Forums

[Anonymous]

I've been hunting for almost a year for a good elevation drawing of UP's Steam Turbines #1 & #2. I've all but exhausted my resources and all I've been able to come up with is a crude cutaway drawing showing the insides and no dimensions. Please, can someone help?????

[Anonymous]

As far as I'm aware, UP never had steam turbine electric, but they did have gas turbine electric locos.
I know that the Norfolk & Western built a steam turbine electric call "Jawn Henry", and it was not successful.

[Overmod]

Union Pacific did, indeed, have steam turbines. IIRC the locomotives were built as GE demonstrators, but carried UP colors from the beginning. There have been some articles on these locomotives, but I don't know URLs or sources for them offhand.

There was a momentary 'glut' of brass models of these units -- why the sudden interest, I don't know. I have two of the Alco Models/Samhongsa units (which weren't the 'most detailed' -- IIRC the Overland Models version had lighted nose signs and some other useful detail such as the flush side glass...

I would contact the model companies, or Samhongsa in Korea, as a first place to get drawings. Evidently they used good detail drawings to produce the models.

I would think that General Electric would be another logical place to try, although I'm not certain the current locomotive division would have the actual drawings.

These locomotives were particularly interesting in their boiler systems, which were full flash boilers similar to late automotive practice. I have not seen good diagrams of their internal structure, and would be interested in the configuration and metallurgy used.

I have not read that these locomotives were unsatisfactory in service, only that WWII intervened and afterward there were better-marketed or technically-superior solutions (e.g., large gas turbines) that better suited UP's perceived needs at the time. One great 'limitation' was the fuel suitable for use in flash boilers -- which needed to be a liquid fuel, of generally more 'refined' character than the fuel oils used in conventional steam locomotives. Note that the gas turbines needed such characteristics, too, but they burned the fuel directly without intermediate steam generation and hence were more 'efficient' (and probably much lower in capital and maintenance cost, given the improvements in gas-turbine metallurgy between the 1930s and the late 1940s!)

In a very real sense, I think the turbines were the logical successors of these engines, and wouldn't have been as successful on UP if the steam turbines hadn't been first...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Union Pacific did, indeed, have steam turbines. IIRC the locomotives were built as GE demonstrators, but carried UP colors from the beginning. There have been some articles on these locomotives, but I don't know URLs or sources for them offhand.

There was a momentary 'glut' of brass models of these units -- why the sudden interest, I don't know. I have two of the Alco Models/Samhongsa units (which weren't the 'most detailed' -- IIRC the Overland Models version had lighted nose signs and some other useful detail such as the flush side glass...

I would contact the model companies, or Samhongsa in Korea, as a first place to get drawings. Evidently they used good detail drawings to produce the models.

I would think that General Electric would be another logical place to try, although I'm not certain the current locomotive division would have the actual drawings.

These locomotives were particularly interesting in their boiler systems, which were full flash boilers similar to late automotive practice. I have not seen good diagrams of their internal structure, and would be interested in the configuration and metallurgy used.

I have not read that these locomotives were unsatisfactory in service, only that WWII intervened and afterward there were better-marketed or technically-superior solutions (e.g., large gas turbines) that better suited UP's perceived needs at the time. One great 'limitation' was the fuel suitable for use in flash boilers -- which needed to be a liquid fuel, of generally more 'refined' character than the fuel oils used in conventional steam locomotives. Note that the gas turbines needed such characteristics, too, but they burned the fuel directly without intermediate steam generation and hence were more 'efficient' (and probably much lower in capital and maintenance cost, given the improvements in gas-turbine metallurgy between the 1930s and the late 1940s!)

In a very real sense, I think the turbines were the logical successors of these engines, and wouldn't have been as successful on UP if the steam turbines hadn't been first...

Thanks for the info.....Dan

[Anonymous]

You need to get ahold of Steven Lee, head of the historical steam program in Cheyenne, WY 82001 (union Pacific) they are a helpful bunch over there

[Overmod]

Be careful when talking with Steve Lee: he's VERY knowledgeable about things, but he has very little tolerance for disagreement and can be touchy. (He's had way, way too much exposure to 'foaming' other than that induced by poor feedwater... ;-O)

My guess is that he doesn't 'know' that much about these locomotives. They were experimental, didn't last long in service, and used steam-generation systems almost COMPLETELY unlike anything else on the UP. You'd almost be better off asking some of the folks familiar with steam automobiles, as they have historical interest in once-through and flash boilers and are likely to know where some of the rare technical stuff might still live...

