Jawn Henry
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- This video briefly covers the contributions of John Henry, A railroad laborer and his folktale story of beating a steam drill. The video also covers the the steam turbine locomotive nicknamed after him " JAWN HENRY" The last of the experimental steam locomotives to that was ever built.
I knew a gentleman that had retired from the N&W who was assigned to the Jawn Henry in the 1950’s. I asked him once probably about 25 years ago if more development could have made Jawn Henry successful . His answer was “No.” IIRC, his thought was that the boiler/turbine concept was not practical for application inside a locomotive. One of the critical weaknesses of the Jawn Henry was its feedwater heater. I don’t remember the number of service hours, but the feedwater heater self destructed at regular time intervals. Supposedly when JH was operating as designed it was even more fuel efficient than first generation diesels, but when compared to a consist of GP-9’s it is quite an unwieldy monster. Thanks for another cool video!👍
And that makes since given where the technology was and the application of it. Im just surprised that the N & W hadn't solved the Steam Turbines issues to a much higher degree than previously.. Given they had 8 years or so of a solid look at it from the other railroads.
He has a more valid opinion, but personally (as someone who has more a Marine engineering background) I'm suprised at the failure of the Jawn Henry
Another great video. I read an article on the Jawn Henry, and it stated that the N&W thought all the problems could be worked out and actually wanted to order 25 of them. Baldwin was only willing to continue with them if they ordered 50. They couldn't come to agreement so the project was abandoned.
Not only that.. but Baldwin was apparently being janky with the cost per locomotive as well. I didnt include that because I didnt have more than one source claiming that fact.
If it had been oil fired the locomotive would've probably had a better chance. But we live in such a "throw away" society that not even gutting the turbomachinery out and replacing it with twin diesel engines was an option.
if it was oil fired you could just burn the oil directly in the turbine...
I believe it could be viable with today's technology. Great video.
I agree!
well kinda, things like frances tgv run on essentially steam just that its in the power plant, not on board.
Awesome 👍🏿 .
Just 2 days ago I saw a video of N&W steam in the 1950s. It amazingly had sound along with the footage (much vintage rail footage has sound added that wasn’t taken with the footage). The videographer mentioned in an included interview that he had a rather large and sophisticated setup in order to get high quality video and audio, which was a rarity in rail videography at the time. A lot of his recordings were near Blue Ridge Station, and similar locations, where the N&W would have to employ helper locomotives to help push trains uphill. In a couple of clips, Jawn Henry was the locomotive employed as the banker. First time I’d ever seen video or heard audio of it in operation. It really put into perspective how huge and unwieldy (not to mention unusual sounding) Jawn Henry really was as it dwarfed the camera man in a way that the Y-6b on the head end didn’t.
Also, the N&W wasn’t prepared to accept diesels even by 1960. N&W’s board had a plan in place to run steam in certain areas until at least 1975. The largely bankrupt Pennsylvania Railroad, which was 50% owner of the N&W, knew they’d soon have to dump their N&W stocks to keep the Pennsy afloat. So they installed Stuart T. Saunders as president of N&W in 1958 with the order to reshape N&W into something more attractive on the market. While some of what he did was very good (mostly the N&W eating other railroads like the Virginian and Nickel Plate railroads), part of it was dieselization. Regardless of what the N&W’s board wanted, the Pennsylvania-backed Saunders rapidly dieselized the N&W, along with his near complete scrapping program of the retired steam locomotives. Had it not been for him, the N&W might have kept steam in some regular capacity permanently. Especially with the clarity of hindsight telling us how the fuel crisis of the 1970s made steam such an attractive alternative to skyrocketing diesel fuel prices that Chessie seriously considered ordering new-build steam locomotives.
I wonder who would have built new steam given that that the big three were pretty much gone at that point.
As Balldwin was getting out of the steam business in the 50's, Missabe, who loved their 10 year old Yellowstones, bought enough spare parts to last until at least 1970. By 1961 steam was done and the spares were scrapped.
@@lowercherty yes it wasn't for lack of cost, just that steam was very specialized for where it ran, and was more resource and labor intensive, but with the nw j's they had the systom down pat, run an entire division before having to relube ample power to pull and good balancing to speed, I really wish though one of the concepts that porta and rowland were working on for modern steam or the thing the coalition for sustainable railroading would have worked out, the torrified biomass worked but more is needed to perfect it, it burns up quickly though, and the fact it burns quick is straight from the words of zach hull that fired the test trip on the everett railroad when they tested it before the engine was converted to run on oil , the fact that it burned quick, still steam and pressure vessel's are far from dead even if they wont power locomotives, but a rotory expantion engine that gets more of the thermal energy then a standard compound piston and looks like a sort of wankle or like a supercharger, but seems no one can think but batteries or diesel, even when there are lots of green or even semi renewable fuels that could be put into use, I know its expensive, but seem all those small european contries arnt afraid to experament why not see a project to the finish here in the usa, we got people that given enough time an money could make the designs and have the know how to build one off railroad related stuff, just like they are with the t1 or the several restorations going on, or off grid power generation research. we put men on the moon, we have 3d printers that can print spaceships for tesla, and create a vaccine in 6 months though the side effects were not good for the youknow what, but point is we can do all that we could certainly lead the way on future power
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I’m certain the big 3 were totally gone by then. The 1970s project was named the “ACE 3000”, designed by Ross Rowland. American Coal Enterprises was the company gathering funding for it, C&O class J-3a “Greenbrier” 614 was modified to serve as the test bed for the project. It never made it far enough along to name a builder, but the testing was promising. Testing showed that 614 could haul a coal train of the same tonnage the diesels could, but with lower fuel costs than the diesels. Maintenance ended up being about the same, and testing equipment showed 614 was no harder on the rails than the diesels were. The ACE 3000 was intended to be a cab-forward 4-4-4-2 duplex, but sufficient amounts of financial backing never materialized and it was never built.
Saunders dieselized so rapidly because the Virginian N&W merger was based on a stock swap. Years ago someone told me that there was an article in Trains by Robert A. La Massena. He said that the article maintained that the rapid dieselization of the N&W was an attempt to pump up N&W stock price relative to the dieselized Virginian. The merger was based on a stock swap. Most stock analysts would not have known the difference between an A and G class 2-8-0. Or how well the N&W utilized its steam locomotives.
Steam turbines are great where you have large amounts of water available. They are not in the case of a locomotive. Their best use is in a power plant or a ship. And the best way to heat the steam is with a PWR reactor. Then use that power to supply power to overhead wires to operate an electric locomotive.
Your idea on it seems to be gaining momentum.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower The thing is, that it would solve a number of problems. One, it would cut the use of fossil fuels. Two, it could be done such as to build a new power grid. Three, the railroads would gain some income from the use of their ROWs.
You don't need a nuge water supply, but you do need an effective condenser. On somehting with that amount of power, the condenser would also be huge (look at the condenser tenders on the South African Railway). There is also an efficiency gain. Of course all this bcomes irrelevant if the steam turbine is in a stationary installation, and the electricity goes through wires...
@@paullangford8179 The US tried condensers but found that they were a negative affect. Power Plants often have cooling towers to cut down on the amount of water used.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowerfrance has been doing this for decades, our trains here in germany run on renewable and coal power (in a powerplant)
A steam turbine electric divorces turbine speed from road speed. The road speed limit must come from the traction motor gearing, just like a modern diesel.
it also gives you all the limitations of electric but none of the benefits of steam
Good points~!
That was a mighty locomotive.
However I think the best way to use a steam turbine to propel a train is in a power plant to generate electricity and to run electric locomotives under overhead wires.
A boiler and steam turbine in a stationary power plant can operate under much more favorable conditions and having no space restraints can be built in a way which offers far greater efficiency.
Also locomotives can pack much more horsepower in a smaller package as the power generation plant isn't on the locomotive, where size and weight limit the amount of horsepower it can generate.
A modern Co-Co electric freight locomotive could produce well over 12,000 hp and a starting tractive effort of 200,000 lbf within a package weighing only 210 tons, the EMD SD70ACE-t4 has proven to be able to deliver such tractive effort and the German br103 Co-Co electric from 1969 was able to produce 14,000hp at a weight of only 126 tons, it was a 125mph express locomotive but had still a starting tractive effort of 71,000 lbf despite the high speed gearing.
Hmmm... I wonder if the cost of supporting infrastructure would negate any such use of the turbine??
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower On densely used routes it would for sure.
Not sure what the upkeep does cost per mile, but direct operational cost of electric power compared with diesel power is cheaper as energy cost per hp is much lower.
0.07-0.10 gallons of diesel is needed to generate 1 kWh of electricity in a locomotive at a price of 38-55 cents, these are the consumption numbers I can find for generators and the price Canadian railroads pay for diesel.
In the US one kWh of electricity from the grid for industry is around 7 cents.
An electric locomotive also does need less maintenance.
