S-2 Turbine?

Lionel catalog?

 

MTH just ran a Pennsylvania 6200 Imperial Railking S2.  Very nicely detailed and runs great. It is PS3 with the wireless drawbar.  

Scale in the Lionel signature edition catalog. The "Builders Scheme" version depicts the as delivered appearance. There were two sizes of smoke lifters used. The second version depicts the appearance as last run with the larger smoke lifters. Also note the blackened drivers on the second version

 

Gilly

I am glad to see these.  I had the 1990 issue with the Pullmor motor and the paint self destructed...blistered badly.  So this will fill the void.  Does anyone know if these new issues use the same tooling as the 1990 version?  With the exception of a few extra details.

Well, I don't know about the tooling, but let's hope they don't use the same paint! 

 

I've ordered the 681ersion - the final one with the large smoke lifters - I'm a sucker for "elephant ears."

 

BTW - this puppies are listed to ship next month!!!!

Lee

 

Everyone I talked to at Lionel said September.  They have yet to even see a production sample.

 

I'd be surprised if they showed up in May.

Mike, I have both of Lionel's scale Turbines.  I would imagine these new ones will use the exact same tooling as the second one, 6-38028, from 2001. 

 

The first version from 1990 has alot of hand applied details, real coal load, 4 Seuthe smoke units, Pulmore motor, 3 pos mechanical reverse unit and first version of Railsounds.  The whistle, while sounding great, cuts off abruptly.  It is also very slippery, no Magnetraction or traction tires.

 

38028 improves in almost all areas: motor (Pittman), smoke, detail, Odyesey speed control, traction tires, and the latest RS (for 2001).  It does not have the good looking coal load from 1990.  It also has 'elephant ears'.

 

Both lack chuff (as appropriate) and have a 'swoosh' sound.  It is quite boring sound wise, IMHO.

 

I honestly can't see where Lionel can improve much on the 2001 version.  Slightly better speed control (although the 38028 is fine), probably more smoke control and somewhat different sounds (but not too different, after all there was only one), and go back to the original real coal load.

I am fascinated by this engine (prototype).  There was a very interesting article in Classic Trains Magazine about the S2 last year. 

 

Did this engine sound different than a conventional steamer?  I would think it should have very unique engine sounds and exhaust note.  This would have been a great engine to put a speaker in the boiler to accentuate the whir of the turbine. 

 

Even without the extra Vision Line features, this could be a really cool engine.  I look forward to seeing initial reviews. 

Boy, it better not have any chuffing sound - there were no cylinders to chuff.  As johnsgg1 says, the sound is (and should be) rather boring - sort of a big whoosh, or hissing.  The various UP Veranda, GTEL, Propane and coal Turbines are like that too (MTH and Lionel, all sort of a big hiss . . . ). 

Most definitely a DIFFERENT SOUND!  NO "chuffing" what-so-ever, just lots of "whooshing".

The steam turbine just made a whooshing sound.  The gas turbines sounded just like a jet engine (probably because there were jet engines under the hood).  The UP coal turbine also sounded like a jet other than the pinging sounds of the turbine blades being thrown as they eroded from the combustion debris.  The S-2's big issues were it's long wheelbase/size and it's insane fuel and water consumption.  It was only efficient at speed but it also had to keep stopping to replenish fuel and water.  Not a great combination for a locomotive.

Some of our York group liked the Lionel Lines version, I think I'd would go with one of the 6200s.

Not to mention the bushels and bushels of broken staybolts after virtually every trip.

With the exception of the UP gas turbines almost all of the turbine based engines from the S-2 to the M-1 to the Jawn Henry spent as much time in the shop as they did on the rails.  The turbine electrics were very, very cranky and complicated beasts and demonstrated why sticking a steam powered electric generating station on wheels was not a good idea.

I have all the UP turbines except the propane one (on order). The coal turbine is the most fun to look at.  I bought mine for $300 in perfect cosmetic shape but with problems I've never bothered to try to fix so that while it idles it will not run.  Every time I look at that monster, I wonder "What were they thinking?" Not just the erosion of turbine blades, but everything else.  Wow.  The GTEL was big enough, but this coal turbine is a monster of wheels!!   But it was the '50s, and B-36s with ten engines were defending the country and the next gen bombers would be bigger and nuclear powered and the only thing better than a big 25 inch console TV was an even bigger 27" console TV.  Size fixed every problem with anything. 

"What were they thinking?"

Free fuel.  All of the RR's that were pushing this technology were coal haulers with access to cheap or even "free" fuel.

"Yep, the railroad sure makes a lot of money hauling all that company coal." 

 

Read that in a book somewhere, I think it was one of Don Ball's Pennsy books.

 

Rusty

 

 

Interesting comments, thank you.  I read that the real S2 sent exhaust out only one of the four stacks at low speeds.  It would be cool if the toy did that too. I don't suppose the previous version did?

No smokin' whistle, no order.

May I suggest that you get the Classic Trains Magazine from last year (Spring 2012 issue), concerning the real S2.

Hot Water,

That is where I read the S2 exhausted out of one stack at low speeds.  It is stated on page 25.  Did the last Lionel release exhaust smoke in this way.  I know that the Lionel Veranda Turbine exhausts out of two different stacks, but they are in completely different locations, not at all like the S2.

Its do to low quality die cast plus none of these model trains manufactures use ETCH primers or even primer. They paint over the bear metals bodys..that where blisters are caused..ETCH primers Ecthes its self to the metals then primer sticks to the etch primer ,,then paint grips into the primer..Hope fully they fixed that problem?? If not Im not going to blow 1200.00 for a train that will do that..Thats why for now sticking to brass trains..

Nobody wants that.

<<Did the 2001 version use the same basic tool as the 1990 version but with modifications?>>

 

It would appear so.  No need to remake the entire mold.

The Prototype S-2 was a direct drive turbine. It did not make electricity or was it powering traction motors as the Jawn Henry or the C&O locomotive. The S-2 had a second turbine aboard to allow the locomotive to run in reverse. It was the only direct drive design competed i believe.

The 1991 S2 Turbine was part of the Lionel "Collector Line" and was IN FACT made at Samhongsa by Mike Wolf for Lionel under contract between Mike Wolf and Richard Kughn.  Mike Wolf made a couple of dozen trains/engines for Lionel then. The second scale S2 (6-38028 which I am a proud owner of) was made in 2001/2002 from the same tooling.  This release actually became wrapped into the lawsuit as I understand because making other engines from that tooling violated the original contract, or so I have read.

 

So the question becomes are they designing and building actual new tooling,  is there some new agreement to use original tooling, or?!

I like these turbines (indeed most of PRR's big exotics and duplexes) better than a

NYC fan should, but there you have it. I have the early 3rd Rail (ex-Williams) brass

one, though it has never turned a wheel. I would love one of the new Lionels, but,

no budget.

 

The real locos would "go like the wind" as I read it described by a former crew member;

like most turbines, they were fuel-efficient at steady speeds, but really not at all happy

with constantly changing RPM requirements that are typical in railroading.

 

You know, the people who design and build things like this aren't stupid, and they built things to test theories in the real world, never intending to put them into production, at

least not in the experimental form. I'm also sure that they were just a tad more adept at mechanical engineering and railroading than the average OGR Forum member, but this is the era of Experts...

 

The S-2 did have a big advantage over the reciprocating steam locomotive (the ones

with the big flailing rods): balancing a reciprocating steamer's drivers is essentially impossible, because you have to balance not only the weight of the side rods, but

also both the weight and enormous variable thrust of the main rod. Can't be done, and the 

way to moderate this is to have a high-speed loco have big drivers.

 

The S-2 was fast, very fast and smooth, but it had drivers that looked like they belonged on a Mikado. Why? No big humpin' main rod. Magnificent locomotive, greatly flawed. 

 

 

 

 

The Mike Wolf engines made for Lionel were the property of Lionel I believe.  Its the ones made by designes taken from the MTH plant that were an issue.

 

Remember that scale B6?  Was it an all new tool or made from prewar tooling?

 

I don't own the B6 but recall seeing some visible nasty nylon geer...I could be wrong but it has been 20 years since I have seen one.

That is true and a point missed by some, as you observed.   It's easy to look back and criticize RR engineers of that time, both knowing the answer as we do and living in an age where we'd just set up a finite-element model and then run full hydro-dynamic models to simulate it and run a few hundred variations to see what would happen . . .

 

The railroads and the marine use of steam had grown up together.  Most of what was invented in one industry - compound engines, higher pressure boilers, various types of feedwater pumps and valving, etc., eventually made its way to the other industry in some form - and worked there, too.  Steam turbines had worked out brilliantly in ships - more efficiency, higher speed, less maintenance.  They had made people and company's filthy rich (Parsons) and other people so politically powerful they were unassailable in their job, at least for a while (Jackie Fisher). 

