US Train Q-Gas turbine locomotives used by UP?

Got a US railroad question someone will know.

I'm trying to recall the name (& model designation) of the Gas Turbine powered locomotives the Union Pacific RailRoad used in the 50s and 60's - they were mostly used in the lines over the Rockies as I recall.

Anyone know? (and any useful links to sites about it would be good to).
I read a interesting book about them a few years back and can't recall the info now.

Also, anyone know if anyone has built or is building a MTS simulation of one of these? (now driving one of those would be so cool over the Marias Pass).

BTW: This UP Locomotive is not the "Big Boy" - as those were a Steam powered locomotive.

Try www.up.com, for that and much more:

"Union Pacific was the only railroad in the United States to own and operate gas turbine locomotives. The turbine, rather than an internal combustion diesel engine, drove an alternator/generator to supply electricity to electric motors mounted on the axles. Union Pacific's gas turbine fleet totalled 55 locomotives.

The first turbine, No. 50, was built by Alco-GE in 1948 and was tested extensively on UP in 1949. Although it was painted in Union Pacific colors, the railroad never owned No. 50, but it paved the way for the GE turbine fleet which followed. The first ten UP turbines, Nos. 51-60, packing 4,500 horsepower each, were delivered to UP by General Electric in 1952. Fifteen more of these units were ordered in 1954 and numbered 61-75. Thirty units of a larger model, numbered 1-30, were delivered between 1958 and 1961. With a hefty 8,500 horsepower apiece, the last 30 units were the largest locomotives ever built."

I have a very fine model of a Big Boy, pride of my collection, but can't help you with a simulator.

I think they were GEs. Putting Google to work for me:
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/loco/locohs05.shtml

And incidentally I guess I should mention, I don't think it had a name or model designation, as they were essentially one-offs. If you try you *might* find the Alco or GE order number for it, but that's not really appropriate.

Early Alco road diesels didn't seem to get official model numbers anyway; Witness the Black Maria units and the DL-109s (DL-109 was the Alco internal name, not one they marketed under).

Vague recollection is when many of the Gas Turbines were scrapped the running gear was reused on the GE U50s.

This seems more detailed and leads to links to a book publisher. Don't be fooled by the diesel story title, it has a great amount on the turbine engines;
http://utahrails.net/up/diesels/up-diesel-story-index.htm

Actually, Don Strack (the author of the page) is on a diesel modellers mailing list I'm also on. I think I knew about this page. I suck.

Another modeller, fantastic, I hope you have a happy christmas opening all those little boxes you've been hinting at.

I told my wife not to get me anything; I have too many toys

On the other hand I should really put up the tree soon and set up my model Acela around the base. I model older stuff but the Acela really called out to me, so I got one to run around the tree.

It's either a big tree or a small model!

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/catalog/?function=detail&id=49

Yes, not as long as the consists Amtrak is using

I considered getting the missing cars. I might yet.

Yes, not as long as the consists Amtrak is using

Wow. You learn a new word (or definition, at least) every day:

consist (n): makeup or composition (as of coal sizes or a railroad train) by classes, types, or grades and arrangement

To expound on railroad consisting and the dangers it has when considered for passenger service:

One of the flaws that seems to emerge every time some sort of (prototype) trainset is put into service in the U.S. is that variable passenger loads mean it's hard to have a fixed consist and still have a serviceable business model. Basically you end up needing extra cars to service peak loads that you don't use for anything the rest of the time because they're tied to the particular type of equipment you're using and not useful for general train service.

Acela has a fairly well-defined utilization (because it's only business and first class, not coach) and so *may* avoid this problem. New York recently paid Super Steel to rebuild some old Turboliner sets which Amtrak may put back into service any time now, and there are Spanish Talgo sets operating between Portland and Seattle (maybe Portland and Vancouver) but other than that, nothing really, and those examples only offer a modicum of success, nothing resounding.

I've been sitting here since the start of this thread expecting to have to contribute an erudite piece on the railways of New Zealand, to which end I've kept my 1931 copy of "the Wonder book of Railways" open at "Trains of the Empire" here, next to the PC.
I now find that we're drifting off into those meaning of word threads - don't get me wrong, they're always interesting. It's just that we haven't changed much this side of the pond since we nicked 30000 of our words from the french six centuries ago and I was really getting into the railway stuff. Of course, not many of those words got as far north as here in Yorkshire, where the populus continue just to grunt at each other!

Spanish Talgo sets operating between Portland and Seattle

I didn't know that, was it economical changing the gauge on all the sets, it seems a heck of an operation. Although I suppose gauge changes have been routine on the Russian and Spanish borders, as well as in Australia for many years.

I assume they were ordered 4'8.5" and delivered that way from the manufacturer.

Sorry, for some reason I assumed they were used ones that they were testing out.

Nope, they bought (maybe 2, maybe more) sets several years ago; I missed taking pictures the last time I was in Seattle, probably dumb of me.

I've always been baffled by the talgo when I've seen them in Spain. When I first read about them, the idea was that they could maintain a better speed on winding, uneven track - yet you see them speeding off across plains where you would have thought the ride was inferior to a normal train-not that I've tried it.