Somewhere on the Web... I don't have the URL any more, but it was a complicated thing to find... there is a fairly detailed account of the boiler construction and operation, with some pictures of both the boiler and turbine as installed. I thought it was interesting, for example, that GE's designers knew to install a VERY large exhaust plenum on the turbine.

It is slimly possible that you can get interesting stuff out of GE, but I don't have any idea at present who you might contact to do that. Again, the model companies (it seemed a couple of years ago as if there were a little competition for them to bring out different models of this locomotive, one of which even had lights in the little illuminated 'drumhead' signs on the nose) would almost surely have extensive information and pictures.

[Anonymous]

According to WORLD RAILWAYS 1952-53 the Union Pacific had one for trials from Alco-GE from Nov. 1948. This had been withdrawn before the first of TEN ordered was delivered. The major difference in appearance was the original was double ended and the new ones had only a single driving cab.
Dia. of wheels42 inches.
Rigid wheelbase 9ft. 4inchs.
Total '' 68feet 1inch.
Length over coupler faces 83 feet 61/2 inchs.
'' '' body 76 feet.
Width over body 10 feet
height over body 14 feet 51/2 inchs.
She was heavy at 520,000 lb with 2/3 supplies. Union Pacic finally had thirty in service which gave way in 1969 to diesels. They were nicknamed 'Big-Blow' ! On account of the noise they made when warming up, conversation was impossible within 50 feet!

[Overmod]

Ray, you're talking about the GAS turbines.

There is a tremendous difference between a locomotive using self-generated steam in a turbine to generate power and a locomotive combusting liquid fuel in what is essentially a turboshaft engine. All the successful UP turbines were in the latter category. (I was interested to find they had diesels burning the heavy Bunker C fuel too!)

Different from BOTH these types of locomotive is the coal turbine (cf. the recent Hirsimaki article in Classic Trains). This burns solid fuel, separates out the ash, and then passes the combustion gas to a gas turbine. (A modern version would then recover as much energy from the exhaust gas as would be cost-effective...)

UP had the only one of these that actually ran in service, and it was an interesting thing: main unit built from an ex-NP electric locomotive (and still showing traces of Art Deco-like styling!); cab-control unit built from a surplus PA (and nobody gives UP credit for preserving it a while longer!); tender with hoses that carried pre-pulverized coal (!!!!!)

It wasn't successful, but we should remember it as a testbed rather than an attempt at an actual working locomotive. Again, though, it was NOT a steam turbine...

[Anonymous]

If you want information on U.P's turbines I would recommend "Turbines Westward" by Thomas Lee or "Union Pacific's Turbine Era" by A.J. Wolff. The later coal turbine used the remains of GN 5018 as the turbine unit. The GN also used the first two coal turbines that GE built before war in 1943 before they were returned to GE and scrapped. Turbines Westward has measured drawings of all the turbines except for no.s 1 & 2. There are two layout drawings of them but that is all. Hope this helps
Ken

[Overmod]

Thanks for the NP-GN correction.

Anybody have pix or stories about the steam turbines' brief stint on GN?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

<snip>
I thought it was interesting, for example, that GE's designers knew to install a VERY large exhaust plenum on the turbine.
<snip>

Not surprising.

GE built/builds steam turbine/generator sets for power plants as well as marine applications of various sizes.

All the loco engineers would have to do is pick up the phone and they could have gotten all the help they needed. Maybe even some "off the shelf" units. At least as close to "off the shelf" as you get in that business!

[agentatascadero]

There's an article in the current Classic Trains about turbines,mostly gas, but also steam. I don't know if anyone has actually seen or heard a UP turbine, but I did once. It sounded exactly like an old jet plane taking off, in other words LOUD. Noise pollution like that would not be tolerated now. I rode the origional turbotrain (up to 130 MPH), and it was not that loud. Has anyone ridden or listened to the French or Rohr turbos?