 

The RR industry struggled for years with the question of how to follow.  Engineers at most loco design companies could and did look at the natural phenomena involved, their economies of scale, and at the things that were different between ships and locomotives, and shook their heads and basically said, "Not sure about that."  But they had to try. 

 

And everyone tried - in Italy, France, Germany, and the UK (one of the Princess Royal class was converted) and here in the US Baldwin, C&O, N&W and others . . .  The S-2 and the Jawn Henry were only two of the most successful experiments - maybe not Research but certainly Development.  Later on the big UP Gas Turbines represented a different path technically but the same thrust of "experimentation" and "Let's see what happens."  I do think GE should have expected the coal-turbine to be a failure, but maybe that too is second guessing . . .

 

Anyway, the S-2 was handsome, very well engineered, and altogether a very noteworthy locomotive.  I ordered the 681 elephant ear version within five hours of first seeing in the catalog, and am excited that its going to be shipped next month, according to Lionel. 

 

"I do think GE should have expected the coal-turbine to be a failure, but maybe that too is second guessing"

I'm pretty sure GE knew and tried to tell the client BUT the clients goal was to try and find a way to use coal!  This isn't an uncommon situation in the real world where the person with the bucks will insist on doing something that the technical staff's initial reaction is "You want to do what?"  

If you want to see ridiculous examples of this look at the dawn of the nuclear age.  The Air Force wanted a nuclear powered bomber (Navy had submarines, what's the big diff).  Someone did shrink a bomb down to the size of a hand grenade but the Army couldn't find anyone with the strength to throw it far enough away that it didn't kill the good guys as well as the bad.

 

I suspect that one of the hardest thing for engineers to deal with is just because you can do something doesn't mean you should and convincing management or the client is more of a battle than the technical stuff.  

 

Remember, it always seemed like a good idea at the time.

You are right, chuck.  The nuclear bomber, the atomic hand grenade: they were just a few of bizarre ideas tried in the '50s.  As my old man (and many others) used to say - if you ever saw  in on the cover of Popular Mechanics, it was doomed.  (I can imagine it now: "Ten-Thousand Horsepower Turbine Locomotive Hauls Coal-to-Jet Fuel Refinery Behind It!")

 

I've got a couple of books on the big UP turbines, and as you say, Union Pacific was the driving force behind trying to find a way to use coal "in a modern way."   And it was no skin off GE's back: UP was paying for it, so why not.  As an engineer, I also understand the attitude many of the engineers who worked on the project had to have had: "Regardless of what happens, this will be a blast!"

 

What really does puzzle me is why GE didn't try harder, and UP didn't accept more, a much better solution to using their coal, "We'll put the chemistry (the coal-to-fuel "refinery") in a couple of big, big cars that you can roll to strategic points in your system, park, and set them up as stationary coal-to-fuel plant there.   Then, just put that turbine fuel you put in a tank car behind your normal Veranda and GTEL turbines and go!." 

 

As a stationary process, with filters and additional stages to remove corrosive materials from the fuel, etc., they stood a much better chance of making the whole thing economical (enough) and workable (enough).  The Germans made coal to gas and kerosene in WWII - 20 years hence GE could have done it much, much better, etc., even with the relatively second class quality coal it often wanted to burn.   But UP insisted that the loco haul the dang machinery along with it.  Some people make a pretty small box that they won't let their thinking out of . . .

 

 

The 1989 B-6 was used from original tooling (since it hadn't been used since the prewar era) and the gearing was metal when I examined mine. And yes, the Mike Wolf engines are now property of Lionel, such as the Southern Mikado tooling and Mohawk tooling.

LEE,If you get your S2,could you video it?..Seen no videos of the newer S2 with smoke deflectors version..I want to see a video before ordering one..

I'll post a video and review of it when I get it, if I am among the first to get one.  Lionel shows it shipping next month and usually my LHS takes a week or more than the faster big, internet based retailers, so I expect someone else will video and review it first.  Given that a "May" shipping list date by Lionel probably means late May, it will probably be mid June before you see it from me. 

no I was talking about the newer version after the 89 scale..think it came out in 02.there was 1 video of it.. but dang it,cant find it..with these new versions comming out will drive down the old scale S2 value..well the selling cost on a used one..

Josey, if I can figger out my wife's new Sony I'll try and post a video.

heck have your wife video it for you..lol..I have the 3rd rail version of the S2 turbine.. going to video it today ..id threw in one of my moded smoke units in it.. it smokes alot....If I get the lionel S2 i'll mod that smoke unit too.