Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
August 24, 2008
Image Size
17.6 KB
Resolution
775×389
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,521
Favourites
9 (who?)
Comments
51
×
Steam Turbine Locomotive by gunslinger87 Steam Turbine Locomotive by gunslinger87
This is a concept I'm seriously trying to develop.

This is a Steam Turbine Electric Locomotive, the idea is to comletely remove the Desiel part of the equation. And replace it with steam.

Back during the late 1940's into the early 60's Railroads have exparimented with Turbine locomotives with only moderate success. It was proven that Turbine engines have higher horse power and performance, but couldn't withstand the constant pounding and abuse on the rails like their traditonal "Sid Rod" counter parts.

Even the smallest dirt and grim tore their workings to shreds. This is mainly because, I believe, a lack of technology and understanding of materials.

Today we have descovered new ways and techniques to engineer new and stronger, more durable materials. The turbine locomotives of the yesteryear I think were just too far ahead of their time. Now we can produce a turbine locomotive that not only can perform but endure what traditional locomotives do!

The oporation of my design is fairly simple. Like most steam locomotives it uses the concept of boiling water. The boiler in my design is a bit different, its a water tube type. That means that instead of having a large amount of water surounding smaller tubes of hot air, its the other way around.
The water would be in small tubes and hot air would suround them. Since there is "less" water to heat, it takes a shorter amount of time to produce the necessary amount of steam.

Then the steam is piped to a Turbine genorator, the steam spins a series of fan blades that produce electricity. The electric power is then sent to electric motors which in turn power the wheels. This is for a system that burns some type of fuel. I want my design to burn a clean feul such as Hydrogen or Ethenol. I'm not sure which to choose, which ever one is the cleaner burning one.

Another method of oporating this loco could possibly make it a "Fireless Cooker". Aka, an engine that doesn't burn anything! This idea functions like so. Take note of the large battery bank, it can provide power to an internal heating unit which can heat the water to produce steam, then the process is virtually the same as above. But this time not only does the genorator provide power to the wheels but also puts a "trickle charge" into the batteries. Essentialy its a self sustaining system.

Sorry for this being so long to read, in any case though, I hope you guys like it!!! :D

Oh, and please do leave comments!!! :D
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsteammechanic:
Steammechanic Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2014  Professional Artist
It's a good start.this idea has been considered and plans created,but it was deemed to costly to run and repair
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014
Yes... back in the 1950s and 60s. But back then this was brand new tech. And that was the main reason behind the extreme cost. Today the tech and materials are more advanced. So I believe that this concept should be reconsidered. 

Most of the "Green Goats", hybrid yard and road switchers, are simply converted from diesel electric switchers. Everything below the "deck/frame" of the engine is the same as on any other engine. The prime mover was replaced with a massive battery bank and small diesel gen-set to provide a trickle charge into the batteries when needed.

In a similar way I think converting a diesel electric locomotive to a steam turbine electric could be done in the same or similar manner. Which would cut back the overall cost of designing an all new locomotive. Which was what was being done when Steam turbines were being experimented with.
Reply
:iconsteammechanic:
Steammechanic Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Professional Artist
Actually there was another attempt in the 80's and 90's. You'd have to wiki it as I forgot what it was called
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014
Really? I'll certainly have to look that up! Though I do know of one Steam Turbine locomotive in operation. It's preserved on a railway museum somewhere in Switzerland.
Reply
:iconsteammechanic:
Steammechanic Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Professional Artist
Yes I've heard of that one
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014
There's a video of it in operation on youtube. Pretty cool actually!
Reply
:iconsteammechanic:
Steammechanic Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Professional Artist
Yeah it is
Reply
:iconrockyrailroad578:
Rockyrailroad578 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Jawn Henry after NS rebuilds. I LIKE IT!
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2014
Much Obliged!
Reply
:icondinodanthetrainman:
dinodanthetrainman Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
ho and it reminds me of [link] [link] [link] :)
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013
I had no prior knowledge of this.
Reply
:icondinodanthetrainman:
dinodanthetrainman Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
didn't think so also I am not sure if Mechanical Vapour Recompression requires a vacuum it's main purpose is to increase thermal efficiency but also condenses [link] [link] :)
Reply
:icondinodanthetrainman:
dinodanthetrainman Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
very cool how seriously can you really make a condenser that small is it Vapor-compression :)
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
It doesn't exahaust into a vacuum. It's not a condensing locomotive.

