Forums

[TrainFreak409]

Everybody knows that turbines were big, powerful, noisy, and could not compete with modern diesels of the time. But, not everybody knows of Union Pacific's #80 Coal Turbine. This big monster used a PA lead control unit, a turbine housing unit (made from a W-1 Cascade electric engine), and a centipede coal tender. #80 used pulverised coal dust to spin the turbine, and did not live up to UP's standards.
There isn't much information on #80, because of its short life, and the fact that it isn't too popular. Does anybody know of any websites where one could acquire information or photos?

[M636C]

While probably not what you want, there was an issue of the UP Historical Society magazine "Streamliner" that covered this locomotive in detail, with drawings and photographs. I have it, and can check the issue number for you. There is also an interesting description of the locomotive (in German) in a book on Gas Turbine locomotives by Wolfgang Stoffells.

From the "Streamliner" article, it appears that it was really just an experiment, and not even UP expected it to work for long. The gas turbine was second hand from an oil -fired 51 series turbine and not much new equipment (apart from the pulveriser and the ash separator) was used. The main problem was turbine wear from the coal and sand particles carried through with the gas.

Peter

[ndbprr]

#80 was a joint venture between UP, Westinghouse and I believe the coal industry who had a vested interest in declining coal usage with railroad engines switching to diesel from steam and reduced coal usage. A number of explosions and poor economy did it in but it was always considered an experimental unit and not one that would be followed with in kind engines. Steel mills have started experimenting with pulverised coal injection into blast furnaces for the last ten to fifteen years. Nearly every pulverisor has blown up at one time or another and you can't pulverise coal and store it or it cakes and gets nasty to handle. Maybe some day theywill figure it all out but even today it is not possible for locomotives.

[Overmod]

A fascinating example of project design using a maximum of 'recycled parts'. I doubt anyone at the time thought this was anything but a proof-of-concept approach...

Ex-GN (I think) electric locomotive for the main body. Cheap and effective source of lots of otherwise expensive bits... chassis, carbody, traction motors.
PA cab for control and "auxiliary" power -- what better place to use a PA in the early Sixties? (They even resisted the temptation to keep extra traction motors 'in reserve' on the cab unit...).
"Surplus" tender from retired power.

On the other hand, I'm surprised the thing ran as long as it did. Pulverized coal blown through hoses between tender and locomotive? A***hrough turbine blading?

It was my impression that the problems with 'interrupted supply' and bin-system storage of pulverized coal were understood on #80, and consequently the pulverizer ran on demand. Only the amount of coal required was pulverized and immediately blown to the turbine. Service -- and demanded performance characteristics -- would likely have been close or identical to that expected of the large gas-turbine locomotives.

Of course, the critical question has to be "where's my big savings" in using coal over the kinds of "liquid" fuel used in the then-existing gas turbines. Presumably virtually no pretreatment or grading of the coal was economically practical within this constraint. I would not want to try turbine control with run-of-mine coal, uncertain ash and slag, etc!

I'm still trying to find hard data on the late-'40s coal turbine developments sponsored by the Bituminous Coal Institute and mentioned by Louis Newton and others. This was right after the C&O disasters, and before Jawn Henry; it received lots of publicity and then seems to have disappeared almost without a trace.