Lionel S2 Turbine Steam Engine

Interesting. Anyone do a video of it?

I had one on order but there were a more than a few reasons I declined mine. 

Any reasons have to do with the engine itself, let's hear them.

I am not up on Lionel's recent offerings. Is this a scale model, traditional model (like 681 / 8404), or something in between?

C W Burfle posted:

I am not up on Lionel's recent offerings. Is this a scale model, traditional model (like 681 / 8404), or something in between?

Scale.  Lionel has never made a Legacy PW Turbine yet.  This one was a pretty big discussion on the forum due to the cast in coal load and some packaging issues.

This is one I think deserved whistle steam but didn't get it. Other than that it is a great engine. 

Old video of the 6200

Eric from Eric's Trains.com did an excellent review on this engine.

I intend on putting real coal in mine soon. Does kind of look funny with the cast coal.  What about the packaging?  I found no issues with it.

ICRRE8 posted:

What about the packaging?  I found no issues with it.

The initial release of this engine a few years back had an issue where the engines where packaged in the foam before it was fully cured.  This caused excess moisture in the packaging.  Mold and rust were present on many of the the units the dealers received including my own.  Lionel was very pro active on replacing, refunding in some cases, and getting these engine re-worked.  The eventual outcome was a fine engine.  Again not all units were affected and those that were, Lionel took prompt care of.

Maytre. What were the reasons why you declined yours?

There was a lot of criticism with the increased price and no tool refined updates on these.  Here is a link to the video review by Eric.

https://ogrforum.com/t...lionel-prr-s2-review

ICRRE8 posted:

Maytre. What were the reasons why you declined yours?

Mine was one that had mold and rust.  At the time my LHS was unsure of what Lionel was going to do or whether it would be replaced.  Around that time the VL Big Boy was announced.  MY LHS allowed me to move my funds to that purchase.  If I come across one again at a decent price I may bite.

The scale S-2 is an excellent locomotive.  People complain of the large chunk coal load.  Perhaps a PRR expert will come in on this and confirm if the real one used large chunks of coal.  WHO CARES.   I guess by complaining about an engine makes one feel good about not buying it.  I have the engine.  

The S-2 is a great running and great looking locomotive.  

Marty,

I was not complaining. I really love it. It is a sharp engine. Runs great. Like said in my original post, I just love the engine sounds. Eric from Eric's Trains said that he may put coal in the tender. That is why I said that. I thought it was a great suggestion. I would like to say thank you for responding to the thread. It is an honor to have your valued opinions.

ICRRE8

You have every right to complain about the molded in coal load.  In this day and age a new, realistic coal load is not that much to ask for.  While yes we could put a coal load in ourselves one would have to ask why should I have to?  Lionel got a little lazy on this one.  To Marty's point it's a beautiful locomotive and one I would love to own someday, I just feel Lionel could have put that little extra effort into making it better with little effort.

ICRRE8 posted:

  Does anyone know if this engine ever pulled a passenger consist?  I have some Pullman heavyweights I was thinking of putting behind it. Thanks.  ICRRE8.

It was designed as a passenger locomotive, so I'm confident that the answer is "yes". I'll let the PRR guys weigh-in on the specifics of the types of cars that it would have pulled. The antithesis is, did it pull freight?

IMHO it's a beautiful engine and would buy one if I had O72 curves throughout the layout.

Mike

Marty, the coal load is a small price to pay for an engine that runs as good as this one.

Marty Fitzhenry posted:

Marty, the coal load is a small price to pay for an engine that runs as good as this one.

I understand that.  I just feel with a little effort the coal load could have been done.  This is 2016 (2013 when I believe this engine came out) and all the other Legacy engines with a coal tender had a simulated, non molded in, coal load.

The 6200 made a better model than a prototype. First ran in 1944 was retired in 1946 and scrapped in 52. It was intended as a high speed passenger locomotive but was confined to the flat fast run between Chicago, Ill. and Crestline, Ohio because it was quickly found that the turbine demanded higher rates of steam flow when confronted with climbing grades; that challenged the boiler's capacity to supply the needed amounts of steam. This was, also, a problem when starting where the turbine's demand for steam flow was close to exceeding the boiler's capacity to supply the necessary flow. It did haul freight in a couple trials but again the starting steam demand greatly limited the tonnage it could start without help.

The designers lost sight that the same turbine starting a Navy DDE was turning a propeller which acted as a hydraulic coupling that provided starting slip so the turbine didn't act like an open ended pipe on the boiler where in the locomotive turning gears that turned wheels on a track there was no element of significant slippage and the turbine could not spin up where it became efficient on steam consumption till the train could gain speed. So in starting a train it appeared to the boiler as a giant leak which the boiler was unable to feed. This resulted in massive pressure swings which had the effect of ripping out boiler stay bolts, so boiler maintenance was very high.

In the end it blew a turbine blade which rather than being fixed they removed an entire turbine stage all this did was make a bad starting situation an impossible one and the locomotive was parked in 1946 and sent to scrap 6 years later. An expensive experiment from the days when guys inside the railroads that loved steam were trying all sorts of things to save it, but in the end it was a technology at its zenith with nowhere left to go if having to compete with the diesel electric.

I often wonder if Baldwin had been able to make the bull gear into an externally driven hydraulic coupling or better yet a torque converter if the experiment would have been more successful. Such an arrangement would have acted more like the connection of a ships propeller where this turbine had proven itself successful. But I rather expect that cooling oil of such a connection would have been an even bigger problem which could be why it didn't get used in the first place.

Bogie

I run mine around the Christmas tree on O-60 curves.  Doesn't look the best, but it will negotiate it.

OldBogie posted:

The 6200 made a better model than a prototype. First ran in 1944 was retired in 1946 and scrapped in 52. It was intended as a high speed passenger locomotive but was confined to the flat fast run between Chicago, Ill. and Crestline, Ohio because it was quickly found that the turbine demanded higher rates of steam flow when confronted with climbing grades; that challenged the boiler's capacity to supply the needed amounts of steam. This was, also, a problem when starting where the turbine's demand for steam flow was close to exceeding the boiler's capacity to supply the necessary flow. It did haul freight in a couple trials but again the starting steam demand greatly limited the tonnage it could start without help.

The designers lost sight that the same turbine starting a Navy DDE was turning a propeller which acted as a hydraulic coupling that provided starting slip so the turbine didn't act like an open ended pipe on the boiler where in the locomotive turning gears that turned wheels on a track there was no element of significant slippage and the turbine could not spin up where it became efficient on steam consumption till the train could gain speed. So in starting a train it appeared to the boiler as a giant leak which the boiler was unable to feed. This resulted in massive pressure swings which had the effect of ripping out boiler stay bolts, so boiler maintenance was very high.

In the end it blew a turbine blade which rather than being fixed they removed an entire turbine stage all this did was make a bad starting situation an impossible one and the locomotive was parked in 1946 and sent to scrap 6 years later. An expensive experiment from the days when guys inside the railroads that loved steam were trying all sorts of things to save it, but in the end it was a technology at its zenith with nowhere left to go if having to compete with the diesel electric.

I often wonder if Baldwin had been able to make the bull gear into an externally driven hydraulic coupling or better yet a torque converter if the experiment would have been more successful. Such an arrangement would have acted more like the connection of a ships propeller where this turbine had proven itself successful. But I rather expect that cooling oil of such a connection would have been an even bigger problem which could be why it didn't get used in the first place.

 

Bogie

A 671rr my grandmother purchased for my father in 1952 started me in this hobby before I can remember.  I have always had an interest in the S2 as a result.  This is probably the best explanation of why it didn't work out as expected, but it makes perfect sense.  I think you are right, a giant torque converter probably would have done the trick.  I wonder if they could have kept the main drivers from slipping with the torque multiplication.