The Swiss developed a non condensing steam turbine locomotive that was VERY successful.
Reply
:icondinodanthetrainman:
dinodanthetrainman Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
ok
Reply
:icongundammech101:
GundamMech101 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012
this is a very well done and thought out design i must say, i've been wondering about these steam turbine locomotives as well and think they needed a well rethinking over and by golly you did just that and beyond, im very impressed
Reply
:iconultranox:
ultranox Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I like your design idea. But where is the exhaust system for an over abundance of steam?
Reply
:iconsquirrelkinns:
squirrelkinns Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2011
You don't want turbines for that they can't take the abuse and way too finicky about water type.
Reply
:iconcnw8646:
CNW8646 Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2009
Great concept. :) :)
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
Much Obliged!
Reply
:iconcnw8646:
CNW8646 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
No prob. It would work. :)
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
I think so too! But ALOT of people have shot down the design! Personaly I don't think they know SQUAT about Trains! ^^;
Reply
:iconcnw8646:
CNW8646 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
Trust me, that trubine design would work.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
AGREED!!!

TAKE THAT EGG HEADS!!! :shakefist: :D
Reply
:iconcnw8646:
CNW8646 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
Yep. Show them who's boss.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2009
I sertantly shall!!! :abduction: :mwahaha:
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconrailman:
railman Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2008
Very nice! You know this kinda reminds me of a project by Ross Rowland.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2008
Ross Rowland?
Reply
:iconrailman:
railman Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2008
Yup Ross Rowland. He was the creator of the American Freedom Train that ran in 1976. He was also the engineer of C&O 614. What he tried to do was make a modern computer controlled steam locomotive that would releive our need for foreign oil.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2008
Kinda sounds like what I want to do. :D
Reply
:iconrailman:
railman Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2008
Yup it's a pretty neat idea. Wish they could have been developed . But the main difference is his locomotive was still piston driven, instead of turbine electric. But all and all they both retain the diesel locomotive body.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2008
Well, I think the point is to have a STEAM powered locomotive, not to have it look like one. (Though I wish we could) :D
Reply
:iconrailman:
railman Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2008
I hear ya man lol!
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2008
:D
Reply
:icondin626:
Din626 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
This is a Steam-Electric as opposed to a Steam Turbine.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
No, it still is a turbine. Steam is esnt through a turbine to turn a genorator to produve electricity. So its a Steam Turbine Electric.
Reply
:icongattlin:
Gattlin Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
I personaly think this concept is intresting, though if you want to just hear me say "this is a cool desighn, I realy like it" then stop reading right now.

Are you still reading... good, now for my critiques.
First of all the concept is good, and I am not saying your stupid, but the thing is I know it has already been thought of by other people. I mean, the only thing seperating this from a nuclear sub (other than that it's not a sub) is that it uses ethenol or somthing like that instead of Nuclear fusion. Still, I partialy think that using the turbine to run an electric motor is a waist of energy, and instead run it through a transmition and then to the wheels, it's more efficient I think. And the thing is, if you want to make it a REAL powerhouse, then use diesel, not only is it cheaper (even though it's hard to tell because the oil companies are realy F***ing around with prices these days because diesel is actualy easyer to make), but once you get it to ignight it burns hotter than hell fire. That's when you use the combustion engine for better efficiancy.

