Does anyone know of a good site that would give line drawings or info on UPs tender 806 or one of them that follows 844 around some times.?
I have done a couple of searches but just get photos.
thanks for any help
Oh, come on you guys, someone out there knows where I can find this info?
Or you may have an HO one that you could set a 1:87th scale ruller in front of and take a photo for me?
please!!!
I have a 70+ pd BigBoy looking for an extra tender.
UP never used auxillary tenders during the steam era, they were orginally used for bunker C fuel for the turbines, only in later years, after the demise of the turbines were several converted for special service. UP probably had more surplus tenders then they knew what to do with, no doubt maintaince of way duties became the lot in life for some…
Dave
Hopefully this will help. I scanned this page from one of my turbine reference books.
The bottom of the image has a profile shot of the tender with measurements.
If you save the image to your computer, you can view it with Windows Explorer and zoom in to get the dimensions. Unfortunately, this image didn’t have any width dimensions.
Are you planning on making a 1/87 scale model of the tender?
I knew you guys would come through,
Thanks Mike, what book is that from? I have many UP books but not with that info in.
Mike in that book is there any top view looking down? I have lots of side shots.
I do plan to scratchbuild a 1:29th tender to run behind my USAT 1:29th BigBoy.
Dave,
I had wondered about turbines in loco’s, why were they discontinued ?
The Steam Electric Turbines were removed because they were a failure mechanically. They only built 2 of them and they were rated at 2500HP each. They had 6 powered & 4 unpowered axles. Alco/Ge then came out with a double ended gas turbine. Only 1 was built. It had 4 two axle trucks and was rated at 4500HP. They ordered 10 more of them but were not double ended. When GE decided to retire them they were so pleased that they ordered 15 more 'Veranda turbines" and also decided to add auxilery fuel tenders, because as the big turbines used up the fuel they lost traction. So they added a fuel tender and added a fixed weight in the traction unit for a steady weight. GE then ordered 30 “Big Blow” 8500 3 unit Gas Turbines. I think this was around 1958. They say these units were rated at 10,500HP. The low cost Bunker C fuel they used was getting expensive, the diesels were moving in and that probably was the cause of the Turbine Death. They were very successful though. They even experimented with a Coal Fired Turbine. It was a disaster.
That scan came from “Turbines Westward” by Thomas R. Lee. It’s been out of print for a few years. I was lucky to find it, still wrapped in cellophane, at a local model train show about ten years ago.
Another good reference, is “Union Pacific’s Turbine Era” by A. J. Wolff. There’s a section in the back of this book that covers the various tenders used with the turbines. Unfortunately, only a few of the pictures are from a high angle. The scan below is the best high oblique shot in the book. Once you save the image and view it with Windows Explorer, you can zoom in for more detail.
As mentioned in another post, these were never used as auxilary water tenders during the steam era. They were converted from early 800 series and 3800 series tenders for use with the 8500HP turbines. After the turbines faded from the scene, they were used for diesel fuel storage in MOW service. Later, several were refurbished as auxilary water tenders for 844 and 3985. I think one or two of these would look great behind a Big Boy.
This is a shot of my N scale turbine. Tomorrow, after the Thanksgiving festivities are finished, I’ll take a few close shots of the tender and post them for you.
Greg
Not sure whether you are addressing gas or steam turbines. Both were tried and rejected for railroad use.
It’s very difficult to make gas turbines come even close to the fuel efficiency of a piston diesel engine. A gas turbine is at peak efficiency when it is operating at constant speed close to maximum temperatures and power. Fuel efficiency falls off very rapidly when operated in a low power regime, or with widely varying “throttle”.
The positive points is that once started, a turbine’s reliability is sky high, and they can go for much longer intervals between maintenance than piston engines. Gas turbines are also much lighter in weight than piston engines - not a big advantage for railroads where weight = traction.
Gas turbines are much more costly to build than diesels. Parts like bearings and seals have to be machined to much closer tolerances, and made of more exotic materials to withstand the temperatures encountered (the higher the operating temp, the greater the potential fuel efficiency).
For these reasons, turbines have been successful in commercial aircraft - but only after progressing to high bypass designs that gain fuel efficiency by having the intake compressor become more propeller-like. With almost the same as piston efficiency in a high bypass design operating at high altitude (max power) at relatively constant throttle for hours, the weight and maintenance advantages give turbines the clear edge. But fly at low altitudes, and the jet advantage is not there - it’s just that the public wants jet engines on their commuter aircraft, not props. Turboprops and helicopters now use turboshaft engines, not because of efficiency, but because high power piston aircraft engines had too many maintenance issues, didn’t work well above 20,000ft, and are just
Thanks again Mike
I’ve always loved seeing them in use with 844 etc, now I have a reason to build one. winter is a great time for indoor projects like this.
I’m hoping this weekend to get a video of the new BB pulling my coal hoppers, we’ll see.
Its new enough that and stiff that I need to test it out in a few spots.
Mike If you don’t want to bother loading them up to post , you can e-mail them to me direct
thanks
Marty,
I have several of these tenders from Overland. I have the ones below.
they go behind my OMI Challenger
I have another pair that came with my OMI “Big Blow” Gas Turbine. They are getting custom painted for me.
Do you want better pics of these. Or do you want me to send one of the tenders so you can get the measurement on it???
Mike
Mike
thank you for taking the time to do this.
I was out measuring the tender on the BB and noted the shape is very simular to the water tender.
Most basic sizes I know like coupler heigth, width etc. I hope to take my time building it , I tend to rush things .
The fun thing about largescale is that their are even fewer folks who do it or model what you model.
I usually buy an HO model and go off ot it then resale the new car once all the info is collected.
Test run last Sunday
Marty,
The pictures Mike, 8500HPGASTURBINE, sent of his Challenger tenders show the correct top detail for your project. The oil tenders just had a flat cover on the fill hole. Mine is N scale and doesn’t have the degree of detail his HO scale model has. They’re both from the same company, but I guess those Koreans at Ajin don’t have small enough fingers to detail the tiny ones as well.
Let us know if you need more detailed pictures, I’m sure Mike or I can come up with something.
I was thinking about this earlier, I’ve seen these water tenders for sale in O scale. If you had a dealer near you, maybe he’d let you take some measurements and pictures if he had one.
The pictures look awesome, by the way. I was wondering, do both sets of driver swivel on your Big Boy or is it built like the prototype?
At 70 lbs, I bet it can pull your house. Does it draw power from the rails or is it battery powered?
Mike
Its battery power, I have (0) wiring on my 2400 ft of track.
As for the truck question, I’d have to look. I had it on her back when I removed the pickup brushes. And I always take photos for future refernce.
thanks again for the insight.
Its taken years but I finally have the guts to take on projects like this.
you can see the red wire sticking out of the tender.
you can see the Aristo Mallet and the E unit ABA set.
the BB is 57" long
It now has its own storage track.
Mike, his next pic shows the BB on the storage track - sure looks like the front drivers are swiveled in the pic! I don’t think his 2400 feet of track would fit on my whole 40x100 piece of property!![:P]
Thanks for the info about the turbines - both gas and steam.
I guess that having the extra weight is a benifet with pulling freight, but, what about the with high speed trains?
I haven’t been keeping track of high speed train developments, and the last I heard, was light weight is the name of the game to eliminate vibration with high speed trains.
Would gas turbines be of more benifet / use in high speed train applications?
Marty,
Thanks for the pictures. From the second one, I can see that the rear engine is fixed, which is correct.
Most HO and N Big Boys are made with both engines allowed to swivel for tighter radius curves. I have one of each, both Riverosi. The HO sits in a display case on the TV. The N scale see occasional service on my layout, but there’s no room for a decoder in it, so it’s usually on the shelf below the TV. It looks good trailing 40+ cars. Before I built the layout, I used to put a loop of Kato track on the floor. I once had 64 cars on the loop. The caboose was an inch in front of the locomotive. It pulled the lot with no problems.
I asked about your power source because I was thinking the auxilary tender could hold another battery. Run the wires low and disguise them as water lines.
From the books and videos I have of the Big Boys, a long line of refers would look good behind it too.
This is off topic, but I’d like to comment on Fred’s statement about the turbines being rejected for railroad use.
It’s true, only the Union Pacific used gas turbines for prime movers, but they were very successful.
Number 50, actually a GE demonstrator, was delivered in July 1949 for testing. After successful tests, UP ordered 10 with
Not to argue any of your points at all. Success is measured in the eyes of the beholder. At first, I considered the UP gas turbines only partially successful because 1) they only saw service on a limited part - although critical and problemmatic part - of the UP system; and 2) no other railroad used them for anything more than experiments. OTOH, the Big Boys were a similar special purpose engine, and were generally considered successful. So if one applies the same criteria for success, the gas turbines would have to be on a par with the Big Boys.
The high altitude, high speed (relatively) run played into the strengths of a gas turbine for the UP. Diesel (and gas piston) engines suffer much
The bunker C fuel was a large part of it, because, at first, it was little more than a by product and cheaper than coal. Once the petroelum industry had made significant progress, the bunker C could be utilized for more profitable products.
The loss of that cheap fuel source was the largest factor in UP’s decision to cease turbine operation. Maintenance was also on the list, with turbine blade damage from the high sulfur content of the bunker C.
As you mentioned, they were finicky during startup. Diesel was used both during startup and shutdown of the turbines. The fuel would be switched over after the turbine came up to 80% power. During shut down, the fuel was switched back to diesel to clear the fuel lines of bunker C.
As you mentioned, it is a matter of preception. Your Big Boy analogy is a perfect example. How long has the debate been going on over the Allegeny/Big Boy issue as far as which was the most powerful?
We can agree to disagree.