(deleted, forget it!)
I found these photos of N&W TE-1's turbine from the NWHS Archives about a year ago and have been thinking of posting them here. Since you guys mentioned the potential damage to the turbine of the PRR S2 during operation, I would like to share them here to see if these photos might help to enrich the content of the recent discussions even though they are not directly related to it:
"N&W TE1 2300 turbine and components after failure" (no further context provided)
More: https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/listdocs/select.php?index=search&Searchword=Turbine
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Remember that you are looking at the result of impact of a string of hopper cars, accelerating to over 8mph at impact, oriented directly along the turbine shaft axis while it was spooled up. It is difficult to think of an incident that would similarly stress the S2 main turbine. It is entirely possible that a continued series of unrecognizedly-severe shocks might produce repeated stick-slip damage in the turbine bearings, but it was my understanding that periodic teardown and inspection revealed no evidence of that kind of damage.
A specific point made about Bowes drive in the 'revised' V1 was that it allowed longitudinal compliance of the main turbine if shocked in buff or draft. As the Bowes drive is inherently noncontact there is relatively little tendency for reflected shock from the chassis to affect the turbine's internal structure; at least theoretically the primary and secondary suspension can be built to control off-axis shock, nothing involving control modality or construction not achievable by the late '40s.
Today of course you'd isolate the turbogenerator along the principles of a multiaxis tuned mass damper to help with vehicle stability, and use proper magnetic bearings. The whole of the high-speed drive need be no more than was implemented on the first generation of TGV; of course far better and more sophisticated options are currently (no pun intended) available basically OTS for electrical transmission. At least technically you could use a turbine in place of the expander in the Lewty booster, which can be aligned and shockproofed to a substantial extent. Mechanical transmission design need be nowhere as sophisticated as in modern automobiles, as there is no requirement either to run in constant mesh or to transmit load across ratio changes. As I pointed out some years ago, a magnetorheological coupling of suitable power for V1 use was theoretically available by late 1948; this has very little wear (and most of that in easily-replaced, non-dimensionally-critical components) and is easily proportionally controlled.
Keep in mind that this is Classic Trains, where there is a 50-year cutoff on the technology we're 'supposed' to discuss. It is interesting to look back on what STE designs even by the early '70s could feature, both in materials and operation... both 'pro' and 'con'.
But as a quick note: Sara, see if you can pull up the list of John Herbst papers in the repository of the University of Texas CEM. The MegaGen developed for SDI applications is a suitable design for high-speed locomotives; it was the basis for both CEM's and my ALPS locomotives back in the day the United States actually still cared about true high-speed design...
OvermodRemember that you are looking at the result of impact of a string of hopper cars, accelerating to over 8mph at impact, oriented directly along the turbine shaft axis while it was spooled up. It is difficult to think of an incident that would similarly stress the S2 main turbine. It is entirely possible that a continued series of unrecognizedly-severe shocks might produce repeated stick-slip damage in the turbine bearings, but it was my understanding that periodic teardown and inspection revealed no evidence of that kind of damage. A specific point made about Bowes drive in the 'revised' V1 was that it allowed longitudinal compliance of the main turbine if shocked in buff or draft. As the Bowes drive is inherently noncontact there is relatively little tendency for reflected shock from the chassis to affect the turbine's internal structure; at least theoretically the primary and secondary suspension can be built to control off-axis shock, nothing involving control modality or construction not achievable by the late '40s. Today of course you'd isolate the turbogenerator along the principles of a multiaxis tuned mass damper to help with vehicle stability, and use proper magnetic bearings. The whole of the high-speed drive need be no more than was implemented on the first generation of TGV; of course far better and more sophisticated options are currently (no pun intended) available basically OTS for electrical transmission. At least technically you could use a turbine in place of the expander in the Lewty booster, which can be aligned and shockproofed to a substantial extent. Mechanical transmission design need be nowhere as sophisticated as in modern automobiles, as there is no requirement either to run in constant mesh or to transmit load across ratio changes. As I pointed out some years ago, a magnetorheological coupling of suitable power for V1 use was theoretically available by late 1948; this has very little wear (and most of that in easily-replaced, non-dimensionally-critical components) and is easily proportionally controlled. Keep in mind that this is Classic Trains, where there is a 50-year cutoff on the technology we're 'supposed' to discuss. It is interesting to look back on what STE designs even by the early '70s could feature, both in materials and operation... both 'pro' and 'con'. But as a quick note: Sara, see if you can pull up the list of John Herbst papers in the repository of the University of Texas CEM. The MegaGen developed for SDI applications is a suitable design for high-speed locomotives; it was the basis for both CEM's and my ALPS locomotives back in the day the United States actually still cared about true high-speed design...
Remember railroads consider 4 MPH a SAFE coupling speed for freight equipment. Depending on the engineer and conditions, higher speed couplings are frequently made. Impact is reality in the operation of locomotives.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sara T>>A specific point made about Bowes drive<< I had asked you to explain what it was, but got no answer. In a byline I mentioned your Bowes drive when talking to Juni, and what do you know? she told me she had also asked you about it earlier .. and got no answer neither.
Sara TIt appears to me that's your method: putting up things you know other members cannot comply to, like here you ask me: >>Sara, see if you can pull up the list of John Herbst papers in the repository of the University of Texas CEM.<< You know pretty well I live in Germany and it's absolutely safe and clear I will not come to that University and will never look up those papers or whatever I will find there.
Nearest I can find to the CEM index page as I last used it is here:
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/29970/recent-submissions
I have no idea where or if the ALPS-specific papers are in this, but it will give you at least an idea of some of the underlying work. At least some of the titles, although not obviously hyperlinked, click through to PDF download links.
I will assume that your sarcasm means that you are actually interested in the Bowes drive and in reading papers from CEM respectively, and send you information via PM later when I have better access to the material and can forward attachments and not just links.
In case you missed it, I posted this on the second page of this thread one year ago:
"Archived Photos of Chesapeake and Ohio M-1 Steam Turbine Engines"
http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/278688.aspx?page=2#3221257
Probably not the same thing, and probably I'm way off, but the Bowes drive sounds very similar to what the French used in the Normandie, that is, a turbo-electric drive.
The ship's steam turbines ran generators which in turn powered electric motors that turned the propeller shafts. It was a lot easier and simpler to build the propulsion system that way than it was to utilize a complicated gearing system.
Whether the ship went forward or in reverse was a simple matter of throwing switches.
The Bowes drive is very different from turbo-electric, which is not really different from what diesel-electrics do.
Look first at patent 2465006A
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3f/e0/fe/67f4a9eaa3f7ab/US2465006.pdf
and then at the 'improvement' patented in 1955, paying attention to some of the discussion there
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/56/04/1d/232aa9a0107ee7/US2715689.pdf
Note the efficiency of conversion, observed to be very much greater than 'turboelectric' as in, say, the Heilmann locomotive with its progressive losses.
A locomotive's turbine governor can then be designed principally to control spoolup and spindown for best longevity of the turbine, using the multiple nozzles most efficiently as load comes on and off once operating shaft rpm is reached, and keep the turbine in the range of its most efficient steam consumption with simple speed following, while allowing varying the road speed by modulating the drive.
Meanwhile, while we are thinking about straight turbo electric drive, I believe there was a brief fad in the U.S.Navy early on for electric-transmission drive in warships. Probably discussed on-line in sufficient detail to confirm.
There is an interesting story about how easy operating a large turbo-electric drive could be. As I recall the details, during the fire aboard the Morro Castle, the crew made no attempt to get the ship near the shore. A couple of college boys went to the engine room, doped out how to pull the levers, and ensured the ship was beached. As I recall this saved lives.
Sara T Sorry, Overmod, you didn't write it is accessible in the internet and so I didn't think of it. Looks like I should have thought of it anyway. And on your later posting: ah-haa! there it is! Fine, thank you, wow, great, I'll tell Juni! Now I hope everything will become well! >>A couple of college boys went to the engine room, doped out how to pull the levers, and ensured the ship was beached. As I recall this saved lives.<< They were from your class, Prof Overmod? Sara 05003
Sorry, Overmod, you didn't write it is accessible in the internet and so I didn't think of it. Looks like I should have thought of it anyway.
And on your later posting: ah-haa! there it is! Fine, thank you, wow, great, I'll tell Juni! Now I hope everything will become well!
