…Chuffing is really not what I was emphasizing…I was implying standing near by and witnessing massive power being released to move dead weight, which it demonstrated it to be very capable of doing.
As applied to a locomotive or any other vehicle, this would be less, not more, efficient than the normal main rod and side rod system of transmitting motion from reciprocating pistons in cylinders to wheels.
I do not have the engineering knowledge to argue the point, but I can’t help but wonder:
Why do nuclear power plants use steam turbines instead of push rods if the push rod system is more efficient at turning a wheel? An alternator is just rotary motion like a drive wheel.
I know from my aviation training and experience that turbines are very poor at acceleration, but are very good at running at high speed for long periods of time. Helicopters and turboprop airplanes run the turbines at a constant speed and control thrust by changing the pitch of the otherwise constant speed prop or rotor.
Turbines are used in many applications to drive auxilary power units. They are more efficient at it than reciprocal engines.
I see no difference from the power turbine’s point of view of hot gas from combustion, or high pressure steam going across the blades.
…And I don’t care to argue about any of it…I’m just in discussion of it’s various system designs of propulsion using the steam as the motivator.
We might refer back to when the industry was in the steam era that several steam turbine engines were prototyped and built…and actually run on the job for testing, etc…But for some reason, no decision was made at that time to put them in “producion” for long term use. Maybe the desel electric was coming on too strong at the time and overshadowed them.
I recall some information about the Pennsy building a steam turbine locomotive toward the end of steam. I beleive that it was a direct drive steam turbine as opposed to say steam turbine-electric. My question is this: Was this turbine mechanically connected to the wheels at a 1:1 speed ratio, or was there a gear box or mechanical transmission that geared down the speed of the turbine?
What was the outcome of this steam turbine experiment?
If you hooked a steam (or any other kind of) turbine directly to the drive wheels, it wouldn’t work well. It could pull a train just fine, but you would need help getting it started from a stop. Turbines don’t make much low end torque.
On the other had, using the alternator and traction motors you can use computers to control slip during acceleration and can recover electric power during dynamic braking.
I am neither promoting, nor arguing with anyone elses position. Just seeking to understand.
…Sure, Pennsy did it. Google it and it won’t be difficult to come up with photos and words about it. N&W had a big one too. Class TE1 6-6-6-6 configuration. Electric drive. #2300 Jawn Henry.
The Pennsylvania’s was the S-2. Direct drive steam turbine thru gearing.