You know, Union Pacific got in big trouble Running these engines into cities like Los Angeles, due to the fact these engines made as much noise as a 747 at takeoff.
i know im randomly asking but does anybody know of a way to log back into an Instagram account..? I was stupid forgot the password. I would love any tricks you can offer me!
@Brooks Finnegan i really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im in the hacking process now. Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
GTEL Locomotives are great in theory...turbines of any given horsepower will weigh usually around half as much as a comparable diesel piston engine, etc. Also, if you're using for all they are worth...which is to say if you're running them at 100% (either to build speed *or* clawing your way up a mountain with a load of freight behind you, etc.) they are pretty comparable to diesels in cost (still burn more fuel, but less locos required for a job so less maintenance, etc.) The problem...and this clip sums it up perfectly...is that 99.9% of jobs locomotives do aren't at 100% full throttle and a lot of times just creepy around a yard putting together a train before they even pull out on to the mainline. Their value was quite limited even when their fuel was essentially free (speaking of the Bunker C fuel they used), but when that started edging up in price as the petrochemical industry started finding uses for it, the turbines simply had no future. Myself, I think that electrifying a lot of the heavily traveled routes would make a lot of since. You can easily build 7K, 8K and even 10,000hp locos if they aren't having to generate the power on board. For that matter, I shouldn't think it would be that big of a deal to convert existing diesel locos into hybrids; put catenary wires on stretches of track with heavy grades, places you know you're going to give your traction motors a workout and allow the diesels to instead draw that electricity from overhead wires, idling their diesel power-plants (in case of electrical failure, they could always bring their diesels instantly back up to full power, etc.)
I feel like once Union Pacific got that juicy bunker C people wanted to make it more valuable so they found ways to use it so it would make more money off of UP But it could just be 1 big coincidence that killed the giants
The turbines would be better if they operated flat out for longer distances, and regrettably there are very few places in the North American rail system that fit that description
I think, by the late 1940s, the UP considered setting up infrastructure to use GG1 Electrics like those used by the PRR in the Northeast and Midwest Metro Areas. The plans to use them never materialized Ultimately, Diesels are more cost effective than and easier to maintain than Electrics, all other things equal. The Turbines were too, given how cheap the Bunker Fuel Oil was. Factor in the 25 Big Boys and 105 Challenger Steam Locomotives that the UP had. Electrification would've been a net negative cost in the end.
I thought they used turbines since they could run on cheaper fuel. (These used bunker C) They had to retire them after the fuel started getting more expensive.
@@acoolerhandle Yep. UP tried as an experiment converting one of them to burn powdered coal (which was still cheaper than diesel and likely to stay there) and while it worked, they could never get a delivery system in the tender that guaranteed the coal was sufficiently powdered. If the coal wasn't absolutely completely pulverised into a baby-powder consistency, any chunk would survive combustion and hit the turbine blades in a manner akin to a sandblaster 😳
@@flabiger You aren't wrong in that that is certainly possible, but by that time the bloom was kinda off GTEL locomotives and using coal was kind of a last-ditch effort for the manufacturer to keep UP interested in developing the tech. It was more about figuring out how to cheaply power GTEL locomotives more than the best way to use coal (if that makes sense.)
I would love to have seen one of these running in operation. The largest and most powerful locomotive ever built. I think the idea of a gas turbine was a great idea, it's amazing they were able to make the technology in the 50s into a locomotive. Some of the figures this locomotive could achieve were mind blowing. Like a maximum starting tractive effort of 1100kn! I would love to have heard the famous sound they made as well. Such a pity there aren't any left in working order.
Perhaps it is time for railroads to consider gas turbines again. Turbine engine technology is far advanced over what was available in the 1950s. Early turbojet aircraft put out copious amounts of soot and weren't all that powerful for their size. Compare that to the turbofan engines used on aircraft today. No airline would consider going back to piston engines.
Actually the Chinese have us beat, they've got some 10,900HP (DJ1), 12,870HP (HXD3B), and 13,000HP (HXD2) electric locomotives!!! But then again, they're electric. They also have 6,250HP diesel electric locos made by GE, with the GEVO-16 engine. (Basically a 16-cylinder GEVO)
If you want to get the noise, easiest way is to find an air show with a J79 powered plane. F-4 Phantom or F-104 Starfighter were the most common to share engine with the Big Blows. You will understand, very quickly, why there were noise concerns. It's one of those sounds that, if your head was cut off, you'd still hear it clearly through your ribs.
