How hard would it be to convert a turbine powered locomotive such as the Veranda Turbines to use diesel fuel insted of the heavier bunker C buel?
caldreamerHow hard would it be to convert a turbine powered locomotive such as the Veranda Turbines to use diesel fuel insted of the heavier bunker C buel?
My understanding is they could burn anything that was liquid and flammable. Jetting and fuel pump changes would be necessary for the different viscosity of the fuels. Any other changes are beyond me.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD caldreamer How hard would it be to convert a turbine powered locomotive such as the Veranda Turbines to use diesel fuel insted of the heavier bunker C buel? My understanding is they could burn anything that was liquid and flammable. Jetting and fuel pump changes would be necessary for the different viscosity of the fuels. Any other changes are beyond me.
caldreamer How hard would it be to convert a turbine powered locomotive such as the Veranda Turbines to use diesel fuel insted of the heavier bunker C buel?
Balt is correct . The main changes are fuel pumps, filters, fuel lines, burner can designs, igniters.
However if you just look at airplane turbo jets they can all burn JP-1, JP-4, JP-5 interchangable. However the volitility of the gasoline based jet fuel ( used in some fighters ) requires fueling at slower rates to prevent possible fires. Commercial jet fuel is labeled differently but what difference is is not understood. One item it has an addative called priss ( anti-corrosive )
The fuel used in SR-71s ( JP-9 ? ) is so non flamable that matches and cigarettes dropped in spilage will not ignite fuel. How it works in combustion chamber -- have no idea. The SR-71 has to use that fuel because on the ground the tanks leak but once supersonic heating of the tanks occurrs then the tanks seal.
It looks like it is a very feasable project and not that expensive. Add computerixed controls and it looks like you have a pretty efficient engine.
caldreamerIt looks like it is a very feasable project and not that expensive. Add computerixed controls and it looks like you have a pretty efficient engine.
Are there and UP turbines left? Have the all become recycled metal?
Union Pacific 18 at the Illinois Railway Museum is one:
http://www.irm.org/cgi-bin/rsearch.cgi?diesel=Union+Pacific+Railroad=18
Here is a recent picture of UP 18 at IRM...
The Big Red 1 - not the infantry division but UP 1 ...
UP 26...
Passing a Big Boy in what looks like Cheyenne...
UP 13...
Fireworks...
UP 61 Veranda...
UP 54...
UP 74 Veranda...
UP 54 again out on the high iron...
UP 22 highballing on the high iron...
UP 52 leading an interesting consist...
UP 66 Veranda topping off the tank...
UP 65 Veranda and UP 4015 4-8-8-4 doubleheading Sherman Hill...
UP 61 Veranda with a long string of high cars...
UP 6 with a GP30 at Red Buttes, WY...
Here is a detaile history of all of the turbines. Most were either scrapped or traded to GE, but some were donted to museums.
http://utahrails.net/up-diesel-roster/up-diesel-roster-01.php#gtel-1
blue streak 1 However if you just look at airplane turbo jets they can all burn JP-1, JP-4, JP-5 interchangable. However the volitility of the gasoline based jet fuel ( used in some fighters ) requires fueling at slower rates to prevent possible fires. Commercial jet fuel is labeled differently but what difference is is not understood. One item it has an addative called priss ( anti-corrosive )
IIRC, the additive is called Prist (you were close). My recollection is that it acts as an antifreeze for any water present in the fuel and as an anti-bacterial. There are some bacteria that thrive in the distillate/water interface.
IIRC, JP-7 - also known as Lockheed Lighter fluid #1. The "non-flamability" is from a flash point of 400F - FWIW, diesel fuel with a flash point of maybe 120F will also extinguish matches and cigarrettes. The high flash point is needed from the fact that the fuel will warms to well over 100F in flight. With combustion chamber temperatures of well over 1,000F, there is no problem iginiting the fuel once the engine is started. Starting the engine was usually assisted with a shot of tri-ethyl borane.
Having said that, you are correct in stating that the turbines will run just fine on diesel fuel.
With surfce temperatures of the SR71 at 800 degrees the old jet fuels would ignote so Lockheed went to Shell and had them develop the fuel that very non flammable. Also the fuel leaks from th SR71 when on the ground and when it first starts to fly. Whe nthe skin heats up it expands two inches and the fuel does not leak any more. This is from a TV show about the SR71 where they talked to the people who developed and flew the SR71 so it is good information.
