And now for something completely different

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Fed up with model locos and stationary engines? How about a steam powered tank? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_tank

Not as daft as it sounds, if would be a lot quieter than an early petrol engine, and probably emit less smoke (it was kerosene fired), but it never caught on.

If that doesn’t appeal how about a steam powered submarine?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine

 

Again not totally stupid, but getting there!

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

There have been a couple of models of the Hornsby Chain tractor made which had tracks as well as the log haulers like the Lombard, tracked steam cranes, etc so just a different set of bodywork would not be “completely different” to other steam powered tracked vehicles.

At sensible model sizes stoking the sub could be a problem, but I suppose gas firing would be an option.

[duncan webster 1]

On 19 September 2024 at 23:22 duncan webster 1 Said:

If that doesn’t appeal how about a steam powered submarine?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine

 

Again not totally stupid, but getting there!

If anyone is interested, further information about the ‘K’ Class submarine can be found on the “Oceanliner Designs Submarine” YouTube video.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

The USA tank had 2 boilers, 2 engines and a transmission giving 2 speeds forward and reverse. I suspect this is a misunderstanding by the author, as a steam engine will clearly reverse without the aid of the transmission. I suppose it makes it very manoeuverable as you could have one engine going forward and one reverse and spin on the spot if the tracks would take it. Changing gear must have been fun. Perhaps it was like a road locomotive where you engaged the correct gear whilst stationary.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

The K Class submarines had the advantage, that after submerging, they could still proceed, reasonably fast, using the steam in the boiler. (Although that could leave it rather vulnerable when it resufaced, until pressure could be restored).

I think that only three were built, and the idea was abandoned after one one sank when submerging with a valve accidentally left open.

Howard

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

As if sitting locked inside a tank getting shot at was not bad enough, imagine sitting between two steam boilers inside a tank, getting shot at.

[ChrisLHParticipant @chrislh]

The American Mk 50 torpedo is steam powered and can dive to great depths because the system does not need to exhaust waste products overboard against depth pressure.  Liquid lithium is combined with sulphur hexafluoride gas to produce a large amount of heat. The liqid/solid products of the reaction can be retained within the torpedo by virtue of their low volume. Pure water and steam are recirculated through a turbine, condenser and feed pump so again no need to exhaust against depth pressure. Not ideal for a home built version.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Being shot at while sitting between two boilers is not the only hazard on those early armoured vehicles. Nor was sitting near two boilers and a tank of flame-thrower fuel in that American one.

It was found that if a shell burst against the hull without actually penetrating it, the shock could shear off rivet-heads and throw them about to act like bullets.

Though even heavy armour-plate did not guarantee safety for the occupants, as was discovered on warships with their massive plating. There the shrapnel from a non-penetrative explosion was not rivet-heads but jagged steel splinters, a 20C version of a common cause of battle injury on the timber-hulled warships in earlier times.

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

The K Class submarines had the advantage, that after submerging, they could still proceed, reasonably fast, using the steam in the boiler.

Not for long!  The design intent was that they be fast enough to keep up on the surface with battleships, the idea being that they would submerge to attack the enemy fleet when the shooting started.  In 1913 a steam turbine was the only power source capable of this.  Unfortunately the k-class could only keep up in a flat calm, they took far too long to dive, were difficult to control, and highly accident prone.

I think that only three were built,

18 of which 6 sank in accidents

 

 

 

and the idea was abandoned after one one sank when submerging with a valve accidentally left open.

Worse than that – multiple difficult to fix issues,  dreadful accident record, and the subs didn’t perform well enough do what the Navy needed in war-time.    I don’t think the designers and builders can be blamed – the requirement was beyond the technology available at the time, and it underestimated the difficulty of a submerged submarine staying in contact with the enemy during a battle.

Around the same time it was confirmed that Petrol powered submarines are death-traps too.

Dave

[Author]

Posts