Swedish steam turbine locomotive
Richard Boylan
Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
turbine locomotives. Their non-condensing design worked rather well,
and three were built. (In addition, they were the inspiration for
the British Princess-class steam-turbine Pacific built in 1935.)
I just came across an article in a 1966 issue of TRAINS [USA] magazine
which shows one of these Swedish turbine locomotives in operation in
the 1960's. It had been stored in a roundhouse, apparently, and was
in operating condition.
My question is, do any of these Swedish turbines survive today?
Thanks!
Richard Boylan
Stratus Computer
Marlboro, Mass
boy...@sw.stratus.com
Roland Bol
Richard Boylan wrote:
>
> Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
> turbine locomotives. Their non-condensing design worked rather well,
> and three were built. (In addition, they were the inspiration for
> the British Princess-class steam-turbine Pacific built in 1935.)
>
> I just came across an article in a 1966 issue of TRAINS [USA] magazine
> which shows one of these Swedish turbine locomotives in operation in
> the 1960's. It had been stored in a roundhouse, apparently, and was
> in operating condition.
>
> My question is, do any of these Swedish turbines survive today?
There is one steam turbine locomotive preserved in the
railway museum of Grangesberg in Sweden. I don't know
details about it, but it sounds like this is the one.
They claimed is was the only remaining turbine locomotive
in operating condition.
Greetings,
Roland Bol
Urban Fredriksson
In article <4se2cn$h...@transfer.stratus.com>,
Richard Boylan <boy...@sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
>turbine locomotives.
Sure: All three M3t built for TGOJ survive, [at least] one
in operating condition.
A photo can be found on:
http://www.phaseone.com/%7Ejens/SESteam.html
and I've got some text at:
http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/railways/text/swstturb.txt
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se
Swedish railways -> http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/railways/
Bram Bot
In article <4se2cn$h...@transfer.stratus.com>, boy...@sw.stratus.com says...
>
>
>Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
>and three were built. (In addition, they were the inspiration for
>the British Princess-class steam-turbine Pacific built in 1935.)
>
>I just came across an article in a 1966 issue of TRAINS [USA] magazine
>which shows one of these Swedish turbine locomotives in operation in
>the 1960's. It had been stored in a roundhouse, apparently, and was
>in operating condition.
>
>
YES,
At least one steam turbine locomotive survived. During the 150 year
anniversary this loco was running on its own power. I don't have
any data right now, but I have some stuff at home about it. I do
know however that that particular loco was used for transporting iron ore
trains somewhere in the north of Sweden. Also it was operated from a different
railway company and not by the SJ.
all the best
Bram (b...@fel.tno.nl)
Daniel Nordling VK/EHS/VE
boy...@sw.stratus.com (Richard Boylan) writes:
>Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
>turbine locomotives. Their non-condensing design worked rather well,
>and three were built. (In addition, they were the inspiration for
>the British Princess-class steam-turbine Pacific built in 1935.)
>I just came across an article in a 1966 issue of TRAINS [USA] magazine
>which shows one of these Swedish turbine locomotives in operation in
>the 1960's. It had been stored in a roundhouse, apparently, and was
>in operating condition.
>My question is, do any of these Swedish turbines survive today?
>Thanks!
>Richard Boylan
>Stratus Computer
>Marlboro, Mass
>boy...@sw.stratus.com
Actually all three turbine engines still exists today, one of them
in running condition.
If you ever will visit Sweden you will find one of them at the Swedish
Railway museum in Ga"vle, the other two (including the running one) is
in Gra"ngesberg.
There is an article about theese engines at Urban Fredrikssons
homepage, http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/railways/text/swstturb.txt,
if you want more information.
/Daiel Nordling
Standard disclaimer...
Alexandre Kampouris
I had always wanted to enquire on this group whether turbine locos ever
existed. Well, I have received my answer before I ever asked!
