Besler High Pressure Streamliner No. 9610, "The Blue Goose." Click to enlarge.
Found this in Hagley Digital Archive.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Both direct-drive steam turbine engines almost shared the same fate......
in my opinion the turbine was 'rightsized' to give comparable output to its conventional four-cylinder 'sisters'
I realise I didn't address this aspect. Indeed the turbine was rated at 2600 HP at 62mph (which sounds a lot like 1940kW at 100km/h) but this was, I think a bit more than a "Princess" could do under normal conditions. Against this was the limitation of six "throttle" settings, but reports from experienced train timers suggest that when working, 6202 was slightly better than a standard Pacific. It wasalso slightly more economical, no doubt assisted by the reduction in internal resistance provided by four cylinders and four valve gears.
But I imagine the cost was much higher. At the time of building, the locomotive might have been subsidised by the British Government, as were the majority of the LNER A4s, as a Depression "stimulus" initiative.
One of the things that might have caused the demise of the turbine was the fact that unlike 1935, in 1949 Metropolitan Vickers would have had much more work in hand and the costs of building a new turbine would have been relatively higher. At the time M-V were building a gas turbine locomotive for BR Western Region which worked relatively well but could never be run on heavy oil and proved far too expensive on kerosene.
Clearly BR thought that 6202 would be better as a conventional loco, and the actual cost of the rebuild may have been higher than simply replacing the turbine. The intention (in 1949 at least) was to get another "Princess". By 1952 when it was completed and placed in service, things had moved on, and after the Harrow accident it was replaced by 71000, basically as an excuse to build the only BR Class 8 pasenger locomotive.
Peter
M636C will have much to contribute here, but in my opinion the turbine was 'rightsized' to give comparable output to its conventional four-cylinder 'sisters' (and Guy and Metropolitan did a really, really good job on the design for the 'ahead' turbine and its control). The principal problem was that it appears (to me at least) that no one really understood that part of the locomotive's regular service involved backing full consists up a considerable grade, so the reverse turbine arrangements were pretty inadequate (and not susceptible of any cost-effective fix).
The first thing to say about 6202 was that while it was technically successful, it spent about half its life in workshops either under repair or, most often, awating parts for its one-off turbine. It regularly ran between London Euston and Liverpool. Both of these stations were at the foot of inclines that were both originally worked by rope haulage, and which were by British standards severe gradients, which had to be tackled from a standing start.
I suspect the main problem with the reverse turbine was that it had to be clutched in and out. If it was possible for the main turbine, which was permanently connected, to be spun backwards in reverse, it must have been possible for the reverse turbine when running forward. While the reverse turbine had far fewer stages than the forward, it didn't need to be economical and could have been more powerful than the number of stages suggest.
I remember awakening one morning on an aircraft carrier to unusual vibration, I found that the ship was running astern at full power. The officer's wardroom was getting the worst of it. The point of the test was that the astern turbines were much less efficient than the forward turbines and the ability of the newly fitted condensers to take the hotter steam from the astern turbine was being tested. I still can't think of any possible use to which that information could be put, but the small astern turbines had the ship up to fifteen knots if I recall correctly, and watching the bow wave from the admiral's stern walk was worth the effort.
But back to 6202. It was found in tests to be more economical than the equivalent four cylinder Pacifics and was capable of good performance in the hands of a sympathetic driver. A problem in service was if the main turbine was damaged, no provision had been made to disconnect it, so the rods had to be removed and the lead driving axle raised above rail level before the locomotive could be moved. That would not have endeared it to train controllers (dispatchers).
It should be recalled that after its final failure as a turbine, it was now the property of British Railways rather than the LMS and Br management was more conservative. The two LMS main line diesels were kept in service but were not repeated for ten years. The new management probably thought one more "Princess" would be more useful.
In fact, a new frame was built to the later Duchess design, to which the original bogie and coupled wheels were fitted. The extension frame under the firebox and the trailing axle were retained. But the new four cylinder Pacific now had evenly spaced driving wheels and outside Walschearts gear with rocking levers to the inside valves. But the original boiler was used giving a locomotive of unique appearance.
