S-2 Turbine?

I heard something like that, but was hoping it applied only to the other locos they announced.  In the past, when they list a shipping date within only a few months of first releasing info about a loco, that's usually an accurate date and seldom slips.  I'm hoping the S-2 ships next month and the H-7, etc., later.  But if it is September instead - well, that will be the way it is.

Since inquiring minds at least mine want to know where have you seen this adjudication, can you point to it for me???

Jawn Henry was not the big failure everyone seems to think it was. Get a copy of "Tales of a Turbine" and check it out. The main issues were the cold water pump, plus the specialized regular maintenance of the machine. Admittedly, it was far more complex than a conventional steamer, but much was learned from the failure of the C&O M1 locomotives. The real problem in one word was...Westinghouse! Had GE been the prime contractor for this job, the outcome would have been a lot different. Other issues included HP per ton of weight and cost, plus the overall size. The author of the above book opined that the coal would have been better off burned in a generating plant to feed straight electrics, a la Virginian, but that does not figure the cost of re-stringing the catenary, which N&W pulled down in 1950.

   The big Pennsy S2 was a grand experiment, but not for the Penn at that time. By the time PRR figured the machine out, the idea of running steam on passenger trains was toast...thanks to competitive marketing,  Martin Clement, NYCS & B&O Diesel competition, and the overall savings possible with new EMD Diesel power.

at least the Sweads keeped there Steam turbine.kind of ugly thow and I saw a Ho version of the chinese gas turbine drive steam engine..to bad PRR didnt save the S2 from the cutting torch!

Either the Jawn Henry or the S-2 was the most successful of the steam turbine locos, probably.  Both, however, along with the gas turbines, were doomed by modular diesels.  Those tiny (F3) locos were sort of like the mammals of the railroad world taking over, in mass from the hulking dinosaurs like the Big Boy and GTEL, S-1 and S-2, etc., that were each several times their size and power. 

To me,PRR didn't want to fix there steam engines problems...S1 couldve been successfull. even thow it couldnt handle the small curves..had traction problems..couldve made to trailing and lead trucks sat lower...the same with the T1 duplex..The S2 they couldve made it succesfull too..if it isnt wright from the factory its doomed..At times Things need to be tweeked and moded to order to run successfull....Hey We tweek on our model trains..wouldve been great if PRR didnt scraped the S1=the worlds largest steam engine..

The two killers for steam were a) the banks that held the notes/mortgages on the engines and b) the army of skilled tradesman required to keep those engines running.  

The money people were much more inclined to finance diesel engines that could be resold or easily modified (re-geared).  This was not true of steam engines.  Every steam engine was designed for a specific purpose on a specific road.  The engineering department and the operations department came up with grade, curves, load and time factors to clear so many miles in so many hours.  By the time you factored in the main components to get an engine that would do what you wanted to do in a specific part of your railroad it was unlikely that engine would be of much use to anyone else.  With a diesel you could re-gear and repaint and you were done.  The bank could transfer the mortgage to some one else that had a bucket of money to pay the debt and a bucket of paint to make it look like their own.

The back shops required to keep steam engines going were extremely impressive.  At one point in time almost 1 in 10 americans worked for a railroad.  Most were employed in these back shops.  These weren't unskilled jobs either.  Since the engines were close to one of a kind there weren't any spare parts unless your back shop made them.  When you took possession of an order from Alco, or Lima or Baldwin you got a compete set of plans of not just what was in/on the engine but how to make the parts that made up the engine. You had furnaces, forges, milling equipment, etc and the staff that knew how to use it.  When steam operations shut down in the early 50's there were a tremendous number of skilled people that lost their jobs.  Extensive daily maintenance coupled with this enormous back end cost meant these engines were doomed when diesel electrics came along.

heres a video of my S2 turbine with my mod smoke unit..was taken by my driod1 cell phone..will get a better video later on..

Why is it chuffing? The PRR S-2 was a steam turbine and didn't "chuff" since it had no cylinders.

I know that..I have the wrong chip in it..Its got the T1 duplex soundchip had it in my S1. for awhile I had a the C&NW Hudson sound chip in it.. that came with the new sound board..has the proto1 sound system in my S2...On MTh batam s2 turbine has chuffs too ..at least the chuff insink with the rod and wheel movement..

Chuck hit the nail on the head - steam was labor intensive and replacing them with diesels save a lot in labor cost. Could mult-unit with one set of crew, were available almost 24 hours a day after refueling, and could often pull trains over grades without helpers. Also GMAC would finance EMD purchases. So diesels were in fact the automation of locomotive operations and help start the great reduction in railroad employment.

