Information needed about turbine locomotives

Classic Trains Magazine had an EXCELLENT article about the PRR steam turbine (#6200), a year or so ago. You might search the Kalmbach Publishing site for that.

Nick - my google machine turns up quite a bit of info on turbine locomotives.  Don't know what you are looking for specifically, but googling 'gas turbine union pacific' gets a lot of stuff, including photos, video, etc.  I didn't look at all of the links, but some to published books, articles, etc.  Similarly with the PRR S2.

It may be redundant to point out that there were significant differences in the "turbines" - for example, the GTELs (gas turbine electric locomotive) that UP had used oil-fired turbines -essentially jet engines (modified) - to drive the electric generators that provided power for the traction motors (as opposed to using the 'jet' engine to actually power the locomotive - which was done as an experiment by New York Central in the mid-1960s).  On the other hand, the S2 used steam from the "ordinary" steam locomotive boiler to spin a turbine, which was mechanically connected to the driving wheels (it had to have a smaller (?) turbine to provide operation in reverse) - this mechanical connection replaced the pistons in an 'ordinary' steam loco.

I believe the PRR Technical & Historical Society's magazine The Keystone had 1-2 articles on the S-2 awhile back.  They were technical in nature.

George

Nick - a quick followup to my previous post - Amazon lists three books on the UP GTELs - "Turbines Westward" by T.R. Lee, "Union Pacific's Turbine Era" by A.J. Wolf and "Big Blow ... Union Pacific's Super Turbines" by H. Keekley

The PRR S-2 had a gear box designed and built by Westinghouse to connect the turbine to the drive wheels. That is where the smaller turbine was mounted. The gear box  design etc was based on marine technology.  The drivers had a special center to allow the wheels to go around curves.  Possibly you can find info under Westinghouse.  I had a company publication that went in to great detail on the S-2 but gave to to Kalmbach.

A big thing with the steam turbine drive is all that exhaust steam would normally be condensed and returned to the water supply side in ship propulsion, for example. That increases the efficiency. A locomotive has the problem of all that extra weight of condensing gear, adequate cooling at the condenser, etc., and the ones with condensers didn't seem to last long. There were quite a few European experiments.

The PRR S2, and some Swedish iron-ore haulers were non-condensing mechanical drive. The turbine did its thing, spun the reduction gear attached to the axle or jack-shaft and siderods, and the exhaust went up the stack. 

Some were turbine-electric, with a steam turbine driving a generator for traction motor power, and the boiler fired by coal or oil. That would be the N&W Jawn Henry and the C&O M-1s.

The UP burned bunker oil in their gas turbine units, and had one experimental coal turbine. No steam turbines or boilers involved there. However, the UP's earlier 1930s experiments were steam turbine-electric and also had condensers.

Here's one of the Swedish mechanical drive turbine units:

 Here's one of the early UP condensing turbine-electrics:

That's  an INCREDIBLE NYCS video....in color no less !  This G.E. effort was about as technical as you could hope to get in 1939.  The two unit set actually did some useful work for Great Northern in 1942-'43.  By the time the units returned to G.E., in need of repair, Schenectady / Erie had decided to bypass the water/steam/ condenser cycle system, for newly emerging jet engine technology.  Next up would be No. 101, in 1948.....used briefly by NKP and PRR, before her famous trip west to Uncle Pete and Espee.   BTW, The Tom Lee, "Turbines West"  is absolutely tops...but get it as a hard cover if possible.

Firewood - indeed the 1938 UP units were essentially electrical generating plants on wheels - high pressure, superheated steam (1500 psi) expanded through a steam turbine coupled to a generator (and thence to traction motors).  Apparently the two units were operated together (though could operate separately) and were the first example of MU-ing operationally.  they also had regenerative breaking - with the heat from the resistor banks used to preheat the boiler water.  Also, apparently, the condensers were air-cooled.

The UP experiment with a direct coal-fired turbine (hot exhaust spun the turbine which was connected to a generator - no steam involved, as you say) was done after the C&O and N&W attempts (which actually did involve steam).   In the end, dieselization essentially doomed these experiments anyway, including the GTELs.

One interesting sidelight to the GTELs is that their efficiency/horsepower actually increased with higher ambient temperatures.  The last series of 8500 hp machines, when operating in the high desert, had power outputs closer to 10,000 hp.  I suppose there was something in that thermo class I slept through long ago that would help me understand why this was the case...

Sorry about that, but the GTEL HP increases actually come at lower temps, and at lower altitudes.  In 1958, G.E. figured the new , three unit Turbine GTEL at 8500HP, at one mile altitude, and 90 Degrees F temperature.   Decreasing the temp, or the altitude would increase the gross Turbine output.  In any event, the G.E. frame size 5 unit, used in the 8500GTEL, was capable of making a lot more HP than the electrical system aboard could safely absorb.  In locomotive service, this prime mover had to reduced from it's full potential to protect the machine's innards. The 1963 on equipping of the 8500GTEL fleet with Dynavane gear was designed to address the issues of variable atmospheric pressure and temperature effects on the Turbine prime mover... thus easing the shock and wear on the electrical system.   The gross HP of the frame size 5 Turbine, operating as a stationary plant is ~ 13,700 shaft.    The end of the GTEL era was brought about by one major issue, and a number of smaller ones.....Diesels being one of the smaller ones. The real culprit was the end of cheap No. 6 fuel oil.   The last five months of operation in 1969, U.P. was using straight Diesel fuel in the big Turbines.

Thanks for the info guys! Wow! I appreciate the time you spent to reply to my request. Thanks,

Nickstrains.

We knew our headfuls of archaic information would be good for something! To add another to the list, here's a British "turbomotive" starting around 0:50. Very conventional-looking, and it was converted back to piston drive in its later life. (Note the test roller-bed in the first 0:50)

Also, here's a neat parts breakdown of a steam turbine mechanical-drive that had a condenser:

Nick - you're welcome - lots of information 'out there'

Just a quick followup on Jaygee's last post.  I claim no first hand expertise (though as a kid I grew up along the UP mainline in Nebraska and saw (and heard) lots of GTELs and Big Boys in the flesh), so I'm a victim of what I read.  In Brian Solomon's "Union Pacific Railroad" (Voyageur Press, 2000), he sez: "In 'Motive Power of the Union Pacific', author William Kratville points out that their enormous output actually depended on the external temperature.  Actual output varied considerably from just 7,800 hp. in very cold weather to more than 10,500 hp. in high heat." (p. 126).  I've not seen the Kratville publication, but I've seen similar comments elsewhere (don't recall where) - one of which was that the GTELs worked best on the summertime runs between Salt Lake City and LA (think high heat!).  Solomon's remarks are in the context of the last version of the GTELs, which I believe were running on fuel closer to kerosene or diesel, as opposed to bunker oil - so I wouldn't think that the explanation would be due to better fuel flow at higher temperatures...

I would consult Tom Lee's Turbines West book on the effect of temperature and altitude, with regards to GTEL operation.  He is using a great deal of G.E. and U.P. data, and is not shy in breaking down the specifics across the board.

Nicks Trains posted:

I need assistance in finding detailed information on turbine engines (for example, (but not limited to) the PRR 6200, UP "big blows.", the C&O M1s, ect) specifically how they function. I have googled but could not find much past their history.

Nick

All the locomotives that you mentioned have Wikipedia pages plus much more material available via a Google search.  The Wikipedia pages include wheel arrangements, weights, boiler pressure (where applicable), horse power, etc.  Is there any specific technical information you are looking for that you can not find on line?

richs09 posted:

Nick - you're welcome - lots of information 'out there'

Just a quick followup on Jaygee's last post.  I claim no first hand expertise (though as a kid I grew up along the UP mainline in Nebraska and saw (and heard) lots of GTELs and Big Boys in the flesh), so I'm a victim of what I read.  In Brian Solomon's "Union Pacific Railroad" (Voyageur Press, 2000), he sez: "In 'Motive Power of the Union Pacific', author William Kratville points out that their enormous output actually depended on the external temperature.  Actual output varied considerably from just 7,800 hp. in very cold weather to more than 10,500 hp. in high heat." (p. 126).  I've not seen the Kratville publication, but I've seen similar comments elsewhere (don't recall where) - one of which was that the GTELs worked best on the summertime runs between Salt Lake City and LA (think high heat!).  Solomon's remarks are in the context of the last version of the GTELs, which I believe were running on fuel closer to kerosene or diesel, as opposed to bunker oil - so I wouldn't think that the explanation would be due to better fuel flow at higher temperatures...

There is a complete industry built around chilling the inlet air for electric generation turbines.

http://www.tas.com/content/tic-generation-storage

In one of my train DVDs (Pentrex?) the narrator points out that UP didn't MU the turbines because the second unit would suffer from flame outs in the tunnels (lack of oxygen?) and would have to be restarted after leaving the tunnel. Typically they would be MU'ed with one or two GP units. Wikipedia also lists the GTEL tractive effort as 212,312 lbf. Running two GETL units may have caused problems with broken couplers ect...

A couple of followup comments.  I guess sometimes the archaic info stored in our heads (in my case getting less accessible...!) was either wrong when it was "put in" or gets garbled on the "way out".  The reference to turbine inlet chilling (via plcprof) indeed shows a power vs inlet temperature curve that rolls off with increasing temperature.  This seems much more intuitive (at higher ambient temperatures the air is less dense and thus has less oxygen for combustion) than the statement I cited earlier from Solomon's book.  The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs has a more extensive discussion about the three generations of GTELs operated by UP.

In terms of MU-ing, my earlier reference to that was for the case of UP's oil-fired steam turbine locomotives built in 1938 (of which two were built and were typically operated together 'elephant' style).  I've not seen any pictures of GTELs MU'd together - but many pictures of a GTEL leading several diesel-electric units.

If you go to railpictures.net and search on gas turbines you'll get a number of pictures of GTELs, including this one with a power lashup of 25,000 hp http://www.railpictures.net/im.../7479.1447287375.jpg

Ok - two more interesting gas-turbine photos and then I'll stop.  Here's one with a Veranda (second generation GTEL) and a Big Boy lashed up on Sherman Hill http://www.railpictures.net/im.../8375.1403575726.jpg.  Perhaps more interesting is a recent, Dec. 2014 photo of a 'new' Russian gas turbine running on CNG and rated (at least by the photographer) at 11,000 hp...  http://www.railpictures.net/im.../1896.1421596722.jpg

U.P. Turbines were run in multiple, but far more often with the 4500GTELS.   It was rare to see a pair of 8500GTELS running together under full power, but it did happen.  By sticking a few Diesel units in between the Turbines, the exhaust recirculation issue was largely bypassed.   U.P. was not afraid to pile a LOT of tractive effort on the front of their trains, FWIW !