|
Post by bdhicks on Mar 14, 2016 20:12:41 GMT -8
Well, in that case two Pennsy I1sa (Decapods) had 204,000lbs tractive effort! The I1sa had much poorer M.U. support than the SD9, though.
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 15, 2016 2:04:05 GMT -8
Double headed big steam sounds impressive til you realize yer paying for two crews !
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Mar 15, 2016 6:56:57 GMT -8
seem to recall U.P. 1-30 being shut down by 12-69. never did see any live out there in 1970. but did see some in yards when riding the "City of Everywhere" during 12-70. the DM&IR Yellowstones were rated at 160,000 LBS of TE,but actually were slightly stronger. the NP Yellowstones could have come close to that IF they were fired with Grade A coal,not Lignite slush. what about those 2 U.P. GE built Steam Turbines ? they didn't last very long either. something about Steam Turbines ? the PRR one was in service the longest,but never led to a Fleet. Spikre
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 15, 2016 7:30:08 GMT -8
Last run in revenue service was U.P. #7 on Dec. 26, '69. Last one running was U.P. #8 in Oct. 1970. The big steam Turbines G.E. did prewar, lasted about 11 months on the G.N. and about a quarter of that on Uncle Pete ! Too bad Penn didn't do the S2 thing back in the mid to late thirties....might have had a chance to run a little longer. Not much though, while others fooled around with steam - looking for the free ride, EMC under Dilworth perfected passenger, switcher, and freight Diesels. Post-war EMD road switchers cleaned up what was left. In the end, N&W got it as close to "right" as it was gonna get.
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 15, 2016 8:41:52 GMT -8
It sure did....but this was on No.80. Powered by powdered coal from U.P.'s mines. This frankenchooch featured a 5500HP Turbine swiped from a Standard type before it was traded to G.E. for a Whirly Bird. Use your imagination on this one! G.E. tried it again in the '70s with a coal slurry powered U-Boat. Whadda mess ! The coal Turbine lasted about twice as long as the steam Turbine duo from 1939. IMHO, both G.E. and U.P. were asking the impossible. I mean if No.6 heavy oil was going to be hard on Turbine blades, how on earth was powdered coal going to be any better? ? The end came after a few years of mostly sitting idle or in the shops at Cheyenne or Council Bluffs. The powdered coal was simply too corrosive, too abrasive, and too explosive for Uncle Pete use.....short term or long ! Steam Turbines are driven by steam, and if you have fly ash getting inside your Turbine - you got a world of hurt !
|
|
|
Post by GP40P-2 on Mar 15, 2016 11:20:38 GMT -8
I was told the cinders from the coal would erode the blades of the turbines. I never thought it made much sense, as the turbines were powered by steam. Maybe the steam spun turbines to generate a draft for better combustin? The blade erosion was on the coal fired turbine that UP tried (the PA with the ex-GN electric containing the turbine). Blasting turbine blades with grit is a bad idea, just ask the airlines after a large volcanic event.
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Mar 15, 2016 11:27:57 GMT -8
Hmmm. The cited article DID mention Jawn Henry didn't have enough beans. At least compared to an A. Ed Ed I got to see both the Jawn Henry and the A's run in 1956. The Jawn Henry was in pusher service since it tested and could not keep up with the A's on speed. It traffic effort was much greater than the A's or the Y's. The turbine might have been very good in the long run if Diesels had not been so easy and cheap to maintain. The picture below is one I took of the Jawn Henry in August of 1956 Larry
|
|
|
Post by autocoach on Mar 15, 2016 16:17:00 GMT -8
Size fixation even in model railroading.
And we can't get a new decent, recent 2-8-0 or 4-6-0 to current DCC standards that can be run on small and branch line railroads.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 15, 2016 16:56:27 GMT -8
I do like my "old" Spectrum 4-6-0. I don't know how current the DCC version was. I bought mine back when I was DCC-unfriendly. But the loco was, and is, a beauty. I'm talking about the low-drivered one, by the way.
It would be a nice thing to bring out a complementary 2-8-0. Pretty much like the old PFM Ma and Pa one. Another cutie! The recent Bachmann 2-8-0 was pretty nice, but a bit big for a small railroad.
Also, their 4-4-0 would do nicely as a semi-retired branch line loco.
On a slightly different slant, I still want a logging 2-8-2. That's one with 44" drivers. A tank version would also be nice.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Mar 15, 2016 16:59:25 GMT -8
autocoach, What's wrong with the Spectrum ones? Or the Athearn ones? Or the BLI ones? Or the upcoming Rapido ones?
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 15, 2016 18:02:31 GMT -8
Paul,
Bachmann has discontinued the Spectrum steam line. Apparently. So, for example, the 4-6-0 has been "improved for easier handling". As in cast on detailing. The Athearn ones have that ridiculous giant firebox (to hide the gearing). The BLI is too big. Rapido is too Canadian. Unless, of course, you're Canadian. Then it'll likely be wonderful.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 15, 2016 21:34:43 GMT -8
BLI and Bachmann are non players in the real world !
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Mar 15, 2016 23:24:32 GMT -8
Maybe Big Dawg can make one up for the guys who want it. They can carve the buck out of a bar of soap.
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 16, 2016 4:29:44 GMT -8
Soundz like you kids need a dose of Tyco Prairie . My grill is stoked for whaddever yunz come up with ! Ying - ying - ying !
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Mar 16, 2016 10:42:50 GMT -8
some U.P. 80/8080 trivia read over the years. the PA was a PA-1,U.P. didn't have PA-2s,could be the large number boards have fooled authors over the years ? the Coal didn't burn completely,but U.P. wanted to use online coal since they owned the mines where the coal came from. it is possible that they ran tests with better grade coal,or even Anthracite to see if the clunker problem persisted. no matter how small U.P. crushed the coal the clinkers still would be sucked out of the firebox and ruin the turbine blades. since 80/8080 was more of an Engineering Dept "Hobby",maybe they never realy wanted to "Cure" the problems as they had at least 24 other Turbines left over from the "Little Blows". Spikre
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 10:52:05 GMT -8
some U.P. 80/8080 trivia read over the years. the PA was a PA-1,U.P. didn't have PA-2s,could be the large number boards have fooled authors over the years ? the Coal didn't burn completely,but U.P. wanted to use online coal since they owned the mines where the coal came from. it is possible that they ran tests with better grade coal,or even Anthracite to see if the clunker problem persisted. no matter how small U.P. crushed the coal the clinkers still would be sucked of the firebox and ruin the turbine blades. since 80/8080 was more of an Engineering Dept "Hobby",maybe they never realy wanted to "Cure" the problems as they had at least 24 other Turbines left over from the "Little Blows". Spikre I think the 80 & 80B were funded in part by the Coal Institute.
|
|
|
Post by jaygee on Mar 16, 2016 11:10:07 GMT -8
I've heard or read that there was some external involvement with No. 80. It just looks and sounds to unrealistic what with all the data and research done in this field by 1960. This was simply NOT a locomotive to be used by Uncle Pete in everyday service...even if they could keep it together for more than five minutes. U.P. already had the "right" fuel, as proven with No. 57 in the propane conversion tests of 1953. The extra care required using natural gas was a big factor in moving away from this development.
|
|