Anyone got info on these?
This one. The experiment failed, due in part to the coal slurry corroding the turbine blades as badly, if not worse, that the heavy, #2 bunker oil used as fuel in the gas turbines. Pentrax has a good video about the gas turbines, with a short section at the end about the one coal turbine UP home built.
As big and bad a machine as you can get.
Would have loved to see one run.
Ed
If I remember correctly, they had a PA as the control unit, a Little Joe frame and running gear with the turbine, and a coal tender. The turbines’ bunker oil could not hold a candle to the damage that the coal dust did. As the saying goes “You could count the number of runs on the fingers of one hand.” A thought in the back of my head says that it never completed any run it started out on, but I don’t think that’s correct.
Almost…it was a former Great Northern electric locomotive (boxy design) that served as the middle unit. The monstrosity was originally numbered 80, and later 8080.
Anyone know a web site with these
…All kinds of info can be found by going to a favorite Search Engine such as Google and type in requesting info on the UP Turbines, etc…Even photos.
According to the Train Barn web site–
Despite relatively unsuccessful experiments with turbine style locomotives during the 1940’s and 50’s, the Union Pacific wasn’t ready to let the concept die when they unveiled the last of their magnificent turbine locomotives, the coal-fired, gas turbine No. 80 in 1962.
This giant 3-unit locomotive used pulverized coal as its fuel source in the turbine and was controlled by an [modified] Alco PA-1 cab. Trailing the unit was a Class 25C-3 coal tender originally used behind a 4-6-6-4 Challenger locomotive. The coal tender was rebuilt to contain 61 tons of nugget size coal - enough for a 700 mile journey. The turbine unit could muster 5,000 horsepower and nearly 130,000 pounds of tractive effort. When operational, its stacks emitted exhaust at more than 780 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, despite the incredible tractive effort statistics, the engine, like previous turbines, proved too costly to maintain. One of the most common problems suffered by No. 80 was repeated “flame-outs” of the turbine unit due to improper control over the fuel transfer rates. Like all the previous turbines, No. 80 was eventually dismantled and scrapped.
The 80 was later renumbered the 8080.
There’s lots more in Turbines Westward.
The coal turbine did no survive. But according to the U.P. Web sight Turbine #18 is at the Illinous State railway museum, and the #26 and #26b are at the Ogden depot in Ogden Utah
David
Yes No. 18 is at the Ill. Rail museum. It is BIG. It reminds me of a big boy steam engine. Standing next to it ,One cannot but wonder what it did to rails in a curve. And judging by the size of that turbine, the scream on that thing had to be deafing. With today’s technoligy I am surprised someone has not reincarnated the concept.
TIM A
Hope this helps-pics of brass models on this page.http://www.modeltrains.com/WEB%20-%20CMT/Overland%20Models/O-scale/over-o-scale-up.htm
Tank
What happened to the one that sat at Kansas City for years (1980’s) along with a rotary plow and other misc. stuff? Thought it was bound for Baldwin, KS?
Anyone got info on these?
This one. The experiment failed, due in part to the coal slurry corroding the turbine blades as badly, if not worse, that the heavy, #2 bunker oil used as fuel in the gas turbines. Pentrax has a good video about the gas turbines, with a short section at the end about the one coal turbine UP home built.
As big and bad a machine as you can get.
Would have loved to see one run.
Ed
If I remember correctly, they had a PA as the control unit, a Little Joe frame and running gear with the turbine, and a coal tender. The turbines’ bunker oil could not hold a candle to the damage that the coal dust did. As the saying goes “You could count the number of runs on the fingers of one hand.” A thought in the back of my head says that it never completed any run it started out on, but I don’t think that’s correct.
Almost…it was a former Great Northern electric locomotive (boxy design) that served as the middle unit. The monstrosity was originally numbered 80, and later 8080.
Anyone know a web site with these
…All kinds of info can be found by going to a favorite Search Engine such as Google and type in requesting info on the UP Turbines, etc…Even photos.
According to the Train Barn web site–
Despite relatively unsuccessful experiments with turbine style locomotives during the 1940’s and 50’s, the Union Pacific wasn’t ready to let the concept die when they unveiled the last of their magnificent turbine locomotives, the coal-fired, gas turbine No. 80 in 1962.
This giant 3-unit locomotive used pulverized coal as its fuel source in the turbine and was controlled by an [modified] Alco PA-1 cab. Trailing the unit was a Class 25C-3 coal tender originally used behind a 4-6-6-4 Challenger locomotive. The coal tender was rebuilt to contain 61 tons of nugget size coal - enough for a 700 mile journey. The turbine unit could muster 5,000 horsepower and nearly 130,000 pounds of tractive effort. When operational, its stacks emitted exhaust at more than 780 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, despite the incredible tractive effort statistics, the engine, like previous turbines, proved too costly to maintain. One of the most common problems suffered by No. 80 was repeated “flame-outs” of the turbine unit due to improper control over the fuel transfer rates. Like all the previous turbines, No. 80 was eventually dismantled and scrapped.
The 80 was later renumbered the 8080.
There’s lots more in Turbines Westward.
The coal turbine did no survive. But according to the U.P. Web sight Turbine #18 is at the Illinous State railway museum, and the #26 and #26b are at the Ogden depot in Ogden Utah
David
Yes No. 18 is at the Ill. Rail museum. It is BIG. It reminds me of a big boy steam engine. Standing next to it ,One cannot but wonder what it did to rails in a curve. And judging by the size of that turbine, the scream on that thing had to be deafing. With today’s technoligy I am surprised someone has not reincarnated the concept.
TIM A