Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 2:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed It opens at GE plant in upstate NY & also shows its trial runs on NYC tracks to Selkirk [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 What locomotive is being demonstrated? Is it the 1938 steam turbine? If it is, it is Pentrex's "UP's Mighty Turbines." Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 2:30 PM Based on Ed's comment of 600 gal per hour - a turbine running up Echo Canyon at about 20 mph would burn about 30 gal/mile. Not far off the 34.8 gal/mile estimate posted earlier. They were thirsty critters! dd Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:59 PM It opens at GE plant in upstate NY & also shows its trial runs on NYC tracks to Selkirk [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:58 PM First 25 turbines, 4800 hp. The rest were 8500 hp. Initial tester GE/Alco numbered 101, renumbered UP50 and painted in UP colors, tested by UP, returned to GE. Original GE/Alco prototype had dual cabs, one on each end. Units 51-60 delivered in 1952, same as the prototype, except single cab. Units 61-75 delivered in 1954, these were also 4800 hp single units, but had the walkway outside, know as the veranda turbines. 1958-61, units 1 thru 30 delivered, these are the "Big Blows" with a larger turbine, rated at 8500 hp, with an A and B unit, using the fuel tenders from retired steam locomotives Units carried the control cab, aux (holster) diesel; the B unit contained the generators and the turbine. All used bunker C fuel oil, which needed to be pre heated before filling tenders, the turbines also pre heated the oil ahead and behind the turbines fuel pump. Cooled, bunker C looks like melted hot asphalt. Fuel use running at speed with load was an average of 600 gallons per hour. Holster diesel engine in the A unit was a 600 hp Cummings. They would start the turbines on diesel fuel till the turbine had spun up to speed, then the heated bunker C was switched on. Originally run in MU turbine consists, the second turbine would often shut down in tunnels due to the hot exhaust gas from the lead unit choking the second one when it was drawn into the high intake, hence the double heading with normal diesel electric units. The problem existed with these units as well, but not as badly. Wear and tear on the turbine, and the rising cost of bunker C resulted in all turbines off roster by the end of 1970. UP experimented with both pulverized coal dust in a home built turbine, made from a retired Alco PA, and a propane conversion of a Big Blow, 8500 series. Neither worked well, the coal powered turbine never ran in revenue service. The Diesel Hydraulic your thinking of is the Krauss-Maffei..Rostered by the SP and the Rio Grande...used a hydraulic transmission and cardan shafts, (u joints) to a gearbox. Rated at 4000hp. SP had three, Rio Grande had three. None survived the rigors of US railroading. Ed 23 17 46 11 Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:56 PM It must have been a instructional/promo film made by the UPRR & probably transferred to VHS when that became the mode. The film also never mentions 10,000HP locos if my memory is correct. I would suspect that the UPRR used it as a sales tool. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] They did have more horsepower. The original order, the Side Breathers number 51-60 had 4500 horsepower. The second order, the Verandas, numbers 61-75, had the same ratings. The only difference was the catwalks on the outside since crews did not wi***o walk INSIDE around the turbine. And the Verandas were only slightly longer, by a few inches. The third order, The Big Blows, numbers 1-30, pumped out 8500 horsepower, and were later upgraded to a whopping 10,000 horsepower. Thank you, if I need any specifics, I'll ask, but as of now, I have a complete roster of Steam and Gas turbines in the US from 1938 to 1961, and have all the information I want/can handle right now. Well, I do have one question, what movie is it? Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....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..... could you possibly be thinking of the Krause Maffei diesel hydraulics that were used by SP/DRGW? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:21 PM The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed 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][:)] I have a Pentrex video, "Union Pacific's Mighty Turbines." It is an excellent video about, well, Union Pacific's mighty turbines. They ran without and with diesels, it depended on the assignment. Sometimes it was just for power balancing purposes between different sections of UP. Sometimes, they had power lashups of over 17,000 horsepower, when they would only need a Big Blow alone. Quite a sight it must have been, and just imagine the sound.[:D] Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply 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 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 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 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 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 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 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed It opens at GE plant in upstate NY & also shows its trial runs on NYC tracks to Selkirk [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 What locomotive is being demonstrated? Is it the 1938 steam turbine? If it is, it is Pentrex's "UP's Mighty Turbines." Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Friday, July 29, 2005 2:30 PM Based on Ed's comment of 600 gal per hour - a turbine running up Echo Canyon at about 20 mph would burn about 30 gal/mile. Not far off the 34.8 gal/mile estimate posted earlier. They were thirsty critters! dd Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:59 PM It opens at GE plant in upstate NY & also shows its trial runs on NYC tracks to Selkirk [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:58 PM First 25 turbines, 4800 hp. The rest were 8500 hp. Initial tester GE/Alco numbered 101, renumbered UP50 and painted in UP colors, tested by UP, returned to GE. Original GE/Alco prototype had dual cabs, one on each end. Units 51-60 delivered in 1952, same as the prototype, except single cab. Units 61-75 delivered in 1954, these were also 4800 hp single units, but had the walkway outside, know as the veranda turbines. 