Build a new Turbomotive!

[Pigeon]

There is some excellent work being done these days both in constructing new steam locomotives from scratch, and in restoration projects so extensive that they amount to more or less the same thing, but I'm afraid a lot of it leaves me somewhat cold: recreation of some random class that never made it into preservation is great if you're a particular fan of that class, but I find it somewhat lacking in comparison to a genuine preserved example with a genuine history behind it (similarly to the way a genuine XK120 is preferable to a newly-made XK120-style body with an XJ6 drivetrain in it), and few of the classes concerned have any noticeably unusual engineering features to distinguish them from other contemporary classes of similar size.

I include "Tornado" in this: a magnificent achievement, but it's still "more of the same"; it's a big Pacific much like all the preserved big Pacifics in essence, and nearly identical to some. I don't, however, particularly mean to include the various projects to reassemble selections of items from the GWR Lego locomotive parts kit in combinations which were not preserved as such, because it offers interesting technical possibilities of making up-to-date comparisons between the various different permutations (though also for this reason I am disappointed in those which do not aim to meet approval for running on the main line, since there's not much you can test and compare at 25mph).

The recent project I am particularly impressed with is the restoration of "Duke of Gloucester", because not only did they restore a unique experimental machine from a parlous and incomplete condition, they also discovered and corrected important details which BR had cocked up and thereby led to the experiment being considered a failure. With these matters put right, the locomotive performed as it had originally been expected that it should, ie. excellently. Silly trying to do an experiment if you don't build your apparatus properly... The project has other aspects also of considerable technical interest, such as the Caprotti valve gear, and as an indication of the way steam development might have continued in Britain if it had continued at all.

So I would like to see some of the talent on offer taking on the project of constructing not another new reciprocating locomotive, but a new Stanier Turbomotive: another unique experimental machine, an improvement on previous turbine experiments in that this one actually worked, and moreover worked extremely well, being well suited to the duties it was used for and apparently well-liked by its crews; its only significant problem being that it liked to explode its turbine blading every few hundred thousand miles and then sit for months waiting for spare parts, which would have been a stock item if there had been a fleet of them in service (as apparently there would have been if Stanier had had the chance to build 50 of them). Trouble was everyone at the time was preoccupied with the national ding-dong with some jumped-up corporal with a silly moustache, and the loco never got the attention it deserved...

As a project, it ought to be easier if anything than something like "Tornado", since you avoid a lot of very large and expensive parts - huge and complicated cylinder/valve castings, pistons, valves, motion parts and some at least of the massive and horribly expensive forgings for the rods. In place of that lot you have a turbine and gearbox unit which is not particularly large in itself, and is made of parts which are mostly of remarkably tractable size for a locomotive and are also very much still common parts in contemporary machinery. As for the turbine itself, turbines both gas and steam are now in far more widespread use, and better developed, than they were at the time of the original experiment, so that really ought to be far less of an obstacle than it was originally. (And we also have better metallurgy, and better cush drives, to counter the exploding-bladeset problem.)

Of course, it would absolutely have to be certified for main-line running, because that kind of speed range is the whole point of the idea and it needs to be able to run free to show its colours in a way that a piston engine doesn't. But there again, it should have a distinct advantage over any piston-engined project in the complete absence of hammer-blow, which is a big thing not to have to worry about.

 

[D Williams]

A project to be tackled once the class 22 diesel-hydraulic is running.

 

[fgwrich]

A project to be tackled once the class 22 diesel-hydraulic is running.

Project 22 seems to be somewhat dead in the water these days. I think the only two that have a realistic chance are the nearly completed Baby Deltic project, and LMS 10000 / D16 whereby several components are ready for it.

 

[Merthyr Imp]

I'd just like to throw in the suggestion of building a new 'Leader'. It would have to be oil-fired, hence no need for the central fireman's compartment, and have no side corridor meaning the boiler wouldn't be off centre which seemed to be a major failing.

 

[Pigeon]

Project 22 seems to be somewhat dead in the water these days. I think the only two that have a realistic chance are the nearly completed Baby Deltic project, and LMS 10000 / D16 whereby several components are ready for it.

