Update on UP coal turbines

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

There were several steam turbine locomotives. (coal turbines is a misnomer)
The Pennsylvania, Norfolk and Western, Chesapeake and Ohio as well as the Union Pacific had them.
The UP had them first. Unit 1and unit 2 were built by GE in 1938.
They resembled car body diesels but were in fact 2500 hp turbines fed by a 1500 psi boiler. No doubt a water tube. Each unit had a 2-c+c-2 wheel arrangement. They went around the country on a publicity tour and then UP used them for a few trips on revenue service. They were returned to GE. In 1943 the Great Northern used them briefly, than they were scraped.
I know the opinion of the steam loco crews that ran engines that had ultra-high pressure boilers was negative. Seeing the pressure on the gauge go way past 300 psi to 1500 or 1600 psi was unnerving.[xx(]

Sooblue

2

How were the boilers of coal - er, steam - turbines fired? And what was the internal layout like?

3

UP had the first steam turbine from GE, it used a recovery system to recycle the steam, condense it back to water, and use it again, saving on water stops.
Built in 1938, Unit #1 and 2, 2500 Hp. High pressure boiler in A unit, condensing unit and turbine in B unit. Condenser system too complicated, heavy maintainance on boiler, considered a failure, returned to GE 1939.

First Gas Turbine GE demo unit#101, numbered UP 50 when tested by UP.
Double ended with cabs on both ends, 4500 hp, built nov 1948
returned to GE and dismantled. This is the demo unit, ran on UP as #50, on NKP and Pennsy as GE#101. Used bunker C fuel oil, as did the rest of UPs turbines, except Nos 80A/80B, which used pulverized coal in a slurry as fuel.
UP is the only buyer.

UP orders 10 standard gas turbine electrict single cab unit from GE, built from jan 1952 to aug 1953, UP road #s 51 thru 60. 4500 hp.

UP orders 15 “Veranda” Gas turbines from GE built march 1954 to oct 1954,
UP road#s 61 thru 75, 4500 hp.

UP place first order for 15 turbines from GE/Alco, two unit locomotives, control units, or A units, and B units, with the turbine in the B unit.
A units numbered 1A thru 15 A, B units, 1B thru 15 B.
So impressed were they, after the first six arrived, UP orders15 more,
16 thru 30 A&B.
8500 horsepower, 12 axles.
A units contained a small diesel to provide power when locomotive was moved around yard to be serviced.
Built aug 1958 thru june 1961.

Oct 1962, Up builds coal fired gas turbine at their shop in Omaha, using pulverized coal as fuel.
UP# 80 and 80B, 7000 hp. 14 axle total, 4 unpowered.
Turbine in B unit was 5000 hp, A unit had a diesel at 2000 hp, used with the 5000 hp turbine, total hp for complete locomotive was 7000 hp.
A unit built from retired Alco PA, UP road # 607.
B unit built on frame of GN 5018,
Locomotive considered failure, the coal fuel partictulate degrad

4

I really liked those Veranda’s. Personal opinion is that if they had been run on Jet B (which is the same as “clean truck diesel” those types of engines would still be around. Can’t you just see a pair of Veranda’s back to back spliced with a Big Boy tender?

5

Other than the obvious, old age, I stringly doubt that the economics of turbines that they would still be used. They are ok for passenger as they are either stopped or at speed. But for freight operationsthey are a no go. The technology is still not there for them to be used in a setting such as that. This is mainly due to the fact that they are either full on or full off. The controls required to use them in between would be larger than the engine itself and add a large amount of comlication to the engine. You can get 30 years out of one in a static frame as used in power plants ( I work for an utility), but the abuse that they would get in regular service would turn them into shop queens, esp with the central maintenence shops on the RR’s. You do not have the skilled workers everywhere on the systems to maintain them.

6

Kevin (kevarc) — You are correct, espicially with the turbins used on the early units. These engines had the same efficiency problems that the steam locomotive does - the are very efficient at full throttle and idle at full throttle. Actually, a turbine (read jet engine) idles at 85% full power and minimum rotational power is something like 83 or 84%. That leaves 15% for locomotion.

But in any service that requires “instant accelleration” such as suburban or passenger services or long full power operating windows (such as helpers or pigs), they are better than diesels. Also, the UP almost always ran them with a diesel, so that when the turbin was not needed, it could be shut down.

The real wear problem was the fuel used. Bunker is like burning pavement. It was absolutely unkind to the turbin blades and would also send out burning blobs to set the land scape on fire. The first time they used them into Los Angeles, they set all of the wood lined tunnels on fire!!

If GTE’s (Gas Turbine Electric) were to be built new today, they would have multiple turbines per locomotive frame instead of the single one in the UP units (biz jet motors = 2,000 each) and be much more friendly to the bottom line than the UP’s 4500 and 8500 ones were. I would THINK that you could get 4 United Technologies biz jet motors in an SD-45 hood along with their high-bypass stuff and get a locomotive that would give you 2,000; 4,000; 6,000 or 8,000 hp each to match your needs.

7

Like I said before, no you couldn’t, the size of the turbine and all the aux equipment would limit it to one turbine per frame. Just becasue the engine is small does not mean that it would be adaptable to what would be required. There are a great many limits other than size.

8

[quote]
Originally posted by edblysard

UP had the first steam turbine from GE, it used a recovery system to recycle the steam, condense it back to water, and use it again, saving on water stops.
Built in 1938, Unit #1 and 2, 2500 Hp. High pressure boiler in A unit, condensing unit and turbine in B unit. Condenser system too complicated, heavy maintainance on boiler, considered a failure, returned to GE 1939.

First Gas Turbine GE demo unit#101, numbered UP 50 when tested by UP.
Double ended with cabs on both ends, 4500 hp, built nov 1948
returned to GE and dismantled. This is the demo unit, ran on UP as #50, on NKP and Pennsy as GE#101. Used bunker C fuel oil, as did the rest of UPs turbines, except Nos 80A/80B, which used pulverized coal in a slurry as fuel.
UP is the only buyer.

That’s great Ed! a lot of info.
You mentioned coal in a slurry. To me a slurry is something dry (coal) mixed with something wet (water, oil, gas) Is that what you mean. If it is, what was it mixed with?

I need a view of # 80A & B. I must know more [:p]
Thanks, Sooblue

9

That could be true, but in the fifties, I think it was GM, built a bus with a turbine located in the back in a normal position. Most helicopters use turbines now. Maybe they are a diffrent type.
Sooblue

10

Noise was also a big problem. UP got beat up badly when they tried some turbines into and out of Los Angeles. Maybe they could overcome that with today’s technology.

11

Hi sooblue,
The slurry was pulverized coal, almost as fine as talc, it will burn quite hot. The trubines are started on diesel fuel, and when they reach some ungodly rpm, the coal powder, or bunker c oil, is introduced. By the way, the bunker c or number 2 fuel oil, was so thick, it was preheated by a on board steam heater, so it would flow freely. The compression from the intake blades makes the fuel, no mater what type, into a gas thats quite combustible, and helps ignite the mix. Just like with a diesel, if you compress a fuel fast and dense enough, it will ignite from the friction and heat cause by the compression. Pentrax has the only footage I know of showing the coal turbine, it quite a good looking locomotive, for what it is, but then all the turbines are eye catchers.

The gas turbines were regulars at UP’s LA east yard,it was one of their turn around points.

I think the title of the video is UP’s Mighty Turbines. I will dig it out tomorrow, and see if there is a stock number on it.

Funny, all this talk about turbines not being used today, due to not being efficent, but no one mentioned Amtrak’s turboliners, just put back into service. A jets is a jet is a jet? I will let you know here tomorrow.

And to clear up what will sure to be a debate, yes, dry products can be a slurry. Kaloin clay, used to coat printer paper, and make fine china plates, is shipped as a dry slurry in tank cars because it is so fine, it flows like a liquid.
Compressed dry, then fired, it can be made into dinner ware, and fine plates. It is pressed dry on to a base paper to make the top quality printer paper you use every day. Thats what the silky or smooth, almost dusty feel is on you printer paper, it kaloin dust.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[:D]

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by sooblue

[quote]
Originally posted by edblysard

UP had the first steam turbine from GE, it used a recovery system to recycle the steam, condense it back to w

12

[quote]
Originally posted by edblysard

Hi sooblue,
The slurry was pulverized coal, almost as fine as talc, it will burn quite hot. The trubines are started on diesel fuel, and when they reach some ungodly rpm, the coal powder, or bunker c oil, is introduced. By the way, the bunker c or number 2 fuel oil, was so thick, it was preheated by a on board steam heater, so it would flow freely.
Stay Frosty,
]
Hi There Ed,
In many modern electric power plants coal is pulverised like you described.
I have a friend who is an operator in the Muscateen Iowa power plant.
He told me that the coal is forcefully injected from the four corners of the firebox into the air where it forms a plasma ball that is so bright that you need tinted glass like a welders helmet in order to view it. The ball just hangs there in mid-air.
They burn two high capacity hopper cars of coal and hour. Just the same, as good a fuel as it is, coal blown into a turbine would be so abrasive I just don’t see how they would have even tried that experiment.
In navel ships that use bunker oil the oil is pumped into the tanks hot where it cools and solidifies to a tar consistancy. When it is needed it is heated with a steam line that makes the oil flow again.
Say! this isn’t really related but, In MN. the state has mandated that all diesel fuel be mixed with soybean oil.
A friend of mine owns a fuel distribution buisness here. He said that soybean oil solidifies at a higher temp. then diesel fuel. In a cold climate like MN. there are going to be problems. He said that the soybeen oil is going to have to be heated.

Have you run into soy oil for fuel yet?
Sooblue

13

No, havent seen soy fuel yet. And the coal “dust” or slurry is introduced into a combustion chamber first, where the air from the compression blades will compress and ignite it, the exhaust gas produced is what turns the turbine. This was a gas turbine also, just the fact that the fuel was pulverized coal set it apart. The same principle is used in the “Gas” turbines, its the exhaust gas from the combustion chamber that flows over and turns the turbine.

These were the same basic design as the jet turbine engines GE made, and still makes, a set of intake or compression blades, followed by a combustion chamber, with a set of turbine baldes in the exhaust side, with the turbine connected to a standard alternator/generator set up via a drive shaft. The compressor blades ran off the other end of the same shaft through reduction gears, so the faster or hotter the exhaust gas flowed, the faster the compression baldes worked, but the gears keep it within a certain range, you could blow out the combustion process if you let the compression side get too intense, or start a fire if you allowed them to turn too slow because the fuel wouldnt compress enought to become a gas. The exhaust didnt provide any push whatsoever, it just drove the turbine.

But it is the same exhaust gas that also corroded the turbine blades, both the bunker c and the coal slurry exhaust gas produced was very corrosive, and with the coal slurry, some small particulate matter would also escape the combustion process, and further degrade the turbine blades.

The standard gas turbines had a aux diesel in the A unit, with a small generator, that provided power to the traction motors when the locomotive was moving about the yards for service, it cost to much, and was to loud to use the turbine to do that.

With a steam turbine, you dont have to worry about compression or combustion, the steam is hot enought to turn the turbine, more steam, more rpm on the turbine.

Personaly, I feel that with t

14

Gentlemen, I make this prediction, in 10 years U.P. will reserect the Gas Turbine. WHY, I did a little reading on them. They are a perfect fit for High Speed Intermodel service between California and Chicago. For the speeds that UPS and Fed EX are asking for, Gas Turbine’s are the only economical choice. Let us not forget the advantages of Gas Turbine. Once at speed they can be very therfty on fuel.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

15

Hmmm…I wonder whether the coal/gas turbine engine would have fared better with the low-sulfur coal now available. I don’t think that was an option when the engine was in service.

16

I think low-sulfur coal is a non-issue here. Low-sulfur coal was broadly available when the UP tried its coal turbine. What was uncommon was sulfur dioxide emissions regulations, until the Clean Air Act of 1970. As early as the 1920s, according to Coal Age, low-sulfur coal was almost universal in metallurgical and industrial uses, and where economically possible, everyone preferred low-sulfur coal even for stove and stoker fuel. Most of the coal mined on the N&W, C&O, B&O, PRR, etc., in the steam era was low-sulfur coal. Now it’s mostly mined out.

UP’s own coal mines in Southern Wyoming, in the Hanna and Hams Fork basins, produce low-sulfur coal. Hanna coal is higher in BTUs than Powder River Basin coal (I suspect PRB coal is what you’re thinking about) but is more costly to mine because of a higher stripping ratio and undesirable geology. If you recall, in the late 1970s UP shipped a lot of utility coal east from the Hanna Basin, over Sherman Hill, and a lot west, too. But then the PRB came on line and the Hanna mines closed.

This is a total digression here, but the coal resources of the PRB were mapped and understood by the 1920s. But it was low-BTU, high-moisture content, high-ash content coal, located a long, long way away from population centers, so no one bothered to mine it in quantity until the 1970s. Five factors led to its exploitation: (1) clean air legislation; (2) greatly lowered rail haulage costs; (3) depletion of cheaply recoverable reserves closer to population centers; (4) a population shift from the Northeast to the South and West, and (5), an explosion of demand for electricity to power air conditioners, irrigation pumps, etc.

I presume (without digging into the files) that UP was burning either Hanna or Kemmerer coal in the coal turbine. I can’t imagine them buying coal produced on the D&RGW or Utah Railway for this project, but who knows?

I suspect the ash content of the coal was the major factor in blade erosion. But I don’t know – maybe

17

First things first, I am the Safety & Environmental for a utility. We operate 2 gas fired steam plant, 1 dual fueled diesel plant ( this plant uses diesel to start the units and then after reaching operating temps and loads are switched to a 95% gas/5% diesel fuel), and are co-owners of a coal fired plant burning PRB coal. By degree I am a mining engineer, I worked in coal mine in Western PA.

Even a steam fired turbine can be severely damaged due to impurities in the water. Water Quality is much more important in a steam turbine than in a steam engine. In our plants we constantly monitor the make-up water (that is water added to the boiler to make up for losses). This is done to prevent foaming and to prevent wear on the pipes and the turbine itself. You cannot use just any old water in a steam turbine, you will eat it alive. That is what those that tried this in RR applications found out real fast. The maintenance was killing them. Even in a static version like in our plants extreme care is needed to keep them running. To put something like that on a moving platform is asking to spent huge amount of money to keep it running.

Coal has impurities that cause extreme wear of the blades… Some of the ash is in the form of silica (sand). The other is Iron Sulfide, this is also a highly corrovsive material. Plus also, the regulatory agencies will not just allow you to blow this dust all over the place, a means of collecting will be required, and this is another high expense item.

The low BTU coal from the PRB would limit the the output of the turbine. This coal is low on BTU and high in moisture, two evils for this type of operation. Coal, you pay at the minehead, but you lose a portion before it gets to the plant due to the coal drying out. I can’t remember our numbers offhand, but in the thousand miles+ it takes the coal to get to the plant we lose approx 10% of the weight. And you just cannot change type of coal at the drop of a hat. All of this equipment is de

18

Hey Kevarc,[8)]
I forgot all about this thead. [:)]By accident I found it. Thanks for your input.
Sooblue

19

I’m not trying to beat this dead horse,but one thing that has not been brought up about turbines and locomotives…and something I have always wondered…are train movements…slack, coupling, etc hard on turbines?..especialy turning at such high rpm? it seems a “standard” turbine would not fair well in a good 'ol rough joint!!

David Wallace

20

[/quote]

The video is " Union Pacific’s MIGHTY TURBINES " the stock number is #UPT