Yah, it's a bit of a loop, but what I realy think you need to concentrate on is not in the "high strength" devision, but the "commuter services". I mean, all you need to do is set up tracks for speedy travel, unlike the electric amtrack stuff in which you need to set up the track and the wires and the supports for the wires.
You get what I am trying to say?
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
Yeah, I see. But Diesel is now MORE expencive that gas! Plus steam has nearly limitless potential! Realy the only limitations is for the machine itself.

A good axample of Steam power is that the UP "Big Boy" was the most powerful, and still remains, the most powerful steam locomotive ever concived! It took locomotive companies YEARS to come up with a Diesel locomotive more powerful than it!

Also Steam is used to power over 80% of the US's eletrical power! Power plants use the same concept I am for this locomotive, just on a MUCH larger and static scale.
Reply
:icongattlin:
Gattlin Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
Well, in reality Diesel is actualy cheaper, it just dosn't show that because the gas companies are getting all the profit and jacking around with us. Just beleve me when I say "Diesel is cheaper" because when you get to the source, it realy is.

And I am not saying "don't use steam" I am saying that the concept needs a bit of revision because the BigBoy is one of the LARGEST steam engines in the world, and was also high manetnentce and not to mention there were only about twenty to fourty made because of how blasted expensive they were.

And yes, steam is used to make electricity, I mean, Nuclear. Still, I don't think putting a tiny Thermo Nuclear device in a train is a good idea.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
I didn't mean Nuclear, I meant coal!

The Big Boy had roughly around 500 to 600 psi, My system would have pressures closer to 1,000. This can be done because of the new engineered materials now available that wern't 50 years ago.

Idealy I hope to develope a system that doesn't burn feul at all.

Also you may be right about losing power by not directing power right to the wheels. I guess I designed my version to be easier for railroad comanies for conversions.

I may work on a third version
Reply
:icongattlin:
Gattlin Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
Coal? sorry to burst your bubble but coal is a fossil fuel and it's not exactly the cleanest thing around, although I do not at the moment know how plentiful it is or how much it costs so there might be an advantage.

Thing is, for somthing like your suggesting, you need somthing that can reach up to 1,500 psi to make it truely effective. And also, I don't think it was because of the lack of strong materials, but because of the complexity of the actual machine.
It might look simple on paper, but what I am going to show you is what your train is most likely going to look like (on the inside).
[link]

Also, I highly doubt that ANYONE within the next twenty years will be able to develope a system that dosn't burn fuel. Unless it's solar powered, which I highly doubt.

I must say that I realy enjoy this enlightening conversation.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2008
Well, when I said Coal I menat for the Power Plants. And it is a FACT and I know it first hand.

Any way, I wasn't expecting my locomotive to be simple, I'm well aware of how complex it would be. But I do apreciate the link! :D

And the reason I talked about the new materials is because there stronger and more durable. The one underlying cuase of failure of the Past locomotives was dirt and grim that got into the mechanics of the machine. If just one grain of sand got inside the engine, it would practicaly rip it to shreds from the inside out.

With the new materials now available, My engine could better withstand all the dirt and grim that other locomotives can stand up to. Plus we now can more effectively "seal" the parts and areas that need the most protection.

And yeah, developing an engine that burns NO fuel is a long shot but its the idea that has thinking about it! Now it is possible to run my locomotive with electricity. Using electric power to create steam for power, that also was an experiment for a time, Fireless Cookers they were called. Though those engines usualy were limmited in size, usualy a 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 type.

And I have to agree, this is an interesting conversation, its giving me alot to think about. :D
Reply
:icongattlin:
Gattlin Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2008
Alright, I am personaly under informed about the Coal so I don't realy think I can help you with that.

I know this might become a ping pong part of the conversation, but I still don't think that the materials in question were the problem in this situation because a small grain of dust wasn't capeable of ruining a turbine of that type, and if it did it was more likely because the turbines were not made right. Also you should consider what kind of turbine is needed in this situation, like an Impulse Turbine or a Reaction Turbine.

Also, I don't think one realy needs to worry about dirt or grime if the actual mechanics of the locomotive in question are completly contained. And I do understand about the more effective seal, but I think that unless you are using purified water I think there will be build up in the "boiler tubes" and cause blockages, in which it will become a BIG pain in the rear to clean out.

And the Electric to Steam... yah, way to innefficiant, either use small gas engines or motors in situations like that.

Yah, I know, I should have kind of told you this before, but in conversations like this I usualy become the Devil's Advocate for the exact reason to make people think about certan flaws.
Reply
:iconatticus-w:
Atticus-W Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2008
While diesel is indeed easier to produce than gasoline, supply and demand determines the price. The oil companies have less power to mess with the prices than you might think. ;)
Reply
:iconatticus-w:
Atticus-W Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
Well... interesting! I've been thinking the same thing as you lately... that materials and technological know-how might have caught up with rail-mounted steam turbines (and water-tube boilers, for that matter!) as of late. Technology can only improve in 50 years' time, after all! :)

Your design looks pretty solid to my humble mind, though a few little things confuse me... for example, is the turbine combined with the generator unit? I might have thought the turbine itself would take up more space (not that I'd really know or anything XD). And is the area marked "water tank" used for water storage or is it the steam-producing part of the boiler itself?

I could get into the economics of why ethanol and hydrogen may not be the best fuel choices, but considering that that point has little to do with the engine design itself... I call instead into question the purpose of the battery bank. If you intend to run the engine off of battery power, why not just use the battery to power the traction motors directly? As for using the turbine generator to charge the batteries while the batteries power the boiler, well, that sounds a bit like a perpetual motion machine to me... unless you were thinking along the lines of a genset idea (though those would seem to work best on switchers that spend a lot of their work day set in idle).

Anyway, this concept is gold, and it looks cool, too. Please correct my crazy misinterpretations about it. :D
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
Well first of all, the drawing itself is just an over view of the machine. If the engine burns feul to prduce steam then the Battery Bank wouldn't be installed, there wouldn't be much use for them.

Now if one wants to opt. for the fireless version, the battery bank would be used. I'm glad you asked about the turbine. And you are most likely right, they would be 2 separate units. Realistacally the generator would be smaller that what is pictured.

As for the water tank, its for storage. It sits over the boiler saddle style, steam ist genorated in the boiler.

In terms of acctually designing every nut and bolt, I'm totaly cluless. What I do know is how the Concept of a design could work.

In an earlier design I actualy had a blast sheild behind the cab incase of a boiler explosion. But since its a water tube boiler, if one were to explode, I doubt it be as devistating as a traditional boiler. :D
Reply
:iconatticus-w:
Atticus-W Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
Ah, okay, that clears up a lot! I like the saddle water tank idea-- automatic feed water heater! My intial oppinion on the battery bank stands, though-- if you're not going to use it in conjunction with onboard fuel, I don't see exactly what it would accomplish... it still sounds like you're using electricity to generate electricity (and if my understanding of energy laws is correct, you'd actually be loosing effeciency in the process). Good point about the safety of the water tube boiler, though. Railroads would probably go for that. (Those sissies. ;))
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
I'm glad you like the idea. Someone on FA (Fur Affinity) said that it would be IMPOSIBLE to fit all the mechanisms into one unit. Essentially saying it can't be done.

Yeah, RIGHT!!! I think he fails to understand the point of a "Concept"!

Plus, as I've stated, There are a BUNCH of new technologies and materials that were are now using.

I don't think he accually read what I wrote.
Reply
:iconatticus-w:
Atticus-W Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
Of course its possible! It's been done before, it can be done today right. It's not even a terribly complicated device when you come right down to it, especially in terms of the space that the equipment takes up.
Reply
:icongunslinger87:
gunslinger87 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2008
Exactly! He was telling me that I would need 8 TIMES the space!!! :omfg:
Reply
Add a Comment: