Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates 24,384 gallons...(?) I would hope they got CONSIDERABLY more than 700 miles out of that. My gosh! it would take half a shift just to fill the tank, wouldn't it?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates Well, how much fuel would you say a typical SD 70 burns in total, moving from LA to Chicago???
QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates Well, how much fuel would you say a typical SD 70 burns in total, moving from LA to Chicago??? A couple thousand gallons, at least, I would think. They can't do it in one trip, can they?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates Well, how much fuel would you say a typical SD 70 burns in total, moving from LA to Chicago??? A couple thousand gallons, at least, I would think. They can't do it in one trip, can they? Heh, if I knew, I wouldn't be asking....[}:)] Sombody has got to have this stuff in a book, somewhere...(lol) don't they?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 This is just like comparing a truck with a car...
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 This is just like comparing a truck with a car... Well, maybe it is a dumb question, ...sorry. But the math in your original reply comes out to burning 34.8 gallons per mile, and that just seems like WAY too much...but I really don't know. So, that was why I asked the SD 70 question, just out of curiousity to compare the two.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Yeah, some hard info would be nice, more to add to the turbine data bank. Sorry I can't help more, but as you can see, I love talking about turbines, so if you want any horsepower ratings or weights/lengths, manufacturers, I'll be happy to help.
Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:27 AM The tape said they used bunker "C" which at one time was what steamships also used. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:55 AM ....Your question of the gas turbine engines has me wondering just what I saw in operation somewhere in the western states....back in the mid 60's running on the Union Pacific....We were on an automotive test excursion road trip...{and I can't remember which state{s}, but I saw several make ups of large and {different}, engines and now I'm wondering which it was....Gas turbines...or didn't they have some sort of hydraulic drive engines about that time too....Can anyone help a bit on which and what it might have been....Their appearance was huge in size..... Quentin Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 8:18 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape said they used bunker "C" which at one time was what steamships also used. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ They also did run on Bunker C, but the Big Blows ran frequently on Bunker M. ModelCar, did anything look like any of these? ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic U50D, Diesel Electric "Side Breather" or Baby Turbine, some were converted to propane fuel. Veranda Turbine Big Blow Turbine UP #80 Coal Turbine Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 8:26 AM The typical UP Turbine consist included one Big Blow and a GP9. While the Turbine (all of which had X numbers - indicating experimental) had a 750 hp diesel for hostling, in practice it was easier to use a GP9 for that purpose. After car men had made up a train, the Turbine/GP9 would be hooked up and the GP9 would be used for air brake testing. Then the 750hp diesel would be used to start the turbine. As soon as everything was up to temperature, the train would start out of the yard. Typical runs were Ogden - Green River (Wy) and Cheyenne - Laramie. Neither of those runs is very long in distance (a couple of hours by car) but both involve long steady grades. In steam days, these runs would have been considered a days work - thus, actual transit time for a normal priority manifest would have been 6 to 8 hours. I think the 24,000 gallons tenders were used - not be cause they needed that much fuel - but because they were easily reused from scrapped steamers and were available. However, the turbine burned almost as much fuel at idle as they did under load. So the limiting capacity was not gallons per mile (which was substantial), but gallons per hour (which is also substantial). The fuel consumption at idle was their downfall -- and also the reason for the GP9. dd Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, July 29, 2005 9:31 AM The X numbers in the numberboards of the GTEL's did not denote Experimental. It goes back to the UP/SP practice of putting train numbers in the numberboards of the locomotive. The X indicated that the train was running as an extra; e.g., not shown in the employee timetable. The "City of Los Angeles" would show "103" in the locomotive's numberboards since that was the train number. I'm not sure when the practice was discontinued but it did continue on SP's commutes in the Bay Area into the late 1970's. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. dd Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, July 29, 2005 10:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic These were diesel electrics, not hydraulics. When these were first built someone had wired the electrical wrong. On there first voyage when they hit transition speed there was an explosion and fireworks in the electrical cabinet and they had to be taken out of service and repaired. This was the first of there troubles and certainly not the last. When they did run they were almost never trusted to haul a train by themselves and they didn't last long. Out of all the double deisels UP bought, these were the first to be retired and scrapped. Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 11:58 AM As I recall - some of the U50's had running gear from scrapped turbines. dd Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 . Sorry I can't help more, but as you can see, I love talking about turbines, Don't be sorry, you've been a great help. In fact, i believe it was your rather interesting 'kit bash" of a CSX passenger turbine that got me to thinking about this in thefirst place, wondering if such a set up could go "coast to coast" on a single tank.. My bet is no, but then, if it couldn't no one would want to wait around long enough to re fill such a huge tank....guess you'd have to have prefilled spares, waiting along the route? Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:51 PM Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners. Well, didn't know that, I was just giving you credit for a very "factory looking" bash, ...no wonder it looks so good, it IS factory [;)] Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:13 PM Sorry the tape I have shows the turbine in ELA as well as Echo canyon. Yes the tape said they also operated between GR & Chey. It also showed it many times without any diesel power whatsoever. It is really great to see the cars they had at that time vs today. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by dldance [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply 123 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
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:55 AM ....Your question of the gas turbine engines has me wondering just what I saw in operation somewhere in the western states....back in the mid 60's running on the Union Pacific....We were on an automotive test excursion road trip...{and I can't remember which state{s}, but I saw several make ups of large and {different}, engines and now I'm wondering which it was....Gas turbines...or didn't they have some sort of hydraulic drive engines about that time too....Can anyone help a bit on which and what it might have been....Their appearance was huge in size..... Quentin Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 8:18 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape said they used bunker "C" which at one time was what steamships also used. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ They also did run on Bunker C, but the Big Blows ran frequently on Bunker M. ModelCar, did anything look like any of these? ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic U50D, Diesel Electric "Side Breather" or Baby Turbine, some were converted to propane fuel. Veranda Turbine Big Blow Turbine UP #80 Coal Turbine Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 8:26 AM The typical UP Turbine consist included one Big Blow and a GP9. While the Turbine (all of which had X numbers - indicating experimental) had a 750 hp diesel for hostling, in practice it was easier to use a GP9 for that purpose. After car men had made up a train, the Turbine/GP9 would be hooked up and the GP9 would be used for air brake testing. Then the 750hp diesel would be used to start the turbine. As soon as everything was up to temperature, the train would start out of the yard. Typical runs were Ogden - Green River (Wy) and Cheyenne - Laramie. Neither of those runs is very long in distance (a couple of hours by car) but both involve long steady grades. In steam days, these runs would have been considered a days work - thus, actual transit time for a normal priority manifest would have been 6 to 8 hours. I think the 24,000 gallons tenders were used - not be cause they needed that much fuel - but because they were easily reused from scrapped steamers and were available. However, the turbine burned almost as much fuel at idle as they did under load. So the limiting capacity was not gallons per mile (which was substantial), but gallons per hour (which is also substantial). The fuel consumption at idle was their downfall -- and also the reason for the GP9. dd Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, July 29, 2005 9:31 AM The X numbers in the numberboards of the GTEL's did not denote Experimental. It goes back to the UP/SP practice of putting train numbers in the numberboards of the locomotive. The X indicated that the train was running as an extra; e.g., not shown in the employee timetable. The "City of Los Angeles" would show "103" in the locomotive's numberboards since that was the train number. I'm not sure when the practice was discontinued but it did continue on SP's commutes in the Bay Area into the late 1970's. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. dd Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, July 29, 2005 10:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic These were diesel electrics, not hydraulics. When these were first built someone had wired the electrical wrong. On there first voyage when they hit transition speed there was an explosion and fireworks in the electrical cabinet and they had to be taken out of service and repaired. This was the first of there troubles and certainly not the last. When they did run they were almost never trusted to haul a train by themselves and they didn't last long. Out of all the double deisels UP bought, these were the first to be retired and scrapped. Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 11:58 AM As I recall - some of the U50's had running gear from scrapped turbines. dd Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 . Sorry I can't help more, but as you can see, I love talking about turbines, Don't be sorry, you've been a great help. In fact, i believe it was your rather interesting 'kit bash" of a CSX passenger turbine that got me to thinking about this in thefirst place, wondering if such a set up could go "coast to coast" on a single tank.. My bet is no, but then, if it couldn't no one would want to wait around long enough to re fill such a huge tank....guess you'd have to have prefilled spares, waiting along the route? Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:51 PM Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners. Well, didn't know that, I was just giving you credit for a very "factory looking" bash, ...no wonder it looks so good, it IS factory [;)] Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:13 PM Sorry the tape I have shows the turbine in ELA as well as Echo canyon. Yes the tape said they also operated between GR & Chey. It also showed it many times without any diesel power whatsoever. It is really great to see the cars they had at that time vs today. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by dldance [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply 123 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
