UP Turbine train question

[Tulyar15]

I believe Bombardier have proposed building such a locomotive. A few years ago they tried to interest Great Western in this as a replacement for their diesel High Speed Trains (HST)' - GW being the biggest user of them. However it now seems more likely that they will be replaced with a Mk2 version. Already some of the locomotives have been rebuilt with new engines which will hopefully power the replacement trains.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The use of torque-converter (hydraulic) transmissions for DMU's was also quite successful on this side of the Atlantic as attested to by the Budd RDC.

In the issue of TRAINS in which he expounded on his "true" train, John G. Kneiling advocated a gas-turbine direct drive rather than a gas-turbine electric drive. I have no idea how this could have been accomplished. Off the top of my head, it would require a fair amount of gear reduction (like a turboprop) and a very heavy duty torque converter.

[Modelcar]

....With the post above pondering the hydrostatic transmission for his lawn tractor...That's the best way to go...Have had my John Deere now 10 years and I couldn't be more satisfied...Press one pedal to go forward and one to go back...and the farther one presses those pedals the faster it travels....Could not be better.

[Tulyar15]

It's interesting how this discussion has moved on to Diesel Hydraulic locos. I found my copy of Keith Robertson's book about the Great Western's Gas Turbine loco's last night.

After buying two gas turbine locos and running them for a few years in the 1950's, the Western Region of British Rail decided to order diesel hydraulic locos. This flew in the face of general BR traction policy, which favoured diesel electric locos. The main argument the Western region used was the better power weight ratio. The 2,200 hp "Warship" class diesel hyrdaulics, which were based on the German V200 class weighed 80 tons whereas the 2,000 hp diesel electric D200 (later class 40) built by English Electric weighed 130 tons! But the diesel hydraulics were more expensive to run, even though in the 1960's the "Warships" clocked up more miles per annum than other 2,000+ hp diesel on BR (except for the Deltics!). But by then improvements in electrical technology meant that generators were a lot lighter and so too were the bodies. By 1971 BR had produce the two prototype diesel electric locomotives for the prototype High Speed Diesel Train (later shortened to HST) that produced 2,500hp but only weighted 75 tons. By then the decision had already been taken to phase out the diesel hydraulics on the Western region. When the production HST's entered service on the Western Region in 1976 the diesel hydraulics had nearly all gone by the end of that year.

But one area where hydraulic transmission does reign supreme in Britain to-day is with diesel multiple units. Apart from the Virgin Voyagers, which have electric transmission, all the new DMU's in Britain to-day have hydraulic transmission. Likewise the Northern Ireland Railways, who favoured Diesel-electric transmission for a long time have now taken delivery of new DMU's with hydraulic transmission.

[Anonymous]

For those interested in learning more about Diesel-Hydraulics on the Southern Pacific, John Bonds Garmany has a chapter devoted to Diesel-Hydraulics (chapter 12 pp 323 - 345) in his book titled "Southern Pacific Dieselization," published by Pacific Fast Mail - Edmonds, Washington, ISBN No 0-915713-12-8. It would be worth getting it via interlibrary loan. A very good read.

In the Epilogue to Chapter 12 the author quotes the SP, " It is the Southern Pacific's view that the experiment with the diesel-hydraulic locomotives has demonstrated the merits of the drive principle as an alternative to electric propulsion on locomotives. The hydraulic transmission was an excellent piece of equipment, which we think would be very practical for U. S. operation..." Then Garmany states, "The Maybach engine was incompatible with SP servicing practices and facilities."

Jim

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo



The SP also ordered the "hood" variety and the three ALCO C643H's. Those units (ALCO's) rode so hard that crews started filing injury claims!

Really? you mean like "back injuries" because of bumpy rides? or something else?

QUOTE:
There were several reasons why they were not continued, but most can be called "unfamilure technology". Cost of parts also played a part.

Think trains mag made mention of something a few years ago along the lines that the railroads were not set up like the socialist german govt where primary interest is in creating jobs for people to work, which I guess was a shot at the high maintenance labor requirement?

QUOTE:
We had several assigned to Eugene for a while and the Division used them on the Brooklyn-Eugene pool with one K-M and an F7 A unit paired back-to-back. The F7 would be able to start the train which the K-M could not do. But once the F7 had even only just 1/2 MPH the K-M could hold its feet and the train took off like a rocket. Quite a sight!

I'll bet...got any pix?

[Paul Milenkovic]

This business about the Diesel hydraulics kind of makes sense. No transmission is 100 percent efficient and they all have to dissipate heat, and if you lug them down you stand a chance of burning them up. Even electric drive has a "short-time rating" although I hear that the AC traction motors are more rugged. But I suppose in an AC drive if the traction motor is no longer the problem, you probably have to worry about dissipating heat from the inverter electronics so as to not burn up the drive.

Also, I was shopping for a lawn-cutting tractor the other day, and it seems hydrostatic drives have dominated the market -- last time our family bought such equipment hydrostatics were considered pretty exotic. One of the thing I have seen in all of the catalog pictures for these tractors as they show the hydrostatic transaxle (the pump and motor and gears and everything are all packaged in one compact unit that goes between the back tires) I see this cooling fan -- kind of like a fan on a CPU chip in your home computer. I guess that thing needs proper cooling like everything else.

I guess what I wonder about with the KM's is didn't the manufacturer ask the railroad what they were going to use them for? Didn't the railroad get some kind of instruction manual from KM indicating what kind of restrictions there were on lugging? When you buy a car, they tell you about towing capacity, and I don't see people using a high horsepower car like an Eclipse or a Firebird used to tow many boats.

But I guess some customers can't be helped. My friend had this house on a hillside outside of Los Angeles and bought these telephone poles to be used as pilings for the retaining wall. He told me he burned up the automatic transmission on his Suburban towing a trailer of these things up the hill. Just hope the cost of a new transmission was worth it in terms of savings over paying a guy with a big truck to bring the poles.

[TrainFreak409]

I love the Krauss Maffeis, too bad they weren't exactly successful over here in the States. I've been trying to the find the model Rivarossi made of the ML-4000 cab unit. I know this should really be in the Model Railroader forum, but I wish someone would reproduce that model, and make a hood unit as well.

[kenneo]

Diesel Hydrolics --- SP and DRGW split original order for 6 from Krauss-Mauffi. Both roads thought that they would be the cats meow on stiff mountian grades. Wrong.

The DRGW quickly decided that the DH was not the wave of the future and sent their 3 units to the SP. Hardly had they gotten on the property, than the SP put them into helper service and on their first run up the hill out of Roseville, one of the units caught fire from overheated hydrolic transmission oil and promptly destroyed itself.

The SP also ordered the "hood" variety and the three ALCO C643H's. Those units (ALCO's) rode so hard that crews started filing injury claims!

DH's and steam locomotives shared the trait of being "constant torque" machines in that they produced nearly the same torque at starting as they did at full speed. This made them very sutiable for high speed service, and when used in that service were fantastic performers. There were several reasons why they were not continued, but most can be called "unfamilure technology". Cost of parts also played a part.

We had several assigned to Eugene for a while and the Division used them on the Brooklyn-Eugene pool with one K-M and an F7 A unit paired back-to-back. The F7 would be able to start the train which the K-M could not do. But once the F7 had even only just 1/2 MPH the K-M could hold its feet and the train took off like a rocket. Quite a sight! At 1 HP/T they could move a train along at 60 MPH which would take diesel electrics 5 or 6 HP/T.

The SP was looking for miracle workers. Properly used, these units were great, but they were not miracle workers.

[Modelcar]

........AntiGates: Those are ugly brutes aren't they....You know it's probably not possible for me to put my finger on which one we did see so many years ago but believe it wasn't this model {ALCO}. The grill worlk and angle at the top of the body along the side seems to be a feature that stands out in my memory, but we all know time sometimes plays tricks on our remembering certain items....I really do believe I did get to see a Gas Turbine or a Diesel Hydraulic unit of some sort but guess that will have to be as far as I can ID it....On a parallel note: I once had an opportunity to witness one of Chrysler's turbine cars of the late 60's.....{Believe there were 50 of them...}, and I and a friend were about to get a ride in it and the person that had the vehicle at the time..{certain people had them for limited time}, had to tend to something in his business}, and all we got to do was sit in it and check it out that way...The engine WAS running and I remember looking at the tach and it was idiling at 18,000 rpm....The overall car reminded me of a 4-passenger Thunderbird of the era, only somewhat smaller.....It was a thrill to see and hear but boy....just missed out in riding in it....Location: Somerset, Pa....and it was being cared for at the time by a Lumber Mill owner....

[rvos1979]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

I would guess that, due to the fuel issue, and the incredible noise, these things didn’t sit around at idle often and when they did, the turbine was shut off and the thing was moved around on the small diesel.

Another guess was that, short of the engine service turning time, they didn’t spend to much time sitting in a yard, my bet would be the minute they hit yard limits with an inbound, the yard crews would have any outbound train for them already on ground air, tested and ready to go, so as to make the yard time for them as short as possible.

But man, riding one of those must have really been a blast!
Ed

I went to an NTPA pull a while back and they were running the modified tractor class, several guys were running multiple jet turbine engines on their rigs. It took them a while to get the power up, but once they did, the noise was deafening, even with earplugs and earmuffs on.

I can only imagine what the Big Blows sounded like.

Randy

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....Ed, it's hard to say...but I don't believe it was any pictured in your post.....Some features I might remember were:...2 sets of trucks at both ends...probably 2 axles each.....Possible "chamfer" in the body at the top along the sides...perhaps 45 degrees and I seem to remember of lots of grill work {venting}, along the sides of the bodies....and the units seem to be massive in size.....For some reason the discription: hydraulic or gas turbine stuck in my mind at the time...
Now for pricing of components...as you note in your last post.....One only has to purchase a few double cardon joints to realize they are not cheap....!!

Just for the sake of completeness, the ALCO Diesel Hydraulic DH643's shown here are massive with abundant side venting.

http://espee.railfan.net/spdh-643.html

Probably not the ones you are thinking of though

[jeaton]

Somewhere about 1961, I rode the Challenger (the passenger train, not the engine) from Chicago to LA and we passed several of the UP turbines. They were LOUD.

As an aside, the Illinois Railway Museum has DDA40X #6930 sitting outside and in bad need of a paint job. Still is an impressive piece of machinery.

Jay

[Modelcar]

....Ed, it's hard to say...but I don't believe it was any pictured in your post.....Some features I might remember were:...2 sets of trucks at both ends...probably 2 axles each.....Possible "chamfer" in the body at the top along the sides...perhaps 45 degrees and I seem to remember of lots of grill work {venting}, along the sides of the bodies....and the units seem to be massive in size.....For some reason the discription: hydraulic or gas turbine stuck in my mind at the time...
Now for pricing of components...as you note in your last post.....One only has to purchase a few double cardon joints to realize they are not cheap....!!

[edblysard]

I think it was more of a maintainance and cost issue.
If you have ever swaped out an electric motor in something, anything, versus removing a gear box and the attendent u-joints...


Quentin,
Take a look here and see if any of these look familar.
http://www.worldrailfans.org/Articles/US/DoubleDiesels.shtml

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Assume you might be referring to someone who overloads the traction motors to the point they fry......

Zactly!!

[Modelcar]

...Assume you might be referring to someone who overloads the traction motors to the point they fry......

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Perhaps maintenance was a factor too.....

I guess it was..... but then..when I think about "locked rotor" type overload conditions for electric motors, I'd think there would be a greater benefit in taking the 'welders glove' out of the throttle hand of the engineer, if you get my drift.

[Modelcar]

...Our last auto was equipped with hydraulic motors to run the cooling fans for the engine cooling radiator....and the same model that we replaced it with now has conventional electric motors to drive those same fans...So from that, I'm drawing the decision to do that most likely was cost. Perhaps using that principle on the much larger scale indicates they might have come to that decision too.

[Modelcar]

...Perhaps maintenance was a factor too.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

AntiGates....Those are wild looking brutes...And three of them in the Rio Grande photo is wild.....Just think of the money it would have cost to keep that set of motive power running....

Well, I know very little in terms of locomotive drive,, but it always seemed to me that hydro was the best way to go, ....couldn't figure out why no one had ever tried it..Then I found out that SP and D&RGW had, and were not impressed with it enough to pursue the concept...somewhat humbling.

[Modelcar]

AntiGates....Those are wild looking brutes...And three of them in the Rio Grande photo is wild.....Just think of the money it would have cost to keep that set of motive power running....

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

These were diesel electrics, not hydraulics. When these were first built someone had wired the electrical wrong. On there first voyage when they hit transition speed there was an explosion and fireworks in the electrical cabinet and they had to be taken out of service and repaired. This was the first of there troubles and certainly not the last. When they did run they were almost never trusted to haul a train by themselves and they didn't last long. Out of all the double deisels UP bought, these were the first to be retired and scrapped.

Okay, I know what I was thinking about, the ALCo Century 643H. My bad.

edblysard: The U50D rode on four B trucks, or four two axle trucks, for eight axles all together. The DD's had two D trucks, or two four axle trucks.

[edblysard]

Didnt the U50 ride on four sets of four axel trucks?
And I though the DDXs had four fours also...

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

AntiGates....Guess a bit too much time has passed now to really know what and where I saw these big fellows....Turbine or Diesel Hyd.....Guess at this point I can't pin it down. I do remember seeing four sets of trucks...and they were massive in size. Certainly in UP colors. And we were right close to them with the highway being right next to the tracks.

Well, so far as I know, none of the KM Hydraulics were ever in UP paint

Here is one of the "cowl" units in D&RGW livery



and another, of the "hooded " variety as owned by SP

[edblysard]

I would guess that, due to the fuel issue, and the incredible noise, these things didn’t sit around at idle often and when they did, the turbine was shut off and the thing was moved around on the small diesel.

Another guess was that, short of the engine service turning time, they didn’t spend to much time sitting in a yard, my bet would be the minute they hit yard limits with an inbound, the yard crews would have any outbound train for them already on ground air, tested and ready to go, so as to make the yard time for them as short as possible.

But man, riding one of those must have really been a blast!

Video Rails has a nice video, a lot of color 16mm film shots, with the standard boring high school educational film guy voice doing the narration.
If I remember correctly, it also had a lot of god, clean shots of the freight cars of the day, including an open bi level auto rack full of Fairlanes!

The Pentrax vid has an opening section on the GE SteamTurbine, from the frame up in the backshop, pretty neat film.
It was a condensing system, reused the steam by running it through condenser panels to convert it back to water...


Ed

[Modelcar]

AntiGates....Guess a bit too much time has passed now to really know what and where I saw these big fellows....Turbine or Diesel Hyd.....Guess at this point I can't pin it down. I do remember seeing four sets of trucks...and they were massive in size. Certainly in UP colors. And we were right close to them with the highway being right next to the tracks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



The Diesel Hydraulic your thinking of is the
Krauss-Maffei..Rostered by the SP and the Rio Grande...used a hydraulic transmission and cardan shafts, (u joints) to a gearbox.
Rated at 4000hp.
SP had three, Rio Grande had three.
None survived the rigors of US railroading.

Ed

Weren't there a total of 21? There was the original order of 6 cowl units, 3 apiece to SP and D&RGW in 1961, but I seem to recall that after SP purchased the 3 D&RGW units, they took delivery on 15 more units that were "hood" style rather than cowl, but which were still KM's hydraulic drive units

[chad thomas]

I read somewhere once where one of the big blows was parked with the exhaust directly under a road overpass. Even at idle the exhaust "blew" a 8 ft. hole clean through the overpass.