# Union Pacific Big Blows



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jul 12, 2016)

The UP 8500-HP Gas Turbine Locos, aka the Big Blows, were said to be reliable successful locos, but why did they have such a short service life of 10 or so years?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 12, 2016)

Might it be that an 8500 HP locomotive is just a wee bit too much, and didn't they use jet fuel, costing $$$?


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jul 12, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> Might it be that an 8500 HP locomotive is just a wee bit too much, and didn't they use jet fuel, costing $$$?


They used Bunker C Fuel Oil.


----------



## John Bredin (Jul 12, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > Might it be that an 8500 HP locomotive is just a wee bit too much, and didn't they use jet fuel, costing $$$?
> ...


Also known as Residual Fuel Oil, meaning that's it's essentially sludge. :blink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#/media/File:Residual_fuel_oil.JPG The wiki article indicates that Bunker C is the cheapest grade of petroleum fuel but must be heated to flow and



> Heating the oil is also a delicate procedure, which is inappropriate to do on small, fast moving vehicles.


----------



## John Bredin (Jul 12, 2016)

Here's a web article discussing the issues of using Bunker C in the gas turbine locomotives (and elsewhere): http://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php It seems to indicate that they didn't use Bunker C (a.k.a. Number 6) so much as its just-slightly-less-sludgelike cousin Bunker B/Number 5.


----------



## railiner (Jul 12, 2016)

Gas turbine power has been tried numerous times in various railroad and highway vehicles, and while it does have some nice advantages, it always comes down to inferior fuel economy versus reciprocating engines, as well as much higher initial purchase cost.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 12, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> The UP 8500-HP Gas Turbine Locos, aka the Big Blows, were said to be reliable successful locos, but why did they have such a short service life of 10 or so years?


They were so successful they had to be retired in ten years? Sounds like gas turbine engines blow alright.


----------



## neroden (Jul 12, 2016)

railiner said:


> Gas turbine power has been tried numerous times in various railroad and highway vehicles, and while it does have some nice advantages, it always comes down to inferior fuel economy versus reciprocating engines, as well as much higher initial purchase cost.


Turbines actually have higher fuel economy if and only if you can keep the turbine going at constant high speed all the time (high speed or stopped). Which would mean using enormous batteries as a "buffer" in the electric transmission. Which wasn't possible until recently. Turbine-battery-electric locomotives may be practical in the coming years.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2016)

Technically they suck and blow. With a squeeze and a bang in the middle. h34r:


----------



## cirdan (Jul 13, 2016)

As others have said, early gas turbine locomotives burned bunker fuel oil, which is effectively the nasty stuff you're left with after you've refined all the more useful components out of your crude oil.

Beacuse it is so cheap, efficiency is really an afterthought. In terms of calorific efficiency, this type of locomotive is really a huge waste of resources. You need to preheat the fuel just to overcome its viscosity and make it soft enough to actually be able to flow. This makes cold starts pretty problematic and encourages idling over longer periods. The stuff also coalesces everywhere and is a pain to clean, while also representing an incendiary hazard. On the other hand you only get an acceptable overall efficiency when working at full throttle. Under other conditions, losses are huge.

Additionally, as new cracking techniques have been developed, it is now possible to recover more usefull stuff from the residues in the refinery. This means that bunker oil is no longer as cheap as it once was.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 13, 2016)

Another problem these beautiful engines had was air intake. The Turbine required a LOT of air flow, and running in the open that was no problem. But enter a longer tunnel and you risked flame out because now the intakes just could not keep up with the Turbine's demand.

As for fuel residue, there is at least one video of a stack fire occurring during start up-sort of reminds you of a dirty P-42


----------



## railiner (Jul 13, 2016)

neroden said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Gas turbine power has been tried numerous times in various railroad and highway vehicles, and while it does have some nice advantages, it always comes down to inferior fuel economy versus reciprocating engines, as well as much higher initial purchase cost.
> ...


That's the problem in a land vehicle---keeping the turbine spinning at its most efficient speed constantly. Much easier in an aircraft or vessel.

Chrysler ran several generations of turbine powered cars before finally giving up on them. GM also tried, a few..

I rode the world's first gas turbine powered intercity bus, a Continental Trailways Eagle, with a Ford experimental truck turbine like the one in their "Big Red" prototype tractor-trailer....a one-off wonder that was a dismal failure for several reasons, mainly cost and fuel economy, but also nearly impossible to shift the constant mesh manual tranny.

Later, Greyhound, GM-Allison Division and MCI received a US Department of Energy grant to operate a fleet of turbine powered MC-7's in a demonstration project. While much better than the Ford-Eagle design, mainly due to its Allison automatic, it too was a fuel hog (burned regular Diesel fuel). And despite the enormous heat coming from its exhaust stack, they never bothered developing a workable way to use it to heat the coach, and ran a separate diesel powered heater.

And just a couple of years ago, a company tried to demo a turbine-electric hybrid with New York's MTA....Unfortunately this design used a tiny underpowered Capstone turbine engine, and the bus could barely climb up the grade on river bridges, not to mention it broke down a lot.....

And Amtraks's experience with both the UA Turbo Trains, and later French design Turboliner's, was more for the image of being 'modern' than anything else, and we all know how those ended up.....


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 14, 2016)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/electric-truck-startup-nikola-motors-claims-23-billion-preorder-before-prototype-is-even-ready

Well it seem the turbo and battery power motor vehicle is just around the corner. Ok this story is a big PR push, but they might be able to produce one.


----------



## railiner (Jul 14, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/electric-truck-startup-nikola-motors-claims-23-billion-preorder-before-prototype-is-even-ready
> 
> Well it seem the turbo and battery power motor vehicle is just around the corner. Ok this story is a big PR push, but they might be able to produce one.


Interesting....thanks for the link. I suppose sooner or later someone will develop a practical example......

If there were a turbo-electric auto, I would be an 'early-adapter', and purchase one to replace my Prius...

Although the practical version would run at a constant speed, and take away one of the pleasure's....of listening to the turbine 'spooling up' when accelerating.

I recall riding the experimental turbine buses thru the streets back then, and watching the bewildered looks of people hearing them, and wondering where the airplane was 

I am so envious of Jay Leno, who owns the only working gas turbine powered car (a '63 Chrysler-Ghia), in private collection.


----------

