M636C timz Jones1945 "Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h" Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade? The Germans tended to use gradients in "per thousand", one tenth of a "percent" grade. I suspect that the load quoted was on a 0.8 percent grade. Peter
timz Jones1945 "Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h" Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?
Jones1945 "Mallet of Borsig. The original was built in 1943 to carry a load of 1,700 tons at an 8-degree gradient. 148 tons and top speed 80 km/h"
Anyone know the correct numbers? What tonnage was it intended to pull up what grade?
The Germans tended to use gradients in "per thousand", one tenth of a "percent" grade. I suspect that the load quoted was on a 0.8 percent grade.
Peter
Hello all. Do you think linking the 3rd and 4th set driver with a pair of rods would have saved the PRR Q1 or at least let her served more and longer? That would make it a 4-10-4 “Duplex” (?). Some books remain neutral about the performance of Q1, many books say it was a completely failure (I believe it was).
But money already spent, the engine with 90000 TE was already there, PRR should have maxed out the use of this prototypes if small modifications could make the train run more than merely 65000 miles (1942-1946), it still worth a try.
Q1 was suffered from wheel slip of its rear engines, linking two set of engines together with a pair of rods might solve the wheel slip problem, but it was impossible to relocate the rear cylinders to a “cleaner” place or to make the firebox larger. Please feel free to share your thought!
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Jones1945Hello all. Do you think linking the 3rd and 4th set driver with a pair of rods would have saved the PRR Q1 or at least let her served more and longer? That would make it a 4-10-4 “Duplex” (?). Some books remain neutral about the performance of Q1, many books say it was a completely failure (I believe it was).
The Q1 was already lethally impaired by being an oddball one-off that didn't produce enough incremental power to justify all the construction expense (and maintenance complications).
It's interesting to consider designing a set of what would by that time have been tandem rods connecting the two driver pairs. These might have to be somewhat less in section than an equivalent 4-10-4 due to the divided drive cylinders, much as the PLM 2-10-2 from 1930 was, and the incremental balance weighting should have been accommodated in the 77" driver centers. But you still have the augment of a 10-coupled engine together with all the 'additional' moments of the mains, crosshead momenta, etc. that now act strictly in phase; not really much point in running numbers as you get less, not more result for the complexity.
Considering Withuhn conjugated duplexing, a 'solution' might have been achieved with inside cranks and a pair of quartered conjugating rods putting the two engines either in antiphase balance or 135-degree 'torque optimizing' at eight peaks per revolution. How practical it would be to make up the necessary frame, bearing, etc. modifications would involve much more detailed knowledge of the locomotive's construction than I have obtained; there are, I think, more substantial difficulties than for the ACE3000 (and many of the ACE3000s potential issues were, to put it charitably, more than a little glossed over, such as how driver-axle roller bearings would be implemented in practice on the two center driving axles...)
Likewise, some form of Deem geared conjugation might be considered, and this in conjunction with a Langer balancer is by far the 'best' solution to the issue of conjugation in general. You'd still need some form of Ferguson-clutch arrangement between the engines, as rigid gearing would rapidly wear and die.
Naturally, some form of applied traction control would work far better than conjugation for most of the observed 'issues' with running a Q1 in anticipated 5/4ths-of-a-M1 service on head end express/mail services (the only sort of thing that made sense for it as designed, a strictly passenger engine "needing" to be 80" or larger in the PRR pipe-dream design continuum of that era, but I digress...) and for this the likeliest approach would be to provide cheek plates for the independent driver brakes and implement them as air-over-hydraulic lateral calipers with comparatively small running gap between pads and faces. Note that much of the 'loss' involved with using these even in full contact at starting or low speed is actually 'reversible' - think of it as expansion of the steam that doesn't happen as quickly as in 'equilibrium' with unrestrained acceleration - and you may benefit more than proportionally from thermodynamic "improvements" that decrease wall condensation, tract losses, etc. when the physical dwell of the steam per stroke is longer. (Naturally most workable forms of "jacketing" principle could be considered here). Likewise, using four Wagner 'throttles' in the four tracts would allow realtime 'trim' of one engine relative to the other even if only one common front-end throttle were provided for the locomotive itself -- and this could be arranged with the control technologies and methods available at that time. (Note that the arrangement to be used on T1 5550 involves a similar modulation of independent brake acting on the driver brakeshoes and rigging, which is a slower-acting and more constrained version of traction control but that should be adequate for both low- and high-speed slip on that locomotive in any prospective service.)
I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but ONE of the problems with the PRR Duplexes was more duplicate (hence the name), equipment to maintain. ( 4 cylinders doing the work of 2). (4 sets of rods doing the work of 2.) However, That is not what killed the PRR modern steam experimentals.. Oh no.. At the same time that was going on, there was a group of men working with Winton 2-cycle diesel engines connected to big DC generators. That soon turned into EMC, later known as EMD, and the rest, as they say, is history.. Can't compete with a unit that has almost no down time, and has a monthly, instead of hourly, maintainance window.
I love steam, I'll say that Norfolk & Western being married to coal, held onto their super Y-6's 'till 1960. But even then, they had to succumb to the EMD 567 wave.
Funny now, these days a GP-9 seems a relic. When was the last time you saw one on the head of a mainline hot-shot?
It's all relative to when you were born I suppose. The young kids today will soon look at an SD-70 and have the same melancholy that us old-timers have for the engines that we remember from our youth.
Todd
Baloney! The development of the Diesel engine was true enough but it was 2 and half times costlier to purchase up front. Very expensive. Sizable fleets of Centipedes, Passenger Sharks Bp20's, FM opposed piston entries, Alco PA1's, RF-16 Sharks, even FA1's were a total waste of money and were junk in short order and that after sizeable maintenance headaches, costs, breakdowns and delays.
Roundhouse backstops could rebuild, fix and repair steam locomotives quickly and efficiently. Pennsy and NYC would have done better to do exactly what you state the N&W did...hold out until bullitproof proven Diesel locomotives became available, even longer.
They succumbed to pressure from a societal direction that was eager for a new world of massive consumerism and easy credit was waved in front of their faces especially by EMD. It was image, style over substance. It did nothing to save them at all, not a thing.
Overmod It's interesting to consider designing a set of what would by that time have been tandem rods connecting the two driver pairs. These might have to be somewhat less in section than an equivalent 4-10-4 due to the divided drive cylinders, much as the PLM 2-10-2 from 1930 was, and the incremental balance weighting should have been accommodated in the 77" driver centers. But you still have the augment of a 10-coupled engine together with all the 'additional' moments of the mains, crosshead momenta, etc. that now act strictly in phase; not really much point in running numbers as you get less, not more result for the complexity.
Miningman Baloney! The development of the Diesel engine was true enough but it was 2 and half times costlier to purchase up front. Very expensive. Sizable fleets of Centipedes, Passenger Sharks Bp20's, FM opposed piston entries, Alco PA1's, RF-16 Sharks, even FA1's were a total waste of money and were junk in short order and that after sizeable maintenance headaches, costs, breakdowns and delays. Roundhouse backstops could rebuild, fix and repair steam locomotives quickly and efficiently. Pennsy and NYC would have done better to do exactly what you state the N&W did...hold out until bullitproof proven Diesel locomotives became available, even longer. They succumbed to pressure from a societal direction that was eager for a new world of massive consumerism and easy credit was waved in front of their faces especially by EMD. It was image, style over substance. It did nothing to save them at all, not a thing.
Overmod Likewise, some form of Deem geared conjugation might be considered, and this in conjunction with a Langer balancer is by far the 'best' solution to the issue of conjugation in general. You'd still need some form of Ferguson-clutch arrangement between the engines, as rigid gearing would rapidly wear and die.
