creepycrank The water tube boilers worked fine on ships up to 600 psi. The Navy tried 1200 psi but they ran into a lot of maintenance problems. Since a typical Navy engineroom is oversupplied with personnel with nothing better to do than to fiddle with the equipment that's saying something. I think that the railroads had enough headaches with the low pressure fire tube boilers as well as all the other running gear without the extra problems of a water tube boiler.
The water tube boilers worked fine on ships up to 600 psi. The Navy tried 1200 psi but they ran into a lot of maintenance problems. Since a typical Navy engineroom is oversupplied with personnel with nothing better to do than to fiddle with the equipment that's saying something. I think that the railroads had enough headaches with the low pressure fire tube boilers as well as all the other running gear without the extra problems of a water tube boiler.
There were a lot of 1200 psi, 1000 deg. F superheat US Navy ships. It was the std. in the 60s and beyond. In fact, about the only ships around in the 70s and 80s that weren't 1200 psi were the three old battleships.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Was there really a realiable automatic stoking system for railway locomotives? Yes, they had stokers, and in the U.S. they became manditory for most mainline locomotives, but didn't firemen have to shovel in the odd scoop to even out the firebed? Did the stokers work properly 100% of the time?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Working in reverse, from railroad to marine applications, there never was a reliable automatic stoking system developed for coal fueled ships, no-one could make that work either. Coal fueled ships remained hand fired (remember those boiler room shots from the "Titanic" movies?) right to the end. No wonder the maritime world switched to oil firing as soon as they could.
Naval vessels may have encountered high winds and large waves in bad weather, but they don't have to endure the constant steel-on-steel pounding that locomotives do 24/7/365.
Read the historical documents available on B&O water tube boiler designs. The B&O tried harder than anyone to get water tube boilers to work on steam locomotives, but even they concluded it just wasn't going to work. Between scale problems, and damage to the water tubes due to every day vibrations, all the boilers ended up failing long before similar sized fire tube designs.
There is a similar problem with diesel designs. Engines that work very well in marine duty, have been total failures in locomotive use unless they are heavily modified and strengthened.
Briefly, what I've read about water tube boilers on steam locomotives was that they were all leaky, and there didn't seem to be anything anyone could do about it. Vibrations and jarring from the rough railroad enviornment? Possibly. Oh, and I forget where I read this, but supposedly a LITTLE bit of scale in a boiler is OK, it helps to seal the seams. A LOT of scale is where the problems arise.
One advantage of the ship use of a steam power plant in the "ocean of cooling water" for the condensers. There have been some rare instances of condensing steam locomotives, but the basic problem is that what is essentially a "dry cooling tower" is a particularly ineffective way of getting an efficient condenser, either in terms of bulk, power demand for the cooling fans, or getting a low condensor temperature and hence a high exhaust-side vacuum.
The cooling water problem is why so many electric power plants are sited on lakes and rivers or perhaps the ocean. It is also why solar thermal plants are such a problem in the desert -- scarce water.
For alternative energy, the advantages of the photovoltaic solar cell and the wind mill is no need for cooling water. The advantage of the natural gas fired gas turbine (or oil fueled Diesel for that matters) is that the waste heat of the thermodynamic cycle is largely discharged through the exhaust, with only a portion of the heat rejected by the radiator. When you have a combined-cycle gas turbine, you are back to needing a condenser and a cooling tower, but only a portion of the waste heat is discharged that way compared to all of the heat flow in a steam plant.
On the steam locomotive, the nearly universal solution is to exhaust steam to the atmosphere, meaning you need the makeup water from the tender. Owing to the volumes of water needed, the water quality is what you get is what you have on hand, although the French, Porta in Argentina, and others, had some water treatment systems. Owing to the minerals in water, you have a significant scale formation problem, which can be deadly to a water tube boiler with respect to the formation of hot spots and in turn boiler failure.
Or at least, that is the story I have heard.
Been away for awhile on other forums and after catching up on this thread, the question of why water tube boilers never seemed to work in the railroad environment puzzles me. Many cite the pounding and vibrations encountered while others mention the variable demands of steam production.
The thing that bothers me is naval uses of the water tube boiler in high shock loading and variable demand situations with no discernible ill effects. Both the British corvette and US destroyer escorts served in the worst weather ever encountered anywhere on the planet yet their water tube boiler power plants performed admirably.
If any of you have the chance, I encourage you to read the book "Halsey's Typhoon" http://www.amazon.com/Halseys-Typhoon-Fighting-Admiral-Untold/dp/0871139480 in which the smaller destroyer escorts encountered waves as high as eighty feet and wind speeds in excess of 120 mph and performed most of the rescue duties in seas that capsized larger vessels. During these rescue efforts, steam demand varied by the second as captains endeavored to hold position in the wind and waves while picking up survivors. Some of these little ships were battered to the point that the hulls were stove in and every rib could be discerned, yet their power plants remained online.
The only difference between the railroad and marine use is the lack of a condensing feedwater system in railroad applications. There must be something more than lack of physical robustness and variable steam demand to explain the poor results of water tube boilers in the railroad environment. Perhaps some form of shock mounting of these boilers would have helped to reduce the preponderance of broken tubes reported in these applications.
I find it strange that in an industry that usually over engineers everything, locomotive water tube boilers seemed to have been horribly under engineered.
Pat.
C'mon guys, there's only one loco in it . . . The F17 with Vanderbuilt or straight sided tender - you take your pick!! The 18 and 19's sand domes weren't as good. Doesn't matter, any one of them, (as long as an Elesco is hanging out the front) qualifies them for the Smithsonian. The greatest looking class of locos ever world wide! What was going through the brains of all those C&O fans when they let them slip away? Sigh.
Why does it take a "Kiwi" to recognize the definative USA loco. Mind you, the PENNSY Q2 and the J1 war babies, well, I like Brutality in my steamers as well. What price one of 'em in a museum as well.
Hi Dave
Concise answer :
- correct -
Regards
= J =
The electric that won the race: Was this not the three-phase AC three-wire electrification with the three wires above and TO THE SIDE of the track, not directly overhead. with three separate bow collectors projecting sideways from a tower on the roof of the single electric car? The car was sort of a early attempt at streamlining, with tapered ends. There is a model in one of the trolley musems, possibly the Shore Line Electric and East Haven and Branford, CT, with the model usually on display at the Sprague Station on River Street in East Haven. I think the model came into the possession of the Frank Julian Sprague family who donated much of Sprague's collecton to the trolley museum. Painted cream and maroon, if I remember.
The streamline craze came about the old Reichsbahn by sort of semi-official demand ‘to keep up with modernism’ as it sprung up in other countries , DR HQ themselves it seems had not originally been keen on it .
( BTW – ‘alte Reichsbahn’ is a term used explicitly for DR before WW-II ; colloquially speaking , often the term is simply ‘Reichsbahn’ which depending of known context may stand for any of three periods: I – (semi-independent) Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft DRG 1920 – 36 ; II – (fully state-owned) DR 1936 – 45 ; III – post war divided Germany era: state railway West Germany = DB 1948 – 94 / state railway East-Germany = DR 1949 – 94 , ‘unofficial’ former West-German , now historical term : ostdeutsche Reichsbahn .. a term , which again must not be confused with the term ‘Ostbahn’ coined in WW-II for the entirety (or perhaps more fitting: totality) of railway networks in occupied Eastern states that were run by newly established DR sub-HQs ; locomotives belonging to the ‘Ostbahn’ had ‘DR-Ost’ painted on cab sides , yet since a lot of lending to and fro went on things got quite obscure in cases , which provides for a lot of discussion among railway historians even today ; the term is still used in railway historical literature with railways in WW-II )
Of course streamlining was not what I meant with ‘smoothened lines’ since at least to me this rather qualifies as ‘shrouding’ or disguising physics – but never mind .
The first picture is of a streamlined Pacific ; the known heavy 01 and light 03 two cylinder Pacifics had been re-designed into three cylinder engines and got streamlined . The shroud was taken off when these engines were overhauled and re-boilered in the 1950s on DB (01.10 and 03.10) and on DR (03.10) . Some got oil fired and in this last technical configuration the 01.10 (later renumbered 012 class) were the most powerful German Pacifics – unofficially capable of some 3000 ihp around 75 – 90 mph . They were also the very last of express steam locomotives on DB , the last six of them were laid aside in May 1975 ; on DR the last 03.10 oil fired Pacifics of Stralsund shed continued to run in first class Berlin – Malmö express service until about 1980 . While none of the aesthetically quite well balanced and interesting looking DB rebuilt 03.10 has survived early (1966) demise by electrification, two of the DR Reko engines have been preserved : 03 1010 re-rebuilt to coal firing and – at times – serviceable plus 03 1090 stationary.
The cab-aheads are 05 003 and a 1904 trial version of the S9 , Prussian state railways KPEV ‘Railways’ (pl) because they were actually composed of regional railways managed by sub-HQ in regional capital cities like Hanover , Hamburg or Danzig to name but three – these could be acting quite independently from Berlin HQ, for example the locomotive intendant of Hanover , von Borries , to some extend pursued a locomotive policy contradicting with that of super-intendant Robert Garbe in Berlin : while von Borries preferred four cylinder compound engines for passenger service , Garbe’s strict and bitter prescription for the KPEV was the superheated two cylinder engine in form of 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 . This veritable competition went on for years until both development paths were being reconciled in the S10-1 superheated four cylinder compound 4-6-0 of 1911 and 1914 versions that were very successful . In 1920 – 22 at the time when all German railways were amalgamated into DRG a new design path was established by August Meister of Borsig Locomotive Works , Berlin with the G12 2-10-0 and P10 2-8-2 three cylinder simple and T20 2-10-2 two cylinder tank engine types that introduced the next step up in locomotive size .
As for the shrouded cab-ahead S9 , I think there were two slightly different three cylinder compound trial engines . They must not be mixed with the later von Borries S9 Atlantics which were of well balanced design . (design as for ger Konstruktion – unlike engl construction which is ger Herstellung) As told by K E Maedel in his book ‘Giganten der Schiene' *) , considered a principal German locomotive tech-hist survey book , the 4-4-4 S9 were specially designed to compete with the latest of the electric locomotive as developed by Siemens in Berlin . Siemens was actively pushing the idea of full railway electrification even before WW-I ! As it was, both the 4-4-4 of 85” drivers built in 1904 were no success (to avoid the word failure) – in trial runs with identical short trains arranged on the Marienfelde – Zossen line side by side with the light Siemens Bo-Bo, the 4-4-4 lost contact with the electric train right after starting and got way behind . Abbreviated from Maedel’s vivid description this was the situation :
As Maedel wrote , Geheimer Baurat Gustav Wittfeld , a high ranking official of KPEV and one of the leading heads in realizing the special S9 #561 had actually questioned if it were sensible to run this race challenging the Siemens electric but chief engineer Kuhn who had designed the 4-4-4 was optimistic – even though in previous test runs they had had to realize the engine did not fully live up to expectations .
So the race is arranged . As the trains are signaled off starting side by side Wittfeld travels the train behind the 4-4-4 . After they got under way, checking for the other train at first he is tempted to believe they must be leading because the electric train is out of sight ; opening the window to stick his head out , however , he sees the last coach of the electric train way up front , in the distance ! Deep in thoughts he closes the window . The electric train is still leading by a large margin as they make 90 km/h through Lichenrade , gaining speed slowly , all too slowly . With two firemen working as best they can at the back end , Kuhn driving the engine all out in the front cab once again presses the throttle lever to make double sure it’s fully open , frantically pondering just why the engine should accelerate as sluggish as that ? Against the alarming noise of the exhaust immediately behind them assistant Schneider calls out “Never mind , we’ll get them , just let’s get to Rangsdorf and we’ve caught them up!” With ever faster rhythm of the rails they pass Mahlow at 120 km/h – the electric still way ahead . 125 km/h , and picking up speed km/h per km/h ; there , 130 km/h – just a few years ago it would have been a dream ! Racing through Blankenfelde and into the forest – the last coach of the electric train not regained yet . Through the wide open Juensdorfer heath they rage under a smoky ribbon of steam , rods twirling as fast they can – 135 km/h ! Incessantly running #561 at all it’s might , no matter what coal consumption , Kuhn slowly approaches the electric train , the steamer making an extra 10 km/h speed above the electric’s . There is Rangsdorf coming up and the opponent still leading ! Into the wide curve at Pramsdorfer Vorwerk with but preciously few more kilometers remaining until the race will be up – thundering though Luchwiesen , last chance on the straight – 135 km/h remain constant . Clipping down the final kilometers they are getting closer now – yet chances are fading fast . Already Dabendorf comes in sight : still 330 yards behind the electric train . Kuhn pulls the throttle by – this is it ! Braking into Zossen the electric leads by 20 sec . Having stopped , Kuhn is all aflame with propositions to rebuild and improve , however Wittfeld waves it off , smiling midly . Kuhn is startled . Finally Wittfeld says : “You see , Kuhn , now who was right ? Where have you left the electric colleague ? Kuhn replies “Sir , it’s because of some flaws in the design , we’ll get it fixed .” “Leave it alone , Kuhn , we just can’t compete with electric current , that time has passed , we should take a different view on this essay ..” Looking at the big shrouded steamer , then at the unpretending small electric , he adds : “ Kuhn , I think today’s run has provided us a glimpse at future railway traction .”
Ironically , it must be said in hindsight that these were prophetic words – although #561 had been outclassed at that time by a standard S7 4-4-2 and especially by the Bavarian S-2/6 #3201 4-4-4 that had run 155 km/h (97 mph) and – in my view – would have passed 100 mph if allowed another attempt and more miles (all those runs were singular trials) .
In the years following , the KPEV invested intensively in electric traction and Wittfeld managed to standardize 15 kV / 16 2/3 Hz current for future electrification projects on all (still separate) state railways in Germany .
As for 05 003 , this was an experimental pulverized coal fired 4-6-4 built in addition to the ‘conventional’ streamlined 05 001 and 002 . What really was the driving factor behind building these very special high speed locomotives remains somewhat unclear , at least to me . From what I have learned , Wagner as DRG head of steam loco development , was initially not too enthusiastic about the project , yet later became supportive . One factor was to have locomotives capable of running significantly faster than regular Pacifics in order to test future higher speeds with coaches to develop – an unofficial aspect may have been that it gave ‘the steam league’ an opportunity to compete with the diesel railcars that at the same time were to run 160 km/h (100 mph) in regular service . It was not , however , explicitly to reach 200 km/h (125 mph) as they eventually did . Competition factor was rather brought up by the British who took a short-cut of development by just running A4 Mallard tolerably close to disintegration with that 1 : 200 down-grade 126 mph run . (I apologize if this may appear exceedingly harsh judgement , yet had the Germans run an 05 class 4-6-4 about as hard , arguably they would have made some 130 mph plus)
The streamlined tank engine was one of two built for a special light weight train – they never were anywhere’s near as fast as the 05 . Yet , DR-East later built 18 201 from the chassis of three cylinder 61 002 using the outside cylinders of 45 024 plus a welded new construction inside cylinder and a standard E39 combustion chamber Reko boiler as used with the 03.10 class Pacifics . 18 201 , the only Pacific with 7' 7" drive wheels , is preserved , the engine had reached 185 km/h on the test track ring of Velim in Czechoslovakia .
Add.: there is a site with sound recordings of three cylinder Pacifics DB 012 and DR 03.10 – I find some of them really thrilling examples of the ‘voice’ of these engines
http://www.dampfsound.de/01_10/01_10-sound/01_10-sound.html
I recommend listening to Archiv-Nummer ( mind in German datum is given day / month / year – I’ve added an abbr translation to the original description an – inevitably – some comments )
I – regular service 01.10 engines of earlier sheds (times before renumbering):
28.09.1968 cd004-08
und dann noch mal im allerletzten Moment die lange Jahre übliche Akustik für die Nachwelt konserviert:01 1063 vor D 494 (ebenfalls Richtung Bremen-Köln), Abfahrt in Hamburg Hbf.
- last summer of the 01.10 at Osnabruck ; starting from Hamburg main station for Koeln
17.03.1967 cl11-08
Mitfahrt: 01 1102 D 284 bergauf vor Kirchhain röhrend.... . (mono)
- then still of Kassel engine shed 01 1102 recorded from the train running very hard on 1 in 100 rising grade – those were heavy trains throughout !
19.08.1968 cd004-16
01 1073 ganz hochwertig vor D 598 nach Köln, Ausfahrt Diepholz.
- starting with 13 coaches from Diepholz for Koeln , last summer of 01.10 at Osnabruck shed 01 1073 has a pronounced beat from valve gear not well tuned – again : increasingly living up as speed rised ; with change of time table in fall of 1968 all Osnabruck oil fired 01.10 and most Kassel engines went to Rheine and Altona.
II – regular service Altona 012 engines 1971 and 72 last summer for 012 at Altona
24.07.1971 cd004-17
012 001 mit dem damals berühmten D 821, schöne Ausfahrt Heide aufgenommen, ca. 20:00h
- starting from Heide you can hear the oil burners , engine tends to slip as pulling hard with heavy train of 14 coaches (typical load), accelerating increasingly hard in the distance while picking up speed – so sorry recording stops !
25.07.1972 wncd-20
012 061 D 821 in voller Fahrt auf der Rampe zur Hochbrücke röhrt durch den Bf Burg, kilometerweit vorher hörbar, um 20:20h.
- on the rise to Hochdonner bridge (on the main line Hamburg – Westerland this is an elevated bridge crossing the North Sea – Baltic Sea channel at some height to clear large trans-atlantic vessels)
02.08.1972 cd004-01
012 061 D 821 Ausfahrt Michaelisdonn (der Zug hat da tatsächlich damals angehalten!), gegen 20:00h.
- starting from Michaelisdonn , at the beginning you hear typical clicking of mixing preheater feed pump and deep base sound of oil burners ; this is a brave start since D 821 was a heavy express , unfortunately sound sample stops early ; it sounds like there was light priming at 0:40
02.08.1972 cd004-07
Mitfahrt im selben Zug: 012 001 E 2109, eine superlaute Anfahrt im Bahnhof Burg in die Rampe der Hochdonn-Hochbrücke.
- recorded from train starting away from Burg going directly into the climb towards Hochdonner bridge – clearly noticeable how the engine has to be handled with part throttle in the beginning – yet slipping once – coming to life as speed rises
25.07.1971 wncd-19
unbekannte 01.10 mit D 532 in voller Fahrt Durchfahrt Vaale, gegen 15:00h. Dieser kleine Bahnhof befand sich ja auf fast schnurgerader Strecke in leichter Steigung auf der Rampe zur Hochbrücke.
