On the BNSF line on OKC, I ran across a southbound train with two engines on the front, one on the rear, and more than 30 8-axle flat cars heading south. The entire train was heavy duty flats, I just didn't count them all. I suspect this was a wind turbine train returning to get loaded. Does anyone else have any ideas on the purpose of this train? I have never seen a train of all flat cars.
I suspect your guess as to the destination and purpose of that train might be correct. There is a plant just north of Gainesville, TX that manufactures blades for wind turbines. Look on Google Earth at the point where the BNSF crosses I-35. Just to the north, fronting on the I-35 service road, is the plant I'm talking about. Google Earth has a tag on it saying that it's the Molded Fiberglass Co. I don't know how accurate that is but if you zoom in to an "eye alt[ititude]" of 2300' or less, you will be able to see several blades lying around the property.
But I've seen these monsters on the highway and they don't appear to be so heavy as to need 8-axle flat cars. These blades would be more likely to need long flats (86'?) and perhaps idler flats at each end. Definitely very expensive transportation.
Maybe the heavy duty flats are for the turbine/generator nacelles. I don't know where they are manufactured.
ChuckAllen, TX
Military flat cars for hauling M1 Abrams tanks are 6 axle units with DODX reporting marks. They usually carry two tanks each when loaded. Other lighter vehicles such as Bradley fighting vehicles, Hummers and MRAPs are usually on 4 axle flat cars. Fort Hood in Texas is home base for several heavy armor units. Might that be a possibility?
cefinkjrMaybe the heavy duty flats are for the turbine/generator nacelles. I don't know where they are manufactured.
I think that would be right. While there are dedicated trains for wind-turbine blades, they use precisely the sort of rolling stock mentioned (86' flats with dedicated racks built on them) whereas the actual generators and nacelle assemblies with gearboxes, etc. are much heavier. There is actually a Lionel model of a KBL sixteen-wheel flat with load...
An interesting note is that at least some of these generators are actually motored in transport to preclude bearing damage - there is a small auxiliary genset that keeps them rotating slightly, like gas or steam turbines on turning gear.
Upon further research, 8 axle flats being used for the generator components of wind turbines is definitely the likely answer. There are numerous photos out on the Web showing 8 axle flats with such loads.
Solid train? More likely military shipments.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
M1 Abrams tanks on DODX flat cars...
Wind turbine components on flat cars...
Main gear boxes...
Wind turbine blades in transit ...
Nacelle and cone with blades on adjacent cars ...
Yeah, they're HO scale models; just announced in an email I received this morning from Model Railroader . I don't know how accurate they are but they look plausible, even in comparison to the prototype photos above. Can't tell how many axles are on these trucks and the item in MR didn't mention it. The models, by the way, are from American Model Builders. Their web address is www.laserkit.com
cefinkjr I don't know how accurate they are but they look plausible, even in comparison to the prototype photos above. Can't tell how many axles are on these trucks and the item in MR didn't mention it. The models, by the way, are from American Model Builders. Their web address is www.laserkit.com
I have some problems with this model, perhaps unjustified. In the description of their kit, they note
Kit includes resin cast nacelle and cone with easy to assemble laser-cut blocking. May be arranged on a single 60 foot car or, if used in conjunction with two turbine blades and three 89 foot flat cars, can be loaded on the middle flat acting as an idler car.
In real life the nacelles appear to be blocked and carried as relatively heavy and concentrated loads. I'm not altogether sure why (except in GHA land) a load like the one pictured would be carried center of the span on a long TTX car, even with the part of the load of the blades on that car applied fairly far outboard of the truck pivots to balance the bending moments in the underframe somewhat (which I think I see happening in the model).
Now, I can't imagine this kit was developed without a prototype somewhere, and someone should look for and find it (ideally with some discussion of the statics and stresses/strains involved). But I will remain somewhat nervous about it until proven with something better than a 3D rendering.
I stand corrected, the military shippments tend to be on the 6 axle flats. The 8 axle flats are probably a very specific shipment on limited OD pairs so unless you are near that route, one would never see that type of shipment.
I mostly agree with you, RME, but I'm not sure I agree with "GHA land" because I don't know what that is. Probably current (last 30 years) culture that I'm not in tune with.
Those nacelles and related parts do look a bit unbelievable to me but we modelers have a saying that there's a prototype for everything. Just as soon as you say "That's not a realistic model", 10 guys will show you pictures that prove otherwise.
I've never seen the blades on flat cars but I used to see a lot of them on flat-bed trucks when I was traveling occasionally between North Texas and The (Rio Grande) Valley. They would typically appear in groups of three spread over a mile or more; moving north on I-35 or I-37 from someplace south of San Antonio. Since I never saw any further south than the junction of I-37 and US 281, I guessed they were being built somewhere in the Corpus Christi area, maybe at a shipyard.
The following links may be of some interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--e-pE2E8uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rJ8Tzg8ZxY
A video of a UP train of turbine blades in Colorado.
[Note:] Siemens has a Turbine/ Blade production facility in Hutchinson, Ks. Occasionally, we will see a UPRR powered, loaded 'Blade Train" through this area of South Central Kansas on BNSF.
The Siemens blades, according to their website are 55 meters in length. The blades are balanced and matched at the factory for field assembly.
This link shows a CPR train of Wind Turbine support columns: @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfnyGIHa8ZE
And this video is a train on CSX, in Michigan, with both Blades and Nacelles on board @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9DyB3T2jSc
samfp1943 And this video is a train on CSX, in Michigan, with both Blades and Nacelles on board @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9DyB3T2jSc
Nacelles appear to be double loaded on the 8 axle flat cars.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD samfp1943 And this video is a train on CSX, in Michigan, with both Blades and Nacelles on board @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9DyB3T2jSc Nacelles appear to be double loaded on the 8 axle flat cars.
Watched that video and the one that automatically followed it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rJ8Tzg8ZxY).
Two things occurred to me:
1) I'm not seeing 8 axles. The lighting on the undercarriage is typically bad in both these videos but I just couldn't see 8 axles under any car.
2) I could be wrong but I suspect those blades are longer and probably heavier than any I've seen on the highway (which might be why they're being shipped by rail).
Final thought, wouldn't you love to find the freight charges for just one movement like this in your bank account?
cefinkjr I mostly agree with you, RME, but I'm not sure I agree with "GHA land" because I don't know what that is.
It was the normal meaning long predating me: that school of modeling that solves its derailments, switching problems, usw. with dei ex machina - "giant hand action".
What I meant to imply was that proponents of that 'approach' may also consider things that in the real world matter greatly -- weight distribution, structural deflection under load, bearing and frame life -- to be relatively unimportant compared to things like appearance and smooth operation. I am not belittling anyone in the modeling community, or going away from the principle that 'when you model, it's your rules and your railroad' -- just noting that having a "wind-turbine train" that can be "100 cars long!" may be a more important achievement for some than having a train that models the actual sort of prototype with best safety for people who have to be around it.
The first picture Chuck posted does not seem accurate to me. The windmill trains I've seen have the blades supported on one car with an idler car between it and the next blade carrying car. The support on the second car would not work well on a tight curve.
I have photos of both windmill trains I've seen but can't say for certain how many axles are on the cars carrying the turbines; could possibly be six. The turbines weight must vary considerably because I've seen as many as three on a single car.
Norm
The lighting on the axles is not great but you can make out four axle bearings at each end under the cars carrying the nacelles. The four axle cars also have a thicker deck in the center compared to the TOFC flats carrying the props. There are both yellow and red heavy duty flats carrying nacelles. The 8 axles especially stand out on the red cars carrying nacelles. The video can be paused for inspection. At least on my screen when I pause it the picture remains clear. Regardless of what type of cars they are on, those turbine components are indeed exceptionally large.
Norm48327I have photos of both windmill trains I've seen but can't say for certain how many axles are on the cars carrying the turbines; could possibly be six. The turbines' weight must vary considerably because I've seen as many as three on a single car.
Just for the sake of semantics -- the 'turbine' part of a wind-turbine generator is the blades and the hub. The heavy thing is the 'nacelle' or the 'generator' or whatever you want to call it, but it is not like a steam turbine or gas turbine where the 'prime mover' for electrical generation is itself a heavy concentrated load. Most of the weight for the nacelles is in the gearbox to accelerate the relatively slow angular rotation of the 'turbine' with its blades, and the alternator and associated circuitry that converts the 'wind power' into grid-usable electricity, and in the framing needed to support those things up where the wind is blowing ...
Disagree. The turbine, as currently described, is the entire generating mechanism. The nacelle is the housing that protects the above from the elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine
RMEIt was the normal meaning long predating me: that school of modeling that solves its derailments, switching problems, usw. with dei ex machina - "giant hand action".
cefinkjr cefinkjr I mostly agree with you, RME, but I'm not sure I agree with "GHA land" because I don't know what that is. RME It was the normal meaning long predating me: that school of modeling that solves its derailments, switching problems, usw. with dei ex machina - "giant hand action". Ah, yes, the always handy 0-5-0 switcher; best used when nobody is looking.
RME It was the normal meaning long predating me: that school of modeling that solves its derailments, switching problems, usw. with dei ex machina - "giant hand action".
Definitely make sure no one is looking. You can always explain that the gang came quickly and did its work so fast that no one could see it working.
I like the wheel arrangement on the switcher.
Johnny
Deggesty"dei"--you would use two or more from the machine? ("deus" is the singular form).
Yes, more than one god (perhaps, in the present context, five, like a kind of Rosey's bat kol...) but only one mechanism that descends to 'implement' them...
What made you think that switcher had wheels to arrange? (If it did you might say they would be in a line, like the drivers on one of Boynton's locomotives, with only one opposed for balance...) To paraphrase the situation: "Where we're going, we don't NEED rails..." and cue Mr. Fusion and the caffeine.
Norm48327The turbine, as currently described, is the entire generating mechanism.
That's what you get for reading Wikipedia. The 'turbine' is the rotating thing that converts flow into power (shaft power in this context). A PT6 turboshaft does not become any more or less a turbine if something is connected to its output or not. By comparison with established turbine practice, in any other context I can think of where a turbine is used for power, when it is incorporated in an apparatus for electrical generation you call the result a 'turbogenerator' *or turboalternator or whatever). Why should wind practice be different from other motive power?
It might be reasoned by analogy that we call locomotives 'diesels' instead of diesel-electrics, and don't make explicit note of the transmission. And if we need a terse and semantically 'futuristic' term for a fancy windmill, "turbine" is surely a useful word for the thing. But what, then, would you call a bladed rotating device that drives a mechanical pump (like the earlier generations of aermotor turbines) ... in rocket science we call it a 'turbopump' and not a fuel or oxidizer turbine...
Might be a losing battle, but in semantics I'll take precision over insidious back-clipping or slacker metonymy.
RME Norm48327 The turbine, as currently described, is the entire generating mechanism. That's what you get for reading Wikipedia. The 'turbine' is the rotating thing that converts flow into power (shaft power in this context). A PT6 turboshaft does not become any more or less a turbine if something is connected to its output or not. By comparison with established turbine practice, in any other context I can think of where a turbine is used for power, when it is incorporated in an apparatus for electrical generation you call the result a 'turbogenerator' *or turboalternator or whatever). Why should wind practice be different from other motive power? It might be reasoned by analogy that we call locomotives 'diesels' instead of diesel-electrics, and don't make explicit note of the transmission. And if we need a terse and semantically 'futuristic' term for a fancy windmill, "turbine" is surely a useful word for the thing. But what, then, would you call a bladed rotating device that drives a mechanical pump (like the earlier generations of aermotor turbines) ... in rocket science we call it a 'turbopump' and not a fuel or oxidizer turbine... Might be a losing battle, but in semantics I'll take precision over insidious back-clipping or slacker metonymy.
Norm48327 The turbine, as currently described, is the entire generating mechanism.
Pick whatever terminology you prefer. I'm not going to get into a P****** match with you over it. A lot of people call them wind turbines and I'm just going with the flow.
Norm48327...wind turbines...
The folks fighting them around here refer to them as "industrial wind turbines."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Norm48327 The folks fighting them around here refer to them as "industrial wind turbines."
Norm48327
As opposed to 'consumer' wind turbines?
BaltACD tree68 Norm48327 The folks fighting them around here refer to them as "industrial wind turbines." As opposed to 'consumer' wind turbines?
Norm48327 The folks fighting them around here refer to them as "industrial wind turbines."
I've also heard "eagle choppers".
BaltACDAs opposed to 'consumer' wind turbines?
Those do exist, but not on 200+ foot towers with 150+ foot blades. Some folks object to the 'consumer' version, too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.