Very strange things

23403 views
779 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, December 28, 2019 11:22 AM

Yes, it was nicknamed the Blue Goose because of its powder blue paint and causes confusion with the Santa Fe's only streamlined steam locomotive also painted powder blue and called the Blue Goose. 

It appears to me that Baldwin really put a lot of time, effort, monies and hope including a great deal of vision for the future. Consider the Turbine attempts. The Pennsy S2 1946 ( steam/coal), the C&O M1's 1947-48 ( steam/ coal),  B-W Demonstrator # 4000 1950 ( gas/bunker C), and the N&W Jawn Henry 1954 ( steam/coal). 

The point being they were not standing still and took a bold path. Considering all the very fast changes, from war production and steam locomotives to the sudden and somewhat unanticipated demise of steam so quickly, in the blink of an eye really, all those traumas were hard to keep up with. Throw in all those survival mergers with Hamilton and Lima, things were really spinning fast. Westinghouse abondoning them by exiting the locomotive business entirely certainly added to the mess. 

It must have been quite something to open the doors every morning at Baldwin, swimming in wartime cash, a workforce and professionals mired in steam technology, more returning loyal workforce from military service, facing Diesel catch up at a frantic pace, the clock ticking at warp speed and shareholder demands. Plus the hopes for the future in Turbines. They at least tried very hard for 8 years in one way or another.  

I think the #4000 demonstrator proved sucessful but it was designed primarily as a high speed passenger locomotive at the exact same time that passenger service started its fast decline and other well established models from other builders were already built and filling that role. 

 

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, December 28, 2019 1:37 PM

From Mike: A much clearer image

If you click on the link here you will get a super clean image and can read the text  

 http://www.jumpingfrog.com/images/magazineads7/mgd9215.jpg

 

https://www.thejumpingfrog.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=1757484

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, December 28, 2019 4:20 PM

Miningman
It appears to me that Baldwin really put a lot of time, effort, monies and hope including a great deal of vision for the future. Consider the Turbine attempts. The Pennsy S2 1946 ( steam/coal), the C&O M1's 1947-48 ( steam/ coal),  B-W Demonstrator # 4000 1950 ( gas/bunker C), and the N&W Jawn Henry 1954 ( steam/coal). 

We shouldn't leave out the BCR coal turbine (especially since it did have a sequel tested at full locomotive scale ... and what a scale!) or the free-piston engine that progressively sank Hamilton, then Lima-Hamilton, then Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton as the true 'turbine of the future' that didn't have the high TIT and lavish compressor horsepower issues that conventional gas turbines at railroad size and power did.

I'm personally sad that Ingalls never built their contemporary high-speed passenger unit, which would have made #4000 look ridiculously expensive and fuel-inefficient by comparison (as well as being inherently quite a bit faster and more rail-friendly at high speed).  Now, if you used turbine in place of diesel power, that transmission might have given some highly interesting results...

Interesting how Baldwin retouched the picture of PRR 6200 so it has either Baldwin Disc or Boxpok driver centers (actually looks like a little of both in the picture).  I look at that list of Baldwin companies with some sadness.  Didn't they have participation in General Steel Castings at that point?

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 371 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, December 28, 2019 6:25 PM

Overmod

 Interesting how Baldwin retouched the picture of PRR 6200 so it has either Baldwin Disc or Boxpok driver centers (actually looks like a little of both in the picture).  I look at that list of Baldwin companies with some sadness.  Didn't they have participation in General Steel Castings at that point?

I was under the impression that GSC was owned by Baldwin at the time. I also recall that GSC was making some impressive castings for non-railroad use such as ships propellers and the beds for very large material testing machines.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, December 28, 2019 6:58 PM

the free-piston engine that progressively sank Hamilton, then Lima-Hamilton, then Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton as the true 'turbine of the future' that didn't have the high TIT and lavish compressor horsepower issues that conventional gas turbines at railroad size and power did.

Don't forget EMD and the FG9.

The locomotive was built but I can't say if it was ever tested.

But the French had a few of these...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5FCyc46QHI

And an excellent animation of the Pescara system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine_locomotive

However neither of these indicate the loud pulsing sound that I understand these things had..

But the interior shots of 040-GA-1 are great. I'm a bit worried by all the belt drives. Note the mechanics, smoking and without ear protection...

The following entry on BB-9003 is good too. The rotating camshaft controller shows what real electric locmotives were, and remember, this unit made a world speed record later....

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 3,291 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Saturday, December 28, 2019 6:59 PM

I'm with you on "Little Zip".  It's ugly but it seems to grow on me sometimes.

I always thought the Baldwin looked more like a dolphin.

I thought Canadian steam only took cubed water from tower spouts.  Wink

Big Smile  I'm Cuckoo For Choo Choo Stuffs!  Big Smile

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, December 28, 2019 7:05 PM

Cubed water makes less mess and very efficient! Kind of sort of anyway.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, December 28, 2019 8:14 PM

Miningman

Cubed water makes less mess and very efficient! Kind of sort of anyway.

 

Analagous to sugar cubes, I guess..?

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, December 28, 2019 9:28 PM

M636C
Don't forget EMD and the FG9. The locomotive was built but I can't say if it was ever tested.

The carbody was built, but to my knowledge much of the mechanical arrangement that would have gone inside was never finished.  Reminiscent perhaps of the 'production order' of PRR L1 electrics (built by Lima!) which never finished getting electrical gear although apparently complete right down to window glazing.

Don Strack has an interesting report on the history of free-piston locomotives, including the FG9, here.

But the French had a few of these...  neither [source] indicates the loud pulsing sound that I understand these things had..

The two 'later' models, with higher horsepower out of two turbines of 1100kW apiece, were 060-GA-1, assigned road numbers CC80000 and 80001.  Tantalizingly enough, I am advised Renault owns 80001 and intends to put it in a museum of the company's technical achievements.  (I am also advised that an HO model of these locomotives was produced; now I have to try tracking one down...)

The documentation online indicates that the nickname "Belphegor" was applied after the locomotive was converted to diesel ... which seems unusual.  I thought for many years that the 'Taiga Drums' in Russia were their free-piston experiments, but Juniatha (of sainted memory) mentioned they were OP engines, and perhaps the conversion of 80001 involved a similar booming exhaust.  Perhaps we can find out!

The intake boom seems 'silenceable' to me if there is sufficient precompression of the intake air (via an approach like BLH's 'turbocharger' into a suitably-shaped pressure tank.  These engines can run at almost ungodly compression ratios (and both the displacement per stroke and CR are adjustable while running) so comparatively high pressure is possible, and this limits the intake pressure excursions that produced the BOOMing observed on the Patterson.

... the interior shots of 040-GA-1 are great. I'm a bit worried by all the belt drives. Note the mechanics, smoking and without ear protection...

The whole affair is almost quintessentially French; you can't help but love it.  You haven't seen worrisome belt drives until you see what drives the water pump on a Baldwin RS-12; these are just unusual for lacking any sort of safety guard whatsoever.

The following entry on BB-9003 is good too. The rotating camshaft controller shows what real electric locmotives were, and remember, this unit made a world speed record later....

These locomotives were the equivalent of spacecraft to me when I was a child: faster than hell, and the power used on the Mistral, the fastest train in the world.  Note that this is so early they don't have Faiveley pans yet.

 Along with them was the CC7100 class (the other locomotive class that went over 200mph in 1955, but the one that I believed wrecked the track so dramatically).  These are the locomotives, and the electrification scheme, for which Chapelon's advanced steam development was sacrificed, but I find I love them no less for that.  Note the suspiciously American Commonwealth tender truck at 5:05.

Here is the Mistral in 1956.

 I should probably not mention to 54light15 the section between 4:08 and 4:12 ... yes, it took no longer than that for the overtake and disappearance! Big Smile 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, December 29, 2019 4:07 AM

 I thought for many years that the 'Taiga Drums' in Russia were their free-piston experiments, but Juniatha (of sainted memory) mentioned they were OP engines

In fact the Taigatrommel were the M62, a class built for export with a Russian interpretation of an EMD 567 without any of the clever engineering (the Kolomna 14D40) which had a turbocharger in series with a roots bower, like the early UP experiments.

I only remember the later 1969 Mistral. Here is the very French SNCF introductory video for the 1969 Mistral:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3MXTJ37CSo

I really liked the 1969 Mistral and the slightly later Grand Confort cars. I was most disappointed in the TGV which in no way matched the quality of accomodation in those trains. The locomotive hauled trains were allowed 200km/h (125mph) and could probably have run faster on the Lignes de Grande Vitesse.

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:05 PM

M636C
Here is the very French SNCF introductory video for the 1969 Mistral

I did not appreciate the classic Australian understatement in this sentence until watching the video.  Note the testicle reference at 3:08 and the bare bottom at 5:25, and the contrast between the poor girl eating plopped-down whole fish at the Eiffel Tower and having an elegant dinner on the Mistral.  Who but the French would use a jew's-harp as a lead instrument?  The design language of the late Sixties is there ... but ... different.  See the cutting-edge typewriter from Italy, and wouldn't you think somebody would smack that guy merrily dictating into his handheld?  

And what is that thing the executive type is working on at 6:01?

We prided ourselves on the Century having a cubicle for a barbershop at 85mph.  The French have a hair salon at 125.  There seems little comparison.

Thanks!

 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,684 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:54 PM

I'm really impressed the SNCF didn't shoot that promotional film for the Mistral on cheap film, it looks as good today as it did 50 years ago.  

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Sunday, December 29, 2019 11:46 PM

I need a little cheering up after getting chewed and spit out at the Casino today so humour me a bit fellas with your take on these. (Otherwise a great day, made one mistake, one lousy crappy error in judgement ... well ok three, but it only took like 12 minutes for the hard fall)

1)  They had a handle on this a long long time ago, so don't think we came up with the brilliant idea.

 

2)  The Graf Zeppelin arrives in New York to a grand welcome in 1929. A big model toy of this always went nicely along with your trainset. 

 

3). The mighty Pennsylvannia RR has become nothing more than a ghost. I think Dickens could have a field day with this.. it's quite a stunner and very inspirational. 

 

4)  Well not weird but here is the Carlton Trail Railway bridge spanning the North Saskatchewan River in Prince Albert, Sask.  Built in 1907-1909 it's still a dandy.

Ex CNR, nee Canadian Northern. I'm crossing on the parallel Diefenbaker bridge as I approach PA with a considerably fatter wallet.  

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, December 30, 2019 2:13 AM

Why not cheer you up with this?  A sort of English counterpart to the '69 Mistral film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXPSSM00e-E

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, December 30, 2019 10:24 AM

That was very nice Overmod, luv the sweeping overhead sequences in the countryside long before drones. The narrator did say the helicopter had a difficult time keeping up with Mallard. Sure glad they gave the cricket score at 12 minutes and something, I mean we all want to know right? 

Not often in a flick like this we get to see a few of the technical innovations and details inside the smoke box. 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,684 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Monday, December 30, 2019 6:44 PM

Now here's a question for you chemistry majors out there.

That photo of the "Graf Zeppelin" making it's entry through a "Curtain in the sky."  That shot's a still from a newsreel film of the G-Z making it's arrival in New York, and (for lack of a better term) a crop-duster airplane passed in front of it laying the "curtain." 

Any idea what the composition of the "curtain" was?

PS:  Here's the whole arrival sequence.  What a day it must have been!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG_wnJeH0fk  

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: Parma Heights Ohio
  • 3,291 posts
Posted by Penny Trains on Monday, December 30, 2019 8:12 PM

Miningman
2) The Graf Zeppelin arrives in New York to a grand welcome in 1929. A big model toy of this always went nicely along with your trainset.

I agree wholeheartedly!  Wink

The Graf, the Hindenburg, the R100 and the R101!

Big Smile  I'm Cuckoo For Choo Choo Stuffs!  Big Smile

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 5,535 posts
Posted by Miningman on Monday, December 30, 2019 8:56 PM

That's the spirit Penny!  Of course! 

Thanks for the video Wayne.  Can't get over that camera guy up way up there on the beams. Lugging all that equipment, wearing a suit no less, then lights up a smoke!  I get the willies just watching it. Also the cameramen on the roofs of the 'News' trucks as they speed across the field. Can you imagine that today? No way, no how. 

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 2,223 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Monday, December 30, 2019 9:18 PM

Flintlock76

Any idea what the composition of the "curtain" was?

Image result for asbestos snow

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,850 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 1:26 AM

I had the privilege and pleasure, summer 1960, of seeing A4 Kingfisher, serviced at the Aberdeen Engine Sheds and then riding behind her to Edinburgh, regular service, including crossing the marvelous Firth of Forth Bridge.

Are A4s only hand-fired?  Or do they have stokers?

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 5:12 AM

Miningman
Fireman Tommy Bray, driver Joseph Luddington and inspector Sid Jenkins, July 7, 1938
 

 
The author of the book quoted, Cecil J Allen, was invited on the Mallard test run but declined because it was held on a Sunday, and he went to church instead...
 
Observant readers will have noted that Mallard, 4468, has a  road number lower than Flying Scotsman 4472 despite being built  fifteen years later.
 
The LNER retained the numbers of the first two Pacifics built by the GNR, adding 3000 to them to keep GNR numbers clear of those of the North Eastern Railway which were unaltered. These were 1470 and 1471 themselves numbered clear of the highest Ivatt Atlantic at 1461.
 
The LNER purchased ten more pacifics, 4472 to 4481 but later A1s and A3s were numbered in vacant NER numbers, the final units being A3s 2500 to 2508.
 
The first four A4s followed these numbers as 2509 -2512
 
Then someone decided to fill the gap from 4482 up to 4498
 
Then the gap from 4462 to 4469 (including Mallard at 4468)
 
They then remembered 4499 and 4500.....
 
The final three were 4901 to 4903
 
Of course they were renumbered in 1946 in order of importance of the people or things they were named after, 4500 becoming 1, (named after the chairman) to 34 named after a bird (although 34 subsequently became Lord Faringdon in 1948 but they weren't willing to renumber them all again)
 
But who knew that blank numbers in the original series  were so valuable that they had to be filled up..
 
That itself is Very Strange..
 
Peter
 
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 5:15 AM

daveklepper
Are A4s only hand-fired?  Or do they havepeed stokers?

A4s have always been hand-fired - astounding as that may seem.  They are small enough locomotives that lack of a stoker does not impair their ability to run at high speed; on the other hand the often-quoted observation that a narrow-firebox engine like a Castle or King can cover the same size train to much the same timekeeping may be an indication that the full potential of radiant uptake is not being fully realized.  We might remember that even after many A locomotives had been designed and built, PRR specified the K5, a much larger engine, as obligate hand-fired, and it essentially took an 'act of Congress' to change that.

I think the general perception in Britain was that stokers were wasteful of fuel, excessively expensive (there would be similar reasons for boosters not to be adopted, after some fascinating experiments) and probably seen as unnecessary when you were paying someone to shovel...

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,684 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 11:04 AM

Oh yeah, that cameraman out on that bare iron made my skin crawl as well, but I strongly suspect there was a finished floor under him, out of sight, probably no more than a ten foot drop, "If worse comes to worst."  

And lighting up a smoke!  Talk about savoir-faire!  

Camera trucks tearing around like crazy?  They'd only do that now for silly-ass celebrities like the Kardashians of the "Real Housewives of New Jersey," or "Orange County," or something. 

Different world now, and in some ways not necessarily a better one. 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 3,684 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 11:55 AM

I just watched the "Mallard" film, just wonderful, and honestly I was surprised to see how small "Mallard" is compared to an American locomotive.  

Big enough to get the job done though!

I was struck by the narrators "question" of bringing a priceless artefact like "Mallard" out of the museum and putting it under steam on the mainline again.  As a British friend of mine would have said "Why not?  That's what it was made for!"

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 3,902 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, December 31, 2019 4:46 PM

Overmod

 

 
daveklepper
Are A4s only hand-fired?  Or do they havepeed stokers?

 

A4s have always been hand-fired - astounding as that may seem.  They are small enough locomotives that lack of a stoker does not impair their ability to run at high speed; on the other hand the often-quoted observation that a narrow-firebox engine like a Castle or King can cover the same size train to much the same timekeeping may be an indication that the full potential of radiant uptake is not being fully realized.  We might remember that even after many A locomotives had been designed and built, PRR specified the K5, a much larger engine, as obligate hand-fired, and it essentially took an 'act of Congress' to change that.

I think the general perception in Britain was that stokers were wasteful of fuel, excessively expensive (there would be similar reasons for boosters not to be adopted, after some fascinating experiments) and probably seen as unnecessary when you were paying someone to shovel...

 

PS - I thought it was 'Firth of Forth'.  

 

British commentators have suggested that the wide fireboxes of the LNER and LMS Pacifics were neccessary for the non stop runs to Scotland to prevent the grate being choked with ash. The "Kings" were limited to the heaviest main lines and did most of their work between Paddington and Bristol and to Exeter, so less than half the distance run by the A4s.

I recall OS Nock commenting on some of the best runs over the grades west of Exeter were made with a Castle fitted for oil burning during the early post WWII period where its performance on the steep grades greatly exceeded the usual coal fired locomotives.

While thinking of that line, I'm told that the new Hitachi dual mode trains have saved a total of eleven minutes over the 40 year old HST trains to the most distant terminus at Penzance, not much of a result for the cost involved....

Peter

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 15,850 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, January 1, 2020 8:22 AM

Yes, but the dual-modes use the electrification as far as Southampton, while the HSTs ran on diesel all the way, or am I mistaken?  I hope the HSTs in general do not face scrapping.  Overhauled, they should find some kind of new life in the developing country.  Or is it a case of pollution?  If so, new diesel prime movers would be required.

Of course you are right, Overmod, I stand corected and will make the correction.  Thanks!

I rode the Bournmouth Bell behind a Bulleid Pacific, summer 1960.  Probably also hand-fired.  Were not these Pacifics originally condensing locomotives, saving water?  In 1960 they were not, however.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, January 1, 2020 8:29 AM

M636C
British commentators have suggested that the wide fireboxes of the LNER and LMS Pacifics were neccessary for the non stop runs to Scotland to prevent the grate being choked with ash.

That would certainly make sense, particularly if using the 'corridor tender' approach for longer range without stopping.  

Some of the discussions I have read indicate that the 'difference' was more that the Pacifics were easier to fire and work than the narrow-firebox engines at the combinations of speed and load where the latter were approaching their effective grate limit, but that much of the potential power of better radiant uptake was not fully used in British running; this was part of the reason for the relative failure of the P-class idea (which might be thought of as a counterpart to Chapelon's 4-8-0 conversions).  Some of this may be related to the retention of copper fireboxes, with better heat uptake but lower pressure tolerance, until relatively late.  

I recall OS Nock commenting on some of the best runs over the grades west of Exeter were made with a Castle fitted for oil burning during the early post WWII period where its performance on the steep grades greatly exceeded the usual coal fired locomotives.

I had not thought carefully about this, but oil firing of the right kind would neatly remove most of the steam-generation issues from a good narrow-firebox boiler.  Pity Britain had access to cheap American petroleum, so didn't develop its coal--gasification/fuel synthesis capability, but then opted against increasing its balance-of-trade deficit by having to use 'dollars' for oil fuel postwar.

It would have been interesting to see if the oil-fired Leader would have been a functional success as designed.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,486 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, January 1, 2020 8:54 AM

daveklepper
I hope the HSTs in general do not face scrapping.  Overhauled, they should find some kind of new life in the developing country.  Or is it a case of pollution?  If so, new diesel prime movers would be required.

I agree with this sentiment: there certainly are many places where, as with the first generation TGVs, the trainsets can provide significant advantage at comparatively little cost.

The main concern I have is whether their condition is 'clapped-out' in respects where spare parts are lacking or no longer produced.  That has been the essential argument behind not using the Acela equipment in alternative service.  Of course an HST power car without its matching train is little more the right kind of 'preservation' than keeping an LRC Alco without something worthy for it to pull, and whether or not it had to be kept 'outdoors' I think the NRM is more than a bit remiss in not securing a full top-and-tail consist (of the best examples and spares) while that is still relatively easy to do.

I think the MTU 4000 series, with which most of these trains were refitted, has been capable of modification to meet Tier 4 since 2015, and it is well understood what would be required even if whole new engines were more cost-effective than refitting older ones.

To my knowledge none of the Bulleid (note sp.) Pacifics were condensing, or designed to be.  While the Southern did do some interesting research into Holcroft-Anderson 'recompression' (preserving the latent heat of vaporization in the steam by partial condensation under pressure on the locomotive) the experiments floundered on the detail design of the draft turbine, as was the case for so many draft arrangements of that kind, and the whole Holcroft-Anderson arrangement was bombed out of existence in the London Blitz.

Bulleid had steel fireboxes, and could have benefited from stoker firing.  But the cost to provide them was deemed too high for the benefits actually achievable in British practice net of ASLEF concerns.  Peter probably can find more precise details and perhaps the actual history.

These are the locomotives with the notorious chain-driven valve gear that caused more issues than it solved; some of the effect of the more precise gear might have been saving of water, but it certainly made up for it in increased oil consumption in a great many recorded cases!  I think it is a tribute to the locomotives, more than an indication of relative British impoverishment in the '50s, that so many were expensively built to conventional valve drive. 

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,168 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, January 10, 2020 11:42 AM

Between this:

http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s5445do.jpg

and this:

http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s5446s.jpg

We apparently got this...

http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s5446ajh.jpg

Persuant to the concurrent thread in Locomotives, is this now only "stream-styled"?

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