Re: Turbines

[bearbvd@domain.elided (Greg Hermann)]

>You're right, some of the others were gas turbines- why did they need the
>extra water tender?

On the big blows--that was not a tender full of water--it was full of fuel
oil!!!!
>
>>"messed around with"--they saw main line freight service between Ogden and
>>Cheyenne for many years. Mostly on the big grades between Ogden and Green
>>River and between Cheyenne and Laramie (the "Sherman" grade). The combined
>
>
>Did you ever see the picture of one of them lashed up with a Big Boy?
>Pretty neat shot.

never saw that picture. Have crawled around on the big boy that sits at the
Forney transportation museum in Denver, tho. Pretty interesting machine.
Some of the castings on it are truly amazing!
>
>>cycle locomotive I mentioned seeing--which was not publicized that I know
>>of--appeared to be a gas turbine electric with a (condensed) recip steam
>>bottoming cycle.
>
>
>Mebbie that was the one with the two tenders.
>
The combined cycle gas turbine-recip steam unit ---I saw--in service on the
main line-- in late '91. Never have seen ANY publicity on it. It was a
relatively new thing at that time, so far as I know. Never have seen any
mention of it anywhere!! And--as I said--no water tender, no steam plume. I
think it had a condenser!! Maybe just carried enough water on its back for
evaporative cooling of the condenser.

But--if you think about it --the last big steam hogs were about perfected
for 300 psi steam. And 300 psi steam is about exactly what you can make off
of the exhaust heat stream from a gas turbine!! A rather elegant bit of
engineering if I really saw what I think I did! I would bet such a design
could achieve a fuel efficiency in the low 60% range.

Regards, Greg