HOME | DD
SimonLMoore β Union Pacific Turbines
Published: 2010-05-03 19:38:23 +0000 UTC; Views: 16876; Favourites: 120; Downloads: 2391
Redirect to original
Description
* Prototype General Electric Gas Turbine-Electric GE 101, later UP 50.* 'Standard' General Electric Gas Turbine-Electric UP 51.
* 'Standard' General Electric Gas Turbine-Electric UP 53, with fuel tender.
* 'Veranda' General Electric Gas Turbine-Electric UP 61.
* 'Veranda' General Electric Gas Turbine-Electric UP 62, with fuel tender.
Little bit of artistic license, I know the top of the nose should be dark green, in my opinion it spoiled the armour yellow, so to improve the look of this piece I coloured it dark grey.
Created in MS Paint, based upon the work of Stan Lytle [link] used with permission.
Bet you didn't know I was interested in stuff from across the pond? Well I'm a purist British railfan through and through save for a weakness for superpower, it should say something that my favourite locomotive is the British Rail 9F, the Union Pacific therefore holds great interest for me. My interest in American railroading really only stretches from 1930-1960, the transition era.
Related content
Comments: 65
Indeed, the early 4,500 horsepower versions.
π: 0 β©: 0
I feel Just as Nostalgic for this as i feel for these:Β www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDDDglβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
I loved the Gas turbines. Even thought they've failed, they are the best
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure they failed, they just became uneconomical as their fuel became more expensive.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Failed" steam Locos and diesel locos all give lessons and perspective
I will say that I actually happen to like the blare of diesel trains when they "honk"... And their rumble as they pass is somewhat soothing as it is... Hmm...
1960's... I recall a diesel make and model from
That time was left out on a siding once the rail yard was closed and the diesel was broken and couldn't be fixed ( older model by comparison) and basically the last of its kind was left to rust, and it was plundered and vandalized beyond reasonable hope of overhaul...
Now it sits there broken and useless as "scrap" to anyone who May find it
Hmm, revolution bites doesn't it?
Perhaps both steam and diesel would do well to work together ... It would be more effective ...
π: 0 β©: 0
Er... gas turbines.
π: 0 β©: 1
Reason for tenders is because gas-turbine engines are VERY THIRSTY ENGINES. Β When you want to use a gas-turbine engine for something that's staying on the ground you do it for two reasons:
1. Β YOU NEED THE SHEER RAW POWER. Β Gas Turbine engines are currently THE last word when it comes to sheer power vs. weight with conventional internal combustion techniques!
2. Β Fuel is CHEAP. Β This one is secondary, but is still very very critical in non-aero applications like this because gas-turbines have a VORACIOUS fuel appetite compared to a piston engine of the same equivalent power-level! Β Union Pacific's gas-turbine locos were ran using the same heavy fuel oil that powers most ships today! Β Bunker fuel! Β In the late 1940's and 1950's, bunker fuel was only a a nickel to a dime a gallon and so fuel efficiency wasn't of any concern! Β U.P. was looking for combustion-electric locomotives that could replace their ultra-powerful steam engines, the Big Boys and the Challengers and the 4-12-2 9000's and gas-turbines were the solution!
π: 0 β©: 1
I know this now. Now if you want to talk about sheer power, why are none of the G3 GTELs up here? They were the only gas-turbines that actually required tenders. Why they used the same fuel as the steamers is still a bit confusing to me because I never understood the differences between diesel, gasoline, and Bunker C. Maybe Bunker C could be made easier? I dunno.
π: 0 β©: 1
Bunker C fuel is residual fuel oil! Β Of the crude oil that initially went into the distillation tower at the refinery, residual fuel oil is what's leftover at the BOTTOM of the tower after all the lighter gasoline, normal diesel, lubricating oils and LP gas have been extracted! Β Residual fuel oil at room temperature has about the same consistency as maple syrup, probably even thicker! Β It does not flow easily at all unless heated up first and today is now the starting point for all manner of plastics! Β The emergence of America's plastics industry is what doomed the GTELs by making residual fuel oil prohibitively expensive for the thirsty GTELs. Β BUT, back in the 1940's and 1950's, besides using it as fuel for firing boilers with, the only other good use for it was making asphalt! Β Union Pacific still had a large number of fuel oil facilities around its system from converting most of its steamers to burning fuel oil, and after mostly dieselizing they wanted to avoid having to dispose of those facilities that in many cases were not even two decades old. Β The gas-turbine fleet kept the significant investment in Bunker C servicing facilities sound.
