Gas turbines...what were these?

[Jacktal]

I know there has been at least two production models of gas turbine powered locomotives,possibly more.I know there were the "Veranda's" and the GE Gas Turbines.Searching for more info,I found that the Verandas were Alco's while at first I believed they were EMD's.But i couldn't find any model numbering for neither,meaning something like F or E something,or even T series (for turbine).Were they simply named Veranda's and Gas turbine's by their respective makers?And who,other than UP,used these monsters?I believe there weren't many to start with.Thanks for any info.

[Anonymous]

I think the Jawn Henry was a gas turbine, the C and O had one also.

The problem with these is three things (I am going to announce my ignorance for all time... here goes)

1- Coal dust. Got gummed up in the works. Dirty.
2- Lots and LOTS of Tractive effort at starting and slow speeds, but try highballing...
3- You burn (Sorry desiel fans) in "Notch 8" regardless of sitting or moving.

Finally the AC's can deliver just as much horse to the track for alot less fuel consumption and need for support from the shops and maintaince.

Having said all of that, I follow the Military and understand some ships makes very very good use of Turbines. Perhaps someday we will see "Big Blows" on the rails again.

[dehusman]

All the turbines were "experimental", none were production models so none had model designations. There were gas turbines and steam turbines. Gas turbines burn a fuel and the exhuast gases run the turbines. Steam turbines burn a fuel to produce steam which runs a turbine. GE built several gas turbines, the "Verandas" were one step in the evolution of those turbines. with the high point being the UP's "Big Blow" turbines. The C&O, N&W and PRR all had coal fired steam turbines. In addition the UP experimented with a major kitbashed coal fired gas turbine.

None of the turbines were built by EMD.

The problem with virtually all turbine designs is they more or less have two speeds, off and full. They use almost as much fuel stopped as pulling a load. They were high maintenance beasts with limited usefulness.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

The turbines used by the C&O (3), the N&W (1), the PRR (1), and the Pre WWII turbines on the UP (2) were steam turbines rather than gas turbines. The difference being that with a steam turbine you have a boiler which creates the steam which turns the turbine. In a gas turbine you burn the fuel directly in the turbine. Just think about what you normally call jet engines, GE used aircraft engines in the gas turbines that they made for the UP. Westinghouse did the same with the Blue Goose demonstrator. Westinghouse did not have any sales of turbines though. UP also built a coal dust fired gas turbine out of an ALCO PA, an ex GN electric, and an idle steam locomotive tender. It worked reasonably well, except that the cinders ate the turbine blades rather quickly.

[passengerfan]

The one thing to be said for the UP turbines was they sure thinned out the pigeon population that resided beneath the highway overpasses in Cheyenne.
Thge Big Blows were actually quite sucessful when you cansider they produced something like 8500 hp when the regulkar diesel manufacturers were producing about 2,000 hp tops per unit. Remember Big Blows pulling solid fruit blocks east across Wyoming making far better time than the equivalent diesels were capable of. Like all jet engines of that particular time period they required more maintenance than todays jet engines. True, they were horrendous fuel burners but kerosene and bunker C was much cheaper than diesel fuel in the same period. Turbines are enjoying success today in Marine applications that would have been impossible with the jets available when the Big Blows were operating. And remember the UP turbines were all surplus ex US Airforce not state of the art even then. Could the turbine be more successful today in railroad applications. The CN Turbos should answer that even though they were far more compact then the engines used in the UP Big Blows and other UP turbines they had many problems particularly in the winter months with turbine blades being damaged. Even that was thirty years ago. Today it is doubtful if tubines would bring any success to railroad operation as bunker C is not cheap by any means so the cost of fuel alone would preclude any venture into turbines on the rails again.

[ndbprr]

If I am not mistaken GAS Turbines use the products of combustion to turn the turbine. Two reasons for the lack of success was blade wear from particulate matter and low speed efficiency. Turbines like steady state service at one speed for long periods of time. The PRR swoosh and the Jawn Henry made conventional steam and that turned the turbines in those engines.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

The turbines used by the C&O (3), the N&W (1), the PRR (1), and the Pre WWII turbines on the UP (2) were steam turbines rather than gas turbines. The difference being that with a steam turbine you have a boiler which creates the steam which turns the turbine. In a gas turbine you burn the fuel directly in the turbine. Just think about what you normally call jet engines, GE used aircraft engines in the gas turbines that they made for the UP. Westinghouse did the same with the Blue Goose demonstrator. Westinghouse did not have any sales of turbines though. UP also built a coal dust fired gas turbine out of an ALCO PA, an ex GN electric, and an idle steam locomotive tender. It worked reasonably well, except that the cinders ate the turbine blades rather quickly.

In reference to the comment about the UP coal dust fired gas turbine, it was a failure and did not run many trips before it was laid up for good. The article about it said it sounded much like the normal turbine except for the blades breaking and coming through the car body.

That is the quote from the men who tested it.

[jimrice4449]

One point about the steam turbines. The PRR S-1 was a direct drive turbine, that is, the steam drove the turbine that was connected directly to the drive wheels (there was a large turbine for forward and a smaller one for reverse moves.) The other steam turbines were electric drive. The turbine turned a generator which drove elctric motors attached to the wheels (as in diesel-electrics).

[jimrice4449]

As far as I know all of the gas-turbines were electric transmission, that is, the turbine turned a generator which powered the elctric motors attached to the wheels.

[Sperandeo]

A gas turbine is basically a jet engine that uses the thrust created by the expansion of combustion gases to drive turbine wheels. In a gas-turbine-electric locomotive or power car, the turbine powers a generator that produces electricity to power axle-mounted traction motors like those on electric and diesel-electric locomotives.

The Union Pacific was the only user of large gas-turbine-electric freight locomotives. They were more than experimental on the UP, as they were operated in everyday, heavy-duty freight service from 1952 until 1969. The UP started with 10 gas-turbine-electric locomotives in 1952, and increased its fleet to 55 by 1961. Amtrak also operated gas-turbine-electric lightweight passenger trains, but they used integral power cars rather than separate locomotives.

Basic information on the UP's roster of turbine locomotives, all built by General Electric, is included in the book, "Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years," from Kalmbach Books. See pages 183-186. (The UP also experimented unsuccessfully with a coal-turbine-electric locomotive.)

There were also direct-drive steam turbine and steam-turbine electric locomotives. They were all experimental and ultimately considered unsuccessful. For their story, see the following article from "Classic Trains":

Turbines: King Coal's battle against the diesel
Classic Trains Magazine, Fall 2004 page 20
Not a story of successes
( "HIRSIMAKI, ERIC", TURBINE, CTR )

So long,

Andy

[Jetrock]

And yet another kind of jet turbine used on locomotives:



New York Central's experimental jet-powered RDC, which got up to around 180 mph!

[davekelly]

Highiron,

You're right. Unless there are still some old ones out there, all the current Navy destroyers and cruisers use gas turbine engines. The advantages over the steam powered ships is that start up is super fast. Changes in speed can be instantaneous including change in direction (actually the blades on the props are rotated - the engine runs the same direction). Maintenance is also improved as the entire engine cell can be removed from the ship if necessary.

It would be interesting to see if turbines will ever make a showing on the railroads given the larger percentage of long distance high speed runs (I'm thinking cross country intermodel trains here). Of course an additional problem may be sound levels.

[ndbprr]

Past experience has indicated that ship service and lcocmotive service are two differnt beasts. FM made highly succesful oppsoed psiton diesels that were excellent in submarine service but failed when put in locomotives for two reasons:
1. The bed in a sub is much more rigid than a loco frame
2. The RPM's are much more consistent is ship service.

I would expect that turbines would be similar plus low speed service consumes vast quantities of fuel and that has been a common problem for all engines with turbines.

[M636C]

There was a proposal for an EMD Gas Turbine, but this was quite different to the GE Turbines used by UP. This was a "gas generator" turbine which was to use French 'Pescara' free piston engines (double ended diesel engines with no crankshaft but two pistons that fired alternately, producing exhaust gas which loses its energy in a direct drive turbine coupled through driveshafts and gearboxes like diesel hydraulic locomotives)

A set of two gas generators and a turbine was set up at La Grange, but was never fitted to a locomotive.

This was during the early to mid 1950s, and the proposed locomotive was to be an F unit. To carry the weight of the twin gas generators, the body was similar to that of the FL-9 locomotive with a B-A!A wheel arrangement.

Being an EMD, it had a model number allocated, model FG-9.

This must surely be an excuse to build a slightly modified FL-9 in UP colours, since surely they would have tried one!

A locomotive of this type was built in France with a double ended boxcab body on six axles, but that did not go into production either.

Peter

[davekelly]

ndprr,

Good point about the difference between marine and train use of engines. My direct experience was the opposite of the one you desribed. I served four years on an LST. Our power plant? Six Alco 251C engines. They were a pain to say the least. Of course it was way cool when we went from ahead 1/3 to ahead full/flank! Those Alco's sure did smoke!

