Self propelled Steam Cars

1235 views
35 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Self propelled Steam Cars
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, September 02, 2018 12:32 PM

Had no idea this service existed.

GTR 1 International Bridge steam car operated between Fort Erie, Ontario and Black Rock, New York 
over the International Bridge. Built GTR 1911. Became CNR 15901, later 15704 Rule Instruction car.

NOTE: The steam engine is difficult to see (right truck). A better photo of similar car CPR 88 is here

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,434 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, September 02, 2018 2:45 PM

You Canadians are certainly secretive; I had never heard of these before.Smile

Johnny

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,499 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, September 02, 2018 3:58 PM

Not the only type of steam car, the British built a number of them.

British rail historian and photographer Colin Garrett back in the '80s of one lying derelict in (I believe) the Sudan.  It didn't look like the one in the picture Miningman posted, it looked more like a bus on steroids.

Kind of like this...

https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/clayton.php

OK, got the link fixed.  Anyone who tried it before without success go ahead and try it again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, September 02, 2018 5:44 PM

They had 5 of them in Newfoundland

Newfoundland Railway

Government of Newfoundland took over Reid Newfoundland Company's railway July 1, 1923. 

Many of these cars were built in England where they were successful for years.
However, they proved unsuitable for the rugged winters of Newfoundland. 
In addition they required a three man crew of engineer, fireman and conductor 
which did not result in the anticipated operational savings. 

Rail Coach E the last of five. Built by Sentinel-Cammell 1925. 
Therefore it is likely they were designated A, B, C, D and E. 

Deggesty--- Louisville and Nashville had at least one of them because CN bought it and converted it.

 

CN 15006 Air Brake Instruction Car. Cochrane, ON 7/12/1954 Julian Bernard

Built 1907 by Louisville and Nashville as a self-propelled steam car (combine) seating 54 passengers. 
Acquired 1912 GTR 3. Became CNR 15902. April 1926 became Instruction Car 15006.

 

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 2,373 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Sunday, September 02, 2018 7:27 PM

When you said "steam cars", I thought Stanley or maybe something that looks like this Tongue Tiedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOjnujDhea8 Smile, Wink & Grin

A waking Lithium Flower just about to bloom

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,434 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, September 02, 2018 7:50 PM

Miningman

They had 5 of them in Newfoundland

Newfoundland Railway

Government of Newfoundland took over Reid Newfoundland Company's railway July 1, 1923. 

Many of these cars were built in England where they were successful for years.
However, they proved unsuitable for the rugged winters of Newfoundland. 
In addition they required a three man crew of engineer, fireman and conductor 
which did not result in the anticipated operational savings. 

Rail Coach E the last of five. Built by Sentinel-Cammell 1925. 
Therefore it is likely they were designated A, B, C, D and E. 

Deggesty--- Louisville and Nashville had at least one of them because CN bought it and converted it.

 

CN 15006 Air Brake Instruction Car. Cochrane, ON 7/12/1954 Julian Bernard

Built 1907 by Louisville and Nashville as a self-propelled steam car (combine) seating 54 passengers. 
Acquired 1912 GTR 3. Became CNR 15902. April 1926 became Instruction Car 15006.

 

 

Perhaps the L&N was ashamed of ever having anything to do with it, so kept it a secret from the American railfan public?

As to that streamlined bus, I did not see much room for checked baggage and parcels, what with the two levels of seats. The picture reminded me of an overnight trip I took by Trailways from Reform, Ala., to Atlanta in February of 1971--most of the upper body of the bus was devoted to packages, and there were a few seats available for passengers.

Johnny

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,499 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, September 02, 2018 8:05 PM

Newfoundland?  Holy jeez, I've got six books on the Newfoundland Railway courtesy of my brother-in-law "Big B" and don't remember seeing anything like that in them.

Oh well, time to hit the books again.

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, September 02, 2018 8:10 PM

Firelock-- I was quite surprised to find this out myself. Seems they didn't hold up very well in the winter. 

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,499 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, September 02, 2018 8:47 PM

You know, looking at that "Tom Thumb" sized vertical boiler in the cab I'm guessing it could make enough steam to drive the car, or enough steam to heat it, but not both.

