P. RR. S-2 Freight Run Photos.:

There's a picture at N Scale forum.  Scroll down to post #38. 

http://www.nscale.net/forums/showthread.php?20144-The-Offical-PRR-Anonymous-thread/page2&s=8af2adcfbfa0f94924b0ac0c6b5561e3

Mike

Mike,

You are a GENTLEMAN!

You found an S-2 hooked-up to a freight consist.

A P. RR. rarity.

I searched and asked all about and to no avail, until now.

I THANK YOU,

Ralph

Thats a mail train or a passenger train with alot of headend equipment.

  The S2 is pulling a PASSENGER train.  The car behind the engine is a class X29 express

box car which was equipped with signal and steam lines for passenger train operation.

At  one time it seemed that almost every PRR passenger train had at least one in its consist.

Sometimes they would even be on the rear end carrying the markers for an easy swithch

at an intermediate point.

Eddystone and nyc#25,

I thank you both for the added info.

Though, the S-2 and long haul tender have an 'Express' box car, leading a passenger run, from what other forum members said, the S-2 and 'Coast-to-Coast' tender did haul freight, but so far no photos. of same.

Ralph

>> It's a passenger train with head end cars ... <<

I was about to post the same remark but I had kind of a signal check.

Freight trains: If really the Pennsy had ever used the turbine S-2 on freight then it was plain abuse of the locomotive and I need not wonder any longer about the feat of making this very large boiler succumb.

Why? Because while this sure was a sure footed engine at starting - due to continuous uniform torque - hard starting was pure poison to that trial locomotive the way it was set up. Any turbine intercontinental night flights off it's proper working range at no rpm worth mentioning and

- at the same time! -

asked maximum torque cannot but waste vast quantities of steam in fast pass with a hymney up the chimney if not drawing coal off the grate - burnt or unburnt in a burnt offering to conform to what she wasn't designed to perform - yet all in vain, as all we know.

So, leave the heavy Chevy, drive the Chrysler to the Heisler and face the blizzard like a wizzard: this sort of turbine steam railroading, if it ever happened, sure meant a trial of steam rodeo to the brave and lonely one-of-a kind! 

   Good Lord!

           Juniatha

=J=,

I thank you for your info. of the S-2.

Ralph

Hi Ralph,

  The S2 did run freight on both the Middle and Ft. Wayne divisions of the PRR.  Its annoying problems were not so much with the turbine swooshing, stay bolts and other not so obvious problems occured.  For what it was worth at time when that diesel creature was moving in on the scene, the PRR was pleased with the effort in both freight and passenger.  (Too bad about that diesel thing, steam was just getting more interesting.)

  But, back to your intial request of the photo, I will check with my fellow members of the PRRT&HS about an S2 photo pulling freight.  This may be a hard find, she did not test for very long on the Middle Division, but her early runs were with manifest freight.  From there a huge public relation tour as she headed west to include a stop in Cleveland OH for the BLE union exec's to examine her.  On the Ft. Wayne,  assignments going west of Crestline OH and back was mainly passenger.  Here is where most photo's were taken, most railfans back then loved passenger photo's and ignored freight.

  I have a large collection of Keystone Magazines, if I come up with anything or hear anything I will post it for you, so hang in there.

Ralph,

It's a pleasure. To me, this was a wonderful steam loco - if seen as an initial test engine, a mere starting point from which to learn more about turbine steam locomotives characteristics and their suitable compositions of design, output characteristics, consumptions, wear, best components dimensioning, and more. If you consider the many thousands of Stephenson concept direct drive piston & rod steam locomotives that had by then been designed, run, maintained, improved and improved upon,  then you will surely see there was little more than providing information and test data that could reasonably be expected from these very few turbine direct drive steam locos tried on some railroads in America and Europe - invariable single engines, except for the three (?) Swedish 2-8-0 turbines. In that light, the Pennsy #6200 performed respectably - as did the Stanier Turbomotive on the British LMS, the Maffei turbine 4-6-2, while the 2-8-0s out-classed them in longevity.

Discarding these efforts with a casual "They were not successful" may have become a colloquial statement in popular RR literature, often copied from previous writers - yet that doesn't make it any better. Within their inevitable limitations as single locos featuring an engine unit in stark contrast to common standard, plagued by engineering troubles only to be expected in any initial realisation, they performed - I would say – at least promising! Had steam continued, more test miles, a second and a third realisation incorporating knowledge learned from previous engines could have developed turbine engine units into competitive alternatives to common reciprocating engines in steam locomotives for certain train services.

Such as ...

Uuuhm - stop, stop, stop! I’ll have to make an emergency stop here with brakes applied against my turbine just turning into a revving up. Or else this-here text would turn into a verbal chain like a train, winding its freight thought the dead of night.

So with the distance of time, let's just memorize Pennsy's unique 6‑8‑6 turbine steam locomotive as Crestline's legendary engine asset. It happened once upon a time in America ... while today not even the wind blows through the ruins of an empty round house, it has since been torn down – a fact following economic needs, yet a symbolic act as well, making evident how far away the Pennsylvania, former ‘Standard Railroad’, has travelled towards the realms of eternal mainlines …

With a choooot & cheers

Juniatha

I want to thank both of you, Juniatha and K4sPRR, for your kind consideration, time and giving me valuable information, with regards to railroads, etc.

I enjoy railroads and model railroading and any information helps me run a more prototypical railroad and affords me more knowledge of railroads in general.

Again, thank you,

Ralph 

The S-2 was a wonderful engine, as both K4sPRR and Juniatha mention.
Though, it was a powerhouse, it was unfortunate that not enough time was given to working out its problems, mainly due to the introduction of the diesel engine.

I read that only two units were built and within a few years they were both scrapped.

Is, there any chance that one of the S-2s is on display, or are both completely gone?

Than you,

Ralph 

Sorry Ralph -

there was but one of each - one 6‑4‑4‑6, S-1 6100 and one 6‑8‑6 S-2 6200.

There were quite a number of S3 locomotives, though – however they were 4‑4‑0 saturated steam two cylinder compound engines built some 40 years earlier and they ran on the Prussian state railways, later in their carrière mainly relegated to the flat land line towards the north-east where in winter bitter winds could blow inlands from the Baltic sea making life hard on turn of the century type of steam with open cabs and low deck tenders. While on ever increasing train loads the lightly built engines were soon getting short on power, an economy minded railway administration carried on with their construction just the same until over 1000 engines were built.

Having switched to that subject, compound 4‑4‑0 KPEV express engine series finalized with the S5₂ of quite economic fuel consumption and a reputation of reliability in spite of rather delicate construction in view of lightly laid lines, while in 1906 Robert Garbe made himself known with his superheated S6 two cylinder simple 4‑4‑0 – lively steaming and quite powerful engines in their time and category, easily turning out 1000 ihp with a maximum if run and fired hard of about 1300 and even 1400 ihp with suitable coal on their narrow grates. In spite of a drive wheel diameter nearly the same as that of the later PRR 6100 – i e 2100 mm versus 2134 (7 ft) – Garbe’s superheated S6 4‑4‑0 was running hard at speed due to minimum counter balancing and with fabricated plate frames and a cab of not exactly sturdy structure the footplate must soon have turned into a resounding and rattling place for the crew to work. Still, with their good performance (as for demands in those times) and reasonable freeness of mechanical trouble many of them found their ways into Reichsbahn classification, continuing as 13 class (sic!).

To the 4‑4‑0 type the S6 was end of the line on Prussian state railways, the Atlantic type already having been introduced with S7 series of two versions and culminating in 1908 in von Borries’ four cylinder compound S9 with 99 engines built. Garbe in full verve still fought the idea of having a trailing axle and a wide firebox – to him nothing but a waste of construction mass – actually claiming same power output for his superheated simple expansion two cylinder S6 as with the substantially longer Borries S9 saturated steam four cylinder compound. For some years then, locomotive design on the Prussian State railways saw two competing development lines with Garbe as head of Berlin engine department pressing hard on introducing superheated steam, in his view ideally suited to re-simplify design, banning inside drives and trailing axles, while the head of Hanover engine dept, von Borries, in his more leaned back attitude was left with matters saturated steam although he proposed combining compound engines with superheating. While the S9 Atlantic with a large, nearly square grate, could develop some 1500 – 1600 ihp, it soon became evident that more than anything else they suffered from having to run on saturated steam; yet, although a number of the Atlantics made it into DRG times as 14 class, it was left to the Belgian state railway to finally install superheaters on their small group of S9 they had inherited from the KPEV. Those went on a long carrière, becoming the last of Prussian Atlantics to remain in service long since the last S9 was gone on the DRG.

When 30 years after series production of the KPEV S9 the Pennsylvania built the S-1 Duplex they truly doubled the classic Atlantic wheel arrangement, engine and tender throughout.

With regards

Juniatha

Juniatha,

Thank you for the added information regarding the various types of engines and power used.

You really do your homework on the subject of railroading.

I appreciate you sharing your knowledge, with us forum members.

Ralph