https://www.up.com/aboutup/com...ppers-08-07-2018.htm
I wonder who built this..maybe engineer joe
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I saw something about this a couple days ago on Facebook. I'm surprised this isn't done more.
Some time ago I read about a study that showed the first containers created quite a bit of drag and, of course, the turbulance behind each box would create drag. How you could streamline all that would be a major problem.
COOL!
jim pastorius posted:Some time ago I read about a study that showed the first containers created quite a bit of drag and, of course, the turbulance behind each box would create drag. How you could streamline all that would be a major problem.
It's a crummy picture, but the top container has what's shown in the wind tunnel. Photo taken 7/13/18.
Rusty
Attachments
Images (2)
I know they tested a streamlined front container but never heard of any results or conclusions. The turbulance created between the containers would create a lot of dray I would think. Have you seen the collapsible air foils on the rear of some trailers behind trucks ? Plus they have shields under a lot of box trailers too.
i wonder which "G" scale (sic) they used... 1:20.3, 1:24, 1:29, 1:32? odd that something posing as science decided to use the most loosely defined term possible for a model train scale. sort of reminds me of the team who were responsible for the Hubble mirror.
willygee posted:
Looks like Aristo Dash 9s with USA? container well cars. (all 1/29)
& I'm on it sir!
I would think any good engineer can scale stuff appropriately.
Engineer-Joe posted:Looks like Aristo Dash 9s with USA? container well cars. (all 1/29)
& I'm on it sir!
I would think any good engineer can scale stuff appropriately.
a good example of poor engineering... the gauge to scale error in 1:29 is one of the worst in model railroading (close to 9%). if they are doing a wind tunnel test to judge stability they couldn't have picked a worse model.
overlandflyer posted:Engineer-Joe posted:Looks like Aristo Dash 9s with USA? container well cars. (all 1/29)
& I'm on it sir!
I would think any good engineer can scale stuff appropriately.
a good example of poor engineering... the gauge to scale error in 1:29 is one of the worst in model railroading (close to 9%). if they are doing a wind tunnel test to judge stability they couldn't have picked a worse model.
Kennedy and Brian Davis, Union Pacific manager of system car facilities in De Soto, Missouri, first examined the grain car’s shape. “We looked for any gaps that could be easily closed off,” Kennedy said. “Things like voids or railings, whatever creates turbulence. I’m trying to see if I can somehow make these spaces a continuous plane.”
The UP is looking for fuel savings by reducing drag, so the gauge/scale error has little to no effect.
Rusty
From what I have read about streamlining(aircraft, autos,NASCAR) the gaps between cars and underneath the cars are the most important. Scale would be relatively minor and a detailed model not necessary.
Pretty impressive setup. Wind resistance is an issue which scales up and down easily and really becomes prevalent after about 30 Mph. When I was messing with fast RC cars I found out how much little things affect speed, efficiency, and resistance. Much was learned from information on full scale cars etc.
Sometimes what looks more aerodynamic is not, and the reverse is true as well. I recall a VW vs Porsche commercial years back which alluded to this as well.
Many years ago I read an article in a car magazine on aerodynamics and it was amazing. They had found out things not imagined. Boundary layer effects, high pressure in front of the windshield, a low area of pressure by the rear window, high pressure under the car, the headlights and in the wheel well. I was driving a 68 Dodge company car at the time and only getting 14 MPG so I decided to experiment. Put a big spoiler under the front and blocked off the headlights with plexiglas. My MPG shot up dramatically. When the home office geeks saw it I had to take it off. My MPG went up to 20 with a 383 engine. I think UP has a long way to go.
jim pastorius posted:Many years ago I read an article in a car magazine on aerodynamics and it was amazing. They had found out things not imagined. Boundary layer effects, high pressure in front of the windshield, a low area of pressure by the rear window, high pressure under the car, the headlights and in the wheel well. I was driving a 68 Dodge company car at the time and only getting 14 MPG so I decided to experiment. Put a big spoiler under the front and blocked off the headlights with plexiglas. My MPG shot up dramatically. When the home office geeks saw it I had to take it off. My MPG went up to 20 with a 383 engine. I think UP has a long way to go.
Yep, nothing a little blocking and streamlining can't fix. 
Of course the deck lid shrinks a wee bit...
Will be interesting how far UP takes it.
Attachments
Images (5)
Cool !! Them were the days !! Another thing I did was block off about half the grill, just left open where the radiator was. Plus the cold air intake was discovered so it will be interesting to see what else the UP comes up with. Maybe those ugly European engines are the future. Ugh !!
As a mechanical engineer I can tell you scale will have little to no affect on these tests. What is important is how closely the model shape is to the prototype.
But man, I need a job right now, and I'd love to work here.
I wonder if they'll just set speed restrictions lower to save on fuel? ..... Easiest??
I know. That's no fun.
then.... ?
Bullet nosed (retractable) car mods???
At least they are trying to improve performance! Kudos to UP!
Engineer-Joe posted:I wonder if they'll just set speed restrictions lower to save on fuel? ..... Easiest??
That's why the intermodal trains are authorized 70 MPH, due to their higher priority, while manifest trains are 60 MPH (or slower), and coal trans are 50 MPH.
I know. That's no fun.
then.... ?
Bullet nosed (retractable) car mods???
