I am going to have to call your bluff on this one.
First off, I would like to know what all this talk of fibbing is about? I have never read anything of the sort written about in Louis Newton’s book “Rails Remembered Volume 4 - The Tale of a Turbine”. As for your ascertion of “12 cars on its drawbar”, I will note that on page 831 of said book, Mr. Newton recalls his records of a trip on #2300 10/6/1954 - 175 empties, 4163 tons a speed of 47 mph at MP N-625.
So! Fibbing going on? How so?
1 Like
Alas! everything I say about the TE-1 is either from Louis Newton or source documents particularly at NWHS. The part about 65mph being a Baldwin fib is clearly stated in Tale of a Turbine, although since I don’t have my copy handy I can’t quote chapter and verse. In fact if I recall correctly he mentioned that N&W management was pissed at what was essentially a lie about achievement of practical 65mph speed under the conditions BLH had implied it would be achieved.
The ‘12 cars’ was intended more as hyperbole than an exact car count; the point is (again as Mr. Newton has said) the locomotive couldn’t reach anything like the speed a class A loaded to a similar percentage of its rated tonnage could – and a major part of that is the characteristic of the electrical transmission. (We won’t get into the issues of the dropped generators that were never quite correctly rebuilt, but we CERTAINLY can take up the issue of what killed many of the hexapole motors in 2300 with so few years of service, if you like.)
Now, IN MY OPINION the N&W should have stuck to the PRR design of mechanical turbine with Bowes drive, as that would have produced a worthy successor to even the compound Ys (assuming the turbines were ‘rightsized’ instead of being made artificially huge as in the last “9000hp” propaganda. The apparent history of this involves N&W falling for the siren call of motorizing the engine trucks (the approach that worked so well on the PRR P5b!) and thereby going to steam-electric, and then the early-Fifties use of span-bolstered diesel-equivalent trimounts for the whole of the running gear. I’m sure this made sense if you intended to peddle the design to other coal-hauling railroads, and indeed much of the design might have been carried across to Alco/GE or even GM running gear after Baldwin/Westinghouse quit
Gears weigh less, cost less and are more compact than an electrical drive - the USN went through a similar phase between 1920 and the mid-30’s going from turbo electric drive to high speed reduction gears.
But marine gear drives are inherently single speed, with the exception of some German Navy drives which have two different input speeds, one for cruise diesels and one for the gas turbines.
Navy gearboxes are heavy. Taking the drives in a current DDG, each turbine weighs about 14 tons in its enclosure, and the fixed ratio reduction gear weighs arount 50 tons, one on each shaft.
The biggest variable speed mechanical drive with which I’m familiar is that in the big Voith diesel hydraulic locomotives, good for about 4000 HP. This dates from the early years of this century and I don’t think anything like it was available in 1946, for example. Even the Krass-Maffei and Alco diesel hydraulics were twin engined with two transmissions to get to 4000 HP.
I’m not suggesting that electric drive is lighter. In the Royal Navy Type 45, the alternators on the gas turbines weigh around 70 tons and the motors on each shaft nearly 100 tons. The “electric” ships have longer propeller shafts than direct drive because the heavy motors and alternators need to be amidships for fore and aft trim.
I haven’t heard much about the USN “Zumwalt” class. These are the ships of tomorrow, but remain just that. Conventional ships are being built in large numbers while these two get debugged.
But I don’t believe that there was a production variable speed drive capable of powering a steam turbine locomotive in 1946, nor for some time thereafter.
Peter
1 Like
You actually don’t need a ‘VSD’ in the current sense of the term. Variable ratios close to the turbine shaft will work, and I recall several German approaches to provide them (using the same mechanism in at least one of them that interposed an ‘idler’ gear to give full reverse from the main turbine without the costs of a dedicated geared or ‘windage’-crippled reverse turbine). It is possible that no more than a two-speed ratio change might suffice for practical operation.
The Bowes drive, I suspect, could have been scaled appropriately … had there been a practical 4000hp prime mover in the late '40s. (That being, of course, the precise turbine rating of one-half the design of PRR V1 actually ‘greenlighted’ for production in 1944.) Of course that was also the supposed nominal rating of the Hamilton/Lima-Hamilton/Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton free-piston engine that would replace, any month now through the late '40s and into the '50s, expensive and fragile things like GM 2-stroke engines; and arguably that’s what the BCR coal turbine rating would wind up being after the experimental-scale units were sized up (the question of who would pay for the practical development being an increasingly critical issue as the scam developed).
Another quite logical technology was adaptation of magnetorheological clutches (the enabling technology becoming quite well known across different fields of mechanical engineering and design over the course of the year 1948). This gives the effect of a variable-engagement wet-plate clutch without significant frictional wear, when ‘slipped’, but very simple lockup even with something as simple as a Maybach claw clutch when speed-matched. Here again ‘variable-ratio’ is not the
The locomotive that killed the T1’s. Brilliant…fish heads!
Thank you, Overmod. I remember there was a list of all patents of mechanical parts, including different kinds of design improvement of gears for S2 on this website. IIRC, some people from PRR suggested to replace or rebuild the firebox for S2 but none of these things, suggestions were installed/applied to the S2. But when I think deeper, S2 itself was not built with light steel alloys on the first day due to wartime restrictions. It was overweighed compare to the original 4-8-4 plan, thus PRR won’t get the best testing result base on 6200 even all the improvement deigns were ready to be built and patented. Moreover, PRR probably had higher hope on the Project V1 than S2, so I can und
lmao Miningman. I don’t hate all early diesels, but imo, only UP’s M10000s and E2 to E6 were qualified to competitive with steam locomotive in terms of appearance. Diesel like E7/8/9 looked so dull and boring no matter how reliable they were I don’t even call them a streamliner.
[quote user=“Jones1945”]
(By Juniatha from Trains.com)
A drawing I found on Facebook, showing a 6-8-6 direct drive stream turbine with T1’s shrouding. Looks like a fan art, no describion provided.(Edit: By Juniatha from Trains.com)
If something like this was built in 40s, I guess a 4-8-6 wheel arrangement would be enough to do the trick. It would need a firebox and boiler as large as or even larger than S1, S2, a new gearbox system, advanced filter inside the pipe work to protect the turbine blade…… However, if the operation and maintenance cost cannot competitive with EMD’s product, it would be just another wasting of time project. Sigh…
I wonder if all the steam power connects to a Turbine-generator instead of a direct drive design would work better or not. The front end would need to redesign for more space, (IIRC there were 13ft of space inside the smoke box of S1). The drivers or even the wh
1 Like
Nice found, Peter. I posted this pic on my pervious post as well.[:)]
btw…
My fantasy Steam turbine locomotive PRR V2 #6600 [swg]
Then you will have to show me as I sure have never seen anything about “65 mph” being a target for the “Jawn Henry”.
Unlike the C&O M-1, the TE-1 was not intended to be a passenger locomotive. I quote from Mr. Newton (pg. 713); "the N&W’s Class A locomotives were able to haul 175 fully loaded coal cars at 40 MPH, which was fast enough (my emphasis). Which takes us back to page 831 and Mr. Newton’s statement, “I do not have exact figures for the performance of Class A locomotives on the Columbus District, but from my general knowledge of them the 2300’s runs were generally comparable, perhaps a little better westbound on Delano Hill but slightly slower on the level portions of the district”.
Further reading will show that R.H. Smith wanted five more of the locos. Stuart Saunders wanted none. Not because of any “65 mph”, but because they “were not economical”. Saunders won the battle.
1 Like
There are multiple pieces of documentation that establish BLH touted the design which became the TE-1 as being capable of “65mph”. I suspect this might be related to the kind of diesel-electric claim to “120mph gearing” where the speed is limited by the constant horsepower to well below what the traction motors could be spun up to – but with the promise of external combustion to eliminate the constant-horsepower issue.
But this ignores the other uses of the TE-1 as a replacement for the class A as well as the compounds: there were plenty of uses in fast freight, mail, and probably express where the A’s speed of … about 65 mph … was necessary and expected. You may recall that Mr. Newton was referring to a train of 175 coal hoppers, not exactly the poster child consist for high speed either physically or economically – yes, 40mph was ‘fast enough’. But you may also recall that the TE-1 was intended as a more economical replacement for ALL N&W freight steam going forward, and just as there is little point in C&O operating an Allegheny well below the peak of its horsepower curve, there would be little point in reducing N&W to the equivalent of a one-speed railroad with comparatively fragile turbines that cost multiple times what an A did. Especially when the Baldwin design with the span-bolstered diesel trimount trucks had specifically been promoted as a locomotive capable of all services N&W anticipated.
[quote]
Further reading will show that R.H. Smith wanted fi
Stuart Saunders…crook, criminal, vandal, scumbag, American Taliban.
The warden in Shawshank Redemtion.
No money in it for him personally for approving of 5 turbines.
I’ve known people like him and it’s always puzzling how these terrible weasel people get into positions of power.
Without admitting any culpability, Mr. Saunders was among a group of former directors and officers who later contributed to a $12 million settlement to end litigation brought by shareholders of the bankrupt railroad. The lawsuits accused the railroad’s management of dereliction of duty and of responsibility for issuing false financial statements and misleading proxy material over a period of years. Graduate of Harvard Law School
I can feel you anger, Miningman…
Yeah, but be sure to read ‘Tale of a Turbine’ (which is actually titled “Rails Remembered, volume 4”) very carefully, and tell me if you would pay what it would cost to replicate that thing in that quantity.
Remember that the TE-1 program spans the development era of practical second-generation diesels, including the realization at GE that a great deal more horsepower could be developed out of the basic Cooper-Bessemer engine architecture. A 4500hp steam-turbine electric is competitive with little GP7s or F units. It’s a poor alternative to two 2400hp six-motor Alcos. And I have to suspect that any other TM than a Westinghouse hexapole would be cooked at least as badly in line service, at least as quickly, as Mr. Newton documented.
I am by no means a fan of Stuart Saunders (who reminds me of an evil American cousin of Sir Topham Hatt) but with respect to that turkey he was right.
I regret that I can’t join the discussion since I am not familiar with steam turbine locomotive except PRR S2, even though I am really interested in this new topic for me. Anyway, I just found this record from PRR Chronology. I would like to put it here for the record：
"Mar. 12, 1952
Board reviews the status of the T1’s, all 52 of which are now out of service, with only 19 stored in good running order; note that the maintenance costs are 2.5 times that of Class K4s; heavy running repairs are almost 3 times as great; T1’s are 4 times as costly to operate as diesels; slipperiness did not work with PRR’s grades; decides they are to be disposed of as soon as the equipment trust obligations are paid off. (VPO)"
This thing actually sound like a trial to me. If T1 was really that bad, why spent tons of money to design, to test, and to build them in the first place? It was not the first time Baldwin and PRR building a new class of engine. If this was the judgement directly came from the heads of PRR, they were just making themselves looks like a world class fool.
In case you missed it:
73 years ago, PRR made a scale model of S2 steam turbine locomotive, tried to find out what went wrong of the engine and what else they should had done to improve its design base on this model. 73 years later, a modeler from Switzerland made an O gauge S2 model, using a real scaled down turbine as power, please take a look: [Y]
Whoa! Lots of stuff here.
-
Overmod-- R.H.Smith recommended the purchase of 5 more. I can only assume he was qualified enough to make a sane decision. Perhaps Mr Smith looked at it as a political decision based on a tip and nod to the coal industry, as you say, not a large % of N&W’s fleet. The minus and the minus make a plus sort of thing. My point about Saunders has little to do with his decision on its desirability but what was coming his way probably stock price wise or perhaps something shorter term. Of all the railroads N&W could have run their A’s and others up to the mid 70’s assuming they can appeal or seek exception and stretch things out say 3 years or so after the Clean Air Act.
-
Jones @6:25 post about the T1’s. Well they had Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers almost 4 years before the production models rolled out and extensive testing during that time. I recall the tests on the static bed at Altoona and the published results and subsequent reporting of breaking every record and all time bests of water and coal consumption coupled with astronomical horsepower ratings. The best thing ever.
Reading that nonsense you can just picture the authors stating things like " no, not 8 times, that’s too much, makes us look bad…lets say 4 times, yeah thats good, they will buy that". Show trial, kangaroo court.
- Wow on the working model S2. For about ten minutes I felt like “I have done nothing this good in my whole life” but I snapped out of it.
Exactly, I can only see this as an office politics or struggle thing between New PRR Management and Old PRR Management. Reader may note that: “Mar. 16, 1946 Howell T. Cover (1897-1960) named Chief of Motive Power replacing Harry W. Jones, deceased; Cover is an electrical engineer and thus more sympathetic to diesels; Cover orders all unmodified T1’s sent to Western Region and modified ones to operate between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. (MB, RyAge, Hirsimaki)” and Martin W. Clement the 11th President of the Pennsylvania Railroad left the office in 1948. At the same time, they probably needed to find an excuse to fool the stockholders, explain why the whole duplex development project was a “train wreck”, which I never agree.
People wanting to hatchet on H.T. Cover should budget for a vacation in Delaware and spend a couple of days at the Hagley reading his surviving correspondence. They might shut up afterward.
What this likely refers to is the ongoing correction of lateral control vs. suspension that was (still) a significant concern in 1946. Some engines had been ‘corrected’ with improved equalization and allowance for lateral motion, and could traverse the ‘problem areas’ e.g. in Pittsburgh station better; these were the ones assigned to Harrisburg-Pittsburgh. The others were kept on the ‘racetrack’ that was their first best use, etc.
The smoking gun comes sometime in 1948, when the decision is made to take the T1s off the first-class trains (sometimes this is described as ‘dieselizing all the first-class trains’, but I get the impression the T1 removal was the more important objective) and at about the same time, perhaps linked, the full improvement program is abandoned. You can consider whether simple evolutionary improvements, such as better-cast valves, or more complex ones like piston-valve conversions, would have made the engines embarrassingly better just as the economics for any highly-sophisticated steam passenger power were declining radically, and find evidence for politics accordingly; remember, these guys were looking at very alarming actual statistics, and not the ‘fudged’ ones that pretended the T1s were hangar queens making only multiples of hundreds of miles a month.
As you all probably know, I think practical luxury-bus service was nipped in the bud far too early, essentially starting when Missouri proactively reduced its highway size and axle-load limits. Look at the late Pickwick Nite Coaches, and the later Santa Fe articulateds, to see what interesting rubber-tired alternatives could have been for all those REA city pairs that were becoming uneconomical to serve even with one-man motor trains.
Good grief, I’d rather discuss Seven of Nine than buses. Buses suck…and stink.