The car probably worked well in the "Mother Country,"  but the hellish winter climate of the "Senior Colony" was just too much for it.

As an aside, Lady Firestorms dad, a Yonkers native, married a Newfoundland girl, loved the place, and wanted to retire there.  Mom said, "Uh-huh, I'll give him one winter.  He doesn't remember what it's like!"

Steam-powered Daleks Becky?  Well, they'd be easy enough for Doctor Who to deal with, all he'd have to do is wreck their injectors so there wasn't enough water over the crown sheets, and "BOOM!"  No more Daleks!

Then the evil little buggers would probably dieselize and then it's back to square one.

 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,434 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, September 03, 2018 6:07 AM

The Newfoundland cars are Sentinels:

https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/sentinel.php

 

These appear to be based on Diagram 93 or similar cars at the link above...

The boiler, though small was a water tube boiler operating at up to 300psi.

A very similar railcar had been used on the North Australia Railway.

It was too complex for the local mechanics and despite the lack of cold weather it was soon out of service.

In 1942, the US Army converted it to diesel using an engine they had to hand, but after some discussion they were persuaded not to use it since the local railway authorities had enough problems without soldiers running their own trains.

Peter

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 03, 2018 7:36 AM

This one reminds me of New Haven's "Besler High Pressure" Streamliner No. 9610, "The Blue Goose."


https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-bessler.html




If a single train or railcar using three Besler Power Truck under its body, can I call it a "Triplex" ? DrinksSmile, Wink & Grin ( Update: I just found out that the Besler Power Truck had 8 cylinders on one Power truck......)

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,394 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, September 03, 2018 8:27 AM

Stanley did build a steam "Unit Rail Car", tested on the White River Railroad between Bethel and Rochester VT in 1916.  There may have been others, but since the brothers sold the company in 1917 there can't have been many.  Ironically, one of the Stanley brothers was killed in a collision with a Boston and Maine gas-electric.

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,499 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Monday, September 03, 2018 9:03 AM

I'm surprised the New Havens "Blue Goose" was steam powered, especially as late as 1935 when there were other technologies available.  I suppose the NH didn't trust the new techs 100%, at least not yet.

I'm also struck by how similar in appearance the "Blue Goose" was to the "Streamliner"  gas-electrics built for the Susquehanna by American Car and Foundry in 1940.

https://www.classicstreamliners.com/rr-nys-w.html

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 03, 2018 10:11 AM

Firelock76

I'm surprised the New Havens "Blue Goose" was steam powered, especially as late as 1935 when there were other technologies available.  I suppose the NH didn't trust the new techs 100%, at least not yet.

I'm also struck by how similar in appearance the "Blue Goose" was to the "Streamliner"  gas-electrics built for the Susquehanna by American Car and Foundry in 1940.

https://www.classicstreamliners.com/rr-nys-w.html 

The Power Truck on "Blue Goose" had 8 steam cylinders on it, I don't know how the cylinders,rods and parts could withstand the vibration and violent shaking of the truck during daily operation. Cowboy
 

I really like the ACF Motorailers, they looked like a large size Railcar and Trolley at the same time. From inside to outside they looked great and provided roomy space and comfortable services and equipment for the passenger, but I heard IC thought that they were underpowered and too light in weight, not something can't be fixed. The truck of it really looked a bit too small compared to it massive body. 
(Source: Railway Classic)
Tags: ACF , Motorailers
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, September 03, 2018 12:13 PM

Ok now I'm stunned.

The Beslers built a steam powered airplane! A Travel Air 2000 Bi-plane, successfully flown out of Oakland, California. 

Not only that I find out the Doble brothers built steam powered speedboats, buses and trucks all over the world.

Annnnnnd.. not only that but General Motors, of all things, introduced 2 steam powered cars in 1969!!!! Whaaaat? A converted Chevy Chevelle using a Besler engine and a Pontiac Grand Prix in consultation with the Beslers. Can someone tell me what that was all about?

I'm not even certain that I woke up in the same world this morning. Alternate universe stuff.  

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 03, 2018 12:33 PM

Welcome to the alternate universe #6100, Miningman, but no worries the evil Axis didn't win the war in this one...... But Mr. Oil won and controlling everything right now.Stick out tongue

I checked out the steam powered Chevy Chevelle and California Steam Bus Project on YouTube, these are some extremely underrated projects, talking about free energy fuel! I guess these ideas didn't make Mr. Oil happy......

Anyway, lets watch a video of the GWR Steam Railcar #93 from UK:

 

 
  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 2,968 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, September 03, 2018 12:48 PM

All that nice restoration and they forgot to put in cup holders!

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Monday, September 03, 2018 3:38 PM

......or a tiny table under the espresso makerCoffeeSmile, Wink & Grin By the way, Earl Grey tea taste and smell so good...... too bad that I can't drink any tea since 9 years ago......

  • Member since
    August, 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,499 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Monday, September 03, 2018 5:39 PM

According to the "Streamliners" website the "Blue Goose" was a maintanance headache, so the concept was never repeated.

Interesting you brought up those Illinois Central "Motorailers," four of them wound up on the Susquehanna who found them perfectly adequate for their purposes.  Aside from the first Suzie-Q streamliner which was destroyed by fire in 1946, the five remaining gas-electrics lasted until 1950 when they were replaced by Budd RDC's.

Time to do the "Wanswheel" thing.  I found a film of that Besler steam engine powered TravelAir 2000, and here it is...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yowX1_1sEg

If you're a fan of World War One aviation, you might have noticed that TravelAir has a marked resemblence to this distinguished fighter plane...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlpPXW6BsP8

Yep!  The Fokker D-7!  Hollywood filmmakers of the 20's and 30's noticed it too, so the TravelAir was a favored stand-in for the D-7 in the aviation films of the time, so much so the TravelAir got the nickname of "The Wichita Fokker."

A steam engine in an airplane?  Why?  Unless it was a case of "Why the hell not?"  Anyway you look at it it was a remarkable achievement to design a steam engine who's power-to-weight ratio made it adaptable to aircraft use. 

I wonder if it had a whistle?

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,887 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, September 03, 2018 9:12 PM

Firelock76

A steam engine in an airplane?  Why?  Unless it was a case of "Why the hell not?"  Anyway you look at it it was a remarkable achievement to design a steam engine who's power-to-weight ratio made it adaptable to aircraft use. 

Maxim, of the Maxim machine gun fame, was working on a steam powered airplane ca 1894. The steam engine had more than sufficient power to weight ratio, but IIRC the plane was not controllable.

OTOH, several electric planes have flown recently, and there are plans for electric airliners. Electric helicopters are also becoming a reality - shades of Heinlein's first novel "For Us the Living" (FWIW, that novel was first published after 2000).

 - Erik

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,434 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 4:50 AM

Miningman

Ok now I'm stunned.

The Beslers built a steam powered airplane! A Travel Air 2000 Bi-plane, successfully flown out of Oakland, California. 

Not only that I find out the Doble brothers built steam powered speedboats, buses and trucks all over the world.

Annnnnnd.. not only that but General Motors, of all things, introduced 2 steam powered cars in 1969!!!! Whaaaat? A converted Chevy Chevelle using a Besler engine and a Pontiac Grand Prix in consultation with the Beslers. Can someone tell me what that was all about?

I'm not even certain that I woke up in the same world this morning. Alternate universe stuff.  

 

For anyone who hasn't done so, check out the rest of Douglas Self's truly amazing site,

http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/steamplane/steamplane.htm

Peter

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 5:13 AM

The Besler brother built some truly amazing machine. 

The B&O Class W-1 Besler Type proposal was discussed here a few years ago, if its performance could beat the diesel, it might rewrote the history.


 
An example from German: DRG BR 19 001
 
They had so many creative ideas:
  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,394 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 6:55 AM

Here's a story about and photo of the Stanley "Unit Rail Car".

http://theoldmotor.com/?p=17461

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 9:14 AM

Firelock76

Interesting you brought up those Illinois Central "Motorailers," four of them wound up on the Susquehanna who found them perfectly adequate for their purposes.  Aside from the first Suzie-Q streamliner which was destroyed by fire in 1946, the five remaining gas-electrics lasted until 1950 when they were replaced by Budd RDC's.

I love the ACF Motorailer since the first time I saw a Motorailers color advertisment, it was such a shame that such beautiful railcar didn't become popular. Maybe their size was a little too big as a railcar for many railroads. 

If I run a Class 1 railroad, I would request ACF to build some 3-4 unit Railcars base on the Motorailers design with improved engine and stuffs and replace some long distance named trains with it in mid-50s. IIRC, I saw in the book that IC's Land O' Corn had a tiny "lunch corner" offer 8 to 10 seats for light meal or drinks which was a very nice feature for medium distance trains service.  Budd RDC was a practical and flexible choice but it was not my cup of tea.Coffee

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3227192

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 12:52 PM

The steam boom starting in the late 1960s (of which the best emergent practitioner was Ted Pritchard) was almost entirely related to upcoming air-pollution legislation.  In those pre-cheap-electronics days, any IC engine with throttle response quicker than about 30sec was not likely to satisfy pollution without great cost and performance loss.  Hence the interest in clean low-pressure combustion even at a nominal additional fuel and working-fluid cost.  Leverage this for larger vehicles.

One interesting part of the Besler airplane engine was that it was fully reversible - hence landing runs could be remarkably short for taildraggers.  Be interesting to see one of Maxim's steam generators finished for test; in my opinion they were a good design.  Another fun Besler project was the steam outboard motor (for Navy covert ops; it made very little noise or distinctive signature) for which many of the drawings still exist.

In my opinion the motor and drive system for the Besler W-1 would have proven an operational disaster -  no compliance in the gearing, motors poorly suspended and located in an area where contact with dirt and thrown ballast would be high and maintenance accessibility low, etc.  if there were a functional anti slip system I have not yet found it.  Many of the issues could have been fixed, but it's a bit telling that even with testable built motors and the boiler done, the whole project was abandoned as soon as Emerson was out of the picture.  (And of course the Rosen war-booty Locomotive couldn't find any takers here, or even the price of shipping anywhere else in the world, even to enthusiasts, before Korea-era politics made it politically expedient to scrap

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 6:42 AM

http://www.marklinfan.net/loco11/br19-1001costruzione1940.jpg

A single power unit of a DRG BR 19 1001, consist of 2 cylinders already looked so complicated, it is not hard to imagine the maintenance cost required for one single power unit like this would be as expensive as a single booster engine which was a thing that many Class I railroad avoided to use if possible. Imagine a Steam engine with 8 units of such thing like the proposed W-1 of B&O.....it is like using 4 booster engines to run 4 pairs of drivers at a wide speed range. I don't think it would work neither. 

From a business perspective, and of course in hindsight, using EMC E1 to haul their prime train since 1937 was one of the most far-sighted decision B&O ever made. less is more!
 
But from a railfan perspective, I wouldn't mind RRs did some crazy steam power experiments, as long as I don't need to pay for it. BeerWink
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 07, 2018 3:53 PM

Jones1945

http://www.marklinfan.net/loco11/br19-1001costruzione1940.jpg

A single power unit of a DRG BR 19 1001, consist of 2 cylinders already looked so complicated, it is not hard to imagine the maintenance cost required for one single power unit like this would be as expensive as a single booster engine which was a thing that many Class I railroad avoided to use if possible...

Look a bit more carefully and you will see the arrangements for lifting and aligning the engine from the top either by crane or by fork -- the idea being that the motor unit would be pulled and replaced, keeping the locomotive in service, but would be worked on in a controlled shop environment with appropriate jigs (and clean working conditions).  The mechanical throttle/slip control arrangement was, I think, easily unlinked and then easily adjusted on reassembly.  I suspect you can find and provide a good section view that shows the drive arrangement between a motor and its adjacent wheel; this permitted good suspension action in all appropriate planes while cushioning some of the shock from wheel back up to engine crankshaft.  Roosen et al. did a good job on these and the idea deserved better than it ultimately got.

Likewise the Besler W-1 was designed so that the individual driving-axle units would be serviced via drop table, with very little tinkering aside from inspection and line maintenance being done with the motor in the chassis.  Whether this resulted in access problems when drop was not convenient for any reason, I don't know. 

Boosters (and auxiliary locomotives) were a problem because they were inherently simplistic machines (most had no cutoff adjustment, even of the 'circumstantial' kind that forms the operating principle of Franklin type D as installed) that were not intended to be run at high speed for any sustained period.  Even the latter generation of high-speed reversible booster was not designed for cutout much above 30mph, at which speed range of course it was consuming way more steam than the engine's own cylinders could put to increasingly better use.  Gearing was crude and steam-supply 'streamlining' essentially absent ... many of these exhausted up near the stack (but not providing front-end draft!) and the twists, turns, and flexible joints in the piping tell their own story.  All this was to be avoided in the Lewty booster by providing only a comparatively simple and light motor for the driven axle(s) and putting the prime mover (in Lewty's original version, a small triple-expansion steam engine) in a safe and relatively clean location on the locomotive.  If you consider that power for many of the locomotive's auxiliaries can be sourced from this engine also, much of the objection to the booster's cost and relatively infrequent utility can be relieved.

 

Imagine a Steam engine with 8 units of such thing like the proposed W-1 of B&O.....it is like using 4 booster engines to run 4 pairs of drivers at a wide speed range. I don't think it would work neither

Note that these are not the crude engines of a Franklin booster, but the kind of high-speed engine used in Doble automobiles.  I will grant you that much more shock protection in a number of respects would be required for the design as I have seen it to survive long-term, but that is not unachievable detail design with contemporary technology.

A slightly different approach would be the sets of cylinders used in the Paget locomotive (see the Douglas Self site) with some appropriate form of valve gear.  This has the advantage of extremely short stroke (9", the throws essentially formed into the cranked axle rather than requiring separate components or throws) which in part produces low augment force, and the multiplicity of cylinders gives the capacity of very even torque rise even at starting.

The Besler design is made to minimize augment forces in direct drive, and was intended to reduce momentum augment from the two piston and rod assemblies.  The thrust is applied inside the frame, very close to the centerline of the locomotive, so the momentum augment of outside connecting rods (as on the PRR S2) is absent, and the (single-acting) thrust is mostly in the vertical plane.  It is less ridiculous than you think.

 

[quote]From a business perspective, and of course in hindsight, using EMC E1 to haul their prime train since 1937 was one of the most far-sighted decision B&O ever made. less is more!
 
Well, certainly not 'less' when you think about the 72 cylinders, complicated governors, generators, relay controls, electric motors, riding maintainers and other details of the three-E-unit consist that would be needed to do a W-1's job.   These were the years before large railroad stocks of common diesel components, and workmen to whom diesel maintenance was second nature.  There was an enormous first-price differential between even an experimental steam locomotive and any of the first-generation performance equivalents.  That's not to detract from your point, which I think is correct: chronically poor B&O got much more out of their early Es than they would out of even perfected Emerson steam improvements.
 
There was a story in Trains many years ago now, about a B&O train that had to be diverted over one of the fast sections of the NYC network.  The NYC pilot had what turned out to be an unfortunate attitude toward B&O's diesel power, and instructed the engineer to be sure to go fast enough not to foul NYC's trains ... or words to that effect.  He was fooled by the diesel's relatively smooth ride and did not notice quite how fast they were getting along until...
 
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, September 08, 2018 8:23 AM
A replica. 

 
After learning so many failed experiments and experiences of new steam locomotive design from 30s to 40s, especially from PRR, Baldwin or B&O, I really lost my faith and confidence on the craftsmanship or design sense of the States in 30s. Remember the “quality problem” of the Franklin Poppet Valve Gear on the 50 production T1? PRR needed to waste even more time and money to fix them. Not to mention PRR S1, Q1, S2, B&O N-1, C&O M-1 etc.
 
After reading your detailed introduction of BR 19 1001, I believe that it might had a chance to be a successful example because of the renowned and widely praised quality of craftsmanship, detail-oriented and user friendly design by the German (The German Quality). Actually BR 19 1001 had already served in German briefly in 1943, successfully reached 88mph or higher with light load behind her.
 
I believe many had heard stories about how serious the German made their tanks like the 88mm Tiger I or King Tiger in WWII, and what were the flaws of the “Tommy Cooker” of Allies (Some described it as a War Crime to building such a "scuffed" tank for our serviceman in WWII). I think if Besler of America didn’t build the W-1 (assume they had the chance) base on the blueprint of BR 19 1001 and added four more power units with suitable suspension device on it, I still can’t believe it would work to be honest. There first self-propelled stream railcar was a flop, if I were the head of B&O, I wouldn’t take any more risk throwing tons of money to develop a new steam engine by someone who never succeeded in railroad industry. (There steam plane was truly amazing though)
 
Compare to developing a new type of steam engine, went through all the tests and handle all the cheques needed to be signed for the development…purchase of EMC E1 is far less complicated, it was the simplest and straightforward approach.
 
 
cs.train.com
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,904 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 08, 2018 1:03 PM

I really lost my faith and confidence on the craftsmanship or design sense of the States in 30s. Remember the “quality problem” of the Franklin Poppet Valve Gear on the 50 production T1?

There was nothing wrong with the craftsmanship on the parts of the W-1 that were built; it just wasn't an answer that B&O needed (in part for the reason you gave).  Likewise, most of the 'problems' with the Franklin System were conceptual (including what I consider to be a substantial amount of BS misdesign) and the ones relating to Franklin B-2 specifically including the breaking valves and seat wear were solved by 1948, not a long time in private railroad-industry development. 

A fun piece of historiography is to look into Baldwin's fascination with Caprotti poppet valves starting in the '20s (they even built them on some narrow-gauge power) -- none of which succeeded.  This using European technology of a goodness at least comparable to that Henschel used on 19 1001.  It's not for want of trying that none of these succeeded ... but Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements.  It would have been interesting to see at least one type C engine built with the full variable cams and spherical followers as pictured in the '47 Cyc. to see if that system could be made to hold up in long-term fast service.  It will be more interesting to see if modern materials and processing make it practical now.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 270 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Sunday, September 09, 2018 6:24 AM

Overmod

...... Likewise, most of the 'problems' with the Franklin System were conceptual (including what I consider to be a substantial amount of BS mis design) and the ones relating to Franklin B-2 specifically including the breaking valves and seat wear were solved by 1948, not a long time in private railroad-industry development. 

Did PRR buy the valves which had metallurgy issues, or the issues were caused by constantly speeding of T1 so that the valves needed to use higher strength alloy to replace the mild steel provided by Franklin? If it was PRR’s fault, Franklin didn’t need to compensate for it, vice versa. The following info is from the FAQ page of T1 Trust:

13.Q: It's said that the poppet valves had some metallurgy issues that made them a real problem to use at speeds above 100mph but yet at the same time that crews would routinely bring the locomotives up to very high speeds to make up for lost time resulting in very expensive maintenance bills. Would you plans involve fixing those issues?

A: From what we've seen, the PRR solved this problem by 1947, by changing the valves from mild steel to a higher strength alloy that was better able to cope with the fatigue issues at service speeds. We will run durability and fatigue simulations for speeds in excess of the T1's rumored top speed, and select alloys and manufacturing processes to maximize reliability. 


Overmod

Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements.  

I believe this is the essential factor to achieve success when adapting foreign railroad technology apply to the States, especially  when globalization or standardization was not a common thing in the past.

LMS Turbomotive was built about 10 years before PRR S2, it was working fine in UK, probably because she only needed to handle passenger stock loads which was equal to merely 30% of loads in America. PRR S2 was about 300% more powerful than LMS Tubomotive but she only lasted 4 years with cracks all over the firebox, leaking steam pipes, leaking turbine casting etc. I am not saying the concept of S2 had no chance to success, I believe it just needed more time and effort, but "copy and paste" a foreign concept to America wasn't as smooth as imagine.

 

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