-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Originally posted by Joby [ Reply Edit Leon Silverman Member sinceJuly 2004 785 posts Posted by Leon Silverman on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:05 AM The turbines were relatively fuel hungry when compared to diesels even at full power. The only advantage of turbines over diesels is their high horsepower to weight ratio. This is no advantage in a locomotive unless you are concerned with high speed passenger service. In spite of technological advances, the gas turbines of today still do not enjoy an effeciency advantage over the diesels. Witness the Navy's Starfighter X-craft. This is a waterjet ship capable to 55 knot cruising speeds. It achieves that speed runnig on gas turbine engines, but, to achieve an intercontinental cruising range without refueling, it operates at normal cruising speeds on diesel engines running on diesel engines only. On board power is provided by diesel generators , also. The UP turbine locomotives were initially inexpensive to run because the fuel they used (heavy bunker C fuel) was a lot less expensive to purchase than diesel fuel, but that eventually changed to the point where both fuels cost about the same. Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:40 AM The turbines were an experiment, and a grand one at that. However... they were intended to burn, as I recall, heavy oil or residual oil (there were others which burned pulverized coal, too). At the time, the technology was not up to creating a turbine engine with a usable time between overhauls which ran on that type of fuel -- and the maintenance was horrible. As Kevin noted, too, they were odd ducks and rather fuel hungry when not running at good high settings... and they were noisy... and not too long after they were introduced UP figured out that they could do better, anyway, with multiple unit lashups rather than one possibly trouble-prone monster! Jamie Reply Kevin C. Smith Member sinceDecember 2005 From: MP 32.8 769 posts Posted by Kevin C. Smith on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:12 AM I think being the "odd ducks" around in a diesel world pushed maintenence and servicing costs up (probably limited potential operating territories, too). I also seem to recall that fuel consumption (especially at anything less than near full power) is pretty high for turbines-they like nice, stable power requirements like ships, power plants, etc. "Look at those high cars roll-finest sight in the world." Reply Joby Member sinceJanuary 2006 33 posts Posted by Joby on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:52 AM I agree. But let's remember that these engines stomping ground was Wyoming. And yes, I do feel symphony for the few Ranchers and Smoky the Bear. But, the sound of these engines is part of the aura about them , like Alco's and U-Boats. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:43 AM but if u lived by the RR tracks would u like to hear the sound of a 747 taking off go by ur house at 3 in the morning?? Reply Edit Joby Member sinceJanuary 2006 33 posts Turbines Posted by Joby on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:15 AM Why did UP retire the Turbines so early? Weren't they faster and more powerfull any diesel(even a bunch clumped together)? Also, are Turbines not the coolest thing around post-steam? Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.