I’m sure many of you remember UP’s ‘Big Blow’ turbine locomotives
, that made use of old steam loco water tenders as fuel tanks.
On average, assuming a full load freight in tow, approx how many miles could the get out of a full tank?
Just guessing but, alot?!
That tank holds 24,384 gallons of Bunker M, and it would go without stopping from Point A to Point B. So, that is quite a distance, hundreds of miles on a single tank.
24,384 gallons…(?)
I would hope they got CONSIDERABLY more than 700 miles out of that.
My gosh! it would take half a shift just to fill the tank, wouldn’t it?
Well, I edited my post, since as we all know, turbines were fuel eaters. My original thought was that they got well over 1000, but I am not certain on fuel miliage. (YES, I’m slipping, I know, I’m working too hard on memorizing the facts of Briti***urbines right now, okay, I’ll make mistakes.)
Well, how much fuel would you say a typical SD 70 burns in total, moving from LA to Chicago???
A couple thousand gallons, at least, I would think. They can’t do it in one trip, can they?
Heh, if I knew, I wouldn’t be asking…[}:)]
Sombody has got to have this stuff in a book, somewhere…(lol) don’t they?
Now I am curious, how does the SD70 compare to a turbine? This is just like comparing a truck with a car…
Well, maybe it is a dumb question, …sorry.
But the math in your original reply comes out to burning 34.8 gallons per mile, and that just seems like WAY too much…but I really don’t know. So, that was why I asked the SD 70 question, just out of curiousity to compare the two.
But then again, you have to add in the fact that turbines were the “Gas Guzzlers” of the rails. That was their downfall.And when you look at a monster truck, they only get a few hundred feet to the gallon of gasoline. Most diesels don’t even get a full mile to the gallon due to their huge engines. So, I wouldn’t be surprised it a turbine only went a mile for every 35 gallons.
well, that would explain the HUGE tender,…[:I]
Man, you respond quick to these things.
The turbines needed that huge tender. They ran off cheap fuel when they were build, but the plastic industry also found a demand for it, and its price rose. So, instead of using Bunker C or Bunker M, they were run off typical diesel fuel, which made the diesel engine the clear shot winner due to its better fuel economy, so we know that the turbines’ gas milage was very very poor.
OK, makes sense.
Still, I’d be very appreciative if anyone had any “hard” ratings info,…
Yeah, some hard info would be nice, more to add to the turbine data bank. Sorry I can’t help more, but as you can see, I love talking about turbines, so if you want any horsepower ratings or weights/lengths, manufacturers, I’ll be happy to help.
Diesel fuel use,
www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm
(Thanks Chad)
If you’re interested in the British Gas Turbine locos, there was an excellent book about the two Great Western Gas Turbine locos by Keith Robertson. I forget the exact title but it explodes a lot of myths about them. (He’s also written a book about the Bullied Leader locos, include the turf burners he built for the Irish Railways, which also explodes lots of myth).
Of the two GW Gas Turbines, the Swiss built one #18000 was fairly reliable and could run on waste oil (a by product from the production of gas from coal; the GW ran its diesel railcars on this). But it’s fuel costs were no cheaper than a comparable steam loco whereas LMS #10000 (the first main line diesel loco to run in Britain, 1600hp) was considerably cheaper in fuel costs than a comparable steam loco, as well as saving on labour costs. This negated the advantage of #18000 greater horsepower (2,500). #18000 can still be seen today at the Crewe Railway museum but she’s just a shell. People who road on her say she had good acceleration so its a pity she’s unlikely to ever run again.
The second GW Gas Turbine #18100 was more powerful but less reliable. Despite assurances from its British manufacturers that it could run on waste oil too, in practice it was found to only run reliably on aircraft fuel which was, and is, more expensive than diesel. As a result it was rebuilt as an AC electric loco. Retaining its black and silver livery (which constrasted with the sky blue of the first pre-production AC locos., it acquired the nickname “Black Bessie”. It was withdrawn about 1968 and dumped in a siding at Rugby for several years before being scrapped.
The
I have a tape about these engines & it did not say how many miles it could go between fill ups. [:o)][:p][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by TheAntiGates
The tape said they used bunker “C” which at one time was what steamships also used. [:o)][:p][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by TrainFreak409
[
…Your question of the gas turbine engines has me wondering just what I saw in operation somewhere in the western states…back in the mid 60’s running on the Union Pacific…We were on an automotive test excursion road trip…{and I can’t remember which state{s}, but I saw several make ups of large and {different}, engines and now I’m wondering which it was…Gas turbines…or didn’t they have some sort of hydraulic drive engines about that time too…Can anyone help a bit on which and what it might have been…Their appearance was huge in size…