>>A couple of college boys went to the engine room, doped out how to pull the levers, and ensured the ship was beached. As I recall this saved lives.<<
They were from your class, Prof Overmod?
Sara 05003
SS Morro Castle (1930) - Wikipedia
It was 87 years ago....
Peter
Other than the Normandy, where-else was the Bowers Drive used?
It appears to me to be a form of generator and motor within common electrical and magnetic circuits, and thus harks back to the rotary 3-phase AC to DC rotary converters used in some original electrifications' locomotives, including the three-phase, double-wire Via Alpina Sondrio - Tirano in Italy.
Again: Normandie (and Morro Castle and other prospective ships of that era) had conventional turbo-electric drive, not Bowes drive.
From what I have read, the Bowes drive was intended particularly as a tugboat drive, where very fast reversals at high speed and load are required for what may be long periods of time.
I'm sure some idea of actual installations, together with aspects of their detail design, are in the Bowes papers at ISM; the published finding aid strongly indicates that there are. I am checking regularly to see when they reopen access, as I have a list of box references literally printed out and sitting on my desk ready to go when they do...
It'll be interesting to see how the design for rail cars differs from that for the 2000hp high-speed locomotive. Since I have seen what Bowes sent to the PRR, I do expect comparable engineering detail to be present.
daveklepper It appears to me to be a form of generator and motor within common electrical and magnetic circuits, and thus harks back to the rotary 3-phase AC to DC rotary converters used in some original electrifications' locomotives, including the three-phase, double-wire Via Alpina Sondrio - Tirano in Italy.
Dave,
To me, the difference is that the converters you describe had electrical current as the both the input and the output, one AC and one DC.
The Bowes drive is the equivalent of a mechanical torque converter, such as a Voith hydraulic torque converter, in that the input and output are mechanical rotating shafts turning at different speeds with different torques.
In Italy, there were fairly commonly seen simpler three phase locomotives that simply varied the number of poles on the motor and had maybe two or three constant speeds. I travelled behind these as late as 1974 and I think they were more common than the locomotives with rotary converters. In 1974, there were many connections with the later 3000v DC system where arrangements had to be made to change engines, requiring a DC locomotive to be moved clear from its train by an AC locomotive after coasting into the station, or vice versa.
In England there were London underground trains with a form of stepless control called a "Metadyne" which was effectively a motor generator set that provided a variable voltage output. These dated from the mid 1930s, but were replaced by conventional camshaft control in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Overmod,
interesting now that you posted details of the Bowes drive. However, as for electric traction, the interest is more historical than it has any practical relevance today since with the Synchron / asynchron technology time has gone on over it.
As for a steam turbine drive, the gears today possible with automatic gear change and torque converter would again cover its range of advantageous application.
=J=
Overmod Meanwhile, while we are thinking about straight turbo electric drive, I believe there was a brief fad in the U.S.Navy early on for electric-transmission drive in warships. Probably discussed on-line in sufficient detail to confirm.
Interest in turbo-electric drives started prior to WW1, with, IIRC, the first installation being the collier "Jupiter". Motivation for using T-E drive was allowing the use of high speed turbines, more flexible machinery arrangement and improved maneuverability. Development of high speed reduction gears in late 20's and early 30's led to the USN going that route with the naval build-up starting in the mid 30's.
Experience with building light weight high power steam turbines for desroyers may have been the inspiration for GE building the "Turbomotives" in the late 30's.
It's most interesting that the "Jupiter" was the US Navy's first turbo-electric drive when you consider its subsequent history.
CSSHEGEWISCH It's most interesting that the "Jupiter" was the US Navy's first turbo-electric drive when you consider its subsequent history.
I'd guess the "Jupiter," later "Langley" had that turbo-electric drive installed as a bit of an experiment. If it didn't live up to expectations a collier was a lot less expensive as a test bed than a battleship.
They built three with different approaches to power as a comparison test. One had reciprocating engines and one a reduction-gear turbine arrangement.
Supposedly the original proposal came from Fessenden circa 1908. Surely he would not have designed a twin-screw ship with both motors constrained to turn at the same speed!
There are any drawings for the turbo-electric version of V1 locomotive?