- 012 number unknown passing at speed going into the climb towards Hochdonner bridge
III - last stand – Rheine :
03.08.1972 ksmd01-01
und noch mal der D 735: 012 055 vor D 735, Abfahrt in Rheine, 11:04h. (mono)
- starting from Rheine with 10 (?) coaches 012 055 slips right at the beginning , steam hissing from untight cylinder cooks or rod packing , goes into a pronounced spin at medium speed ; this engine suffered a severe blow from water carry over shortly before the end , made a regular return trip with train from Norddeich to Rheine in spite of vast losses of steam , got repaired (or fix rather) only to suffer another severe damage of middle cylinder drive two months before 012 running was terminated in May 1975
13.10.1973 he01-05
012 104 mit D 734 (Emden-Rheine usw....) hinter Ausfahrt Meppen, um 12.50h.
- accelerating from a stop at Meppen 012 104 is hammering hard with pronounced rythm by bad valve gear timing , mostly concerning middle cylinder ; noticeable how the 012 got louder with increasing wear and run down condition – though definitely not stronger …
07.03.1975 he01-15a
Auf dem Führerstand der 012 066 vor D 735, Ausfahrt Leer, ca. 12:30h.
- starting express D 735 from Leer station , recorded in cab of 012 066 two month before the end of 012 running and with it end of express train steam traction on DB – it is said this was then the best of the remaining 012 at Rheine , the engine is preserved and still running occasionally.
IV - steam specials with 01 1066:
07.07.1990 cd024-12
01 1066 laut bergauf fahrend in der Steigung hinter Holzminden (Richtung Kreiensen) bei Bevern, 14:05h
- working hard at medium speed on the grade – one side of (very likely) middle cylinder gets more than its share
22.07.1990 cd024-14
01 1066 Sonderzug Hannover-Hamburg, in voller Fahrt hinter Celle an der Brücke der OHE-Strecke (nach Bergen), 10:50h
- steam special Hanover - Hamburg running by at speed
04.08.1990 cd024-21
01 1066 D 27312 (Richtung Flensburg), eine sehr schöne Ausfahrt Neumünster, 11:43h
- having started from Neumünster , passing by accelerating
04.08.1990 cd024-20
01 1066 Sonderzug D 27312 in vollem Röhren hinter Ahrensburg aufgenommen, um 09:20h
- the same steam special passing by at speed
28.07.1990 cd024-18
01 1066 vor Sonderzug nach Hamburg, volles Rohr in der leichten Steigung bei Klein Flintbek, 16:41h.
- on light grade , powerful run by at speed - with valve gear tuning improved , the engine sound so much healthier and more powerful !
05.01.1992 cd113-10
01 1066 mit Sonderzug Richtung Arnstadt, Ausfahrt Zella-Mehlis
- accelerating on the incline towards Arnstadt after starting at Zella-Mehlis – slips once on the grade , extended wheel spin due to throttle up-stream from superheater ; recording notable for good regularity of beats , rhythm seems to change lightly several times , especially as engine comes near - wow , good handling , nice run !
05.01.1992 cd113-11
01 1066 Sondezrug nach Meiningen hinter Gräfenroda
- ex-DB steam on ex-DR rails : steam special on the grade to Meiningen
Play loud & have fun !!
Juniatha
Edit:
diverse comma , some verbs changed for better fitting ones
'In 1920 -22 ..' expression 'shortly before' may be misleading , thus replaced with 'at the time' ;
the engines referred to were designed *shortly before* but were delivered only* when* railways were amalgamated in DRG
.. and finally it occurred to me it might be an idea to put up a fitting head line , too .
*) K E Maedel had written three books that became something like a starter set and often re-read source of information as well as inspiration for many railway or locomotive enthusiasts - me included .
They were :
Geliebte Dampflok
- dealing as the title says with steam locomotive history and technical development ;
Giganten der Schiene
same with diesel and electric locomotives with Maedel inserting some side views on steam such as the chapter I have translated the excerpt from ;
Weite Welt des Schienenstrangs
- a more general technical history of world wide railway development with some interesting descriptions of railways around the world , including a chapter by Arnold Haas describing a ride in the cab of Niagara 6012 when steam still reigned along the Hudson river .
Further , Maedel had written a quasi biographic little book Bekenntnisse eines Eisenbahn-Narren ( 'Confessions of a railroad screwball' ) which has been criticized by some as overly romanticizing - I don't think so , on the other hand I can take it , I don't easily get too much of this sort of stuff f. Maedel in his absorbing way of writing sure had his share of 'responsibility' for my acquiring this odd fascination for sinister smoky iron horses .
Some are just plain ugly to me. By the way, I think Westing's Apex of the Atlantics is a terrific book, just reread it.
Those German streamliners are, uh , INTERESTING, to say the least! The first one looks pretty good, the others, well beauty's in the eye of the beholder, as they say. I found the cab-forwards interesting. Were they built along the same philosphy as the Southern Pacifics cab-forwards, to allow the crews to breathe in long tunnels? And were they oil-fired as well?
In Germany, most steam locomotives were actually not designed, but the "form followed the function". Aspects of maintenance and life cycle cost were the predominant design factors.
This changed to a degree, when passenger train locos started to be designed for speed in the early 1930´s. The result were sometimes odd, but also sleek looking locos.
Just a few examples:
.In view of all that wide spread anxiety with steam locomotives to keep everything readily accessible for servicing , fixing and replacing I wonder sanding valves and piping had been hidden under boiler cladding in later American steam – especially the valves ! – and what it had looked like where the piping had to emerge on the underside …
Piping was stowed away from view in British steam , sure, no wonder when they had even packed valve gear invisibly within frames and had continued with low running boards and wheel houses for a long time – actually it had lingered on until British Railways times , didn’t it ?
Interestingly , the more external appearance of steam locomotives , namely their boilers , had been smoothened and ‘cleaned’ from appurtenances , the more sensitive and dependent on care taking they seemed to have been – looking swell in well kept , shiny clean condition or deplorably dull in shabby dirt garb when neglected . Engines with fairly ample yet thoughtful arrangements of auxiliaries and related piping also acquired a gloomy unkempt appearance when run down – yet, at least in my view they retained more of their style and character .
On steam locomotives of Continental Europe , usually all piping was mounted on the outside of boiler cladding and / or frames – sometimes like afterthoughts of several designers who didn’t know nor care about the other one’s concerns , with all the piping tending to become more complex with add-ons over the years …
Nothing much could multiply of piping on typical Russian steam since most of their classes were examples of amazing simplicity , yet designed with good common sense , having sound proportions as I could see by inspecting inside-out a number of 1950s L class Decapods and a 73” Prairie Su class (cold , by the time my father and me had an opportunity to see them , they probably had spent years on sidetracks overgrown by weeds, outsides engine facility) – in their long service lives they had been persevering and probably quite effective engines at remote railway sheds with but humble means and supplies , operating in extreme climatic conditions .
1950s Russian steam incorporated a selection of some European and American design features in boilers (with stoker firing in larger engines) , frames , boxpok wheels and axle bearings / rods bearings – transcribed to axle loads about ½ of typical American main line engines . The last built of Russian steam loco types , 73” drivered P-36 class 4-8-4 built until 1960 , to some degree can be seen as a transcription of the Southern Pacific GS-2 / GS-7 trimmed to ~ 40.000 lbs axle load . Although they were original Russian engine types , the FD and LV classes 2-10-2 also owed a lot to contemporary American design and as the Chinese QJ class were but adaptations of the Russian 2-10-2 the ‘round the world circle closed when two of the QJ were brought to US rails .
Mind letting us know some thoughts of yours on examples of steam loco types abroad ..?
In reply to the question of clean design, this depended very much on the ideas of the management of the railroad, icnluding of course the Superintendent of Motive Power or his equivalent by another name. Central of Neew Jersey's and the Reading's Pacifics were practically identacle locomotives with regard to tractive effort, cylinders, boiler pressure, etc., the whole design. The the Reading (British influence?) toook great care in the placement of piptes and hid anything that could be hid without unduly affecting maintenance costs, whereas the CofNJ did whatever was easiest and least expensive. Thus a huge difference in appearance. Thre N&W, the D&H, cared. Some others did not. Some took a middle-ground position, like the New York Central, NKP, D&LW in non-streamlined power.
Hi Juniatha: As usual your take on the steam turbines is most interesting and your knowledge of the fine points of their design is, not surprisingly, impressive! In fact, it far exceeds my own. Two small points about PRR 6200. She was fitted with smoke deflectors not long after delivery Your illustration shows her just out of the erecting shop. she earned the nickname Swooooosh or Big Swoosh on acount of the turbine's whine at high speed. As for placement of the turbine in the center of the drivers that may have been done to balance the engine's weight evenly over the rails and also because in traditional steam practice engines usually drove from the second or third pair of drivers as that was the most convenient place to locate the main rod and crank pin. Being less complex than the turbo electrics she was probably the most practical of all the turbine designs but she posed an operating challenge because she liked to run non stop between terminals at sustained high speeds, something not easy to arrange on a working railroad. Your suggestion about an oil fired steam turbine locomotive is intriguing. Oil fired engines are a bit more flexible than coal fired ones as it's very easy to bank the fire when the engine is stopped or drifting. You simply cut back on the oil feed valve. Too bad the oil burning western lines never took an interest in the concept. As for my dislike of the streamlined turbines, I'll stick to my guns on that one. The C&O engines just look out of balance to me. All the bulk seems piled to the front of the engines and tapers away to the rear so they seem nose heavy. UP's engine looked like contemporary diesel streamliners assigned to the "City" trains which looked too much like airstream automobiles. Diesels got much more handsome when GM introduced the "Bulldog" or anticlimb front end with the FT series introduced in 1941.
BigJim Since everyone here is in such a very subjective mood, let us take look at locomotive aesthetics. I was looking through a comprehensive book on worldwide locos that someone reccommended on one of the forums. I began to notice something about the European steam locos that I had noticed here in the USA a long time ago. Why do the locos of one line seem to have cleaner lines than those of another? For example, but not limited to: Look at British locos and their smooth lines. Now, jump across the Channel and you see a lot of "plumbers nightmares". Compare the clean lines of the N&W's freight locos to the snake nest of pipes on nearby C&O. Any thoughts?
Since everyone here is in such a very subjective mood, let us take look at locomotive aesthetics.
I was looking through a comprehensive book on worldwide locos that someone reccommended on one of the forums. I began to notice something about the European steam locos that I had noticed here in the USA a long time ago.
Why do the locos of one line seem to have cleaner lines than those of another?
For example, but not limited to: Look at British locos and their smooth lines. Now, jump across the Channel and you see a lot of "plumbers nightmares". Compare the clean lines of the N&W's freight locos to the snake nest of pipes on nearby C&O.
Any thoughts?
We had a few "plumbers' nightmares" up here too..but check this out. A beautiful streamlined locomotive that was at the cutting edge of technology back in 1936. Interestingly, a wind tunnel was used in the design of it...
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/innovations/discoveries/locomotive.html
Juniatha Discarding these efforts with a casual "They were not successful" may have become a colloquial statement in popular RR literature, often copied from previous writers - yet that doesn't make it any better.
Discarding these efforts with a casual "They were not successful" may have become a colloquial statement in popular RR literature, often copied from previous writers - yet that doesn't make it any better.
My point exactly. Too many novel designs in railroading and other disciplines are dismissed as having been "unsuccessful" without regard to the root cause of the lack of success.
Gas turbine engines have been tried unsuccessfully in auto racing -- in Germany, you may know if something like that was tried in Formula 1, in the U.S., it was tried in two successive seasons at the Indianapolis 500 race. At Indianapolis, the turbine cars failed on account of mechanical breakdowns unrelated to the turbine engine but otherwise would have outclassed the other cars and won the race.
Turbine cars were as much as banned by the adoption of racing rules putting them at a severe disadvantage. I guess that the people in auto racing believed that a race car should go "vroom" instead of "woosh", and instituted rules that the mode of power essentially had to be pistons, even if the engine is a turbine-piston hybrid such as the highly turbo charged engines in a number of racing "formulas."
