7j43kPerhaps they were not adequately impressed when they used the GN steam turbines in 1943.
Two units of 2500 nominal hp apiece, full condensing at very high pressure. They were interesting but underpowered for their size and weight, and were returned by UP rather briskly -- they were sent to GN as a wartime expediency thing, if I remember the story correctly. According to one account I read, the GN crews worked out or figured how to work around most of the bugs and 'shortcomings', but according to another account the units ran for a few weeks but were then returned to GE when maintenance was required.
Note that there is almost no resemblance of these locomotives to any gas turbine UP ran, other than in using generated DC going to traction motors. (Not much resemblance to the coal turbine, either!) GN personnel would likely remember this if assessing gas-turbine designs later...
SD70DudeDidn't UP also modify a large number of EMD units to burn bunker fuel?
https://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php
SP had some, too, which were apparently referred to as 'mudburners'. I believe the first of these heated the fuel with steam coils as in SP steam locomotives, rather than with electric elements in the tanks, but rcdrye noted the SP had an order of GP9s for heavy fuel with no SGs -- which went over Donner Pass and so would often need heat big-time. Those probably used electric heating elements in the tanks rather than at the fuel filter or elsewhere closer to the injectors; I cannot tell without more information or pictures.
It appears that UP quietly went to better refined Bunker B (#5) in the turbines to remove issues with asphaltic deposits and ashing. It appears this might have been mixed or refined still further for use in the Diesel engines; EMD 567 injectors are comparatively finicky devices that use fuel as essential lubricant. It would be interesting to see detail of the power assemblies on the 'heavy fuel' engines, and the 2-stage fuel filters that were used. I have not read Dr. Priest's account of these, but apparently at least some of the UP diesel operation was done with heavy oil that was less viscous than #5 or had been cut with lighter fractions; Strack mentions this in passing but doesn't comment on the details.
SD70Dude Didn't UP also modify a large number of EMD units to burn bunker fuel?
Didn't UP also modify a large number of EMD units to burn bunker fuel?
They did.
I believe Don Strack has an article on this on his fine website, Utahrails.net.
VGN Jess Does anyone know or can speculate? Inasmuch as Fargo, ND-Glacier Park, MT (GN) have similar (if not the same) topography as UP's Council Bluffs, IA-Ogden, UT route, UP found GTEL's to work great on that route for them; but GN never used them. Thoughts?
Does anyone know or can speculate? Inasmuch as Fargo, ND-Glacier Park, MT (GN) have similar (if not the same) topography as UP's Council Bluffs, IA-Ogden, UT route, UP found GTEL's to work great on that route for them; but GN never used them. Thoughts?
Perhaps they were not adequately impressed when they used the GN steam turbines in 1943.
Ed
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude:
The Milwaukee indeed do some upgrading of the overhead. They bought a couple of 3MW M-G sets from CUT, installed one at Janney (near the continental divide) and added extra feeder capacity.
The 8500HP probably used 2X to 3X the fuel of 5 GP9's, however Bunker C was originally quite a bit cheaper than diesel fuel. I would guess the GTEL's would use less than half the bunker C fuel than the equivalent in steam locomotives.
The extra 4 cabs with using GP-9's has a cost of its own, which may be why the UP had a significant number of GP-9 B units in its roster.
A better question would be to turn it around and ask why UP was so enamored for so long with huge locomotives? Was somebody in a position of authority compensating?
Didn't Milwaukee have to upgrade their electrification system before being able to use the Joes to their full potential?
How much fuel did the 8500 HP turbine use compared to five GP9's?
Of course, you could also split the 5 GP9's apart later and use them to run multiple shorter trains or yard jobs. Can't do that with the turbine.
At the time the GTEL's were ordered, the equivalent HP from EMD would have entailed 5 GP-9's. There were occasions when UP put two Big Blows on the head end of a train, which would have required an ungodly number of then available diesel locomotives.
The Milwaukee had a somewhat similar experience with the Little Joe's, where the normal compliment of two Joe's was the equivalent of 12,000 to 14,000 diesel HP between 25 and 35MPH.
Union Pacific's motive power leadership group continued to pursue massive single unit locomotives after the end of steam. Few other railroads did that, and none did it on UP's scale.
Like most dieselized railroads, GN seems to have been content with buying standard production diesels and coupling them together in order to achieve the required horsepower.
The 4500HP GTEL's burrned 200 gph idling and around 500 gph at full tilt. The Big blows were probably somewhat less than twice the 4500HP units. Fuel hogs compared to diesels, but considerably better than an oil fired steam locomotive.
The UP GTEL's opearted on the high grade portion of the UP mainline, whereas the GN could make use of the horsepower needed for Marias Pass for higher speed on the plains.
FWIW, the UP had plans to buy 5 oil burning Big Boys for the LA&SL route, which implies that the bunker C for the GTEL's came from Southern Califormia.
No reason to think turbines were particularly suited to UP's main line profile, any more than steam was, or diesels, or electrics.
Would be nice to know how important fuel cost was then -- enough to rule out turbines on a single-track RR? And how much more would fuel have cost per gallon on RRs other than UP?
No one seems to know how many gallons per hour a UP turbine burned when standing. Or when running, for that matter.
Operating practices may have been a factor, too. Until recently, most of the GN main line was single track, which presumes meets for opposing trains on a regular basis. GTEL's guzzled fuel even while standing still, which would ruin fuel economics due to having to wait on meets.
Too far away perhaps from refineries?
Union Pacific's turbines I believe burned residual fuel from likely Rangely Field in Utah, at a time when it otherwise may have just been burned off as waste before advances in refining technology made it more useful.
Did Great Northern have similar access? With their thirsty nature, having to ship in the fuel may have destroyed the economics.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.