I have a book on steam to diesel transition on the PRR. It said that engineers were working on a new firebox design for the S2 when an edict from top mangement said to stop all work on steam development as the PRR was going diesel.

Be careful to check the paint on the 1990 turbine.   Mine had horrible blisters...I tried to buy several replacements after that event...all sealed in the carton...all had some for of the blisters starting.

True Mike Wolf did the Mohawk and Mikado BUT these two engines were NOT wrapped into the lawsuit whereas the S2 was, supposedly because of the contract wording related to the tooling use.  Just saying that is the way I had seen it written up back when.

If I got the old one..I'll and it got blisters on it.. ill sand or bead blast it and etch prime it,and repaint it the wright way..like I said in the past post..there not prepping the shells wright..

The blisters most likely came from the solvents not being dried out of the porous diecast properly.  These cases start escaping under the paint.  I also had the Pennsy Burro crane from 1990.  The black diecast frame all flaked off in round chunks.  Probably cast in Korea too.

Now, one some Michigan Made AF cars I have seen the paint curl and chip off.  The New Haven Caboose from 1991 did this as well as the NP PA Set from 1992.

I'm gonna wait to see if Lionel has a blow out sale on these engines?  I hope so?

 I wanted an S-2 a lot, so I decided to order early, particularly because I have my doubts if these will ever reach blowout prices, but you never know - it's just the chance you take waiting, and by doing so, if it is available, you save a lot of money.  With both the Y-3 that Lionel offers, and the S-1 that MTH has in its catalogs, I decided to take that chance, however.  I would like to have both, but will wait until after release and see if I can pick them up at a discount.  If not  . . . that's the way it is.  there was just too much to order out of these catalogs as it was . . . .

I bought the 1991 version off of eBay about a year ago. It has some blisters on the boiler shell and none on the tender. The blisters are not as bad as some I have seen. After some teeth pulling, the seller agreed to giving me a partial refund and I ended up getting it for $350.00.  Everything works and it runs fine. I currently have it on my layout pulling 7 MTH 18 inch passenger cars.

I just checked my '91 Turbine.  No paint or casting flaws. 
Guess I got lucky. 

Here's a video of my '01 turbine.  No smoke except at idle.  I'll have to check on that.  Can't seem to figure out imbedding with HD.

http://youtu.be/esRIJrlfnBU

Thanks.  I enjoyed watching it and hearing it.  Also, you have a good looking layout with a good track plan, also a great set of shelves and what looks to be a fantastic collection (or are we supposed to say "accumulation"?) of locos. 

Lee, thanks for your kind comments.

Yeah, I'm one of those 'accumulator's', or collectors, also an operator, repair person and rebuilder.

The tinplate trackplan incorporates four blocks, two with 031 minimum and two with 072.  Each of the two has a reverse loop for bidirectional running.

Also, a first for me, a yard.  Never had the room before.

Ordered mine today!  Thanks RegIs!  

Now thats a train room!!...I love it!!..Thanks from posting that video..Id took my carpet layout down...want to get a bigger place to run my O scale trains..was running 11x18 and to me thats not big enough to run a 072 size trains..Do like to sounds from your S2 ..hope down the line they would sell the sound board from it..like to have that in my brass S2...

<<hope down the line they would sell the sound board from it..like to have that in my brass S2...>>

Josey, that's either RS2 or 2.5.  The crew talk is the garbled walkie-talkie.  Lionel has been offering older RS boards in thier parts lists.  Maybe the S2 board is one of them?

Movie of the first LIONEL scale S2, a project managed by Mike Wolf.

It came with a brass N8 cabincar.

Looked on lionels site ..The S2 sound board isnt for sale..dang..

can I ask a favor from you?.. Need some measurments from your lionel S2..Need tender,need 3 measurments ..the lenght of the coal load area and lenght of the water tank.. and complete lenght of the tender..thinking my tender is on the short side compaired to lionels tender..also the lenght of your engine..think the engine is the wright scale size but want to check anyways..

Josey, let me know if this is good enough.

That Lionel engine is one NICE looking piece of machinery.

Thanks it close to your measurments..But after seeing your tender..now I know one reason why mine looks odd to me..my tender trucks are to lowneeds to be tucked up into the tender more..,,they setup about over 1/4..that throws the looks off..the engine is 4"high from cab roof down..lenght is 17"long....your looks to be 18"???Your is 1"" longer then mine..!!!..I still have my elephant ears..never put them on thow..

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.