On the other hand, whereas race cars were once a kind of proving ground for automotive technology, auto racing has become a "retro technology" domain converging on preservation of the Stephenson steam locomotive. In the NASCAR racing formula popular in the U.S., the cars are front engine, rear drive with solid rear axle, normaly aspirated, carbureted (!?), pushrod (!!??) large displacement piston engines. When is is the last time anyone has driven anything that technologically primitive (except for a pickup truck :-) )
With regard to the railroad steam locomotive, there are many considerations and thermal efficiency is only one. However, even steam electric power plants started out at low thermal efficiency in the early 20th century, so much so that an electric interruban line was perhaps no more thermally efficient overall as a steam locomotive powered train. Over time, both the steam locomotive and steam power plant improved in thermal efficiency, but as the steam locomotive stayed with a low pressure non-condensing cycle and steam power plants went the route of complexity -- high pressure water tube boiler, superheat, reheat, preheat of feedwater and combustion air, condensing cycle -- and hence multiples higher thermal efficiency.
How has the electric power company come to embrace such complexity whereas the steam railroad avoided it? Maybe the stationary power plant doesn't have the weight and volume restrictions of the locomotive and this factor is deciding? Maybe the steam turbine power plant is run at nearly constant power levels for extended periods of time (base load) whereas even mainline railroad freight has varying power demand? Maybe technological refinement of the steam locomotive stopped once the Diesel was on the horizon. It looks like even in marine applications, the large low-speed direct-drive Diesel is replacing even the condensing steam turbine propulsion system.
But I guess my questions are directed towards the notion that going from the Stephenson steam locomotive to the UP condensing turbine electric 4-6-6-4 in one step is too big a leap, and maybe Porta, Wardale, and others had the right idea that had the railroads stayed with steam longer, there were some evolutionary steps to be taken.
For example, I have the impression that with Porta and Wardale's improvements to the Stephenson steam locomotive, the efficiency could be improved from 5% to at least 10% and maybe as much as 15% (claimed for Wardales "paper" 5AT locomotive, although with oil firing).
With such improvements in efficiency in hand, one could not only cut the use of coal in half, one would cut the use of water in half as well, with attendant efficiencies in the number of water stops and simply the cost of mining and shipping that much coal.
Suppose a high-pressure water tube boiler was practical? You could perhaps get efficiency up to the 20 percent level (higher than that may required condensing), but that might require the use of demineralized water. But if you were using only 1/4 as much water as before, maybe it would pay to purify the water with reverse osmosis at the watering stops, and you could cut down on the boiler maintenance in the bargain?
To Big Jim: I don't think in the case of N&W, C&O, or other coal hauling roads it was a case of appeasing "Big Coal", as long as their product gets to market they wouldn't care what hauls it. It was more of a matter of the aforementioned roads had their fuel source on line and were probably getting a discount on the stuff considering how much they were buying. In that case it would make sense to use coal as a fuel for as long as you possibly could, at least until circumstances dictated other wise.
Main disadvantage of the HPC-STE is of course rooted in the same extra complexity as in the classic reciprocating steam locomotive , namely , the boiler .
I guess that depends on how one wants to define "disadvantage".
Where a mechanical engineer may see the "main" disadvantage in the boiler, an operating engineer sees the "main" disadvantage in the fact that the thing is just too big. Turbines such as those of the C&O, N&W and UP are basically landlocked to mainline through freight service making them inherently inefficient in many other ways.
Something that size, you just can't take anywhere you want. You can't bust it up like a set of GP/SD units to switch an industry and such. What a waste of time having to separate engine from tender/s in order to turn the things around because they wouldn't fit on a turntable in one piece.
I still don't understand the mentality of appeasing "Big Coal" when the diesel writing was clearly on the wall and the money spent to develope such thermo-monsters could have been better spent elsewhere.
.
Hi , Paul
In fact I think the 'High pressure condensor steam turbine electric' (HPC-STE in the following) remains kind of a 'silver streak at the horizon' among possible locomotive concepts . At a certain time it seemed an elegant and comprehensive answer to the restraints that narrowed design path of the classic reciprocating steam locomotive , offering : full adhesion , high starting t.e. – all axles in bogies and radially inscribing as well as in any other locomotive concept – no hammer blow – increased thermal efficiency , high enough to appear competitive in combination with cheaper fuel per unit of heat energy content … Thus , it seemed a promissing concept , although beset with a number of very nasty and persisting design and maintenance problems at the critical time for steam , say ~ 1940 – 1950 , that would have proven a taxing task to sort out with the technology then available – and likely a costly engineering venture , too , if you just consider the vast amount of designing and building trial units and testing them , modifying them , re- testing , learning , re-designing , developing suiting materials , building improved trial units and running them through test series – pretty much what EMC /EMD had done through the 1930s to finally arrive at their renown 567 engine that proved a winner for them . Compared with the Diesel-electric , the HPC-STE would have been an even larger ‘construction site’ for engineering with several major question having to be answered at the same time , to name but what comes to mind off hands :
* - concept of boiler to use for high pressure and high superheating steam ?
(associated with that : how to deal with exacting demands of feed water treatment with scale strictly off-limits ?)
* - design of steam turbine with range of upper thermo-dynamic efficiency spread as wide as possible ? (associated with that : qualities of steel for high temperature steam turbine blades ?)
* - reduction gear and electrical transmission
(all related questions are sharpened in view of higher loco unit output envisaged to counter higher first costs of the HPC-STE as against Diesel-electrics *plus* additional hardening of electrical equipment against potential adverse effects of steam or cold / hot water from possible leakages of steam equipment)
* - finding best wheel arrangement for heavy long frame loco unit with possible choices of .. Do-Do .. Co-{Co)}Co / A1A-{A1A}-A1A .. (BoBo)-(BoBo) .. (2Co)-(Co2) .. (2Do)-(Do2) (wherein {middle bogie} is made laterally flexible ; again , the vehicle unit tends to become more complex than Diesel’s Bo-Bo and Co-Co vehicle units , with the last two propositions falling back into ‘old steam habits’ of using carrying axles)
* - multi unit operation by one driver as in Diesels , yet having to control more parameters than in Diesel units , some of them interdependent , too (in view of competition with Diesel makers , multi unit controls have preferably to be compatible with Diesel units – a very ambitious project to tackle in view of extra parameters to be served with firing , feed water and condenser of an HPC-STE having to be made largely self-controlling)
I had mentioned in an earlier posting , within the very limited theoretical means of a private person I had been much absorbed with an HPC-STE design layout myself and from these efforts I will summarize : it could be done - by careful and knowledgeable engineering . Yet it will be very difficult to say the least to make an HPC-STE competitive with other possible concepts for generally comparable applications , such as Diesel-electric , gas-turbine-electric , stirling-electric to name but three more regular concepts .
Main disadvantage of the HPC-STE is of course rooted in the same extra complexity as in the classic reciprocating steam locomotive , namely , the boiler . Principally differing from other heat engines , the steam engine’s fuel is not used to heat working gas media but to generate the working media – steam ! There are two successive heat conversions made instead of one . What amount of extra engine mass and complexity that means can be seen if considering what components could be regarded as an equivalent to a steam loco’s boiler in a Diesel or Otto engine? There are just the high pressure Diesel fuel injector needles , in Otto engines the carburetor , now replaced by direct fuel injection as well . Imagine , a steam engine unit could work taking steam without a boiler , readily by injection – what a vast difference it would make in total mass ! Considering , in spite of it’s principal burden having to generate it’s engine unit working media in a big boiler continuously on the way , the steam locomotive still was competitive in sheer power output until phased out , only reveals the efforts and achievements of steam locomotive engineering . As the HPC-STE concept would carry on the same principal expenditures and extra mass of double heat energy conversion , it must remain at principal disadvantage in comparison with engines using heat energy more directly .
Here are some quotations from / links to my earlier comments on steam turbine locos :
(on N&W 2300)
>> Last stand effort with the one unconventional C0C0-C0C0 steam turbine electric # 2300 was an ambitious effort that would have taken much more than building one prototype to develop this concept into a reliable , ready for traffic alternative . As it was , they seem to have had some success although there was trouble with electric equipment caused by unburnt coal and cinders emissions . This could have been amended by using oil-firing – however to burn coal was a center point . As with the other examples of steam turbine electrics , to make these initial trial locomotives do actual work on the road in controlled conditions probably was as much as could be expected under given conditions of limited resources and time allowed to the experiments . Namely the high-pressure steam turbine electric with condensation is about the most complex and interacting concept of all catenary-independent power using electric traction motors – that is my résumé after having spent much time and energy – though with but student’s private means – at a design of my own , as I had earlier written in another thread ( Jet Trains of Tomorrow With New Techology? link : http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/185148.aspx?PageIndex=2 ) If made to function flawlessly , such a locomotive could be a motive power engineering prodigy – yet never ask about relation of design plus testing & improving plus construction costs to monthly ton-mile work in actual traffic ! For management of a revenue earning railroad in the 1940s , if opting for steam to continue for a limited time to come , I would have strongly recommended to stay with classic concept steam – that , however , with all improvements available to raise overall actual thermal efficiency languishing terribly low because in my view there was no exchange deal with physical laws like “I drop my engine’s efficiency and you spare me some maintenance costs”. <<
Some comments on steam turbine direct drive http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/187148/2053463.aspx#2053463
(on PRR 6200)
>> To me, this was a wonderful steam loco - if seen as an initial test engine, a mere starting point from which to learn more about turbine steam locomotives characteristics and their suitable compositions of design, output characteristics, consumptions, wear, best components dimensioning, and more. If you consider the many thousands of Stephenson concept direct drive piston & rod steam locomotives that had by then been designed, run, maintained, improved and improved upon, then you will surely see there was little more than providing information and test data that could reasonably be expected from these very few turbine direct drive steam locos tried on some railroads in America and Europe - invariable single engines, except for the three (?) Swedish 2-8-0 turbines. In that light, the Pennsy #6200 performed respectably - as did the Stanier Turbomotive on the British LMS, the Maffei turbine 4-6-2, while the 2-8-0s out-classed them in longevity.
Discarding these efforts with a casual "They were not successful" may have become a colloquial statement in popular RR literature, often copied from previous writers - yet that doesn't make it any better. Within their inevitable limitations as single locos featuring an engine unit in stark contrast to common standard, plagued by engineering troubles only to be expected in any initial realisation, they performed - I would say – at least promising! Had steam continued, more test miles, a second and a third realisation incorporating knowledge learned from previous engines could have developed turbine engine units into competitive alternatives to common reciprocating engines in steam locomotives for certain train services. <<
By the way, I have forgotten the purpose of all those windows
I'm very surprised that so many of you didn't recognize the purely 100% "Ad-man" fluff for an automobile commercial. Everything from the smokebox back is fake. What I was saying was, I would like to see is an F-7 in that color scheme.
With respect to the drive system for applying power to the wheels, I don't think that one is a fully solved problem, but I have my own ideas on the topic.
I had an office neighbor working on a degree on the topic of AC electric drives -- part of the impetus for his work was his job at Hamilton-Sunstrand, and it seems that the fashion on aircraft these days is to replace as many of the hydraulic systems as possible with electric motors or electric actuators. His idea was why have some complex and maintenance-intensive mechanical or hydraulic transmission of power when you could simply use an AC electric motor with variable-frequency drive electronics.
My response was that there has to be some manner of mechanical connection from the electric motor to the wheels (as in the railroad traction application of electric drive or variable-frequency AC drive). It was thought that the "hammer blow" resulting from the balance weights meant to counter yaw-axis oscillations in the two-cylinder steam locomotive was hard on the tracks, but some have reported that the change to Diesels did not result in any savings in track maintenance expense. One theory is that the "nose hung" arrangement of the traction motor imposes its own form of pounding on the tracks, especially in high speed service, motivating such arrangements as electric motors powering the wheels through Cardan shafts as on streetcars and the Shin Kansen trains or the latter-day application of quill drive on high-speed locomotives in Europe.
Of all of the arrangements to power the wheels, I am thinking that the arrangement I had seen on a Swedish steam turbine locomotive is perhaps a best balance (excuse the pun) between mechanical complexity and stress on the tracks. That is, the use of side rods to drive the wheels, and the transmission of power from a jack shaft through a connecting rod to one of the wheels. This rod arrangement, patented by Thomas Crampton of single-wheeler fame, had also been used on early electric locomotives where the motors were too big to more directly connect to the wheels.
This jack shaft drive avoids the changing angle of the connecting rod in the direct connection of cylinders to wheels and resulting reciprocating forces, and any manner of steam engine -- piston, multi-cylinder piston, turbine, Wankel/rotary, what have you -- could be used.
