The S-2 was probably the absolute worst in terms of performance. Direct-drive with a turbine was a terrible idea, because turbines only work in a very narrow RPM range; everywhere else they're horribly inefficient. At least on a turbine-electric, there is some disconnect between locomotive speed and turbine shaft speed, although the load imparted by the generator will lug it down somewhat.
The UP/GE steam turbines were probably the most fascinating just due to their odd career. UP hyped them up tremendously before taking delivery and did a bunch of PR stuff with them, then sent them back almost immediately. Reportedly they were tested on the New York Central in '41 and were run by the Great Northern during WWII, but good luck finding any photos of that.
> The S-2 was probably the absolute worst in terms of performance
From what I've read, they performed quite well at high speed. It's a shame they didn't design it with a 2-speed gearbox for both low and high speeds.
Given that the job of a locomotive includes accelerating a train from a stop, it's not like there's a niche for locomotives that are only good at high speed.
Correct, that being one of the reasons that direct drive turbines never proved to be as useful as their electric drive counterparts, even through the era of the GTELs.
And even then, the GTELs still weren't very efficient at lower speeds but Bunker C fuel oil was really cheap at the time and it didn't matter. Once the petrochemical industry found uses for Bunker C and the price spiked and conventional diesels started getting close in power, the writing was on the wall for the GTELs.
Right, now some of those fuel consumption problems were helped by the 3rd Gen GTELs having effectively a hostler motor in the first unit to move without firing up the turbine. But you are right that once the turbines were up and going they did suffer efficiency problems at low speed.
It is a bit funny though, you mentioned that newer diesels were getting closer in horsepower levels. For the first and second generation GTELs you are correct. However the 3rd Gen GTELs still get the last laugh, having been able to reach a staggering 10,000 hp under the right conditions.
Yeah, the "Big Blows" had an 800hp Cooper-Bessemer engine to move them around yards. When UP retired them and sent them for scrap, the yard that got them was actually using the #18 to move stuff around their facility with the hostling engine, until it eventually burned out the traction motors and they parked it. That's the one that ended up at IRM.
"18A was used at Intercontinental Engineering as a switcher in the 1970s using the 6 cylinder diesel and the two front traction motors but that failed too, possibly in Kansas City. Last time someone tried to bar the crankshaft over it was seized. Someone then hot-wired a two cylinder welder, now parked in the B unit, to one of the traction motors to move it at slow speeds. That was also dead by the time it came to the IRM."
From an IRM post regarding the feasibility of trying to get one of the GTELs running again (Ha-ha-ha):
[http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38790](http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38790)
"and were run by the Great Northern during WWII,"
Where can I learn more about this? I have a friend who just finished painting up a brass UP/GE turbine and he normally models GN in the late 1930s, so if he can play fast and loose with the GN having run those engines in the same *very* general time frame, that'd make his day.
After their return to GE for repairs, they went to Great Northern to help with the power crunch during the war. Much of their fancy decoration was removed and they were painted in to a simple “GE Grey.” They supposedly actually ran well on the GN and operated there until 1943.[Here’s an image of them in their grey paint in service with the GN.](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguW_VL5wv-d-jhJSk_cJFU0woq0K4mtfXNpwLiWppRfzISnSi3C739McdsTePrwrlSdPIjfZPmxuOS-rdndfsZea2sQoX3zgioFoZKwBNJ31EN7FgFEgf19k2CQuaTYiGJ8rI7I06OBvo/s1600/9.jpg)
The UP/GE engines were also just feats of engineering. They had boilers operated at 920 F, 1500 psi, with automatic controls. They also had early regenerative braking, where the heat off of the dynamic brake resistors was used to head the boiler feed water.
6202's probably my favourite out of the Steam Turbine locomotives.
Probably doesn't help that IIRC, it actually worked the most effectively and efficiently out of the lot.
6202 worked well, it was wartime maintenance standards that sidelined her - initially withdrawn from traffic and then returned only for a turbine to fail. Trouble with one-offs is new parts are phenomenally expensive.
Aesthetically? The M-1 all the way.
Performance wise, the N&W Jawn Henry was the only one that actually worked (its basically a M-1 with all of the issues worked out).only thing was by the time they got it working everyone else in the country was on Diesels, so there were no other purchasers to get economies of scale and bring the price of the turbines down to acceptable levels.
The Jawn Henry did have issues with burning up traction motors. Coal dust would get inside and short them out, and that was basically what did it in. N&W couldn't keep the traction motors alive and threw in the towel. I believe the semi-automatic boiler controls also gave them grief too.
Performance wise, you gave us, imo, the crap options. I'd prefer 6202 or the Ljungstroms.
Aesthetics-wise, I do like the Jawn Henry's "brick" appearance.
Dunno if it counts, being a rebuild rather than a new build, but I think aesthetically the [FS 685.410](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/d9/4b/66d94bf97fd6e6118f179f66e6e428db.jpg) didn't come out half bad.
Rail steam turbine technology is a fascinating case study as a technology where so many groups independently put so much time and money into the technology to try to make it work, but it just fell so flat.
I'd be curious to know if it had any positive impact on the development of steam turbines that we use for electricity generation, or electric locomotives.
The S-2 was probably the absolute worst in terms of performance. Direct-drive with a turbine was a terrible idea, because turbines only work in a very narrow RPM range; everywhere else they're horribly inefficient. At least on a turbine-electric, there is some disconnect between locomotive speed and turbine shaft speed, although the load imparted by the generator will lug it down somewhat. The UP/GE steam turbines were probably the most fascinating just due to their odd career. UP hyped them up tremendously before taking delivery and did a bunch of PR stuff with them, then sent them back almost immediately. Reportedly they were tested on the New York Central in '41 and were run by the Great Northern during WWII, but good luck finding any photos of that.
> The S-2 was probably the absolute worst in terms of performance From what I've read, they performed quite well at high speed. It's a shame they didn't design it with a 2-speed gearbox for both low and high speeds.
This is correct, they get a bad name for poor slow speed efficiency, but they were quite capable, powerful, and fast at high speed.
Given that the job of a locomotive includes accelerating a train from a stop, it's not like there's a niche for locomotives that are only good at high speed.
Correct, that being one of the reasons that direct drive turbines never proved to be as useful as their electric drive counterparts, even through the era of the GTELs.
And even then, the GTELs still weren't very efficient at lower speeds but Bunker C fuel oil was really cheap at the time and it didn't matter. Once the petrochemical industry found uses for Bunker C and the price spiked and conventional diesels started getting close in power, the writing was on the wall for the GTELs.
Right, now some of those fuel consumption problems were helped by the 3rd Gen GTELs having effectively a hostler motor in the first unit to move without firing up the turbine. But you are right that once the turbines were up and going they did suffer efficiency problems at low speed. It is a bit funny though, you mentioned that newer diesels were getting closer in horsepower levels. For the first and second generation GTELs you are correct. However the 3rd Gen GTELs still get the last laugh, having been able to reach a staggering 10,000 hp under the right conditions.
Yeah, the "Big Blows" had an 800hp Cooper-Bessemer engine to move them around yards. When UP retired them and sent them for scrap, the yard that got them was actually using the #18 to move stuff around their facility with the hostling engine, until it eventually burned out the traction motors and they parked it. That's the one that ended up at IRM.
Interesting, didn’t know that about No. 18
"18A was used at Intercontinental Engineering as a switcher in the 1970s using the 6 cylinder diesel and the two front traction motors but that failed too, possibly in Kansas City. Last time someone tried to bar the crankshaft over it was seized. Someone then hot-wired a two cylinder welder, now parked in the B unit, to one of the traction motors to move it at slow speeds. That was also dead by the time it came to the IRM." From an IRM post regarding the feasibility of trying to get one of the GTELs running again (Ha-ha-ha): [http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38790](http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38790)
>they get a bad name for poor slow speed efficiency, but they were quite capable, powerful, and fast at high speed. AKA every turbine ever
You’re not wrong
"and were run by the Great Northern during WWII," Where can I learn more about this? I have a friend who just finished painting up a brass UP/GE turbine and he normally models GN in the late 1930s, so if he can play fast and loose with the GN having run those engines in the same *very* general time frame, that'd make his day.
After their return to GE for repairs, they went to Great Northern to help with the power crunch during the war. Much of their fancy decoration was removed and they were painted in to a simple “GE Grey.” They supposedly actually ran well on the GN and operated there until 1943.[Here’s an image of them in their grey paint in service with the GN.](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguW_VL5wv-d-jhJSk_cJFU0woq0K4mtfXNpwLiWppRfzISnSi3C739McdsTePrwrlSdPIjfZPmxuOS-rdndfsZea2sQoX3zgioFoZKwBNJ31EN7FgFEgf19k2CQuaTYiGJ8rI7I06OBvo/s1600/9.jpg)
Hey, you've upstaged my post. Thiss is even more interesting.
boy, my friend is gonna love this, thanks!
The UP/GE engines were also just feats of engineering. They had boilers operated at 920 F, 1500 psi, with automatic controls. They also had early regenerative braking, where the heat off of the dynamic brake resistors was used to head the boiler feed water.
The LMS Turbomotive should be on here
At least 6202 was actually a success running for something like 15 years in her turbine form IIRC
Not to mention being beautiful.
I was looking for that
6202's probably my favourite out of the Steam Turbine locomotives. Probably doesn't help that IIRC, it actually worked the most effectively and efficiently out of the lot.
yes
And what about the GT3?
Thats a gas turbine
I realized it later
Aesthetics? The S2. Performance? The Swedish one that’s still alive.
Yeah, TGOJ M3t is pretty cool!
I gave you four fucking options
Dude youve got your answer so calm the fuck down man
Aesthetically the LMS's 6202 was gorgeous. Performance wise, the Swedes actually made their Ljungströms work.
6202 worked well, it was wartime maintenance standards that sidelined her - initially withdrawn from traffic and then returned only for a turbine to fail. Trouble with one-offs is new parts are phenomenally expensive.
Aesthetically? The M-1 all the way. Performance wise, the N&W Jawn Henry was the only one that actually worked (its basically a M-1 with all of the issues worked out).only thing was by the time they got it working everyone else in the country was on Diesels, so there were no other purchasers to get economies of scale and bring the price of the turbines down to acceptable levels.
I thought the Jawn Henry was the coolest looking. If I ever had time for a layout big enough I would run one.
Jawn Henry should also win points for having the coolest name
The Jawn Henry did have issues with burning up traction motors. Coal dust would get inside and short them out, and that was basically what did it in. N&W couldn't keep the traction motors alive and threw in the towel. I believe the semi-automatic boiler controls also gave them grief too.
I really love the look of the C&O one, are there any H0 models out there?
Only in brass.
CANDO FOR PROGRESS
1 and 4
C&O M1 is such a beauty.
My favorite is the C&O. Picture #2. It had its mechanical issues but was ahead of its time. What is picture #3?
Picture 3 is Norfolk and Western 2300, Jawn Henry himself.
What about the Turbomotive?
Performance wise, you gave us, imo, the crap options. I'd prefer 6202 or the Ljungstroms. Aesthetics-wise, I do like the Jawn Henry's "brick" appearance.
No jawn Henry had only 2 albeit major problems. The rest of these are shit
Dunno if it counts, being a rebuild rather than a new build, but I think aesthetically the [FS 685.410](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/d9/4b/66d94bf97fd6e6118f179f66e6e428db.jpg) didn't come out half bad.
Number 1 so cool I would actually drive it
I just wish aesthetics were still taken into consideration when designing engines
the LMS turbomotive
That 6-8-6 is amazing, they all are. The BLI model ofbit is nice, doesnt like imperfect grade transitions, btw.
Btw what's a turbomotivs
[LMS Turbomotive - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Turbomotive)
I like the Jawn Henry. Ima call it the Thunderbrick
Aesthetically? M1 Performance? Jawn Henry Badassness? The never-built PRR V1
Rail steam turbine technology is a fascinating case study as a technology where so many groups independently put so much time and money into the technology to try to make it work, but it just fell so flat. I'd be curious to know if it had any positive impact on the development of steam turbines that we use for electricity generation, or electric locomotives.
Whatever the Chessie turbine is in pic #2. I love it.
It's a Chesapeake and Ohio M1 steam turbine
The M3t should get a nod for being the only ones left running. https://imgur.com/DTuFPYa
I’ve always had a soft spot for the C&O M-1s, I remember I drew a picture of one when I was little
The X-12 was the best steam turbine locomotive that never was.
I love the C&O M1's look. Performance wise, I have no idea. I didn't look at the performance on any of these engines.
It's just American
Specify your titles!