PRR Duplexes and Experimental Engines Discussion ( S1, T1, Q1, Q2,etc.)

6300 views
219 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:36 PM

I found the espresso maker....seats don't look so great. 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:07 PM

Overmod

http://digital.hagley.org/PRR_11454

Knew if I dug into some of the records, I'd find it.  This is the S1 backhead view.

 

Such delicate interior! S1 is like a 1925 Rolls-Royce Phantom 1 in my heart. 

CoffeeSmile, Wink & Grin

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:44 PM

No computers, no phone, no radio. Operating this behemoth was not for your average bear. As strange as this comparison will seem to many it reminds me a lot of the face of an advancing drift underground. Just air, drill oil and water, operating a bouncing jackleg with strength and smarts. High skills at many levels and brawn. No computers, no phone, no radio either. Finishing work at the end of the day the Engineer, Fireman and a two man Mining crew would have a similar appearance. Not for your average bear either. 

The Espresso maker is just above the 3 same size circular gauges on the Firemans side. 

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:47 AM
 Control this giant or any "King size" steam locomotive wouldn’t be an easy job, from starting it up to reaching 100mph, team works, patient, prudent and confident is what the crews needed, look at these lucky gentlemen who were responsible for S1's maiden voyage! 
 
Photo source: Mike Snow from Flickr

  • Member since
    February, 2007
  • 136 posts
Posted by 3rd rail on Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:22 PM

While I have no specific facts to back this up, I suspect that the "6-4-4-6" arrangement of the S-1 was more for show, than go.. After all, that took a lot of available weight off the driving axles. Add that to the long rigid frame, and it was not a very practical engine. Doomed before it was ever built. 

Todd 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, August 31, 2018 6:17 AM
PRR probably received an order from “the top of the top”; told them "Hey, we need a new engine to represent all railroads of America in the forthcoming 1939 New York World Fair, Pennsy has been chose to build this engine since you guys running the largest railroad in the world. Just make it the largest, fastest, most powerful and beautiful engine in the world, it will be displayed in the fair for almost two years, don’t mess it up, do you understand?”
 
Note that the new Duplex engine proposed in 1937 for Pennsy was an idea of Baldwin and supposed to be finished by Baldwin, but in April 1938 “PRR ended Baldwin Locomotive Work's consultation on developing high-speed duplex passenger locomotive and assigned work to a consortium of Baldwin Locomotive WorksAmerican Locomotive Company and Lima Locomotive Works under a joint contract to develop the duplex design Class S1 (wiki)
 
 I really don’t think PRR, BLW, ALCO, LIMA didn’t know what clearance is and what a turntable is, IIRC there was a 13ft long space inside S1 smoke box……So yeah S1 was probably a glorified test bed specially built for the World Fair like a concept car,  but she did manage to serve the country for almost 6 years, not that bad compare to her duplexes sisters.  Smile, Wink & Grin
 
 https://digital.hagley.org/
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, September 01, 2018 1:30 PM

Here is a virtually unknown streamlined Pacific that operated on the Ontario Northland Railway 

700 after modifications including streamlining and larger tender. Built with Young valve gear changed to Baker. 
200 lbs. 69" drivers. 37% t.e. (with booster 47%) CLC #1692 1921 North Bay 1940's

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, September 01, 2018 2:58 PM
Good looking engine. Streamlined body with elephant ear style smoke deflectors was rare in North America. She reminds me of Western Pacific class GS 64 4-8-4, but she looked much better with all the details on the body.
 
When I was a kid, I thought all steam engine run faster if it had smoke deflectors. Laugh By the way, Young valve gear used on this engine was rare too (before modification)
 
 https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PowerlessTerrificGuineapig-size_restricted.gif
 Young valve gear used on UP 2-10-2
 
Speaking of smoke deflector, this is one of many things that PRR never wanted to touch except for some special cases, even when they knew that it was impossible to not building a smoke deflector for S2 Steam Turbine #6200, the first version was built as small as they could make it. It was my favorite version of S2 though. 

 
 
http://i68.tinypic.com/zu05g8.png
  • Member since
    February, 2007
  • 136 posts
Posted by 3rd rail on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 10:32 PM

I'll admit to skimming over the many replies, but I did not see one mention of the maintainance costs for Steam/VS/ Diesel. Most Modern steam locos would have to visit the roundhouse after every run of at the most of 200 miles. Not to mention the regular boiler washouts, rod lubrication, ash pan clean outs, coaling, watering, pretty much non-stop attention. Then, the upkeep of the lineside facilities for these machines. Now, don't get me wrong.. I think steam was really neat, I love to see them run. However, I see why the RR's dumped them. Simple economics. 

 

Todd

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 4:52 AM

From Wiki:
Six of these locomotives were chosen by their designer, Paul W. Kiefer, for the famous 1946 Steam Versus Diesel road trials, where the 6,000 hp (4,500 kW) Niagaras were put up against some 4,000 hp (3,000 kW) diesels (E7's). The locomotives were run along the 928.1 miles (1,493.6 km) from New York (Harmon) to Chicago, via Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo and Elkhart, and return. The results were close:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Central_Niagara 

RRs were the best candidate to calculate which one was more economical, most if not all of them picked Diesel for various reasons. But in America railroad history, Diesel or even Electric locomotive didn't save the passenger service of the States from rapidly decline since late 40s, until Amtrak cleaning up the mess in 70s.
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 12:29 PM

V1

In this thread, I am going to create a compilation of information about the Raymond Loewy "Triplex" and PRR V1 direct-drive turbine locomotive. I will gather all information from The PRR Chronology in the first phase, please feel free to sharing all your thought with us!Yes

This thread will keep updating when new information is avaliable.


Apr. 10, 1943 | Raymond Loewy’s office applies for three design patents covering the streamlined shell of the proposed “Triplex” steam turbine locomotive. (VPO)

Jan. 4, 1944  | Mechanical Engineer Carleton K. Steins receives patents Nos. 2,338,212 and 2,338,214 covering a turbine or reciprocating locomotive with a tender first, followed by the cab, and then the boiler with the firebox forward, the proposed V1. (VPO)

Feb. 8, 1944  | Chief of Motive Power H. W. Jones writes to Carleton K. Steins asking him to discuss the steam turbine V1 “Triplex” locomotive with the Baldwin Locomotive Works. (VPO)

 Feb. 9, 1944  | With the patents granted, Carleton K. Steins writes to Chief Engineer Ralph P. Johnson of the Baldwin Locomotive Works arranging to discuss the “Triplex” steam turbine locomotive when they next come up to discuss the Class Q2. (VPO)

Apr. 12, 1944  | Pres. Clement meets with heads of other coal-hauling railroads to promote the development of a coal-burning turbine locomotive.

Apr. 12, 1944  | Mechanical Engineer's office issues specification drawing for proposed Class V1 4-8-4-8 steam turbine "Triplex"; twin turbines developing 9,000 HP with top speed of 100 MPH; 48" drivers; total weight 882,000 lbs.; starting drawbar pull 115,000 lbs.. (CMP) 

 June 22, 1944  | VP in Charge of Operations John F. Deasy requests Pres. Clement to approve development of an experimental Class V1 2-D+2-D streamlined steam turbine locomotive, for which $400,000 is to be charged to capital account and $350,000 to operating expenses; it is to use the same boiler as the Q2 but which can develop 115,000 lbs. of starting tractive effort from two 4,500 shaft HP turbines; the coal bunker is to be equipped with auxiliary water tanks, so that water can be pumped forward as the coal is depleted to maintain weight on the front driving unit; overall length is to be 137'-5" and total weight 882,000 lbs.;

the V1 is to have clearances similar to the J1; it will require 125-foot turntables, of which there is presently only one at Harrisburg, so that a new turntable will be required at East Altoona; track troughs at Jacks and Latrobe would have to be lengthened from 1,800 to 2,600 feet; Deasy proposes using it on the Middle Division and in helper service between Altoona and Gallitzin, althought he forsees its use between Enola and East St. Louis/Chicago using the Port Perry Branch to get through Pittsburgh; development work begins without formal authorization from Board. (VPO)

 Sep. 13, 1944  | PRR Board authorizes the expenditure of $375,000 for a 4,000 HP EMD E7 A-A set; track changes at “Q” Tower at Sunnyside Yard; approves a contract between the railroads and the General Electric Company for a coal-burning steam turbine electric locomotive of 5,435 HP. (MB)

 Oct. 18, 1944  | Motive Power Dept. prepares a performance curve showing the proposed Class V1 turbine locomotive outperforming all PRR conventional steam locomotives and even the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway’s 2-6-6-6 “Alleghany” Type at all speeds over 25 MPH. (VPO)

 

(S2 #6200)Nov. 28, 1944 Experimental Class S2 6-8-6 steam turbine locomotive No. 6200 placed on display for press at Philadelphia; developed by Baldwin with turbine components by Westinghouse; proposed T1-type Loewy streamlining has been rejected; develops 6,900 HP at turbine shaft. (Hirsmaki says in service 10/1/44!! 11/28 is date of press event!! NYT); simplified smokebox design leads to staybolts breaking and steam leaks, although turbine performs well. (RyAge, CMP)

 

Nov. 28, 1944  | Pres. Martin W. Clement asks when the company will be able to make up its mind on the Class V1 turbine locomotive and whether it will be used for freight or passenger service. (VPO)

 


 

Jan. 29, 1945  |  VP in Charge of Operations John F. Deasy proposes that the Baldwin Locomotive Works and Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company collaborate with the PRR on developing a prototype of the Class V1 turbine locomotive; Chief Electrical Engineer John V. B. Duer writes to the Baldwin Locomotive Works concerning the patents, particularly possible patent infringement from the similar steam turbine locomotives that Baldwin is building for the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway. (VPO) 

 

Feb. 21, 1945  | H. W. Jones, John V. B. Duer, Carleton K. Steins and J. S. Stair of the PRR meet in Philadelphia with representatives of Baldwin Locomotive Works and Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company in Philadelphia and agree that they will develop and build a prototype Class V1 coal-burning direct-drive turbine locomotive on the same terms as they have built the Class S2 No. 6200; Westinghouse will design the turbines, gearing and drives, Baldwin the locomotive, and the PRR only the driving and guiding trucks; this has the effect of raising the costs of the locomotive from $750,000 if built at Altoona, to $975,000. (VPO)

 

Feb. 25, 1945 |  G. M. Humphrey, Pres. of the M.A. Hanna Company writes to Pres. M. W. Clement complaining about the announcement of the Class V1; the PRR has chosen a side view to emphasize the difference in arrangement from a conventional locomotive; Humphrey would have preferred an angle shot that emphasized the streamlining and “modernity” still possible in a coal-burning locomotive. (VPO)

 

Mar. 20, 1945  | PRR announces completion of design of Class V1 "Triplex" 9,000 HP 2-D+2- D steam turbine locomotive to be built jointly with Baldwin and Westinghouse; to be 137.5 long; falling revenues after end of war preclude construction; also announces pending construction of Class Q2 duplexes. (PR)

 

Mar. 20, 1945  | Raymond Loewy responds to the V1 “Triplex” locomotive publicity complaining that he originated the “Triplex” concept in 1941 and “suggesting” that future publicity state that it “was conceived by the Pennsylvania Railroad’s Consulting Designer, Raymond Loewy and developed by the railroad’s engineering staff ...”; he also complains about the poor quality of the rendering supplied to the press. (VPO)

 

Mar. 26, 1945  |  VP in Charge of Operations John F. Deasy responds to Raymond Loewy’s criticisms by noting the Loewy’s original “Triplex” design was for a three-unit reciprocating locomotive, whereas the PRR’s engineers have replaced it with a two-unit turbine design; he promises that Loewy will be given credit for styling the V1 when it reaches that point. (VPO)

 

Mar. 28, 1945  |  Chesapeake & Ohio Railway asks War Production Board to build three steamturbine-electric locomotives similar to the projected PRR V1. (RyAge)

 

Apr. 28, 1945  |  PRR Pres. Martin W. Clement questions VP in Charge of Operations John F. Deasy where the Class V1 turbine locomotive can be used if successful.(VPO)

 

June 22, 1945 VP in Charge of Operations John F. Deasy replies that the Class V1 turbine locomotive should be used between Harrisburg and Altoona, as it will have enough coal to operate 160-170 miles at 50 MPH. (VPO)

 

Sep. 25, 1945  |  VP in Charge of Operations John F. Deasy submits a new AFE for $975,000 for the construction of one Class V1 steam turbine locomotive; the Accounting Dept. questions whether the increase in cost of $225,000 is because the locomotive will be built by outside builders, Baldwin and Westinghouse, instead of at Altoona; if so, the additional charge cannot be made to operating expenses; this means that $500,000 must be charged to Road & Equipment. (VPO)


 

June 13, 1946   Chief of Motive Power Howell T. Cover request the use in the proposed Class V1 turbine locomotive of an electric drive and reversing mechanism invented by Dr. Thomas D. Bowes, naval architect and used in ship propulsion; it will raise the cost of the complete locomotive by $10,000 to $985,000; Cover recommends building and testing one truck complete before proceeding with the whole locomotive, and speed is necessary to secure the use of the patent if it proves successful. (VPO)

 

June 19, 1946  |   VP in Charge of Operation John F. Deasy formally submits to Pres. M. W. Clement a proposal to first build a truck with the Bowes drive and complete the design of the Class V1 turbine locomotive for $578,000, followed by construction of a complete locomotive for a total of $985,000; he urges speed to prevent the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway from claiming patent priority. (VPO)

 

Aug. 20, 1946  |    Meeting of PRR, Baldwin Locomotive Works and Westinghouse Electric Corporation personnel held in Philadelphia on the proposed Class V1 turbine locomotive; both the Bowes drive and DC transmission are rejected as they would make the locomotive 10-20 feet longer; Carleton K. Steins calls for the coal capacity to be increased from 32.5 tons to 42 tons. (CMP)

 

Sep. 9, 1946  |    Chief of Motive Power Howell T. Cover comments on the proposed contract with Baldwin Locomotive Works for building the Class V1 turbine locomotive, noting that the Bowes drive has been dropped from consideration; he also notes that it is probably that the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) will build an all-welded boiler for the Class Q2, and if so, the same type of boiler, and not a Baldwin riveted boiler, should be used on the V1. (CMP)

 

Sep. 11, 1946  |    PRR Board approves contracting with the Baldwin Locomotive Works and Westinghouse Electric Corporation for the construction of trucks, gearing and drives for the proposed Class V1 turbine locomotive. (VPO, MB)

 

Oct. 2, 1946  |    Chief of Motive Power Howell T. Cover notes some objections to the proposed contract with Baldwin Locomotive Works to build the Class V1 turbine locomotive; Baldwin is demanding to build the boiler, because it knows that the PRR would have an all-welded boiler built by its rival the American Locomotive Company (ALCO); Cover wants the most modern boiler. (CMP)

 

Nov. 29, 1946  |    VP John F. Deasy submits papers to Pres. Clement asking authority to spend $1.15 million to develop one Class V1 modified Triplex 4-8-4-8 coal-burning steam turbine locomotive. (VPO)


 

Feb. 21, 1947    General Electric Company issues final report on coal-burning turbo-electric locomotive; was to have been 6,700 HP with estimated cost of $1.15 million each; compares unfavorably with four-unit 6,000 HP diesel at cost of $540,000 each; cost per horsepower $172 for turbine vs. $90 for diesel; concludes that the turbine cannot be competitive, and the project is scrapped. (SMPE) 

 

May 8, 1947  |   In a memo to Chief of Motive Power Howell T. Cover, VP James M. Symes kills further development of the V1 Triplex, saying it would be a waste of money. (VPO)

 

May 14, 1947  |    Chief of Motive Power H.T. Cover replies to VP James M. Symes noting that the V1 Triplex would not be a satisfactory freight locomotive as its principal advantage would be in the higher speed range, which the PRR is in no position to attain at present; it would require 7-10 years for development, whereas diesels are presently available; further expenditures would be a waste of money. (VPO) 

 

May 28, 1947  |    John V.B. Duer of Mechanical Officers Committee informs other eight railroads participating with PRR in General Electric Company’s steam turbine project that the committee has received copies of all the patents, drawings and test reports, that there will be no further work, and the project is closed. (Rdg)

 


 

1948   |   PRR cancels further steam locomotive development, including V-1 turbine locomotive, and orders full dieselization

 


 

 

(Bonus) The final nail in the coffin

Aug. 25 1948 PRR announces expansion of postwar equipment program to $216.7 million; includes 566 diesels, 395 new lightweight passenger cars, 273 rebuilt coaches, parlor, diner and lounge cars, and 4,400 new freight cars; passenger cars are to include 212 sleeping and lounge cars, 118 overnight coaches, 40 diners, including 16 twin-units, and 25 observation and lounge cars without sleeping accommodations; Senator and Congressional to be reequipped with compartment cars. (NYT, RyAge, Guide)

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, September 06, 2018 8:01 PM

The evolution of Raymond Loewy's "Triplex" : 

  • Plan A: 4-6-4-6 reciprocating steam locomotive inside a GG1 style body, reverse boiler, front cylinders placed close to the firebox.

  • Plan B: Similar to Plan A but using 6-6-4-0 wheel arrangement on the main engine unit. The front cylinders were placed even closer to the firebox than Plan A, a 3-unit structure, reciprocating steam locomotive.  

  • One of PRR's Plans: Class V1, a direct-drive coal burning steam turbine locomotive, 4-8-4-8, using a firebox of Q2, 2 turbines (4500hp each), never built.

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 07, 2018 3:17 PM

I thought Loewy's "Triplex" idea went considerably further back than 1941 (I don't have my notes available, but I seem to recall 1934) and was somewhat different in detail: it involved separating the locomotive into three 'modules' containing water, fuel, and boiler (hence the 'triplex' designation).  Why PRR persisted in calling the design that became the V1 the 'triplex' as long as they did is something of a mystery to me, as it's clear in some of the correspondence preserved at the Hagley that it's not what Loewy had developed or intended.  (As an amusing counterpoint, I have seen a Lehigh Valley diagram for a proposed duplex that features an enigmatic vehicle that is probably an integral separate water tender 'module.')

Cover et al. made much of the fact that Baldwin's design for the C&O M-1 was done in great secrecy and relatively great haste but largely to get around any prospective Steins patents rather than try to steal priority -- you may notice that many of the basic design features are very different.  If I recall correctly Baldwin was also thinking they would have a leg up on having a steam turbine product to promote and sell 'ahead' of anything PRR or BCR could develop ... this being the practical follow-on to large passenger locomotives required to pull long trains of axle-generator-served modern air-conditioned cars.  (There are highly revealing graphs of trailing resistance in Kiefer's report showing the effect on acceleration rate as the axle generators are cut in progressively).  Note that Chris Baer's sources specifically include the files at the Hagley that I reviewed concerning the V1.

Note the considerable differences between the GE 'turboelectric' (which was a follow-on to the first-generation experiment sold to the UP in the late Thirties) and anything PRR is doing with turbines at this point, either with the S2 or the V1 which are direct-drive through gears.  It is important to keep the various lines of development separate, especially as when you extend this development to its logical conclusion at N&W you will see one of the earlier "improvements" being a switch to electric drive, in part to utilize the 'wasted' carrying axles for additional traction. 

There is also poor distinction in the records regarding use of steam turbine locomotives for high speed passenger work (the V1 as greenlighted in 1944 being intended as a freight locomotive).  Loewy's design patents clearly show a passenger shell suited for this chassis, and the use of the Bowes drive should have permitted better starting and much faster running than the original version.

A word on the S2 front end:  It was fairly common knowledge that a steam turbine in locomotive service requires a very large exhaust plenum volume (and effective cross-section) in order to simulate the conditions of marine condensing (where the effective pressure at the turbine outlet can be considerably below atmospheric or gauge pressure due to the phase change).  This is clearly seen in the plenum for the '30s GE high-pressure turbine, and in the front end for the S2 which used four separate nozzles and stacks in an arrangement similar to that proposed for the UP FEF-4s.  A problem with the S2 was that, at starting, there was considerable 'slip' of steam both around the tips and through the blading with the turbine at low speed (this was not reflected in a loss of starting TE, as some PRR correspondence as late as 1946 was at pains to demonstrate) and this quite cheerily induced glorious vacuum relatively quickly after full-power starting had begun.  This was a disaster waiting to happen as soon as one engineer had forgotten about this difference and horsed the throttle open (or slipped the engine at starting) as the draft induced high combustion and gas temperatures and steam consumption soared inducing what were probably DNB conditions in parts of the water legs.  Result was popped staybolts, and lots of them, with consequences not many would enjoy contemplating.  In my opinion some of this trouble could be solved by using only part of the available nozzle capacity at low speeds (or regulating the rate at which draft could be physically induced during acceleration) and there are front-end arrangements, including those using aerodynamics to augment gas eduction, that supplement large plenums in achieving low exhaust back pressure even at high steam mass flow at the high speed a turbine passenger locomotive would expect to work much of its time.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, September 08, 2018 9:32 AM

 

 

Overmod

 

......I thought Loewy's "Triplex" idea went considerably further back than 1941 (I don't have my notes available, but I seem to recall 1934) and was somewhat different in detail: it involved separating the locomotive into three 'modules' containing water, fuel, and boiler (hence the 'triplex' designation).  Why PRR persisted in calling the design that became the V1 the 'triplex' as long as they did is something of a mystery to me, as it's clear in some of the correspondence preserved at the Hagley that it's not what Loewy had developed or intended.  (As an amusing counterpoint, I have seen a Lehigh Valley diagram for a proposed duplex that features an enigmatic vehicle that is probably an integral separate water tender 'module.')......

 

 


Thank you very much, Overmod. It seems that you and me are the only two forum member who knows or interested or willing to talk about this topic at the moment! I remember I found other simple drawing of Loewy’s “Triplex” before 1944 but I can’t find them anymore, it was in the Google Patents IIRC.

By the way, I wish I can find a detailed drawing of Bowes drive so that I can’t at least understand how a direct-drive turbine can work on PRR’s V1 (two modules) design.

 

I do admire the craftmanship of S2’s firebox. Working under such dangerous operating environment, it still managed to not explode but cracked on here and there…… By the way, now I understand that S2 was supposed to be a passenger engine while V1 was for freight services. Since 6900hp was not enough to handle heavy freight train, but ironically V1’s design top speed was 100mph.

 

The original Loewy ”Triplex” was a three “modules” design, it would looks like a Garratts (eg. 4-8-2+2-8-4) without articulation. Without articulation, TE of both Fuel and water modules would decrease during operation if there are drivers under these modules. 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 08, 2018 12:54 PM

The original Loewy Triplex that I recall had the drivers under the 'central' boiler, with trucks at either end.  There was no loss of TE as fuel and water levels changed.  I remember the presentation being nonarticulated (and only six-coupled!) but that might have been just for 'show' as in so many of these locomotive-scheme patent drawings.

You will note that the V1 comparison curve is plotted only to a comparison speed well below "100mph" (although a properly-designed mechanical turbine can, of course, reach much higher speeds) -- in fact, I thought it interesting that the S2 comparison line goes all the way up to 85mph, higher than other locomotives traced, and is trending 'better' than the V1 (with original drive) at that point.  (The original of this graph is in the Hagley files, and is a beautiful thing in multiple colors).

Your best bet with the Bowes drive, since I don't have the patent list handy, is to start with the Bowes collection finding aid at the Philadelphia seaport museum.  Note down the various patent numbers and then use Google Patents to download the PDFs (don't go by the online text; it is often poorly rendered and viewing the drawings is essential to understanding both the principles and the detail design of the various kinds of drive). 

From the handwritten presentation in the Hagley files, I had originally thought of the drive as a kind of electromagnetic slip coupling, a bit like a magnetorheological clutch but without fluid between its armature and field.  But it is more complex than that, as you will see; think of a motor with two opposing armatures, one rotated by an external shaft, the other driving the output, both with magnetic-phase control.  A modern version using multiple salience and intelligent phase control becomes both more cost-effective and far more robust.

Note that the V1 was not supposed to be 6900hp but 8000hp (this being directly related to the steam-generation potential of the welded version of the Q2 boiler), little if any turbine power being 'wasted' in the direct drive.  The original version was probably direct-connected much like the S2 at 'right angles', but it would likely have been practical to install at least a Maybach clutch to allow the turbine to be warmed and 'dewatered' before attempting a hard start into load.  With a Bowes drive, of course, this is much simplified.

The postwar version of the V1 began to be touted as "9000hp" in PRR literature, but this is likely at least partly PR 'vaporware' as the changes to a Q2 boiler to achieve the necessary mass flow would be difficult and, of course, the water rate colossally useless, almost defeating the purpose of most high-speed working.  That's not to say such horsepower wasn't needed or couldn't be used, only that PRR was beginning to have experience with high pressure and alloy steel in their normal service, and it wasn't proving very pretty especially with typical track-pan water quality...

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, September 09, 2018 5:29 AM
EDITED
 
Overmod
The original Loewy Triplex that I recall had the drivers under the 'central' boiler, with trucks at either end.  There was no loss of TE as fuel and water levels changed.  I remember the presentation being nonarticulated (and only six-coupled!) but that might have been just for 'show' as in so many of these locomotive-scheme patent drawings.
 
Thank you very much, Overmod! Does it mean the Loewy Triplex was (probably) supposed to be a 0-6-0  in the middle module? I assume its “tender” and the unit for water storage had 12 wheels truck that would make it a 30-wheel engine with three modules.  
 
Overmod
……in fact, I thought it interesting that the S2 comparison line goes all the way up to 85mph, higher than other locomotives traced, and is trending 'better' than the V1 (with original drive) at that point.  (The original of this graph is in the Hagley files, and is a beautiful thing in multiple colors)……
 
That’s interesting, maybe this was the reason why PRR had so high hope of S2 and tested her freight hauling ability (IIRC). The design of S2, without conventional gears, piston rods and stuffs which allowed the engine run at a high speed constantly with the help of the automatic lubrication system and the oil bathing box for the main gear. It was such a shame that she didn’t made it! 
 
By the way, I started went through Hagley files on its online archive these days, but It seems to me that it is not easy to find texts and document that I wants to read (PRR stuff), do you have some hints and tips could share with us? Thanks!
 
 
Overmod
……start with the Bowes collection finding aid at the Philadelphia seaport museum.  Note down the various patent numbers and then use Google Patents to download the PDFs (don't go by the online text; it is often poorly rendered and viewing the drawings is essential to understanding both the principles and the detail design of the various kinds of drive) …..
 
Thank you for sharing these useful hints and tips, Overmod! I will give it a try. I would like to ask you a question regarding PRR S2 6-8-6 Direct-steam turbine locomotive, would you mind giving me a hand? (please allow me to put the question here in advance so that other member could read it too). What is your opinion of the design of PRR S2 #6200, if you could rewrite history with no limitation today, how would you improve the design of S2? Thanks!)
 
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, September 09, 2018 9:28 AM

 

http://i65.tinypic.com/14dd7w9.jpg

 

 

Please note that my last post was edited, corrected some silly mistakes and typos.

This above page is from a report of PRR in 1946, note S1 was still on the list after Dec 1945. Wheel Arrangement of S2 #6200 was 6-4-4-6 instead of 6-8-6. There were two brake shoes between the 2nd and 3rd set of driver, formed a larger gap between both set of driver on S2, but both set of driver were connected with the main gear and turbine. Prewar proposal of the direct-steam turbine engine was a 4-4-4-4, two separate rods connected two set of drivers.

 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, September 09, 2018 11:55 AM

Jones1945
Does it mean the Loewy Triplex was (probably) supposed to be a 0-6-0  in the middle module? I assume its “tender” and the unit for water storage had 12 wheels truck that would make it a 30-wheel engine with three modules.

 
The way I remember it, the center section would be 0-6-0, but presumably with both equalization and effective Franklin-style buffering between it and the other units.  Probably the 'best' idea would be to adapt the German idea of pushing the 'adjacent' unit trucks out toward the coupled section to give some of the effect of articulation to the guiding forces on the chassis.  
 
It is possible that the design would benefit from a Langer balancer for longitudinal surge.
 
I started went through Hagley files on its online archive these days, but It seems to me that it is not easy to find texts and document that I wants to read (PRR stuff), do you have some hints and tips could share with us? Thanks!
 
 Unfortunately, there is no substitute for actually going to Delaware, registering, and going through the files in their various boxes and folders.  No finding aid is likely to tell you anything meaningful about the contents of many of the relevant documents!

I do understand you're overseas and unlikely to have the opportunity to be here soon, but if you can, I highly recommend that you budget time to visit both the Bowes collection and the Hagley at length.  (Hagley does have accommodations for visiting scholars; it's a VERY well-run operation .. du Ponts do it right.)

 

I would like to ask you a question regarding PRR S2 6-8-6 Direct-steam turbine locomotive, would you mind giving me a hand? (please allow me to put the question here in advance so that other member could read it too). What is your opinion of the design of PRR S2 #6200, if you could rewrite history with no limitation today, how would you improve the design of S2?

First, of course, it needed to be a 4-8-4, with proper firebox construction and front-end arrangement for a turbine of expected characteristics.  I would size things for an anticipated peak hp of anywhere from 6000 to 6400 with adequate grate area, probably Cunningham circulators and Snyder preheaters; the perfected C1a boiler being a logical starting point dimension-wise as none of the PRR high-pressure things were particularly 'rightsized' for that range.  I of course would use a forced-circulation waterwall firebox, not anything with staybolts, but it's possible that with proper construction a welded-staybolt firebox could be built for this service, permitting considerably higher throttle pressure.  Lead and trailing truck lateral compliance, guiding, and equalization could be made optimal for a relatively low-augmented locomotive; the 'added' rods between the two center driver pairs might be made lighter (since they are in effect only conjugating) but fairly extensive strain testing would be needed to confirm all the various forces.  I would be highly tempted to arrange the engine for full bidirectional operation with an extended 'doghouse' arrangement being used for the reverse driving cab.

I assume you have worked through the reasons why the original S2 divided drive was not preferable to the 'final' rod configuration notably with respect to how the flexible gear in the final drive worked.  It would be difficult to work around this without some version of quill final drive, which would have to be doubled for the pair -- a couple of Timken lightweight rods is a better solution if they clear the turbine and transmission.

I would use the configuration I proposed for the Turbomotive 2 project (once heavily documented on the Web, perhaps still accessible via the Wayback Machine) which puts a double turbine symmetrically around a center pinion.  The high-pressure inlet and nozzles are inboard, and the exhaust plena are outboard (where there is plenty of room to balloon their cross-section appropriately for low turbine-exhaust back pressure at highest mass flow).  Reverse would be handled with an intermediate gear directly on this pinion (as far up in the reduction gear train as practical to minimize the tooth and bearing stresses.  An alternative would be to use a Ljungstrom counterrotating turbine (where the "stator" blading rotates the opposite way from the "rotor" but it is complicated to try to arrange the gearing to a central takeoff on such a configuration.

For many reasons the engine would be equipped with a Lewty booster arrangement, using perhaps more than one engine.  If we assume many of the auxiliaries on the engine, and other systems, are driven electrically, it is not unthinkable to implement the booster using some form of traction motors on some of the trucks -- probably the lead and tender trucks, not the ones under the ashpan -- although I suspect a hydraulic booster for the trailing truck would work well.  A booster using a positive-displacement expander is a good 'foil' to the kind of impulse-reaction turbine Westinghouse designed.

I have been told that the 600psi Babcock & Wilcox boiler design as proposed for the V1 chassis and later built for the TE-1 cannot be effectively scaled up to the 6000hp range.  I would nonetheless think that the use of chain-grate firing and high pressure, with some of the control modalities used in the N&W M-2 Automatic, might improve operation of this locomotive sufficient to allow both engineer and fireman to share the reverse cab during much of normal running.  Very substantial advantages to having the engine crew away from the backhead and ahead of the stack; those running Garratts are likely to understand the latter... and those disliking elephant ears and the somewhat wack aerodynamic theories behind the American versions of them probably liking a design permitting their absence.
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 10, 2018 5:49 AM
Overmod
 The way I remember it, the center section would be 0-6-0, but presumably with both equalization and effective Franklin-style buffering between it and the other units.  Probably the 'best' idea would be to adapt the German idea of pushing the 'adjacent' unit trucks out toward the coupled section to give some of the effect of articulation to the guiding forces on the chassis.   
 
Loewy’s plan sounds interesting, I wonder why he seldom or never show the rendering of it, even after PRR was gone. I am not sure why he wanted it to be a “Triplex”, what kind of goal he wanted to achieve? If it was a Steam turbine locomotive, direct-drive or electric, it would require a lot a space, but if it was a reciprocating steam locomotive, I don’t understand why he wanted to “chop” it into three pieces. After the argument between PRR and Raymond Loewy on this project, it seems that Lowey didn’t accept jobs from PRR anymore since early 50s, or did he?
 
 
Overmod
Unfortunately, there is no substitute for actually going to Delaware, registering, and going through the files in their various boxes and folders.  No finding aid is likely to tell you anything meaningful about the contents of many of the relevant documents! 
 
Thank you for the useful tips and info, Overmod. The only thing could stop me from going to the States right now is my health status. Since I am not going to write a book or searching a lot of info of PRR, keep searching stuff on the internet and buying books are good enough to fulfilling my curiosity, but I am really grateful for all the replies and responses I got from our forum members on Classic Train Forum!Yes
 
Overmod
First, of course, it needed to be a 4-8-4, with proper firebox construction and front-end arrangement for a turbine of expected characteristics.  I would size things for an anticipated peak hp of anywhere from 6000 to 6400 with adequate grate area, probably Cunningham circulators and Snyder preheaters; the perfected C1a boiler being a logical starting point dimension-wise as none of the PRR high-pressure things were particularly 'rightsized' for that range……
 
 
That’s an awesome plan, Overmod. Do you think if S2 was built base on your design, it could beat E7,E8 in terms of overall performance? I also believe that S2 needed to be rebuilt instead of just adding new gears or replacement of boiler like many people suggested. The body of #6200 was overweight due to wartime restriction in the first place, thus she had a 6-8-6 wheel arrangement. PRR didn’t get the best result from this overweight testbed.

I really like how it looked in this form though, imo it was one of the most good looking steam engine and made me become a Pennsy Fan.
 
EDITED:
If Westinghouse didn't take back the turbines in 1948/1949, adding a steam booster engine like some Engineers from PRR suggested may at least made the Engine remain in service longer, wasn't it? "Max up" the potential use of the 6-wheel trucks, pushing the train by using a booster engine (a high speed one?) until it reached 30mph might at least make the turbine blades moving faster when getting the train to move, decrease the time for the engine to reach the ideal speed. PRR had a lot of booster engine spared from some K4s and 6111, but the postwar decline probably killed the mood to further invest to new steam power development.
 
 
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:49 AM

Westinghouse's direct-drive steam turbine locomotive, 4-8-4-8, looks like it was supposed to be able to operate in both direction. (1945)

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:32 AM

None of the "4-8+4-8" locomotives were true bidirectional designs (you would need to start with a couple of Stroudley's tricks to try to get those frames to track in the reverse direction going into curves).  The design didn't use a symmetrical articulated underframe (like the type used on GG1s) because of the dropped firebox and ashpan requirement of the boiler (whether reversed or not).  Oddly enough, the Westinghouse patent drawing does not show this (it has the firebox drop as on a Meyer locomotive, completely between the axles, which adds length and reduces strength).   You see a different version of this accommodation on the C&O M-1 (which was also monodirectional in service) but there, too, not all the axles were appropriately steered when backing.

To provide trucks for bidirectionality with this arrangement would have involved significantly increasing the length (and probably weight) of the locomotive.  The answer, of course, was to use three-axle trucks and span bolsters, as on the N&W TE-1 (which was not designed for full bidirectional operation, but could have been)

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:12 PM

Overmod

None of the "4-8+4-8" locomotives were true bidirectional designs (you would need to start with a couple of Stroudley's tricks to try to get those frames to track in the reverse direction going into curves).  The design didn't use a symmetrical articulated underframe (like the type used on GG1s) because of the dropped firebox and ashpan requirement of the boiler (whether reversed or not).  Oddly enough, the Westinghouse patent drawing does not show this (it has the firebox drop as on a Meyer locomotive, completely between the axles, which adds length and reduces strength).   You see a different version of this accommodation on the C&O M-1 (which was also monodirectional in service) but there, too, not all the axles were appropriately steered when backing......

 

Interesting. A 4-8-4 built with lighter material with a booster engine, adding another control cap on the newly designed tender, a transmission gear to make it operate bidirectional like you suggested would be good enough. In S2 case, if the total weight of the engine and tender were 20% lighter or more but with a new design boiler with highter psi, I guess it would have got a more satisfactory result.
 
Power Engineering International

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:06 AM

Jones1945
A 4-8-4 built with lighter material with a booster engine, adding another control cap on the newly designed tender, a transmission gear to make it operate bidirectional like you suggested would be good enough.

An interesting thing to me is that no such effort was made by PRR.  One reason going through the Hagley material on-site is valuable is that you easily build up a chronology of what the folks 'involved in decision making' were doing and saying as technical change was happening.  The material on the S2-type turbine is positive up to some point in 1946, but almost completely negative by 1947.  Coordinating this with other material we have from that period allows some discrimination of 'steam as a whole' from the particular S2 detail design.

Westinghouse as previously noted has a 4-8-4 turbine in a 1948 product brochure (which I believe has been linked in previous posts on at least one of the Trains forums) but by that time any serious discussion on PRR seems to have switched to the low-wheeled multiple-geared-turbine locomotives epitomized by the V1. 

One perhaps sad note is that we had a report several years ago that the original Westinghouse detail drawings for the N&W TE-1 main turbine had survived, rescued from a dumpster.  To the extent the S2 and V1 turbine drawings were detailed out ... they would likely have been stored in the same location, and presumably are lost.

BTW: There are good photographs on the Web of the innards of both the S2 main and reverse turbines.  You should find them and put them in the post instead of a generic power turbine, which is MUCH larger than the locomotive units.  I don't think many people here appreciate just how small the S2's main turbine was.

For fun: one of the potential modifications for this general idea is to provide something like an N&W class A lead truck, with its appropriate equalization, at each end of the 'main' driver pedestal casting, and put the turbine and associated equipment more or less within the rigid wheelbase (instead of over the 4-wheel truck in the original configuration).  Then place the firebox completely between the chassis units, as on a Meyer, which allows the ashpan to extend nearly to rail level and dump to the sides (as on the TE-1) or comprise sealed modules for dust-free ash handling.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 1:06 PM

Overmod

An interesting thing to me is that no such effort was made by PRR.  One reason going through the Hagley material on-site is valuable is that you easily build up a chronology of what the folks 'involved in decision making' were doing and saying as technical change was happening.  The material on the S2-type turbine is positive up to some point in 1946, but almost completely negative by 1947.  Coordinating this with other material we have from that period allows some discrimination of 'steam as a whole' from the particular S2 detail design. 

 

  ebay

I guess the whole S2 Direct-drive steam turbine locomotive was not a 100% serious experiment but a product of pacification policy, tried to pacify the “Coal burning Party” in the HQ and PRR’s “Coal Burning Club” Allies, from PRR’s own higher officials, employees to everyone related to the coal business as well as PRR’s powerful stock holders (CEOs in the coal industry).

What else PRR expected to get from an overweight testbed (S2) in the first place? But at the same time, it was not, it couldn’t be (they couldn’t fool that many people at the same time) or unnecessary needed to be a 100% pacification thing, I believe even the PRR board had some people who supported dieselization still wanted to see if there was any alternative choices to prolong the coal burning empire leading by the PRR. The 6-8-6 and the turbine was already there, “let see what we can get from this thing”. Situation like this would have involved a lot of corruption.

During 1947,1948 PRR's passenger services were declining but they were far from rock bottom, if they wanted to build a “6201”, they still had tons of money to spend, even if they chose dieselization, why didn’t they do it in phases instead of negated everything about Steam power and everything they done for steam engine development in such a short time? But it has been 70 years, the rest is history. Just my two cents. Drinks

 LIFE

Overmod
Westinghouse as previously noted has a 4-8-4 turbine in a 1948 product brochure (which I believe has been linked in previous posts on at least one of the Trains forums) but by that time any serious discussion on PRR seems to have switched to the low-wheeled multiple-geared-turbine locomotives epitomized by the V1. One perhaps sad note is that we had a report several years ago that the original Westinghouse detail drawings for the N&W TE-1 main turbine had survived, rescued from a dumpster.  To the extent the S2 and V1 turbine drawings were detailed out ... they would likely have been stored in the same location, and presumably are lost.

 

Very interesting question I really concerned for a while. Before I register on this forum, I discussed this issue with some PRR fans on various platforms. I always told them I suspect the management of PRR or Baldwin destroyed as many core technologies data and information of S2 as they could on purpose, including operating and road testing footage.

I took a wild guess that maybe the turbine was a military thing, even though they were not rocket science, that PRR or the "Higher Power" didn't want such info leaked after the project was dropped. But some of this info and data were still survived and posted on the web or published in many magazines. I believe many were still hidden in some ex-PRR, Baldwin, Westinghouse official’s basement or attic. Of course  many were destroyed. (Footage of S2 and S1 were so rare, even a color pic of them were very hard to find, unlike J1, T1, Loewy's K4s. I don’t think It is just a single special case)   

Not only for S2, you could find a lot of damaged pic looked like it was saved from the trashcan or dumpster on Hagley, one example is the streamlined K4s’s wind tunnel model. There was not even ONE official footage of S1’s or T1 6110,6111 recorded during their operation from 1940 to mid-40s.

IIRC, The S2 was still appeared in the 1948 Chicago Railroad Fair but her name wasn’t officially listed on the poster, only photographic evidence existed. C&O M-1 was proofed to be a world class flop, project V1 was dropped, the only way for a Direct-drive turbine engine to succeed was a 4-8-4 base on S2 basic design, or adding a booster engine on the S2 trailing truck and modified her massive tender, S2’s tender was big enough to build a little boiler to assist the steam supply of the booster, that would at least bought the project more time. But we all know how PRR treated their experimental engine like T1, Q1, S1, S2 etc. Two more cents from me.  Coffee Smile, Wink & Grin

Saved from trashcan by Hagley

 

Overmod

BTW: There are good photographs on the Web of the innards of both the S2 main and reverse turbines.  You should find them and put them in the post instead of a generic power turbine, which is MUCH larger than the locomotive units.  I don't think many people here appreciate just how small the S2's main turbine was.

 

Here you are:Thumbs Up


Overmod

For fun: one of the potential modifications for this general idea is to provide something like an N&W class A lead truck, with its appropriate equalization, at each end of the 'main' driver pedestal casting, and put the turbine and associated equipment more or less within the rigid wheelbase (instead of over the 4-wheel truck in the original configuration).  Then place the firebox completely between the chassis units, as on a Meyer, which allows the ashpan to extend nearly to rail level and dump to the sides (as on the TE-1) or comprise sealed modules for dust-free ash handling.

I may try drawing your idea on a paper. This one is specially for you, Overmod:  the Fleet of TE-1 Thumbs Up

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:56 AM

It may pay to remember that, as with the T1s, development of 'new' locomotives may involve a considerable period of time from first conception to practical use.  In the case of the direct-drive turbine, that period more than spans the coincidental development of practical-size diesel road power.

The development of direct-drive atmospheric-exhausting steam power was fairly well-established as both practical and economical, with the Swedish and English locomotives giving some firsthand experience. 

As with the Q2s, PRR had wartime traffic running over long distances on priority schedules, and so could make a case for trialing (this is an intentional substitution for correct English 'trying') a large straight-turbine design even if overweight at the time of construction and known to be a 'steam hog' at low speeds and high loads.  Several pieces in the Hagley collection show that motive-power people took pains to correct the 'wive's tale' that turbines develop low power at stall or low-speed conditions -- the issue is certainly not developed torque, it's steam mass flow, which is a different thing.

Even with the known faults in the detail design, it's notable that PRR was actively promoting the direct-drive design along with the V1 in 1946, which is after much of the early experience with E units (both negative and positive) was understood.  Certainly Westinghouse thought there would be a market for lighter but still large "Niagara equivalents" in that period in the late Forties that Lima was still promoting large long-compression steam locomotives.

But as soon as those staybolts started popping in the reported ways, there was no particular future for that big, heavy test platform.  And too much metal in it to be tied up in Northumberland, especially as something of a failure as 'future power of the PRR'.  Which, even turbineless, was a shame.

Yes, I enjoyed seeing all those model TE-1s.  Pity that scene couldn't have been seen in real life.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:40 AM

I agree with most of your points, Overmod. Even these testbeds of PRR in 40s, from S1, Q2, S2 to V1, were built oversized or overweight because of various reasons, they did provide some useful data for further development of PRR’s new engines.

 The powerful and high speed performance of S1 convinced PRR to continue the development of Duplex Steam Engine for passenger service, even she was built (IMO) unnecessary large for the 1939 New York World Fair. Q2 was a war baby, probably expected to be a one time engine, came a little bit too late but it really helped to solve the crazily heavy wartime traffic for PRR, and I personally don’t consider it seriously oversized or overweighed since I1s, M1 or J1, especially the performance and TE of J1s could easily overtake the job of Q2, so if PRR didn’t build them in such design, it was no other than officially announced that the duplex for freight service was a failure in the first phase (if there would be another phase). 

  
I understand your thought on S2; my favorite steam locomotive followed by S1. I can only say that the case of S2 was like many other great things we lost because of the World War II, it was an unfortunate of her, railfans and PRR. If she was built a 4-8-4 with light steel alloys in the first place, we might have had a fleet of streamlined steam turbine locomotive as early as the VE day. 50 production T1 order would be replaced by Class S2 for its spectacular performance, especially on high speed express train.

 A new two speeds transmission gear (two for high speed, one reverse) designed by Westinghouse was ready and Patented in 1946, Westinghouse claimed that it would replace the Reverse Turbine and aimed to solve the starting problem of S2 (I am not the best person to judge if it would work on S2 or not though), but I don’t know why no action was taken by the PRR, maybe PRR thought it wouldn’t work, maybe PRR wanted to start the development of V1 project as you stated. But the unsuccessful experiences of S2, even though PRR learned a lot of new things from it, may discouraged the PRR board and stockholders to continue the development of V1.

 At that time, diesel of EMC, EMD had already accumulated more than10 years of successful experiences and orders from different Class I railroad like UP, Santa Fe, B&O, NYC, CB&Q etc. After a few years of struggling, the PRR board chose to surrender to the diesel power in 1948. At least they tried......

 Colorado O Scale Modelers
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:01 AM

Another attempt of Westinghouse, just one page with a draft plan of a "Double-End Turbine Locomotive". Filed in Feb 1944.

Inventor: Winston A Brecht, Jr Charles Kerr 

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2412866A/

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 14, 2018 12:06 PM

One-half the 'wave of the future' replacing the steam-turbine electric (the other half being the development of free-piston engines of various sorts culminating eventually in the FG9) was the aforementioned coal turbine,as for example here:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2533866A/en

In my opinion this became more and more of a scam as development went on.  Railroads participating in the project became increasingly concerned that they were paying for commercialization of practical locomotive design that locomotive building firms would then get 'free' to peddle to their competitors.  While it became increasingly clear that Yellott and company had little if any idea how to fix the ash problem (one answer was SRC, but that wasn't price competitive in that era).  Note that UP made another run at this (with some truly heroic equipment!) and couldn't make it work a decade later.  Then along came the Clean Air Act after which no coal turbine made sense any more...

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, September 14, 2018 5:19 PM
I am not sure about the accurate term of it, but wasn’t burning of coal dust has been proofed unsuccessful on the German BR 05 003; the one of a kind Cab Forward Class 05, early in late-30s? I wish I have the knowledge and a chance to understand why Yellott and his research team thought it would work in their new coal burning turbine project not more than 10 years later and even patented it.
 
 
 
 
SP’s Cab forward were oil-burning, German’s Cab forward burned coal dust, but IIRC, BR 05 003 was rebuilt as a conventional form like her sisters after the war. Coal dust or ash messed up various equipment of C&O’s M-1. SP’s gas steam turbine in 30s and PRR S2 were closest to success.
 
Some people asked me why I spent so much time on these obsolete topics, the answer is very simple; I am a recalcitrant person when facing these unsuccessful, or you could say almost successful ideas and projects but got dropped because of bad timing and bad luck. Even after 70 years, I am still unwilling to accept the fact that these projects were failure. I tried to find out what it would be like in the alternative history or another parallel universe. It is fun.
 
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, September 15, 2018 11:56 AM

Jones1945-- Your thinking is perfectly understandable. These new locomotives and trains were the vanguard of the future and the future was here and now. We read that every performance record was smashed. We could ride these fabulous trains with all their amenities, powered by duplexi and turbines. It was very exciting. 

Then it ended, just like that, a snap of the fingers. Vanished, all the claims of breaking every record swept away and no longer allowed to be spoken of. 

PRR reports highest revenue for passenger and freight ever in 1946, this on top of a 17% increase in freight rates and in the very next sentence reports its first loss ever. Like what??? Some vague mumble explanation that is nothing but Orwellian doublespeak. 

Ten years later everything is junked, duplexes are staples and razor blades, passenger trains have regressed shockingly, Ike is warning the Nation of the "military industrial complex" because he saw and knew things that we don't know, even the incredible Pacific Electric in LA is going going gone. A tragic incredibly unbelievable loss.

A future destroyed and replaced by a few men behind a curtain. Too bad we could not expose this. 

It sure was inspiring while it was here though. I've mentioned this before but even as a kid I used to think to myself ' this is too good to last'. It is quite the phenomenon, happiness and a state of well being can be attained but not kept. 

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