Yeah, I've gone to two a days. Got some health problems that's gonna force me to resign my job. So im keeping myself busy with this, my mind off things.
I saw 18 in Union, Illinois last year and she was for all intents and purposes a fierce machine. The old Pennsylvania Railroad's Q2 Duplexes could make 8000 horsepower, as much horsepower as the 2nd and 3rd generation oil turbines. The front unit looks like a mix between an Alco PA and an EMD E9.
The gtel is easily my favorite diesel electric engine (technically a turbine but it functions similarly to a diesel electric). It is so absolutely insane when you try and explain who and why it works. It is a railroad mad science experiment, but it worked.
Meh, they both run on mud so that flies with me.. :) But indeed they are complicated in their own right. Not as much as the steam turbine versions though, for sure.
Using a gas turbine to power a locomotive in place of a diesel is a good concept. The mistake was using heavy fuel oil (requires heating), instead use kerosene (best balance of high calorie without the need for heating). Aeroplanes use kerosene as fuel because it's the highest calorie fuel that can be used without heating. The UP gas turbine locos were the most powerful combustion (non-electric) locomotives.
I think it's one thing that was premature.. Had it come out in the 70's or later, I think it might have worked out with the technology advances in place.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I think think the concept should definitely be revived using modern technology. The only caveat with a gas turbine compared with diesel is slightly lower fuel efficiency. The gas turbine has excellent power to weight. Still, I would love to see the concept revived.
Even with modern technology, a gas turbine locomotive is not economical. The fuel consumption is too great. They were only worthwhile when fuel was super cheap. They are certainly not more fuel efficient than a diesel engine and with modern technology you can have more horsepower and effort with two diesel locomotives than with one gas turbine, and it would be far less costly to maintain
I remember the about 45 minute long video about these locomotives that used to be on UA-cam. I’m guessing the original owner of the video had it taken down. Was pretty interesting to watch these monsters in action. There was even footage of one double heading a train with a Big Boy.
I saw a couple of the turbine units at a scrapyard around Kansas City in 1973. The yard repurposed the turbines into riverboats. The turbines needed to be turned over every few days or the shafts would bend.
The gas turbine engine used in the GTEL’s is still a very common turbine in the power generation industry. The issue you are talking about with turbines needing to be rotated often does not apply to turbines this small. That issue is on MUCH larger steam turbines.
It did help that they had the auxiliary Diesel engine for moving around the yard. That’s about all it was ever used for. And they could go much faster than 65 mph. In perfect conditions, they saw 70+ mph. It’s funny that freight trains back then were actually faster many times than they are today. On UPs western mainline longer sections, they will still see 60 mph though. But Big Boys could pull heavy freight trains at 80 mph.
The mighty Big Blow, indeed the most powerful non overhead electric locomotive in horsepower output to run, surely a long time record holder. But there are a couple of GTELs built in Russia running on LNG which entered service in 2006, they are to be considered more as an experiment and not repeated in series production. They produce up to 11,500hp, I'm not sure if these are still in service or ended as a failed experiment. So the UP GTELs remain the only ones successful used in regular service. On the subject of Gas Turbine powered trains, maybe an episode on the Amtrak Turbo Train and its French predecessors? As I think these were the only other gas turbine powered rail vehicles which had a reasonably long service time. Not sure when the Amtrak sets were withdrawn but the French examples lasted from 1969-2005.
These things were amazing. Fuel economy? **** you, we have power. 😂 The fact that they used the same amount of fuel at idle as at full throttle is fairly epic.
The description mentions "The only gas turbine locomotive to ever operate" but that is definitely NOT the case. United Aircraft produced the Turbotrain, ANF and Rohr both produced Turbine powered trains. France had a Gas Turbine locomotive back in 1952. Sweden and Russia had versions as well. Bombardier built a high speed Gas Turbine locomotive in the early 2000s as a potential way to add HSR to non electrified routes. So no, UP certainly did not have the only Gas Turbine locomotives to ever operate. They didn't even have the the first models and weren't the last either. UP certainly had the largest and most powerful, but definitely not the only ones.
These locomotives ran in my old territory where I used to live northern Utah I've been two the Ogden Railroad Museum many times and watch quite a few documentaries on these locomotives the front locomotive of the a unit had a a V12 diesel engine they just use that to move the locomotive around the yard the B unit is the one that housed the gas turbine the B unit powered the trucks on the A and the B unit which were CC plus CC classification that means they had three axles per truck 3 traction Motors per truck that means 6 traction Motors per unit the gas turbine powered all 12 of these electric motors so you're wrong on that fact the only the B unit of the Union Pacific it's just pronounced G. T. E. L. You keep on turning classification acronyms into words it's not like NASA but besides that you did pretty good keep up the great work I like your documentaries could you please do me a favor and do a video on the Rio Grande Challengers thank you possibly the Rio Grande 2882 thank you peace out into the world and have a great day
Can you imagine one of these restored and running anywhere in the U.S.? Would make a lot of towns, cities, and people very upset; not to mention cost the Union Pacific tons of money to run one of these units.
ah the gas turbines the big blows as they were called among things, at initial sight having not watched yet I want to point out there were differant models of the gas turbine locos, so it was not just one, you also have the turbo train for amtrack using a bombadier turbine engine for a time in its early days just a heads up and you are right the turbines had a voracious hunger for fuel, but the cheap fuel is what kept them going so long, and with turbine if its liqued fuel you could pretty much use it, but yea they were hot and pretty loud, the bird cooker and bridge burner if parked under bridges it was so hot it would melt the asphalt on the road
The ole Big Blows, Bird Cooker, etc! Melted pavement on overpasses they were parked under, vibrated and broke dishes, I wonder of those were factors on California's decision.
It could be because gas is in its description or because it's not pure electric. Seems like that's what they now want everything to be. I know I know that was a while ago. Interesting though it was sort of a sign of things to come for the states regulations in a way.
There’s quite a few rumors floating around about gas turbine locomotives. Especially the one about them burning overpasses. All of that was a myth and it actually never happened. The exhaust gas temperature on the turbine used in those locomotives is a GE Frame 5 turbine. The exhaust gas temperature on them is about 800° F. Roadway bridges are not made of asphalt, they’re made of steel and/or concrete with an asphalt surface typically. 800° is not going to be enough to heat up the concrete and steel to damage the roadway. Especially considering that the exhaust isn’t pressed up against the bridge either. As for the myth that these locomotives had such intense vibrations they would damage things, if you understood the principle of a gas turbine, you realize how ridiculous that statement is. Turbine engines don’t vibrate as they’re not reciprocating engines. It’s quite the opposite, that’s why gas turbine generators Are often used in military communications facilities as they don’t produce any vibrations that can damage electronic equipment. The only thing about the gas turbine locomotives that is not a myth is they were loud . Certainly not as loud as most jet aircraft, but still far louder than a regular diesel locomotive
They were well aware of that, but the whole reason they built the gas turbine locomotives was to burn heavy bunker C fuel oil. It was very cheap and made it still economical to operate the gas turbines, which were NOT fuel efficient. Once the price of bunker C exceeded the price of diesel fuel. They were no longer economical to operate, and that was the end of them. Jet A or kerosene would not have made any difference, because they would be almost as expensive anyhow.
holy smashing out the videos eh? Im loving them.
Yeah, I've gone to two a days. Got some health problems that's gonna force me to resign my job. So im keeping myself busy with this, my mind off things.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPoweri appreciate the content. God bless man.
@@notknightbean I appreciate it, I really do!
I saw 18 in Union, Illinois last year and she was for all intents and purposes a fierce machine. The old Pennsylvania Railroad's Q2 Duplexes could make 8000 horsepower, as much horsepower as the 2nd and 3rd generation oil turbines. The front unit looks like a mix between an Alco PA and an EMD E9.
The gtel is easily my favorite diesel electric engine (technically a turbine but it functions similarly to a diesel electric). It is so absolutely insane when you try and explain who and why it works. It is a railroad mad science experiment, but it worked.
Meh, they both run on mud so that flies with me.. :) But indeed they are complicated in their own right. Not as much as the steam turbine versions though, for sure.
The first toy train i bought was a Lionel UP GTEL. I thought it was the coolest thing ever.
I would too!
I’ve never looked at these locos closely until now, and I sure learned a lot by viewing this video! Thank you for such an informative production! 🚂
You're welcome!
The book "Union Pacific's Turbine Era" by A.J Wolff is excellent but very expensive since it is out of print.
I have a few Steam locomotive books like that.
The 3rd gen GTEL only had a turbine in the B unit, the A unit carried ancillaries and a diesel engine for hostling.
Using a gas turbine to power a locomotive in place of a diesel is a good concept. The mistake was using heavy fuel oil (requires heating), instead use kerosene (best balance of high calorie without the need for heating). Aeroplanes use kerosene as fuel because it's the highest calorie fuel that can be used without heating. The UP gas turbine locos were the most powerful combustion (non-electric) locomotives.
I think it's one thing that was premature.. Had it come out in the 70's or later, I think it might have worked out with the technology advances in place.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower I think think the concept should definitely be revived using modern technology. The only caveat with a gas turbine compared with diesel is slightly lower fuel efficiency. The gas turbine has excellent power to weight. Still, I would love to see the concept revived.
Even with modern technology, a gas turbine locomotive is not economical. The fuel consumption is too great. They were only worthwhile when fuel was super cheap. They are certainly not more fuel efficient than a diesel engine and with modern technology you can have more horsepower and effort with two diesel locomotives than with one gas turbine, and it would be far less costly to maintain
Saw a GTEL in Nebraska in '66.still in service
I remember the about 45 minute long video about these locomotives that used to be on UA-cam. I’m guessing the original owner of the video had it taken down. Was pretty interesting to watch these monsters in action. There was even footage of one double heading a train with a Big Boy.
I saw a couple of the turbine units at a scrapyard around Kansas City in 1973. The yard repurposed the turbines into riverboats. The turbines needed to be turned over every few days or the shafts would bend.
The gas turbine engine used in the GTEL’s is still a very common turbine in the power generation industry. The issue you are talking about with turbines needing to be rotated often does not apply to turbines this small. That issue is on MUCH larger steam turbines.
How many turbines are left and if so where are they?
#s 1-30 are known as the Big Blow. there's also an old video of one going back and forth titled in Spanish translated to "bird burner"
Bird Burner... LOL! I love it!
It did help that they had the auxiliary Diesel engine for moving around the yard. That’s about all it was ever used for. And they could go much faster than 65 mph. In perfect conditions, they saw 70+ mph. It’s funny that freight trains back then were actually faster many times than they are today. On UPs western mainline longer sections, they will still see 60 mph though. But Big Boys could pull heavy freight trains at 80 mph.
But today, aren't the speeds regulated by the Fed?
I’m sure they are. There are some high speed freight trains out west. BNSF has a few intermodal trains that run 70 mph.
🔥Beautiful Beasts!🔥
The mighty Big Blow, indeed the most powerful non overhead electric locomotive in horsepower output to run, surely a long time record holder.
But there are a couple of GTELs built in Russia running on LNG which entered service in 2006, they are to be considered more as an experiment and not repeated in series production.
They produce up to 11,500hp, I'm not sure if these are still in service or ended as a failed experiment.
So the UP GTELs remain the only ones successful used in regular service.
On the subject of Gas Turbine powered trains, maybe an episode on the Amtrak Turbo Train and its French predecessors? As I think these were the only other gas turbine powered rail vehicles which had a reasonably long service time. Not sure when the Amtrak sets were withdrawn but the French examples lasted from 1969-2005.
Interesting.
These things were amazing. Fuel economy? **** you, we have power. 😂
The fact that they used the same amount of fuel at idle as at full throttle is fairly epic.
Yeah, not good!
Enjoyed this.
absolute unit
The description mentions "The only gas turbine locomotive to ever operate" but that is definitely NOT the case. United Aircraft produced the Turbotrain, ANF and Rohr both produced Turbine powered trains. France had a Gas Turbine locomotive back in 1952. Sweden and Russia had versions as well. Bombardier built a high speed Gas Turbine locomotive in the early 2000s as a potential way to add HSR to non electrified routes. So no, UP certainly did not have the only Gas Turbine locomotives to ever operate. They didn't even have the the first models and weren't the last either. UP certainly had the largest and most powerful, but definitely not the only ones.