When the rebuild was destroyed in the Harrow accident ater only a few months in service, the locomotive was not rebuilt but a replacement to a new design was authorised (71000 Duke of Goucester). The turbine boiler was repaired and became a spare for the Princess class.
The turbine boiler was different in that it had 40 superheater elements, compared to 32 for the standard boiler (and only 16 in 6200 and 6201 as built). So the boiler, and its double exhaust were tailored to the demands of the turbine. As rebuilt, 6202 had a single exhaust, although all the other locomotives with its cylinder arrangement had double exhausts.
How did we get to turbies in the steam railcar thread?
Overmod Remember that it is not difficult to figure out that the "140mph" speeds recorded by the Franklin test engineers had nothing to do with road speeds; they were rotational measurements in sustained slipping (perhaps otherwise undetected by enginemen). This of course made no difference to the magnitude of valve contact and inertial issues, which were precisely as expected not only for high rotational speeds (at full mass flow) but at high potential rate of change.
Jones1945Did PRR [buy] valves which had metallurgy issues, or [were] the issues was caused by constantly speeding of T1 so that the valves needed to use higher strength alloy to replace the mild steel provided by Franklin?
Remember that it is not difficult to figure out that the "140mph" speeds recorded by the Franklin test engineers had nothing to do with road speeds; they were rotational measurements in sustained slipping (perhaps otherwise undetected by enginemen). This of course made no difference to the magnitude of valve contact and inertial issues, which were precisely as expected not only for high rotational speeds (at full mass flow) but at high potential rate of change.
The first issue that had to be fixed was to 'debounce' the valves, which was essentially done by increasing the spring return pressure without introducing single-spring-rate resonance effects. This eliminated much of the cam and follower issues, but introduced much harder seat contact, much of it just at the time the valve was subject to severe superheating conditions. One potential solution to this would be to use the kind of seat on the LP valves in a Skinner Unaflow engine, where steam essentially cushions the seat a few thou against high-momentum impact. The 1948 change would have involved centrifugal casting and better alloy composition and some detail design of the seat regions. I see nothing particularly "impossible" about fixing the valves for reliable high-speed service within a relatively short time in the late Forties; all that happened was functional and commercial obsolescence.
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.
The big problem was that, when the turbine mainshaft fractured and took out the blading, there wasn't any even remotely cost-effective way to rebuild the locomotive in-kind -- I always found it interesting that it was economical to rebuild her completely as a piston engine, but not with any kind of turbine.
Just as a peripheral comment: Turbomotive 2 was NOT intended as a 'replica' of the original. It was a new approach to the design of an express locomotive that would fit British loading gage and esthetic criteria.
PRR S2 was about 300% more powerful than LMS Turbomotive but she only lasted 4 years with cracks all over the firebox, leaking steam pipes, leaking turbine casting etc.
S2 was no more a 'foreign concept' copying of the Turbomotive than it was a copy of the Swedish LGOJ turbines. And yes, most of the detail-design issues could either have been solved with the same level of attention as the T1s actually received in that period, or as part of a redesign for production. In my opinion at least some of the difficulties involved compromises due to wartime restrictions.
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.
...... 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.
Overmod Franklin took up the Lentz system and at least made a good stab at adapting it to American performance and maintenance requirements.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3227192
Here's a story about and photo of the Stanley "Unit Rail Car".
http://theoldmotor.com/?p=17461
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.
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.
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
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.
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
According to the "Streamliners" website the "Blue Goose" was a maintanance headache, so the concept was never repeated.
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."
I wonder if it had a whistle?
......or a tiny table under the espresso maker? By the way, Earl Grey tea taste and smell so good...... too bad that I can't drink any tea since 9 years ago......
All that nice restoration and they forgot to put in cup holders!
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.
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:
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
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
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.
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" ? ( Update: I just found out that the Besler Power Truck had 8 cylinders on one Power truck......)
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.
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.
Firelock-- I was quite surprised to find this out myself. Seems they didn't hold up very well in the winter.
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