I regard diesel recreations such as these as something of a different kettle of fish, because they are so heavily dependent on single major items which it is not exactly practical to replicate - haven't the Baby Deltic lot been lucky enough to get hold of the only nine-pot Deltic remaining in existence? I do hope it doesn't blow up on them, because what will they do then - and what about "routine" spares for it, too? Whereas with steam locomotives, as "Tornado" in particular demonstrates, there aren't any parts which are impractical to replicate - you just need to find someone who can handle biiig chunks of metal, and pay an eye-watering amount of money for a length of steel with a hole in each end, etc.

My thinking regarding a new Turbomotive is that in place of quite a lot of those biiig and expensive chunks of metal, you are instead replicating the turbine-and-geartrain unit, which ought to be a comparatively straightforward problem since it's far less removed from technology which is still current. Most of its weight and bulk, after all, is just a big gearbox - nothing unusual about that at all. The turbine itself is obviously a bit special, but again, turbines - steam as well as gas - are still very much current technology, and the manufacturing techniques are a lot better developed than they were at the time; it's not even a very big turbine; and of course its mechanical complexity is nigh zero - just one shaft going round with some funny-shaped bits of metal on it: getting one manufactured is probably, figuratively, little more than "an exercise in ringing round", certainly in comparison to something like remanufacturing a multi-cylinder internal combustion engine from scratch. And of course all the parts are of tractable size, some of them even liftable. So I am estimating that the cost would be no worse than comparable with, and fairly possibly less than, that of remanufacturing the "heavy metal" which performs the same function in a conventional reciprocating steam engine, and the difficulty of getting it done would be less.

 

[DerekC]

It would be wonderful to see and hear a Turbomotive running, having missed it by a few years, and I agree that some aspects could be easier than with a conventional locomotive. However, whilst the technology now available should be able to deliver a much more reliable turbine using the original concept, I think you may be underestimating the difficulty of harnessing the current knowhow to a one-off small project with lots of special features without costing huge sums in development. I have a friend and ex-colleague who worked all his life for C A Parsons, W H Allen and the like. I will see what he thinks.

There is one very basic point about the design that's worth thinking about- as I understand it the original had an 18-row turbine for forward running but only 4 rows for reverse, which meant that it always had to be turned to haul a train. Would that be a problem for main line steam operation? (It certainly could be for many heritage railways).

 

[Pigeon]

It would be wonderful to see and hear a Turbomotive running, having missed it by a few years, and I agree that some aspects could be easier than with a conventional locomotive. However, whilst the technology now available should be able to deliver a much more reliable turbine using the original concept, I think you may be underestimating the difficulty of harnessing the current knowhow to a one-off small project with lots of special features without costing huge sums in development. I have a friend and ex-colleague who worked all his life for C A Parsons, W H Allen and the like. I will see what he thinks.

Now that would be interesting, to see what he says, with that experience!

I'm not sure if I'm "underestimating" or just "being optimistic" I'm not really sure how much of the original design information for the turbine survives, but I have the impression from odd bits that seem to leak out that quite a lot of it does, in paper archives etc, even if it doesn't get quoted on the internet. If we're really lucky there might be enough there to get nearly all the way; if we're unlucky...

There is one very basic point about the design that's worth thinking about- as I understand it the original had an 18-row turbine for forward running but only 4 rows for reverse, which meant that it always had to be turned to haul a train. Would that be a problem for main line steam operation? (It certainly could be for many heritage railways).

I don't think main line steam operation these days ever requires them to produce any level of power in reverse, but I agree about preserved lines; do any of them even have a turntable or triangle at both ends? I guess it would be OK for a "Peak Rail"-style operation where every train is top-and-tailed and the locos only have to pull in one direction (if they're still doing that).

The low power reverse turbine was sometimes a bit of a limitation in everyday service, and apparently it was a bit fragile. Stanier himself wasn't happy with it, and had he been able to produce a whole fleet he would have got rid of it and used a reversing pinion arrangement in the main gearbox instead, which I think would be a sensible bit of progress to incorporate in a new one.