Well, it certainly can’t be denied that Old Uncle Pete has a long history with big engines, especially the Bull Moose and the Centennials.
Also, what happened to the Niagara video? Was it a copyright claim?
Well done!! I love turbines and have the last gen model in O scale!! thx
Glad you like it!
These locomotives ran in my old territory where I used to live northern Utah I've been two the Ogden Railroad Museum many times and watch quite a few documentaries on these locomotives the front locomotive of the a unit had a a V12 diesel engine they just use that to move the locomotive around the yard the B unit is the one that housed the gas turbine the B unit powered the trucks on the A and the B unit which were CC plus CC classification that means they had three axles per truck 3 traction Motors per truck that means 6 traction Motors per unit the gas turbine powered all 12 of these electric motors so you're wrong on that fact the only the B unit of the Union Pacific it's just pronounced G. T. E. L. You keep on turning classification acronyms into words it's not like NASA but besides that you did pretty good keep up the great work I like your documentaries could you please do me a favor and do a video on the Rio Grande Challengers thank you possibly the Rio Grande 2882 thank you peace out into the world and have a great day
Can you imagine one of these restored and running anywhere in the U.S.? Would make a lot of towns, cities, and people very upset; not to mention cost the Union Pacific tons of money to run one of these units.
ah the gas turbines the big blows as they were called among things, at initial sight having not watched yet I want to point out there were differant models of the gas turbine locos, so it was not just one, you also have the turbo train for amtrack using a bombadier turbine engine for a time in its early days just a heads up
and you are right the turbines had a voracious hunger for fuel, but the cheap fuel is what kept them going so long, and with turbine if its liqued fuel you could pretty much use it, but yea they were hot and pretty loud, the bird cooker and bridge burner if parked under bridges it was so hot it would melt the asphalt on the road
The ole Big Blows, Bird Cooker, etc! Melted pavement on overpasses they were parked under, vibrated and broke dishes, I wonder of those were factors on California's decision.
Indeed. I didnt know they were called that until I did the breakdown on the loco prior to doing the video
It could be because gas is in its description or because it's not pure electric. Seems like that's what they now want everything to be.
I know I know that was a while ago. Interesting though it was sort of a sign of things to come for the states regulations in a way.
There’s quite a few rumors floating around about gas turbine locomotives. Especially the one about them burning overpasses. All of that was a myth and it actually never happened. The exhaust gas temperature on the turbine used in those locomotives is a GE Frame 5 turbine. The exhaust gas temperature on them is about 800° F. Roadway bridges are not made of asphalt, they’re made of steel and/or concrete with an asphalt surface typically. 800° is not going to be enough to heat up the concrete and steel to damage the roadway. Especially considering that the exhaust isn’t pressed up against the bridge either.
As for the myth that these locomotives had such intense vibrations they would damage things, if you understood the principle of a gas turbine, you realize how ridiculous that statement is. Turbine engines don’t vibrate as they’re not reciprocating engines. It’s quite the opposite, that’s why gas turbine generators Are often used in military communications facilities as they don’t produce any vibrations that can damage electronic equipment.
The only thing about the gas turbine locomotives that is not a myth is they were loud . Certainly not as loud as most jet aircraft, but still far louder than a regular diesel locomotive
Great video...👍
Thank you 👍
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower>>> You're Most Welcome.
They are impressive to look at, but keep in mind all the Turbines and other machinery has been removed from them.
Yeah, that's a shame too. Would have definitely added to the experience of seeing them otherwise.
Why don’t they electrify the route? Too expensive?
Yes. It is expensive to erect catenary.
The only U.S. railroad to have long stretches of electrified mainline was the Milwaukee Road. They went bankrupt in the 1980s.
It would have solved many Maintenance issues if they used Jet A fuel or Kerosene
They were well aware of that, but the whole reason they built the gas turbine locomotives was to burn heavy bunker C fuel oil. It was very cheap and made it still economical to operate the gas turbines, which were NOT fuel efficient.
Once the price of bunker C exceeded the price of diesel fuel. They were no longer economical to operate, and that was the end of them. Jet A or kerosene would not have made any difference, because they would be almost as expensive anyhow.