1958-61, units 1 thru 30 delivered, these are the "Big Blows" with a larger turbine, rated at 8500 hp, with an A and B unit, using the fuel tenders from retired steam locomotives Units carried the control cab, aux (holster) diesel; the B unit contained the generators and the turbine. All used bunker C fuel oil, which needed to be pre heated before filling tenders, the turbines also pre heated the oil ahead and behind the turbines fuel pump. Cooled, bunker C looks like melted hot asphalt. Fuel use running at speed with load was an average of 600 gallons per hour. Holster diesel engine in the A unit was a 600 hp Cummings. They would start the turbines on diesel fuel till the turbine had spun up to speed, then the heated bunker C was switched on. Originally run in MU turbine consists, the second turbine would often shut down in tunnels due to the hot exhaust gas from the lead unit choking the second one when it was drawn into the high intake, hence the double heading with normal diesel electric units. The problem existed with these units as well, but not as badly. Wear and tear on the turbine, and the rising cost of bunker C resulted in all turbines off roster by the end of 1970. UP experimented with both pulverized coal dust in a home built turbine, made from a retired Alco PA, and a propane conversion of a Big Blow, 8500 series. Neither worked well, the coal powered turbine never ran in revenue service. The Diesel Hydraulic your thinking of is the Krauss-Maffei..Rostered by the SP and the Rio Grande...used a hydraulic transmission and cardan shafts, (u joints) to a gearbox. Rated at 4000hp. SP had three, Rio Grande had three. None survived the rigors of US railroading. Ed 23 17 46 11 Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:56 PM It must have been a instructional/promo film made by the UPRR & probably transferred to VHS when that became the mode. The film also never mentions 10,000HP locos if my memory is correct. I would suspect that the UPRR used it as a sales tool. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] They did have more horsepower. The original order, the Side Breathers number 51-60 had 4500 horsepower. The second order, the Verandas, numbers 61-75, had the same ratings. The only difference was the catwalks on the outside since crews did not wi***o walk INSIDE around the turbine. And the Verandas were only slightly longer, by a few inches. The third order, The Big Blows, numbers 1-30, pumped out 8500 horsepower, and were later upgraded to a whopping 10,000 horsepower. Thank you, if I need any specifics, I'll ask, but as of now, I have a complete roster of Steam and Gas turbines in the US from 1938 to 1961, and have all the information I want/can handle right now. Well, I do have one question, what movie is it? Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....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..... could you possibly be thinking of the Krause Maffei diesel hydraulics that were used by SP/DRGW? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:21 PM The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed 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][:)] I have a Pentrex video, "Union Pacific's Mighty Turbines." It is an excellent video about, well, Union Pacific's mighty turbines. They ran without and with diesels, it depended on the assignment. Sometimes it was just for power balancing purposes between different sections of UP. Sometimes, they had power lashups of over 17,000 horsepower, when they would only need a Big Blow alone. Quite a sight it must have been, and just imagine the sound.[:D] Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply 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 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 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 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 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 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 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern
Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:58 PM First 25 turbines, 4800 hp. The rest were 8500 hp. Initial tester GE/Alco numbered 101, renumbered UP50 and painted in UP colors, tested by UP, returned to GE. Original GE/Alco prototype had dual cabs, one on each end. Units 51-60 delivered in 1952, same as the prototype, except single cab. Units 61-75 delivered in 1954, these were also 4800 hp single units, but had the walkway outside, know as the veranda turbines. 1958-61, units 1 thru 30 delivered, these are the "Big Blows" with a larger turbine, rated at 8500 hp, with an A and B unit, using the fuel tenders from retired steam locomotives Units carried the control cab, aux (holster) diesel; the B unit contained the generators and the turbine. All used bunker C fuel oil, which needed to be pre heated before filling tenders, the turbines also pre heated the oil ahead and behind the turbines fuel pump. Cooled, bunker C looks like melted hot asphalt. Fuel use running at speed with load was an average of 600 gallons per hour. Holster diesel engine in the A unit was a 600 hp Cummings. They would start the turbines on diesel fuel till the turbine had spun up to speed, then the heated bunker C was switched on. Originally run in MU turbine consists, the second turbine would often shut down in tunnels due to the hot exhaust gas from the lead unit choking the second one when it was drawn into the high intake, hence the double heading with normal diesel electric units. The problem existed with these units as well, but not as badly. Wear and tear on the turbine, and the rising cost of bunker C resulted in all turbines off roster by the end of 1970. UP experimented with both pulverized coal dust in a home built turbine, made from a retired Alco PA, and a propane conversion of a Big Blow, 8500 series. Neither worked well, the coal powered turbine never ran in revenue service. The Diesel Hydraulic your thinking of is the Krauss-Maffei..Rostered by the SP and the Rio Grande...used a hydraulic transmission and cardan shafts, (u joints) to a gearbox. Rated at 4000hp. SP had three, Rio Grande had three. None survived the rigors of US railroading. Ed 23 17 46 11 Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:56 PM It must have been a instructional/promo film made by the UPRR & probably transferred to VHS when that became the mode. The film also never mentions 10,000HP locos if my memory is correct. I would suspect that the UPRR used it as a sales tool. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] They did have more horsepower. The original order, the Side Breathers number 51-60 had 4500 horsepower. The second order, the Verandas, numbers 61-75, had the same ratings. The only difference was the catwalks on the outside since crews did not wi***o walk INSIDE around the turbine. And the Verandas were only slightly longer, by a few inches. The third order, The Big Blows, numbers 1-30, pumped out 8500 horsepower, and were later upgraded to a whopping 10,000 horsepower. Thank you, if I need any specifics, I'll ask, but as of now, I have a complete roster of Steam and Gas turbines in the US from 1938 to 1961, and have all the information I want/can handle right now. Well, I do have one question, what movie is it? Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....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..... could you possibly be thinking of the Krause Maffei diesel hydraulics that were used by SP/DRGW? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:21 PM The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed 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][:)] I have a Pentrex video, "Union Pacific's Mighty Turbines." It is an excellent video about, well, Union Pacific's mighty turbines. They ran without and with diesels, it depended on the assignment. Sometimes it was just for power balancing purposes between different sections of UP. Sometimes, they had power lashups of over 17,000 horsepower, when they would only need a Big Blow alone. Quite a sight it must have been, and just imagine the sound.[:D] Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply 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 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 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 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 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 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 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