 

[billh]

Did the original turbine loco use a standard design of turbine that was used in other applications ? Perhaps just many common components? I'm comparing this with the diesels at that time , say, English Electric where the power units were already used in ships, power stations etc and only relatively minor mods to the design were needed for rail use.In modern terms, an off the shelf design , to drop into the loco. The gearbox might be more of a problem.

 

[Pigeon]

AIUI it was pretty much designed for the purpose, with a combination of reaction and impulse elements to enable it to produce a useful output over a wide range of speeds. In particular the need to produce torque at zero revs was essential for the locomotive application, but not something that would be called for in a ship or a power station, both of which - the power station especially - only need to operate over a much lesser speed range.

There is a cross-section of the turbine here: http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/turbom/turbom.htm - note impulse section at the far left followed by the reaction stages towards the right.

 

[TTTB]

Now if we’re talking new builds, prototypes and obscure design have some attraction. In the current climate I’m surprised 19th century / early 20th haven’t come to the fore. Ok not absolutely suited to all heritage outfits. But in terms of educational, general public appeal and economics in terms of simplicity and massively lower costs to say a class 8 pacific. Perhaps with the S&D events 2025 interest will pick up. After all they can be a bit of a novelty not just in name!

 

[ian1944]

The low power reverse turbine was sometimes a bit of a limitation in everyday service, and apparently it was a bit fragile. Stanier himself wasn't happy with it, and had he been able to produce a whole fleet he would have got rid of it and used a reversing pinion arrangement in the main gearbox instead, which I think would be a sensible bit of progress to incorporate in a new one.

Never mind a whole fleet, I'm surprised that the prototype had the complexity and space requirement of a reverse turbine, when surely a reverse on the gearbox would have been much easier and needed only a slightly-larger casing. Was the thinking staying conventional, so that reversing had to come from diverting the steam rather than by being mechanical?

 

[JLH4AC]

I do agree that it would the preservation would be if there was less focus on building new large conventional locomotives, the resources would be spent on smaller locomotives (Power class of 5MT for mainline and larger heritage operations, and below that for most other heritage operations.) or less conventional locomotives/rolling stock such as the Turbomotive, Leader, or GNR/LNER steam railcars/railmotors.

A newly built Turbomotive be it a replica of the original or just based on the concept of an 8P Stanier design turbine locomotive (I would say this would be the best option as not being married to it being a exact replica would be allow later efficiency, power and crew comfort inprovments to be incroprated into the new locomotitve.) would be great. I do doubt that it being a turbine locomotive would lead to any significant cost savings over rebuilding a conventional LMS 8P locomotive as it is the boiler, frame and associated parts that are the most expensive parts of rebuilding such a large engine, and purpose built steam turbines are not cheap.

 

[Bevan Price]

It would be an expensive white elephant. What are really needed are more medium power locos suitable for heritage railways, not high power steam locos that can only be used occasionally on main lines.

 

[John Webb]

Presumably at the time of the design and build of 'Turbomotive' there was no thought of using electric transmission rather than mechanical? With today's sophisticated electronics available, perhaps someone could design a new-style 'Turbomotive' where there is a compact and efficient turbine driving a generator at relatively constant speed. Electric drive to the wheels - or perhaps a way of supplying power to a preserved EMU?

 

[JLH4AC]

Presumably at the time of the design and build of 'Turbomotive' there was no thought of using electric transmission rather than mechanical? With today's sophisticated electronics available, perhaps someone could design a new-style 'Turbomotive' where there is a compact and efficient turbine driving a generator at relatively constant speed. Electric drive to the wheels - or perhaps a way of supplying power to a preserved EMU?

The Turbomotive was pre-dated by two failed British electric transmission steam turbine locomotives. Steamology is developing technology solutions among those lines in the form of hydrogen steam generators feeding steam turbines with electric transmission being one of the transmission options.

 

[John Webb]

The Turbomotive was pre-dated by two failed British electric transmission steam turbine locomotives. Steamology is developing technology solutions among those lines in the form of hydrogen steam generators feeding steam turbines with electric transmission being one of the transmission options.

Thanks - I wasn't aware that there had been previous attempts!

 

[Pigeon]

Never mind a whole fleet, I'm surprised that the prototype had the complexity and space requirement of a reverse turbine, when surely a reverse on the gearbox would have been much easier and needed only a slightly-larger casing. Was the thinking staying conventional, so that reversing had to come from diverting the steam rather than by being mechanical?

I would quibble with your final clause I would classify the reversing on a conventional reciprocating engine as being very much mechanical - you have what is essentially a mechanical analogue computer doing vector addition in real time to compute the variable-phase/amplitude straight-line displacement of the valves. The steam isn't diverted; it goes through the same passages all the time, just in differently-phased different amounts.

I would, however, be inclined to agree that it was a matter of "staying conventional", for suitable values of "conventional". Probably the principal use of steam turbines at the time - depending on exactly when power stations took over that position - was for ship propulsion, which is similar to the tender-locomotive case in that you only want high power/speed going forwards and you do that nearly all the time, with only a small amount of low-speed, low-power manoeuvring in reverse. It was a common practice to meet these requirements by having separate forward and reverse turbines for the two different duties (come to that, some ships would also have more than one forward turbine, for the different duties of proceeding in different speed ranges), and some (though not all) previous attempts at direct-drive steam turbine locomotives had also done it.

I have something of a notion that there was also some concern over the possibility of drivers wrecking the locomotive by abusing a straightforward reversing gearbox, for instance whacking it from forward into reverse before everything had completely come to a halt and wrenching the turbine blades off at their roots. It seems they did at times similarly abuse the engagement mechanism for the reverse turbine, but that arrangement, in practice whether or not by design, mostly limited the resulting damage to the engagement mechanism itself and sometimes also the reversing turbine, which wasn't good but was considerably less ungood than knackering the main turbine would have been.

Purely as a personal supposition, I would guess that Stanier might well have reckoned that it would be better to avoid the problems altogether by some arrangement of interlocks and overrunning clutches to prevent mis-operation

It would be an expensive white elephant. What are really needed are more medium power locos suitable for heritage railways, not high power steam locos that can only be used occasionally on main lines.

I don't think that's really a comparable problem. Leaving aside the unfeasibility of standard-gauge preserved lines adopting new construction as a source of motive power on any noticeable scale, and the question of whether their needs would be better met by completing the restorations of more of the inoperable engines which constitute the major proportion of their fleets, the point of my proposal is strongly based in the technical and engineering interest of the design as an example of an alternative to the overgrown-Rocket configuration which actually worked, in contrast to the many (though not all) projects in whose cases the engineering interest of the design is not a major factor. Any project which does have such an appeal basically has to be capable of hauling excursions and railtours on the main line, partly in order to attract the amount of interest necessary to get it off the ground, but also, and importantly, because only in main-line operation do its interesting engineering features get to demonstrate their mettle; toddling up and down a preserved line at 25mph maximum just doesn't cut it, being something more or less any locomotive can do unless it's completely knackered.

Presumably at the time of the design and build of 'Turbomotive' there was no thought of using electric transmission rather than mechanical? With today's sophisticated electronics available, perhaps someone could design a new-style 'Turbomotive' where there is a compact and efficient turbine driving a generator at relatively constant speed. Electric drive to the wheels - or perhaps a way of supplying power to a preserved EMU?

Oh, that's been done... it's been done a lot. The usual method is to have your efficient turbine driving a generator at constant speed stay in one place in a great big building with big chimneys, and supply the motors providing electric drive to the wheels through a lot of very long wires strung above the tracks. It would indeed work a treat for supplying power to a preserved EMU, if someone would put wires up on the line it's preserved on.

As has been mentioned, there have also been a few attempts to cram the whole lot on board a locomotive, but they run into the same kind of problems that so many attempts to adapt more efficient steam technology to locomotive use do: once you shrink all the bits down to a size that will fit on a locomotive in the first place, and then arrange them in whatever suboptimal and awkward layout you are compelled to use to make the arrangement long and thin, the thing you end up with isn't more efficient any more, but it does cane you on maintenance with all the extra complexity and unusual parts. This is where the Turbomotive got things right: by concentrating on what could be gained purely by using a well-optimised design of turbine alone, and not having any of the additional systems that were so often assumed to be necessary, it managed to realise those gains and at the same time be considerably less complex than a conventional design and rarely require specific attention to its unusual parts, so that had a fleet of them come into service it would have eased maintenance both for the locomotives themselves and for the track.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It would be an expensive white elephant. What are really needed are more medium power locos suitable for heritage railways, not high power steam locos that can only be used occasionally on main lines.

So build something on Turbomotive principles but a more useful size. You might even be able to use an existing rolling chassis and boiler.

 

[Pigeon]

Difficulty there is you would run into all kinds of scaling problems. It would be pretty impossible to compare it in any meaningful way with any other machines of the type unless they too were of similar size, and it more than likely wouldn't work very well in absolute terms either, so everyone would end up disappointed.

 

[RGM654]

This is a fine case of what on another forum is characterised as "WIBN" - wouldn't it be nice. It would indeed, and the engineering would be pretty straightforward, as has been discussed above. What would not be straightforward would be the finance.

Tornado was built by a team who between them had expertise in many areas, crucially including fundraising. The Brighton Atlantic has been built very largely with volunteer labour, driven by emotion, the desire to re-create a locomotive that only just missed being preserved.

Several other projects are currently making steady progress, but they are all re-creations of conventional classes from the past, with no major changes. An apposite comparison to the proposed turbomotive is the 5AT project, which had a lot of merit but failed to attract anywhere near the necessary amount of support. Even Tyseley's "Bloomer", which was well on the way to completion years ago, has stalled for lack of finance to complete it.

 

[TheBeard]

But it doesn't go chuff chuff so would be dull

 

[DerekC]

This is a fine case of what on another forum is characterised as "WIBN" - wouldn't it be nice. It would indeed, and the engineering would be pretty straightforward, as has been discussed above. What would not be straightforward would be the finance.

Tornado was built by a team who between them had expertise in many areas, crucially including fundraising. The Brighton Atlantic has been built very largely with volunteer labour, driven by emotion, the desire to re-create a locomotive that only just missed being preserved.

Several other projects are currently making steady progress, but they are all re-creations of conventional classes from the past, with no major changes. An apposite comparison to the proposed turbomotive is the 5AT project, which had a lot of merit but failed to attract anywhere near the necessary amount of support. Even Tyseley's "Bloomer", which was well on the way to completion years ago, has stalled for lack of finance to complete it.

I agree it's a WIBN, but investigating the possibility is interesting in itself. I consulted my friend who used to work for C A Parsons and W H Allen. He said that the technology and choice of materials is well known in principle, but it would be a small one-off and he doubted if anybody left in UK has experience in manufacturing such a thing. Of course being a good engineer he wanted to see the drawings, but even with those he suggested it would cost a shedload of money.

I managed to get hold of a second hand copy of Tim Hillier-Graves' book on the Turbomotive which has some nice historical stuff in it and a lot about the people and the industry politics, but is short on technical detail (and contains some contradictory figures). It does talk quite a lot about the various failures that occurred. Apart from the repeated problems with the reversing turbine, the main turbine had two catastrophic failures, both in 1937, the first in January at Willesden (locomotive immovable) and the second in November at Leighton Buzzard on an up Liverpool - Euston express, which must have cost a few delay minutes! In neither case does it seem that the failure was down to any fundamental problem, but pf course any new build loco might suffer from similar prototype woes. Whatever the lessons were have long been lost.

 

[DelW]

I don't think main line steam operation these days ever requires them to produce any level of power in reverse, but I agree about preserved lines; do any of them even have a turntable or triangle at both ends?