I am surprised that there were few or none besides the one described at
http://www.kuai.se/~griffon/railways/text/swstturb.txt . Why, in the
1920s, steamships went from piston to turbine motors, especially for
ocean liners (For example, the CGM Normandie, or the Cunard QE and QM),
and Navy ships, so why not locos? Does anyone know of other examples of
work in turbine locos?
I had always supposed that the main reason against them was excessive
losses in the gear box, which I would think is an critical component. The
turbine would (obviously? what is the steam temperature?) be more
efficient at speeds higher than that of the driving wheels. In
helicopters, the cooling of the speed reducing gear box seems to be a
crucial issue, especially for large machines. If the claim of the above
cited WWW page is true, that in effect better efficiencies were obtained,
then this supposition would be false.
What is the nature of the turbine of that Swedish loco? Does it have a
single expansion stage, or multiple ones? AFAIK, piston locos had only
one or two expansion stages, compared to as many as three or four for
ships, resulting in lower efficiencies.
One problem I would see with turbines is the difficulty of efficiently
reversing the locomotives direction. A piston loco is reversed by
affecting the drawers. A turbine is somewhat less symmetric than a piston
when it comes to reversals. A small chamber is linked to a larger one
through the turbine. Reversing its direction of rotation would involve
injecting the steam from the output (low pressure) chambers towards the
input ones, which seems to me very complicated with multiple stage
construction. The efficiency might be quite poor with the compromises
required. Right? An other way might be through the gear box. (How was it
done on steamships? A ship can not proceed fast in the astern direction
anyway...)
Just ideas like that. Comments?
Alexandre Kampouris
Montréal
Hudson Leighton
In article <31EF16...@bethune.com>, Alexandre Kampouris
<a...@bethune.com> wrote:
> I had always wanted to enquire on this group whether turbine locos ever
> existed. Well, I have received my answer before I ever asked!
>
> I am surprised that there were few or none besides the one described at
> http://www.kuai.se/~griffon/railways/text/swstturb.txt . Why, in the
> 1920s, steamships went from piston to turbine motors, especially for
> ocean liners (For example, the CGM Normandie, or the Cunard QE and QM),
> and Navy ships, so why not locos? Does anyone know of other examples of
> work in turbine locos?
>
> One problem I would see with turbines is the difficulty of efficiently
> reversing the locomotives direction.
> Just ideas like that. Comments?
>
> Alexandre Kampouris
>
> Montréal
The PRR Steam Turbine used a 600 SHP? seperate "Reverse" turbine for
reverse movements.
Erik Hjelme
In article <4se2cn$h...@transfer.stratus.com>,
boy...@sw.stratus.com (Richard Boylan) wrote:
>
>Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
I assume you're referring to the TGOJ engines for hauling heavy ore
trains ? Yes at least one is on display at the TGOJ roundhouse in
Graengesberg (?). I don't know if it is in operateble condition, but
a slow ore-hauling engine of the size isn't suitable for running
enthusiasts specials so there isn't much point in restoring it other
than for static display anyway.
Erik Hjelme hje...@login.dknet.dk
+45 3646 1003 phone & fax http://login.dknet.dk/~hjelme
+45 2085 3717 pocketphone Rail and signalling homepages
ke...@cam.mch.sni.de
Andrew Clarke wrote:
>I believe reversing was one of the major problems with the British
>Turbomotive: if I remember rightly, the loco had a second smaller turbine to
>do the job. More weight, more complications.
.... and more unreliability!