@ Milosz Ostrow To be sure, modern turbines are FAR superior to those of this era in every way possible. They are cleaner, quieter, more efficient, and about as reliable as anything can be. But you have to remember that heavy piston engines are not the liability in a locomotive that they are in aircraft. Thus, there is the question as to whether a turbine powered locomotive would truly be better enough than a diesel to justify the development of one. Besides, developments in motive power for railroads seem to be headed in another direction altogether - electric (whether overhead or battery powered). Gas turbine locomotives don’t appear to be future.
CHEAP FUEL; that is why Union Pacific used those gas turbine engines = the 'Bunker C' fuel they burned was almost FREE, so they had powerful trains that ran on fuel that had almost no cost to them at all.
Apparently, the pollution is intense and industry discovered that that goo was a good starting point for some plastics...........which drove up prices even faster.
@@Icepacalapse yep these burned A LOT of that stuff. The process is called cracking, it's basically breaking the long molecules into multiple shorter ones.
It was nearly free for a good reason--no one wanted to deal with it! It apparently had the room-temperature viscosity of molasses, so they had to pre-heat it to around 200º F. Plus, it kept plugging up the fuel filters on these things, so they had to pre-filter the fuel before loading it into the fuel tanks. That was where the added costs came in, so in the long run that so-called "cheap fuel" wound up being pretty costly, to the point where the UP switched to modified No. 6 heavy fuel oil, which contained fewer pollutants and solvents: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs#Background
From what I understand, the prime mover was a GE LM1500 gas turbine. That's the industry version of the J79 jet engine out of the F-4 Phantom. Famous in the aviation world for being very loud and very smokey.
Yup. It’s pretty much a jet engine that’s been hooked up via an output shaft to electrical gear (pretty sure it was a generator and not an alternator). Jet engine does its thing, spins output shaft, makes electricity, and electricity goes to traction motors.
@@blackbirdgaming8147 correction its a turbine engine, jet engines use their thrust to propel and contain turbines in them but thats to drive the fan to push the air that gets compressed to thrust, so slight variation of a turbine is a jet.
As impressive as that number sounds, horsepower is not what moves trains. Tractive Effort is. Tractive Effort is how much force is actually making it to the rail. Modern diesel locomotives with their advanced traction control systems can easily outpull the GTEL's. As an example, the 3rd gen GTEL's were 8,500 HP and had about 212,000 Lbf starting tractive effort and around 140,000 Lbf of continuous tractive effort. A new EMD SD70ACe-T4 as an example has 4,400 HP but has 200,000 Lbf starting tractive effort and 175,000 Lbf continuous. And it has that much power using only 12 cylinders and meets all the latest emission requirements.
@@JosueRodriguez-kk6wn Yeah I don’t think that’s accurate. GE and ALCO were partners, but they separated towards the end of the 50s. The partnership allowed ALCO to use GE electrical gear.
The actual gas turbine prime mover was of the GE Frame 5 variety. I always figured it would be a T-56 or LM series but I guess this is too early for the latter.
Despite their “Rough Start’s” as well as the slight Over consumption of Fuel. The GTEL’s were Powerful machines, and were able to handle super long and heavy freights on their own. The fact that only one locomotive was needed to haul a Long and Heavy freight train proves how reliable they were.
They weren't reliable, which is why in nearly every film footage of a GTEL there are several EMD diesels trailing it and why they didn't last more than 15 years in service. Even if they were reliable, the excessive fuel consumption would've made sure they never survived the 1970s Fuel Crisis.
@@rc4lifebnsf X-18 is at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL (near Marengo, between Rockford and Chicago), and X-26 is at the Utah State Railroad Museum in Ogden. I've seen X-18 personally, and yes, she's impressively huge and about as "Union Pacific" as it gets. Both museums also have one each of the other giant Union Pacific diesel-electric locomotive, DDA40X "Centennial" locomotives, numbers 6930 (IRM) and 6916 (Utah).
I remember I used to get nightmares from the scene with fire. For some reason I remember a beeping alarm going off before the fire as if it blew up, my mind was weird lol.
I don’t think you were imagining it. There used to be a video up showing that fire clip with a beeping alarm and the WHAT THE FU-BOOOOOOOOM meme in the audio. Trust me, I remember it so clearly.
The scenes in the video are not in sequence. The builders plate of UP 30 shows a manufacturing date of 6-1961. The video then switches to Ogden to show a Challenger on a turntable. Except for Northern 844, all UP big stream was retired in July, 1959.
Jet engines hot start occasionally. It's not great for it, but the flames aren't really that hot next to the exhaust that comes out of the combustion chamber. That'd melt stainless steel turbine blades in seconds without the boundary layer air cooling system. As for GE vs Alco, GE is one of the Big 3 in jet engines, so taking an industrial stationary power turbine and bolting it to a train was easy.
The Generation 3 Turbines like the ones shown here are the most powerful turbine locomotives in the world. Sure they had some problems like at 2:30 but they had the highest horse power rating!
No, it's fine. Older, large turbines have a tendency to kick out a load of shit on a cold start, especially if they've been stood a while. The old G.E CF-6 jet engines I used to work on were notorious for it, especially in winter. It's just the unburnt, cold, viscous fuel that's collected getting blatted out.
What was the fuel used by the header? It is possible to see a much thinner smoke stream coming from its hood. I don't still know if the vapor turbine was only to turn the generator to move the wheels of the second unit as the header was moved by a diesel electric system.
I like these engines a lot, red white and blue logo, strongest locomotive in the world (at that time) and very loud and makes a lot of pollution. Very epic.
There used to be a video about these a couple few years ago called Big Blow, it was like a two hour long video, but apparently it got taken down, I can't find it here anymore. This clip is taken from that video. Gotta laugh at how they keep saying "turban" for turbine.
@@ThePaulv12 The afterburner would eliminate any need for helpers,with an additional 4 or 5 thousand hp.,it would be gaining speed going up Sherman Hill faster,then any engine could going down hill.HAHA!!.
Unfortunately you get to use an afterburner OR a power turbine. Try to put some turbine blades downstream of a burner and bad things start to happen. It can't generate electricity if it's a liquid.
Most of the utility wiring used on highline poles did/do not contain insulation (many highlines similar today), so no insulation to burn. Plus poles are to the side of the rails & main fireball.
+mallet2882 looks like a flameout, happens when there is a stall on the compressor blades, which means that the air inside the turbine will fluctuate heavily.
8 ปีที่แล้ว +26
+mallet2882 they accidentally fueled it with taco bell
Maybe....a Mormon baptism by fire of a new member-----Fire helps us put off the natural man and be cleansed by the Atonement of ------General Electric..........
When the turbines went into Los Angeles, it had 8 ft intake with 8 foot exhaust that pump 8oo Der exhaust yes that could quick fry some pigeon, I bet the rats were happy
Fully aware this was posted 3 years ago, but anyway: aspect ratio: likely it was filmed with 4:3 in mind, and then either played back, or edited, or uploaded here in 16:9 (called 'widescreen' for a reason) :) The alternative of course would be to have the 'black bars' at the side of the video.
as much as seeing a turbine running again I'm not sure UP would want to bring one back cause we all now know the reason as to why they were given the name bird burners
I know the one in Indiana is up for consideration to be partially repaired (getting the secondary diesel engine running) however the engine is seized, so it'd take a lot of work to even just get the diesel running. There are a bunch of other issues such as the traction motors being hard wired to the Diesel's output instead of the turbine, the turbine itself is missing some parts, and they have another large issue with frozen fuel (bunker C fuel has to be heated to above 225 degrees f to flow) so as it stands, repair and restoration of them is unfeasable
If someone could help me understand what role the gas turbines play with the locomotive. I work on gas turbines offshore. Are they used as additional power to assist the diesel locomotive or were they prime mover? Thanks.
The engine shown in this video was a gas turbine-electric, so the turbine served as the "prime mover", i.e, it spun a generator that supplied electricity to the traction motors. There was no mechanical link between the turbine engine and the wheels.
Milosz Ostrow awesome thanks for the explanation. I always thought that Diesel engines were the prime movers for power gen on locomotives, so when I ran across this video I was super intrigued!
Too bad turbans never became a standard. Turbans looked like they had a promising future 🎉 the only turbans running in Canada was the UAC Turbo train 💯
This was a good video camera for the 50s/60s. Go film with Super 8 Sound, the most commercially available video film at the time, and see how your videos turn out.
Back in the day, guys use to say that they’d park those underneath a bridge and it would actually melt the pavement above..
The 50-60s locomotives have always been my favorites, something about them that makes it so unique
Perhaps it’s the unique shape and designs?
In my opinion those locomotives tend to pack a lot of power.
Union Pacific main strategy back in the day was more power, less units.
You know, Union Pacific got in big trouble Running these engines into cities like Los Angeles, due to the fact these engines made as much noise as a 747 at takeoff.
Not only that, but you park them under a bridge and the heat from the exhaust would turn asphalt into gravy 😜
Lmfao
Like the Jets ?????
i know im randomly asking but does anybody know of a way to log back into an Instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot the password. I would love any tricks you can offer me!
@Brooks Finnegan i really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im in the hacking process now.
Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
GTEL Locomotives are great in theory...turbines of any given horsepower will weigh usually around half as much as a comparable diesel piston engine, etc. Also, if you're using for all they are worth...which is to say if you're running them at 100% (either to build speed *or* clawing your way up a mountain with a load of freight behind you, etc.) they are pretty comparable to diesels in cost (still burn more fuel, but less locos required for a job so less maintenance, etc.)
The problem...and this clip sums it up perfectly...is that 99.9% of jobs locomotives do aren't at 100% full throttle and a lot of times just creepy around a yard putting together a train before they even pull out on to the mainline. Their value was quite limited even when their fuel was essentially free (speaking of the Bunker C fuel they used), but when that started edging up in price as the petrochemical industry started finding uses for it, the turbines simply had no future.
Myself, I think that electrifying a lot of the heavily traveled routes would make a lot of since. You can easily build 7K, 8K and even 10,000hp locos if they aren't having to generate the power on board. For that matter, I shouldn't think it would be that big of a deal to convert existing diesel locos into hybrids; put catenary wires on stretches of track with heavy grades, places you know you're going to give your traction motors a workout and allow the diesels to instead draw that electricity from overhead wires, idling their diesel power-plants (in case of electrical failure, they could always bring their diesels instantly back up to full power, etc.)
I feel like once Union Pacific got that juicy bunker C people wanted to make it more valuable so they found ways to use it so it would make more money off of UP
But it could just be 1 big coincidence that killed the giants
The turbines would be better if they operated flat out for longer distances, and regrettably there are very few places in the North American rail system that fit that description
I think, by the late 1940s, the UP considered setting up infrastructure to use GG1 Electrics like those used by the PRR in the Northeast and Midwest Metro Areas. The plans to use them never materialized
Ultimately, Diesels are more cost effective than and easier to maintain than Electrics, all other things equal. The Turbines were too, given how cheap the Bunker Fuel Oil was. Factor in the 25 Big Boys and 105 Challenger Steam Locomotives that the UP had. Electrification would've been a net negative cost in the end.
@@joeruiz4010 Jajajajajaja, that's one of the dumbest take I've ever read about rail electrification, congrats.
@@eleSDSU You're illiterate in economics. Too stupid to understand the concept of "Investment".
2:28 "...but turbine start-ups don't always go smoothly.." *exhaust ignites in a huge fireball 😂😂😂😂
Left Is Best I saw this same clip but with a maniacal laughter in the background.
🤣
Obligatory Taco -Bell- Hell joke goes here
That was hilarious!!! I like the Challenger on the turntable in the background. Sounded like a mortar going off!
These burn roughly 44 gallons of fuel per mile, for context, a 3 unit E7 burns roughly 10.
They do look cool, though!
Fuel notwithstanding, and I assume the entire point, a single gen 3 GTEL could replace four E7’s with some power to spare.
I thought they used turbines since they could run on cheaper fuel. (These used bunker C) They had to retire them after the fuel started getting more expensive.
@@acoolerhandle
Correct.
@@acoolerhandle Yep. UP tried as an experiment converting one of them to burn powdered coal (which was still cheaper than diesel and likely to stay there) and while it worked, they could never get a delivery system in the tender that guaranteed the coal was sufficiently powdered. If the coal wasn't absolutely completely pulverised into a baby-powder consistency, any chunk would survive combustion and hit the turbine blades in a manner akin to a sandblaster 😳
@@flabiger You aren't wrong in that that is certainly possible, but by that time the bloom was kinda off GTEL locomotives and using coal was kind of a last-ditch effort for the manufacturer to keep UP interested in developing the tech. It was more about figuring out how to cheaply power GTEL locomotives more than the best way to use coal (if that makes sense.)
This locomotive is an EPA nightmare.
Yeah, but the EPA didn't exist when this baby was birthed.
"Birthed"
its actually tier5 compliant.........
Whammytap Let's hope mr. Trump gets rid of em
Pollution = good paying jobs.
+MrPete8680 Make America Great Again.
2:20 The sound effect is cute, but I can only imagine what innocent bystanders would think of the menacing fireball and pillar of smoke!
the Vatican was nearby.........
So im assuming that the tender on the back was basically a huge fuel tank for the turbine?
yup
Bunker oil
yes, they were taken from challenger locomotives and refitted to hold the bunker c oil
Tommy Stearns up up still uses 2, 814 and 809 Jim Adams as water tenders behind the big boy
New England Railfan productions 2017 So they’ve come full circle in a way.
2:28 But turbine startups don’t always go smoothly
Dragon Fart.
BRAAAAAAAP-
Now we know why it's a bird burner
"It's wizard time motherf----rs!"
*IT'S WIZZARD TIME MF. FIREBALL!!!!!*
I would love to have seen one of these running in operation. The largest and most powerful locomotive ever built. I think the idea of a gas turbine was a great idea, it's amazing they were able to make the technology in the 50s into a locomotive. Some of the figures this locomotive could achieve were mind blowing. Like a maximum starting tractive effort of 1100kn! I would love to have heard the famous sound they made as well. Such a pity there aren't any left in working order.
Perhaps it is time for railroads to consider gas turbines again. Turbine engine technology is far advanced over what was available in the 1950s. Early turbojet aircraft put out copious amounts of soot and weren't all that powerful for their size. Compare that to the turbofan engines used on aircraft today. No airline would consider going back to piston engines.
Actually the Chinese have us beat, they've got some 10,900HP (DJ1), 12,870HP (HXD3B), and 13,000HP (HXD2) electric locomotives!!! But then again, they're electric.
They also have 6,250HP diesel electric locos made by GE, with the GEVO-16 engine. (Basically a 16-cylinder GEVO)
They were so noisey that they were banned from night time running in some areas.
For the 1950s that's saying something.
I want to hear that noise.
If you want to get the noise, easiest way is to find an air show with a J79 powered plane. F-4 Phantom or F-104 Starfighter were the most common to share engine with the Big Blows. You will understand, very quickly, why there were noise concerns. It's one of those sounds that, if your head was cut off, you'd still hear it clearly through your ribs.
@ Milosz Ostrow
To be sure, modern turbines are FAR superior to those of this era in every way possible. They are cleaner, quieter, more efficient, and about as reliable as anything can be. But you have to remember that heavy piston engines are not the liability in a locomotive that they are in aircraft. Thus, there is the question as to whether a turbine powered locomotive would truly be better enough than a diesel to justify the development of one. Besides, developments in motive power for railroads seem to be headed in another direction altogether - electric (whether overhead or battery powered). Gas turbine locomotives don’t appear to be future.
The locomotive that keeps Al Gore from sleeping at night.
CHEAP FUEL; that is why Union Pacific used those gas turbine engines = the 'Bunker C' fuel they burned was almost FREE, so they had powerful trains that ran on fuel that had almost no cost to them at all.
Apparently, the pollution is intense and industry discovered that that goo was a good starting point for some plastics...........which drove up prices even faster.
@@Icepacalapse yep these burned A LOT of that stuff. The process is called cracking, it's basically breaking the long molecules into multiple shorter ones.
UP was having a problem with the heavy bunker fuel fouling the turbine blades in the hot section on the engines.
It was nearly free for a good reason--no one wanted to deal with it! It apparently had the room-temperature viscosity of molasses, so they had to pre-heat it to around 200º F. Plus, it kept plugging up the fuel filters on these things, so they had to pre-filter the fuel before loading it into the fuel tanks. That was where the added costs came in, so in the long run that so-called "cheap fuel" wound up being pretty costly, to the point where the UP switched to modified No. 6 heavy fuel oil, which contained fewer pollutants and solvents:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs#Background
2:31 when the diesel fuel had Taco Bell in it
Holy cow! It's basically a jet engine, innit?
Just about. They were called Big Blows for a good reason.
From what I understand, the prime mover was a GE LM1500 gas turbine. That's the industry version of the J79 jet engine out of the F-4 Phantom. Famous in the aviation world for being very loud and very smokey.
Yup. It’s pretty much a jet engine that’s been hooked up via an output shaft to electrical gear (pretty sure it was a generator and not an alternator). Jet engine does its thing, spins output shaft, makes electricity, and electricity goes to traction motors.
@@blackbirdgaming8147 correction its a turbine engine, jet engines use their thrust to propel and contain turbines in them but thats to drive the fan to push the air that gets compressed to thrust, so slight variation of a turbine is a jet.
@@manga12 Unnecessarily pedantic...
2:30
Great Balls Of Fire!!!
Still true even for modern GE locomotives. XD
I remember there being a WTF BOOM meme of this one scene
So do I.
8500 horsepower! Wow!
Later raised to 10,000.
8 500 hp from the turbine alone
@@blackbirdgaming8147 Only for testing. Not for revenue use. They were kept at 8,500 HP on the final models.
As impressive as that number sounds, horsepower is not what moves trains. Tractive Effort is. Tractive Effort is how much force is actually making it to the rail. Modern diesel locomotives with their advanced traction control systems can easily outpull the GTEL's. As an example, the 3rd gen GTEL's were 8,500 HP and had about 212,000 Lbf starting tractive effort and around 140,000 Lbf of continuous tractive effort. A new EMD SD70ACe-T4 as an example has 4,400 HP but has 200,000 Lbf starting tractive effort and 175,000 Lbf continuous. And it has that much power using only 12 cylinders and meets all the latest emission requirements.
@@FFred-us9tw You hit the nail on the head. One thing I’ll add though is your comment is exactly why the horsepower wars were pointless.
2:20 But Turbine Startups Don't Always go Smoothly...
“Fucking Explodes!”
Looks like GE tried to collaborate with ALCO...
That's because GE bought Alco in the 50s and created these engines.
@@JosueRodriguez-kk6wn Yeah I don’t think that’s accurate. GE and ALCO were partners, but they separated towards the end of the 50s. The partnership allowed ALCO to use GE electrical gear.
Didn't realize the exhaust on these things was so hot that it could kill birds roosting under bridges, etc. - hence the name...
2:28 The turbine: "Wanna see a magic trick?"
Challenger: “Nope.”
**leaves the scene**
That turbine exhaust is a real bird roaster. Pity GTELs are no more.
The actual gas turbine prime mover was of the GE Frame 5 variety. I always figured it would be a T-56 or LM series but I guess this is too early for the latter.
At the end it was acting like a steam engine great video is this still in stores
2:31 "It's wizard time motherf----rs! Fireball!"
I couldnt stop laughing at "bird burner" 😂😂😂😂😂 but yes its an accurate name
Road-Runners catch pure HELL when these are going through tunnels.HAHA!!.
Engineer: "Do i smell KFC"?
I like the one about the cop who threatened to arrest one engineer if he ever dared to come back with his turbine......
2:38 I finally found where the GTEL startup video came from.
I seem to remember my dad taking 'us boys" to see one of these and it belched fire like this and it made my cry . It was loud!
Despite their “Rough Start’s” as well as the slight Over consumption of Fuel. The GTEL’s were Powerful machines, and were able to handle super long and heavy freights on their own.
The fact that only one locomotive was needed to haul a Long and Heavy freight train proves how reliable they were.
They weren't reliable, which is why in nearly every film footage of a GTEL there are several EMD diesels trailing it and why they didn't last more than 15 years in service. Even if they were reliable, the excessive fuel consumption would've made sure they never survived the 1970s Fuel Crisis.
pentrex dude NEVER stops talking
Wish UP would restore one and run it along with Big Boy on special occasions.
All of them were scrapped
@@justanothergermantankie9142 false, there’s 2. One in Nebraska I think and the other is in union Illinois railroad museum
@@rc4lifebnsf You're correct about one being at Union. The only other surviving turbine is at Ogden UT.
@@rc4lifebnsf X-18 is at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL (near Marengo, between Rockford and Chicago), and X-26 is at the Utah State Railroad Museum in Ogden. I've seen X-18 personally, and yes, she's impressively huge and about as "Union Pacific" as it gets. Both museums also have one each of the other giant Union Pacific diesel-electric locomotive, DDA40X "Centennial" locomotives, numbers 6930 (IRM) and 6916 (Utah).
The great OZZ has spoken!!.(2:30)
I remember I used to get nightmares from the scene with fire. For some reason I remember a beeping alarm going off before the fire as if it blew up, my mind was weird lol.
I don’t think you were imagining it. There used to be a video up showing that fire clip with a beeping alarm and the WHAT THE FU-BOOOOOOOOM meme in the audio. Trust me, I remember it so clearly.
I wish this video gets a re-master. Too good to let it fall by the wayside.
The scenes in the video are not in sequence. The builders plate of UP 30 shows a manufacturing date of 6-1961. The video then switches to Ogden to show a Challenger on a turntable. Except for Northern 844, all UP big stream was retired in July, 1959.
Thank you for the information
Engineer: "Do i smell KFC?"
To hear 'em....was to know 'em! Apparently too much for the L.A. city fathers in the summer of '62.
Big Boy after seeing Fire from GTEL: that wasnt supposed to happen.
That was a Challenger
@@Tottleminerftw yes. notice the 300 instead of 400 number plate
Dear God! I'd expect something like that from ALCO, not GE. What the hell happened? And also, how was No. 1 able to work that day after that burnout?
Really it was just a backfire and was apperently quite common for these units
Oh. Okay.
Jet engines hot start occasionally. It's not great for it, but the flames aren't really that hot next to the exhaust that comes out of the combustion chamber. That'd melt stainless steel turbine blades in seconds without the boundary layer air cooling system.
As for GE vs Alco, GE is one of the Big 3 in jet engines, so taking an industrial stationary power turbine and bolting it to a train was easy.
The Generation 3 Turbines like the ones shown here are the most powerful turbine locomotives in the world. Sure they had some problems like at 2:30 but they had the highest horse power rating!
I don't think they are supposed to go "BOOM" when they start right? @2:31
No, it's fine. Older, large turbines have a tendency to kick out a load of shit on a cold start, especially if they've been stood a while. The old G.E CF-6 jet engines I used to work on were notorious for it, especially in winter. It's just the unburnt, cold, viscous fuel that's collected getting blatted out.
Fire Marshall Bill was showing them what could happen while starting an engine after bringing liquor on board like they used to back then
What was the fuel used by the header? It is possible to see a much thinner smoke stream coming from its hood. I don't still know if the vapor turbine was only to turn the generator to move the wheels of the second unit as the header was moved by a diesel electric system.
at 2:30--did they elect a pope??
rear speaker must have 😂😂
That's quite clever (from one reformed catholic to another I'm guessing).
Yes, but only after apparently incinerating the previous one!
@@ThePaulv12 bingo!
Did that turbine have burritos for dinner last night or what?
Holy shit it belched a ball of fire. Fry birds and people in one shot.
I like these engines a lot, red white and blue logo, strongest locomotive in the world (at that time) and very loud and makes a lot of pollution. Very epic.
I love those gas turbine electric locomotives
I used to get scared when it caught fire. Good memories.
Looks like my bike startup.....
do you guys consider this or bhp iron ore the heaviest?
2:31 ah yes. Someone order KFC?
It's too bad all the cool stuff was invented and operated before the invention of High Definition.
🎶bird burner🎶 (to the tune of Transformers theme song)
So thats a ABTAB?
There used to be a video about these a couple few years ago called Big Blow, it was like a two hour long video, but apparently it got taken down, I can't find it here anymore. This clip is taken from that video. Gotta laugh at how they keep saying "turban" for turbine.
Is this footage from a larger documentary or DVD set? And if so, which one?
Pentrex has a couple of DVDs in their catalog about the UP turbines.
@@dannywilliamson3340 I found it already but thanks lol
Would anyone know how many gallons per hour these units burned at notch 8?
Not totally sure but I bet ya it’s a butt ton of fuel lol
What’s interesting is these units didn’t actually have a conventional throttle. They had GE 20-notch throttles
THE U25 AND U28 LOCOMOTIVES HAD AN 16 NOTCH THROTTLE-
WITH 8 SPEEDS AS USUAL PLUS THE EXCITATION INCREASE NOTCH FOLLOWING EACH RPM INCREASES
2:31 People after eating Taco Bell be like
They should have included a"afterburner"so when you hit 120 miles per hour,you kick in the afterburner and take it up to warp-9...HAHA!!.
Our afterburner could be used to to negate the need for a Diesel helper and to aid starting on an incline.
@@ThePaulv12 The afterburner would eliminate any need for helpers,with an additional 4 or 5 thousand hp.,it would be gaining speed going up Sherman Hill faster,then any engine could going down hill.HAHA!!.
Unfortunately you get to use an afterburner OR a power turbine. Try to put some turbine blades downstream of a burner and bad things start to happen. It can't generate electricity if it's a liquid.
2:31 Fire in the hole!
why did those power lines next to turbine 1 not catch fire?
Most of the utility wiring used on highline poles did/do not contain insulation (many highlines similar today), so no insulation to burn. Plus poles are to the side of the rails & main fireball.
@@davidhuey3201ohh, okay.
Is that the challenger on the turntable
it is a challenger but not 3985
You can see a challenger cool.
Much dirtier was not possible , but the heavy oil was cheap and environment regularities haven't exist.This locomotives were children of their time.
2:31
ALLAH AKBAR!!!!!!
what happened at 2:32 ?
+mallet2882 looks like a flameout, happens when there is a stall on the compressor blades, which means that the air inside the turbine will fluctuate heavily.
+mallet2882 they accidentally fueled it with taco bell
elected a new pope.
rear speaker well they don't exactly call em Popes in Utah
Maybe....a Mormon baptism by fire of a new member-----Fire helps us put off the natural man and be cleansed by the Atonement of ------General Electric..........
Is this a dvd
When the turbines went into Los Angeles, it had 8 ft intake with 8 foot exhaust that pump 8oo Der exhaust yes that could quick fry some pigeon, I bet the rats were happy
2:31 Sausage sizzle & The Doors c'mon baby 'Light My Fire!'
How do Americans differentiate between Turbine and Turban when talking?
2:30 Uuuuum... is this supposed to happen?
Dimitris Tsekeris yeah it’s fine
Yeah
Oh no, not the Birdy Broiler! AHHHH!
2:30 me after Taco Bell
2:33 that’s the afterburner kicking off.
Who came here for the exploding turbine on startup?
Can you upload the whole video
2:28 But Turbine Startups Don’t Always Go Smoothly
2:31 When You Have Explosive Diarrhea After Eating Taco Bell
2:30 [insert memesound here]
who let Micheal bay direct this
I donknow
Why is the picture too wide and squashed ?
Fully aware this was posted 3 years ago, but anyway: aspect ratio: likely it was filmed with 4:3 in mind, and then either played back, or edited, or uploaded here in 16:9 (called 'widescreen' for a reason) :)
The alternative of course would be to have the 'black bars' at the side of the video.
Don’t worry, this is how diesel startups go in Ohio lol😂
2:31
Look at that fuel tender. Says something about how much they consumed in a day.
What is this from
Union Pacific’s Mighty Turbines by Pentrex.
It's sad that there are only 2 left in the us
Aperture Science true but let's hope up restores one of them into operating condition again maybe after they finish big boy
as much as seeing a turbine running again I'm not sure UP would want to bring one back cause we all now know the reason as to why they were given the name bird burners
Michael Bobb but what if it has I would love to see the most powerful single unit train in the world in operation
I know the one in Indiana is up for consideration to be partially repaired (getting the secondary diesel engine running) however the engine is seized, so it'd take a lot of work to even just get the diesel running. There are a bunch of other issues such as the traction motors being hard wired to the Diesel's output instead of the turbine, the turbine itself is missing some parts, and they have another large issue with frozen fuel (bunker C fuel has to be heated to above 225 degrees f to flow) so as it stands, repair and restoration of them is unfeasable
one here in Ogden Ut., #26, my icon.
2:30 LOL
2:24 get ready turbine fans 🚬🗿
Can this be a meme
I wish
Seems we gotta put in some work to do that
There's a TH-cam clip with something like demonic screaming /swearing over the top.
@@WeldinMike27 can't find it anymore
@@JosueRodriguez-kk6wn 😕
Not nearly enough racket as uncontrolled motor cycles in south africa.
“What type of stove do you have?”
“GTEL Union pacific turbine numbered X61”
“…”
If someone could help me understand what role the gas turbines play with the locomotive. I work on gas turbines offshore. Are they used as additional power to assist the diesel locomotive or were they prime mover? Thanks.
The engine shown in this video was a gas turbine-electric, so the turbine served as the "prime mover", i.e, it spun a generator that supplied electricity to the traction motors. There was no mechanical link between the turbine engine and the wheels.
Milosz Ostrow awesome thanks for the explanation. I always thought that Diesel engines were the prime movers for power gen on locomotives, so when I ran across this video I was super intrigued!
Prime mover - coupled to GE electric generators & then to motors just like EMD 2-stroke diesels.
The turbines were the prime movers in these things, the smaller diesel in the A unit was mainly for just moving it around the yard
@@chrisjl84 Generally, yes, they are. This is one of those fun exceptions to the rule.
Too bad turbans never became a standard. Turbans looked like they had a promising future 🎉 the only turbans running in Canada was the UAC Turbo train 💯
So how do you wear that "turban" on your head?
I was going to make a joke such as, would you like a pappadam with that?
Brits pronounce as “tur-bine”, while Americans pronounce as “turbin”.
Super
this was recorded on unregistered hypercam-extreme potato edition
This was a good video camera for the 50s/60s. Go film with Super 8 Sound, the most commercially available video film at the time, and see how your videos turn out.
Keroabbooomm!!! Ssssshshshsshshhhhhhhhh
There the turbine is ready
I wish they saved the turbine and more steam locomotives like the other like 844 and other bigboys