The exception is the m3t class used by TGOJ in Sweden I think. Three were built between 1930 and 1936 and were used to haul iron ore. They were withdrawn from service in the 1950s when the line was electrified. The locomotives were placed in Sweden's strategical steam reserve and thanks to that all three survive and one of them was used to haul the last ore train when the mine shut down in 1990 (video of it is available on RUclips).
One of them is still in working condition and is currently undergoing maintenance. Unfortunately, the railway museum which the M3ts are stored is mare akin to a scrapyard than a museum. Really interesting place really, you can find old SL (Stockholm commuter rail) rolling stock rotting alongside E2s. Grängesberg, the dying mining town which the museum lays is otherwise uninteresting, except for an annual motor show.
As a designer with a deep interest in steam locomotion, i actually have a side project designing and making a working scale model of a team turbomotive locomotive, styled in streamline moderne. I even tried out a few ideas to solve the low speed inefficiency of the turbine
Steam turbines both on board ships and in stationary power plant service operate in clean engine rooms at a near constant speed. Both can also use condensers at the turbine exhaust to lower the pressure of the exhaust down to near zero, making steam turbines even more efficient. And both use high pressure water tube boilers instead of the fire tube boilers used by most steam locomotives, which enables them to reach steam pressures much above the 500 PSI max of steam locomotives (the only exception being a handful of water tube boiler equipped but otherwise conventional steam locomotives.) That makes them even more efficient. The two 1939 GE steam turbine locomotives built for the UP, the ones built for the C&O, and the "Jawn Henry" for the Norfolk and Western Railway were all basically steam-electric power plants on rails, like their marine and power plant cousins. The UP steam turbine locomotives were even equipped with condensers. But, as pointed out in the video, these power plants were more complicated and more fragile than a convention steam locomotive or even a diesel locomotive. They were could not coup with the hard coupling, start-stop, and dirty life a locomotive leads. They also had problems with ash and soot from the boiler getting into and shorting out the traction motors. Their added expense and reliability issues outweighed any performance benefits gained, which is why all were scrapped in just five years or less. There was a serious study put together in the 1950s for a nuclear-powered locomotive which would have replaced the boiler with a tiny nuclear reactor surrounded by tons of lead shielding. It would have powered a steam turbine, and what looked like a B unit behind it was in fact a condenser. It promised a power rating of about 10,000 HP which interested railroads like the UP, but the million-dollar estimated cost for each locomotive, combined with handling the nuclear fuel (weapons grade uranium mixed with sulfuric acid) resulted in it never getting past a paper study. I have a video about it on my channel.
Hi. Actually, geared steam turbines on ships ARE reversing, although at much lower power than in forward. A few spools are included for reversing, and these must be evacuated during normal operation so as to reduce windage from the reverse spools. Turbine-electric units ought to be similar in operation to diesel-electric units. Basically, steam is a nuisance to deal with except for large, stationary power plants, where their use is still common.
I am not a steam engineer so cannot fully answer your question. However, I think the answer would depend on the size of the engine. Steam pistons can work at relatively low pressures as in Newcomen's and Watt's low pressure engines. A steam turbine requires high pressure steam. In short then, my view is that a turbine generally needs higher pressure steam.
I would assume steam turbine locomotive would require more steam pressure to run, for steam turbines are very poor at low speeds and go through fuel like it’s nothing. However if the steam turbine goes higher speeds than it doesn’t consume a lot of fuel, but when it comes to railroads trains are going to have to be slow enough to the point of turbines not being useful.
Can i suggest.... Let the turbine run at its own speed can we not regulate it through gears for starters, then research on whether they can under low pressure giving out the same torque... I am not a qualified engineer though...also making sure they be able to pull at the least 25 carriages...
I imagine weight and cost would be the main issues. A loco with two engines would be huge and probably too heavy for the tracks. It would also cost a lot more than a standard engine. Also, steam turbines were coming on the scene just as diesel engines were being developed and diesel wins on cost, flexibility and maintenance.
Hybrid nice idea.. Can we eliminate coal! The hammer blow on the railroad gets eliminated with the connecting rods gone.. Correct me if I'm wrong.. High Pressure steam operates the turbine.. Once this steam exits the turbine it's low pressure. Is the low pressure steam utilised or wasted? What will be the power to weight ratio? Can there not be a system wherein the well utilised steam exit to the tender back as water?
@@babubabusapalya1526 The GE steam turbine locomotives built for the Union Pacific in 1939 was pretty much what you described. They had a condenser built into the rear of the locomotive, so the efficiency of the turbine could be improved, and the water reused. But such a complicated powerplant was extremely difficult to keep running in the harsh environment that locomotives run in; so bad that the Union Pacific gave up on them after only a year. The Northern Pacific (I think) operated them for a few years more because of motive power shortages during World War II; but got rid them as quick as they could, even though the GE techs that rode with them got many of the bugs ironed out. They just could not compete both in terms of maintenance cost and reliability with even the early diesel locomotives; they would have a harder time competing with today's even more efficient and reliable diesels. And now that the world is moving away from coal, and the cost of coal fired generation is higher that natural gas; it would make for a very hard sell.
The exception is the m3t class used by TGOJ in Sweden I think. Three were built between 1930 and 1936 and were used to haul iron ore. They were withdrawn from service in the 1950s when the line was electrified. The locomotives were placed in Sweden's strategical steam reserve and thanks to that all three survive and one of them was used to haul the last ore train when the mine shut down in 1990 (video of it is available on RUclips).
they are all in presentation now
One of them is still in working condition and is currently undergoing maintenance. Unfortunately, the railway museum which the M3ts are stored is mare akin to a scrapyard than a museum. Really interesting place really, you can find old SL (Stockholm commuter rail) rolling stock rotting alongside E2s. Grängesberg, the dying mining town which the museum lays is otherwise uninteresting, except for an annual motor show.
As a designer with a deep interest in steam locomotion, i actually have a side project designing and making a working scale model of a team turbomotive locomotive, styled in streamline moderne. I even tried out a few ideas to solve the low speed inefficiency of the turbine
Good to hear that....interesting though, can the inefficiency be curtailed or be marginalised in any way...
Steam turbines both on board ships and in stationary power plant service operate in clean engine rooms at a near constant speed. Both can also use condensers at the turbine exhaust to lower the pressure of the exhaust down to near zero, making steam turbines even more efficient. And both use high pressure water tube boilers instead of the fire tube boilers used by most steam locomotives, which enables them to reach steam pressures much above the 500 PSI max of steam locomotives (the only exception being a handful of water tube boiler equipped but otherwise conventional steam locomotives.) That makes them even more efficient.
The two 1939 GE steam turbine locomotives built for the UP, the ones built for the C&O, and the "Jawn Henry" for the Norfolk and Western Railway were all basically steam-electric power plants on rails, like their marine and power plant cousins. The UP steam turbine locomotives were even equipped with condensers.
But, as pointed out in the video, these power plants were more complicated and more fragile than a convention steam locomotive or even a diesel locomotive. They were could not coup with the hard coupling, start-stop, and dirty life a locomotive leads. They also had problems with ash and soot from the boiler getting into and shorting out the traction motors. Their added expense and reliability issues outweighed any performance benefits gained, which is why all were scrapped in just five years or less.
There was a serious study put together in the 1950s for a nuclear-powered locomotive which would have replaced the boiler with a tiny nuclear reactor surrounded by tons of lead shielding. It would have powered a steam turbine, and what looked like a B unit behind it was in fact a condenser. It promised a power rating of about 10,000 HP which interested railroads like the UP, but the million-dollar estimated cost for each locomotive, combined with handling the nuclear fuel (weapons grade uranium mixed with sulfuric acid) resulted in it never getting past a paper study. I have a video about it on my channel.
Thank you for those very interesting points.
If I was wealthy, I'd build a new design steam turbine locomotive just because I want to own one so badly!
Hi. Actually, geared steam turbines on ships ARE reversing, although at much lower power than in forward. A few spools are included for reversing, and these must be evacuated during normal operation so as to reduce windage from the reverse spools. Turbine-electric units ought to be similar in operation to diesel-electric units. Basically, steam is a nuisance to deal with except for large, stationary power plants, where their use is still common.
yeah they were inefficient, but you cant deny the concept was/is dope af
I think that the development of diesel-electric is also a factor.
Top Hat Mercenary Confederation: “An Unreliable Locomotive that needs Improvement? *CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.* “
Replace a conventional fire tube boiler with OTSG modern technology
really appreciated the video
And steam turbines using coal to make elec still exist...how backwards is that. Tech that is 130 years old.
Can you tell me which engine requires more steam pressure to run.?
1. Steam turbine
2. Steam piston
I am not a steam engineer so cannot fully answer your question. However, I think the answer would depend on the size of the engine. Steam pistons can work at relatively low pressures as in Newcomen's and Watt's low pressure engines. A steam turbine requires high pressure steam.
In short then, my view is that a turbine generally needs higher pressure steam.
@@RossMaynardProcessExcellence Thanks.
Where are you from?
I would assume steam turbine locomotive would require more steam pressure to run, for steam turbines are very poor at low speeds and go through fuel like it’s nothing. However if the steam turbine goes higher speeds than it doesn’t consume a lot of fuel, but when it comes to railroads trains are going to have to be slow enough to the point of turbines not being useful.
@@trainguy2155 thanks for information ❤️
Can i suggest.... Let the turbine run at its own speed can we not regulate it through gears for starters, then research on whether they can under low pressure giving out the same torque... I am not a qualified engineer though...also making sure they be able to pull at the least 25 carriages...
Could not a hybrid of both types be used, I wonder why this was never tried
I imagine weight and cost would be the main issues. A loco with two engines would be huge and probably too heavy for the tracks. It would also cost a lot more than a standard engine. Also, steam turbines were coming on the scene just as diesel engines were being developed and diesel wins on cost, flexibility and maintenance.
Hybrid nice idea.. Can we eliminate coal!
The hammer blow on the railroad gets eliminated with the connecting rods gone..
Correct me if I'm wrong.. High Pressure steam operates the turbine.. Once this steam exits the turbine it's low pressure. Is the low pressure steam utilised or wasted?
What will be the power to weight ratio?
Can there not be a system wherein the well utilised steam exit to the tender back as water?
@@babubabusapalya1526 The GE steam turbine locomotives built for the Union Pacific in 1939 was pretty much what you described. They had a condenser built into the rear of the locomotive, so the efficiency of the turbine could be improved, and the water reused.
But such a complicated powerplant was extremely difficult to keep running in the harsh environment that locomotives run in; so bad that the Union Pacific gave up on them after only a year. The Northern Pacific (I think) operated them for a few years more because of motive power shortages during World War II; but got rid them as quick as they could, even though the GE techs that rode with them got many of the bugs ironed out.
They just could not compete both in terms of maintenance cost and reliability with even the early diesel locomotives; they would have a harder time competing with today's even more efficient and reliable diesels. And now that the world is moving away from coal, and the cost of coal fired generation is higher that natural gas; it would make for a very hard sell.