But you're still dealing with really high fuel consumption which is what doomed the big blows in the first place as Bunker C got used in plastics..
With the computerized control systems that we have today you could easily control fuel consumption. The turbine would not have to run at full speed while at idle or lower notch settings.
caldreamer With the computerized control systems that we have today you could easily control fuel consumption. The turbine would not have to run at full speed while at idle or lower notch settings.
It's not a matter of having a better control system: a gas turbines fuel consumption at idle is much higher than other kinds of internal combustion engines. By their nature they have a far narrower power band than diesel engines which is why in non-aerospace applications they are mostle used where they run steadily at high rpm settings i.e power generation and some marine vessels.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
A turbo shaft loco would work on a route that could allow it constant power. But even flat land running ( no where except Australia ) or just a singel turbine MUed with diesels in hog back country will not be feasibile. A turbo jet at cruising consumes about 3 times what it consumes at idle 10000 ft but that is crusing at 30,000 ft, Crusing at 10,000 ft burns about 10 times idle.
As well start up time to idle for most turbo shafts can be 3 - 5 minutes. Then at least another 5 minutes at idle befor applying full power.
One compromise would be using 2-3 turbines in conjuction with a large battery. Li-Ion technology is good for about 200kW-hrs per ton, a 10 ton battery would be good for about 2 hours pumping out the equivalent of 1200 HP.
erikem One compromise would be using 2-3 turbines in conjuction with a large battery. Li-Ion technology is good for about 200kW-hrs per ton, a 10 ton battery would be good for about 2 hours pumping out the equivalent of 1200 HP.
Lithium Ion batteries have been succesfully used for passenger railcars but are not robust enough for the beating and banging of freight service.
This is why GE developed a molten salt battery for the abortive hybrid GEVO locomotive. They then stopped work on the locomotive and attempted to find other markets for the batteries. They didn't get many sales and have stopped producing the batteries...
carnej1 erikem One compromise would be using 2-3 turbines in conjuction with a large battery. Li-Ion technology is good for about 200kW-hrs per ton, a 10 ton battery would be good for about 2 hours pumping out the equivalent of 1200 HP. Lithium Ion batteries have been succesfully used for passenger railcars but are not robust enough for the beating and banging of freight service. This is why GE developed a molten salt battery for the abortive hybrid GEVO locomotive. They then stopped work on the locomotive and attempted to find other markets for the batteries. They didn't get many sales and have stopped producing the batteries...
Wonderful - Samsung G7 battery operated locomotvies catching fire and exploding.
1200 HP isn't very much in today's US railroad world.
BaltACD 1200 HP isn't very much in today's US railroad world.
True, my perhaps not too clear point was that the batteries would be operating in conjunction with one or more of the turbines. The idea is that the turbine would be running at a constant power and the batteries would be charging when less power was needed and discharging when more power was needed. Assuming 2,000HP turbines, the power available for traction could be 3,200HP for a couple of hours or 4,400HP for one hour. If 4,400HP was going to be needed for more than an hour, then it would make sense to fire up two of the 2,000HP turbines.
Such a beast would likely be quite a bit more expensive than a 4,400HP diesel. Where it would make sense is an area where limits on NOx and particulates prohibit use of even Tier IV diesels and/or where natural gas is much cheaper than diesel fuel.
IIRC, the largest battery pack for a Tesla is on the order of 100kW-hr in a car that can put out over 300HP. That suggests asking for even 2,400HP from a 2,000kW-hr battery pack is well within the capabilities of my proposed battery pack.
I'm confident that a turbine hybrid can be done, but dubious whether it should be done.
aegrotatioHave you seen any videos of turbines with natural sound? Does this one have it?
I hear plausible turbine noise behind the music and narration in several of the clips in the promotional video. You can check the Mighty Turbines video here to see if you can get anything out of the remarkably low sound quality (apparently not enhanced along with the picture!). The DVD version lets you shut off the narration to concentrate on the sounds, such as they are.
Much of the filming in those days was done with relatively low fidelity and bad microphone gain control, and easily overloaded media, so much of the low-frequency rumble and high-frequency shriek has likely not been recorded in the first place, or is drastically clipped to ringing feedback just as the sound starts to get interesting...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.