# Talk:GE steam turbine locomotives

"boasted regenerative dynamic brakes"
Michael Barera, I think we need to clearly define the term "regenerative" in this statement. It can have several closely related meanings, and it's not clear from the context which it means. I supposed at first we could eliminate the storage-for-future-use version, but then realized that maybe you could store it somehow...
I'm also curious about the thermal efficiency. The article says it was twice that of contemporary stream engines, which I suspect was a statement in one of your sources. But I would like to know how it compared to other traction systems, like the diesel-electrics. This is because GE seems to suggest they believed it would replace the diesel-electric, which suggests it must have had some practical advantage, but nothing in the article says what that might be. Is it the thermal efficiency?
Long overdue article BTW, I'll be handling the DYK.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maury. Both the reference to regenerative dynamic brakes and the one to thermal efficiency are in the Brian Solomon book GE and EMD Locomotives (see here for the link to the Google Books preview, which should contain all of the pertinent pages). However, I've maxed out my Google Books pageviews for this book simply researching and writing this article the last couple of days, so I am (at least currently) receiving a "You have...reached your viewing limit for this book" error message while trying to go back and find the exact text supporting the references to regenerative dynamic brakes and thermal efficiency. I know that both are in there, but for the moment at least I don't have access to either. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Michael Barera (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, Maury, I have access to the book now. The context is as follows...
1. Thermal efficiency: "In the February 1939 issue of General Electric Review, the turbine was touted as having twice the thermal efficiency of a conventional steam locomotive and capable of operating at 125 miles per hour." (p. 60, end of first paragraph)
2. Regenerative dynamic brakes: "The locomotives were equipped with dynamic braking, which used traction motors as generators. Today, dynamic brakes are standard on most diesel electric locomotives, but at the time of the steam turbine, the concept was unusual. Unlike modern diesel locomotives, which expend all of the energy generated by dynamic braking, steam turbine locomotives directed water through resistor grids that allowed the locomotive to recoup some of the energy generated during periods of heavy braking." (p. 61, end of second paragraph)
I hope that this is what you need. Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
2 is precisely what I was looking for - they really are regenerative and not just dynamic, that is very interesting! As to 1 it is as I suspected, but I'd still like to put some numbers to this. We may be able to solve this simply by finding the number for a conventional loco. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
AIUI, the reason for these brakes wasn't to do with efficiency, but with a need for increased braking capacity. US railways at this time were working heavier and heavier trains, and without fitted brakes throughout the train. It was becoming difficult to stop the trains, as loco brakes were being over-worked.
The actual fix for this in practice turned out to be using more, less powerful, diesel locos. As these had more braked axles, they could apply more braking force from the same brake technology. A gradual switch to greater use of fitted freight removed the problem altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:GE steam turbine locomotives/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Happy to review. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Beautiful article, here are my comments:

Lead and infobox
 World War II "power crunch" "power crunch" may sound a bit informal and hazy, at least add a few words on what the term means.
Are all points in the infobox sourced?
Background:
 when GE and UP began collaborating  Better give the full name of UP when you begin with the main article.
Link turbine.
Design:
Tractive effort can be explained.
Link armature.
Do "lighting" and "heating" need links?
In total, each unit measured 90 feet 10 inches (27.69 m) in length, 10 feet (3.0 m) in width (at the cab), and 15 feet 3⁄4 inch (4.591 m) in height Is this not relevant enough to be mentioned in the first few lines of this section and in the lead?
Operation:
The locomotives were only in operation for six months "only for six months"?
More later... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, Sainsf! And please forgive me for my tardiness in getting to it. Let me respond to each of your points below:
Lead and infobox
 World War II "power crunch" "power crunch" may sound a bit informal and hazy, at least add a few words on what the term means:  Question:   I know that it is a technical term, but it essentially means lack of enough locomotives to sustain regular operations at a certain time. If you like, I can spell this out in a more general way in this article, or I could add this term to the Glossary of North American railway terms and link to that from this article (so long as I can cite it properly, which may be difficult based on my preliminary search). What do you think?
I think it would be better to add an inline explanation. The brief one you provided here, "lack of enough locomotives to sustain regular operations at a certain time", should look good here. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I've done so: "a lack of sufficient locomotives to sustain regular operations". Please feel free to improve the wording. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Are all points in the infobox sourced?:  Question:   They should be. I can certainly double check all of them. Is there a particular way that you recommend I cite points in the infobox?
We generally place the citations next to the entry if the values are not mentioned in the main text of the article with sources. Please see if you have any such entries here. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I've double checked, and all the substantive points in the infobox are mentioned in the main body of the article with proper sources. The only two exceptions are the very general locale (United States, which is not explicitly mentioned but implicit from all the locations and railroads mentioned being American) and the gauge (standard gauge, which is the expectation in American usage unless otherwise specified as narrow or broad gauge: no mention of other gauge is made, and indeed the entire UP system is standard gauge). Hopefully these two very broad exceptions can be made: other than that, everything is well cited in the article's prose. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Background:
 when GE and UP began collaborating  Better give the full name of UP when you begin with the main article: Y Done.
Link turbine: Y Steam turbine was already linked and I added a link to steam turbine locomotive in this section (one had already existed in the lede); I think both of these are more relevant to this article than the less specific turbine article.
Design:
Tractive effort can be explained: Y Done. I've used the article "Tractive effort" as a starting point. Feel free to modify and improve it as you see fit.
Link armature: Y Done.
Do "lighting" and "heating" need links?: Y No. I've removed them.
In total, each unit measured 90 feet 10 inches (27.69 m) in length, 10 feet (3.0 m) in width (at the cab), and 15 feet 3⁄4 inch (4.591 m) in height Is this not relevant enough to be mentioned in the first few lines of this section and in the lead?: Y It probably is. I've moved the design/appearance/measurements paragraph up to the top of the "Design" section, and included the length measurement (the most important, in my opinion) in the lede. What do you think?
Yes, that looks good. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Operation:
The locomotives were only in operation for six months "only for six months"?":  Question:   According to the Schramm book, this is a true statement. The locomotives served with the Union Pacific for no more than three months (April-June 1939), were tested by the New York Central in 1941 (presumably very briefly), and then were operated by the Great Northern in 1943 during the aforementioned "power crunch", so it seems entirely plausible to me that Schramm's statement is true. It is notable because it is an exceptionally short period of service for a locomotive, especially one that took over two years to design and develop.
I am afraid you did not get me. I meant to say can we write it as "in operation only for six months", unless it hanges the meaning? The present wording looked a bit clumsy to me. (Thanks for the explanation, though, I love learning stuff!) Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me for misunderstanding. I have changed the wording to "in operation only for six months", per your suggestion. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please let me know what you think of my edits and my questions as well as any further suggestions for improvement that you have. Thanks again for reviewing this article; it means a tremendous deal to me.! Michael Barera (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
That's encouraging! Moving on,