I posted this many moons ago when we were discussing the Harrow accident but
since we are again on the subject of the LMS "Turbomotive" I hope that it
is still may be of interest:
mileage dates in shop reason for unavailability
(in 000s)
8' 6/35 - 8/35 oil leakage from turbine bearings &
water in roller bearing axleboxes
10' 9/35 - 12/35 failure of reversing mechanism at
reverse turbine
14' 1/36 - 2/36 failure of reverse turbine
41' 5/36 - 6/36 failure of reverse turbine
45' 6/36 - 7/36 oil leakage from turbine bearings
79' 1/37 - 4/37 failure of forward turbine
121' 10/37 - 10/37 routine repairs and attention
125' 11/37 - 12/37 failure of reverse turbine
149' 5/38 - 10/38 routine repairs and inspection
180' 2/39 - 7/39 failure of forward turbine
195' 9/39 - 7/41 withdrawn from traffic for storage
due to war conditions
198' 8/41 - 6/42 failure of reverse turbine
220' 11/42 - 12/42 oil leakage from both turbines
252' 6/43 - 9/44 failure of flexible drive between slow
speed gear wheel & driving axle
255' 12/44 - 1/45 failure of reverse turbine bearings
272' 4/45 - 8/45 leakage of oil from turbine bearings
320' 2/46 - 4/47 heavy repair
379' 5/48 - 3/49 light repair
458' 5/50 - 6/52 conversion to reciprocating type
named "Princess Anne"
11' 8/10/52 Harrow accident
11' 22/5/54 withdrawn from stock
11' 22/5/54 broken up
Total mileage as turbine type = 458772
Total mileage as reciprocating type = 11443
Notes:
1) 16 blade main turbine geared 34,4 : 1
2) 4 blade reverse turbine geared 77 : 1
3) double helical triple reduction gear to leading coupled axle enclosed
in a gear case suspended from three supports on loco. frame.
4) six control valves admitted steam to forward turbine
5) three control valves admitted steam to reverse turbine
6) forward turbine permanently connected to high spead gear train; reverse
turbine connected via sliding splined shaft and dog clutch. Interlock
mechanism provided to allow engagement only when loco. stationary and all
steam control valves closed.
7) lubrication of turbine bearings and gears provided by three pumps; one
reversible driven from final gear via a step-up gear and two steam
driven reciprocating pumps kept working at all times to carry away
heat from journals. Feeds of all three pumps combined and passed
through an air radiator situated below smoke-box.
8) roller bearings on all axles in contrast to "Princess Royal" class locos.
9) Failures of the turbines meant that the locomotive wheels locked and
the unit could not be moved until the leading drivers had been jacked
up and the side rods removed. This obviously caused dislocation to
traffic.
10) Used almost entirely on the Euston - Liverpool run apart from
dynamometer car tests between Euston and Glasgow to compare performance
with "Princess Royal" Pacifics.
11) The above table shows that the reverse turbine was frequently
responsible for the engine's unavailability.
12) During the 1940s empty stock diagrams made use of main line locomotives
drawing empty stock into Euston; after departure of their trains they
would then be attached as train engines on succeeding expresses. This
practice reduced the number of engines movements between Euston
and the carriage sidings and also overcame the problem in winter
of carriage heating since many tank engines were not fitted
with a carriage heating pipe. Since the reverse turbine could not be
used for any serious haulage work the "Turbomotive" always required
a (tank) engine to haul its empty stock.
Best wishes,
Richard Hughes.
Andrew Clarke
In article <31EF16...@bethune.com> Alexandre Kampouris <a...@bethune.com> writes:
>From: Alexandre Kampouris <a...@bethune.com>
>Subject: Re: Swedish steam turbine locomotive
>Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 22:00:19 -0700
>I had always wanted to enquire on this group whether turbine locos ever
>existed. Well, I have received my answer before I ever asked!
>One problem I would see with turbines is the difficulty of efficiently
>reversing the locomotives direction. A piston loco is reversed by
>affecting the drawers. A turbine is somewhat less symmetric than a piston
>when it comes to reversals. A small chamber is linked to a larger one
>through the turbine. Reversing its direction of rotation would involve
>injecting the steam from the output (low pressure) chambers towards the
>input ones, which seems to me very complicated with multiple stage
>construction. The efficiency might be quite poor with the compromises
>required. Right? An other way might be through the gear box. (How was it
>done on steamships? A ship can not proceed fast in the astern direction
>anyway...)
>Just ideas like that. Comments?
>Alexandre Kampouris
I believe reversing was one of the major problems with the British
Turbomotive: if I remember rightly, the loco had a second smaller turbine to
do the job. More weight, more complications.
The other problem, I think, was that whereas a ship builds up to cruising
speed and then maintains that speed with its turbines running at a constant
number of revolutions per minute, a locomotive is allways slowing down,
speeding up, stopping, starting, powering up hills and coasting down the other
side. In a small hilly country with (then) intensively-worked main lines, this
was hardly an ideal operating environment for the turbine, with resulting
excessive wear and tear. As certain British diesel manufacturers learnt to
their cost, ships and trainsrun in a very, very different operational
environment (except possibly in Manchester).
Compounding was used in Britain with mixed success: again the nature of the
traffic on Britain's railways meant that there was little economic advantage
in compounding: the gains in fuel consumption were (I believe) lost in
additional maintenance.
Certainly there was no British equivalent to the magnificent de Glehn and
Chapelon compounds in France: but then the French ran fewer, heavier trains at
constant speeds over longer distances. G.J. Churchward imported a de Glehn
compound for trials on the GWR and decided that there was no perceptible
advantage under British conditions, and Churchward knew all about innovative
design and the efficient use of steam.
Worsdell's 2 and 3 cylinder compounds on the NER seem to have been fine,
robust machines. The Deeley 3-cylinder compounds on the MR and later the LMS
were fine engines (a) if driven by a skilled crew (b) with a moderate load and
(c) with expert maintenance. For the frequent, light expresses run on the
Midland before Stanier, they were more than capable: one of them achieved that
astonishing none-stop run to Glasgow in the 1920s (30s?). But they were
completely unsuitable for the very different conditions obtaining after the
last war, when something less refined and, more durable was required. Run-down
and dispised by their crews, they were rapidly sent to the scrapyard.
Webb's eccentric LNWR 3 cylinder compounds have had a bad press, probably
unfairly. He did build a series of 4 cylinder (?) 0-8-0s for freight work, but
many of them were converted into 2-cylinder simples of the famous Bowen-Cooke
"Super D" class which toiled around the North and Midlands though to the 1960s.
Best wishes/Amities,
Andrew Clarke
Richard Boylan
In article <31EF16...@bethune.com>, Alexandre Kampouris <a...@bethune.com> writes:
> I had always wanted to enquire on this group whether turbine locos ever
> existed. Well, I have received my answer before I ever asked!
The history of turbine locomotives is a long and largely unsuccessful one.
There were numerous experiments with steam turbine locomotives before 1930,
almost all of them brief and unsuccessful. [Perhaps others can fill in
the gaps in my knowledge here.] The Swedish Ljunstrom-designed
turbines were the first to be successful enough to merit duplication.
The Ljungstrom turbine design was licenced by the London, Midland & Scottish
for its 4-6-2 steam turbine of 1935. Designed by Robert Stanier, built at
Crewe.
The LMS engine in turn was the inspiration for the American
Baldwin-Westinghouse 6-8-6 steam turbine built for the Pennsylvania RR
in 1944.
The PRR engine was the last attempt at a mechanical-drive turbine locomotive.
Problems inherent with the design were
a) high steam consumption at low speeds
b) how to back up. The Ljungstrom design used a shiftable gearbox.
Some other designs had one turbine for each direction.
The LMS and PRR engines also had two turbines, but added
a clutch to disengage the reverse turbine when not in use.
The solution to both was to use electric transmission. I believe that there
were some experiments with steam-turbine-electrics in Europe. [Again,
others may be able to fill in here.] In the US, General Electric built
the first American steam-turbine-electrics in 1938. Used a small 1,500 psi (!)
boiler, a pair of turbines and air-cooled condensers. The pair of units
had many problems, and were scrapped in 1943 or 1944.
Baldwin-Westinghouse built three steam-turbine-electrics for the Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway in 1947-48. These used locomotive boilers and were an open
system (ie no condenser). Had many problems, were scrapped in 1950.
Baldwin and Westinghouse made yet a third attempt at a steam turbine
locomotive in 1954. That was the Jawn Henry, built for the Norfolk &
Western. Worked ok, as long as it was properly maintained. But by 1954
it was an oddity, a freak.
Combustion gas turbines had a better history than steam turbines. The
world's first was Swiss-built, and ran during and after WWII, when there
was fuel available. There were a number of other European gas turbines,
though not, I believe, in great numbers. I think the best-known gas
turbines were the General Electric-built gas turbines owned by the
Union Pacific RR in the US. The 2nd generation of them were 8500-hp
2-unit monsters, which replaced the 4-8-8-4 "Big Boys". All were retired
by 1970, though.
The chief problems with turbine locomotion were:
a) turbines are most efficient at a single (high) speed,
and railroad service needs a range of speeds
b) a turbine is a precision machine, and railroad service
is a cold/hot, dirty, vibration- and torsion-ridden
working environment unfriendly to precision machines
c) steam turbines were more efficient than steam pistons,
but losses in electric transmission cancelled out
much or all of that gain (mechanical transmission,
was quite efficient)
d) gas turbines were less efficient than diesels
e) the larger they are the more efficient turbine installations
are. A locomotive is a small application of turbines
Richard Boylan
Stratus Computer
Marlboro, Mass USA
boy...@sw.stratus.com
Gary Cooper
In article <1996072015...@mousa.demon.co.uk>
bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk "Bill Bedford" writes:
<much snipped to save space>
>
> From this I would suggest that :
>
> 1/ the milage run between failures was at least as good as a Duchess.
> 2/ that repairs especialy of the turbine units took longer than normal
> 3/ there appears to have a probem with supply of parts after the war -
> this would explain the 10 months for a light repair 5/48 - 3/49
> 4/ there is no indication of how long it stoud officially 'in traffic'
> but waiting for repairs.
>
> I would think that had there been even a small class of locos built then
> these problems would have been overcome, especially if the tubines were
> replacable with spare units.
These were exactly the conclusions reached by J.W.P. Rowledge in
"The L.M.S. Pacifics" (David and Charles, 1987). I'd recommend
this as a useful quick overview for anyone interested in the
Turbomotive.
I'm inclined to agree with both the author and Bill Bedford about
this and feel it a great shame that the experiment wasn't
pursued - which it might very well have been but for the war.
--
Gary Cooper
Bill Bedford
<ke...@cam.mch.sni.de> wrote:
> Andrew Clarke wrote:
> >I believe reversing was one of the major problems with the British
> >Turbomotive: if I remember rightly, the loco had a second smaller turbine to
> >do the job. More weight, more complications.
>
> .... and more unreliability!
Mmmm Maybe
Remember that the life time annual milage for a Duchess was about 64000
miles - say 5300 a month
>
> I posted this many moons ago when we were discussing the Harrow accident but
> since we are again on the subject of the LMS "Turbomotive" I hope that it
> is still may be of interest:
>
>
> mileage dates in shop reason for unavailability
> (in 000s)
> 14' 2/36 failure of reverse turbine
> 41' 5/36 - 6/36 failure of reverse turbine
> 45' 6/36 - 7/36 oil leakage from turbine bearings
> 79' 1/37 -
----
65' miles in about 12 months
> 4/37 failure of forward turbine
> 121' 10/37 - 10/37 routine repairs and attention
> 125' 11/37 - 12/37 failure of reverse turbine
> 149' 5/38 -
----
70' miles in 13 months = 5300/ month
> 10/38 routine repairs and inspection
> 180' 2/39 -
----
31' miles in 4 months = 7800 /mmonth
> 7/39 failure of forward turbine
> 195' 9/39 -
----
15' in 2 months = 7500 /month
> 7/41 withdrawn from traffic for
> storage due to war conditions
> 198' 8/41 -
---
3'in 1 month
> 6/42 failure of reverse turbine
> 220' 11/42
----
22' in 5 months = 4500 /month
> - 12/42 oil leakage from both turbines
> 252' 6/43 -
----
32' in 7 months = 4500 /month
> 9/44 failure of flexible drive between slow
> speed gear wheel & driving axle
> 255' 12/44 - 1/45 failure of reverse turbine bearings
> 272' 4/45 -
----
20 in 7 months = 2900 /month
> 8/45 leakage of oil from turbine
> bearings
> 320' 2/46 -
----
48' in 6 months = 8000 /month
> 4/47 heavy repair
> 379' 5/48 -
----
59' in 13 months = 4500 /month
> 3/49 light repair
> 458' 5/50 - conversion to reciprocating type
----
79' in 14 months = 5600 /month
From this I would suggest that :
1/ the milage run between failures was at least as good as a Duchess.
