Gas-powered locos

[NW Mailing List]

Thanks Dave

I implied oil burning (of the earlier experiments/experiences) but perhaps that should have been more explicit.

Problems with fuels were encountered in the UK e.g.

Ash from the heavy fuel oil damaged the turbine blades, and the 
combustion chamber liner required frequent replacement due to damage. 


And efficiency was a problem.

When reliable operation could be achieved, it did show itself capable of meeting expectations. Unfortunately, however, it was neither possible 
to achieve an acceptable level of reliability nor to operate it under 
conditions which would allow reasonable fuel economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_18000

UP encountered similar problems:

Fuel economy was poor, the turbine consumed roughly twice as much fuel as an equally powerful diesel engine.

Soot buildup and blade erosion caused by corrosive ash plagued all of the turbines.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs


I suspect that it was therefore the more unforgiving nature of gas turbines as to fuel that was the problem as well as the other problems encountered e.g. with control equipment etc.

LNG/CNG are a much purer form of fuel ....... and would appear to be in plentiful supply (tho' perhaps more because of fracking - something of a political problem in the UK).


Dominic
London

I walked 12 miles for the Pirate Castle for the 4th time on June 22nd - please help bysponsoring me



>________________________________

> From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

>To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org 

>Sent: Saturday, 21 December 2013, 2:24

>Subject: Re: Gas-powered locos

> 

>

>

>Dominic:

> 

>The gas-turbine locomotives you mention in passing did not burn LNG or CNG; 

"gas-turbine" referred to the prime mover.  The  Russian experiment 
would appear to be the same kind of prime mover, but burning LNG/CNG.  The 
American gas-turbine locomotives, all of which ran on the Union Pacific 
Railroad, burned heavy oil.  They were technically successful, and until 
the price of the residual crude oil they burned began to rise to approach the 
cost of diesel oil, they were economic successes as well.  Because UP 
operations required long periods of full-throttle operation, they did not fall 
prey to the typical shortcoming of a gas turbine, high specific fuel consumption 
at low throttle settings.

> 

>I'm not a mechanical engineer and won't pretend to be an expert on the 

subject, but I've always understood that a gas-turbine was much more forgiving 
on what kind of fuel it was fed (injector nozzles obviously optimized for the 
fuel) than a diesel, which is why we haven't seen many successful LNG/CNG locos 
so far.

> <snip>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20131221/0c5abf0e/attachment.html>