German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43 (2 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

South African 1950s condensing tender. Narrow gauge rail 3' 6" apart.
Granted it is for engine making around 4000hp.
There are a number of fans in the center of the tender so it draws air through the vents/screens on the sides and exhausts the cooling air out the top.
The steam engine itself uses a fan to draw the air though the firebox and boiler to replace the draft provided by the steam exhaust but I don't think most steam road vehicles did that anyway? They used natural draft and not forced draft?

Comparisons between river boats and/or railroads vs road vehicle gets a little tough. You don't need a lot of power to move a boat/small ship very fast. Railroads have very shallow grades, a 3% grade is considered the practical limit and at 3% the load the locomotive can pull is fraction of what it can pull on level ground.

I just happened to run across a description of a 1930 2-8-0 German locomotive built for burning pulverized Lignite by AEG. I have no idea if they built more than one. Most of the details pertain to the tender and feed arrangements. Like a picture of the single cylinder engine used for powering the conveyer screws (max capacity 4360lb per hour) and the 7hp steam turbine powered fan for primary air. It does not give the locomotive's size or power except to say it was rated for train of 1415tons. Grade not given so assume level. The pulverized coal bunker size (a cylinder) was 6.5ft diameter and 13 feet long.
British fooled around with a few 'coal dust' powered locomotives as early as 1917(?) but that was to use up bituminous (black) coal dust that had fallen through the screens of the collieries.
Germans built 6(?) 2-10-0s in 1930/early 30s much like the 2-8-0 but from a different maker. I don't know how many other experiments were made. The East Germans did try again in the early 1950s.

It seems you can have simple/cheap with lower efficiency or complicated/expensive and decent efficiency.

 

[don4331]

Comparisons between river boats and/or railroads vs road vehicle gets a little tough. You don't need a lot of power to move a boat/small ship very fast. Railroads have very shallow grades, a 3% grade is considered the practical limit and at 3% the load the locomotive can pull is fraction of what it can pull on level ground.

You don't need a lot of power to move a boat (barge) slowly; increase speed and the power curve goes up really fast.

Of course, rivers have several challenges....they often aren't straight, they freeze over in winter, they often don't start and end exactly where you want. But it you can more good, over water is ideal.​

 

[marathag]

Wood is easier to procure than lignite so why not just burn wood

Most of Europe had cut down many trees for Ship building and Charcoal production, so abundant 'Free' Wood hadn't been a thing for Centuries.

Notice my post stopped at 1870 for the Southern RRs?
The easily accessible wood had long since been cut near the depots and stations, away from the where the RR lines passed. So cutting parties had to travel farther away, which took more time and was more costly. Wood wasn't really 'Free' any more

Old Growth forests were disappearing.

1880s, they started converting to coal burning, as mining had picked up after the Civil War, coal price was dropping, availability rising. The US Coal fields in use were for the higher grade, large scale Lignite mining wasn't a thing, yet.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Railways move far greater tonnage than even a fleet of steam lorries justifying the expenditure. You're not going to put these up one every road the lorries could possibly take. Basically as SR noted you are restricted to an out and back operation. See attached document:

"The steam waggon paid best on long journeys of say 20 miles out and 20 miles back home with
loads both ways. The waggon could work a 40 or 50 mile day and be ready for a repeat journey the next
day. Horses could not stand this. In rush hours waggons could cope with the extra work whereas horses
would be working near their limit and could not do more. In terms of ton-miles, the waggon working rate
was reckoned to be 1 1/4 old pence per ton-mile as against 2 3/4 old pence per ton-mile for horses. This latter
figure is considered to be very low, horse costs were often 4 to 6 old pence per ton-mile (ref. 1). However,
reference 14 (a Brewer's working with three to four Sentinel waggons) quotes a figure of 2.6 old pence per
ton-mile and average annual running cost of a waggon at £400 to £430.

Note that is from 1912. The S version of the Sentinel waggon introduced in 1934 was much more sophisticated and would have a greater range for the same expenditure of coal. I was surprised to find that it was a water tube boiler with a superheated and a feedwater heater!
The Sentinel in its final form is an amazing tribute to the perseverance of the British in wringing the last drop of performance out of a technology that was obviously on the way out. Sentinel's main rival Foden saw the writing on the wall and abandoned steam in favor of Gardner diesels in 1931 prodding Britain first commercial successful lorry.

https://blog.japanesecartrade.com/663-foden/

I can't imagine any other country devoting the effort although.

As has been pointed out by others the Germans did experiment with steam vehicles prewar. Henschel in particular as a major steam locomotive manufacturer. Here is a list of prewar vehicles:

Steamtrucks & -busses - Hanomag-Henschel.net

This page is about the research by Henschel from Kassel with Warren Doble from 1930 until 1937 on the use of steam for road vehicles.

www.hanomag-henschel.net

Of particular note is the Sentinel S6 which they equipped with a mechanical stoker. I would like to the particulars of that installation. Here are some images of Henschel steam powered vehicles

Erdmann & Rossi Doble-Henschel - COACHBUILD.com

Coachbuild.com FORUM - THE COACHBUILDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA

www.coachbuild.com

 

[Reluctant Poster]

WW2 CLASH - THE LOGISTICS THAT SUPPORT THE BLITZKRIEG

A 1941 German Panzer division had 14.373 men and required 30 tons of supplies per day when inactive to 700 tons per day in heavy fighting

ww2clash.com

Interesting post on German logistics