π: 0 β©: 1
Soβ¦because residual oil is commonly used in plastics, that's why Bunker C became so expensive. I guess that makes sense. Also , the room temperature consitncey also clarifies how steamers burn oil. Thanks!
π: 0 β©: 0
My pleasure! Thanks for posting!
π: 0 β©: 0
Nono, they were powered by gas turbines.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you for offering your artwork for our enjoyment. I love the UP turbines. Have a few models of them, including a scratchbuilt 8500 HP unit I am working on.
Thank you again.
Marko
π: 0 β©: 1
Most welcome and excellent, do you have photos?
π: 0 β©: 2
Sorry it has been a spell, but I have put my first pics up of one of my turbines.
More to come. Promise!
π: 0 β©: 1
Looks great, thanks for sharing!
π: 0 β©: 0
Soon. Very soon. I will post photos of some of my models. I am just starting to unpack this weekend.
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful simplicity. I needed a orthographic side view. I'm curious though, why don't you have the third generation GTEL depicted here? What, out of curiosity is your opinion of the Big Boy? That, by far, is my favorite era of the Union Pacific too.
π: 0 β©: 1
My opinion of the Big Boy, a loco for it's purpose, steep grades and heavy loads, as far as I know however some further refinement might have reduced fuel consumption, brute force seemed to come at the expense of efficiency to some degree. Still, a trumph of engineering.
I couldn't find a same-scale drawing of the Big Blows to colour if I'm honest!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi,
My brother and I are huge train photography fans too. Could you vote on a Union Pacific Commerical Remake? It only takes a moment of your time and would really be helpful. He is using some of his favorite photographs that work for the commercial. Here is the website to vote: [link]
Thank you so much!
π: 0 β©: 1
Done so, no worries!
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks! you have an amazing assortment in your gallery- something for everyone. You have a lot of talents.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wish I could find videos of those in service
π: 0 β©: 1
There are some on youtube.
π: 0 β©: 0
Love the super trains of that era. Too bad the steamers were at their end.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed so, a sad but interesting time.
π: 0 β©: 0
My grandfather worked at GE and was involved with the engineering aspects of developing the Big Blows. Do you intend to create a drawing of the double-unit turbine engines too?
π: 0 β©: 1
Certainly do, said so in the description! They are engineering triumphs
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes and no... They were certainly pinnacles of internal combustion power, but the engineers never figured out how to make the gas turbines resistant to the corrosive properties of the Bunker C fuel they burned. Starting the turbines was a very difficult job that often involved an unintended volcano of flame out the exhaust stack, and the necessity of having a reciprocating Diesel onboard for hostling purposes made the engines unnecessarily complex. They were also excessively loud which precluded them from getting much use beyond the unpopulated areas around Sherman Hill. Perhaps, if they had overcome a few of those hurdles, they might have been true engineering triumphs.
π: 0 β©: 1
Such engineering is always going to be complex, gas turbines need a secondary source of power for starting, a diesel engine providing electrical power is actually a preferable method of doing this, the Brits attempt involved huge banks of lead-acid batteries but the turbine had to hostle under it's own power, wasting fuel. Thus I would say the installation of the diesel engine was a sensible engineering solution.
The loud roar of any 'jet' engine is of course a problem, people suffering greatly from living near airports prove this. To this day however I don't believe anyone has developed anything which can muffle the huge amount of exhaust produced by a gas turbine.
Engine corrosion is perhaps the biggest falling point, and of course with rising fuel prices was partly what finally did for the turbines, I know UP experimented with different fuel sources, perhaps this might have been the answer to the problem as I can't see an engineering solution to it.
I stand by them being an engineering triumph, they were far more commercially successful than many things dubbed triumphs and I think this lends credibility as well.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed. 
π: 0 β©: 1
These are awesome, great job
I saw the UP X26 up close and personal last year
π: 0 β©: 1
Nice! Pitty none of the earlier turbines survived 
π: 0 β©: 1
It's a shame. Only two are known to exist, and I forgot where the other one is. (I really wish that one of them could be made to operate again, but that's wishful thinking)
π: 0 β©: 1
Far too complex and expensive I fear.
π: 0 β©: 2
Yep, the turbines are very complex machines. I just wish I could hear one...
π: 0 β©: 1
Only on video sadly...
π: 0 β©: 1
"Although Union Pacific never donated any turbines directly to museums, two of the locomotives did survive and now are on public display. No. 18 is at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL and No. 26 and 26B are displayed at Ogden Union Station in Ogden, UT."
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>