Well, such questions arose, so I answer ..
1. Why is an electric transmission from your crazy oscillating engine, an associated generator and the electric traction motors more efficient for a steam locomotive than direct mechanical traditional dual acting steam pistons or a steam turbine?
2. Why is the on board steam generation with whatever fuel is being burned to heat the water in the boiler more efficient than a large scale power station and transmission via catenary or third rail?
3. What fuel does your locomotive use?
4. Why not use your engine to power the wheels directly?
5. Did you know that steam turbine-electric locomotives have been tried before?
Ad.1. Here you are right that you call it crazy oscillating ... Because as you can see the madness comes from it, it is 20 times lighter than a traditional engine, for the same displacement .. And it results from mathematics and is indisputable .. Or maybe even be 50 times lighter, because thanks to the reduced weight, we can get much more revolutions and thus obtain more power, but if we still need the same power as the traditional one, we can reduce the stroke volume, and the engine will be lighter than 50 times .. And that's how you well-called the crazy property .. Here are some drawings to help you understand it. And the fact that the "cylinder" is lifetime, this also matters and can only be machined with an accuracy of 0.5 mm. The "piston" does not rub against the cylinder, and the method of transferring the operating gas force is much more efficient, because there is no traditional cross-section where some 20% of energy is lost.
It is a pity that Newcomen did not come up with this solution for a long time, but it was very close ..
Here's a story, like this idea, of it
engine was established.
http://www.new4stroke.com/images/Possib ... 0pivot.htm
Ad 2. Because simply by transmitting electricity to further distances, we have 30% losses on network resistance and transformers .. When you add the costs of building and maintaining such a network, we can add 20% ... so we have 50% savings ..
Ad 3. Any, such as we have at hand and is the cheapest for us .. From wood, through coal, oil, gas ..
Ad 4. I have previously published such solutions .. You can choose what seems more beneficial to us..
Ad 5 . Yes, but they did not catch on, the steam turbine has its drawbacks to such a solution .. especially it is not so efficient at low revs .., it cannot be used for driving backwards, etc.