2/ that repairs especialy of the turbine units took longer than normal
3/ there appears to have a probem with supply of parts after the war -
this would explain the 10 months for a light repair 5/48 - 3/49
4/ there is no indication of how long it stoud officially 'in traffic'
but waiting for repairs.
I would think that had there been even a small class of locos built then
these problems would have been overcome, especially if the tubines were
replacable with spare units.
It would be interesting to compare these figures with both the Swdish
loco's and the first of the LMS diesels.
--
Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list auto...@mousa.demon.co.uk
J.P.Watts
Alexandre Kampouris writes:
> One problem I would see with turbines is the difficulty of efficiently
> reversing the locomotives direction. A piston loco is reversed by
> affecting the drawers. A turbine is somewhat less symmetric than a piston
> when it comes to reversals. A small chamber is linked to a larger one
> through the turbine. Reversing its direction of rotation would involve
> injecting the steam from the output (low pressure) chambers towards the
> input ones, which seems to me very complicated with multiple stage
> construction. The efficiency might be quite poor with the compromises
> required. Right? An other way might be through the gear box. (How was it
> done on steamships? A ship can not proceed fast in the astern direction
> anyway...)
>
engine - Turbines work well when running at constant speeds, as do generators
or alternators, so I'm surprised that nobody has (to my knowledge) put the
two together on a railway locomotive. I reckon that the design would lend
itself particularly well to articulated locomotives, and there would be no
problems with flexible steam pipes, which have always dogged Garrett-type
designs.
I guess the answer is that the electric technology wasn't around at the time
when there was interest in steam locomotives, but I think that's a pity.
rgds,
James.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
James Watts Laboratory: (01392) 264173
Semiconductor Physics Group Office: (01392) 264198
University of Exeter Fax: (01392) 264111
Stocker Rd, Exeter
EX4 4QL, UK J.P....@exeter.ac.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bill Bedford
J.P.Watts <jpw...@exeter.ac.uk> wrote:
> I have often wondered why no attempt was made to make a turbo-electric
> engine - Turbines work well when running at constant speeds, as do generators
> or alternators, so I'm surprised that nobody has (to my knowledge) put the
> two together on a railway locomotive. I reckon that the design would lend
> itself particularly well to articulated locomotives, and there would be no
> problems with flexible steam pipes, which have always dogged Garrett-type
> designs.
>
> I guess the answer is that the electric technology wasn't around at the time
> when there was interest in steam locomotives, but I think that's a pity.
>
The LMS did some work on one of these, but they found that they endded
up with a three unit machine which wieghed in at nearly 300tons.
Bill Bedford
Erik Hjelme <hje...@login.dknet.dk> wrote:
> In article <4se2cn$h...@transfer.stratus.com>,
> boy...@sw.stratus.com (Richard Boylan) wrote:
> >
> >Before WWII, the Swedish Ljunstrom brothers built a series of steam
> >turbine locomotives. [...] do any of these Swedish turbines survive?
>
> I assume you're referring to the TGOJ engines for hauling heavy ore
> trains ? Yes at least one is on display at the TGOJ roundhouse in
> Graengesberg (?). I don't know if it is in operateble condition, but
> a slow ore-hauling engine of the size isn't suitable for running
> enthusiasts specials so there isn't much point in restoring it other
> than for static display anyway.
>
Has anyone any information about a 4-6-2 turbine loco built for German
State Railways? There's a drawing of it in British Locomotive by Nock
but no further infomation.
Urban Fredriksson
In article <scq7xUv4...@login.dknet.dk>,
Erik Hjelme <hje...@login.dknet.dk> wrote:
>I assume you're referring to the TGOJ engines for hauling heavy ore
>trains ? Yes at least one is on display at the TGOJ roundhouse in
>Graengesberg (?). I don't know if it is in operateble condition, but
>a slow ore-hauling engine of the size isn't suitable for running
>enthusiasts specials so there isn't much point in restoring it other
>than for static display anyway.
70 km/h is too slow for your taste?
What's the usual minimum speed for fan trips in Denmark
then?
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se
Swedish railways -> http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/railways/
Latest addition photos from Nynäshamns Järnvägsmuseum
Johannes Stille
In article <31EF16...@bethune.com>,
Alexandre Kampouris <a...@bethune.com> wrote:
[...]
>I am surprised that there were few or none besides the one described at
>http://www.kuai.se/~griffon/railways/text/swstturb.txt . Why, in the
>1920s, steamships went from piston to turbine motors, especially for
>ocean liners (For example, the CGM Normandie, or the Cunard QE and QM),
>and Navy ships, so why not locos? Does anyone know of other examples of
>work in turbine locos?
There were experiments in Germany as well, both regular turbine locos
and turbine driving tenders compounded with standard piston engines.
[...]
>One problem I would see with turbines is the difficulty of efficiently
>reversing the locomotives direction. A piston loco is reversed by
[...]
>required. Right? An other way might be through the gear box. (How was it
>done on steamships? A ship can not proceed fast in the astern direction
>anyway...)
[...]
Most mainline steam locos have a preferred direction of motion as well.
Every major station had a turntable or wye to turn the locos into the
right direction. So a small auxiliary drive was sufficient for reverse
movements.
And then there were those US steam turbine locos with electric
transmission ...
AFAIK, the major problems with steam turbines (and with gas turbines as
well) in railway use were:
-lack of robustness. Every rail joint results in a small shock, coupler
slack running in and out. Didn't steam ships condense the steam ? -
steam locos use to be refilled with fresh water containing fresh
impurities... Also condensing improves the efficiency.
-lack of efficiency at less than full load. Steam ships run at their
cruising speed most of the time. Locos have to pull trains of different
weight, accelerate, run uphill and downhill..
Johannes
[ Follow-up to m.t.r.misc because this is a technical question that is
not specific to any region. ]
KILB-MA
Bill Bedford wrote:
>
> Has anyone any information about a 4-6-2 turbine loco built for German
> State Railways? There's a drawing of it in British Locomotive by Nock
>Dear Bill,
there were two prototypes of 4-6-2 turbine locos put into service by the
Deutsche Reichsbahn around 1925. Their numbers were 18 1001 and 18 1002,
one of them built by Maffei (Munich) and one of them by Henschel
(Kassel). Both of them seemed to perform quite well, regarding fuel
consumption, but they were too difficult to maintain, so they were
scrapped some time in the 1930s. I have to look up for more information.
The more interesting prototype rebuilt by Henschel from a prussian P 8
(DR type 38) was an engine with an additional turbine undernieth the
tender, with a wheel arrangement 4-6-0+2-4-4, built around 1930.
Afaik, no even parts of these engines survived until today.
> Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
> Shetland
>
> Brit_Rail-L list auto...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Yours,
Martin Kilb