No they didn’t, the fuel tenders on the 8500hp GTELs did not have traction motors.
You have to be more specific. Or provide some exact references.
The U50s (some of which rode on underpinnings from the earlier turbines), which are the GE “double-diesels” UP ran, did not have dedicated fuel tenders, nor were they set up to work as “slug mothers” with additional traction motors – to my knowledge.
The “Big Blows” were the last generation of turbines, 8500 hp, and they did not have motors of any kind on their fuel tenders. Nor were the turbines “airplane engines” except in the sense – and it’s a stretch – that you might have an airplane that needed an 8500±shp turboshaft engine. (The Russians had something in that class… we chose not to.)
I am hoping Jerry Pier will contribute here; he is an expert on all the different kinds of UP power, specifically including the turbines, and if there were indeed some attempt to implement a MATE-like concept on a fuel tender, I expect he would know.
Overmod, I am with you, though my information concerning UP power came from what was published in Trains–and I do not recall seeing, in the past 62 years, anything like what was mentioned. I was a bit puzzled by the reference to “double engine diesels,” especially to “the ones from GE with airplane engines.” I always understood that the “Big Blows” were the turbine-powered engines–which did have a diesel engine for use at low speeds.
Perhaps Jerry Pier can enlighten us.
My understanding was that the turbines used on the Big Blows were based on industrial turbines, though there was likely a lot of cross pollination between GE’s aircraft engine business and their industrial turbine business.
One of the Trains Motive Power Survey’s from the early 1960’s mentioned that the UP was looking into putting traction motors under the fuel tenders. Don’t think that project got anywhere past the research stage.
- Erik
Apparently there were a few references in TRAINS magazine back in 1962-63 claiming that UP did test traction motors on the fuel tender of at least one of the 8500 HP turbines (allegedly the same unit that supposedly was trialed with the turbine power ratings upped to the point that the traction HP rating increased to 10,000 HP, another disputed claim) but as far as I can tell nobody has ever been able to verify that and there is no photographic proof. The consensus among rail historians seems to be that the idea never “made it into iron” so to speak…
It’s an interesting possibility, along with General Electric’s supposed presentation (around the same time) to the UP on a next generation turbine electric design rated at 15,000 HP (with U50 style bolstered bb-bb trucks under both units of the locomotive, I imagine that the design may well have had a traction motor equipped fuel tender as well).
[8D]one test unit was built. my wifes uncle has been with ge 50 years. up tested but never ordered any. the problem was the same as any tender steam boosters. no fuel, no weight, no,traction. not cost effective.
Have him contact Will Davis ASAP – he is a precious natural resource regarding how the increased-power testing on the GTELs was conducted. There are particular ways to ‘debrief’ him and get at all the latent details of what he knows but will only remember when prompted correctly…
In my opinion, it would make sense to motor the fuel tender of an ‘uprated’ 8500 hp GTEL, if using '60s-era control gear. I’m guessing that the motors on the tender axles might have been lower-rated than the locomotive’s principal traction motors, with the effective “FA” calculated at some minimum loading (as for Garratts). Can you confirm or disprove that?
[8D]it was at a family reunion and funeral for my ex-father-in-law. odds are not good to revisit with. he is in his 80’s and not near me. his neice is now my ex-wife.
Convenient…
[8D] he was back and forth between his home in LA and Paola Kansas where he was a consultant inspecting parts 4 overseas nuclear components. when u grow up maybe u can get a big boy job as well mr smart ass!!!
I suspect that Will Davis and I may know who this is, so you might as well just mention the gentleman’s name, since you don’t want to provide contact details in a civilized fashion.
I call moderation on the tone of the last reply.
Wow, Mr Sassy! Says I can get a big boy job but doesn’t actually know me? That’s brilliant.
On the subject at hand, would it have been more practical to say go with a x-6-6-6-x design under the same boiler as the Triplexes? I might have things muddled but smaller cylinders might have helped but then again it may have just been more efficient to go with the simple articulated.
And in terms of the GTELs using traction motors under the tenders, seems a bad idea as the adhesion would reduce as the fuel is reduced.
Erie’s and Virginian’s Triplexes were both compounds and still managed to run out of steam on a fairly regular basis. It would seem to me that even with smaller cylinders, the boiler would have been incapable of producing enough steam for a simple articulated.
[8D]no different than boosters on the tender wheelsets. anything that someone convinced management might help and could be funded was. they all were good ideas till proven impractical.[8-|]