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape said they used bunker "C" which at one time was what steamships also used. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ They also did run on Bunker C, but the Big Blows ran frequently on Bunker M. ModelCar, did anything look like any of these? ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic U50D, Diesel Electric "Side Breather" or Baby Turbine, some were converted to propane fuel. Veranda Turbine Big Blow Turbine UP #80 Coal Turbine Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 8:26 AM The typical UP Turbine consist included one Big Blow and a GP9. While the Turbine (all of which had X numbers - indicating experimental) had a 750 hp diesel for hostling, in practice it was easier to use a GP9 for that purpose. After car men had made up a train, the Turbine/GP9 would be hooked up and the GP9 would be used for air brake testing. Then the 750hp diesel would be used to start the turbine. As soon as everything was up to temperature, the train would start out of the yard. Typical runs were Ogden - Green River (Wy) and Cheyenne - Laramie. Neither of those runs is very long in distance (a couple of hours by car) but both involve long steady grades. In steam days, these runs would have been considered a days work - thus, actual transit time for a normal priority manifest would have been 6 to 8 hours. I think the 24,000 gallons tenders were used - not be cause they needed that much fuel - but because they were easily reused from scrapped steamers and were available. However, the turbine burned almost as much fuel at idle as they did under load. So the limiting capacity was not gallons per mile (which was substantial), but gallons per hour (which is also substantial). The fuel consumption at idle was their downfall -- and also the reason for the GP9. dd Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, July 29, 2005 9:31 AM The X numbers in the numberboards of the GTEL's did not denote Experimental. It goes back to the UP/SP practice of putting train numbers in the numberboards of the locomotive. The X indicated that the train was running as an extra; e.g., not shown in the employee timetable. The "City of Los Angeles" would show "103" in the locomotive's numberboards since that was the train number. I'm not sure when the practice was discontinued but it did continue on SP's commutes in the Bay Area into the late 1970's. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. dd Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, July 29, 2005 10:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic These were diesel electrics, not hydraulics. When these were first built someone had wired the electrical wrong. On there first voyage when they hit transition speed there was an explosion and fireworks in the electrical cabinet and they had to be taken out of service and repaired. This was the first of there troubles and certainly not the last. When they did run they were almost never trusted to haul a train by themselves and they didn't last long. Out of all the double deisels UP bought, these were the first to be retired and scrapped. Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 11:58 AM As I recall - some of the U50's had running gear from scrapped turbines. dd Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 . Sorry I can't help more, but as you can see, I love talking about turbines, Don't be sorry, you've been a great help. In fact, i believe it was your rather interesting 'kit bash" of a CSX passenger turbine that got me to thinking about this in thefirst place, wondering if such a set up could go "coast to coast" on a single tank.. My bet is no, but then, if it couldn't no one would want to wait around long enough to re fill such a huge tank....guess you'd have to have prefilled spares, waiting along the route? Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:51 PM Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners. Well, didn't know that, I was just giving you credit for a very "factory looking" bash, ...no wonder it looks so good, it IS factory [;)] Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:13 PM Sorry the tape I have shows the turbine in ELA as well as Echo canyon. Yes the tape said they also operated between GR & Chey. It also showed it many times without any diesel power whatsoever. It is really great to see the cars they had at that time vs today. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by dldance [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply 123 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
Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [
QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic
QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 . Sorry I can't help more, but as you can see, I love talking about turbines,
QUOTE: Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Chad; woops, my bad. I could have sworn that ALCo made that as a diesel hydraulic. Maybe it was something else... dldance; yep, UP's turbines did go to the U50s, numbers 51-75 went to U50D's, and the big blows went to U50C's. AntiGates; my CSX turbine isn't a kitbash, it is a stock model. Con-cor offers the veranda in multiple different schemes other than UP. And it just looks really good pulling silver and blue B & O streamliners.
Originally posted by dldance [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply 123 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.