Has anyone made or seen any experimental Steam Turbine locomotives like the one shown?
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/upturb/upturb.htm
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/upturb/upturb.htm
Steam Turbines?
- Thread starter CasyJ
- Start date
Yes, it was, but as you said, they proved to be inefficient and the idea was eventually dropped.
I believe the LMS Turbomotive was a success and was run until it needed extensive work that could not be justified for a one-off. It was then rebuilt as a conventional locomotive and destroyed shortly after in the Harrow and Wealdstone accident.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/turbom/turbom.htm
Dave Bird
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/turbom/turbom.htm
Dave Bird
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
That first one kinda reminds me of a (tiny) Jawn Henry.
EDIT: The GT3
Yes, but ours (GT3) was prettier.
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
But we all know everything is better bigger.
What !!!!, even your petrol bills for running an enormous V8 2 ton "Yank tank" gas guzzler, instead of a nice sensible sized economical car, like we Europeans do ? :hehe:
OMG_internet
Furfaggotry! :3
But we all know everything is better bigger.
so why doesn't everyone still have mobiles that are bricks?
I forgot: Tech is the one exception to this rule. Everything else is better bigger.so why doesn't everyone still have mobiles that are bricks?
Norfolkwesternman
I like Submarines&Trainz
To my knowledge, the most successful
steamturbine was Chesapeake and Ohio's M1 turbine. there were only three made and there is no survivors. The turbines served in the forties and fifties but then were scrapped.
Overland Models has released one model for 2,399.99.
ihave tried to make a trainz version but it has failed.
Thank you for that (and for posting on-topic). Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to make a steam turbine loco for Trainz. All you would need is the mesh,skins, and create it as a diesel-electric. Change the exhaust characteristics to a steamer and customize the engine sounds, provided anyone remembers what they sounded like.
Last edited:
magickmaker
New member
The C&O's turbines were not successful. They were, to put it mildly, Total flops.
The locomotives were intended for a run between DC and Cincinatti Ohio. Problem is they never made it the full run without some kind of trouble. The main problem was coal dust. While they had a "tender", unlike most locomotives, this tender only carried water. Fuel was carried in a bunker ahead of the engineer's cab. Sure, the problems were minor and could have been fixed eventually, but the C&O realized that the locomotive was going to cost a ton to keep up. So, they were quietly withdrawn in 1950 and broken up.
The only one that could be said to be even marginally successful, could be the N&W Jawn Henry.
Similar to the C&O locomotive, the Jawn Henry survived 4 years. It too suffered from problems that plagued the C&O locomotive. However the JH actually saw service in some capacity, if only limited. Pressed into helper service, the locomotive proved quite useful, but was also ultimately withdrawn in 1958 and broken up.
Interestingly, the Jawn Henry actually had a water tube boiler, with automatic controls. In theory, the locomotive could operate without the need of a fireman, with the locomotive engineer doing all the work. The controls had problems though, which is to be expected given the level of technology available at the time.
Over the pond though, steam turbine proved itself quite nicely. In fact, in Sweden, two locomotives of one successful design remain. One I am told, is in working condition.
Built in the thirties, these locomotives (2-8-0 locomotives driven by jackshaft) first entered service. They were withdrawn in the 50's when the line they operated was electrified. The two survivors can be found in Grangesberg. (and yes, I know I'm missing an accent there.)
The locomotives were intended for a run between DC and Cincinatti Ohio. Problem is they never made it the full run without some kind of trouble. The main problem was coal dust. While they had a "tender", unlike most locomotives, this tender only carried water. Fuel was carried in a bunker ahead of the engineer's cab. Sure, the problems were minor and could have been fixed eventually, but the C&O realized that the locomotive was going to cost a ton to keep up. So, they were quietly withdrawn in 1950 and broken up.
The only one that could be said to be even marginally successful, could be the N&W Jawn Henry.
Similar to the C&O locomotive, the Jawn Henry survived 4 years. It too suffered from problems that plagued the C&O locomotive. However the JH actually saw service in some capacity, if only limited. Pressed into helper service, the locomotive proved quite useful, but was also ultimately withdrawn in 1958 and broken up.
Interestingly, the Jawn Henry actually had a water tube boiler, with automatic controls. In theory, the locomotive could operate without the need of a fireman, with the locomotive engineer doing all the work. The controls had problems though, which is to be expected given the level of technology available at the time.
Over the pond though, steam turbine proved itself quite nicely. In fact, in Sweden, two locomotives of one successful design remain. One I am told, is in working condition.
Built in the thirties, these locomotives (2-8-0 locomotives driven by jackshaft) first entered service. They were withdrawn in the 50's when the line they operated was electrified. The two survivors can be found in Grangesberg. (and yes, I know I'm missing an accent there.)
