Talk:Union Pacific GTELs

message: The oil crisis only took place in 1973, so how can it possibly have contributed to the retirement of the GTELs before 1970?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.30.182 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The oil crisis may have led to a decision not to bring the units back out of retirement. Hellbus (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The oil crisis is irrelevant and I have removed reference to it from the article.  In 1970, Bunker C was already so expensive that the locos were uneconomical so the fact that it got even more expensive in 1973 makes no difference.  Further, by the time of the oil crisis, most of the units no longer existed.  As described in the article, their electrical equipment and running gear were rebuilt into new locomotives; the remainder was presumably scrapped. 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil crisis 

message: Article was removed from the C-C+C-C wheel arrangement category, due to being the sole member of this category.
There are at least TEN other wheel arrangement categories with only a single member. "...Houston, we have a precedent..." 
Deleting this article from this category for this reason makes little sense to me, as it prevents locating this article by browsing through the wheel arrangements listed here: Category: Locomotives by wheel arrangement.
Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-C+C-C Category 

message: The article refers to the power output of the turbine at an altitude of 1,500ft but says that the locomotives were always used above that altitude.  This contradicts the statement that they often ran between Council Bluffs, IA, and Ogden, UT.  Council Bluffs and most of eastern Nebraska is below 1,500ft.  Since this contradictory paragraph only exists to refute unsourced rumours of higher power output, I've commented it out of the article. Dricherby (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The retirement section has a lengthy but badly-written and unsourced section about a rumor regarding GTEL disposal. It's not clear whether this is true at all because no verification is given. Commented out of article. Aednichols (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement Rumor 

message: This article is riddled with instances of using the word "turbine" to describe an entire locomotive unit.  This is very improper.  It would be like referring to a automobile as a "gasoline engine".  Suggest these references be changed to be more compatible with usual railroad terminology- "locomotive", "engine", or similar.
159.245.32.2 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with this usage. We have no problem calling a whole aircraft a "jet", even though that term also properly only applies to the engine; this is exactly the same situation. Likewise, locomotives powered by diesel engines are often called "diesels". Dricherby (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the term "Turbine" 

message: The experimental locomotive (Union Pacific 80, later renumbered to 8080) is one of the locomotives covered in the article "Turbines: King Coal's battle against the diesel" by Eric Hirsimaki in Classic Trains magazine, Fall 2004.  That article is entirely about locomotives in the United States.  There is also coverage here.  Oaklandguy (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info re: Experimental Coal Burning Turbine 

message: It was stated by one contributor that the GTEL fleet was up for disposal by the end of 1965.  Fuel was only part of the issue here...although it became more so towards the end of the '60s.  The idea of dumping the Turbines was by no means across the board unanimous within the U.P. heirarchy .  The biggest enemy these locomotives had from 1962 onward was G.E. themselves, with the U25b program. It was here that G.E. would be spending their engineering efforts, as this was a far more digestible product than any Turbine.  The issue of running Turbines into Southern California also caused a lot of grief to the operating dept., and limited a fair chunk of the Turbine's potential mileage.  A parallel development - pooled power - was coming of age, and there was no way U.P. could allow such specialized equipment off their prescribed routes.  The Diesel horsepower race was in full bloom by the mid '60s...   an ever growing threat to Big Turbines.  There were prime mover blade issues, and others with various Turbine engine components, but by 1966 -'67, the bigger problem was now the pony motors.  G.E. Diesel power has always been a problem after five to six years, and these early examples were no exception. The cost of maintaining thirty unique machines as "all-out" as the GTEL8500 became problematic as wages spiraled ever higher.  Many of the complaints leveled at the turbines toward the end were similar to those heard about the steam remaining in the late fifties.  As for the Turbine itself...remember the frame size 5 plant G.E. used to power these machines was an industrial Turbine, and not one designed from the ground up as a mobile unit.  All things considered U.P. #1 - 30 did pretty well overall. 2601:540:C301:4E0:ADBF:A0B5:E5C2:490E (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.P.  GTEL  timeline issues 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion