I assume that's the most powerful self-powered locomotive ever built. Don't electrics (e.g., on the French TGV) regularly run more power? If I heard the numbers right during the speed record set they were pulling something like 25MW from the catenary.
The Most powerful locomotive ever built gas turbine locomotive GT1-001.
Hauling 16,ooo tonnes in 170 rail cars, a new world record for a single prime mover with an internal combustion engine, the 300 tonne two-section GT1 combines a turbine and power unit with a separate section containing the 17 tonne liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel tank. The engine can develop 8300 kW of power and when fully fuelled can drive the train 750 kms with a top speed of 100 km per hour.
Fascinating video, and very probably the most powerful gas turbine loco ever built - maybe also the most powerful UP loco. And possibly even most powerful in the world when it was built - maybe. But certainly not the most powerful loco ever built - plenty of electrics have surpassed it and still do. No criticism of the video, though - great historic footage.
"most powerful locomotive ever built" I thought that standing still went to the old monster I believe union pacific steam locomotives from the 40s, big boy or something like that
Hey that's my yard! Too bad the depot is falling apart and it's been raped for bricks.
If that is shot from the east end I have no idea what building that was in the background. It looks like the old one-spot but that was on the west side of the freeway. Eh anyway, good video :-)
Those had 5 bearing Frame 3 GE engines, early design. I worked on one that drove a hydrogen compressorin at the Bapco Refinery in Bahrain and 2 very nice looking generator drive units at Ecopetrol near Barrancabermeja, Colombia. All 3 were locomotive engines. I hear there is a museum loco in Houston.
Although they were apparently (and understandably) very loud, I was always told it was primarily a matter of fuel efficiency/consumption that the turbines were discontinued. I was told that at speed, they were great units, but at idle, they consumed a lot of fuel, and locomotives spend a lot of time at idle.
A little too quite for me. If it weren't for the cars click-clacking on the tracks you'd never hear it coming. It probably doesn't even have a proper whistle, does it?
@keenedge100 The quietness in the video is probably due to the microphone limiter, as these machines were actually deafeningly loud. Their terrible loudness was the main reason why they eventually got banned from entering cities, starting with LA.
@keenedge100 the horns are visible centered above the windshield.. this is silent footage with some crap dubbing done.. i really dislike it when dubbing is done that misrepresents what really was. these were basically ground level jet engines... how loud do you think it was when pulling a heavy train?
The GTEL's were unstoppable, pulling 100+ car consists across the mountains. And would have kept running if some dammed fool discovered that Bunker C fuel could run just as well in freighters. Then the price on C skyrocketed, spelling doom for the GTEL's The newer gas turbines ran well in the TGV series, but still fuel economy was the sticking point. GT's efficiency is worse at idle than at 75% throttle, consuming more fuel sitting still than at speed.
Ive actually climbed on #18 at the illinois railway museum....i looked in the the back of the jet engine unit(X-18B) and the fan is gigantic....i was on the tender too...nothing special....but on top of the actuall loconotive part...its a whole different story...there are little radiator units and intake valves...it looked as if the locomotive had no roof! Insane! I didnt get to see the inside but man is the third generation #X-18 and X-18B a piece of engineering worth a long drive for! Its a g
Speaking about statistics, there are several others that I'd like to know but can't find. How long was the 3rd generation turbine (including the tender) ? I can only find the length of the 1st generation turbines. Also, it's been called the big blow because of it's 'high' noise levels. Was it's noise level ever actually measured?
acording to the Utah State Railroad Museum the Gas Turbine had a lot of bad nicknames some include air eater bridge burner, bird cooker, and gas guzzler how they got these names is Ogden had to replace all of the overpasses when a turbine went under it. another time a turbine got stuck in a tunnel hence the diesels pushing. how it got the name Bird Cooker is in Wyoming a turbine hit a bird and it was deep fried. how it got the gas guzzler name is because of the tender.
I love this train. The statistics are just amazing for this 3rd generation turbine. 8600hp (sometimes up to 10700 at altitude), weighted 900,000lbs (410 tonnes) without the tender, 1100kn (240,000lbs) maximum tractive effort which is still the highest tractive effort ever by some 40,00lbs. Union pacific once calculated that it could pull 734 freight trucks at 12mph (about 7 miles of train). All of this was achieved more than half a century ago. Now that's impressive.
I think what had happened at the end is they flooded the engine with diesel then when they got it going the fuel past the power turbine got lite when the com-busters cut in. They should have motored the turbine and then tryed a new attempt at starting the engine
@MrPinto1970 Both but none :) They can run on every injectible and combustible fluid (or pulverized coal as well!). The UP gas turbines ran on Bunker-C heavy fuel oil, because then it was cheaper than diesel (and also cheaper than tapwater :)). Basicly this fuel's viscosity is like tar's, so it had to be pre-heated before injection. One of the turbines was converted to burn PB-gas.
Well a Turbodiesel engine works alot cleaner if you ask me. This gas turbine is trowing out smoke like there is no tomorrow. It's nice to see but i prefer a Diesel.
@Bjorn2181 turbines only throw out a small bit of smoke at the start-up after that they are very clean but also very thirsty. the ones on the ship used about 1200 gal per hour at full throttle but then they were putting out 20,000 hp as well. our diesels used about 75 gal per hour they did not move the ship the turbines did.
@chaffeto Bombardier has an electric loco that produces over 12,000hp.
Although its argued its more like 6,000hp as the loco in question is actually 2 electric locos permantly coupled together (they can't be split under normal operating)
Yes 85kewgrr, the " electric transmission " does allow for some isolation between the internal combustion prime mover & the load. The Pennsy's steam turbine, which was direct coupled to the drivers, was said to have very low efficiency below 50 M.P.H.
@staydput I think it depends mostly on the sound system / volume, you are using. At least when I crank up my 360W sony 5.1. surround system with this vid, it certainly sounds pretty convincing in our small livingroom.
@howardkevinm Not really - they were actually very successful. UP estimated the turbines were responsible for 10% of the railroad's freight hauling despite making up a much smaller percentage of the roster.
Unbelievable video. I can actually here the turbines run! I have always understood that they were very loud, but these clips shows that they would be apparently quieter than comparable steam locomotives. Excellent addition.
@Petemonster62 It's a "Gas Turbine Electric Locmotive", the electric means that the only thing attached to the wheels is electric motors. Basically, the turbine is a generator producing electricity for the traction motors. Therefore, it doesn't matter how often it stops or whatever. The turbine can take it's time slowing and accelerating.
those turbines have lot of horse power 8500 HP.Rubish they should biring then back there so historical to.I understand why they dont birng it back the probly has a sucky view backing up and not fuel eficent and blows out a lot of smoke. But they should make a hybrid or more eficent model with a cleaner and a better engine to.WHO'S WITH ME???????
They have more then 8.500 HP. Like most american things they are underrated.
According to various books and web-pages the power output of the turbine varied from 7.800 to 10.700 HP depending on the elevation and temperature where they operate. And it also does have a second Prime Mover, a Cooper Bessemer FWB-6 Diesel engine rated at 990 HP (850 for traction). So under optimum conditions, and with both prime movers running, it produces a maximum of 11.690 HP.
@ShadowGraveyard They wouldn't run both prime movers. The diesel was only used for hostling and starting up the turbine. Also, the 10,700 HP figure comes from what the turbine could produce at sea level, but the locomotives always operated above that altitude. The electrical gear wouldn't be able to handle the extra output, either.
@1959Edsel I know that the 10.700 HP figure is at sea level, i wrote that just in other words. The Diesel engine was also used for yard movements so it is also possible to use it for driving. Actually they probably never used the turbine and the diesel engine combined at once but it sure could be done if they wanted. Like i said, the 11.690 HP figure is only under optimum conditions with both prome movers running.
@ShadowGraveyard Turbine power output is varied based on temperature and elevation but Turbines unlike Diesels have two power ratings: Peak hp (10,000hp+) & Continuous hp. based on turbine outlet temperature. GE qouting officially only the continuous rating, both figures exceeding the locomotives actual electrical / motor capacity.
Why do people claim that the electric equipment couldn´t handle the locomotives full 10-000+ HP? Have you ever looked on its electric system? It has 12 traction motors Type GE-752 each rated for 1000 horsepower. And it has a total of 5 generators, 4 on the turbine and 1 on the diesel engine. They are of the type GE-GT576 and rated for an input of 2500 horsepower each. So the generators and traction motors, in other words the electrical systems, CAN handle the locomotives full 10.000+ HP.
@ShadowGraveyard Your math is correct, but you forgot a couple things... that set-up would require a 7.5 Mega-watt motor controller, that as far as I know has never been built, The turbine was capable of Peak output of 10,000Bhp but were talking only around 90 seconds or even less, Great for aircraft or powerboat applications but hardly worth the bother to try and harness that extra power on a freight locomotive. also from what I have read the Diesel Motor was used only for hostling.
@09JDCTrainMan There havn't been any GE freight turbines since the 1970s and I don't think there are any French built passenger turbines left operating in the USA, some in Europe still and maybe Canada? There might be a couple freight propane turbines in Russia. Dok
@09JDCTrainMan The price of the type C fuel oil they used went way up and turbines burned alot of oil! GE already had a 5,000hp diesel in 1963. 2 modern Diesels are more powerful and use less fuel so the turbine had to go :(
which probably means that in the time a GE diesel has consumed the contents of its belly tank, the Turbines have emptied the tank car behind the b-unit.
and as gas prices climb, last thing you want is a gas guzzler
@suomenpresidentti So, basically, they're about as efficient as oil-burning steam locomotives, without the advantage of being cheaper to build (not necessarily to operate though).
@09JDCTrainMan Turbines are very fuel inefficient at anything less than about 90% power, so these were used only on heavy grades. They needed lots of cool air to run properly and were a big problem in tunnels. Lastly they were very noisy and would you really like to have a 747 at full takeoff power taxing through the middle of your city or town at 30 MPH? In the middle of the night? That's how loud they were at full power.
@staydput Yes, I'm aware of the Russian turbines (check my previous post) but could not any info about them still in operation? LNG turbine sounds like a great idea for the right train & route.
It's to quiet.I like the old trains better.
cubahuba 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I assume that's the most powerful self-powered locomotive ever built. Don't electrics (e.g., on the French TGV) regularly run more power? If I heard the numbers right during the speed record set they were pulling something like 25MW from the catenary.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
he sounds like he is talking about arabic headwear. there's an I in there somewhere
gadget666 1 week ago 3
Most turbines are horrible for efficiency at idle/low RPM. They are best at 80-99% rated power.
boundaryzero 2 weeks ago
The Most powerful locomotive ever built gas turbine locomotive GT1-001.
Hauling 16,ooo tonnes in 170 rail cars, a new world record for a single prime mover with an internal combustion engine, the 300 tonne two-section GT1 combines a turbine and power unit with a separate section containing the 17 tonne liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel tank. The engine can develop 8300 kW of power and when fully fuelled can drive the train 750 kms with a top speed of 100 km per hour.
Sup4ik 2 weeks ago
Pentrex videos :)
HotshotMC2 1 month ago
Wow 2:30. Hey guys, dont start this thing up in the roundhouse!
dreambuilders48808 1 month ago
i drove that in ho scale today!!!! the horn sucks
crazytaxi1000 1 month ago
@crazytaxi1000 come on............ come to facechat
Pompadour123 1 month ago
why did it do that at 2:31?!?
supsup85 1 month ago
Awesome catch on the flame out. Nice video.
fredstuckmann 1 month ago
Woah! That's the Lucky Lager brewery in the background at 1:42. I loved that beer back in the '60's. It was sweet!
bearbon2 1 month ago
Fascinating video, and very probably the most powerful gas turbine loco ever built - maybe also the most powerful UP loco. And possibly even most powerful in the world when it was built - maybe. But certainly not the most powerful loco ever built - plenty of electrics have surpassed it and still do. No criticism of the video, though - great historic footage.
37201xoim 1 month ago
"most powerful locomotive ever built" I thought that standing still went to the old monster I believe union pacific steam locomotives from the 40s, big boy or something like that
MF11283 2 months ago
Hey that's my yard! Too bad the depot is falling apart and it's been raped for bricks.
If that is shot from the east end I have no idea what building that was in the background. It looks like the old one-spot but that was on the west side of the freeway. Eh anyway, good video :-)
imcoolyoudrool 2 months ago
Cool engine and nice turbine start in the end. Thumbs up! :)
megatwingo 2 months ago
2:29 What the fu- BOOOOOOMM!!
MrMattIntel 2 months ago
These are pretty old technology. The Navy's experience with Allison and GE turbine engines show that it's worth another try.
Ilicium 3 months ago
At 2.30 it looked like a volcano was erupting inside the Turbine
DKS225 3 months ago
Those had 5 bearing Frame 3 GE engines, early design. I worked on one that drove a hydrogen compressorin at the Bapco Refinery in Bahrain and 2 very nice looking generator drive units at Ecopetrol near Barrancabermeja, Colombia. All 3 were locomotive engines. I hear there is a museum loco in Houston.
kimmer6 3 months ago
The Turbine is NOT the most powerful locomotive ever built.
Hightrain12 3 months ago
Although they were apparently (and understandably) very loud, I was always told it was primarily a matter of fuel efficiency/consumption that the turbines were discontinued. I was told that at speed, they were great units, but at idle, they consumed a lot of fuel, and locomotives spend a lot of time at idle.
JeffHallPlaysFenders 3 months ago
Thats not a loco, its a train in itself, seems inefficient, sorry.
NOMAD8459 3 months ago
Black smoke means incomplete combustion, so you're just wasting fuel.
chechnya 3 months ago
Not exactly clean burning, is it?
lekoman 4 months ago
A little too quite for me. If it weren't for the cars click-clacking on the tracks you'd never hear it coming. It probably doesn't even have a proper whistle, does it?
keenedge100 4 months ago
@keenedge100 The quietness in the video is probably due to the microphone limiter, as these machines were actually deafeningly loud. Their terrible loudness was the main reason why they eventually got banned from entering cities, starting with LA.
subtheo 3 months ago
@keenedge100 the horns are visible centered above the windshield.. this is silent footage with some crap dubbing done.. i really dislike it when dubbing is done that misrepresents what really was. these were basically ground level jet engines... how loud do you think it was when pulling a heavy train?
notalott 3 months ago
At 2:30 Chuck Norris started the Turbine
09JDCTrainMan 4 months ago
At 2:30 WTF BOOOOM ;-D
Renatodonadio 5 months ago
that thing exploded to start up.
k5lta 5 months ago
Thumb up for 3703.
IIIJFRIII 5 months ago
They dont use this stuff hmm
MASON1246 5 months ago
The white smoke from the backfire made it like a steamer in a diesel body
devvvtrain 5 months ago
Very nice video !
ttrainmixx 5 months ago
"Most powerful locomotive ever built"
Um, no. The Swiss Re 460 does 10,700 hp, and the Russian GT1-001 (another turbine, and brand new, so not an entirely fair comparison) does 11,100 hp.
SeverityOne 6 months ago
@SeverityOne Dunno where you got your info, but it's wrong about the Re 460. 'SBB RE-460 Power output 6,100 kW (8,180 hp)',
THEFINALHAZARD 3 weeks ago
@THEFINALHAZARD Sorry, I meant the Re 620 (formerly known as the Re 6/6).
SeverityOne 3 weeks ago
@SeverityOne OH, ok. Haha, yeah, that's a heck of a powerful electric.
THEFINALHAZARD 3 weeks ago
thats one way to cook dinner!!!!
gmsd70mac 6 months ago
The GTEL's were unstoppable, pulling 100+ car consists across the mountains. And would have kept running if some dammed fool discovered that Bunker C fuel could run just as well in freighters. Then the price on C skyrocketed, spelling doom for the GTEL's The newer gas turbines ran well in the TGV series, but still fuel economy was the sticking point. GT's efficiency is worse at idle than at 75% throttle, consuming more fuel sitting still than at speed.
Nighthawke70 6 months ago
@Nighthawke70 what a bizarre ratio
NaziJuice 6 months ago
They have some preserved, the UP needs to get one of those bad boys running!
calif1mc 7 months ago
Ive actually climbed on #18 at the illinois railway museum....i looked in the the back of the jet engine unit(X-18B) and the fan is gigantic....i was on the tender too...nothing special....but on top of the actuall loconotive part...its a whole different story...there are little radiator units and intake valves...it looked as if the locomotive had no roof! Insane! I didnt get to see the inside but man is the third generation #X-18 and X-18B a piece of engineering worth a long drive for! Its a g
frankthetank961 8 months ago
Speaking about statistics, there are several others that I'd like to know but can't find. How long was the 3rd generation turbine (including the tender) ? I can only find the length of the 1st generation turbines. Also, it's been called the big blow because of it's 'high' noise levels. Was it's noise level ever actually measured?
KBNASTAT92 9 months ago
@KBNASTAT92 The third generation turbines (including the tender) were roughly 175 feet coupler to coupler.
thetransitaddict11 3 months ago
acording to the Utah State Railroad Museum the Gas Turbine had a lot of bad nicknames some include air eater bridge burner, bird cooker, and gas guzzler how they got these names is Ogden had to replace all of the overpasses when a turbine went under it. another time a turbine got stuck in a tunnel hence the diesels pushing. how it got the name Bird Cooker is in Wyoming a turbine hit a bird and it was deep fried. how it got the gas guzzler name is because of the tender.
geomodelrailroader 9 months ago
LOL @0:22 it looks like 30B's doing all the work
GintaPPE1000 9 months ago
That's an impressive machine.
Xomanowar99 9 months ago
2:30 chuck norris touched it and made it mad
2010californa 10 months ago
2:30 chuck noris touched it and made it mad
2010californa 10 months ago
I love this train. The statistics are just amazing for this 3rd generation turbine. 8600hp (sometimes up to 10700 at altitude), weighted 900,000lbs (410 tonnes) without the tender, 1100kn (240,000lbs) maximum tractive effort which is still the highest tractive effort ever by some 40,00lbs. Union pacific once calculated that it could pull 734 freight trucks at 12mph (about 7 miles of train). All of this was achieved more than half a century ago. Now that's impressive.
KBNASTAT92 10 months ago
I think what had happened at the end is they flooded the engine with diesel then when they got it going the fuel past the power turbine got lite when the com-busters cut in. They should have motored the turbine and then tryed a new attempt at starting the engine
nimrod4017 10 months ago
is this video off a Pentrex DVD?
fixitdude74 11 months ago
Notice they had steam at that MPD. a safer bet if you ask me.
Isochest 11 months ago
wow they are so quiet when t6hey roll by i to wish they would restore one of the turbines
Barricade360 11 months ago
so the Turbines are gas or diesel?
MrPinto1970 1 year ago
@MrPinto1970 Both but none :) They can run on every injectible and combustible fluid (or pulverized coal as well!). The UP gas turbines ran on Bunker-C heavy fuel oil, because then it was cheaper than diesel (and also cheaper than tapwater :)). Basicly this fuel's viscosity is like tar's, so it had to be pre-heated before injection. One of the turbines was converted to burn PB-gas.
MrM61013 3 months ago
Well a Turbodiesel engine works alot cleaner if you ask me. This gas turbine is trowing out smoke like there is no tomorrow. It's nice to see but i prefer a Diesel.
Nice vid! Thanks 4 sharing
Bjorn2181 1 year ago
@Bjorn2181 turbines only throw out a small bit of smoke at the start-up after that they are very clean but also very thirsty. the ones on the ship used about 1200 gal per hour at full throttle but then they were putting out 20,000 hp as well. our diesels used about 75 gal per hour they did not move the ship the turbines did.
nimrod4017 10 months ago
i only gives out 8500hp lol
GayBoyRunning 1 year ago
There is more powerfull locos over 10 000hp.By the way russians now bild a new gas turbine loco
chaffeto 1 year ago
@chaffeto Bombardier has an electric loco that produces over 12,000hp.
Although its argued its more like 6,000hp as the loco in question is actually 2 electric locos permantly coupled together (they can't be split under normal operating)
Wikipedia: China Railways HXD2 or Bombardier HXD2
vectorm1299 1 year ago
I bet the EPA got a heartattack when they saw this thing running with an enitre tanker of fuel behind it!
CookiesAndGuns95 1 year ago
Yes 85kewgrr, the " electric transmission " does allow for some isolation between the internal combustion prime mover & the load. The Pennsy's steam turbine, which was direct coupled to the drivers, was said to have very low efficiency below 50 M.P.H.
Petemonster62 1 year ago
so...what was the point of the additional cars behind the main locomotive?
junkman134 1 year ago
@junkman134
This clip does not give you ANY idea of just how loud they were.
The last car = bunker fuel -- without it going for dirt the system doesn't pencil out.
The second car = turbine/generators -- note the vents and air blast.
The first car = motors and controls and the operators.
The isolation was required to hold the sound level down for the engineers -- yeah it's THAT loud !
staydput 1 year ago
@staydput I think it depends mostly on the sound system / volume, you are using. At least when I crank up my 360W sony 5.1. surround system with this vid, it certainly sounds pretty convincing in our small livingroom.
suomenpresidentti 1 year ago
the turbines were about as stupid of an idea as the PennCentral merger.
howardkevinm 1 year ago
@howardkevinm Not really - they were actually very successful. UP estimated the turbines were responsible for 10% of the railroad's freight hauling despite making up a much smaller percentage of the roster.
1959Edsel 1 year ago
Comment removed
howardkevinm 1 year ago
Unbelievable video. I can actually here the turbines run! I have always understood that they were very loud, but these clips shows that they would be apparently quieter than comparable steam locomotives. Excellent addition.
bhipp75 1 year ago
A turbine locomotive would probably be best suited for a fast train that doesn't make a lot of stops like a mail train or a through reefer freight.
Petemonster62 1 year ago
@Petemonster62 The turbines were frequently used for the latter of those two.
1959Edsel 1 year ago
@Petemonster62 It's a "Gas Turbine Electric Locmotive", the electric means that the only thing attached to the wheels is electric motors. Basically, the turbine is a generator producing electricity for the traction motors. Therefore, it doesn't matter how often it stops or whatever. The turbine can take it's time slowing and accelerating.
85kewgrr 1 year ago
I have read something that they where banned from denver!?
Due to the the noise....
Skyisnotalimit 1 year ago
Man, they make the SD24's look quite small by comparison!!
kmillard 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading, Mr. President! I've been wanting to see/hear this for a long time.
VideoDotGoogleDotCom 1 year ago
smoking shit!
ollonsvin 1 year ago
those turbines have lot of horse power 8500 HP.Rubish they should biring then back there so historical to.I understand why they dont birng it back the probly has a sucky view backing up and not fuel eficent and blows out a lot of smoke. But they should make a hybrid or more eficent model with a cleaner and a better engine to.WHO'S WITH ME???????
BigBoyO56 1 year ago
Not practical and high risk and maintenance is what took these big boys out of service.
SaltineCrackaAss 1 year ago
quiet
stdavross666 1 year ago
not most powerful locomotives by a long shot;
many electric locos have way in excess of 10,000hp!
the channel tunnel locomotives for example and british class 90 (I think), but its very common as electric locos keep their engines in a powerstation!
interesting locos non the less.
tpvalley 1 year ago
They have more then 8.500 HP. Like most american things they are underrated.
According to various books and web-pages the power output of the turbine varied from 7.800 to 10.700 HP depending on the elevation and temperature where they operate. And it also does have a second Prime Mover, a Cooper Bessemer FWB-6 Diesel engine rated at 990 HP (850 for traction). So under optimum conditions, and with both prime movers running, it produces a maximum of 11.690 HP.
ShadowGraveyard 1 year ago
@ShadowGraveyard They wouldn't run both prime movers. The diesel was only used for hostling and starting up the turbine. Also, the 10,700 HP figure comes from what the turbine could produce at sea level, but the locomotives always operated above that altitude. The electrical gear wouldn't be able to handle the extra output, either.
1959Edsel 1 year ago
@1959Edsel I know that the 10.700 HP figure is at sea level, i wrote that just in other words. The Diesel engine was also used for yard movements so it is also possible to use it for driving. Actually they probably never used the turbine and the diesel engine combined at once but it sure could be done if they wanted. Like i said, the 11.690 HP figure is only under optimum conditions with both prome movers running.
ShadowGraveyard 1 year ago
@ShadowGraveyard Turbine power output is varied based on temperature and elevation but Turbines unlike Diesels have two power ratings: Peak hp (10,000hp+) & Continuous hp. based on turbine outlet temperature. GE qouting officially only the continuous rating, both figures exceeding the locomotives actual electrical / motor capacity.
doktorbimmer 1 year ago
Why do people claim that the electric equipment couldn´t handle the locomotives full 10-000+ HP? Have you ever looked on its electric system? It has 12 traction motors Type GE-752 each rated for 1000 horsepower. And it has a total of 5 generators, 4 on the turbine and 1 on the diesel engine. They are of the type GE-GT576 and rated for an input of 2500 horsepower each. So the generators and traction motors, in other words the electrical systems, CAN handle the locomotives full 10.000+ HP.
ShadowGraveyard 1 year ago
@ShadowGraveyard Your math is correct, but you forgot a couple things... that set-up would require a 7.5 Mega-watt motor controller, that as far as I know has never been built, The turbine was capable of Peak output of 10,000Bhp but were talking only around 90 seconds or even less, Great for aircraft or powerboat applications but hardly worth the bother to try and harness that extra power on a freight locomotive. also from what I have read the Diesel Motor was used only for hostling.
doktorbimmer 1 year ago
Comment removed
ShadowGraveyard 1 year ago
I bet greenpeace and the state of California would be thrilled to see these in action again
bnsfMAN93 1 year ago
It would be so freakin awesome If Turbine No# 26 got restored to running condition.
joetish89 1 year ago
BRING BACK THE TURBINES!!!!!!!
doktorbimmer 2 years ago 36
@doktorbimmer, are you saying that the Turbines don't run on the rails anymore?
09JDCTrainMan 2 years ago
@09JDCTrainMan There havn't been any GE freight turbines since the 1970s and I don't think there are any French built passenger turbines left operating in the USA, some in Europe still and maybe Canada? There might be a couple freight propane turbines in Russia. Dok
doktorbimmer 2 years ago
Why should they retire such powerful locomotives?
09JDCTrainMan 2 years ago 3
@09JDCTrainMan The price of the type C fuel oil they used went way up and turbines burned alot of oil! GE already had a 5,000hp diesel in 1963. 2 modern Diesels are more powerful and use less fuel so the turbine had to go :(
doktorbimmer 2 years ago
@09JDCTrainMan Big Blows used 600 gallons / hour of bunker C - fuel.
suomenpresidentti 1 year ago 20
@suomenpresidentti that and the epa probly wanted to come and blow the turbines sky high because they smoke like hell.
train2589 1 year ago
@suomenpresidentti
which probably means that in the time a GE diesel has consumed the contents of its belly tank, the Turbines have emptied the tank car behind the b-unit.
and as gas prices climb, last thing you want is a gas guzzler
Xantec 1 year ago
@suomenpresidentti So, basically, they're about as efficient as oil-burning steam locomotives, without the advantage of being cheaper to build (not necessarily to operate though).
484berkshire 3 months ago
@09JDCTrainMan Turbines are very fuel inefficient at anything less than about 90% power, so these were used only on heavy grades. They needed lots of cool air to run properly and were a big problem in tunnels. Lastly they were very noisy and would you really like to have a 747 at full takeoff power taxing through the middle of your city or town at 30 MPH? In the middle of the night? That's how loud they were at full power.
HappyJack01 1 year ago
@doktorbimmer
Russia HAS done it...
Using LNG to power turbine-electrics in the Siberian out back.
Google for it.
Sorry, you tube won't permit URLs.
staydput 1 year ago
@staydput Yes, I'm aware of the Russian turbines (check my previous post) but could not any info about them still in operation? LNG turbine sounds like a great idea for the right train & route.
doktorbimmer 1 year ago
2:30
Dayum!! Roastin hot!
6V92TA 2 years ago
What a fantastic piece of machinery. It is wonderful seeing this video.
cattleman6420012000 2 years ago
You're welcome.
suomenpresidentti 2 years ago
Thank you for share this one, i had always wanted to knows what the sound of "Big Blows" done :)
dashloc 2 years ago