Thanks for the insight Bogie!

Tony

The attachment is the original 671rr that started it all along with an MTH proto 1 version.

Tony_V posted:

Gilly@N&W posted:

ICRRE8 posted:

  Does anyone know if this engine ever pulled a passenger consist?  I have some Pullman heavyweights I was thinking of putting behind it. Thanks.  ICRRE8.

It was designed as a passenger locomotive, so I'm confident that the answer is "yes". I'll let the PRR guys weigh-in on the specifics of the types of cars that it would have pulled. The antithesis is, did it pull freight?

The answer is absolutely yes.  I found a link to a video of it pulling out of Chicago back in the day (the only one I have been ever able to find).  Link below

I have several versions of this engine.  A post war celebration 671, a 671rr, an 8404 and an MTH proto 1.  I typically run them with passenger cars.  

If I understand PRR logo's correctly, the keystone on the front of the boiler meant the locomotive was designated for passenger service (primarily) and a round one meant freight use (primarily).  

https://www.google.com/search?...rc=o6q7K4LOr3o0NM%3A

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...000_PA_Strasburg.jpg 

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hePTXxHsOMY

Tony

Yeah, while the S2 was a popular post war engine, somehow I never had one but always wanted one. I finally picked up an MPC part 8404 some decades ago which is the old 682 renumbered for the 6200 and painted Brunswick green like the original. Since I run plausible vignettes that could have happened in postwar O and O-27; I took poetic license to a seven car set of Tuscan colored Pennsylvania O-27 streamlined passenger cars and striped them in gold to imitate the look of the Fleet of Modernism. This makes a very handsome set running around the room behind the deep green 6200. Having 2 parallel mains I often combine this action with a yellow and red striped 50th anniversary Union Pacific set, running them in opposite directions.

These are all heavy locomotives, I have a duck under that is about 3 feet in length and is all wood and plaster that imitates the roadbed being on a causeway over water. When these hit the rails on that causeway you can feel the earth move. Love it!

Bogie

Not sure about freight service, but I have a video and stills of he S-2 hauling mail and express consists, probably later in life.

rex desilets posted:

Not sure about freight service, but I have a video and stills of he S-2 hauling mail and express consists, probably later in life.

Rex,

I am sure I am not the only one that would love to see anything you would care to post!

Tony

OldBogie posted:

The 6200 made a better model than a prototype. First ran in 1944 was retired in 1946 and scrapped in 52. It was intended as a high speed passenger locomotive but was confined to the flat fast run between Chicago, Ill. and Crestline, Ohio because it was quickly found that the turbine demanded higher rates of steam flow when confronted with climbing grades; that challenged the boiler's capacity to supply the needed amounts of steam. This was, also, a problem when starting where the turbine's demand for steam flow was close to exceeding the boiler's capacity to supply the necessary flow. It did haul freight in a couple trials but again the starting steam demand greatly limited the tonnage it could start without help.

The designers lost sight that the same turbine starting a Navy DDE was turning a propeller which acted as a hydraulic coupling that provided starting slip so the turbine didn't act like an open ended pipe on the boiler where in the locomotive turning gears that turned wheels on a track there was no element of significant slippage and the turbine could not spin up where it became efficient on steam consumption till the train could gain speed. So in starting a train it appeared to the boiler as a giant leak which the boiler was unable to feed. This resulted in massive pressure swings which had the effect of ripping out boiler stay bolts, so boiler maintenance was very high.

In the end it blew a turbine blade which rather than being fixed they removed an entire turbine stage all this did was make a bad starting situation an impossible one and the locomotive was parked in 1946 and sent to scrap 6 years later. An expensive experiment from the days when guys inside the railroads that loved steam were trying all sorts of things to save it, but in the end it was a technology at its zenith with nowhere left to go if having to compete with the diesel electric.

I often wonder if Baldwin had been able to make the bull gear into an externally driven hydraulic coupling or better yet a torque converter if the experiment would have been more successful. Such an arrangement would have acted more like the connection of a ships propeller where this turbine had proven itself successful. But I rather expect that cooling oil of such a connection would have been an even bigger problem which could be why it didn't get used in the first place.

 

Bogie

I stumbled across this today.  Probably more information than most would care about and I can honestly say that without studying everything, the drawings don't make much sense.  But quickly reading some of the descriptions for the patents give one some insight of what they were thinking.

Tony

http://ctr.trains.com/railroad...r-the-prr-s2-turbine

This turned out to be very informative. Marty Fitzhenry, you are a Pennsylvania modeler. Any insight? I don't have any Pennsylvania passenger cars. What ones do you suggest?

People lose sight of the fact that the original S2 was a prototype of a new concept plus it was designed and built while we were fighting WW II. They couldn't get some of the stronger, light weight steel alloys they wanted. The gear box design was based on Westinghouse naval designs of the time. The drivers were of a special design that allowed a different rotation on each side going around a curve.  There was a lot of thought and conceptualizing that went in to the design. I had a Westinghouse corp. booklet published right after the loco was built and it told a lot about the  decisions that went in to the final design. The booklet is now in Kalmbach's library.

One would think it may have used big chunks of coal.

ASh seemed to have been a problem-oil fired would have been better but wouldn't help the coal industry.

One would think the real one  may have used big chunks of coal.   The guys who purchased the Lionel S-2 seem very happy with it.  The people who did not purchase it all,  like to throw stones at it.   I always like to listen to the guy/gal who has direct knowledge on how it runs.   Job well done Lionel.

For all those who complain, remember all your engines are toys.  They run by electric motors on three rail track.   Be happy,  the locomotives we have available today are the best in history.  We live in good times in the hobby.   Enjoy and be happy.

Interesting as I don't see anyone having an issue with it running and operating. I just went through the entire thread and didn't see one complaint on how it operates and runs. We are just discussing the molded in vs. a real coal load. I think it's a valid discussion based on other re-issues having the coal load changed to a more realistic one.  I really don't see that as throwing stones.  I see it as constructive observation.  I don't have to own one to see that.

I have all 4 of the Lionel PW S2 turbines and all are good runners. I use any tender I want with them.  I favor the "square" tenders with the molded coal load.  To me, that is a non-issue.  Like counting rivets while it rolls around the layout.

jim pastorius posted:

I have all 4 of the Lionel PW S2 turbines and all are good runners. I use any tender I want with them.  I favor the "square" tenders with the molded coal load.  To me, that is a non-issue.  Like counting rivets while it rolls around the layout.

When you are talking a scale model I believe there is a difference.

It is all relative and all evens out in the end.

All,

I am going to go a bit off-topic here.  I own 2 of the 1984 8404 Lionel S2's (long story).  Both units I have suffer from a strange issue that I don't see discussed.  The 6 wheel trucks on both sets have axles that are slightly bent.  Not all of the axles, the worst offender only has 1 bent axle on the truck.  The amount of bend is slight and doesn't seem to affect the trailing truck but the worst offender is on the lead truck and causes the engine to derail on curves and switches randomly.  

I am only bringing this up for those of you that might be looking for one of these.  I am not sure if many suffer from this or only a few.  Just be prepared and if at all possible do a good visual.  I was able to work with it by moving wheel sets around.  I suppose the axles could be somewhat straightened but I have never had any luck trying to do that.

As others have stated, the 8404 is a decent runner.  The 1984 sound system is another story (but it has a off switch :-).

Tony

Tony,

I found that taking the wheel set off and having a local machine shop make sure the axle is streight. They will put it on an arber press and put the axle back true again. If you know someone that can do it for you, all the better.