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

[Anonymous]

Who can explain the workings of Union Pacific's Gas Turbine locomotives? What fuel did they use? Describe the propulsion system. They appear to haul a tender, is this right? Was this an experiment, or were there production runs of the locos? Anything else you can tell?

Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

i am not entirely sure, but i think gas was burned, the smoke turned a turbine, which generated electricity that turned the wheels.
alot like a power plant

[dharmon]

Suck squeeze burn blow

The gas turbine...a jet engine powered a generator which in turn powered the traction motors..basically nothing more that a diesel with a jet powering the generator instead of a diesel. The tenders carried fuel....lots of it becasue they ate it. Jet engine or turbine fuel efficiency at sea level is low, paricularly back then...the turbines that the Navy uses in destroyers are more efficient but still drink alot of fuel. The fuel was basically DFM ..navy speak for low grade jet fuel similiar to kerosene mius the additives. Cheaper than diesel per gallon.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

Suck squeeze burn blow

The gas turbine...a jet engine powered a generator which in turn powered the traction motors..basically nothing more that a diesel with a jet powering the generator instead of a diesel. The tenders carried fuel....lots of it becasue they ate it. Jet engine or turbine fuel efficiency at sea level is low, paricularly back then...the turbines that the Navy uses in destroyers are more efficient but still drink alot of fuel. The fuel was basically DFM ..navy speak for low grade jet fuel similiar to kerosene mius the additives. Cheaper than diesel per gallon.

I stand corrected. It looks like they used Bunker C...which I think is less refined than DFM.

[lupo]

there was also an expirimental version using coal

[Anonymous]

Bunker C fuel is basically asphalt without the gravel in it. It needs to be about 180 degree F to flow. Also the build up in the vanes would be a problem along with wear and/or erosion.

But basically a jet engine hooked to a generator.


DT

[Anonymous]

Pentrex made a couple vidios about the turbines "Union Pacific Turbines of the Wasath" and "Union Pacific's Mighty Turbines".

http://store.yahoo.com/pentrex/vr045.html

http://store.yahoo.com/pentrex/upt.html

[dharmon]

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/turbine_faq.html

Describes the complicated nature of these beast as far as starting them up. The Bunker C was preheated in the tender.

[lupo]

Here is some UP turbine history:
the first UP turbine were steam turbines UP 1 and 2, used for a short while in 1939 but returned to GE to be used by Great Northern Service in 1943 than returned to GE and scrapped in 1944.
from 1949 - 1951 UP ( and late 1951 SP) tested a GE demo turbine UP 50
the picture of this resin model is is a standard turbine, UP51 - 60, build 1952-1953, used from 1952 - 1964



Than came the veranda turbines: they used GP9B's as extra on all but 6 the veranda turbines #61 - 75 build in 1954, they ran from 1954 - 1964


The big or the super turbines, Lead engine, B unit and tender, 8500 - 10000 HP, UP1 - 30 were built between 1958-1961 and ran from 1958 - 1970



fuel: Bunker C fuel oil, but #57 was modified to burn propane, supplied by a 12,500 gallon LPG tank-car

As an experiment in super kit-bashing late 1959 they started building a coal turbine, UP80 (later renumbered 8080) even bigger than the Super turbines, after static tests in 1962 it ran short periods in 1963 and 1964.



this giant consisted of a control unit rebuilt from an ALCO PA-1, a coal-burning turbine unit made from Great Northern straight electric locomotive 5018 and a coal supply tender from an retired 4-6-6-4.

info found in: Withers publishing book UP's TURBINE ERA by A.J.Wolf

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lupo

there was also an expirimental version using coal

That would be the Norfolk and Western Class TE1 6-6-6-6 Experimental Steam Turbine & Electric Drive freight locomotive, naturally!
N&W just didn't want to give up burning coal.

Here's a link to a photo. Scroll down the page.

http://www.retroweb.com/nwsteam.html

[nfmisso]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gsetter

QUOTE: Originally posted by lupo

there was also an expirimental version using coal

That would be the Norfolk and Western Class TE1 6-6-6-6 Experimental Steam Turbine & Electric Drive freight locomotive,

Not exactly. He is referring to UP 8080 a coal fired gas turbine electric, no steam.

[lupo]

Yep nfmisso, you are right ! ( I edited in a picture of 8080 in the other post)
but the turbines in the weblink look awsome specially the 6-6-6-6, it looks like it was taken out of a old science fiction movie!

[Anonymous]

go to the Lionel website and they have a good explaination of the workings of the UP gas turbines and the history behind them.

[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....

[lupo]

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

[Anonymous]

Thanks, guys! Lots of good info!

[dave9999]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

[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 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.