[dave9999]

I posted this on another topic about gas turbines. This link explains the operation
of a gas turbine engine... Dave
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/turbine.htm

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

There was a proposal for an EMD Gas Turbine, but this was quite different to the GE Turbines used by UP. This was a "gas generator" turbine which was to use French 'Pescara' free piston engines (double ended diesel engines with no crankshaft but two pistons that fired alternately, producing exhaust gas which loses its energy in a direct drive turbine coupled through driveshafts and gearboxes like diesel hydraulic locomotives)

That sounds very much like the free piston/turbine engine that Westinghouse was pursuing in the late '40s and early '50s. Westinghouse had ads in most of the mags of the time. They even took over Baldwin in 1950 so they would have a major erecting facility for the orders they were sure would be coming for the turbine and for the opposed piston diesel engine that Westinghouse had been developing and transferred to Baldwin. Baldwin was about to come out with a new Vee type engine that would have been competitive with the 567 and 251 but Westinghouse shelved it in favor of the exotic possibilities. The free piston engine that Westinghouse was developing was to be a larger version of the free piston diesel compressors that some of the more modern U Boats used very successfully during the war. Unfortunately for Baldwin neither power plant panned out, and since they were using 1930's design diesel engines they went out of business rather quickly

[davekelly]

Hmmmmm. What about a hybred? A regular diesel electric set up to get things rolling - switching to the turbine for long distance at fast speeds? Yeah - the thing would cost more to build - but would it save fuel? It seems most work was done when oil was relatively inexpensive. With the increase in fuel costs and turbine technology would this be more efficient? At what price for fuel would it become more efficient if any?

I do remember reading at one point in either the 70's or 80's that there was a serious look into using coal again given that coal burning technology had advanced since the 40's - but never read anything more about it to see what was found.

[ndbprr]

It still comes down to maintenance which turbines need much more than diesels.

[davekelly]

Do turbines still need more maintenance than diesels given today's technology and advances in turbine design and manufacture since they were last used in locomotives? Would increased efficiency in certain applications offset the increase in maintenance? I don't know the answers and can't even hazard a guess but would be very interested in finding out. Perhaps someone with airline experience can give us a clue?

[Anonymous]

the abrams tank seems pretty effective, it is a gas turbine. it was one of the biggest design issues, gas turbines are fast but they burn so much energy and they still have very heavy maintenance needs

[davekelly]

Saw an interesting show on the History Channel - "Modern Marvels - Bullet Trains." Apparently the first generation of the French TGV was a turbine - didn't know that.

jardormdrache - Seeing the M-1A1 moving across the desert is quite the site. Unbelievable speed for a tracked vehicle. Yeah the maintenance can be quite the pain, but then they are operating at many times the tempo nowadays than planned. There must be some efficiencies in the turbine or else the aircraft industry wouldn't have switched over to them I'm thinking.

I am wondering about the fuel usage of a turbine. Is it a gas guzzler at all speeds? From what I understand (which could very well be totally incorrect) what makes the turbine inefficient is slow speed operation, but at constant high speeds efficiency can be quite good. Are there streches in the U.S. where modern turbine technology could be used advantageously?

[Anonymous]

My experience is from the electric utility business....

Gas turbines are inherintly less efficient than reciprocating engines, even at full power. They can be cleaner burning though if properly tuned. Gas turbines are popular with utilities simply becasue you can buy a higher horsepower turbine than you can a reciprocating engine. A 10,000 hp recip weighs 550,000 lbs. A similar turbines weighs MUCH less. Besides, where would you buy a 200,000 hp reciprocating engine?

As stated above, gas turbines are efficient only between 75% and 100% capacity. Under 75% their efficiency goes to pot. Remember, the death of steam was the cost of the fuel to run them, not the amount of power they put out.

Turbines are inherintly more reliable and easier to maintain because they have fewer moving parts. True, the parts they have can be quite expensive, but when properly operated they are a fairly low maintenance piece of equipment.

Mark in Utah

[Leon Silverman]

The main advantage of gas turbines over diesels is their high horsepower to weight ratio. Discussions in other subjects indicate that today's 4400 and 6000 HP diesel engines cannot apply their full horsepower below 17 -27 mph due to adhesion limitations. A 6000 HP gas turbine locomotive would have to be ballasted to weigh the same as its' comparable diesel locomotive in order to have the same drawbar pull.
Practically, this limits the gas turbine to applications where you would want to run passenger trains at Acela speeds in non-electrified areas. For freight-use, it might be advisable to put the gas turbine in a Centipede (2+D+D+2) locomotive with all axles powered (Gas Turbine Electric Big-Boy?). Alternately, to make use of the currently produced chasses, the gas tubine locomotive could be placed in a conventional 12-wheel diesel locomotive shell and run with a permantly attached slug that could also serve as a fuel tender. The gas turbine (rated at 10,000 to 12,000 HP)can produce enough power to have the slug add its tractive effort all the way to full road speed.