Tornado fails on ECML

[APOLLO]

Whow what a beast. 

 

Here is the loco that did the evaluation trials hauling heavy coal trains from Huntingdon to Hinton West Virginia, C&O 614T, 4-8-4 Greenbrier, running a test for the ACE program, on the C&O between Huntington and Hinton WV. at Cabin Creek, WV. 1/10/1985.

 

A bit nicer looking, I'll save my pennies for one of these. !!

 

 

The video of these runs is superb by the way.

 

Brit15

Edited April 26, 2018 by APOLLO

[jjb1970]

The ACE3000 was an odd design in some ways as underneath the modern cowl body which would have made it look like a revolutionary new departure for steam locomotives it was quite a conservative, evolutionary design and in most respects nothing like as advanced as the Jawn Henry and M1 turbo-electric kettles from the 1940's.

[TravisM]

Ahh...the ACE3000, allow me to recommend one of these (courtesy of brasstrains.com), hand built by Utao Waki, I believe only ten were ever made and if you can find one it won't be cheap.....

 

That's ten more than the real thing.  The ACE 3000 was doomed before it ever got off the drawing board as it never overcame the inherent problems of steam loco's, no matter how modern technology got.  Rotating masses, hammer blow, turn round and servicing between runs, boiler washouts and that new thing for the 80's, emissions, all the things that were common with steam just could not be removed from the design.

[jjb1970]

That's ten more than the real thing.  The ACE 3000 was doomed before it ever got off the drawing board as it never overcame the inherent problems of steam loco's, no matter how modern technology got.  Rotating masses, hammer blow, turn round and servicing between runs, boiler washouts and that new thing for the 80's, emissions, all the things that were common with steam just could not be removed from the design.

 

Indeed, hence why I can see the rationale behind the big turbo-electric steam locomotives as although they were almost an answer looking for a question they were a genuine effort to address some of the inherent issues of conventional types. The whole concept of the turbo-electrics was deeply flawed and a rankine steam cycle turbo-electric locomotive was never going to be as efficient as a diesel (not to mention the emissions issue of combusting coal) but with continued development I think the immediate technical problems that plagued the designs would have been resolved and it could have potentially moved steam locomotives far beyond reciprocating types. Would that have been sensible? No, as you would still have ended up throwing effort at an answer looking for a question but if you really insisted on trying to keep steam relevant then it has more potential than playing at the margins of a conventional steam locomotive (even though I would like to see the 5AT built).

[TravisM]

You might say it was almost but not quite an answer looking for a question. Both the N&W and C&o (with the similar M1) had reasons for favouring coal as a fuel but both recognised that the conventional kettle was obsolete and would soon be a memory. A turbo-electric design marrying a steam raising boiler to a modern electric traction package via a very simple steam turbine has a lot of merit if you are really determined to keep steam alive. Indeed it is probably the only real way forward to address the fundamental issues with steam. However you really need a condenser for it to make any sense and even a good Rankine plant is well behind a diesel for efficiency. So yes, if you really must avoid diesel engines and are determined to keep steam alive then the Jawn Henry and M1 made some sense. In reality they answered a question virtually nobody was asking. Imposing machines though.

 

You also have to remember that the C&O and especially N&W were huge coal hauling railroads and it seemed sensible to them at the time to use cheap, readily available coal to fuel their next generation locomotives, no matter how bizarre they were.  N&W were probably the last class 1 railroad to abandon steam in the US in 1961 (very late for US steam as most had gone by the mid 50's) as more and more EMD GP9's were delivered.

Edited April 26, 2018 by jools1959

[jjb1970]

N&W were a bit different in a few ways, they continued specifying high hoods long after everybody except N&W and Southern had gone to low noses and continued bi-directional running which meant a lot of long hood first running.

[jamie92208]

Union Pacific also had some last gasp experiments. They had some moderately successful gas turbines which were fine if they had a clear road but their fuel consumption at idle was nearly the same as at full power. However 8080 was a coal fired gas turbine using pulverised coal to power the turbine. It used the car body of IIRC Great Northern Electric loco with a steam tender for coal supply behind it and an older diesel on the front to provide start up power. My copy of Turbines Westward isn't accessible at the moment but I think it failed due to coal cutting and eroding the turbine blades. It was a beast though.

 

N & W also were unique in building most of their locos themselves and also looked at the issue of servicing. They built two servicing centres called lubitoriums and reckoned they could turn their mammoth articulateds round in 90 minutes I think. There is a video of their last big locos, the Y6b compounds and the A class simple locos on the route over Blue Ridge called "Hooters on Blue Ridge" (Just be careful who you tell that you are watching a film of that title though)

 

Jamie

Edited April 27, 2018 by jamie92208

[AndyID]

You also have to remember that the C&O and especially N&W were huge coal hauling railroads and it seemed sensible to them at the time to use cheap, readily available coal to fuel their next generation locomotives, no matter how bizarre they were.  N&W were probably the last class 1 railroad to abandon steam in the US in 1961 (very late for US steam as most had gone by the mid 50's) as more and more EMD GP9's were delivered.

 

If they'd substituted liquid nitrogen for the water they might have had a winner.

[Edwin_m]

Indeed, hence why I can see the rationale behind the big turbo-electric steam locomotives as although they were almost an answer looking for a question they were a genuine effort to address some of the inherent issues of conventional types. The whole concept of the turbo-electrics was deeply flawed and a rankine steam cycle turbo-electric locomotive was never going to be as efficient as a diesel (not to mention the emissions issue of combusting coal) but with continued development I think the immediate technical problems that plagued the designs would have been resolved and it could have potentially moved steam locomotives far beyond reciprocating types. Would that have been sensible? No, as you would still have ended up throwing effort at an answer looking for a question but if you really insisted on trying to keep steam relevant then it has more potential than playing at the margins of a conventional steam locomotive (even though I would like to see the 5AT built).

There's also the question of size and weight.  Because a diesel does its heating in the cylinders it's going to take up less space than the equivalent steam engine and boiler, even allowing for the fact it needs an electric or other transmission to overcome the prime mover's inability to do any work below a certain speed.  Even if a liquid fuel eliminated the problems of handling coal, the steam loco still needs a considerable volume of water, or even more space for condensers to allow it to be recirculated.  The Americans have more to play with in all three dimensions than we have, but these constraints would have very much come into play if the UK had tried to explore some of these concepts. 

[jjb1970]

There's also the question of size and weight.  Because a diesel does its heating in the cylinders it's going to take up less space than the equivalent steam engine and boiler, even allowing for the fact it needs an electric or other transmission to overcome the prime mover's inability to do any work below a certain speed.  Even if a liquid fuel eliminated the problems of handling coal, the steam loco still needs a considerable volume of water, or even more space for condensers to allow it to be recirculated.  The Americans have more to play with in all three dimensions than we have, but these constraints would have very much come into play if the UK had tried to explore some of these concepts. 

 

Indeed, to my mind for the concept to add up you need a condenser as without a condenser and closed steam/water loop the system would be woefully inefficient, and that adds space and weight. Boilers can be very highly rated in terms of thermal output and evaporation rate if you're not relying on hand stoking (some of the Soviet naval boilers were remarkably compact for their thermal output, although they didn't have a great reputation for reliability) but it isn't going to be anything like as compact or light as a diesel. Especially as you still have the generator and traction package, or alternatively the mech drive arrangement if you go for a mechanical transmission.

[jjb1970]

Union Pacific also had some last gasp experiments. They had some moderately successful gas turbines which were fine if they had a clear road but their fuel consumption at idle was nearly the same as at full power. However 8080 was a coal fired gas turbine using pulverised coal to power the turbine. It used the car body of IIRC Great Northern Electric loco with a steam tender for coal supply behind it and an older diesel on the front to provide start up power. My copy of Turbines Westward isn't accessible at the moment but I think it failed due to coal cutting and eroding the turbine blades. It was a beast though.

 

N & W also were unique in building most of their locos themselves and also looked at the issue of servicing. They built two servicing centres called lubitoriums and reckoned they could turn their mammoth articulateds round in 90 minutes I think. There is a video of their last big locos, the Y6b compounds and the A class simple locos on the route over Blue Ridge called "Hooters on Blue Ridge" (Just be careful who you tell that you are watching a film of that title though)

 

Jamie

 

The UP had a bit of an obsession with high powered locomotives, as well as the PF GT experiment they had the legendary gas turbines and the various D-D/BB-BB diesels which culminated in the DD40AX. They also had a sub-series of SD40-2's geared for higher speed operation to take over their premier services which were known as "fast forties". The idea of PF fuel for a GT would be problematic in a power plant application where you have a lot more space for fuel conditioning let alone a locomotive. A lot of the issues with the various efforts to extend the use of coal such as steam-turbo electrics and gas turbines go away if you use a liquid or gas fuel, but if you do that then why bother with a steam plant as you can use the fuel directly in a diesel engine or GT. That said, the big machines built by UP and designs like the Jawn Henry and M1 were glorious even if wrong turns in engineering terms. That said, the Jawn Henry was powerful at 4,500HP.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

You might say it was almost but not quite an answer looking for a question. Both the N&W and C&o (with the similar M1) had reasons for favouring coal as a fuel but both recognised that the conventional kettle was obsolete and would soon be a memory. A turbo-electric design marrying a steam raising boiler to a modern electric traction package via a very simple steam turbine has a lot of merit if you are really determined to keep steam alive. Indeed it is probably the only real way forward to address the fundamental issues with steam. However you really need a condenser for it to make any sense and even a good Rankine plant is well behind a diesel for efficiency. So yes, if you really must avoid diesel engines and are determined to keep steam alive then the Jawn Henry and M1 made some sense. In reality they answered a question virtually nobody was asking. Imposing machines though.

 

I think this was the core of Porta's proposals.  The conventional kettle was far from obsolete, it had simply stalled in developmental terms from a variety of socio/economic/political reasons.  His revamps of conventional designs showed how much more could have been extracted from the technology without wasting time and money developing complicated oddities like turbines et al.#

#

But the will was not there, the steam builders would not wake up, and the diesel builders and salesmen had some persuasive arguments.  The business model was ripe for revolution.  

[LMS2968]

Mods, is it time to split this? The conversation about American steam, turbine locos, etc., while very interesting, has absolutely nothing to do with the thread's title. A separate thread, perhaps?

[kevinlms]

Indeed, to my mind for the concept to add up you need a condenser as without a condenser and closed steam/water loop the system would be woefully inefficient, and that adds space and weight. Boilers can be very highly rated in terms of thermal output and evaporation rate if you're not relying on hand stoking (some of the Soviet naval boilers were remarkably compact for their thermal output, although they didn't have a great reputation for reliability) but it isn't going to be anything like as compact or light as a diesel. Especially as you still have the generator and traction package, or alternatively the mech drive arrangement if you go for a mechanical transmission.

The LMS didn't do too bad with Turbomotive, they didn't bother with a condenser, mostly because it was considered too bulky to drag around. Of course they had plenty of water troughs to replace the water.

 

The weakness was that they only had one, so parts/maintenance was a serious problem.

[jjb1970]

The LMS didn't do too bad with Turbomotive, they didn't bother with a condenser, mostly because it was considered too bulky to drag around. Of course they had plenty of water troughs to replace the water.

 

The weakness was that they only had one, so parts/maintenance was a serious problem.

 

A steam turbine is a very simple piece of machinery. In terms of making a turbine locomotive work that shouldn't be problematic, but for the concept to make any sense it'd have to offer efficiency somewhere near a diesel locomotive and through life maintenance costs a lot better than a classic steamer. A turbine should reduce costs for maintaining the drive system by getting rid of the pistons, valve gear and potentially the connecting rods etc but unless you significantly redesign the boiler and combustion process you're still hauling a very maintenance intensive water heater around. In terms of efficiency, even a closed loop rankine system with a condenser operating at very high pressure and superheat is well below what you would get with a diesel, a low pressure/superheat non-condensing system wouldn't really make any sense as thermal efficiency would be dire. To get steam turbine efficiency to a point where it approaches a diesel plant you need to push pressure and superheat up to very high levels and the problem with those sort of conditions is you lose flexibility, which is a vital attribute for a locomotive. A lot hinges on fuel, but really the only logical reason to try and develop steam technology in rail traction applications is to try and continue using fuels such as coal. Some of the technical issues would be alleviated to a degree by using a liquid or gaseous fuel but it the becomes a pointless exercise as you can use those fuels in other more efficient forms of engine. The fact that the diesel engine was reaching technical maturity in the 1930's and electric traction packages were too (not to mention electrification in many countries) meant all of these experiments with turbo locomotives were basically technical dead ends. With no diesel engine and no electrification then turbines may have been a very good solution for trains.

[jjb1970]

I think this was the core of Porta's proposals.  The conventional kettle was far from obsolete, it had simply stalled in developmental terms from a variety of socio/economic/political reasons.  His revamps of conventional designs showed how much more could have been extracted from the technology without wasting time and money developing complicated oddities like turbines et al.#

#

But the will was not there, the steam builders would not wake up, and the diesel builders and salesmen had some persuasive arguments.  The business model was ripe for revolution.  

 

Porta was correct that steam could continue to evolve and there were improvements to be made. He was not alone in that, companies like Alco and Baldwin still saw a lot of scope to improve the steam locomotive. The problem was that however you look at it you're improving something that is still less efficient and more maintenance intensive than the alternative. The problem for Alco and Baldwin wasn't that they didn't see the potential in steam, if anything it was exactly the opposite as they saw a bright future long after they should have embraced alternatives. 

[The Stationmaster]

Asbestos suits & searing temperatures. A great combination for their health!

 

I wonder if it was actually any better than someone in Britain wrapping a bit of old sacking round themselves before going onto a hot firebox?

[jjb1970]

On the subject of the coal fuelled GT locomotive, the fine people of Overland made a very nice model, picture again from brasstrains.com:

 

 

[Pacific231G]

To be honest a diesel tender isn't a bad idea in a sense - if it could be built within the body outline of a coach (perhaps using bogies from a suitable emu?) You could have something on board for shunting at destinations or moving stock about without looking awful (like tagging an idling type 4 on the back does)

There is a preserved Paris Metro Sprague set powered by a silent diesel generator built into one of the cars. The space the generator occupies looks to be about the same as the baggage section of a mk 1 brake second. The Sprague set  is of course already equipped for electrical traction and there'd obviously be a lot more to an auxiliary diesel electric "coach" than just wiriong up a generator to a power bogie. .Interesting idea though. 

[Barry O]

Will someone start a new thread about locos other than Tornado as

A this is a UK prototype

B not a steam turbine

C not a Garrard or a mallet

D does not look like a diesel or a electric drive unit.

 

So any news from the A1 Trust on repairs?

[jjb1970]

Will someone start a new thread about locos other than Tornado as

A this is a UK prototype

B not a steam turbine

C not a Garrard or a mallet

D does not look like a diesel or a electric drive unit.

 

So any news from the A1 Trust on repairs?

We could have summed up the Tornado incident in one post - something broke, they appear to know what broke but not why and it'll be repaired. Not sure there's anything more to say until they advise us of the probable cause.

[kevinlms]

I wonder if it was actually any better than someone in Britain wrapping a bit of old sacking round themselves before going onto a hot firebox?

But that excludes the asbestos aspect. A now late boiler inspector for Victorian Railways, stayed in the steam section, long after the others transferred to making electric suburban trains. He out lived them all by many years, due to the fact they all died from asbestos related diseases, because those suburban trains contained high levels of asbestos.

 

But of course many steam locos had asbestos around the boiler, so perhaps just plain lucky.

[jamie92208]

But that excludes the asbestos aspect. A now late boiler inspector for Victorian Railways, stayed in the steam section, long after the others transferred to making electric suburban trains. He out lived them all by many years, due to the fact they all died from asbestos related diseases, because those suburban trains contained high levels of asbestos.

 

But of course many steam locos had asbestos around the boiler, so perhaps just plain lucky.

Without going too far OT it's sadly no coincidence that most old railway towns have hospitals that are centres of excellence in asbestos related disease. Thankfully by the time that Tornado was built the dangers were known and alternative products were in use.

 

Jamie

[kevinlms]

Will someone start a new thread about locos other than Tornado as

A this is a UK prototype

B not a steam turbine

C not a Garrard or a mallet

D does not look like a diesel or a electric drive unit.

 

So any news from the A1 Trust on repairs?

Sorry its gone off topic, but once it starts people pick up on a point made and it goes further off topic! Very hard to avoid in practice. I believe my posts off topic, were at least on British locos (or safety) and not on fake US diesels! 

 

But a few pages back, some people were complaining about speculation, without any facts. Which is worse?

 

If we didn't have discussion on threads, without 'full facts', then I suspect many threads would be very short!

[jjb1970]

Exposure to substances used to be part of life, the fact that in the developed word at least we are now much more rigorous in controlling exposure to harmful substances in the work place is something to be applauded I think. Asbestos is just one of many things that were once a normal part of work, some of the solvents, fuel additives, biocides etc once routinely used were lethal. I have always found it rather ironic that there is a deeply ingrained fear of radiation and nuclear engineering is seen as positively toxic when other things that were far more likely to kill people in the work place (including in nuclear plants) was just accepted.

 

On Tornado and kettles in general, one aspect that would prevent them ever becoming more than historical museum pieces with a bit of limited operation is their emissions, all that smoke isn't doing anybody's health (or the environment) any favours. With growing awareness of emissions issues and the move to phase out hydro-carbons (which I support) then at some point it may become more difficult to operate steam locomotives on those grounds.