I'm only just catching up with this discussion, but I don't think this question has been answered.
One that I'm aware of is the West Somerset, which has a turntable at Minehead and a triangle south of Bishop's Lydeard. However they aren't routinely used in normal service, locos just run one way in reverse.
I suspect that turning the hypothetical loco will be low down on the list of problems to be solved though.

 

[Pigeon]

I agree it's a WIBN, but investigating the possibility is interesting in itself. I consulted my friend who used to work for C A Parsons and W H Allen. He said that the technology and choice of materials is well known in principle, but it would be a small one-off and he doubted if anybody left in UK has experience in manufacturing such a thing. Of course being a good engineer he wanted to see the drawings, but even with those he suggested it would cost a shedload of money.

That's useful to know, cheers.

 

[mike57]

An interesting concept, but funding...

Current new builds are multi year multi million pound projects with significant fundraising required. The costing for a one off like Turbomotive would be problematic, I dont think you could put a figure together at the start, and you would have to generate sufficent interest to raise funds over an extended period, and given the novel nature there would be cost overruns. Would I be interested yes, would I donate even a small amount of money, probably not. And consider the scenario where some problem surfaces during the build that is close to insurmountable, given the novel nature not an impossible one, where do you go from there?

 

[Gloster]

As I have said before, I think that the viability of projects to build new locos no longer exists. The enthusiasts who want to rebuild steam and first generation diesels are steadily dropping off the twig, which removes both a major source of funding and many of those who would carry through the project. I can’t see the number of younger people coming through being particularly great and question whether they would have the time or money needed. Better to expend such time and effort that there remains on keeping what we have already got in good order rather than wasting it all on something that never gets completed.

 

[Trainlog]

As I have said before, I think that the viability of projects to build new locos no longer exists. The enthusiasts who want to rebuild steam and first generation diesels are steadily dropping off the twig, which removes both a major source of funding and many of those who would carry through the project. I can’t see the number of younger people coming through being particularly great and question whether they would have the time or money needed. Better to expend such time and effort that there remains on keeping what we have already got in good order rather than wasting it all on something that never gets completed.

I still think there are many potential benefits of new builds, especially if they lead to helping the locos that are currently available in preservation. Take the Drummond 700 for example, arguably one of the best examples of a loco that isn't getting a new build right now. If it was going to get built there are the advantages of building many spare parts in common with locos such as the M7 and T9, with the ability to be taken to the majority of UK standard gauge heritage railways.

To answer the OPs point, How about constructing one in 15inch gauge?

Granted it might not be the exact replica as compromises would be needed at this scale, but it would help give the public a good idea of what a running turbomotive would be like, filling a gap in preservation.

There would be many benefits such as, for example

1. Portability and size: The loco can easily be transported to the appropriate 15inch gauge railway to visit such as the RHDR and the RER, there is the additional benefit of it being able to be taken to exhitions to be displayed with ease.
2. Running in reverse: this would would be less of a problem as many of these lines have balloon loops and turntables anyway.
3. Costs: The loco would be a lot cheaper in comparison to construct and would be a good candidate for biocoal operations.

 

[Teaboy1]

Hideously expensive to say the least.
There are a full batch of incomplete new-builds waiting for finance to get these anywhere near completion, so another huge money-pit loco design will only take funding away from the present new-builds. Just look at P2 to see what it costs for such schemes!
Secondly, for the cost of a Turbomotive, I would speculate you could probably build 2 smaller locos more suited to the current Heritage Railway needs [something like a Standard 5 would be far better to run and cheaper to opperate].

Sorry, its a no from me. Put the money towards GCR Reunification or the 15 inch gauge idea above.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Secondly, for the cost of a Turbomotive, I would speculate you could probably build 2 smaller locos more suited to the current Heritage Railway needs [something like a Standard 5 would be far better to run and cheaper to opperate].

Or resurrect the Class 22 Project!

 

[Deepgreen]

Or resurrect the Class 22 Project!

Talking of which, it reminds me to check where the class 23 project has got to. There is, of course, a very tight limit on the amount of, essentially, enthusiasts' money available for these multi-million pound projects.