Operation:
Has Omaha been linked anywhere? It would be good.
Yes it has: when it is first introduced, it is linked (and written) as "Omaha, Nebraska". Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Have we introduced Solomon? We should add a word or two on who the people, whose views are are citing, are.
He's an author (of railroad-related books), as noted on the back cover of the 2014 book I cite in that same sentence in which I mention him (I've added a separate "back cover" reference for his status as an author). Does "rail transport author" (what I've just added) sound alright to you, or is there other wording you'd prefer? Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Legacy:
Have we introduced Schramm?
He's a history professor and author, again per the back cover of his book. I've noted (and cited) him as such. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that should be all. These addressed, I would be happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Sainsf! I do believe that I have now addressed all of your concerns, and I await your final decision. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The changes look good to me. No reason this fine article should have wait any longer. I will go ahead and promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GE steam turbine locomotives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530185003/https://utahrails.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-steam-turbines-after-union-pacific/ to https://utahrails.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-steam-turbines-after-union-pacific/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

125 miles per hour would be world record for steam turbine locomotives and almost reach the LNER A4 Mallard's record of 1938 (126 miles/h). But how fast were they really in tests (and on which line)? Is there any information on this? --Tobias b köhler (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Good question, Tobias. I did not find anything in my original research for this article on their actual top speed. However, just this year the Walter Simpson book Turbine Power has been published, and I'm hoping that this might be the book that can take this article to FA status. I'm hoping that the actual/tested top speed of these locomotives is one of the details that can be gleaned from that book, which appears like it is the closest thing to a definitive history of these engines (and other turbine railroad engines) that has ever been written. Michael Barera (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Bear in mind that this is not a "steam turbine locomotive", it is a steam turbine-electric locomotive.  The running gear is basically the same as an EMD E-unit - 44 inch wheels with a 65:31 gear ratio, so top speed in the 120 mph range is not at all surprising.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:A8C7:6023:7DB4:25BA (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know more about why these engines failed (recognizing that that information may no longer exist).  My guess would be the problem was the water-tube boiler.  Quite a number of attempts were made to use water-tube fireboxes in steam locomotives, all of which were more or less unsuccessful due to the water-tube design being insufficiently rugged for railroad use.  In this case any weakness would be aggravated by the extraordinarily high operating pressure - 1500 psi is more than twice what would be normal for a marine boiler in the 1930's.  And railroad service tends to require sudden large changes in steam demand, which would cause large swings in boiler pressure, which is about the most stressful thing you can do to a boiler (the pressure swings were a large part of why steam-turbine locomotives, as well as later steam turbine-electrics like the Jawn Henry, were troublesome to maintain and ultimately unsuccessful).
The electric side of things would be very similar to a diesel-electric locomotive, which GE was very familiar with.  So one would not expect major issues there.  The water-tube boiler and the turbine itself would be the novel elements, and most likely the source of trouble.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:A8C7:6023:7DB4:25BA (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)