PRR Duplexes and Experimental Engines ( S1, S2, T1, Q1, V1 etc.)

19992 views
382 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, August 11, 2018 9:55 PM

Miningman
There are other alternatives to a gasoline tax but I mention this as the most likely to temper down extended highway trips.

Oh, there is a much, much better theoretical alternative, one which in fact looked very likely in its earliest years.  That is the construction of all modern grade-separated highways compliant with ITS (like the one GM was developing intensively in the '40s) and therefore flexibly and appropriately tolled in a way that can track any traffic pattern or combination of incentives/disincentives reliably.  Naturally the minimum rates are set to recover cost of capital and aid in proper operation of the relatively complex automatic machinery ... and can be easily adjusted to keep overused or congested lanes priced to capacity.  If that is the expectation for the future of multiple-lane grade-separated parkways, as it was in a lesser sense well into the Fifties, you never get to metastasizing freeways sucking the life out of cities and causing the paving over of downtowns.  And more appropriately, it keeps a luxurious and convenient rail service well-enough patronized to make system improvements desirable.

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,119 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, August 11, 2018 11:57 PM

Well that is something I have not considered. Fascinating. 

Also re: Breitspurbahn

Can you imagine having a conversation about Pennsys new 24,700hp

4-12-12-4 + 10-10 + 4-12-12-4. Yeesh. 

The Smithsonian Channel covered this fairly well along with some animation on their series on Combat Trains. The Nazi's had over a hundred engineers working on this. They had a lot of plans, lots of locomotive designs, consists fiqured out ( I suppose that swimming pool would be a wave pool), lots of drafting blueprints and scale models but all they got done in the construction was some route surveying. 

Didn't John Kneiling have some ideas along these lines as well. 

You really think this could be a thing?

If steam do you haul around a lake with the locomotive. The water demand would be gigantic. A boiler mishap would take out a town. 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, August 12, 2018 3:36 AM

Breitspurbahn: Ocean liner on wheels

This is really something I would spend a fortune just to experience......

___________________________________________________________

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, August 12, 2018 6:25 AM

I tried to find out what happened outside the "Broadway" during the Dark Age of post-war America's railroad history in mid-1950s, which was only merely 10 years after PRR sent S1 to the torch. These two videos from YouTube answered me many questions I haven't even asked yet.

"GREYHOUND BUS LINES GUIDED TOUR 1957 PROMOTIONAL FILM 71122"



"The Golden Age of Travel | Airline Hostess | 6 Hours on Pan Am 1950's" 



The general public had more transportation choices, all forms of conspiracy theories asidethe Free Economy was working just fine, until......

 

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, August 13, 2018 3:03 PM

 

Photo taken in 1938 in Baldwin workshop, roller bearing (?) equipped on the axle, I don't know If this was built for S1. (Source: Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania)

 

 
Is that a lateral motion device on the floor and on the axle? S1's first and third axle equipped such devices, according to German Wiki. (Source: Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania)

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, August 13, 2018 4:06 PM

Note the difference between a 'main' driver's rod pin and the one on the wheelset with the lateral-motion device installed.  That last picture likely does reflect the difference between main and coupled-wheel sets, the item pictured with the lateral-motion device installed and in the foreground therefore being indeed either the first or third wheelset.

Suspect these are implemented with concentric 'snubbing' springs rather than any kind of friction damping (as was, I think, more general PRR practice for this stuff at the time).  That might be an issue with lateral flange force at high speed, even with good lateral control on the lead truck; there is something of a geometric issue here both in spiral and continuous curve between the 'chord' between lead-truck and trailing-truck-pivot pins projected out to the tread-contact/flange-contact line vs. the actual desired tangency between tread cone, fillet, and (only in last recourse!) actual flange face as the lateral take-up occurs.  Resonance here due to underdamping (or the wrong snubbing frequency ranges) might lead to some very poor effects...

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,119 posts
Posted by Miningman on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:39 AM

"Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics."

Falsely attributed to Albert Einstein but maybe there is hope for The S1 to be made to appear. Pop! There it is!

(This kind of makes a person's thinking to short circuit...like thinking about infinity).

However I do believe everything that was still is, just not sure how. Have some ideas but way too everything for here. 

We do use matching resonance in Geophysics as an exploration tool. 

Regardless, The S1 should never have been scrapped. 

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 6:11 AM
Overmod
Note the difference between a 'main' driver's rod pin and the one on the wheelset with the lateral-motion device installed.  That last picture likely does reflect the difference between main and coupled-wheel sets, the item pictured with the lateral-motion device installed and in the foreground therefore being indeed either the first or third wheelset. Suspect these are implemented with concentric 'snubbing' springs rather than any kind of friction damping (as was, I think, more general PRR practice for this stuff at the time).  That might be an issue with lateral flange force at high speed, even with good lateral control on the lead truck; there is something of a geometric issue here both in spiral and continuous curve between the 'chord' between lead-truck and trailing-truck-pivot pins projected out to the tread-contact/flange-contact line vs. the actual desired tangency between tread cone, fillet, and (only in last recourse!) actual flange face as the lateral take-up occurs.  Resonance here due to underdamping (or the wrong snubbing frequency ranges) might lead to some very poor effects...


Thank you very much, Overmod. I love your online lecture about railroad engineering! Thumbs Up I have never seen another type of lateral-motion device of steam locomotive before, neither in person or in the photo, could you let us to be more specific about this device? What does a  lateral-motion device used friction damping looks like? According to many reliable sources, T1 had  lateral-motion device on it first and third set axle too, but I am not sure it was made by Alco or Baldwin, we might have a chance to see the detail of it when The T1 Trust keep pushing the project forward. But It seems that the lateral-motion device didn’t affect T1’s high speed performance apparently as well as many 4-8-4 running on 80-100mph which had this device equipped.

By the way, could you tell us what is a "stabilising rockers" (install on the trailing truck)? Thank you very much!

ALCO made Lateral Cushioning Devices for the  UP FEF-2 locomotives (820-834)

 

 

Patent Drawing from Google.

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 6:37 AM

Miningman

Regardless, The S1 should never have been scrapped. 



They scrapped it in this world, I created it in another "world" Stick out tongue



Btw, I cannot find the" 7-page article by the late Charlie Meyer in the Jan 1992 (Vo.10, N0.1) issue of Milepost, a magazine published by Friends of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, I might need to write to Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania for a back issue.
If our dearest forum members having a copy of this, please kindly drop me a message! Thank you very much it would save me a lot of time.

After reading the "Loco Profile 24 Pennsylvania Duplex (from 1972)", I found some data about S1 which I was looking for so long, some questions have been answered, some are not. Moreover, not much content is about the Q1 4-6-4-4, I know at least one issue of Keystone Magazine had a cover story of it, I wish it worth my money.
I wish Classic Train Magazine will have a full cover story about PRR Duplexes in the near future, especially when next year will be the 80th anniversary of S1's birth. Cake

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:17 AM
I believe many readers of this post are interested in PRR's trains and waiting for overmod’s coming backStick out tongue. In case you didn't catch up, a train model manufacturer will release an HO scale model of Streamlined K4s (PRR's own design) very soon.
 
By the way, I am reading some books borrowed from the library about Steam locomotive of America, every time when the topic goes to Streamlined Trains in the 1930s to 40s, Dreyfuss Hudson always grabbed a lot of attention while many books didn’t even mention this streamlined K4s designed by PRR. Imo, they look even better than the #3768 design by Raymond Lowey.
 
 
 
I love Dreyfuss Hudson too since they are not only good looking, but they also represent the quality of management and creativity of NYCRR during the prewar period. Dreyfuss Hudson became the face of NYC while PRR probably thought that GG1, running between New York - the economic center of the world to Washington-the political center of the world, was good enough to represent the cooperation image of PRR, thus not many efforts were put to streamlining steam trains on the western part of the system.
 
(Photo Credit: John Appleman. GG1 #4800 with riveted body make the engine looks tougher.)
 
NYCRR had 12 streamlined J3a and 2 K-5 (for Mercury) in the early 1940s formed beautifully streamlined fleet, while PRR only had 5 streamlined K4s,1 granitic S1, 2 fancy looking T1 prototype and one Q1 for freight service by 1943. The States was at war, not many people had the mood to admire the beauty of streamlined locomotive anyway, this is one of a regret thing when I read the history of PRR. Even though PRR had 139 “streamlined” GG1 serving on the Northeast, that was a different thing in my book.
 
 
 
 
When the 50 T1 finally arrived in the mid-1940s, streamlining was no longer a thing for many Railroads, they did come too late. On the other hand, PRR didn’t keep their streamlined shrouding intact very long, and the streamlining itself made the fleet of T1 always covered with coal dust and looked dirty. After Baldwin’s early mainline Diesel were proofed incompetent (they actually looked good), EMD E7, E8 replaced T1’s publicity role, which overall looks absolutely no different from other railroads E7, E8…… The rest is history.


Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 10:13 AM

Miningman
"Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics."

Except that, oh Lord, it's not.  This sounds like someone who has confused pop-Einstein with pop-Tesla with about as much actual physics knowledge as someone talking about 'detoxing' and 'cleansing' has medical knowledge.

Resonance is really useful, as are the somewhat more sophisticated versions used in control theory.  Note that strange attractors (and other convergent or metastable-convergent functions using sequential probabilities) don't work at all deterministically in the happy idea that what may be true for SHM or electromagnetic radiation accurately describes even small systems of complex reality. 

And then we get to what E=MC^2 is derived from, and what it means, and from there we get to quantum mechanics and what the 'numbers' that can be quantum entangled actually represent (hint: it assumes particular structure of matter, and preservation of relationships in that structure across 'distance', in ways that have nothing to do with oscillating frequency in the classical sense).

Much more fun than "frequency" per se is the ongoing discussion of the wave-particle duality in so much of this physics.  Just be sure you have the aspirin bottle reasonably near when trying to conceive of what an actual 'photon' represents (and why it has a virtual wavetrain of more than one EM cycle at given wavelength/frequency contained in it...)

There is PLENTY of stuff that was that does not 'still exist'.  One case in point should be highly familiar to you: where are the neptunium-series daughters?? 

And I ask you to consider the numbers that would have to be manipulated to produce a time-stable S1 ... as opposed to one with, say, a gold tooth in its front end, or paint patched for Conrail, or one metric-size tender wheelset.  Transfinite numbers, aren't they?  Suspect no amount of faith-based reasoning can help extract just the right complexity and phase in just the right area of reality to help with this -- unfortunately.  If only Mary Baker Eddy's father had been able to craft a religion...

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,119 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:24 PM

"I did some googling. I haven't found anything that conclusively proves what I'm about to say, but it looks like the person being misquoted here is a guy named Darryl Anka, who claims to be channeling a "multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial being" named Bashar. Anka has a web site that I don't want to link to, but I'm sure you will find it if you search for it. I'm reluctant to link to any woo woo sites, but I think I have to post a couple of links, since they are the only evidence we have of where this quote came from. The quote started appearing on the web some time in 2001. (You can use date ranges when you search with Google). http://www.angelvalley.org/assets/pdf/bashar-ides-of-march.pdf [Broken] (titled ‘The Ides of March’, channeling from Bashar by Darryl Anka) is filled with so much nonsense that I can't make myself read it, but it came up in the search results, so I searched the document for "frequency", and found that it ends with the words This is not philosophy! This is physics! Everything is energy and that's all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is physics.​ This web page contains the quote Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality.​ It's attributed to Bashar, not to Einstein. "

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/einstein-misquoted.583449/

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 1:04 PM

Quote feature is screwed up again; here is the three-dollar tour of the general logic behind the stabilizing rollers:

I do not have good records of online illustrations for the following, but you may want to go through the history of trailing trucks (particularly the change from 1st to 2nd-type Delta) and look a bit at the general knowledge of what '20s trailing trucks did and didn't do well.

Most of the early accommodations for trailing axles in locomotives with low fireboxes did not hinge-pivot them following the Bissel formula; about the closest would be Cartazzi axles which arranged the suspension pedestals to have just the right lateral radius that the wheeltread and flange contact patches would 'track straight' to the inside tangent involved.  The chief issue here is that one important thing a trailing truck has to do is to steer the back of the locomotive chassis, and as more and more designs recognized the importance of large radiant area, circulators, heavy cast beds and ancillary machinery at the extreme rear of the locomotive, etc., designs that accomplished lateral compliance with -- well, devices like the lateral-motion devices used on driver cannon boxes, acting only as far back as the hub liners on trailing wheels, there are rapidly-achieved limits on how much stabilizing force you can apply, and the range through which that force can be made to act proportionally, which apply strictly to inside-bearing trailers and somewhat less but still meaningfully intensively to the many 'patent' outside-bearing lever arrangements involved in the pre-Delta trailing truck arrangements, many of which are known by their inventor's or promoter's names.

The Delta two-wheel truck, as perfected, solved the tracking issue with the pivot and axle location, and the equalization issue with onboard levers controlled by the relatively heavy frame structure.  However, you may note that simply by extending the truck frame far back in the right way, you can arrange lateral-motion compliance between the extreme rear of the frame and the truck-frame extensions, thereby achieving as long a lever arm as really possible to exert steering force both 'on' and 'to'.

The problem being, as you will quickly notice in a model or with reference to drawings, that the swing is very long -- much longer than an undamped facing-spring arrangement can accommodate without dreadful resonance.  (There is an epic story about a Reading 2-10-2 given "sprung" truck steering that was so bad even at drag speeds that someone from shop forces had to come out and weld the arrangement solid to permit getting the train the rest of the way over the road...)  The initial arrangement used here took advantage of a happy characteristic of equalized engines: if you use inclined planes in the 'corners', the actual weight of the chassis can serve as the proportional restoring and centering force.  It did not take long before the idea of using upside-down heart-shaped cams, or a gear-and-sector approach, cut to use rolling and not sliding tribology, was adapted to give long swing (we see pairs of heart-shaped cams also used for lateral in some Adams pin-guided lead trucks, which among other things allows separate control of small-period lateral oscillation coupling to hunting due to flange clearance or railhead wear vs. progressive curve guidance or Voyce Glaze-style steering against what would otherwise have to be handled by relatively high reciprocating overbalance.

As a peripheral note: you have probably read up on Woodard's clever articulated trailing truck ... and some of the reasons it could be a disaster in practice, particularly when you tried to back the train on a curve.  An interesting thing some of these trucks shared with the earlier two-axle Delta trucks was this: the axle spacing is prescribed as part of the Bissel formula, but other considerations -- practical weight distribution to the axles and location of the ashpan arrangements being two -- often dictated a geometrically suboptimal position for the leading trailer axle.  Timken devised a highly interesting arrangement that essentially treated a four-wheel trailing truck as a very long single-rear-axle Delta frame, with the forward axle completely free to 'float' laterally in its pedestals, the weight being transferred to it from the frame via a couple of large hardened lateral rollers.  The guiding force for the rear of the chassis was only passed to the track through the cone and flanges of the rearmost wheelset; the forward one was essentially weight-bearing only.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 2:04 PM
Thank you and welcome back, Overmod. Is that fan-shaped thing inside the red cycle, which supporting the weight of the firebox and cab on the trailer truck is the "inverted-rocker centering device" aka stabilizing rocker? Such feature can't be found on Cartazzi axles or trailing wheels of German steam engine like BR 41, I am going do some research base on the information you provided. Smile


 

Trailing Truck of Q1 4-6-4-4 #6130:

Q1 4-6-4-4 #6130 Trailing truck with booster.




The 6-wheel trailing truck of S1 and S2(Steam Turbine) : 



S1's tender trucks, once exchanged with 6110's tender trucks for testing, returned after the test. ATSF 2900s 4-8-4 used the same model, probable a design from Baldwin.

 

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 6:13 PM

Jones1945
Is that fan-shaped thing inside the red cycle, which supporting the weight of the firebox and cab on the trailer truck is the "inverted-rocker centering device" aka stabilizing rocker?

Yes.  Note also the inclined planes on the part of the frame that rests on the roller to provide the restoring force, and the substantial casting that the 'foot' of the roller rests on, a kind of 'chair' that bolts to the trailing-truck frame casting in the kind of place visible in some of the other pictures.

I had thought all the PRR eight-wheel trailing trucks were radically different in both construction and principle from the ATSF version (which much more closely follows Buckeye principles, like those in a three-piece freight truck).  This adds particular interest to the use of this particular design on so fast a locomotive.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,682 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:51 PM

I thought I might mention a couple of little-known Duplex designs that remained unbuilt, and probably for the best.

I was looking at German War Locomotives 1939-1945 by Alfred Gottwalt. It mentions the broad gauge railway and illustrates a two unit turbo electric condensing locomotive roughly similar to that illustrated in an earlier post. It also mentions that Adolf Hitler was concerned that 3m gauge (10'0") might not be adequate and that it should be increased to 4 metres....

It does go into greater detail on larger standard gauge locomotives intended for use in Russia. These were to be built to a 20 ton axleload, while the Russians themselves were concentrating on locomotives of 18 tons axleload, and I'd guess the Russians knew more about the track than the Germans.

One of these is fairly well known, as a result of Maerklin making a model of an early Borsig suggested design, a 2-6-8-0. Maerklin gave it a road number in the "53" series, but with a 20 ton axleload it would have had a number in the "40" group, "46" being the lowest available. Borsig's other proposal was a three cylinder 2-10-4 with a booster and coupling rods on the trailing truck, giving a wheel arrangement of 1' E 2'b h3.

There were a couple of 2-12-0 and 2-12-2 designs, generally three cylinder but eventually someone suggested a 2-14-0 which was, amazingly, two cylinder so described as 1'G h2.

However, eventually the Vienna Locomotive Works suggested a Duplex. Someone had been reading about Emerson's work for the B&O and what emerged was a 2-6-6-2 with cylinders each end and a choice of two water tube fireboxes, with and without combustion chamber. What could possibly go wrong?

The Germans managed to lose the war (and more particularly the Russian campaign) without assistance from any of these designs, and the 42s and 52s performed well enough for the Russians to keep many of them right up to the end of steam, although Warsaw pact nations found that they were offered many, possibly without the option of refusal.

This book had a subtitle "Railways in World War II, part 2"

The back cover describes "part 1" which was a reprint of Ron Ziel's book "Steel Rails to Victory" translated to German. The perceptive publishers felt that a new title might better suit their market so it was retitled "Wheels must Turn" apparently a wartime propaganda message.

Peter

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:36 AM

Overmod

......I had thought all the PRR eight-wheel trailing trucks were radically different in both construction and principle from the ATSF version (which much more closely follows Buckeye principles, like those in a three-piece freight truck).  This adds particular interest to the use of this particular design on so fast a locomotive.

Compare to T1 and K4s, pictures of S1 are really rare, so far, I can't find a picture showing the tender clearly even though S1 was the first locomotive to receive a 16-wheel tender.

40 years ago, one brass train manufacturer 
made a completely wrong HO scale tender for their S1 model. They used the plan of T1, many details including the brake shoe of the drivers are all in the wrong shape. My first Brass Train model was a S1 from another 
manufacturer, one of the things I notice is the different tender trucks compare to S2 and T1, I believe S1’s tender trucks was one of a kind in whole PRR system.
 
From the book ”Black Gold - Black Diamonds: The Pennsylvania Railroad & Dieselization” by Hirsimaki, Eric, it mentioned that one of the serious teething problems of T1 was the tender slamming against the rear of the locomotive at high speeds, the matter of the rough riding tender was thought to be due to the style of the trucks used. 6110’s original tender trucks were exchanged with S1’s tender truck in August 21st1942 to prove the theory, but it didn’t solve the problem. Turn out 6110 exchanged its tender’s spring rigging from tender 6884 behind M1 6809 and the problem solved. 
 
Brake cylinders of S1's tender trucks were installed inside the frame


ATSF 2912's tender trucks, a different arrangement of brake cylinders.

 

The only one pic of S1's tender from Hagley, note the Builder Plate was painted in DGLE except the number of the locomotive before it was sent to 39 World Fair.

 

"21000 Gallon tender truck class 4FST3", probably used on Class M1.

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:01 AM

M636C

......One of these is fairly well known, as a result of Maerklin making a model of an early Borsig suggested design, a 2-6-8-0. Maerklin gave it a road number in the "53" series, but with a 20 ton axleload it would have had a number in the "40" group, "46" being the lowest available. Borsig's other proposal was a three cylinder 2-10-4 with a booster and coupling rods on the trailing truck, giving a wheel arrangement of 1' E 2'b h3.

 

Very interesting, Peter. I wish there is a book record all the proposed, never built locomotive around the world! Some pic of the 2-6-8-0 avalible on the web:



 "Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version......

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,682 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:46 AM

 

I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version......

Locomotives with condensers were built for service on the Russian front owing to unreliability of water supplies for locomotives. The condenser allowed longer runs between stops for water. The Soviet Railways had built condensing versions of the SO class 2-10-0 prior to WWII for the same reason. The 2-6-8-0 was intended for service in Russia, so a condensing version seems quite reasonable, although I haven't seen any drawings of one. The model includes a a pipe on the left side for conveying exhaust steam to the condenser. There is however no indication of the fitting of an exhaust fan to replace the blast pipe since no steam would be exhausted to the atmosphere. The tender is the type fitted to the Class 52 2-10-0 and would probably be too small for normal service on the 2-6-8-0. It does allow the model manufacturer to issue another model where the lack of a prototype must reduce the chances of criticism.

Peter

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:19 AM

M636C

......Locomotives with condensers were built for service on the Russian front owing to unreliability of water supplies for locomotives. The condenser allowed longer runs between stops for water. The Soviet Railways had built condensing versions of the SO class 2-10-0 prior to WWII for the same reason......

Thank you for the specific response, Peter. 

"Over 6,700 locomotives of DRB Class 52 type were built across Europe for use on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. Thus, it was one of the most numerous steam locomotives in the world......" This reminds me of a TV programme on Discovery Channel about how the Nazi use the railway on military propose. 

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:19 PM

Jones1945
I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version...

Reducing the effective water rate.

Note that it is possible this only involves recovering part of the exhaust, not going to the trouble of implementing a full draft-fan rebuild (with expensive and hard-to-maintain components; did Henschel figure out before the War how to make char-resistant fan configurations as on the latter South African class 25s?) and I think that is what you see here. 

I also seem to remember that some quasi-condensing design arrangements retained a full blastpipe front end for use when the full capacity of the condenser was not needed (or could not be achieved).

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • 1,805 posts
Posted by timz on Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:21 PM

Jones1945
"Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,069 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:35 PM

M636C
The perceptive publishers felt that a new title might better suit their market so it was retitled "Wheels must Turn" apparently a wartime propaganda message.

Indeed it was, more completely as "Räder müssen rollen für den Sieg", and you can watch YouTube clips that contain it, as here:

One wonders whether 'Wheels must Roll for Victory' is really all that different from Ziel's title, and of course it would have been familiar to many prospective readers?

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 2:31 PM

It seems that Locomotive using condensing tender was very rare, this pic is Class 25 and Type CZ condensing tender from South Africa, c. 1970. Looking at it makes me feel thirsty. 

 

 

Speaking of German Locomotive, one of my favoite had a similar fate like PRR S1, which is the BR 06 001 and 002, the only two "Northern" type German ever made, also the most powerful two. The smoke lifters on them was something the PRR T1 really needed.

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,682 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:23 PM

timz
 
Jones1945
"Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"

 

Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?