Could you post the images now unvailable, again? Kind regards
djlivusThere are any drawings for the turbo-electric version of V1 locomotive?
I don't believe Steins 'triplex' turbo-electric, which would have been much longer, is greatly related to the V1 chassis, which was designed around two turbines with mechanical drive to the axles.
djlivus Could you post the images now unvailable, again? Kind regards
Welcome to the forum! Please check PM, thanks a lot!
https://i.imgur.com/7yW84y7.png
https://i.imgur.com/gIMTLeg.png
the elongated body gg1 style turbine - if it is the succesor of the three-unit steam turbo electric locomotive project - it seems to be also a turbo electric locomotive design
Yes, these are turboelectric -- the key is the term "Steamotive".
This was the plan to compete with what was then developing 'streamliner' diesel power; at the time of origin this would have been the state-of-the-art of the early GM two-strokes, perhaps even before the advent of the 201A.
The design was fully mature by late 1936, and described at the 57th annual meeting of the ASME (Nov 30 to Dec 4 1936). A contemporary account describes this as a 'flash boiler' comparable to the one Barney Oldfield used in 1909 and notes that the version described used "a quarter-mile of small pipes all in a space the size of an office desk". The experimental plant was installed at one of GE's ex-Thomson-Houston facilities in Lynn, MA -- 1500psi, originally with a suicidal 1050 degree F temp, reduced to 900 in practice. Naturally this involved distilled water and careful automatic control of the firing, and full condensation (which, like the later enginion AG design, could be justified with the lower mass flow nominally required). Turbines in this system were quite small for the developed horsepower... they were dwarfed in mobile applications by their own exhaust plenum.
This is the system used, and reasonably well documented, in the two UP steam turbines of 1938. These made 2500hp at 40,000lb/hr, 1500psi/950F according to the B&W SM-9L dataplate. The system was originally designed to scale all the way to 10,000hp, and we might gauge the expected horsepower of the PRR designs by seeing the practical motor power per driver axle before slip set in to spoil the party -- these perhaps involve 428A motors which would have been common to what PRR planned to use with the electrification west to Pittsburgh after 1938.
Michael Duffy (in Electric Railways, 1880-1990, 2003) describes Steamotive as a market failure by 1940, but I think this is evidently an economic and not a technical assessment. What is obvious to me is that the practical introduction of the 567 represented a better way to use liquid fuel... and a great many PRR experiments in this epoch, from the E8 Atlantic through the Steins motor-truck designs to these turboelectrics, involved some form of liquid-fuel firing.
Those of you with a technical interest in watertube boilers might be interested in the July 1940 issue of the ASME transactions (v62 n5 commencing p367)
http://cybra.lodz.pl/Content/6095/Trans_vol.62_no.5_1940.pdf
The original full description of Steamotive in the ASME journal was in the Feb 1937 issue (v49 n1 pp78-82) but I can't find an online version -- I'd bet wanswheel can.
I have been looking for actual drawings of the E8 for many years. I suspect there is something at the Hagley museum in Delaware but I haven't had the time and health together to go researching.
What we know is that it would have 84" drivers, very lightweight running gear, and oil firing. This was at the time of the Hiawatha development and I suspect the rationale was the same: light extremely fast power for use on comparatively short and lightweight streamlined trains. I expect the tender wouldn't have to have the odd wheel arrangement of the Hiawathas, on PRR's nominally better track, but it would be just like PRR to try stretching their range at high speed... without NYC-style high-speed track-pan arrangements.
It would be hard to speculate on which of the likely suspects for ending development might be. Most successful streamline rapidly developed to where larger equipment and more powerful locomotives (with 84" drivers too) would give the best return on investment. The Steamotive concept,which PRR apparently embraced for a time, was publically revealed in late 1936, and the Westinghouse steam-turbine alternatives with more conventional pressure and atmospheric exhaust only a few years later. Of course the Baldwin depression-boondoggle that was S1 development was also developing as two Atlantics comparable to E8s under a common boiler, with the follow-on 4-8-4 sized locomotive capable of E8 speed on 80" drivers...
And then there were 567-engined E units -- PRR had a pair on order in 1941, but the War canceled it. By the time that order could be filled, it was as E7s, and even Niagaras were hard put, even with special circumstances all in their favor, to compete with those.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter