I just received the book on prr locomotives. I will scan it and send it to mail in one, two weeks. Using a lens to zoom in I have suceeded to see exactly the small numbers of D-C-C-D turbine. So: height is 16 feet, 0 inches (4,87 m), lenght between couplers is 112 feet (34,13 m), 105 feet wheelbase, 147 feet total wheelbase, 155 feet total lenght; weight without tender is 810.000 pounds (367,4 tonnes). Axle load is 45.000 pounds and 60.000 pounds (2X45.000 + 12X60.000). Tender axle load is 51.666 pounds
At the page 293 there are some interesting info about an 1982 steam turbine electric giant locomotive on 6 wheels truks, 1200.000 pounds weight
This is getting into nostalgia country. That is Perry Shoemakerâs turbine version; he also has one with a converted diesel engine block as a reciprocating prime mover, which has better performance at high turndown characteristic of non-continuous high-horsepower operation.
Note that some of the problems he encountered with the fluidized-bed combustion were and are addressable.
This was the era of 614T, when engineers had to ârediscoverâ much of the art involved in practical locomotive boiler design.
Incidentally, note the bibliography a few pages earlier which contains an article by Steins in Railway Age on the proposed coal gas-turbine (Nov 27 1948, p.1029)
The history of coal turbines when I researched them in the '80s was fascinating. Note the version in the hearings testimony, built inside an Alco DL600 with fluidized pulverized coal blown into a vibrating reservoir in the short hood. With no sign of, say, cooled FGR passivating the pre-dried and pre-pulverized stuff, which was to be blown in from covered hoppers. I suspect this would have rediscovered the joys of high-carbon critical-mixture facilitated rapid unanticipated disassembly.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/13/t/40358.aspx
From these I understand that Santa Fe gas turbine was basically the same with J Yellot coal gas turbine intended to be built by Baldwin for PRR. But, the last was to be 3750 HP and have cabs at the both ends. Instead, Santa Fe,s would have been 3000 hp and would have used an oil gas turbine in a Centipede style body locomotive. There was also a project from Lima rejected.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/13/t/40358.aspx
Note that theyâve got two turbine locomotives for ATSF mixed up. The one youâre discussing is the one on the Centipede frame, which I think has more affinity to the stillborn BLH free-piston locomotive than to anything out of BCR at that point (I think they were still testing the Hilsch tubes and final separation along with the turbine âon the groundâ in Dunkirk)
The missing B-B-B-B was the Allis-Chalmers turbine built for ATSF, which seems to have come and gone largely unremarked in railfan history, despite the fact that Allis-Chalmers had early competence in industrial gas turbines.
Much of the problem, including with the prospective 2-D-D-2 for ATSF, was the implicit concern that Really Cheap Garbage Fuel was the only thing making the gas turbine practical as a diesel competitor (read Charles Kerr, Jrâs analysis for a better laying out of the real-eorkd economic argument). As noted the âbigâ ATSF tender was cheap for the adoption at that point, and had the ginormous oil capacity (whether #5 locomotive fuel, or âBunker Bâ, or that awful cheap-as-possible dirty residual) as well as large nonstop water for the steam-ejector air on the Long Trains that big locomotive would be running.
How you get around the noise and crap in the exhaust when pulling the luxury postwar successor to the Super Chief is less certain. Iâd have liked to see at least one built⌠although by the time of actual construction it would have likely been span-bolstered trucks rather than colossal cast underframesâŚ
Very interesting considerations!
Any info about wheels configurations of Lima proposal for gas turbine locomotive? Hirsimaki says it would have been single unit with 2 cabs. I think I have read somevhere it was a C-C locomotive, but could that be large enough for a turbine l
It seems Lima locomotive was a C-C with only 360000 lbs weight
Thank you for finding this!
As a bit of history: the first major use of this approach to free-piston power was as a âdieselâ air compressor for submarines, developed to some success in the 1930s. I find it suggestive that Hamilton licensed the technology, was then acquired by Lima which staked its âreal locomotiveâ future on this idea while concentrating regular diesel development on glorified switchers, and then Lima-Hamilton was snapped up by Baldwin â the official story being that âparentâ Westinghouse wanted the Lima heavy-construction business, but going to the free-piston construction for passenger engines may explain Baldwinâs adherence to heavy slow-speed engines with little horsepower improvement upside during that era⌠only to embrace high-speed diesrls with Mekydro hydrokinetic transmission when it no longer matteredâŚ
Note that the weight is still 30 tons per axle, only âlightâ by comparison with relatively large steam locomotives. That seems heavy for âonlyâ 3200hp, which translates in both powered axles and rough hp to one-and-a-half E units.
Think of this a bit like a FM OP cylinder turned on its side, with the rack arrangement replacing the crankshafts for timing, the bounce pistons replacing the crankshafts for piston return against compression, the large pistons providing the scavenge air compression, and the âhorsepowerâ taken out in the exhaust pressure.
This as previously noted greatly relieved the practical issue of TIT in a practical railroad gas turbine while offering a way to run the turbine reasonably close to its critical speed range over a range of loads by using or idling some of the independent gas generator sections â compare this to the Essl locomotive, which proposed similar savings by a very different method.
We now know well (from subsequent GM experience with free-piston engines in ships and cars, and the stillborn FG-9) what the Achilles heel of Pescara-style free-pi
https://www.deviantart.com/futurewgworker/art/Breitspurbahn-steam-locomotive-688384620
One of the 41 projects of collosal locomotives proposed by nazi for a never made 3 m gauge system Breitspurbahn. Width is 6 m and height above 6.8 m
There is a book on this subject:
https://www.zvab.com/Breitspurbahn-Projekt-ErschlieĂung-groĂ--europäischen-Raumes/18464308188/bd
Other projects:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5YOYbXCUAAhB7M?format=jpg&name=large
Ther is an article on these locomotives in Trains magazine (with the photo above enclosed) in 86 (I have surveyed their archive and found about these projects)
https://fritzfreiheit.com/wiki/File:Breitspurbahn_engine.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee6XBeBWoAAl77K?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://www.deviantart.com/futurewgworker/art/Breitspurbahn-diesel-electric-locomotive-586250888
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee6XD0eXoAI1uJV?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://www.deviantart.com/futurewgworker/art/Breitspurbahn-diesel-hydraulic-locomotive-688384342
Iâm real sure that I can run 15,200hp through four axles. On the other hand it will pull any train it can start up to 200km/hâŚ
Someone with the Complete Collection needs to provide the link to âThe Case for the Double-Track Trainâ, an American answer to the Breitspurbahn with a few additional possibilities.
We have an expert on the RRollway, in its 19â wide splendor⌠thatâs now within the year range for Classic TrainsâŚ
djlivus
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee6XD0eXoAI1uJV?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Iâm real sure that I can run 15,200hp through four axles. On the other hand it will pull any train it can start up to 200km/hâŚ
Someone with the Complete Collection needs to provide the link to âThe Case for the Double-Track Trainâ, an American answer to the Breitspurbahn with a few additional possibilities.
We have an expert on the RRollway, in its 19â wide splendor⌠thatâs now within the year range for Classic TrainsâŚ
[/quote]
I understand that in Classic Trains magazine is an article about american version of this rail system? If so I have acces to Classic Trains archive, so I can check.
There were any projects for american locomotives with 19â gauge or it was only an ideea?
The article was in Trains Magazine, during the happy period in the early Seventies when so many interesting articles were published. The editors came in for considerable flak for publishing it at the time, as it was illustrated with HO gauge sectional track and there were many technical details that were, so to speak, handwaved in the discussion.
The basic idea, though, was to treat a double-track mainline as if it were a âBreitspurbahnâ with four separate running rails and cross-span-bolstered bogies each at standard gauge if desired. This would be fleeted to get directionality, and a four-track main of interesting characteristics would be needed even for the analogue of CTC, but the possibilities were interesting⌠and a given line still perfectly capable of being operated as two standard-gauge tracks for standard-gauge interchange traffic.
As I recall, Professor Milenkovic has considerable knowledge of RRollway in its various developments, and retains interest in the idea. My exposure to this was as a kind of transverse high-density rapid-throughput Iron Highway for automobiles: these would be staged in rows facing the track, driven on the platform transversely, then simply driven off the other side easily or en masse at any stop â no circus loading, no skilled backing over ramps and between cars.
The version I remember had 19â gauge over the outside rails but one rail in the middle for support. We have had previous threads, I think findable across the Kalmbach forums with the âcommunity searchâ term, that had quite a bit of interesting information I hadnât known.
The thing about âbroad gaugeâ is that scaling laws apply to engineering just as they do to, say, entomology. Y
https://i.redd.it/rxaib6wqao361.jpg
One rendering of 5000 tons soviet atomic locomotive. Maybe just a kind of soviet propaganda.
I just have aquired a digital edition of Robin Barnes Broader than broad (I ve sent it via dropbox on mails ) Here says it could attain a speed of 300 km hour
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8oDSKgUYAA_tJz?format=jpg&name=large
Another soviet proposal rendering here
There was no insurmountable issue with the âdouble-track trainâ going around curves or cross-equalizing⌠and the test was done with HO snap track⌠Note that the âfour rails in 18â gauge â Iâd suspect 5m â would give an interesting centerline distance if considered as double track, say of 5â gauge.
Did the Russian system note that the two âsubsidiary tracksâ were each lined and surfaced separately for use? Or that the spacing of the four rails was not âequalâ spanwise?
An issue that came up with the âdouble-track trainâ was the way superelevation and crossovers were to be handled. Note that the Breitspurbahn freight and these Russian systems do not emphasize high speeds (and presumably would be built with limited superelevation as with contemporary âPSRâ optimization (?) to 40-45mph with minimized wear and deflection to the rails. That would simplify how crossovers, etc. are provided for the individual tracks.
I continue to presume that carbody-mounted motors remain a good solution for these enormous things, although I see very little mention of the idea explicitly either in the German planning or these Russian versions. You could easily have whatever final drive you wanted with transverse balance on either the upper or lower âdeckâ, with final drive to the individual span-bolstered âbogiesâ running on their pairs of gauged rails.
I have learned more about this stuff in three months than in a whole lifetime of pottering research on some of this stuff.
Very interesting considerations!
The Lyle Borst tale is amusing. He assigned the design problem as a hypothetical exercise. Afterwards there was enough interest that he patented some of the design features⌠the AEC apparently being willing at the time to find alternative markets for uranium enrichment other than as constituents of explosives. It does not appear that security of what is basically weapons-grade U235 for use on the general system of railroad transportation was a cost concern.
There was a brief frenzy of transportation applications when submarine reactors became known. If FM engines worked in subs and were more or less successfully ported to locomotives⌠why not PWRs?
The Alco A-100, which I only know from a single drawing, may use a comparable cycle, although it is tough to dispense with ocean cooling (as some Erie-Built customers reputedly recognized!). While some improvements over the PRR S2 were needed, they were not critically incapable of solution. And there was the promised long running time between (subsidized) reprocessingsâŚ
German breitspurbahn project considered more than 40 locomotives - some designed for high speed passenger trains,some for freight. My question would be if a freight locomotive can be regeared for passenger trafic or, conversely a passenger one for freight use. If so, what such an operation would imply? I ask that questioon having in mind some examples like New Heaven Ef3 (adapted for pasenger use) or Baldwin Centipedes ârebuiltâ for freight
The answer for diesel-electrics is simplified because some of the most ubiquitous types were inherently designed suitable for dual service, with relatively small changes. Up to the inherent limits of nose-suspended motors the âchangeâ is one of gearing, with the numerical ratios chosen for an integer number of teeth on pinion and bull gears that fit into the gearcase. (PRR typically lists this the other way round from most everybody else; EMD liked expressing it in mph (presumably representing the highest safe speed to spin the motors).
As you might suspect, suspension and guiding are key characteristics of true dual-service locomotives. The Centipede chassis was good for over 120mph by Baldwinâs perhaps over enthusiastic figuring (they had touted the ATSF 3460 class as â120 mph locomotivesâ and Seaboard happily bought them for 85mph freight service (replacing rather good 2-6-6-4s). Most of the 1930s articulated-underframe high speed design â originally serving a somewhat different purpose on the maid-of-all-work Essl locomotive) was not âas goodâ as evolved truck designs, like those attributed to Blomberg at EMD. Indeed, Westinghouse seemed to be proposing nothing but AAR type B trucks on all their locomotives â advantages as youâd expect for B instead of C trucks in high-speed work, and plenty of easily-cooled span-bolstered motor power if you want to pull freightâŚ
The poster child for dual-service electrics is the GG1, which evolved from the New Haven design. This was easily changed from high-speed passenger engine to capable freight locomotive with little more