Nice work!
It seems that Max Essl applied 3 patents - first two for 4000 hp locomotives and the last for 6000 hp loccomotive
“Feb. 27, 1939 Max Essl, Chief Engineer-Diesel Locomotives of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, files for a patent for a 4,000 HP diesel on 1-D+D-1 trucks; the double-ended design reflects Baldwin-Westinghouse designs for electric locomotives and single large units over combining separate units of lower horsepower; Essl is also inspired by seeing the PRR containers to design a series of engines mounted transversely that can be lifted out through the roof for servicing. (Kirkland)”
“Nov. 14, 1939 Max Essl of the Baldwin Locomotive Works files for a patent for his modified design of a 4,000 HP double-ended diesel locomotive riding on 2-C+C-2 trucks with 6 model 408 engines instead of 8. (Kirkland)”
“Jan. 30, 1941 Max Essl of the Baldwin Locomotive Works files for a patent for a third design for a 6,000 HP single-ended diesel locomotive riding on 2-D+D-2 trucks with 8 model 408 modular engines; ancestor of the “Centipede”; construction of the underframe is begun in May. (Kirkland)”
All the patents make no mention of the actual number of engines. None I have seen so far discuss the one-to-one modular relationship of genset to driving wheel associated with it – this was supposedly an important feature when the demonstrator was being promoted.
I was told that the original transverse engines were going to be transverse 412s, which match the six-cylinder-long blocks visible in the earlier patent. It will pay to look carefully at the timeline for evolution of the 400 series engines to see when the advantage of the ‘shorter’ 408 with the ‘integral’ walkway passing between engine and generator became the ‘standard’ option; this is to me clearly related to the maximum 750hp per axle that I’d expect the cost-effective antislip control of that era to work with.
That the locomotive actually built was 6000hp is not really surprising: as a demonstrator it would offer the full rated power to those roads interested in, say, three E units, but easily scaled back for roads wanting smaller locomotive peak unit horsepower (and less than ocean-liner overall length!) – but there is a catch: much of the excessive expense of the modular design would be shared between the full 2-D-D-2 and a putative 2-C-C-2 (even, say, with GSC using some molds and cores from the GG1 pattern underframes) and in fact relatively little saving of either length or weight by omitting one axle’s worth of underframe vs. leaving out two genset modules and their corresponding traction motors in the longer 8-wheel chassis and corresponding carbody. (The difference would likely be even less with the lightweight tubular construction…)
The Trains article on the Essl locomotive (in January 1963) mentioned that Baldwin went to the truss-frame swivel-truck design of locomotive relatively early, I believe before the demonstrator was rebuilt to give Seaboard its single-unit 2-6-6-4 replacement at half the horsepower with conventional DeLaVergne-style motors.
Very interesting info!
Two turbine locomotives patents:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0a/a7/15/def403482b56f1/US2525490.pdf
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/af/f2/83/7b760078716817/US2386679.pdf
Taking up the '679 patent first: it is somewhat surprising this issued in this form, as the layout of the components is scarcely novel by the application date (the Loewy’s and Steins Triplexes having considerable priority) and the use of full condensing already being common on the Steamotive turbines (albeit for far more than feedwater recovery or Rankine heat recovery). That leaves the pulverized fuel as the principal novelty, which might lead to some interesting speculation regarding the stillborn GE pulverized-coal turbine canceled just two years after that patent was issued (to the inventor’s widow).
Note that Edward Gray appeared to be blissfully ignorant of the plant size required to justify a practical STE, to say nothing of the physics of steam condensation of turbine exhaust. That he would think a plethora of little turbines is preferable to using electric motors for auxiliaries indicates he was not exactly aware of railroad-design reality…
The other patent is fascinating for certain implications. Look at the patent effective date. Then look at the date EMD introduced the traction alternator as an alternative to DC main generator. The Westinghouse patent claims involve the use of a three-phase alternator and Ignitrons for motor control – interesting, since the very contemporary PRR ignitron locomotives operated off single-phase 11kV AC and single-phase is pointedly not directly mentioned.
I suspect the wheel arrangement is something of a red herring, as the comparable arrangement on the C&O M-1s was a demonstrable flop by then and the ‘existing’ Baldwin flat-deck arrangement of 2-D-D-2 articulated chassis as superior to the pictured 2-D-2 units as a GG1 was to the R1… which some have argued was a wash but no one familiar with the P5s for very long would.
Thank you for these very interesting considerations!
One solution would be to take a photo to the picture with mobile phone. Many times I ve made some photos to book pictures with almost invisible writings and letters and I ve got pictures with huge resolutions and with tiniest details visible.
I have took a closer look at the photo above - after I ve downloaded in my phone (much better visibility of the characters on a small screen) and I am almost sure about these values: total lenght of the locomotive: 112 feet, that is 34,2 m and wheelbase lenght is 105 feet (32 m). Height is still to hazy, i can t see the numbers.
That would make it the longest steam locomotive ever (a few cm longer than N&W Jawn Henry) and - for sure - the longest single unit locomotive ever
What is more fun, calculate the lateral clearance at front, rear, and middle on – let’s say – Horse Shoe (the detailed data for which are on Sam Berliner III’s wonderful site). For those ‘with eyes to see’ this will tell you where the optimal pivot points for the undercarriage are likely to be… and how likely it is that buff, draft, and shock forces will be tolerably handled for the consist the locomotive would be expected to pull…
I swear that Jones1945 has, in the past, posted a ¾ view rendering of this locomotive, perhaps back in this very thread.
I can’t recall I have posted a rendering of that locomotive before, but if I found any I will post it here asap.
15000 hp of power!
In the old prr publicity photo above they mention V1 turbine, GE turboelectric and a super GG1 succesor.
https://utahrails.net/up/up-diesel-story-1934-1982.php
Here is quoted a project from 1972 about a giant 7200 HP double engined SD45 project. It was “too long and too heavy” to be built.
It would be interesting to have Dave Goding’s thoughts on a ‘double SD45’ – there might not be that much more length required for the extra eight cylinders; I’d expect most of the fun being in the required cooling arrangements… and the higher fuel burn.
I’d think the real ‘killer’ was that the 645E3 could be pushed to 3300hp as in the Centennials – something that might have been too much for a comparable V20.
This was an early version of Jawn Henry or a different locomotive never made? Only for freight or also passenger locomotive?
As far as I know, this was the development that led up to Jawn Henry… step by step. I have pieced some of this together from announced ‘stages’ with illustrations and descriptions of work.
The earliest description post-'47 is an item in the trade press, featuring a drawn side elevation of a locomotive with the PRR V1’s wheel arrangement illustrating a blurb that a particular railroad (I believe it was characterized as a ‘coal road’) was considering the steam-turbine electric. Considering the PRR-N&W ‘connection’ it seemed obvious how and where the technology transfer was going. Certainly once PRR had deprioritized steam-turbine implementation (partially, perhaps, in favor of coal gas-turbine development) it would only be logical for N&W to build on what at that point was a project that had been greenlighted for construction in 1944.
By 1950, and then to 1952, there are reports covering how N&W was actively developing ‘their’ steam-turbine: I think it had progressed to electric drive by 1950 and was being given all-wheel drive (including the two ‘smaller’ trucks) by 1952. Considering the marked lack of enthusiasm around the PRR P5b 5702 experiment into powered small trucks of this sort, and the rather dramatic failures involved with the C&O M-1s, it is not surprising that the same thing that induced the Dutch to go to ‘bogie power trucks’ in their early-'50s electrics was also seen here in a ‘revision’ of all-wheels-powered chassis for a large steam-turbine-electric. In my opinion this was decidedly not a camel’s-nose-in-the-tent for truck-compatibility with a diesel fleet, as would be a clear advantage on a railroad less decidedly diesel-hostile than N&W in the early Fifties. Certainly if it were seen as a major incentive for other c
Thank you for this very complete explanation!
Yes, double-thanks!
I have read the Keystone Magazine article by Neil Burnell’s about the PRR S2 recently. Today I ordered another Keystone Magazine that contains two more articles (one of them is a letter from the reader, another one is “Problems with the operation of S2” by David E. Slee, a 10-page article. I will sum up my thoughts here after reading all of them. (Who would have thought wheel slippery was one of the problems that S2 had to fix?!)
Be interesting to see if he mentions the Westinghouse improvement patents on the S2-style drive system in the latter half of the '40s, particularly the two-speed planetary and the elimination of the unfortunate geared reverse-turbine idea.
It will be interesting to read whether the unsprung-mass concerns I had about the drive as implemented (see those expressed by Juniatha and Sara T.) turned out to be serious in PRR practice.