Explain U.P.'s Gas Turbine locomotive's operation?

[Anonymous]

Ok,.....Heres the link to view my personal U.P.\ EMD railroad collection, including U.P.
#5 turbine builders plate...........just a few goodies i've collected including pristine blank
plates..........L8ter

http://www.railimages.com/gallery/jonjones

[Leon Silverman]

Peter:
Mike did not specify whether the steam or the liquid propane had to be at 150 PSI.
Saturated steam at 150 PSIG is approximately 365 degrees Farenheit.
Liquid propane would have to be heated to only 331.41 degrees to be at 150 PSIG.
This might explain the high fuel consumption at idle speed because of the energy required to maintain fuel flow.

[Anonymous]

Will shortly have photos of my U.P. # 5 8500hp GTEL Turbine builders plate on here.............L8ter[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 4884bigboy

Yes UP used them regularly, they were no experiment! The Veranda offered by Lionel looks good, but I think BLI should make a super turbine, with a B unit and everything. That would be cool!

The super Turbine, Class 1-30 is coming out from Tower 55 and should be a nice model at a much less price than the brass ones. Overland has offered.

The Union Pacific was the one and only railroad to use the Gas Turbine and their use only lasted only about ten years of service for each of the three classes. Even the last ones, the 8500 horse power units were all retired in only ten years or less of service. They were extremely loud, much like a smaller jet plane and the diesels had increased in horsepower and reliability that special units were not longer needed. They were all custom in the context of production items as they were designed for the Union Pacific and not a catalog item with GE or anyone else. On the subject of Bunker C, the turbines were started on kerosene or diesel type fuel and switched over as they warmed up.

The 51 class standard Turbines and the 61 class Veranda's were only 4500 horse power and were used with two additional GP's the second half of their life. This gave them the power to keep trains rolling at higher speeds. The Tenders were added to the small turbines about 1955 after three years of use to increase their distance between fuel stops. Bunker C was the normal fuel and the first tenders were made by splicing two of the 4-12-2, 9000 tenders together as the 9000 class was scrapped starting in 1953 to 1956 or so.

The first of the 61 class received its tender from an 800 FEF-1 class and it was different from the other standard and Veranda's. The 1-30 class turbines all had fuel tenders converted from the FEF-1 class since they were going out of service by 1958 and several of the FEF-1's got the 23000 gal tenders from the 2 and 3 class after 1956 as they were sidelined. This was a way to use the tenders with the standard trucks and not the centipede trucks for the turbines.

I am happy to see the last turbines will be offered by Tower 55 as one of their first three projects according to their advertisement.

[grandeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 1shado1

"Hey all.....just a little holy grail..... i recently purchased the builders plate from Big Blow,..."

So show us some pictures already!

No kidding, where are the pics???

[1shado1]

"Hey all.....just a little holy grail..... i recently purchased the builders plate from Big Blow,..."

So show us some pictures already!

[Anonymous]

Hey all.....just a little holy grail..... i recently purchased the builders plate from Big Blow,
8500 hp Gtel #5 serial 33217, class 2(c-c)816/816-12GE752,blt-Dec 1958.....it even,
has traces of U.P. Armor Yellow on the reverse side. Its an awesome find to add to my collection of EMD and G.E. plates. I also have a standard silver, blue and black-EMD-
plate,and a standard G.E. plate. They are unique, because they're both blank, and mint.......L8ter[:D]

[cwclark]

the gas turbine works by compressing a high volume of air , mixing it with fuel and igniting it...the expansion of the ignited gas / fuel mixture has a tremendous amount of kenetic energy, so much so, that it can turn a set of turbine blades with an awesome force, creating a rotary motion that can be harnessed into a mechanical power source....I work at a gas turbine power plant and the G.E. frame 7 gas turbine can create 740,000 horse power...that's a lot of ponies in a row....

[M636C]

Mike,

This might sound like a strange question but where did you get 150 psi steam from? I thought only the GE demonstrator 50 had a steam generator, and I wouldn't have thought that you could get that sort of pressure from a normal steam heating generator. Did the propane tender have its own boiler?

Peter

[mls1621]

The fuel tender for #57 had a double wall design for safety, but it also acted as a heat exchanger. Steam was passed through to increase the pressure of the liquid propane. A minmum pressure of 150 PSI was required for normal operation.

57 was converted back to bunker C in early 1955 following repairs to the turbine.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Ulrich,

I'm slow at getting back to you about 8080. I think there were some details in a copy of "Streamliner", but I can't recall when.

Your comment about the Baldwin Westinghouse "Blue Goose" prototype reminded me that unlike the GE turbines, I think it actually had two turbines side by side. There is an old but interesting book (in German) on gas turbine locomotives by Wolfgang Stoffels. It has a lot of interesting technical details, including a proposed EMD FG-9, which had a French-style free piston gas generator turbine. I can't find it at the moment but I'll post the title if you are interested (and if I can find it).

Peter

Hi Peter,

Yep, the Blue Goose was equipped with two 2000 hp turbines side by side. And with a steamgenerator for passengercar heating!
Westinghouse planed a serie of gasturbine passenger and freightlocos. The Blue Goose was ready in 1950 had many failures, project was canceled later and Blue Goose was scrapped in 1952 - Wheelarrangement: like the 4500 hp Alco 101 and the UP´s.B+B-B+B!

A similar Baldwin projekt was canceled before prototypes.

You have also A.J. Wolffs book about UP´s Turbines?
He made a good joke in the table about the tenders.

In the column "HEATINGSYSTEM" he wrote for the 8080 tender "N/A" - Hey, this is a coal tender so "NONE" will be correct!
And the ultrajoke you find at the next row: This gastank-tender used behind the #57. This was equipped with a "STEAM" heating? Sure, when the propane is hot enough they become a perfect onestage booster rocket.

[M636C]

Ulrich,

I'm slow at getting back to you about 8080. I think there were some details in a copy of "Streamliner", but I can't recall when.

Your comment about the Baldwin Westinghouse "Blue Goose" prototype reminded me that unlike the GE turbines, I think it actually had two turbines side by side. There is an old but interesting book (in German) on gas turbine locomotives by Wolfgang Stoffels. It has a lot of interesting technical details, including a proposed EMD FG-9, which had a French-style free piston gas generator turbine. I can't find it at the moment but I'll post the title if you are interested (and if I can find it).

Peter

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lupo

hey bigboy4015!
overland is doing a new series of the BIGBLOW this year, no date announced, but the price did me decide to order a Veranda Turbine, instead, The new 3 unit turbine is going to cost $2149,= I think it's a bit tooooooooo much for hobby budget.

Hups - Don´t see this announcment!

Your right 2149 is "a little bit" to much ! I remember that the last cost about 1700. Possible that Overland waits for more orders!

When I think about the BigBlow price, I remember my Overland DD40AX Centennial #6936.
I payed ca 700 $ in 1997 or 1998. It´s a model of UP´s heritage Centennial with ditchlights before the 2001 wreckrepairs must be done!
In 2002 OMI bring the todays version, cost near 50% more than my one!
Overland built excellent models but the prices......climbs higher and higher.

[lupo]

hey bigboy4015!
overland is doing a new series of the BIGBLOW this year, no date announced, but the price did me decide to order a Veranda Turbine, instead, The new 3 unit turbine is going to cost $2149,= I think it's a bit tooooooooo much for hobby budget.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 4884bigboy

...BLI should make a super turbine, with a B unit and everything. ...

A Super Turbine will be great. I´m thinking about buying one if Qverland will bring a new serie!

But have one question: What´s a Superturbine w/o a B-unit? The B houses the turbine !!! [:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Dan's comment about 8080 with Wile E. Coyote driving was pretty close to the mark! I read somewhere that the turbine inside the former Great Northern electric was one that had been removed from one of the original turbines. They obviously collected discarded equipment from everywhere to test the coal burning turbine theory. The PA-1 kept its engine, so it could drag the whole thing out of the way when (not if) it failed. I imagine they didn't expect the turbine to last long with the unburnt stones from the coal passing through at high speed, and didn't want to risk a new one.

Peter

Hi Peter,

yep, your right!!!!

Wile E Coyote at the trottle, I think Roger Rabbit !

To drive this engine must be like a cartoon - FUNNY - More than 90 percent of it´s career the unit was stalled - Also a record!!!

I ask my self why this monster made no career in movies !!!
As a nuclear powered engine - Looks like !!! [;)][:D][:D]

BTW: UPs precessor C&NW use also a gas turbine for a short time, built by WESTINGHOUSE. The BLUE GOOSE

[M636C]

Dan's comment about 8080 with Wile E. Coyote driving was pretty close to the mark! I read somewhere that the turbine inside the former Great Northern electric was one that had been removed from one of the original turbines. They obviously collected discarded equipment from everywhere to test the coal burning turbine theory. The PA-1 kept its engine, so it could drag the whole thing out of the way when (not if) it failed. I imagine they didn't expect the turbine to last long with the unburnt stones from the coal passing through at high speed, and didn't want to risk a new one.

Peter

[mls1621]

The turbines ran on double track through the Wausatch mountains of northern Utah and Sherman Hill in Wyoming.

As mentioned earlier, they did a very good job, but the maintanence costs got too high and and fuel costs increased so they were all retired.

I have two of the Pentrex videos about the turbines. In the later video, an 8500 with three helper diesels pulls a 170 car train up the 1.89% grade through Echo Canyon.

The early 4500's carried fuel internally till the mid 50's. The internal fuel capacity limited their use due to limited range and as they burned fuel, they lost tractive effort. The tenders were added and weight was added to compensate for the loss of the fuel to the tender. The tenders held 24,000 gallons of fuel and allowed the use of these giants across the system from Salt Lake City to Lawrence KS.

They experimented by sending one to LA, but the noise was too much for the locals.

They even tried siamesing two with a shared tender, but they could only run in one direction because of the need to angle the exhaust to the rear of travel. Further, the trailing unit flamed out in tunnels due to lack of fresh air.

The propane experiment on #57 was short lived as the power output didn't improve enough to justify the increased cost of the propane fuel.

The 4500's had internal steam generators to preheat the fuel before it was injected into the combustion chambers. The 8500's had electric heaters built into the tenders that kept the fuel at the proper temperature.

Some of the surviving tenders now carry water for the 844 and the 3985.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jschuknecht

QUOTE: Originally posted by bigboy4015

...In idlemode a turbine "drink" near 1.000 gallons Bunker C in one hour...

I had read about that and the fact that they used a small internal diesel engine for jostling and the like, and I wondered, what did they do when the turbines had to wait to meet another train? Did they shut them down, or were they so difficult to start back up and get up to operating status before moving on that they just left them running? Or did they always have these engines running on double-track or scheduled so that they rarely had to stop and wait for another train (or didn't have them waiting too long)?

---jps

Good question. Okay, the main workingfield was UP´s mainline between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Ogden, Utah. This line is real doubletrack. And also fast passenger and mail trains use the line.

When it happens that a GTEL powered train must wait in a siding for a longer time - more than 10 minutes will be a good time - because the passing of a faster passenger train or so, I think its possible that the turbine was shut down and the 270 hp (4500) or 800 hp (8500) ponydiesel was started.
Restart a warm turbine was a deal that needs two or three minutes when the rest of the locomotive is ready for use. But a restart needs also some more fuel and brings more maintenance! A turbine isn´t designed for start-stop use!

Possible it is cheaper - special then when the fuelconsumption was not longer a real problem because of the tenders - to run the turbines also in sidings.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bigboy4015

...In idlemode a turbine "drink" near 1.000 gallons Bunker C in one hour...

I had read about that and the fact that they used a small internal diesel engine for jostling and the like, and I wondered, what did they do when the turbines had to wait to meet another train? Did they shut them down, or were they so difficult to start back up and get up to operating status before moving on that they just left them running? Or did they always have these engines running on double-track or scheduled so that they rarely had to stop and wait for another train (or didn't have them waiting too long)?

---jps

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwbash

What seems to be missing from this discussion is "why did UP drop using these turbines?" The data I got from the UP in 1958 (during the peak period of usage of the Veranda) was that they did an excellent job pulling trains. But, ... sitting in the yard at idle speed consumed 60% of the fuel that they did when running. But as mentioned above, using Bunker C fuel, which had to be kept hot, you couldn't very well shut them off unless connected to a steam supply, and the startup was not much fun.

So, basically, this turns out to be a great idea for an engine that you run all the time, but most engines spend significant time sitting in yards, or making short connection runs, and thus, the idea didn't really work.

The UP retired the turbines because of many facts.

Okay the turbine is thursty a turbine needs more than 100 % more fuel than a diesel consist with the same power and the same drag. But Bunker C was very cheap in the end 1950´s - one gallon Bunker C 2-3 cents against one gallon diesel fuel 9-12 cents. So the turbines are economic!!!
Than the Bunker C price climbs higher and higher and at last the turbine wasn´t longer economic.

In idlemode a turbine "drink" near 1.000 gallons Bunker C in one hour - At notch 20 (Turbines had 20 notch trottles) something about 2.000. So locomotive only yard movements were made with the ponydiesel - a270 hp Cummins in the 4500´s and a 800 hp Cooper-Bessemer in the 8500´s.

An other fact is that the turbines need a total overhaul after the ten years in service. An extreme expensive doing and with the high price for Bunker C not logical!

END OF THE LINE

[Anonymous]

Yes UP used them regularly, they were no experiment! The Veranda offered by Lionel looks good, but I think BLI should make a super turbine, with a B unit and everything. That would be cool!

[Anonymous]

What seems to be missing from this discussion is "why did UP drop using these turbines?" The data I got from the UP in 1958 (during the peak period of usage of the Veranda) was that they did an excellent job pulling trains. But, ... sitting in the yard at idle speed consumed 60% of the fuel that they did when running. But as mentioned above, using Bunker C fuel, which had to be kept hot, you couldn't very well shut them off unless connected to a steam supply, and the startup was not much fun.

So, basically, this turns out to be a great idea for an engine that you run all the time, but most engines spend significant time sitting in yards, or making short connection runs, and thus, the idea didn't really work.

[Anonymous]

I saw one of those things for real when I was a kid. One disadvantage to them was they were LOUD!!!!! They woul drive every dog within miles absolutely nuts when they went through town due to the ultrasonic component of the noise they made. (just imagine standing behind a 727 when it takes off, and you have a rough idea!!!)

[Anonymous]

I was off pretty far on that one[:D]

[dave9999]

Here's an explaination of a gas turbine engine: http://travel.howstuffworks.com/turbine1.htm Dave

[Anonymous]

Thanks, guys! Lots of good info!

[lupo]

you are right dharmon, I think this is the ultimate kitbashing!
doing it in GRAND SCALE with real POWERTOOLS!

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lupo

That thing looks like it should have ACME painted on the side and Wile E Coyote at the throttle....