6000 hp engines?

[k41361]

6000 hp locomotives do have a place.The reason the railroads are successful today is speed.More horsepower means more speed.They would love to eliminate all those multiple units to get a 6000 ton train moving at 60-65 mph.That is one thing the modern steam locomotive could do ,was move trains at speed.Very little tractive effort and low horsepower at low speed but when they got into their horsepower range they could move.Unfortunately most railroads misused them.I believe if the railroads could get 10000 reliable horsepower out of one unit they would order bunches of them.Keep in mind that a 6000 hp AC locomotive gets only 5200 hp at the coupler.

Terry

[MStLfan]

Not being a technical person, it seems to me that gettting 6000 hp or more onto the rails is not the problem. See the links to the Siemens site of their Taurus type electric locomotive and Bombardiers site of their Traxx type locomotives. Power is 6400 kW and 5600 kW respectively and on 4 axles. The electrics are a lot lighter than US diesels too.

6000 hp diesel engines were a part of the problem,  not many applications of that many horses in non stationary uses up to recently. Most knowledge may be found in Russia I think.

Biggest hurdle probably is the operating mentality and / or needs of the railroads in the USA. They can't see a good use for them apparently, unlike China.

http://www.siemens.at/transportation/index_en.htm

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAXX

greetings,

Marc Immeker

[Lyon_Wonder]

EMD or GE could come out with an 8 axle, 8000 hp diesel powered by either a 20 cylinder 265H or GEvo, and it would probably be as sucessful  as an Airbus A380, which isn't saying much.

[carnej1]

I believe if the railroads could get 10000 reliable horsepower out of one unit they would order bunches of them.Keep in mind that a 6000 hp AC locomotive gets only 5200 hp at the coupler.

Terry

 I'm confused about the 5200 HP at the coupler statistic? I know from my reading that the both the GE and EMD primemovers have a gross power rating on the order of 6,250 Horsepower, the "extra horses" taking into account the parasitic load on the engine itself (i.e air compressors and the like). I have also read that they do in fact produce 1,000 HP per axle at the railhead. So is the 5200 HP figure the result of wheel slippage or other factors?

[csmith9474]

...Chrysler...in the 60's.  They put out 50 cars to certain people to evaluate for, I believe it was 90 days and they would be turned in and provided to another person to continue the plan.

I was in one and ready to go for a ride and the engine set there and idled around 18,000 rpm and the fellow got a phone call....and the ride had to be posponed.

Cars resembled a small T-Bird  {4-passenger type}, and after the program was finished I believe they had to be destroyed.  Believe there is one or two still in existence....{Museum}.

You can pull up a pic of one by using search or Google.

The National Museum of Transport has one (or at least they did in the '90s). It was in operable condition and sounds really cool when fired up. I will have to do some research and see if they still have it. I want to say it was on loan.

[oltmannd]

One 6000 HP AC six axle = 2 SD40-2.

Is that a winning equation for a RR?

Depends.

If all other things are equal, and the RR is large and application of power and TE doesn't vary much by train type, then "yes".

So, why aren't they popular?  Most likely it's the not-quite-ready-for-primetime prime movers that were initially tried.  Both EMD and GE were using designs new to RR service and both had big-time teething problems.  They left a sour taste in the Mech Dept's mouth and shifted the balance of beans back in favor of the 4000+ HP state of the art.

Once the RRs are convinced the bugs are out and the Mech Dept can stomach the thought of owning some more, you'll probably see some more orders.

 

[tomikawaTT]

the main reason for not using a turbine engine is reliablity a modern diesel engine in a semi can go 50,000 to 100,000 mile between oil changes and doesn't need any servicing until 1 million miles

Can't speak for gas turbines in rail service, but in aviation they are far more reliable than any piston engine.  Back in the 70s we were taking some out to 3200 (500 knot IAS) hours, then finding almost no wear at overhaul.  Of course, a highway diesel is unlikely to swallow a bird...

Where the UP turbines were used, in sparsely populated regions, their noise output wasn't an issue.  Imagine the reaction if one went bellowing by in my home town, 2 blocks from the full length of the Strip, then proceeded down through Barstow, over Cajon and into the LA Basin!  There would be noise-pollution lawsuits filed in Clark County before the train reached San Diego.

Chuck

[k41361]

The first generation diesel had an 18 % reduction from the engine rated HP to the HP at the coupler.The modern AC locomotive has a loss of 12 to 13%.This is due to losses through mostly the traction motors and the weight of the locomotive.

A Tom Gerbracht,a retired GE engineer,who helped develop the AC concept stated the 5200 dbhp for the AC 6000.

Terry

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A 2000 hp engine will have its fuel racks set above that rating to handle parasitic loads and will have a 2000 hp input into the main generator/alternator.  There are additional transmission losses between the main alternator and traction motors.

[Modelcar]

...csmith:  Yes, that is a policy museums seem to be active with.  Example:  The Auburn, {In.}, Museum, which is the old Cord showroom, etc....generally has a Tucker '48 automoble on display but I've seen 2 or 3 different colored ones there.

So, someone is moving them around from museum to museum.  I've seen a green one, a blue one and a maroon one on occasion there.  That's pretty good as only about 51 were built.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with Turbine's and or RR engines but just answered a post above.  {By the way, those cars had a flat six modified Franklin Aircraft engine in them}.