing to hold two such mighty engines 
I don't think this would have cyl drains. It would need to be simplei


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

Just to make your life interesting and to save steam, Perhaps you SHOULD build it a Compound. reuse the steam from the middle two engines in the end two engines....just liike two real Mallets. I would guess you would need the low pressure cylinders about double the diameter of th high pressure cylinders. 

Probably not too practical but perhaps that is not the goal!


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Found it! This page has info on both the Baldwin quadruplex (the one Bill is proposing to build), and the Beyer-Peackock "Mallet-Garratt" design, as well as a sketch of an even more ambitious Baldwin quintuplex...

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUS...adrapl.htm


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Thanks Richard 
That is the same link I was trying to paste on my original thread but it didn't take. I guess I will need to go to school on this website. i always seem to be just muddling through it. 
Got some good ideas in Sacramento and will probably start drawing it out next week. I am hoping I don't invest a lot of time and money in something that doesen't run but there is where the challenge is.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Bob 
The alcohol fired boiler would work if I was only doing one boiler but since I will have two, there isn't room for the second firebox so I guess I am stuck with butane.


----------



## HMeinhold (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bille1906 on 17 Jul 2011 10:29 AM 
Thanks Richard 
That is the same link I was trying to paste on my original thread but it didn't take. I guess I will need to go to school on this website. i always seem to be just muddling through it. 
Got some good ideas in Sacramento and will probably start drawing it out next week. I am hoping I don't invest a lot of time and money in something that doesn't run but there is where the challenge is. Bill, you are not the only one having some difficulties posting. About your "that doesn't run": By now you are a live steam expert and you are surrounded by a bunch of these guys







. Our collective wisdom should make this a triumphant success (contrary to the prototype).
Regards


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

I posted this question on another thread but if anyone can help here I would appreciate it. 
On the quad, I am thinking of using pivoting and telescoping brass fittings at the articulating points. 
I have come up with a design that I think will work but before I go any further I thought I would see if anyone knows of something which has already been done and tested. 
I understand that Aster has one on the Allegheny and wanted to know if anyone has a picture or diagrahm of it or any other similar fitting


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill
John Allman posts on MLS maybe he can share his Allie overview of the design. The "Gordon Watson" design we used on the AC-12 is well posted:



















If you would like some more information let us know.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Thanks Charles 
I found the complete posting on Dwight's informative threads. It is wonderful what you have done with the cab forward. 
Since the quad was designed by Baldwin, my version will be similar in many ways to the Accucraft version. I will model the cab and some features from the original in the Sacramento Railroad Museum, which I guess is what Accucraft did. I read all of your threads on the unit and though I won't be doing any retrofitting, the information will be valuable in building the engines. 
The o rings on the dogbone is probably better than my design. I was going to have solid balls on the ends with o rings in the female end with acompressoin nut to seal it and then have a slip fitting in the middle of the dog bone for telescoping purposes. 
Your design kills two birds with one stone. 
What is the maximum angle it will take before the o rings start to leak?


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill, 

I will measure angle of deflection for you tonight to be sure but, if I remember right it is around 25-30 degrees off of center for the max deflection on both cups before the o-rings are exposed. 

You can vary this through how much you chamfer the cups and how thin the dogbone straight portions are. Since the Cab Forwards cannot run on less that 3m/10ft radius curves, I don't usually go too overboard getting the max deflection as the power bogie will derail before the pivot reaches the limit.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Ryan 
25 -30 should work. I made a wood mockup of it with the pivot points and I think I can do it with these fittings. Because I will be scratch building it, I will have a lot of flexability in the design. The only snag may come from the fact that I will have three boiler pivots and three bogie pivots along with four individual steam pipes and maybe four superheaters. Not quite sure about the superheaters yet. What do you think?


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Ok 
I think I have an idea on where to start
Here I have 1/3 scale blocks for the bogies. The brass pins will be the pivit points. This would be going through a switch
The three holes are where the boiler pivots will be and the blocks on either side of the center hole will be sliders which will support the plate below the smoke boxes which can barely be seen
as yellow and blue highlights

Here the blocks represent the boilers with the two brass pins representing the pivot points and the silicone tube with the brass pin in the middle being the flexible
boiler member securied to the second bogie

Here is my latest scetch
I lengenthened the fire box area and will put a whistle on both sides underneath it
One adjustable dead leg lubricator for each engine, two on each side
Air compressors on one side and steam generator on the other
Four superheaters two straight through and two "U" shaped going is and out the same burner tube
Fuel tank and hand pump in tender with diverter valve for boiler distribution
Two throttle valves but I will try to control the speed via RC on the direction valves. If that doesent work I will do the hands-onapproach with the throtles.
1/2" cylinders


Still in the planning stage:
Axel pump?, pumps?
cylinder drains?

Valving - On the Double Fairlie Dennis and I (mostly Dennis) designed a Ruby type directional valve and piston valving similar to the Ruby but with an extra set of groves which makes it work more like a "D" valve but compatable with the reverser valve. I am thinking of using the same setup but with Baker type actuation without the reverse mechanism but using a working combination rod.

