|
|
Post by chessie77 on Mar 12, 2016 17:14:27 GMT -8
I was thinking, since the UP turbines have been made, and the PRR S-2 turbine also, does anyone think that the N&W Jawn Henry or the C&O M1 turbines will be made in plastic? If Walthers were to make the M-1 for the C&O, they could also bring out the Chessie train to go with it. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 12, 2016 17:25:05 GMT -8
My thought: Nope.
There were a lot of UP turbines.
The S-2 was made iconic by Lionel. Plus it looks like a steam engine.
The N&W and C&O locos are neither.
Sorry. I think it would be swell if they were done. I don't see the sales, though.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by theengineshed on Mar 12, 2016 18:11:24 GMT -8
Heljan uses aluminum tools for low production runs, I suspect someone will get around to producing them sooner or later, could even be 3D printed. Jawn Henry is certainly an iconic locomotive. The IC Green Diamond would be cool too, as would some of the early UP train sets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 20:34:53 GMT -8
I was thinking, since the UP turbines have been made, and the PRR S-2 turbine also, does anyone think that the N&W Jawn Henry or the C&O M1 turbines will be made in plastic? If Walthers were to make the M-1 for the C&O, they could also bring out the Chessie train to go with it. Any thoughts? Not going to happen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 20:40:33 GMT -8
...Jawn Henry is certainly an iconic locomotive... How is that? |
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Mar 12, 2016 20:48:12 GMT -8
The IC Green Diamond would be cool Ahhh yes. the Tomato Worm would be cool for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by chessie77 on Mar 12, 2016 21:02:25 GMT -8
There are a lot of N&W modelers, especially in the late steam era. Broadway Limited has sold a lot of N&W steam, and the Jawn Henry would fit in very well. The N&W also did think that they could over come the problems with the engine. Baldwin wanted the N&W to order 50, but the N&W only wanted to order 25, with an option for 25 more at a later date. Baldwin wouldn't budge, so N&W didn't order any more. Most eastern modelers know about the Jawn Henry.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 13, 2016 2:33:55 GMT -8
Jawn's biggest problem can be summarized in one word : Westinghouse !
|
|
|
|
Post by fmilhaupt on Mar 13, 2016 6:57:13 GMT -8
{snip}If Walthers were to make the M-1 for the C&O, they could also bring out the Chessie train to go with it. Any thoughts? I think that there would be far more market for the cars from the Chessie train than for the M-1 turbine. The various Budd-built coaches, lounges and twin-unit diners were far more successful than the turbines, and ended up on the ACL, the SAL and the C&EI. The twin-unit diners even ended up on the original Auto Train. The mid-train domes went to the B&O (one of the Walthers Capitol Limited domes is this car), while the dome-observation cars went to the D&RGW and were used until about 1970. The combine and the lunch counter observation cars built for the connecting trains were used by the C&O until Amtrak day. Most of the Chessie's cars did actually run as a train on the Grand Rapids-Chicago Pere Marquettes (behind E7s), but only from 1948 until late 1950/early 1951. |
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on Mar 13, 2016 7:09:17 GMT -8
Jawn's biggest problem can be summarized in one word : Westinghouse ! I can think of another word "failure" Rick J |
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 13, 2016 9:20:32 GMT -8
Failure? How so? Tales of a Turbine maps this machine out quite well, and except for recurring failures with the cold water pump, "he" actually did pretty well, within the design parameters.
|
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on Mar 13, 2016 9:29:01 GMT -8
Failure? How so? Tales of a Turbine maps this machine out quite well, and except for recurring failures with the cold water pump, "he" actually did pretty well, within the design parameters. "The Norfolk & Western's experimental Jawn Henry was the last in a short series of steam turbine locomotives tested by three different railroads between the 1930s and 1950s including the Pennsylvania and Chesapeake & Ohio. The hope was to find a way to continue utilizing steam as main line power, especially for the N&W a road which had a long-standing policy of using strictly steam locomotives. Unfortunately, as all three railroads came to learn the steam turbine was simply too complicated and unreliable to effectively compete against the efficient diesel. The N&W tested the Jawn Henry during a three year period in the 1950s but even the master steam builders of Roanoke could not work out the locomotive's problems. Finally, the railroad gave in and scrapped the Henry, purchasing its first diesel locomotives in the mid-1950s." www.american-rails.com/jawn-henry.htmlI would consider a three year life span when even the worst diesels ever produced managed the 15 year normal lifespan a failure. Rick J |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 13, 2016 11:11:59 GMT -8
It may be that Jawn Henry performed adequately. Under the circumstances. The circumstances being that it was a prototype.
Perhaps N&W was apprehensive about doing all the subsequent development work for the steam turbine when the diesel was ready and off the shelf. For the diesel, there would be NO development cost. For the steam turbine, there would. And then there's the question of whether N&W could recoup some development costs by selling product to other railroads.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Mar 13, 2016 12:12:08 GMT -8
The biggest problem I see with a Jawn or a Chessie turbine is, well, they're BIG. I mean REALLY big! How many modelers could actually run one of those monsters? Those locos make a Centipede or a Centennial look small.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Mar 13, 2016 12:51:47 GMT -8
I had to google Jawn Henry - it's a beast for sure and a good example that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 13, 2016 13:31:55 GMT -8
The biggest problem I see with a Jawn or a Chessie turbine is, well, they're BIG. I mean REALLY big! How many modelers could actually run one of those monsters? Those locos make a Centipede or a Centennial look small. A couple of issues with the Jawn and the C&O turbine. 1. Size 2. Very small window of actual operation 3. Price - They will more than likely be even more expensive than the Scale Trains UP turbine. 4. Other than the Appalachian coal belt, these behemoths are not that well known. When compared to the Union Pacific and its turbines. 5. One offs. UP at least had a fleet of turbines 6. Mold cutting costs. Aluminum or steel doesn't make that much of difference when you are talking about having to cut hundreds of molds. Just go back and watch the Scale Trains video on how their UP turbines are manufactured. 7. What is the demand? The brass versions sell for stupid amounts of money, even then the ALCO Models version of the Jawn who's mechanism is so poor it can barely get out of its own way......well maybe running is overrated. If Jawn of the C&O turbine had a service life longer than a few years, maybe a mass produced model would be in order. We need not forget that the UP turbines lasted into the 1970's. Two are in museums which helps to bolster a following too. If you want some cool documentation on the Jawn. www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/selectdocs.php?index=rs&id=270&Type=Picture |
|
|
|
Post by chessie77 on Mar 13, 2016 13:41:33 GMT -8
A friend of mine was almost ran over by the Jawn Henry in Williamson W.Va. He was crossing the tracks with his mother and they had to run to get out of it's way. He was about 12 at that time. He said it scared the S**t out of him and his mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 13, 2016 15:21:53 GMT -8
I would have to agree that an HO model of either of the Pocahontas Turbines would likely be a tough sell. I have a repowered (by Sam), Jawn Henry, and even though it's a great machine, it gets very little use. Size is a factor here, and fortunately for us, U.P. and G.E. split the 8500GTEL locomotive into three sections...making 22" radii operation possible. Now I fully agree that the Chessie Budds would be a killer set to have. Such a set could be offered with a much more reasonable L1 Hudson for power, or even tri color E8s ( yunz listening, Walthers ?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2016 7:07:13 GMT -8
Failure? How so? Tales of a Turbine maps this machine out quite well, and except for recurring failures with the cold water pump, "he" actually did pretty well, within the design parameters. "The Norfolk & Western's experimental Jawn Henry was the last in a short series of steam turbine locomotives tested by three different railroads between the 1930s and 1950s including the Pennsylvania and Chesapeake & Ohio. The hope was to find a way to continue utilizing steam as main line power, especially for the N&W a road which had a long-standing policy of using strictly steam locomotives. Unfortunately, as all three railroads came to learn the steam turbine was simply too complicated and unreliable to effectively compete against the efficient diesel. The N&W tested the Jawn Henry during a three year period in the 1950s but even the master steam builders of Roanoke could not work out the locomotive's problems. Finally, the railroad gave in and scrapped the Henry, purchasing its first diesel locomotives in the mid-1950s." www.american-rails.com/jawn-henry.htmlI would consider a three year life span when even the worst diesels ever produced managed the 15 year normal lifespan a failure. Rick J Jawn Henry was not a failure, it was killed by corporate bean counters |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 14, 2016 7:49:35 GMT -8
Hmmm. The cited article DID mention Jawn Henry didn't have enough beans.
At least compared to an A.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 14, 2016 10:11:19 GMT -8
For all out starting T.E. power, Jawn could muster big numbers, compared to other N&W types. The improved Y6 classes could start with 170K worth of T.E. Big Jawn hit 175K. Where Jawn was going to have a problem was duplicating the "all-out" DBHP of the A Class at 6300HP. This much difference will effect speed between terminals. Jawn did offer some economies in fuel costs. Too bad the negatives piled up far too quickly on the wrong side of the ledger for the operating dept. No matter how you shook it out, Diesel power was going to win out in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 14, 2016 10:13:32 GMT -8
Jawn's 175K T.E. was good...But Uncle Pete's 212K (as built) was better !
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 14, 2016 10:56:23 GMT -8
Jawn's 175K T.E. was good... Noting that JW had four six-axle trucks, I added the T.E. of two GN SD7's: 85875 + 85875 = 171750 I know which setup I'd rather get stuck with. Especially since I can break mine into two, if necessary. Or, put another way, if one's down, the other doesn't have to be, too. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 14, 2016 12:22:58 GMT -8
Well putting it that way.....two SD7s are better than just about anything, except for all out speed. Remember what the old EMD guy said when they first came out in '51. All the advantages of a Shay, with none of the disadvantages ! U-rah !
|
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on Mar 14, 2016 12:28:22 GMT -8
Well, in that case two Pennsy I1sa (Decapods) had 204,000lbs tractive effort!
Rick J
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 14, 2016 12:38:11 GMT -8
I dunno. I just kinda have this "feeling" the the term "Y6b" will be posted in a succeeding post. I s'pose I'm psychic, or something.
It's a gift.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by chessie77 on Mar 14, 2016 13:54:53 GMT -8
Y6b  |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 14, 2016 15:02:22 GMT -8
Wow. I scare myself, sometimes.
I need to make sure this ability stays as a force for good.
My economic good comes to mind.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by bigblow69 on Mar 14, 2016 15:10:44 GMT -8
Jawn's 175K T.E. was good...But Uncle Pete's 212K (as built) was better ! 3 unit Big Blow turbine? |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 14, 2016 15:56:37 GMT -8
Jawn's 175K T.E. was good...But Uncle Pete's 212K (as built) was better ! 3 unit Big Blow turbine? Yup. Ed |
|