Not ignoring or overlooking anything. We just finished discussion on the Kriegslok war locomotive of which over 7,000 were made, many of them lasting up to the year 2000, and not all behind the Iron Curtain, count Norway, Austria and Turkey in that. . A simple, inexpensive design, easy to fix, easy to maintain, powerful as can be. Compare that to hundreds of millions of dollars of junked wasteful crappy designed Diesels, the horrible costs in breakdowns, delays, unreliability and exceptionally expensive maintenance costs and that barely made ten years of existence on the planet, a good portion of that time in the shop. To make it even worse throw in the cost of new perfectly good modern steam, all that wasted money on them, add that in. The infrastructure of coal towers, water towers, ash pits and the like already existed and was paid for eons ago. It was there, like my back door of the house, it served a purpose.
Throw in the human cost. Hundreds of thousands of skilled craftsman nationwide, and to tie in a wee bit with the Jim Crow Laws thread, the brunt of this affecting Black roundhouse and general labour workers.
No wonder deferred maintenance on track and massive losses on the books became normal. The passenger trains disappeared. More layoffs, more wasted money. If you think for a minute the Diesels saved the railroads then that does not pass the eyeballs test. All the proud, viable, built for the ages independant railroads are gone. Competition was eliminated not enhanced. Even today people still parrot the same tired old talking points as if the ArchAngel Michael descended down and decreed it so.
Ike saw it clearly and warned everyone.
"Over 6,700 locomotives of DRB Class 52 type were built across Europe for use on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. Thus, it was one of the most numerous steam locomotives in the world......"
The actual number of Class 52 built depends on the list and who prepared it....
"German War Locomotives 1939-1945" suggests that 6161 were built during the war. Other books suggest a total of 6718, including those built after May 1945.
The highest road number taken into stock by the DRB during the war appears to be 52 7793. There were numerous gaps due to orders not completed. Locomotives were supplied new to Romania, Turkey, Serbia and Croatia, some of which had 52 series numbers allocated and some not.
However there were 1107 locomotives of the class 50, from which the 52 was derived that were built as "Transitional War Locomotives", the later versions of which were indistinguishable from the Class 52 (at least from those 52 with bar frames rather than plate frames).
So there were more than 7800 War Locomotives with the same general dimensions built from 1939 to 1945.
It would be wrong to regard this as a triumph of traditional design. There were many modern features in the Class 52, with extensive welding of components not previously considered, including the boiler and firebox.
Miningman Compare that to hundreds of millions of dollars of junked wasteful crappy designed Diesels, the horrible costs in breakdowns, delays, unreliability and exceptionally expensive maintenance costs and that barely made ten years of existence on the planet, a good portion of that time in the shop.
Compare that to hundreds of millions of dollars of junked wasteful crappy designed Diesels, the horrible costs in breakdowns, delays, unreliability and exceptionally expensive maintenance costs and that barely made ten years of existence on the planet, a good portion of that time in the shop.
A former poster to the Trains.com forums, Juniatha, made the suggestion of a multispeed gearing between the turbine and drive wheels. This would reduce the steam flow at low speeds as the steam flow was almost directly proportional to torque and very weakly related to shaft speed.
- Erik
erikem A former poster to the Trains.com forums, Juniatha, made the suggestion of a multispeed gearing between the turbine and drive wheels. This would reduce the steam flow at low speeds as the steam flow was almost directly proportional to torque and very weakly related to shaft speed. - Erik
Isn't that what they did with the two UP units, C&O M-1 and N&W Jawn Henry?
I know, she was probably thinking about mechanical drive, but at the time turbo-electric seemed like a good idea....
sorry, duplicate post...
I don't seem to have a delete option...
Thank you erikem and Peter. I remember more than one similar design of a multispeed gearing were designed and received U.S. Patent not long before the S2 turbine was put in an idle position. The worst thing was the turbine blade was seriously damaged by coal dust, according to PRR. After the 1948 Railroad Fair, S2 was withdrawn from service. SAD.......By the way, I am reviewing some posts from a few years ago on train.com forum. I really love Juniatha's music choices......