So it depends on initial cost per mile of electrification and the average yearly fuel cost made by all trains on said routes if it is economical or not.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowerno, not really, especially as fuel costs continue to rise, you dont have to haul your fuel with you, and not having a diesel engine makes it a lot more efficient, the highest horsepower electric locomotives in germany are 8700hp. almost 2000hp more than your US locomotives. all the while being a lot smaller.
A major reason why N&W built the _Jawn Henry_ was because it, being a stream locomotive, could burn coal and coal was the railroad's main commodity. The hope was that by creating a viable coal-burning alternative to diesel and having the technology adopted by other roads the N&W could secure its future.
That was also the thinking of the C & O with the M-1. Coal became heavily regulated by unions and wasn't always nearly available as it had been. So the advantage of it's use was somewhat nullified at times availability and cost wise. But yes, The N & W's thinking was in line with the use of it's primary money making asset.. coal.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower indeed it was, and we still have lots of it as dirty as it is, they say 200 years worth though it would wreck landscapes, and its getting harder to get the good stuff, so steam is being changed to oil but its said we got less the 50 for it so to me its robbing peter to pay paul, and the bunker oil is just as bad if not worse then good coal to burn pollution wise though steam locos are such a small source the epa doesn't really seem to pay much attention to it i belive I was told, still steam or turbine has the advantage if it will burn it can be used with the right set up of firebox or combustion chamber even hydrogen gas, natural gas, or cooking oil. :}
The 2300 was built with off the shelf items with a known track record, unlike the C&O ones who learned the hard way that you cant use the exhaust of a turbine to draft the fire. They were used to thinking in terms of a recoprocating steam locomotive.
@@williamclarke4510 I like it!
@@williamclarke4510 yes, would be true you cant create a real good amount of draft till its wound up a bit, of course a turbine has a voracious appatite for fuel but does better once you get it to its operating range, but provides good sustained power a a lighter weight then a recipricating engine of the same horsepower, though the torque always has a turbo lag in it as the speed adjusts, as it was well documented by everytime a land based vehicle has tried to employ a turbine engine from the cars that detroite tried to the stp turbine car at indy it has a lag in adjustment there were techniques to minimise it but there is a bit of lag
A by far the most interesting of the steam turbines, somehow always had a love for this particular one. A person on a Facebook group has been designing and 3d printing one. So far has an operating chassis, tender, and main body components.
Wow... Expensive hobby!
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I need to add, HO scale....
The only successful steam turbine loco I know of was the one built by the London Midland and Scottish Railway number 6202, known as the Turbomotive, and was built in in 1935. It was a direct drive via a dog clutch system, and speed was controlled by opening or closing the number of the feed nozzles that powered the blades, so the feed pressure was always full boiler pressure. It was built on a modified Princess Royal class loco chassis, with a standard LMS Princess Royal class boiler working at 250psi (albeit with a double blast nozzle chimney and later a pair of smoke deflectors). By all accounts it was as powerful as it standard Princess Royal Class sisters, was very kind to the track with zero hammer blow, and could run very fast and was much more economical on coal and water, but the increased costs of maintenance outweighed the savings on fuel, and one major down fall was it could only haul trains in a forward direction, the loco could run in reverse, being supplied with a second much smaller turbine which could engauge via a dog clutch when the loco reverser was round into reverse, but this was intended only for light loco movements.
The death nail came after nationalisation. The loco was a one off, and broke a main turbine blade. British Railways was uninterested in the locomotive, despite it having proved itself a reliable and powerful machine, places the loco into storage in 1949. In 1952 it was rebuilt into a conventional (and another one off machine), BR 46202 and was named after Princess Anne, who was at the time, 2nd in line to the Throne of the British Commonwealth, after her Brother Charles. Rather then being rebuilt as a conventional Princess Royal Loco, BR used the Princess Royal boiler, but used the Princess Coronation (Duchess) class cylinder arrangement. In this form. 46202 was in service for just 2 months, as in October 1952 she was involved in the UK's most deadliest peacetime railway accident at Harrow and Wilsden, which saw 112 people die and 340 badly injured. BR decided that 46202 was a write-off, and was scrapped. The shortage of express passenger class locomotives on the London Midland region, lead to BR building their sole riddles designed class 8P locomotive , Duke of Gloucester, number 71000, which is also a unique design.
My opinion is Sir William Stanier succeeded with his Turbomotive where so many others have failed, simply because he kept things simple, and had BR opted to repair the loco, she would have most likely carried on until the end of steam, and had WW2 not got in the way, we might have seen more of this type of loco.
Good stuff!
Better than usual with pictures that illustrated the material, no irrelevant pictures or inexplicable images.
One thing to keep in mind is that imagery isn't always in abundance for these topics and video use is highly questionable at best. Case in point. I just recently had my Niagara video taken down because of a ownership claim on a 1.5 minute strip of video that I used and believed it to be under fair use. It was not. So, it's not as easy producing these video's as you might think if one is playing by the rules. And my last is a key phrase here.
Railroad service is really rough on equipment, especially locomotives. Steam turbines like to remain in a static state and don't play well when being tossed around.
At the same time, Steam Turbines had found great success in Marine applications, so they can take some abuse.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Yes they have and still do, I've been on ships, and I worked for the railroad, apples & oranges. Not the same, at all.
@anthonypuccio9575 I understand that from an efficiency standpoint, but not a mechanical reliability stand point, isn’t the ocean a harsher environment?
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 It can be for sure. But I'd say 90% of the time it's relatively calm plus the power plant is buried deep inside the ship and secured to 1000's of tons of steel and basically just swaying. Back in the day railroads were jointed track and not very smooth. Coupling locomotives together and to trains can be violent operation depending on the crew. Train slack is another factor. If you want to know how durable something is, give it to the railroad for a while.
4:14 The engine in this photo has similar lines to the experimental steam turbine tested by Great Northern in about 1943. That unit was GE No. 2 which theoretically was capable of handling 125 cars at speeds up to 75 mph. As fate would have it the generators burned out during the test period and the unit was scrapped by the GE shops in Erie, PA as it was determined to be too costly to repair. As far as I know this was GN's only foray into steam turbines.
Interesting! I'll look into it
The thing that will keep steam from ever making a comeback for mainline railroad service is the lack of thermal efficiency. A coal fired ship or power plant can use its waste heat to recover a lot of energy that is simply lost from a locomotive, even when using your exhaust to preheat feed water and superheat steam. Too much heat is simply lost out the stack and a locomotive lacks the space for the hardware and plumbing to effectively recover that lost energy to extract useful work.
I think there's a chance that this technology could be revived. The Mackwell Locomotive Company in NZ builds steam locomotive boilers that would solve many of the problems, such as coal ash getting into the traction motors, because said boilers don't run on coal. Another problem with John/Jawn Henry was its feedwater heater. Mackwell boilers don't need feedwater heaters.
I believe today’s tech and manufacturing processes could make great improvements to the economics and reliability of a coal steam turbine.
There is the inherent issue of high fuel burn at low track speeds but that is another area I think would be benefited from a fresh approach.
Fossil fuels other than coal should be used; they'll take up less space per unit of energy.
Im kinda liking the adaptation of hydrogen idea from a viewer.
That CNJ USRA boxcar is far from home rails at 6:20 sitting next to the Jawn Henry.
And the N & W'2 J is dwarfed by it.. The thing was massive!
Such a concept COULD be revived using fuels other than coal. Not only that, but there've been advances in refrigeration science, and absorption chiller technology can easily develop a compact condenser.
A thought just came in: why not just bypass most of the moving parts,and develop MHD electrical generation?!
More innovative thinking from a modern point of view! Fantastic!
Fascinating video. Just one thing: At the end you said that tractive effort was listed in horsepower. It is actually measured in pounds, not horsepower.
Just one of my brain glitches.. I know that. ;)
Wonder what would have happened it they had variable pitch turbines then.
Interesting thought
The only Truly successful steam turbines are sadly the only ones left in the world. These are the three that you can see today in Sweden at the Railway Museum of Grängesberg (#71, and #73), and the Swedish Railway Museum (#72).
My understanding is that the story of John Henry is a legend, either a tall tale or an amalgamation of various hard-working men who worked themselves to the bone to construct tunnels for the C & O Railroad. Is there any objective proof that John Henry, as he is described, actually existed?
That's debatable for sure. Proof... nothing one could say without a doubt. But as you say, he in the least was a legend who kept those men going in the most trying of times.
We can certainly implement steam turbine in today's world. 😀 that's a great technology quite suitable for us. This will conserve our fuel ⛽️ and also we can efficiently utilise the full potential of Steam.
I like your thinking!
At the end, 9:00, your HP ratings are actually the Tractive Effort ratings. ( 199 thousand HP , NOT )
Thanks!
No steam? So what's that white stuff evident in several of the photos?
Cocaine
I don't think it could fit on the UP's turntables at Ogden, Green River and Laramie.
Ahhhh... NO! You're right
Lord lord!
Steam turbines have not changed and concept or design and probably over 100 years I think if you attempt the same thing again it would probably fail but I think if you make a hydrogen fueled steam locomotive with better condenser technology or you could condensed the Steam from the exhaust of the reciprocating steam engine and turn it back into water and use new technology like thermoelectric effects and make a hybrid steam engine if you can learn how to use frequencies and electrical voltage in the right way you can fracture hydrogen out of water burn that in the Firebox the hydrogen combines with oxygen turns into water vapor you can even scavenge the exhaust and send it to the condenser to turn it back into water also you can put planetary gear sets inside the drive Wheels so you can overdrive the RPMs of the engine to the rail so imagine putting like a 3-speed transmission on every wheel set of the drive Wheels could you imagine that technology added to something like a Pennsylvania T1 and of course would use Franklin type puppet valves maybe even make a better type of valve gear one thing about reciprocating piston steam engines they're actually pretty efficient especially at high speeds and I want to use hybrid technology so you're using electric traction Motors on the trucks of the tenders you can make an all-wheel-drive steam locomotive this is my concept of a hydrogen fueled steam locomotive design I've started some blueprints concept drawings I've come up with three boiler designs and I'm not sure which one I would use I'm using refractory material and the Firebox so there is no double-walled Firebox you actually use ceramic refractory tiles that can handle thousands of degrees of temperature of the heat of the exhaust of the fire so yeah there's all kinds of different interesting Technologies add we could definitely have the boiler computer-controlled no need for a fireman just think about it the reciprocating Pistons steam engine you could make the drive rods have internal oil galleries like a internal combustion engine there's all kinds of modern technologies that we could adapt and use for a modern steam locomotive that would be extremely fast efficient and would be green what would you call not harmful to the environment cuz the engine runs on water vapor and when you burn hydrogen it combines with oxygen and turns into water vapor so yeah steam turbines will never work on the railroads they do not like vibration no matter what they still can't figure that out to this day there was only one steam turbine steam locomotive that was ever a success and I think it was a Belgian steam locomotive or it was Swedish or something like that it was definitely European and it was not fast but it was powerful very interesting strange design but yes I have many thoughts on making a modern steam locomotive design
No that's innovation and forward thinking!
Who knows & who got the money
Steam engines would be great if the systems would be like the USN ships , nuclear and completely sealed, but the cost and public out cry would be outrageous but think ? Over two years of no fueling, 24/7 operation and a very proven system . ?? LOL
Nuclear locomotives.. LOL... But even the Navy deemed Nuclear surface ships , I.E. Cruisers, were wayyy to expensive to maintain and did away with them. It's only in Subs by necessity of the mission. And probably aircraft carriers as well. At least ours.
This just makes me hate diesels even more
Well, a necessary evil im afraid. Inflation for one thing would have been less controllable.
Diesels saved the railroads
@@Colonel_Blimp We became over reliant on diesel engines
if you ask me
@@sirbarongaming2138 sadly romanticism won't pay the bills.
Jawn Henry was a coal dust turbine. There was no steam. Coal powder was directly sprayed into the turbine, but heavy wear on the turbine blades canceled the project.
You are absurdly incorrect.
I have 2 books that discuss Jawn Henry (and a third in the mail). The first ( 'Norfolk and Western Steam: the last 30 years' by Tom Dixon of the C&O Historical Society) has Jawn Henry as a steam turbine. The Second (American Steam Locomotives: Design and Development 1880-1960 by Will Whituhn) also discusses Jawn Henry as a steam turbine. So does Wikipedia, for what that is worth.
How would a coal dust turbine actually work. Something would have to fling coal dust into the turbines. the thing with steam is you heat it, it expands, and then that does work. you cannot expand coal dust, its a solid. so whatever is expending energy on the coal dust to fling it could just be powering the locomotive.
any idea where you heard this claim?
@@commissarcarl1700It probably came from a dream where, before he fell asleep one night, he was studying early jet engine designs; on another night, he fell asleep while watching this video. The two thought impulses clashed somewhere....
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x I'm pretty sure you mean the Union Pacific? They had some kind of "coal turbine".
You must have confused this one with the UP #80 coal turbine electric, that one had the turbine fed directly with coal dust.
OK, I think that I get where he's coming from now. The coal dust gets combusted and the blade pitting is from the unburnt coal and ash. Of course that issue is only the case with a gas turbine, as with a steam turbine the exhaust for the fuel and the exhaust for the steam are separate and no expended fuel goes through the turbines. Thanks @@Tom-Lahaye for clearing this up for me.