Talk:Gas turbine-electric locomotive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Locomotives (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article states:

Even so, the turbine design used in these units is still the most powerful prime mover ever installed in a locomotive.

This is not true if you take into account electric locomotives. You'll find a few with more power at List of stock used by Swiss Federal Railways and I'm sure there are others (i.e. the swedish IORE). --Kabelleger 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The prime mover is the diesel or turbine engine that powers the alternator. Electric locomotives rely on outside power instead of generating their own, so the fact is still correct. EASports 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case I misunderstood the term "prime mover". Thanks for your explanation. --Kabelleger 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to miss all information on the German gas turbine locomotives and power trucks (Class 210/219/602)

Feel free to add information on these engines if you have data on them. We will be more than interested in knowing bout them. Captain scarlet 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be split up![edit]

The UP fleet holds little historical interest: it was not the first, fastest, longest serving or just about anything else. Yet it makes up the vast majority of the article. Unless anyone has a good counterargument, I propose splitting it out into an article as the "UP50". Maury 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the only turbine fleet used for mainline freight and saw some of the heaviest use. Information on them is also more readily available than on the other locomotives. The fact that the fleet didn't hold those records is not of serious consequence. Hellbus 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. This article is about gas-tubrine trains, NOT about the UP gas-turbine powered trains. The content needs to be moved to an article on UP gas-turbine powered trains, and removed from here. Maury 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't miss the point; I'm just not convinced of it at this point. When there is more information on GTELs other than the ones UP used, then I could certainly see the need to split off the UP section. I wouldn't use UP50 as the title, however. Hellbus 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the APT switching to electric power because Leyland stopped production of the APT-E's turbines isn't exactly correct although it has some basis.

The Leyland turbine was used because it was available at the time, the competing configuration of one R-R Dart engine in each power car having been ruled out on expense grounds. Early on in the APT programme it was evident that 10 or more turbines per power car would not be suitable for a production train, and the early 70s fuel crisis put the nail in the turbine's coffin once and for all. Leyland had already abandoned development of the turbine by then, and the APT was the only application to use it, apart from a handful of prototype turbine trucks, maybe only one. Regards, Kit Spackman (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split page[edit]

Many of the "locomotives" listed in this article are not "gas turbine electric", such as the French RTG, Amtrak's Turboliner, and the United Aircraft "Turbotrain", all of which were gas turbine-hydraulicWuhwuzdat (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to remove "Gas turbine-hydraulic" examples from this article, and not have the "hydraulic" page end up as a stub, I have made 2 proposed articles as examples: I suggest altering the Gas turbine-electric locomotive article as shown here, Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine-electric locomotive, with all "hydraulic" examples removed and creating a new article, Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine train with all the gas turbine-electric, and gas turbine-hydraulic passenger trains. If no one objects within the next 10 days, I will make the changes. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Those examples could be moved to the gas turbine locomotive article. Hellbus (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they could if they were Locomotives, but in this case, all the hydraulic examples were not true locomotives, but rather passenger train Power cars, and as such I don't think they fall under either Gas turbine, or Gas turbine-electric, locomotive categories. I did propose leaving any examples that had electric transmissions here, IE, the Jet Train, and the APT-E on this page.Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I would also prefer to just remove the "-electric" from the title of this article. There ist too much overlap between locomotives using hydraulic or electric transmission. If there is "too much" information on a specific type (e.g. the UP turbines), create a special article for that type. --Kabelleger (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The UP turbines already have their own article. Hellbus (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Gas turbine locomotive article already exists, a simple page rename would not work, and for the reasons I outlined above, I dont think the Power cars I chose to remove from this article should be categorized as locomotives. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the relative rarity of turbine locomotives and power cars, I don't see a problem listing both in the article, provided that power cars are described as such in their sections. Hellbus (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, do we at least agree that SOMETHING needs to be done here? As it currently stands, this article is misinforming all who read it that some (the examples I have cited above) of these power cars, were equipped with electric transmissions, and that they were usable as seperate locomotives, when in fact, they were used only as parts of dedicated trainsets, and had hydraulic transmissions. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Delisted GA[edit]

This article has been delisted for failure to meet current GA criteria. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions regarding this delisting, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Additionally, if you feel this delisting was made in error, you may request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be split up (...yes...again...sigh...)[edit]

It would seem that the time has come for yet another section of this article to "leave the nest". I am refering to the section on the Russian locomotives, which seems to be overwhelming the rest of the article with a mass of techo-babble, and obscure details.

I would propose splitting this section off as its own article, and reducing its presence here to a simple 1 or 2 sentence description for each locomotive (with appropriate wikilinks, of course).

Similarly, the Swiss section is getting a bit techno-babblish, and some of those details may need to migrate to the proper article (SBB-CFF-FFS Am 4/6 1101) as well. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we consider giving the Russian locomotives their own article, we need to see if the information added by the multiple IP's (pretty sure they're all the same person) added can be verified. Hellbus (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Regardless, this article seems to be drowning in the badly worded, technical details of a few, apparently experimental, locomotives. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
For the time being, we could probably trim down the descriptions of the locomotives. It's not really necessary to note how much fuel they carry, for example. The locomotive type, dates of service, power output and current disposition (retired, testing, in service, etc.) are probably enough. Hellbus (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Something like this? Some of the desired details do not exist in the existing article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a good start. I've made some adjustments; let me know what you think. Hellbus (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A definite improvement, thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've condensed it a bit more, in particular combining the GEM-10 and TGEM-10 sections, since the latter appears to be a derivative of the former. Thoughts? Hellbus (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good enough to put online, right now. Barring any objections, I'd say to just do it! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Long Island RR Gas turbine cars?[edit]

I've found some info about (10?) gas turbine cars tested on the LIRR, but nowhere near enough to add into this article...can anyone help add these cars in? It would appear that the 1st car or 2 were Budd Pioneer III type carbodies, with 2 Garrett gas turbine engines and RDC style transmissions, and the later cars were Budd/Garrett (4 cars?) and (Budd/?) GE (4 cars?) dual mode Turbine-electric/electrics, but other than picture captions and blog/forum postings, I have no information (Read this as: I know they existed, but have ZERO usable references). Can anyone supply references? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What replaced them?[edit]

After becoming uneconomical and being taken out of service, it would be useful to mention what took their place. Chris the speller (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US the GE U50 and U50C used recycled trucks from Union Pacific's turbines and the EMD DD35, DD35A and DDA40X were also designed to take their place. Union Pacific GTELs mentions this, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Hellbus (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


They might make a comeback. "Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System", at the level of a research project, in the USA. murray_baker(at)ihug(dot)com(dot)au (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)