The Germans tended to use gradients in "per thousand", one tenth of a "percent" grade. I suspect that the load quoted was on a 0.8 percent grade.

Peter 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,682 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:49 PM

Overmod
 
Jones1945
I don't know what is the function of the condenser on the tender of this version...

 

Reducing the effective water rate.

Note that it is possible this only involves recovering part of the exhaust, not going to the trouble of implementing a full draft-fan rebuild (with expensive and hard-to-maintain components; did Henschel figure out before the War how to make char-resistant fan configurations as on the latter South African class 25s?) and I think that is what you see here. 

I also seem to remember that some quasi-condensing design arrangements retained a full blastpipe front end for use when the full capacity of the condenser was not needed (or could not be achieved).

 
We shouldn't over-think a model which has clearly been cobbled together from the existing 2-6-8-0 and the existing condensing tender from a Class 52 model.
 
I suspect that special alloys for wear resistance would not have been available during WWII, at least not for these locomotives. I expect that wear monitoring and frequent replacement would have been the theory for condensing locomotves on the Russian Front.
 
My comment on the revised title centred around the deletion of the word "victory" in the German edition. I agree the full slogan in German was very close to the original English title.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,119 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:50 PM

Interesting film Overmod. Lots of Nar-zees...lots. 

So, (in the end), who blew that bridge to Kingdom come...the Allies, the Russians or the Germans themselves. 

We discussed before the "war locomotive' the Kriegslok, 7,000+ made in total. An amazing number. 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,682 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, August 17, 2018 12:26 AM

Miningman

Interesting film Overmod. Lots of Nar-zees...lots. 

So, (in the end), who blew that bridge to Kingdom come...the Allies, the Russians or the Germans themselves. 

We discussed before the "war locomotive' the Kriegslok, 7,000+ made in total. An amazing number. 

 
The book I mentioned above "War Locomotives 1939-1945" contains a production diagram. For two months in 1943, 505 locomotives were being completed per month. I don't think EMD ever reached that level, for example. On the other hand, Baldwin Lima and Alco must have built a lot of locomotives in 1942-1945, too.
 
Peter
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,119 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, August 17, 2018 1:33 AM

Baldwin, Lima and Alco continued to build steam locomotives and some Diesel switchers over the war but they were also tasked with building tanks, artillery pieces and other wartime military needs. The Baldwin  Sante Fe 4-8-4's, the Alco Big Boys and many other notables were produced during the war. The Pennsy 2-10-4's J1's and the C&O Alleghenies, B&O EM-1 and several others being notable. 

The Kriegslok was a 2-10-0 Decapod, making Pennsys fleet of Decapods look minuscule in comparison. Not only that but a great many survived the war and were used all over Europe, mostly behind the Iron Curtain but some in Western countries, Norway and Austria come to mind, and for a long time afterward with some continuing on in service up to the year 2000. 

It was inexpensive to build, tough as can be, easy to fix out on the road without having to 'bring it in', not complicated, and powerful. The very fact they were kept in service for 40+++ years after they were built is quite a testament. Perhaps Baldwin and Pennsy would have admired them.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 982 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, August 17, 2018 3:55 AM

M636C

 

The book I mentioned above "War Locomotives 1939-1945" contains a production diagram. For two months in 1943, 505 locomotives were being completed per month. I don't think EMD ever reached that level, for example. On the other hand, Baldwin Lima and Alco must have built a lot of locomotives in 1942-1945, too.
 
Peter
 

FYI,

Number of orders received from 1942 to 1945 in America were as follow:

Steam locomotive: 363,413,74,148 (Total=998) 

Diesel:894,635,680,691 (Total=2900)

Electrict: 12,0,3,6 (Total=21)

 

Number of locomotive built from 1942 to 1945 in America:

1047,936,1012,1171 (Total=4166)

(These figures courtesy Railway Ages and Railway Mechanical Enginner)

Jones Family Railroad Hobby YouTube Channel: 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu9gt9Q9RF-Hwq7xWciVcWg/

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter