Pennsy S2 Turbine

Perhaps it was the vested interest railroads had in the coal industry. If you have a fuel that is cheap and you can streamline the machinery using it, it might be enough incentive to develope feasible modern coal usage with locomotives using less coal and requiring less manpower to maintain and operate...

Tom

You might want to read the article "Battleship of the Rails" by Preston Cook, in the Spring 2012 issue of Classic Trains Magazine (NOT Classic Toy Trains).

Hot Water posted:

You might want to read the article "Battleship of the Rails" by Preston Cook, in the Spring 2012 issue of Classic Trains Magazine (NOT Classic Toy Trains).

That's a difficult issue to find, even on Kalmbach's site.  I found one in the UK, on Evilbay for $8.01 + $9.36 shipping.  I'll give it some thought.

Dan Padova posted:

I'm sure this question has been asked a thousand times, but here goes.  

Reading the Wikipedia story of Pennsy's S2 Turbines, the statement is made that the Pennsylvania Railroad designed the locomotive as one of the last ditch efforts to "prolong the dominance of steam locomotives".  If the railroads were seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and adopting dieselization after the war, why was the S2, or for that matter, any steam locomotive designed and built after the war carried through ?

I'm sure the locomotive builders, like Baldwin, Lima, etc, were trying to stay in business.  It just seems odd, since diesels were around for at least twenty years before the war and were proving to be much more economical. 

What you say, Dan, makes perfect sense to me!

New technology is not always adopted all that readily,  and diesels from what I know (and i am not an expert on the diesel-steam transition period) was very much the same way. From what i recall reading, for example, it took a bit for diesel-electrics to have the kind of power output to handle the big freight trains for example. Some of it, too, is that when you are dealing with new technology potential adopters can be reluctant to adopt them because they are still an unknown. Looking with hindsight we know that Diesel-electrics are a lot easier to operate, make MU's a lot easier and using less labor and are a lot more reliable than steam engines, but at the time there likely were still questions. My dad worked for Bell Labs in the 1950's, and they were debating whether to go with vacuum tubes or transistors on the long distance line amplifiers/repeaters they used, and ended up going with vacuum tubes. Why? Transistors use less power, are more reliable, than vacuum tubes, so it seems weird they would do this. The answer was at the time that vacuum tubes as a technology were old hat, they knew its characteristics, there was a ton of information and design around vacuum tubes that didn't exist with transistors, and that unknown was a big deal. Kind of like steam engines, vacuum tubes were going to be made almost extinct by solid state/transistor technology, steam was almost totally gone within 15 years or so of WWII, the vacuum tube was almost gone within 15 years of the discovery of the transistor in the late 40's, for the same reasons. That said, there were people during this time trying to improve the vacuum tube, and the same for steam engines, especially at the beginning of the transition period. 

The S2 likely was similar to improving vacuum tubes, an attempt to compete with known technology they felt comfortable with, but diesels like the transistor proved to be too good in the end and rapidly outshone any attempt with steam engines. 

I absolutely love everything about the Pennsylvania Railroad: the K4s, the Turbines, the GG1s, the Diesels, Penn Station (especially the original one), the Horseshoe Curve, the long coal trains with coal hoppers that seem to go on forever, etc. 

I love the charming porters that helped my mother and I board the train and loaded our luggage at Penn Station. I love the conductors and others that sold us peanut butter cheese crackers and soda on the train. 

I loved the heavenly light at cavernous Penn Station that shined through the massive glass ceiling.  This light brightened the specks of dust, making them appear to come alive! 

Then, we approached the train and when I saw the Godlike GG1! Suffice it to say that Awesome is a gross understatement.

I love all the real trains and all the models of the Pennsylvania RR, and I know i'm not alone.

Found it on a copy of Classic Rails from Spring 2012.

PARTSGUY posted:

Found it on a copy of Classic Rails from Spring 2012.

The article is in "Classic Trains" magazine, which is a Kalmbach Publication. Don't know what "Classic Rails" is.

Krieglok posted:

Perhaps it was the vested interest railroads had in the coal industry. 

Tom pretty much has it right from what I know.  With a few exceptions, eastern roads were slower to adapt to diesel because of the readily available cheap coal and some, like the Pennsy, owned coal mines.  Most built their own power.  Plus water was plentiful.

Many western roads did not have an interest in coal and water was not readily available so they dieselize quickly.  Some roads, coming out of bankruptcy during WWII, wanted to replace their decades old steam power quickly and the diesel was there for them.

The Pennsy was one of those roads that made the conscious decision to stick with steam and ordered the T1 and Q2 after the war. It wasn't until they saw the benefits from the one E7 set they bought (over most management objections) that changed their mind.

The S2 turbine went from the drawing boards to working prototype and never really had a chance to get the bugs worked out. Plus WW II accelerated the use and development of the diesel. The steam engine was a known design with a huge in- place infrastructure to serve them, with shops and train mechanics.  I had a company magazine from Westinghouse who developed the gearbox based on one they made for ships plus the drivers were made so one could rotate faster through a curve than the other. I gave the magazine to Kalmbach but they didn't really use it.  All this without a whole lot of testing. A different world then in design and building.

Very impressive the knowledge many of you have about the trains mentioned above.

jim pastorius posted:

The S2 turbine went from the drawing boards to working prototype and never really had a chance to get the bugs worked out. Plus WW II accelerated the use and development of the diesel.

Actually that isn't true. By the end of the EMC/EMD FT Demonstrator tour in spring 1940, the railroads were lining up and ordering FT units so fast, it boggles the mind (Santa Fe was the first to oder, immediately after testing the FT Demo set). By mid 1942, EMD was limited as to how many FT units they could produce (only 10 units a day) by the War Production Board. The EMD Diesel engine production line was capable of more than 15 engines a day, but the "extra engines" all went to the military (Navy primarily for LST vessels), thus the freight railroads simply could not purchase & receive enough diesel units. Thus, many railroads were FORCED to continue purchasing steam locomotives. If it hadn't been for the WPB limitations on EMD, the U.S. railroads would have been dieselized much sooner, thus WWII actually hindered the dieselization process.  

The steam engine was a known design with a huge in- place infrastructure to serve them, with shops and train mechanics. 

All the more reason that the railroads wanted to dieselize as soon as they could. With diesels, there was no longer a need for tens of thousands of shop personnel needed to service & maintain all those steam locomotives.

I had a company magazine from Westinghouse who developed the gearbox based on one they made for ships plus the drivers were made so one could rotate faster through a curve than the other. I gave the magazine to Kalmbach but they didn't really use it.  All this without a whole lot of testing. A different world then in design and building.

Railroad employment in WWII was 2,000,000. Today, something like 150,000, yet same (or more) ton miles are being produced as WWII.  

From what I have read, the early diesels had some problems and were not as powerful as they wanted.  Plus WW II allowed EMD to refine and improve their products to the point they were world class.

As Arnold said, there's quite a bit of knowledge among our members about railroading.  Thanks for sharing it with us.

jim pastorius posted:

From what I have read, the early diesels had some problems and were not as powerful as they wanted.

I believe you read incorrect information.

  Plus WW II allowed EMD to refine and improve their products to the point they were world class.

No, that isn't true, as the War Production Board would NOT allow EMD to make ANY substantial improvements/changes to the FT model, until the war was over. Even though the EMD Engineering Dept. was designing & developing many, many improvements/changes to the FT, the WPB did NOT allow those changes to go into production. Thus, the vastly improved F3 did NOT come out until after the war was over, i.e. 1945/1946.

Modern Coal-Burning Steam Locomotives (1944)

I have some limited experience with turbines and know that they have a can have a very operating range for peak efficiency. Off of that range they can be extremely inefficient. I seem to recall that this particular problem plagued the S2. It would be interesting to see how much this could be improved upon with more modern technology.

Watching my "Watch Later" videos on Youtube just now, I came across this video.  It actually has Norfolk & Westerns steam turbine in it, roughly two thirds through.

Watching my "Watch Later" videos on Youtube just now, I came across this video.  It actually has Norfolk & Westerns steam turbine in it, roughly two thirds through.

https://youtu.be/APzxcyuEVaU

The N&W turbine locomotive was a turbine-electric, i.e. the steam turbine drove a large electric generator and there were electric traction motors on each of the powered axles.  

Thanks David, this material is terrific.

Remember Diesels were a lot more expensive that steam engines to buy in those days. New repair shops and training had to happen for diesels. The N&W, Pennsylvania and others relied on coal as one of their biggest costumers. It was to their advantage to keep hauling coal. I recall one of the Milwaukee Roads engineers saying that everyone wanted to work a diesel when they were new, but after awhile they just didn't hold up and crews wanted to go back to their old engines. Don

Now this is a steam powered coal train. Enjoy Don

Dan Padova posted:

Watching my "Watch Later" videos on Youtube just now, I came across this video.  It actually has Norfolk & Westerns steam turbine in it, roughly two thirds through.

 

Watching my "Watch Later" videos on Youtube just now, I came across this video.  It actually has Norfolk & Westerns steam turbine in it, roughly two thirds through.

https://youtu.be/APzxcyuEVaU

Majestic

scale rail posted:

Now this is a steam powered coal train. Enjoy Don

Now if I could only get my scenery to look like that. How about the almost black smoke copiously pouring out of those steam engines.

Arnold, I think black smoke would be the greatest thing any three rail train company could do.Think of changing the smoke from white to black at the push of a button. It would have to vaporize with no residue and obviously be a hard thing to make work right, but think of the rewards for any company that could do it. Don

scale rail posted:

Arnold, I think black smoke would be the greatest thing any three rail train company could do.Think of changing the smoke from white to black at the push of a button. It would have to vaporize with no residue and obviously be a hard thing to make work right, but think of the rewards for any company that could do it. Don

Wow, Don, black and white smoke at the push of a button: that is a wild and great idea.

In the early 1970s, I worked for a company that was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop an automotive steam engine. The thinking was that generating steam in a continuously-firing external boiler (burning gasoline) would produce lower emissions than a gasoline engine in which there is intermittent combustion of fuel. The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. Unlike a locomotive, the automotive system was a closed circuit in which the exhaust steam was condensed and reheated, thereby eliminating the large quantities of water that were required in conventional steam locomotives, which simply exhausted the hot water through the stack and wasted energy. Ultimately, the automobile's emissions were excessive because the thermal efficiency of the steam cycle (proportional to the maximum steam temperature) was too low. Diesels and automotive gasoline engines combust fuel at higher maximum temperatures than were possible in our steam engine and therefore are more efficient. As an aside, we had a problem with the superheated steam burning and washing away the lubricating oil film on the cylinder walls, which caused high piston ring and cylinder wear.

MELGAR 

That is really funny. Where do you think the gasoline internal combustion came from ??  I have an old engineering book here printed before 1900 explaining how they were doing it.  So it has gone full cycle.  And the  diesel engine was designed to burn peanut oil so there is your "biodiesel".  Nothing much new just stuff rehashed.

MELGAR posted:

In the early 1970s, I worked for a company that was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop an automotive steam engine. The thinking was that generating steam in a continuously-firing external boiler (burning gasoline) would produce lower emissions than a gasoline engine in which there is intermittent combustion of fuel. The boiler and reciprocating expander (engine) ran at a steam pressure of 1600 PSI and a superheated steam temperature of 1600 deg-F - both much higher than anything ever contemplated in a steam locomotive. The high temperature was needed for thermal efficiency (fuel economy) and the high pressure allowed the engine to be compact. Unlike a locomotive, the automotive system was a closed circuit in which the exhaust steam was condensed and reheated, thereby eliminating the large quantities of water that were required in conventional steam locomotives, which simply exhausted the hot water through the stack and wasted energy. Ultimately, the automobile's emissions were excessive because the thermal efficiency of the steam cycle (proportional to the maximum steam temperature) was too low. Diesels and automotive gasoline engines combust fuel at higher maximum temperatures than were possible in our steam engine and therefore are more efficient. As an aside, we had a problem with the superheated steam burning and washing away the lubricating oil film on the cylinder walls, which caused high piston ring and cylinder wear.

MELGAR 

Very informative, Melgar. Thanks.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

I absolutely love everything about the Pennsylvania Railroad: the K4s, the Turbines, the GG1s, the Diesels, Penn Station (especially the original one), the Horseshoe Curve, the long coal trains with coal hoppers that seem to go on forever, etc. 

 

Also the "other" streamlined version of the K4 (not the Loewy "Broadway Limited" one). These 4 were designed and built by the Altoona shops in 1940 to pull the other "name trains". I feel these were much more elegant than the Loewy version. The only operating model is the Williams brass version, which I have (poor smoke, no whistle, rotting traction tires).

Speaking from memory...

Why was the PRR S2 turbine locomotive was built?  An attempt by Baldwin, Westinghouse and the PRR to keep the coal burning steam locomotive relevant post WWII.  The steam locomotive was on borrowed time, but the Great Depression and WWII delayed diesel locomotive adoption.  The PRR wasn't the only railroad attempting to build new steam turbine locomotives, the UP, C&O, and N&W built steam turbine-electric locomotives.  The S2 was a direct mechanical drive.  The turbine was geared to the 2nd and 3rd driving wheels, and the connecting rods transmitting power to the 1st and 4th driving wheels.

The proposed benefits are better steam efficiency at higher speeds, constant turning torque for tractive effort, elimination of hammer blow to the rails since all masses rotate (it's impossible to completely balance in all planes the reciprocating masses on a two cylinder engine), and utilization of proven locomotive boilers.

However, the locomotive was not a success largely due to the very high steam consumption at lower speeds (see Curve No. 4 on page 11 of attached pdf).  This caused a large drop in boiler pressure leading to constant stay bolt breakage, and this issue was further aggravated by poor water circulation around the firebox / combustion chamber water spaces.

Edit:

One thing I'm surprised the PRR did not try was to put a booster to power 1 or 2 of the trailing truck wheels.  This would have significantly alleviated the strain on the turbine when it is most inefficient (slow rotational velocities) during starting of the train from a dead stop to about 15-20 mph.  Franklin boosters usually added 15,000 lbs of tractive effort for one axle on the trailing truck.

The issues of the S2 probably could have been solved, but the PRR was beginning to lose money in 1946 and diesels were a way to significantly reduce operating costs.  This coupled with rising cost of labor (introduction of the 40 hr work week with the same pay as 48 hrs) and coal mining strikes helped doom further steam developments.  In vol. 2 of Eric Hirsimaki's book, he has a chart showing diesels were at minimum half the cost to operate per mile traveled and in switching service this was 4-8 times cheaper depending on the locomotive used for switching.    While it's true that the initial cost of diesels were about twice the cost of a steamer, one diesel usually replaced 3 steam locomotives due to its much higher availability and monthly mileage.

I agree the PRR is a fascinating railroad to study, which is made much easier since it has a large following and many great publications covering all its aspects.

Edit complete.

The best sources are the attached technical specification from Baldwin & Westinghouse and the following articles.

See S2 articles in "The Keystone" vol 28 No. 2, vol 45 No. 3, and vol 46 No.1.

Eric Hirsimaki's two volume set "Black Gold, Black Diamonds: The Pennsylvania Railroad and Dieselization" is a great source on the transition from steam to diesel for the PRR.

Cheers,

Joe

Hot Water posted:

You might want to read the article "Battleship of the Rails" by Preston Cook, in the Spring 2012 issue of Classic Trains Magazine (NOT Classic Toy Trains).

I highly recommend that article to anyone interested in the PRR S2.  Mr. Cook has a unique combination of familiarity with the marine turbines on which the S2 was based as well as deep knowledge of the state of diesel locomotive development at the time. 

While the control system of the S2 was very ingenious the part load and starting characteristics of the steam turbine are very unsuitable for locomotive application.  Both Baldwin and the Pennsy should have known better than to ever build the S2.

Of course the same could be said of the S1, T1 and Qs as well.

They tried. The maximum kit bashers.

Kit bashing implies reconfiguring existing parts.  The duplex drive locomotives and the S2 had very little that was not unique to them.  That means high first cost. 

High first cost combined with performance and/or utilization rates below and O&M costs above existing steam locomotives let alone diesels = should have known better than to have tried THAT.

Dan Padova posted:

I'm sure this question has been asked a thousand times, but here goes.  

Reading the Wikipedia story of Pennsy's S2 Turbines, the statement is made that the Pennsylvania Railroad designed the locomotive as one of the last ditch efforts to "prolong the dominance of steam locomotives".  If the railroads were seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and adopting dieselization after the war, why was the S2, or for that matter, any steam locomotive designed and built after the war carried through ?

I'm sure the locomotive builders, like Baldwin, Lima, etc, were trying to stay in business.  It just seems odd, since diesels were around for at least twenty years before the war and were proving to be much more economical. 

A lousy idea from the start.

Geared, direct-drive turbines work best under near-constant load within a narrow range of RPMs.

It would be difficult to come up with two criteria that are the direct opposite of what is required of a railroad locomotive.

I can see Baldwin trying to market this turkey to the PRR.

I can't believe Pennsy's engineering department didn't scoff at the idea.

Interesting to note that the regular assignment for the S2 was on the point of its premier train, the Broadway Limited. They also used the R1 on the electrified portion of the route, but unlike the S2, the R1 was a good design, just not as good as the GG1.

I can't believe Pennsy's engineering department didn't scoff at the idea.

Maybe they did. In many organizations sometimes the decision makers choose to ignore their own in-house expertise.
Perhaps Pennsy felt it was necessary to put on a show of effort for their customers in the coal business.

The PRR engineers were working on the S2 during WW II and they had to change designs because of war time material shortages plus, I am sure PRR engineering was chock full of diehard coal fans. That is what the knew and had worked on. Diesels were an unknown quantity which the RRs couldn't build themselves and engineer themselves. There was a lot of built in loyalty to the coal industry in the RRs.  I you read about that era you will see that. Some old time hoggers retired rather than run a diesel. The  S2 was an operating prototype and possibly could have been refined but they ran out of time.