On the subject of turbines and other what-might-have-beens, steam pressure and hence thermal efficiency is limited by the low boiler pressure achieved in the stay bolted fire-tube locomotive boiler, and attempts to change this were limited and perhaps unsuccessful owing to the vulnerability of the high-pressure water tube boiler in the railroad environment -- shock and vibration, scale formation on the tubes using the water quality available to a non-condensing cycle.
The C&O turbines were pretty much conventional locomotive boilers under that massive shroud/hood, but Jawn Henry along with that unnamed UP 4-6-6-4 turbine-electric had higher pressure water tube boilers, no? What was the experience with those boilers. I had heard that Jawn Henry suffered from a variety of problems (coupling shock damage to the turbine in one incident, coal dust or water getting in to the electrics), but was the boiler ever a problem?
It is also said that higher boiler pressure quickly reaches a limit in improving efficiency, and to get electric power station level of efficiency, you need to go to a condensing cycle. The problem with condensing on a steam locomotive is that you don't have access to river or lake water for the condensors; with air cooled condensors, you end up with massive cooling coils, big power drain to operate cooling fans (think the Henschel condensing tender on those South African locomotives), reduced efficiency owing to high condensor temperature, and so on.
The UP 4-6-6-4 was all of the above -- high pressure water tube boiler, turbine, condensing cycle. Maybe that was too much equipment to place in a locomotive car body and too expensive to make? Did the prototype locomotives have any particular problems, or did the UP simply not see a future in them with lower cost Diesels available? A one-of-a-kind may be a failed design, but the failure could be in any of a number of parts not related to turbines or condensors.
Yes ,
let'’s go back to steam –
the locomotives , I mean .
Hi , Jim Valle
Sorry for answering late . On your proposed ‘unconventionals’ :
Actually , the UP double set 4-6-6-4 high-pressure turbine-electric was a daring effort and to me looked quite attractive – if you consider it a contribution to (what was then considered) modern traction . Obviously , these trial locomotives could not be valued by scales of classic steam – rather I would rate them by criteria of contemporary diesel streamline units and compared to those I find them quite an attractive set in front part styling , vehicle proportions and interesting wheel arrangement .
The Chessie 500 ‘class’ : Hmm , I had always thought they had been 2-8-2-8-2 wherein bold figures powered – but , Lord , no ! Take power away from the rear axle of the eight wheel truck and put the motors into the last of the bogies – that configuration probably was much more .. uhm .. confusing . As for looks , they have remained my visual idea par excellence of the ‘hyper-complex high pressure steam turbine condensing and all extras included’ type – although they weren’t neither high pressure nor condensing . But the w/a was intriguing , strangely perplexing yet seemingly symmetrical . With ‘a head full of coal’ , so to speak , and a reversed boiler etc the actual arrangement appeared slightly 'tongue in cheek' , less than harmonious and in that way again just admirably fulfilled specifications for a veritable rail monster . A lot of the causes for electrical equipment failures by short circuits could have been amended by (1) fully welded boiler and welded sections of water and steam piping and (2) oil-firing . That way , these giants could have been put in actual service for the advertising dept on permanent show business with real-live-steam display and Sunday special attraction-traction in summer seasons …
About tractive effort Jawn Henry probably did show it to the diesels ! He was a long fellow , sure enough , with his four powered six wheel trucks and the contours foretold later hood unit diesel sty.. uhm , shapes .
Pennsylvania 6200 – the only 6-8-6 type ever built , a comparatively minimized deviation from the classic concept wherein strictly the cylinder engine unit was replaced by a steam turbine engine unit , with everything else remaining very nearly as it used to be with reciprocating steam locomotives . I think she (sic , allow for an occasional tall figured one) looked just great , the symmetric w/a provided a balanced basis for well proportioned boiler and engine entity . Seen face on , she could use large type smoke deflectors (or wind wings , as I prefer to call them) , since lack of ‘shoulders’ in form of cylinders spanning crossways at full loading gage width then became evident . However , I have never understood why they didn’t place the turbine(s) where the cylinders were in a classic concept steam loco : between bogie and smokebox –, if between frames , naturally . Ok , that would have meant to drive the front coupled axle or use a longitudinal transmission shaft which would have asked for bevel or worm gearing at the drive axle – something that was perhaps seen skeptical back then in view of the envisaged power output . Remarkably , the inner two coupled axles had been connected by tandem coupling rods plus gear unit between frames . That critical combination could have caused trouble but I have never read about anything of the like – if maybe just because during the few years the engine was in traffic all the functional unit likely remained in as-build assemblage when the unit had never been fully disassembled in a classified repair with re-alignement of axles , axle bearing horn guides , coupling rods and gear necessary .
I include a Shell advertising with a fiting theme , I couldn't resist to modify it insignificantly .
Uhm , one last word – how do you know a she-loco ? Well , by the hand-bag* of course … zzhh
Uhm , one last word – how do you know a she-loco ?
Well , by the hand-bag* of course … zzhh
(* up front)
IN Hebrew, the word for a steam locomotive comes from the word for steam. "Katar", which is a masculine word. A diesel locomotive is called "katar-diesel". All masculine. A railroad passenger car is generally called a Karone, which I think is also masculine, although I am not absolutely sure. (I'll check.) A streetcar. and by extension an electric mu car, is called by a name from electricity, hashmal, a word coming from Bible, used for aura surrounding the head of an angel, interpreted by Chrstians as a halo, thus hashmalit, which is feminine. Now why would a trailing coach, unpowered itself, be called by a masculine word, but one that is self-powered and could pull others is faminine? Just language.
Oh yes, a woman's *** is rakhim, a masculine word.
Forget, "he" or "she", I've always thought of steam engines as big friendly dogs. They eat, drink, bark, drool, slobber, chuff, let you know if something's right or wrong, will work their hearts out for you if you treat them right, or sometimes like Basset Hounds they MAY aquiesess instead of obey!
Ooohhhhh....and the gloves have come off.
Juniatha, good one on the (looks at his wristwatch...) waiting for her to emerge from the roundouse.
Crandell
Etymology aside, I've just never thought of steam locomotives in a "feminine" sense. Least not American freight steam locomotives. Big Boys, Allegheny's & Y6's were all business brutes with heavy jowls and burly features; the loud bark of the exhaust and the minor tones of the whistles hardly evince feminine attributes.
No offense to my British cousins, but maybe some of thier steam loco's can be called a "she."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.