Links? Pictures? Lore? I just got a book called “Modern Locomotives” that is a good referance for a cornucopia of motive power. (The book is cheap, and in stock in quantity at Barnes & Noble right now) And the feature on the “electric steamer” has roused my interest in this behemoth.
Check C&O Power by Philip Shuster, Eugene L. Huddleston and Alvin Staufer, Published by Alvin Staufer, copyright 1965, Lobrary of Congress No. 65-26713, pp. 298-305. Also, do a Google search. You’ll find lots of info. I did. The book is out of print, but copies can be found. I just bought a used one at my favorite hobby shop. Amazon might be able to find it for you, too.
cool, thanks.
But at http://www.skyrocket.de/locomotive/turbines.htm
What is the UP turbine featured there?
Looks mighty different from any GE made UP turbines I’ve ever seen
One of a pair of failures built by GE. To wit:
Discussions between General Electric and the Union Pacific in 1936, due in no small part to the UP’s insatiable desire to increase horsepower and fuel efficiency, while using fewer locomotives to do the job, resulted in the start of a project to design and build a 5,000 hp, two-unit steam-turbine-electric locomotive. It should also be noted that this pair of locomotives was another of General Electric’s attempt to compete with General Motors’ (EMD’s) passenger diesels.
On August 25, 1936, the UP Executive Committee formally approved a order for GE to build two units at $96 per horsepower, a total of $480,000 for the pair.
The initial plan was for the new locomotive to run at speeds up to 110 mph while having a range of 700 miles without refueling. (The range was later downgraded to 500 miles.)
The design that resulted more than doubled the thermal efficiency of a more-traditional, piston-powered steam locomotive. Each unit would be 87 ft. 10 in. long with a 2-C-C-2 wheel arrangement and 44-in. drivers. It had a 65/31 gear ratio and an 81,000 lb starting T.E.
Additional specifications included a total loaded weight of 506,000 lb. with 318,000 lb. on the drivers. The boiler generated 1,500 psi steam at 920 °F.
The steam was directed at a two-stage cross-compound turbine geared to two DC generators. These provided the needed electrical current to the six traction motors.
Delivery was set for April 12, 1937—just a tad optimistic it would seem.
• The boiler of unit no. 1 had to be rebuilt;
• A generator had to be remodeled;
• The traction motors had to be rebuilt;
• The main turbine didn’t meet steam consumption requirements;
• Excessive oxygen was found in the condensate, which could lead to unreasonable corrosion;
• The superheater failed;
• The high-pressure steam-reducing valve failed;
• The capacity of the evaporator was inadequate; and,
• The feedwater supply malfuncti
In 1942, Robert R. Young was chairman of the board of directors for the C&O. This was the same fellow who wondered why a freight car of pigs could ride from coast to coast in the same car on the railroad, but human passengers had to change trains at Chicago on the same route. He wanted to modernize the C&O after World War II with a luxury passenger train running between Washington and Cincinnati in the daytime.
In keeping with this idea, in 1944, a group of engineers designed a steam locomotive with a steam powered turbine connected to electric generators to power electric motors connected to the driving wheel axles. This locomotive was pretty radical, all right, but not original.
Baldwin Locomotive Works and Westinghouse Electric produced three steam turbine-electric engines for the C&O in 1947-1948 . They were coal fired and less complicated than the GE/UP locomotives. These locomotives were numbered 500-502, and were the world’s largest passenger locomotives, 154 ft. long (106 ft. locomotive and 48 ft. tender). These behemoths stood 16 ft. 4 in. high, and from front coupler to rear coupler, they measured almost 30 ft. longer than C&O’s massive H-8 Alleghenies and 23 ft. longer than Union Pacific’s Big Boy. The engine weighed 428 tons exceeding that of an H-8 by 43 tons (loco and tender weighed a whopping 594 tons) . Another notable feature was the only 4-8-0+4-8-4 (2-C1+2-C1-B ) wheel arrangement in the world. Only the first three axles on the eight wheel trucks were powered. The trailing truck was powered, but the leading truck and the one in between the big powered trucks were not powered. That four wheel truck supported the firebox.
Each locomotive was powered by a 6,000 hp impulse type steam turbine with a 6:1 ratio gear reduction at 6,000 rpm. This was connected to two 2,000 KW electric generators to power eight axle-hung traction motors. The exhaust from the turbine was the boiler’s source of draft. The engines were nicknamed the Sacred Cows.
These monsters were impressively pain
So then, I guess that the underlying message to are intending to convey is that while all manufacturers of post piston drive steam locomotives ended up finding that “competing with GM” was not going to be an option that they had any choice in determining,…that it was just a hard fact of life?
And that of all who attempted to beat them by strength, every single one failed, of their own inability to deliver on the assumption?
And only GE, managed to out fox them all, by choosing NOT to play to their strong suit, but instead matching GM’s product quality, almost in a mirror image?
That’s fascinating!, And a clever ploy, I must say. Even Rockefeller, and now Bill Gates were of the same philosophy, success results from making the customer think THERE is no competition from which to shop…
Crafty the way the house that built jack even devised a means of stealth in the execution of the struggle to survive in the face of impossible odds, I tip my hat!
(OF course I’m teasing!! Infact, I’m a big GM fan, considering theirs is the only auto I’d ever buy for myself.
But even my GMsnobbery stands in pale comparison to what I’ve seen this bunch to do…
Ya’ll are HARD SEEDED!, ya know? =)
Now THAT was a good reply!! TONS of factual insight,…thanks!
(Makes you wonder if “fuel cell” technology in long haul freight service could be THAT far off?
Interesting thought,…but with the typical Fuel Cell
“standard operation” your power output is like 35% electric, and the remainder is heat, that can be designed to be just about any temperature you choose, in the range 200-1800 degrees Farenheit.
You could produce A LOT of steam that way, and do a “combo” power transfer that was both electric motor, and mechanical Steam…drive.
perhaps using the electric to “lug” around yards, aND TO break momentum from standing starts, up to a speed where steam driven vanes could take over…driving similar to those hydraulic transmissions in the German Loco’s Southern Pacific once had?
Fire the boiler on day one, and NOT need to add more fuel for 8-10 years? Needs only water… And the only combustion byproducts are Water and Oxygen? A truly GREEN train, that produces valued natural resources as it’s exhaust waste?
Dream come true, it would seem,
Not to mention very few moving parts,…and clean enough to run in NYC, while permittng the costly to maintain caternary to simply be scrapped as “un needed”?
Course, those “core” rejuevinations after 8-10 years of service, would be costly, but the savings in not buying petro fuel diring that time, would be enormous as well…
H’mmm?
FUEL-CELL LOCOMOTIVES
Although electric-based power transmission (catenary and/or third rail) is a well proven technology going back decades, it’s not viable for application to all railroads. Catenary and/or third rail systems incur very-high installation costs as well as accompanying infrastructure maintenance requirements and the associated costs. Electricity can be used along high-density traffic lines and would be cost-effective in such applications.
As oil prices surge, as a result of oil supply reductions, electric prices could also spiral as more transportation technologies adopt electricity as their primary source of energy. In municipal transportation, the trolleybus and the streetcar are well proven. Yet these technologies would have to compete for electric power with a host of battery and flywheel-based vehicles requiring a recharge, within the next decade or two.
The energy cost of electric railroads could be expected to increase within the next decade and beyond, as the number of electric vehicles entering the market begins to increase. This possibility requires that viable alternatives to electric railway using catenary or third rail, be explored. Fuel cell locomotives may be an option. Fuels such as hydrogen and natural gas may be used as fuels.
The fuel cell is a way of taking hydrogen and oxygen and getting electricity. The hydrogen can be stored in a tank and the fuel cell will keep producing electricity as long as the fuel is supplied. The emissions from a hydrogen fuel cell running on pure hydrogen is zero. Actually, they emit water vapor but that’s all. So, not only is a fuel cell a viable option for keeping an electric vehicle going, it is quiet and as clean as you can get.
The leading research reports on fuel cell locomotives clearly identifies the fact that fuel cell technology will only be applied to the locomotive marketplace when the fuel cost and operating efficiency of fuel cell locomotives meets or exceeds the existing diesel-electric technology.
Thanks!!
We were looking at Installing a fuel cell “farm” in california during the height of the electricity “crunch”, to provide power to our shopping mall, in lieu of blackouts.
Which was where I first became aquainted with the reality that the fuel cell is a high power, rather than a low power, generating means. And is extremely efficient in operation
The “key” is in being able to utilize All of the energy produced, and reviewing the info, the entire “cycle” is 89% efficient for Proton Exchange type, of which roughly half the power output is electric, the other half heat.
As it turned out, we had no conveiniant use for the heat, which soured the overall economics, beyond reason.
But, it got me to thinking…“which industry makes great use of heat”? h’mmmm “steam”?
It would certainly be interesting
Why not use the excess steam to drive a turbine connected to another generator? More “bang for the buck” I would think.
Why not? I have no problem with the idea either way. I’m not an engineer (either a horn tootin’ nor a slide rule).
My only thought was that since both N&W’s Jawn Henry and C&O’s M1 that did do the steam-electric conversion are listed as collosal failures, so I was just speculating that piston driven drivers combined with electric might offer some unique “power curve” possibilities.
In our Application, during the california elect crises, The State of California was offering big incentives to large users who would “get offline” and make their own power.
My boss came in one day and said “Go findout something about fuel cells, we might wanna do this”
So I did.
And there is a lot of heat there my friend, a whole lot.
So I concluded that unless we could use the heat efficiently, on top of the electricity, we were sunk. And said so in my report, making special referance to the possibility of steam generated electricity.
My boss took that perspective to the meeting he had with engineers, and came back and gave me a pat on the back, for knowing about as much as the engineers seemed to, we were all in agreement.
Except, Since we have a sprawling campus, with 18 distinct points of entry for power from the utility, there was going to have to be 18 separate
“Fuel cell farms” on the property, OR we would have to install our own grid to a local central farm, big $$$.
And it seems, the economy of scale of 18 individual small steam-electric generators falls off pretty quickly.
I officially got credit for a “dumb idea” on that one…=)
Excess heat could be used to drive heat pumps for air conditioning.
It’s a thought…