for UP GE turbine fans

Excellent video and a great companion to Pentrex 8500 Turbines of the Wahsatch.

These fabulous machines made big sense in the steam era, but became somewhat marginal during the second generation of Diesel power.  Because of the price spike in Bunker C type fuels in the later '60s, there was no further technical development of these big guys, and the fuel costs were their final undoing.

I like the big turbines; especially, the GTEL's. They were rated at 8,500hp, but I've heard up to 10,000hp... at certain elevations.

Nothing like those monsters, track-side, nowadays.

I liked the 1938 prototype(s); first shown in the video. GE and UP were a good team. Created some interesting motive power.

Rick

Thanks.  I love those big locos, impractical as they were (compared to diesels).  The only UP big turbine I have not obtained is the propane turbine. 

Turbines are actually far more efficient than reciprocating engines at full power. That's why power plants use turbines and not diesel engines for power generation. 

It is the varying power requirements for freight service that makes turbines impractical. However, passenger service is another story. Amtrak operates their locomotives a full power at all times since the locomotive provides power for the train. In the case of passenger service turbines may be advantageous. Furthermore for any power output turbines are smaller and lighter than diesel engines. That is why the M1 tank uses a gas turbine as power. A smaller and lighter power plant would be advantageous for passenger service as well.

Thanks for the link.  Saved it to my Union Pacific playlist on my You Tube Channel and will look forward to watching it.

Absolutely NOT true! Just because Amtrak and commuter diesels are run at "full throttle" all the time, that is simply to provide 60 hertz HEP to the passenger cars. The actual "load" on the diesel prime mover may be as low as 400 to 600 HP, if the Engineer is operating in lower throttle positions. Even at speed approaching 79MPH, the Engineer may have the throttle at only #5 or #6, which means that the prime mover is producing far less than the rated 4000HP.

A gas turbine would be the WORST application for passenger service due to the light loads and varying duty cycle. Thus, gas turbines have not been successful in railroad service ever since the UP "Big Blows" of freight service fame.

Power plants tend to use turbines run by steam from boilers heated by coal, natural gas or nuclear energy.

Rusty

True, the draw of the train (passenger cars) is ~400kw; however, the diesel engine is still consuming 7529 kw of fuel (assuming the diesel is a mixture of C8 to C28 yielding 38 kw per gallon) to produce that power. There is a difference between what is loaded on the drive shaft and the fuel that is being consumed. All that I am writing is that a turbine would potentially consume less fuel for equivalent hp in a lighter and smaller package. There are gas turbines such as the Advanced UDF approaching 50% efficiency.

To compare the UP turbines is not relevant since that technology is over 60 years old and all technologies including turbines have advanced considerably since then. 

I'm glad you guys like the link...

I heard the GTEL's logged over a million miles, during their time in service. Supposedly, at times, they'd gun the beasts, heading east out of town, up a grade; and then, let the train coast down the hill...

Picture someone walking along an overpass, as the train passed underneath, with the turbine at full throttle; a change of undergarment might be in order?

I bet those train crews had some stories to tell.

Rick

There are tons of Turbine stories out there, and some of them are on YouTube.  The rated power of the 8500GTEL was about 7K DBHP.  This was obtained at 5260 ft. of elevation, and 90 degrees F.  The base HP of the Turbine prime mover is 10700HP, but this had to be backed off, as the GE electrical systems of the day (1955) were not equal to handling that kind of power. At lower elevations and temps, there was more power available from the turbine itself.  There were two main generators and twelve traction motors involved.  A revision was made at UP's request around 1960 to obtain more power. As a result of excitation changes plus tweaking the Turbine for a bit more power at certain speeds; it was possible to achieve 10K gross HP and an 8500HP rating at the rail.  This mod was actually applied to all but five of the big Turbines, but their rating remained "8500 HP" regardless.  Some of the modified locomotives were later cut back to their original settings after experiencing increased electrical issues, among other things.  A sophisticated air silencer and inlet pressure maintainer system known as the Dynavane was added in 1963-'64, and proved to be the last real investment that UP made in these machines. The fall rush season in '69 was accomplished on Diesel fuel, for cost and simplicities sake.

Dec. 26, '69 was the end of the line, with #7 doing the honors. Today, with AC drive available, The big turbine could be run up to it's full capacity, thus producing close to 400K TE and 12K HP at lower altitudes.  Now let's see if we can talk GE and UP into fixing up #18 !

Thanks for your contribution, Jay.

Ya, I heard that at sea level, 10,000hp could be achieved.

Rick

I never knew that, Harvey, thanks.

Rick

I know that test track!! its my home town of Erie PA!!..Test tracks and GE is on the east side Of the City of Erie and runs threw Haborcreek..test track hasnt changed that much at all.

Josey,

That must be a great spot to watch... if the public can see what's happening?

Rick

Yes the public can see them run..test tracks ran in front of harborcreek home for boys..route 20..ya its fun to see what new toy there testing..To bad I dont live there no more..kind of miss it alittle bit..

"Harbor Creek" is that some type of correctional facility, for boy's?

"Test Track" -  watching the outfit, experimenting with new prototype's, sounds cool!

Rick

yep..for boys and now girls too..its not like jail.. its a campus type group home setting..each kid gets a councler...I'd seen all type of trains being tested there..

That's a real simplification to say turbines are more efficient.  They tend to be only if set at near their max output and not cycled.  Big base-load power generators (those that run continuously at near maximum output) like the Cedar Bayou plant near Houston, where I used to work (still one of the most efficient anywhere, after 30 years), are incredibly efficient.  I did a book on Distributed Power Generation (power generation units under 25 MW often meant for peaking and backup power) a little over a decade ago and in reseraching it then, and revising it now, was surprised how effificient reciprocating is for many applications--  turbines often come in quite a bit behind reciprocating units - some low and medium speed diesels and high-speed natural gas recip units can be incredibly efficient, particularly in applications where load varies.  Diesels really win for locos because they provide gobs of torque and yet can be made pretty efficient at variable cruising speeds. 

The big turbines were fantastic locos, and I really love them, mostly because of the engineering - the coal turbine was incredible engineering, if a very, very dumb idea (you have to ask, Why?). I think of them along with other cold war big engineering marvels, like the ten-engine B-36, etc.   You can make something big work, but over its not as good as another approach.   ABBA and such sets of modular diesels were (and still are) just about impossible to beat for overall "efficiency" (e.g., operating cost) for locomotives.  Sigh - oh, for for a world with big steam including art deco streamliners and big noisy turbines - only on my layout, apparently!

Josey,

I used be a Correctional officer, at a maximum security correctional facility; and I wonder what impact, if any, it had on the young guys, residing at harbor Creek.

On this forum, we sometimes hear about how real trains etc. influenced some forum members lives... when they were young.

I wonder if observing the active test track provided some escape, for some of the boys, from institutional life they led? Did it inspire any of them...

Ya Lee, current DPU technology seems to work out pretty good, for today's massive trains. Picture 3 or 4 GTEL's with the latest DPU technology...

Rick

well.I didnt want to get into this,but heck...Id used to be in harborcreek  home for boys..But i was in a different area,Was in a nomal house living..they call it intentive treatment unit..Parents though I was on drugs..I wasnt..Just rebel because my step father kicked punched,and threw me around like a rage doll for 12 years of my life....But during the day I was out at that campis for school and got to see GE running there test..seen alot of UP,BNSF,Santa Fe.NS,CSX and so on  being tested on there tracks..I'd couldve worked at GE painting there trains,but they was laying off some of there workers and tearing down some of there big buildings..talk about a big change in there land scape..think 5 was torn down.At times I do miss seeing them run..Erie Is a bizzy town with alot of train trafic..NS Conrail and CSX running threw severial times aday!! Around here in Celina Ohio we got 1 RR company that has there business just out side the city limmits.. That RJ Cormens.They run in merc county area...Now if you head east to Walpak 2 towns away you got CSX running threw that town and Lima..Going to see somtime see what left of Lima locomotive works..If there anything is left??.I'd never knew about that first turbine..I like the looks of the first one the most..

Hi, Rick.

Here's a video of some action on the test track:

It's an interesting place when new power is being rolled out.

Bob

holly cow!! 3/4 close to the end of that video you can see harborcreek home for boys!!  I know that white house!! that one of there school house!..heres a link to youtube seeing some GE erie test track runs..i would like some day to do a Erie PA train layout with GE and there test track..

http://www.youtube.com/results......1ac.1.E1mRvtX3tqc

Josey,

I like when people are being real; you're previous post is a good example of what I'm talking about. It takes guts to do that.

I started out in Corrections as a Correctional officer, working at a maximum security juvenile correctional centre(it held boys and girls from age 12 until a youth turned 18). I later worked in an adult male maximum security correctional centre.

The youth facility could be a very stressful and dangerous place to be incarcerated. To survive, in a place like that, was often very difficult, for some offenders. Some guys came in really young(12) and left fully institutionalized; and well-versed, for a continuing life of crime; and some, found a better way...

Despite what most would think, I became a better, more compassionate person from my experiences in corrections. Don't get me wrong, I was no bleeding heart and I did what had to be done at times; but, I strongly believe in doing the right thing... and I stood by those core values of mine.

It would not be boasting, for me to say... I feel I was respected, by many inmates, during my time in corrections; that is something I'm very proud of... being able to the job properly; and, at the same time, having the respect of those that were in my care.

Bob,

Thanks for the video; it's nice to see them brand new... I see overhead power, too. How long was the test track?

Rick

Rick:

The test track is about five miles in length. It's actually considered part of the East Erie Commercial Railroad, the in-house shortline serving the Erie plant.

Bob

Five miles of fun!

Thanks, Bob.

Rick

Turbine technology as applied to a GTEL locomotive today would be most interesting to say the least.  As before, it would still most likely need to be used someplace like UP where there are heavy trains running long distances.  Back in the day, all but five of the big 8500s and half of the 4500HP Turbines were equipped later on with Diesel MU capability.  At least theoretically, this would allow the turbine prime mover to be cut down to idle speed (still 80% of full speed) during less demanding maneuvers, cutting fuel costs a bit.  Could a new generation turbine unit be even more flexible?  

Jay,

I'm sure some lab engineer could find something that worked even better than the heated C, did?

30,000hp worth of DPU'd turbine motive power, eastbound... nice!

Rick

Do you guys recall that a "gas turbine" burns within 85% of full load fuel consumption, when at IDEL? Thus a gas turbine, no matter WHAT the horse power out-put would be, had better be kept at FULL LOAD. That is diametrically opposed to what happens in todays railroad motive power usages, i.e. duty cycle.

Hot,

Like I mentioned earlier, I heard the 8,500's ran wide open up the grades and then power was cut, for the descent. Full power was their thing...

Rick

You can "cut power" on the locomotive, i.e. the electrical generating system, but the turbine SPEED does NOT change. Thus the fuel consumption is extremely high, no matter up-hill or down-hill. I made many a trip on the "Big Blow" turbines,back in 1964,  and the sound of the exhaust and turbine really didn't change no matter whether we were moving light engine in the North Platte yards, of accelerating to 60+MPH with a tonnage train on the main line.

Cheap bunker C enabled one million plus miles of work. I don't think UP worried, until C's price rose.

It wasn't an economy model by any means.

BTW, I'm impressed... one of the coolest rides in the business, you had.

Rick

Not really. I'll take SP 4449, or UP 3985 at better than 65 MPH any time.

Hot,

I wouldn't expect anything different.

Your screen name says it all; nothing wrong with that. You like the kettles!

Rick

Na the ride 611 in the cab was great!! With bob as the engineer..Rick,Ya Id had a bad child hood.. mom been married 3 times and when she goes threw a devorce she move backhome to her parents..Cool to me because my grandpa a big lionel man..they helped raised me..But they do have a lockup for teens call Eddmen L Thomas center..Was there once before they tranfered me to Harbor creek..Thankgod i'd only was in harborcreek for 6months!..some are there for years.......With living with my grandparents was great!  My grandpa took my moms room and made it into a train room with my help...Like Id said I love the first steam turbine loco..Love to see somebody make a model or it..Wonder if any of GE train drove off there test track at the end of there run.. think theres a big drop off there?

Josey,

I'm very happy that you were able to leave that behind. You sound like a good guy; nice meeting you!

Rick

you forgot Unlimted Hydroplanes boats.There running jetturbine engines to..those suckers can hit speed upto 200mhp on water..most of there races they hit 155-170mhp..Id aways go to Madison IN every year to watch them run..Un believeable power in those boats..You cant say with today tech we can get a train to run more inenfency with turbine power..

Yes, this was the point I was making earlier.  Turbines are very lightweight for the maximum power they can put out, but fuel hogs at idleand low speeds.  They also have torque-curve characteristics that aren't the best for locomotives, etc.  As a result they are just about the most inefficient thing you can put in a locomotive.  However, I would choose a gas turbine if trying to set a land speed record in a locomotive!

You can finesse this problem by using multiple units, although that seems too complex a solution for locomotives.  But, for example, many warships that have steam or gas turbines have "cruising turbines" they run on when in non-combat situations: small turbines that are sized to power the ship at a reasonable cruising speed while operating at near full thorttle, so cruising is very efficient (since you do it all the time) while the big turbines for max combat speed are just shut down entirely.  In one of the few really brilliant pragmatic moves the Russians used during the cold war, some of their big cruisers used a small nuke reactor system for the cruising turbines so they could "cruise" for years, but they had fossil-fueled turbines for max speed, reasoning that they would use those only rarely but run on the nuke 95% of the time.  Splendid ships.

I truly love the big UP turbines (and all big UP locomotives of any type) but I recognize they were ill-concieved, inefficient monsters, turubine powered dinosaurs ultimately doomed to be bested by the diesel "mammals" , is one way to look at it, I guess

Prudent and practical probably wasn't always at the top of the old UP power boss's list, when it came to UP's penchant for spectacular motive power.

Show stopping grandeur - being the "biggest and the best", being over-the-top remarkable..., probably factored into those special projects decisions.

Rick

Remember, these locomotives were designed and built to compete against steam power, with the exception of #80. The basic idea was NOT ill conceived in any way.

UP had from 1949 to 1960 to figure this out. That the whole thing appealed to Stoddard and Neuman, in the Jabelmann/Jeffers frame of mind, is simply iceing on the UP. cake !  Lotsa anti-Turbine sentiment out there...because they were - the biggest and most powerful.  Still hold the power record for a single plant loco !