I am looking for a way to easily spring the 16 axels. I'm not wanting to get so fancy that I need to CNC cut everything. Maybe something like one coil spring per wheel
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEAS ON THIS?


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill, 

For springing, how about something like this? 

Pic 001
Pic 002

Each wheel is independent and you do not have to be dead nuts on, since there has to be a fairly generous tolerance to allow easy movement of the stud. You can also change the tension on the spring by varying the position of the locking nuts on the stud, or give more by stacking washers under the spring on the axlebox keeper plate. 

Also, deflection on the AC-12 pivot joint is 24 degrees any direction on both cups, but this one has not had all the material removed, so one could get 30 degrees deflection easily in all directions. If you need any sketches for the dogbone or cups, let me know and I can send you some to look over.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Thanks Ryan 
That is something like I had in mind. 
I printed the AC-12 thread with the dog bone sketches and pictures. If you have anything else, it would be appreciated, otherwise, I think i can do ok with those. 
I sent an email to Charles through this site but I haven't had much luck with these getting through in the past. The questions I had were: 
What PTFE stock do you use for your piston rings and where do you get it? 
You converted the accucraft superheaters to thin wall hypodermic tubing for better flow. Can this thin wall tube be bent to form a "U" shaped superheater? 
I probably have more questions but that is it for now.


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill, 

Send me your email through pm or our website and I'll send over the dogbone drawing that I have. It's not a CAD drawing, but is pretty much the average dimensions that are able to be used. 

I prefer Silicon o-rings for the dogbone over viton, as they tend to hold heat much better (the AC-12 has a large smokebox cheater hole right ahead of the dogbone, which can put out quite a lot of heat), I also recommend keeping the o-rings lubricated with steam oil if they are to be exposed to smokebox exhaust heat. 

The piston rings can be made from regular white PTFE or graphite impregnated PTFE teflon, which is also known as Tetron C, but you must ensure the cylinders have a good crosshatehed hone to avoid galling the rings up prematurely. 

THe hypodermic tubing is actually known as thick wall by the suppliers, I call it thin wall since it has a greater ID than the OEM accucraft superheaters while keeping the same OD. It can be bent to form a U return flue superheater if you take it slow and use a mandrel that has a groove for the pipe OD. Use a torch to heat it to cherry red and then bend slowly, just like any other metal. You could also use a block of brass or bronze, running two straight pipes of stainless into it with a common cross passage to do the same effect without pipe bending.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill
Sorry I did not get to the questions but I have been working on 3 items at this time thus limited response time glad Ryan was able to assist you.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Thanks Ryan 
I see where Small Parts has .120 od and .094 id with .013 wall thickness. Does this sound about right? 
I guess on the rings, you just start with bar stock, turn it to .006 or .008 over the bore size, drill the center out a couple of thou over the grove size and part off. 
Sound about right?


----------



## HMeinhold (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill,
for Teflon pistons check out this idea (it takes care of the high thermal coefficient of expansion with Teflon):

http://www.buntbahn.de/modellbau/vi...p;start=20 


I bought my PTFE/Teflon from McMaster. When are your pool days over?

Regards


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Thanks Henner 
I will be back on the main land on the 13th and will ditch the beachl life for steaming. 
I always figured I should have taken German in high school instead of Latin. Now I am sure of it. 
I can follow the pictures but that is about all. 
Maybe when I get back you can explain it to me, or better yet, respond here and let everyone in on the secret. 
By the way, I saw a couple of new threads on Sac commenting on the Ant you rebuilt for Richard and how amazing the runs were.


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill, 

The tube dimensions you gave match what I usually use, but you can go larger if you feel the need. I stick with nominally 1/8" od pipe since that is what most standard Accucraft fittings are designed to take. 

Henner's link to the teflon ring cutting is excellent. When you do your final turnings, be sure to leave a little bit of preload on the rings (so they want to push outward a slight bit). 

Another alternative to PTFE would be Rulon, which is also available from mcmaster-carr and small parts, with the light brown/tan colored rulon being well known for steam service reliabilty. Aster has used Rulon rings in all of their locomotives since the early 1980's with great success. 

Found the dogbone diagram and will send it off to you this morning.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Ryan 
The .120 was the closest thing to 1/8 I could find. I will be braizing them on to 1/8 id brass fittings so I figure the .0025 gap should fill in ok. They show two wall thickness - ,010 and .013. I assume you use the .013. 
Have you ever tested the difference in power by increasing the tubing and port size to the cylinders and on the exhaust. On my two prior builds, I used thin wall brass tubing but thr thick wall SS on the superheaters. I wonder what the difference would have been with the thin wall.


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Ryan and Charles 
I took the sketch you sent me and redid it in imperial measurements for a universal application. Since all of the original drawings seem to be loost in the archives, I thought I would try this out when I get home and make whatever changes are necessary, then have Dennis put it on CAD and maybe Dwight can save it in informative threads. 
Letme know if I have missed anything here
Thanks


----------



## Steve Shyvers (Jan 2, 2008)

Bill, 

With respect to steam line sizes: on my alcohol-fired Billy conversion I used the supplied thick-walled 1/8" dia stainless steel steam line. On the coal-fired Billy conversion I used 5/32" OD copper K&S tubing (1/8" ID) that is armored with a thick layer of lagging. On both locos the steam lines run external to the firebox and boiler. The coal-fired Billy with the larger diameter pipe seems to breathe a lot easier. I wanted to install larger exhaust lines as well, but the job of forming the tight bends in either larger-diameter or thinner-wall tubing seemed too difficult. 

K N Harris (and Greenly too, I believe) advocated much larger steam lines proportionately than we typically use in our locos. 

Steve


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is the MLS informational link to the setup in consideration by Bill:

Dog Bone


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

Hi Steve 
I used the thick wall SS 1/8" tubing on both the Garratt and Fairlie superheaters. They seem to run ok but I really don't have anything to compare them with. I know from prior large hydraulic jobs that right angles, sharp bends and valves restrict the flows. I'm not sure how much affect this has on steam but I tried to stay away from them in my design. I found that the thin wall 1/8" tube would not bend with the tubing bender without anealing it first and it works better to bend it half way and then aneal it again before the final bend. Reading the threads, it seems like those who have opened the inlet and exhaust piping have noticed a marked improvement so in the future, I'm with you, use the bigest tubing that will fit. I was thinking 3/32 id for the inlet and 1/8" id for the exhaust if possible on the Quad. 
If you look at the dog bone you will see that it will accomodate a 3/32 through hole without weakening the structure. 
I should have been more discriptive in my entry. The dog bone fitting is only used for articulated engines as described in Charles' note.


----------



## Steve Shyvers (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Bill, 

Annealing the tubing before bending, and annealing again when it starts to stiffen up, is a good plan in any case. Much easier to form the tubing exactly the way you want it. When I formed the 5/32" K&S copper tubing, which has only a 0.014" wall thickness, I noticed what looked like stress cracks. A closer inspection with a jeweler's eye loupe confirmed that there were a couple of little creases in the tubing. I didn't confirm whether they leaked, but I did decide they were weak points that could cause trouble later. The fix was to cut a strip of copper foil, wrap it around the tubing in the way of the bend, and flood the wrapping with silver solder. The whole length of 5/32" tubing was wrapped with cotton string, and the string was saturated with a couple of coats of 50-50 Elmer's glue and water. This formed a nice tough sheathing for the thin tubing that both armored it and insulated it. 

Restrictions in steam piping will cause pressure drops just like in hydraulic systems, but with steam they can produce something called "wire drawing", which can "dry" the steam to some degree. This has the same effect as superheating (at least in the size locos we work with). I am still trying to understand "wire drawing" and believe that it has a lot to do with the relative dew point of the steam (water saturation, temperature, pressure all together). I decided not to worry about it and just try to minimize piping restrictions, because some piping restrictions you can't eliminate, such as the steam regulator valve and the steam ports to the cylinders. 

Steve


----------



## bille1906 (May 2, 2009)

I am almost ready to start building. With much help from you all and my friends here in the bay area, here is what I am thinking of doing. As with almost every project, my friend Dennis Mead will be helping in the design and building. 
1. I have procured 16 axle blocks with bearings from Alan Redeker from the Cab Forwards he has replaced the wheels on 
2. I have several different springs ordered to try out. I want the frame to be just bottomed out with enough spring tension to maintain traction on any track 
3. Cliff was gracious enough to lend me some Cab Forward warranty parts which will be helpful in getting the exact measurements down. 
4. I will be using C-16 pilot wheels for both the pilot and trailing axles 
5. I will make the two center chassis frames this week to check for clearances. I will add .020 side play to the Accucraft spec to get a tighter turn. I think I will be able to clear a #5 switch which is the tightest thing on my layout 
6. We will be making 1/2" cylinders with Rulon pisons and 5 mm SS piston valves 
7. We will make a highly modified Baker valving without the reversing levers and use a Ruby type reversing valve between the frame rails (5 mm piston). All tubing and porting will be minimum 3/32" (.093) 
8. There seems to be mixed emotions on thr combination lever. Does it really help that much on our scale or do the extra pivot points and movement/wear eventually cause problems. 
9. Got some 3" pipe for the boiler. I would have rather have used something a little smaller but 2-1/2 was too small. The look will be fine. It will just be a lot of water to boil. I may shorten the length a little to get the right volume. 
10. I got some pieces of the front of the CF cab from Alan that he didn't use on his conversion and since the Quad was a Baldwin design, this is what they may have used. The sides and back will be my design. 
I was thinking of posting the work as I go along and was wondering if I should just continue here or start a Builders Log. It seems like these things get pretty long and it might be better to break them up???


----------

