Steam & Excursion > If UP can restore a Big Boy...

...for the 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike, why not restore a GTEL as well? Both the UP 18 and UP 26 look to be in decent cosmetic shape, at least from the outside. Just shooting from the hip, I would give a little more leeway to the restoration of such a machine. Perhaps a remanufacturing as a straight diesel or use of a modern gas turbine as a prime mover? Is this doable? Just an idea.

Mark

And converting it from Bunker C to CNG would make the UP the enviro champs of the
Western World!

Good point! I wasn't even thinking of that. If you're going to dream, dream big!

That arrangement (burn off or straight methane) is so common in the oil patch industry on
large frame gen sets that it would be a natural for a locomotive. If nothing else it would
prove the technology is current and relevant.

That would be pretty cool, damn a GTEL, Big Boy, Challenger, 844, E's, Centennial... would be pretty sweet heritage fleet.

For what it's worth, this should be a huge celebration. IMHO, the UP should allow SP 4449 to operate on the property too. Whoever is President in 2019 should be at a celebration. This is huge for American history. A 4-8-8-4 fits right in of course. Let's hope all goes well, and this happens.




6088 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That would be pretty cool, damn a GTEL, Big Boy,
> Challenger, 844, E's, Centennial... would be
> pretty sweet heritage fleet.

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

6088 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That would be pretty cool, damn a GTEL, Big Boy,
> Challenger, 844, E's, Centennial... would be
> pretty sweet heritage fleet.

Dang -- that would be incredible and impressive!
I'd LOVE to see THAT happen!! Now....what about
restoring and operating the Cab-forward in Sacramento?
Wouldn't it be AWESOME to see the 4014 and the 4294
coupler-to-coupler on May 10, 2019?

Margaret_SP_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6088 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That would be pretty cool, damn a GTEL, Big
> Boy,
> > Challenger, 844, E's, Centennial... would be
> > pretty sweet heritage fleet.
>
> Dang -- that would be incredible and impressive!
> I'd LOVE to see THAT happen!! Now....what about
> restoring and operating the Cab-forward in
> Sacramento?
> Wouldn't it be AWESOME to see the 4014 and the
> 4294
> coupler-to-coupler on May 10, 2019?

It would, but I'm not getting my hopes up. It's my response to the "railfan browbeating" we've received in other threads saying The Corporation will do whatever it wants regardless of what we want.

I'd like to hear from reliable sources regarding how the UP 844's trip out west in 2009 came about. One story I heard (even before the trip became official) was that a publicist from Roseville Yard visited a local hobby shop to get a feedback from railfans what would be cool for the yard's 100th Anniversary, and she was told by one of them, "why don't you call Steve Lee?" And the rest they say, is history. Any truth or confirmation to this story?

I bring this up, because inspiration for great things need not come from those loyal to the money and The Corporation. I'm at least happy to see threads like this where people are allowed to dream.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/12 19:56 by cchan006.

Why don't they convert an old turbine into a genset! Man--can I think them up!

I would like to second or third the motion to restore the cab-forward at Sacramento while we are talking about cubic dollar$. A big-boy celebrating the Golden Spike ceremony with the only Cab Forward would be A W E S O M E ! ! !

JimBo

Unless the turbine engine itself just happened to be in excellent operable condition, it will never happen. Turbine parts are not things that can be made by any ole machine shop. On the other hand, one could install a modern turbine generating set. To say a lot of progress has been made in jet & turbine technology since those 707-era locomotives hit the road is putting it mildly.

Re: the Cab-Forward discussion...

My reason for the questions about the 'backwards' engines was not to throw another restoration conjecture into the competition; but, to simply
find out the comparative firebox dimensions and the furnace capabilities of an eight-coupled modern articulated ( also built for rugged mountain service).

I have no interest in seeing an operating Cab-forward, but I am fascinated by what Baldwin & the SP were able to accomplish. Maybe there are some construction details that could be incorporated for discussing the realities of modifying a big 4000s firebox.

I, personally, am Totally For a coal fired Big Boy.... seems to me that a coal firebed is much more friendly to that huge furnace.
Also, I'm not convinced that a fully high-HP-capable 4000 could actually have a "Need" for the full HP capabilities of that freight hauler.
Would the intended service actually need a multi-burner, high-HP, firebox? I don't think so.

Is CNG "a good choice"? Seems to me that hauling that fuel tank around might pose significant safety challenges, and is there really enough heat capability there to fire a high-draft furnace like that? Also, where do you fuel up the baby when out on the road? But, maybe the lower steaming assumptions about CNG might work out in excursion/demo service.

Let's see what modern engineering can come up with; but, you're still up against the horrendous ratios between the HP released in the firebox (in Watts) compared to what
(no pun intended) shows up at the drawbars (in Watts). At best (light throttle, low steam flow, high track-speed), you'd be talking 6% to 8% (for the 4000s) thermal efficiency --regardless of the fuel! That's a tremendous cost. 93% percent of your fuel dollars goes up the stack, unused, to pollute the atmosphere!

I'd bet that the 4000s couldn't come close to the Niagara's heat efficiency --- but even its terrible.

Later.....

Wes.

excuse me, what's a GTEL????

That would be a "gas turbine electric locomotive" and yes, the hot setup would be to just
swap in a modern frame 5 turbine set into the existing carbody, update the controls and
go terrorize the trackside residents.

You may have to put in a modern turbine anyway because I think the two surviving GTELs are just empty shells. The units were sold to a company in Kansas City after UP retired them that removed and re-purposed the turbines for the oil drilling industry if I remember right.

Dave, I believe you're 100% correct, the shells though were in pretty good shape,
and the tenders are still around. Be an interesting project as CNG is spreading.
I'm seeing the Love's stations from Omaha all the way South to DFW are advertising
coming CNG pumps. The rails would be a logical extension and gas turbines are both
simple and proven technology.

davew833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may have to put in a modern turbine anyway
> because I think the two surviving GTELs are just
> empty shells. The units were sold to a company in
> Kansas City after UP retired them that removed and
> re-purposed the turbines for the oil drilling
> industry if I remember right.


Dave, you are correct. I remember chatting with a friend in the mechanical department and the turbines were gutted and the power plants were sold to oil rigs in or off of Venezula for their use.
Bob K

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

I was told many years ago by a host at the Utah State RR Museum where #26 resides that it has a small diesel engine for hostling which I believe is still in place. So technically you *could* operate one without the turbine, but it wouldn't be much of a show...

davew833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was told many years ago by a host at the Utah
> State RR Museum where #26 resides that it has a
> small diesel engine for hostling which I believe
> is still in place. So technically you *could*
> operate one without the turbine, but it wouldn't
> be much of a show...

I have seen the one in Ogden and it has the gas turbine engine in place, but no generators. I have also seen the one that used to be in KC (now in Illinois) and it also had the gas turbine. Nameplate data from the Ogden loco: GE Gas Turbine No. 127648 8500 hp 6000 ft. altitude Compressor 16 stages 4860 rpm Turbine 2 stages Air in 90 deg. F. 11.83 PSIA Turbine Exhaust 823 deg F. 11.83 PSIA GE Instruction GEI 40920

The modern equivalent is still available from GE and they are widely used in the oil industry, as well as others.

Paul Guercio

crazymanpaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> davew833 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I was told many years ago by a host at the Utah
> > State RR Museum where #26 resides that it has a
> > small diesel engine for hostling which I
> believe
> > is still in place. So technically you *could*
> > operate one without the turbine, but it
> wouldn't
> > be much of a show...
>
> I have seen the one in Ogden and it has the gas
> turbine engine in place, but no generators. I have
> also seen the one that used to be in KC (now in
> Illinois) and it also had the gas turbine.
> Nameplate data from the Ogden loco: GE Gas Turbine
> No. 127648 8500 hp 6000 ft. altitude
> Compressor 16 stages 4860 rpm Turbine 2 stages
> Air in 90 deg. F. 11.83 PSIA Turbine
> Exhaust 823 deg F. 11.83 PSIA GE Instruction
> GEI 40920
>
> The modern equivalent is still available from GE
> and they are widely used in the oil industry, as
> well as others.
>
> Paul Guercio


Hey Paul, thanks for the info. I never copied that off the turbine in Ogden. All these folks need to know that they were banned from California ages ago before they were retired and disliked at most locations along the system for their noise production.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY