Most Unusual? V8 Piston Driven Steam Locomotive

Looks like it would have a very short stroke i guess that would compensate itself by having 8 cylinders . It's almost if they tried to make a diesel into a steam engine I'm sure in an attempt to test it's possible use in cars and trucks as they had such a petroleum fuel shortage .

Also looks like it would have been hard to maintain .

David

I would call it a technologically advanced experimental steam engine that was too complicated to be practical, especially with the advancement of diesel power at that time.

An interesting concept none the less.

Believe it or not, the B&O was planning a 4-8-4 along these lines in 1937. Each driving axle was geared to a 4-cylinder steam engine. There were no rods, so this would have been a 4-2-2-2-2-4, No. 5800, class W-1. A single-drum water-tube firebox and steam pressure of 350 lbs was planned. Engine weight was calculated as 400,000 lbs. (260,000 lbs. on drivers). A huge Vanderbilt tender with 6-wheel trucks would have carried 23 tons of coal and 22,000 gallons of water. Filled to capacity, that tender would have weighed 250,000 lbs. The B&O shops started to build the boiler. One 4-cylinder steam engine arrived. It was set up and tested in a shed near the power plant at Mt. Clare. And there the project stopped.

The boiler was modified and placed on Pacific No. 5310, the PRESIDENT TAYLOR, designated class P-9b.

Apparently, diesels were even more efficient than this high-tech steamer. She would have been No. 5800, class W-1. With her huge Vanderbilt tender, she would look great running on a layout.

Except for the "layout" comment, this info was published in B & O Power, by Al Staufer (1964), p. 291.

Reading Fan

Thanks for the reference as well as the information, and I would have never expected the scope of the design that the B&O was tinkering with. The late era steam concepts that were never implemented due to advent of the diesel are a fascinating subject to me, as well as some of the abortive PRR design concepts. I suppose it drives my imagination to consider where steam design would have gone if the internal combustion engine had not brought it to an abrupt halt. Another is the concept drawings I have seen from the PRR would make for a whole interesting set of O gauge  models. I saw one that had a turbine driven engine that had the same car body as a GG1. Imagine a smoking GG1 without pantographs. Well, it certainly has more panache in looks than the ACE, which to me, always looked like a bad graft job, designed by committee. Or, how about this? A streamlined cab forward or a Garrett, which were alternative ACE designs.

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html

In 1941 the German State Railways built such a locomotive, the class V19-1001

From What I have read it was successful but expensive to maintain.Apparently this locomotive was damaged during WW2 the repaired and shipped to the USA in 1945 where it was studied at a military base then scrapped in 1952.

Here's a link http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.co...amotor/steamotor.htm

Ricky

Boomer,

I wonder what they considered success in that design. Fuel efficiency, draw bar horsepower? One of the frustrations in trying to have a full idea of the history of steam is the lack of information on this sort of thing. I have read a lot of material on reciprocating thrust and counterbalancing steam pistons as I am a retired engineer ( in other areas) and the coordination in the sequencing all those pistons as well as two pistons per wheel is mind boggling. I always thought that if someone wrote a history of what was tried or planned as experimental engines, it would make for a good read. There are bits and pieces scattered here and there of the full story but they are usually pretty vague but I am left with wanting to know more.

I have several great books packed away on German steam locomotives.They are in German which I can read.Once I settle down for a while I 'll have to dig those out and read up on the steam motor locomotives.It's very interesting that the US military acquired this locomotive.I wonder if any engineers from ALCo,Baldwin or Lima got to examine this locomotive. 

Ricky

Back then, the Europeans had higher fuel prices and lower labor costs, relatively speaking, so they could justify more complicated designs that were more difficult to maintain, if they saved fuel. That explains why they had more three-cylinder and four-cylinder compound steam locomotives into the late steam era, whereas in the USA two-cylinder steam was the norm, or four-cylinder simple for articulateds.