New York Central tinkered with a couple of jet engines on a car. What came of the test ? How fast did it go ? The 200 MPH they were shooting for ? Do you know if anyone modeled the that car ?
YGW
Managed 183.68 MPH on straight level track just powered by the jet engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-497_Black_Beetle
I remember an article on modeling this unit using the 1/72 set of engines off a B-47 Airplane kit, (Same engines the NYC used).
Rick Jesionowski
Wow, I just had to Google this and see what I get.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-497_Black_Beetle
I found some video of it, too, plus a lot more info.
Mike.
EDIT: OOPSS, sorry Rick, you posted while I typed…[(-D]
Mike, Rick
Isnt that just nuts ! Mounting a couple of jet engines on a passenger car. I wondered who volunteered ( or was volunteered ) to ride it on its first test run !?
The Wikipedia article said the engines were off of a B-36. This jibes with the pictures of the shutters on the air intakes which were a feature of the jet pods attached to the B-36D and later versions. This may have used the same engines as the B-47.
A relatively cheap way of getting a car to go fast, at 183mph the combined thrust of 12,000lb would be equivalent of 6,000HP.
Test engineers…They’re bred for that…
That would be Don Wetzel, the Assistant to the Director of the NYC Research Lab.
GE interviewed him a few years ago:
I knew a few of the fellows that worked on the M-497. It is interesting to note that when the whole program was finished, the M-497 went back into revenue service. I wonder how many riders knew that they were riding in a “piece of history”.
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-M497jra.jpg
There’s a pretty good write-up on her here:
https://oldmachinepress.com/2015/04/29/new-york-central-m-497-black-beetle/
Regards, Ed
WOW that is a LOT of horsepower. Which end was the front ? It would seem the sloped end would be. But it would seem the exhaust from the engines would damage the top of the car ???
I am glad their are test people who will try such thiings. You will not find me as one !
YGW
The B-36 is correct. I have a booklet about the B-36 Peacemakers and it has pictures of the test run in the chapter on dispositions of the aircraft.
I think both bombers used variants of the J47 jet engine.
Jeff
Technically it wasn’t a passenger car. It was a modified RDC. I read someplace that the reason they used an RDC was because the RDC had good brakes.
Maxman
LOL your comment about brakes made me laugh. I thought how can one have good brakes with a jet engine?! I imagined a molten mess of hot medal dripping on the tracks. The whole concept of a jet engine on a train with std train brakes ! Sounds Like a Tim Allen build : )
“Technically it wasn’t a passenger car. It was a modified RDC. I read someplace that the reason they used an RDC was because the RDC had good brakes.”
Thanks for the feed back
YGW
Yes the sloped end was the front, although it was actually the back…that is, they weren’t able to fit the sloping front on the front of the RDC, so they put it on the rear. So in the test the RDC is technically going backwards from it’s normal orientation.
BTW, not sure if anyone mentioned this before, but y’know the test wasn’t meant to determine if putting jet bomber engines on trains would be a good idea or not. They were testing whether you could run high speed trains (125 MPH or faster) on conventional track (wood ties, loose ballast etc.) and slapping a jet on top of an RDC was a cheap and quick way to get a test vehicle to try it out. I guess it was more or less successful, but apparently some of those ballast stones shot a long ways from the track!
I seem to recall that Al Pearlmanrode it on at least one of the trips. He didn’t think the ride was too bad when asked. there was an article in Trains at the time.
It’s cool Mr. Wetzel might be a modeler! Neat little piece of history.
My understanding is that a control stand is at both ends except on the RDC-9 which was a cabless “center” car.
I thought NYC oriented the “front” so that the controls and instrumentation would occupy the baggage section and that fewer seats would have to be removed for the added bracing under the engines?
You are correct that the “B” end is the front.
Regards, Ed
I’m surprised no one answered this.
Kato made NYC Jet RDC M-4979 with DCC and Sound for $300.
I remember they made two releases, but I don’t remember the years that they came out. Sometimes it’s hard to buy one on EBay.
Angel
Thanks. Was it N or HO ? My guess would be N being Kato ??
YGW
Correct!
http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/KATO-N-166-0206-J-Jet-Powered-RDC-p/kat-166-0206-j.htm
Click on photo for four other views.
Perhaps with the recent Rapido RDC in HO now available someone could make a kit to adapt to the stock RDC using 3D printed parts (Shapeways?)
If you wanted to use the Proto 1000 RDC you would have to re-gear it as its top speed, as delivered, is about 35 scale MPH! NWSL makes a regearing kit.
Lionel also made a model of the Jet M-497.
http://www.lionel.com/products/new-york-central-jet-powered-budd-rdc-m-497-6-38401/
Fun Stuff!
Ed
The engines were mounted on a structural beam that extended from roof to floor. The engines were modified to run on diesel fuel and were mounted at a 5degree offset from the horizontal plane. This directed the thrust in a forward downward motion and the exhaust at a rearward upward direction. Don’t know if this kept the roof from melting. Funny, there was mention that the RDC was selected for hydraulic brakes, so I’m assuming the B36 engines didn’t have reverse thrust, or was never tried, or would not work because of the 5 degree offset…
Deflector plates were mounted on the ‘hump’ to keep that part of the roof from melting. The Russian version had the engines mounted relatively forward and there was no radiator blister in the underlying car design.
The J47 engine nacelles were, as far as I know, never equipped with reversers; the B47 was notorious for using a drag chute to slow it down as it did not have many brakable wheels either… [:-^] (I don’t recall if the B36 used beta thrust on the props but its jet pods were like a more modern analogue of the Titanic’s center shaft turbine – forward ‘assistance’ only.
As I recall the story, the jet engines had been intended for the rear, to avoid the hump-melting concern, although as with Goddard’s and some other early rocket designs having the thrust ‘pull’ is better for dynamic guidance than shoving. Apparently one of the designers’ wives was responsible for moving the engines forward ‘because it looked better that way’ – it’s in one of the “official descriptions” of the car construction and testing.
I have little hesitation in saying the Russian ‘general idea’ was preferable: have the engines as far forward as you can arrange them. I always thought the ‘angle’ was to ensure positive downforce on the lead truck at all speeds (as I think was a major point of the long shovel nose). Even a moment of allowing the carbody to ‘porpoise’ enough to build high pressure under the nose rapidly progressing in effective lift… not any more pleasant prospect at 180mph than it was for Mercedes GTR drivers… [:O]