M636C Isn't that what they did with the two UP units, C&O M-1 and N&W Jawn Henry? I know, she was probably thinking about mechanical drive, but at the time turbo-electric seemed like a good idea....
Gears weigh less, cost less and are more compact than an electrical drive - the USN went through a similar phase between 1920 and the mid-30's going from turbo electric drive to high speed reduction gears.
OTOH, a turbo-electric drive makes more sense in a general purpose locomotive than one intended only for high speed passenger service (i.e. T1 replacement).
erikem M636C Isn't that what they did with the two UP units, C&O M-1 and N&W Jawn Henry? I know, she was probably thinking about mechanical drive, but at the time turbo-electric seemed like a good idea.... Gears weigh less, cost less and are more compact than an electrical drive - the USN went through a similar phase between 1920 and the mid-30's going from turbo electric drive to high speed reduction gears.
To be honest, turboelectric has never made sense, since the days of the Heilmann locomotive. Some of the problems and issues have changed with improvements in electrical technology, and there are some current (no pun intended) applications where some kinds of expander-electric drive make sense.
Note that the marine application has substantial differences with even the most optimal railroad applications; the differences between propeller drive and the characteristics of freight railroad service alone bear looking at (with the understanding that the Bowes drive produces the practical advantage of turboelectric drive that generator/traction motor drive only does indirectly with much higher cumulative operating losses)
One issue is that steam expanders have a different torque characteristic than most internal-combustion cycles; the same 'arguments' used so often for the absence of multispeed transmissions on steam automobiles also apply to both steam-mechanical and steam-electric locomotives. The long early history of IC-motor-driven railroad equipment established the importance of electric vs. other kinds of transmission ... for internal-combustion engines with particular torque-speed characteristics particularly when operating at low final-drive rotational speed under high torque, precisely the range where either positive-displacement expanders or turbines can develop the equivalent of high locked-rotor torque.
The primary 'need' for multispeed action in high-capacity turbine locomotives is to minimize the slip at low road speeds; but another high-priority need is to avoid rotational 'jerk' or axial shock - in fact, anything that induces blading interference in rotation. The same kind of Ferguson clutch that makes Deem-conjugated duplexes practical also provides a reasonable opportunity for allowing higher rotational speed for a given inlet mass flow; hydraulic torque multiplication might be better still but has to be implemented either in the high-rpm or high-torque ranges of the reduction gearing ... neither of which is where the usual torque-converter designs like operating at the necessary high peak horsepower. The Bowes drive, although an electrical machine, is not just a fancy 'slippable clutch.'
Turboelectric DC drive on locomotives is a longstanding boondoggle, even with a comprehension of the degree of field weakening/"shunt" transition feature needed to achieve even a semblance of high speed. Here the 'poster child' example isn't the C&O M-1 (which has cripplingly dumb design issues long before you get to back-EMF problems) but the N&W TE-1. You may recall that the thing was touted by BLH as having a top road speed of 65mph? In practice, it might achieve that speed with something like 12 cars on its drawbar; certainly N&W found out the hard way that there was considerable fibbing going on ... and yes, I think Baldwin did know better but creatively avoided mentioning key information, a bit like Lucius Beebe's famous 'serves two' example.
It's a pity the collateral on the old Turbomotive 2 site has been so thoroughly expunged; that locomotive and its possible improvements represent perhaps the best of the simple high-speed express locomotive designs.
Jones1945I remember more than one similar design of a multispeed gearing were designed and received U.S. Patent not long before the S2 turbine was put in an idle position.
One thing to remember is that the timeline of certain improvements is highly interesting, and probably highly relevant, here. Remember that the internal correspondence as preserved goes from highly positive as late as 1946 to dismissive by ... about the time the improvement program for the T1 was cancelled, and this appears to be highly related to the staybolt issue (which is really far more terrifying when you think about it while reading the reports) BUT there appears to be no consideration of adapting the Bowes drive precisely when it was being carefully presented at some length to revive the V1 design for potential passenger use (i.e. what Loewy's design patent for it, in 1947, would involve).
Strangely, I have not been able to find any use of multispeed gearing on any of the V1 versions, where it would have been most practical (and in my opinion essential if for no other reason than to solve the water-rate concern). Note that the Bowes drive really doesn't address issues of reduction of high-speed turbine shaft speed, so the change-speed advantages are just as they were for my version of this kind of locomotive (which would have used modified GG1 chassis architecture) in the '70s.
The worst thing was the turbine blade was seriously damaged by coal dust, according to PRR.
I think you are confusing this, badly, perhaps with more than one mistaken thing.
Coal damage to turbine blading is related to ASH problems in a coal-burning turbine like the scam undertaken by Yellott for BCR all those years in the '40s and '50s. (And then rediscovered by UP in the Sixties, but I won't digress.)
Coal-dust damage to traction motors was one of the chronic problems with the C&O turbines. But this is not related to the use of a turbine, even if problems with motors, generator flashovers, etc. might lead to rapid load shedding and consequent turbine overspeed. (That's a turbine governor issue.)
After the 1948 Railroad Fair, S2 was withdrawn from service. SAD...
Oh, I think by that time everything PRR had to learn from direct-drive turbines had been learned. If I remember correctly, what actually happened was that Westinghouse had essentially loaned PRR the turbine, and wanted it back; what was left was not optimal for any kind of conversion into a practical PRR locomotive (and of course the V1 configuration had much more perceived potential advantage at that time...)
I'm a bit amused by the streamlined-S2 illustration as just presented. In a sense this is limited by driver diameter and associated quartered-rod-induced augment (really, hammer blow more than nosing, etc.) concerns, in a way the Roosen motor-locomotive or B&O W-1 approaches are not. In a perhaps more important sense nobody needs a passenger locomotive with six-wheel lead and trailing trucks necessary to support its weight. There is more to operating trains at high speed than being able to make the horsepower to accelerate and then pull trains in a straight line ...
OvermodTurboelectric DC drive on locomotives is a longstanding boondoggle, even with a comprehension of the degree of field weakening/"shunt" transition feature needed to achieve even a semblance of high speed. Here the 'poster child' example isn't the C&O M-1 (which has cripplingly dumb design issues long before you get to back-EMF problems) but the N&W TE-1. You may recall that the thing was touted by BLH as having a top road speed of 65mph? In practice, it might achieve that speed with something like 12 cars on its drawbar; certainly N&W found out the hard way that there was considerable fibbing going on ... and yes, I think Baldwin did know better but creatively avoided mentioning key information, a bit like Lucius Beebe's famous 'serves two' example.
.
BigJimI am going to have to call your bluff on this one.
Alas! everything I say about the TE-1 is either from Louis Newton or source documents particularly at NWHS. The part about 65mph being a Baldwin fib is clearly stated in Tale of a Turbine, although since I don't have my copy handy I can't quote chapter and verse. In fact if I recall correctly he mentioned that N&W management was pissed at what was essentially a lie about achievement of practical 65mph speed under the conditions BLH had implied it would be achieved.
The '12 cars' was intended more as hyperbole than an exact car count; the point is (again as Mr. Newton has said) the locomotive couldn't reach anything like the speed a class A loaded to a similar percentage of its rated tonnage could -- and a major part of that is the characteristic of the electrical transmission. (We won't get into the issues of the dropped generators that were never quite correctly rebuilt, but we CERTAINLY can take up the issue of what killed many of the hexapole motors in 2300 with so few years of service, if you like.)
Now, IN MY OPINION the N&W should have stuck to the PRR design of mechanical turbine with Bowes drive, as that would have produced a worthy successor to even the compound Ys (assuming the turbines were 'rightsized' instead of being made artificially huge as in the last "9000hp" propaganda. The apparent history of this involves N&W falling for the siren call of motorizing the engine trucks (the approach that worked so well on the PRR P5b!) and thereby going to steam-electric, and then the early-Fifties use of span-bolstered diesel-equivalent trimounts for the whole of the running gear. I'm sure this made sense if you intended to peddle the design to other coal-hauling railroads, and indeed much of the design might have been carried across to Alco/GE or even GM running gear after Baldwin/Westinghouse quit the locomotive business, but in the event what Baldwin built certainly wound up underwhelming anyone with any combination of money to spend and need for coal-combustion economics; in fact, I'd argue it helped queer the pitch for any of the subsequent steam-turbine-electric projects.
But marine gear drives are inherently single speed, with the exception of some German Navy drives which have two different input speeds, one for cruise diesels and one for the gas turbines.
Navy gearboxes are heavy. Taking the drives in a current DDG, each turbine weighs about 14 tons in its enclosure, and the fixed ratio reduction gear weighs arount 50 tons, one on each shaft.
The biggest variable speed mechanical drive with which I'm familiar is that in the big Voith diesel hydraulic locomotives, good for about 4000 HP. This dates from the early years of this century and I don't think anything like it was available in 1946, for example. Even the Krass-Maffei and Alco diesel hydraulics were twin engined with two transmissions to get to 4000 HP.
I'm not suggesting that electric drive is lighter. In the Royal Navy Type 45, the alternators on the gas turbines weigh around 70 tons and the motors on each shaft nearly 100 tons. The "electric" ships have longer propeller shafts than direct drive because the heavy motors and alternators need to be amidships for fore and aft trim.
I haven't heard much about the USN "Zumwalt" class. These are the ships of tomorrow, but remain just that. Conventional ships are being built in large numbers while these two get debugged.
But I don't believe that there was a production variable speed drive capable of powering a steam turbine locomotive in 1946, nor for some time thereafter.
M636CBut I don't believe that there was a production variable speed drive capable of powering a steam turbine locomotive in 1946, nor for some time thereafter.
You actually don't need a 'VSD' in the current sense of the term. Variable ratios close to the turbine shaft will work, and I recall several German approaches to provide them (using the same mechanism in at least one of them that interposed an 'idler' gear to give full reverse from the main turbine without the costs of a dedicated geared or 'windage'-crippled reverse turbine). It is possible that no more than a two-speed ratio change might suffice for practical operation.
The Bowes drive, I suspect, could have been scaled appropriately ... had there been a practical 4000hp prime mover in the late '40s. (That being, of course, the precise turbine rating of one-half the design of PRR V1 actually 'greenlighted' for production in 1944.) Of course that was also the supposed nominal rating of the Hamilton/Lima-Hamilton/Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton free-piston engine that would replace, any month now through the late '40s and into the '50s, expensive and fragile things like GM 2-stroke engines; and arguably that's what the BCR coal turbine rating would wind up being after the experimental-scale units were sized up (the question of who would pay for the practical development being an increasingly critical issue as the scam developed).
Another quite logical technology was adaptation of magnetorheological clutches (the enabling technology becoming quite well known across different fields of mechanical engineering and design over the course of the year 1948). This gives the effect of a variable-engagement wet-plate clutch without significant frictional wear, when 'slipped', but very simple lockup even with something as simple as a Maybach claw clutch when speed-matched. Here again 'variable-ratio' is not the same as continuous variable-speed drive in the current sense of the term.
Now, part of the issue involving these prospective drives is that PRR did not have a bulletproof way to provide them. Look at the difference between the quill drive in the GG1s and the gearing size and arrangement used in the S2; pay particular attention to the 'flexible' arrangements in the S2's bull gear. That's a LOT of protection against jerk or shock to the turbine roots and blading.
As a sort of aside, much of the size and robustness of ship reduction gearing has much less to do with full HP transmission at cruise or dash speed as it has to do with the prop(s) coming out of the water or experiencing reduction in driving resistance when at high power (the analogue of why hydroplane racing requires a throttleman with very quick reflexes or very capable and low-latency robot control over engine and transmission). It is hard to comprehend the practical meaning of how much torque is involved in this until you watch the behavior of the shaft in the alley as the load comes on and off the prop.
It would be nice to size mechanical locomotive transmission components as, say, helicopter gears are designed (and there have been some attempts to use the design tools and methodologies used for superfinishing helicopter gears in railroad applications) but the practical effects of shocks and loading are far more severe in significant ways when train run-in ... let alone a collision of a moving cut with the locomotive, as in the event that reputedly damaged the TE-1's turbine ... has to be considered.
The locomotive that killed the T1's. Brilliant....fish heads!
Overmod One thing to remember is that the timeline of certain improvements is highly interesting, and probably highly relevant, here. Remember that the internal correspondence as preserved goes from highly positive as late as 1946 to dismissive by ... about the time the improvement program for the T1 was cancelled, and this appears to be highly related to the staybolt issue (which is really far more terrifying when you think about it while reading the reports) BUT there appears to be no consideration of adapting the Bowes drive precisely when it was being carefully presented at some length to revive the V1 design for potential passenger use (i.e. what Loewy's design patent for it, in 1947, would involve)……
OvermodOh, I think by that time everything PRR had to learn from direct-drive turbines had been learned. If I remember correctly, what actually happened was that Westinghouse had essentially loaned PRR the turbine, and wanted it back……
Overmod in a perhaps more important sense nobody needs a passenger locomotive with six-wheel lead and trailing trucks necessary to support its weight. There is more to operating trains at high speed than being able to make the horsepower to accelerate and then pull trains in a straight line ...
Miningman The locomotive that killed the T1's. Brilliant....fish heads!
lmao Miningman. I don’t hate all early diesels, but imo, only UP's M10000s and E2 to E6 were qualified to competitive with steam locomotive in terms of appearance. Diesel like E7/8/9 looked so dull and boring no matter how reliable they were I don't even call them a streamliner.
Jones1945 (By Juniatha from Trains.com) A drawing I found on Facebook, showing a 6-8-6 direct drive stream turbine with T1’s shrouding. Looks like a fan art, no describion provided.(Edit: By Juniatha from Trains.com) If something like this was built in 40s, I guess a 4-8-6 wheel arrangement would be enough to do the trick. It would need a firebox and boiler as large as or even larger than S1, S2, a new gearbox system, advanced filter inside the pipe work to protect the turbine blade…… However, if the operation and maintenance cost cannot competitive with EMD’s product, it would be just another wasting of time project. Sigh...... I wonder if all the steam power connects to a Turbine-generator instead of a direct drive design would work better or not. The front end would need to redesign for more space, (IIRC there were 13ft of space inside the smoke box of S1). The drivers or even the wheels in both truck could attach to electric motor.
As unlikely as it sounds, Westinghouse actually published an illustration of a streamlined turbine...
https://www.railarchive.net/wecbook/wec10.htm
M636C As unlikely as it sounds, Westinghouse actually published an illustration of a streamlined turbine... Peter
Nice found, Peter. I posted this pic on my pervious post as well.
btw.......
My fantasy Steam turbine locomotive PRR V2 #6600
OvermodAlas! everything I say about the TE-1 is either from Louis Newton or source documents particularly at NWHS. The part about 65mph being a Baldwin fib is clearly stated in Tale of a Turbine, although since I don't have my copy handy I can't quote chapter and verse. In fact if I recall correctly he mentioned that N&W management was pissed at what was essentially a lie about achievement of practical 65mph speed under the conditions BLH had implied it would be achieved.
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