23 17 46 11
Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] They did have more horsepower. The original order, the Side Breathers number 51-60 had 4500 horsepower. The second order, the Verandas, numbers 61-75, had the same ratings. The only difference was the catwalks on the outside since crews did not wi***o walk INSIDE around the turbine. And the Verandas were only slightly longer, by a few inches. The third order, The Big Blows, numbers 1-30, pumped out 8500 horsepower, and were later upgraded to a whopping 10,000 horsepower. Thank you, if I need any specifics, I'll ask, but as of now, I have a complete roster of Steam and Gas turbines in the US from 1938 to 1961, and have all the information I want/can handle right now. Well, I do have one question, what movie is it? Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....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..... could you possibly be thinking of the Krause Maffei diesel hydraulics that were used by SP/DRGW? Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:21 PM The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed 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][:)] I have a Pentrex video, "Union Pacific's Mighty Turbines." It is an excellent video about, well, Union Pacific's mighty turbines. They ran without and with diesels, it depended on the assignment. Sometimes it was just for power balancing purposes between different sections of UP. Sometimes, they had power lashups of over 17,000 horsepower, when they would only need a Big Blow alone. Quite a sight it must have been, and just imagine the sound.[:D] Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply 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 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 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 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 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 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 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed The tape I have did not mention bunker "M". If my memory serves me correctly I think they ordered 40 or so of the turbines & ran them about 10 years. If you want to know anything specific let me know & I will watch the tape again. I think the later ordered ones had higher HP then the 1st ones also. [:o)][:p][:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....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.....
Originally posted by TrainFreak409 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed 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][:)] I have a Pentrex video, "Union Pacific's Mighty Turbines." It is an excellent video about, well, Union Pacific's mighty turbines. They ran without and with diesels, it depended on the assignment. Sometimes it was just for power balancing purposes between different sections of UP. Sometimes, they had power lashups of over 17,000 horsepower, when they would only need a Big Blow alone. Quite a sight it must have been, and just imagine the sound.[:D] Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply 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 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 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 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 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 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 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed 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 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 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 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 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 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 9:45 AM TrainFreak409 - thanks for the great collection of pictures. 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
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.
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 ALCo C-855, Diesel Hydraulic
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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, July 29, 2005 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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 [
Quentin
Originally posted by TrainFreak409 [ 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 7:24 AM I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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 TheAntiGates Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 AM 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. If you're interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He's also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth). Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it's fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she's just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she's unlikely to ever run again. The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname "Black Bessie". It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped. The Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, July 29, 2005 1:41 AM Diesel fuel use, www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm (Thanks Chad) Dale Reply TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:43 AM 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. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:38 AM OK, makes sense. Still, I'd be very appreciative if anyone had any "hard" ratings info,... Reply Edit TrainFreak409 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Dallas, GA 2,643 posts Posted by TrainFreak409 on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Man, you respond quick to these things. The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines' gas milage was very very poor. Scott - Dispatcher, Norfolk Southern Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 29, 2005 12:30 AM well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I] Reply Edit 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
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates well, *that* would explain the HUGE tender,...[:I]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.