Jet Train

General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: gprimr1, mtuandrew

Postby Champlain Division » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:22 am

Wrong again, my friend. There IS data! It pulled trains of varying lengths while in Colorado at the AAR/DOT testing site. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it perfomed similarly while testing on the Montreal-Ottawa Corridor.

I agree that there are no real "savings" with this locomotive. Parity is not savings. However, savings weren't the goal. JetTrain matches a P42DC in fuel consumption only. Acceleration and top speed performance is where it greatly accels.
Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Postby Champlain Division » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:06 pm

........Acceleration and top speed performance is where it greatly accels.........make that excels.
Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Postby Nasadowsk » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:37 am

<i>In all performance areas, including the generation of HEP, the JetTrain locomotive was able to achieve slightly better than fuel consumption parity with that of a typical GE P-42DC locomotive. Pratt & Whitney's Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) technology is primarily responsible for achieving that goal. </i>

Ummm....

I'm missing something here. How can a locomotive prime mover who's basic thermodynamic efficiency is lower than a conventional one ever beat a conventional loco? As poorly suited for pax service as GE and EMD prime movers are, they are nonethless very efficient - on the order of 40%, 10% higher than P&W's turboshaft engine.

Oh yes, the FADEC isn't a P&W product - they don't, and never did, make their own fuel controls.

At part power, the engine used falls on it's face. Because it's derrived from a helicopter engine. Helicopters stay at high power all the time. They have to. Nobody designs helicopter engines for part power operation.

<i>I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the reason that there is no market for this technology is NOT because of its fuel consumption rate. </i>

It's because it's historcally never worked, never proven better than diesels, and never even approached electrification. Read the Amtrak forum for an ex engineman's opinion of the UAC Turbos. I doubt the RTL or RTG were any better.

<i> It is, rather, that no one wants to PAY for it.</i>

Yes, because it's no cheaper or better than anything else. That BBD couldn't deliver the promised significant savings on HSR with it wasn't surprising. Time and time again, it's been noted that the cost of electrification simply is not a big factor in HSR. What's another million per mile when your construction costs are 30 - 40 million a mile? It's nothing. Your overruns will be larger. Everyone else got this years ago, the US DOT hasn't.

<i> It's not a "fuel guzzler".......it's a capital funding MONEY GUZZLER!!! And that, my friends, is why we will probably never have a worthwhile HSR network in this country. </i>

We'll never have it for many reasons, not just money.

I'm guessing sooner or later, it'll be chop chop time for the thing. Whatever engineering data BBD got out of it, they've gotten. They haven't gotten any sales, and there's no international market for the technology. What's sad is the US DOT has dumped millions into this turkey, millions that could have gone into fixing the NEC...
Nasadowsk
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Postby Champlain Division » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:43 pm

I'm missing something here. How can a locomotive prime mover who's basic thermodynamic efficiency is lower than a conventional one ever beat a conventional loco?

This comes direectly from a Bombardier employee that was associated with the program (name withheld by request)

"In the turbine train,........ the alternator needs to be spinning to provide enough DC link V, otherwise the HEP inverters won't play ball. What isn't said, however, is that as long as a certain amount of burn is taking place, the turbine will spin as fast as the load allows. In this turbine, there's two separate shafts- the compressor shaft, and the PTO shaft... and they're not connected by anything other than aerodynamics. Once the compressor shaft is running, exhaust pressure drives a turbine stack downstream of the compressor's driven turbine. If the alternator load is low, exhaust pressure will spin the PTO shaft pretty fast, so you'll have link voltage. SO, the net answer is that it doesn't take full throttle to push the turbine shafts to full speed... it just takes a minimum amount of exhaust gas pressure and a light load."

I hope all can see that full turbine rpm does not equate to full throttle fuel consumption in this system. Here is where it effectively beats a diesel in providing HEP.

As poorly suited for pax service as GE and EMD prime movers are, they are nonethless very efficient - on the order of 40%, 10% higher than P&W's turboshaft engine.

"To make for an even larger mess, don't forget that of all the energy which a turbine converts (from chemical, to thermal, to kinetic), almost 75% of it is used simply to sustain itself. Seems like a shocking number, but reciprocating piston engines are right behind... requiring just over 50%."

Seems like your fuel efficiency stats are a bit off.

"If it weren't for just two facts, the diesel would be more fuel efficient-

1) you can't throttle down an HEP-providing diesel; and

2) the turbine has much less mass to accellerate.

A V12 or V16 diesel in the 1800 to 2800hp class is in the order of anywhere from 15,000 to 60,000lbs... a turbine of the same power is about a tenth of that. Sure, not having that weight on the driving wheels means less tractive effort, but with the high-tractive-effort abilities of AC propulsion, and the fact that you're not pulling a 150-car consist loaded full of coal, grain, and shredded steel, tractive effort isn't such a serious issue. Passenger locomotives use a large chunk of their HP simply to make the train comfortable. Same goes for airplanes.



Oh yes, the FADEC isn't a P&W product - they don't, and never did, make their own fuel controls.

So? Virtually every accessory on a jet engine is made by a sub-contractor. Nevertheless, it is common marketing practice for P&W to cite the technology and give the manufacturer the minimum credit to which they are legally responsible. Here's a link to support my point:

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id= ... 1_10_0.jsp

At part power, the engine used falls on it's face. Because it's derrived from a helicopter engine. Helicopters stay at high power all the time. They have to. Nobody designs helicopter engines for part power operation.

Actually, it is derived from a turboprop engine.


It's because it's historcally never worked, never proven better than diesels, and never even approached electrification. Read the Amtrak forum for an ex engineman's opinion of the UAC Turbos. I doubt the RTL or RTG were any better.

Such a comparison to JetTrain is a major stretch of logic and patently unfair. Besides, once again, the goal was to not prove it better than diesels in fuel consumption. It was, rather, to prove it better than diesels in acceleration and sustained top speed. And, yes, even though there were no Acela cars available to pull, performance data pulling Amfleet and Horizon cars in CO and LRC cars in Canada strongly suggests that it would have/will pull Acela cars in parity with electric Acela power cars.

Yes, because it's no cheaper or better than anything else. That BBD couldn't deliver the promised significant savings on HSR with it wasn't surprising. Time and time again, it's been noted that the cost of electrification simply is not a big factor in HSR. What's another million per mile when your construction costs are 30 - 40 million a mile? It's nothing. Your overruns will be larger. Everyone else got this years ago, the US DOT hasn't.

The FLHSR debacle supports your point. However, competing contractors stating that their cost of electrification is significantly lower than projected seems suspicious to me because they are the only ones so far who have claimed so. And we must take into account that the Republican administrations both in FL and D.C. are vehemently opposed to HSR expansion and COULD have influenced those contract bids/estimates in ways we cannot yet imagine.

We'll never have it for many reasons, not just money.

I'm guessing sooner or later, it'll be chop chop time for the thing. Whatever engineering data BBD got out of it, they've gotten. They haven't gotten any sales, and there's no international market for the technology. What's sad is the US DOT has dumped millions into this turkey, millions that could have gone into fixing the NEC...


Cant say I disagree with you. Strange though, I thought fixing the NEC was Amtrak's fiscal and financial responsibility.
Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Postby Nasadowsk » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:44 am

<i>In the turbine train,........ the alternator needs to be spinning to provide enough DC link V, otherwise the HEP inverters won't play ball. What isn't said, however, is that as long as a certain amount of burn is taking place, the turbine will spin as fast as the load allows. In this turbine, there's two separate shafts- the compressor shaft, and the PTO shaft... and they're not connected by anything other than aerodynamics. Once the compressor shaft is running, exhaust pressure drives a turbine stack downstream of the compressor's driven turbine. If the alternator load is low, exhaust pressure will spin the PTO shaft pretty fast, so you'll have link voltage. SO, the net answer is that it doesn't take full throttle to push the turbine shafts to full speed... it just takes a minimum amount of exhaust gas pressure and a light load." </i>

This isn't anything new - turboshafts operate like this. But, it STILL doesn't mitigate poor part throttle economy.

<i>I hope all can see that full turbine rpm does not equate to full throttle fuel consumption in this system. Here is where it effectively beats a diesel in providing HEP. </i>

No, it doesn't beat a diesel.

<i>"To make for an even larger mess, don't forget that of all the energy which a turbine converts (from chemical, to thermal, to kinetic), almost 75% of it is used simply to sustain itself. Seems like a shocking number, but reciprocating piston engines are right behind... requiring just over 50%."

Seems like your fuel efficiency stats are a bit off. </i>

Not really - the best diesel in the world achives over 50% therodynamic efficiency. That's far better than the best simple cycle gas turbine.

<i>1) you can't throttle down an HEP-providing diesel; and </i>

Whoops. You can, and they do. Ther'es zero need to run a HEP generating diesel at a constant RPM or throttle setting.

<i>2) the turbine has much less mass to accellerate. </i>

But it's also gotta accelerate more.

<i>Passenger locomotives use a large chunk of their HP simply to make the train comfortable. Same goes for airplanes. </i>

Only 200 or so HP.

<i>Such a comparison to JetTrain is a major stretch of logic and patently unfair.</i>

No, it's not. All the JetTrain is, is yet another different transmission attached to a gas turbine engine. There have been plenty of attempts at this, they've all failed because gas turbines are simply poorly suited for constantly varying loads.

<i> Besides, once again, the goal was to not prove it better than diesels in fuel consumption. It was, rather, to prove it better than diesels in acceleration and sustained top speed.</i>

And that gap no longer even exists, since Talgo has demonstrated 150mph diesels. The gap never really existed overseas anyway - 125mph diesels have and continue to exist in Europe.

<i> And, yes, even though there were no Acela cars available to pull, performance data pulling Amfleet and Horizon cars in CO and LRC cars in Canada strongly suggests that it would have/will pull Acela cars in parity with electric Acela power cars. </i>

That's actually not what I've read. The time to 150mph in the studies I've seen is considerably slower than an electric. Amfleets are considerably lighter than Acela cars. AFAIK, there has been NO straight up A/B tests Vs the Acela.

<i>The FLHSR debacle supports your point. However, competing contractors stating that their cost of electrification is significantly lower than projected seems suspicious to me because they are the only ones so far who have claimed so.</i>

Electrification isn't a big expense in HSR projects. This is standard experience throughout the world.

The rest of the world doesn't live in a freefall of rail funding (indeed, SJ has been teertering on Bankruptcy for a while now). If turbines were truely less expensive, they would have developed eleswhere. They haven't. Electrification is still standard for HSR lines everywhere. You can debate theoreticals all you want, but practical experience has shown that electrification costs aren't a big deterrent to HSR.

<I> And we must take into account that the Republican administrations both in FL and D.C. are vehemently opposed to HSR expansion and COULD have influenced those contract bids/estimates in ways we cannot yet imagine. </i>

Oh please. That's just tinfoil hat conspirancy thinking. There's absolutely zero evidence of it. It was no secret, however, that the FRA was pressuring Florida to select JetTrain, though, which, given the money they've dumped into it, isn't a surprise.

HSR in FL failed for a simple reason - there's no supporting locoal transit. Without any local or regional lines to feed HSR lines, the potential ridership is so seriously constricted that the economics just aren't there.

I'd say Texas or California would be where the first true HSR lines get built, as California has plenty of local transit, and Texas is currently experiencing an LRT explosion. Florida has so little local transit that HSR makes no sense at all right now. It's not partisan politics that killed it.
Nasadowsk
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Postby AmtrakFan » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:08 pm

I would love to see the Jet Train someday but I don't think it will happen for a while.

AmtrakFan
AmtrakFan
 

Postby Champlain Division » Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:30 pm

Well, folks, looks like it's officially over. Bombardier has pulled the plug on its JetTrain website :( Yeah, I lost the war, but I fought a GOOD fight.

HSR in America? NOT outside the NEC....EVER!
Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Postby Nasadowsk » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:55 pm

<i>Well, folks, looks like it's officially over. Bombardier has pulled the plug on its JetTrain website</i>

Well, the writting was on the wall for a while now.

<i>Yeah, I lost the war, but I fought a GOOD fight.</i>

War for turbines? Yeah. HSR? No. It'll happen sooner or later...

<i>HSR in America? NOT outside the NEC....EVER!</i>

Don't discount California just yet. Or Florida for that matter. Then again, the DOT finally seeing the light on turbines might not be all that bad - they can't go dancing around the issue anymore. As long as they were dumping $$$ into turbine development, they could say "'we're working on it" whenever anyone mentioned HSR. Even if the excuses were lame (and, pretty much lies in the end anyway). Now that that excuse is gone, what next? Attempt at a 100 ton, 6000 rail HP diesel? That's a product with some (not much) international appeal. Domestic electric traction development? Again, joining the industrialized world might not be a bad idea. Keep up with more of the same? Eventually, everyone will get sick of it. This is also why, IMHO, Amtrak needs to be dumped - it's there for the DOT to make excuses when it could do so much better if it'd get rid of the huge amount of NIH at the federal level (at the state level, it seems there's a good market for innovation, witness the massive growth of LRT, the interest in DMUs, and such).
Nasadowsk
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Postby Irish Chieftain » Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:50 am

This is also why, IMHO, Amtrak needs to be dumped - it's there for the DOT to make excuses when it could do so much better if it'd get rid of the huge amount of NIH at the federal level (at the state level, it seems there's a good market for innovation, witness the massive growth of LRT, the interest in DMUs, and such).
You won't get any of that without Amtrak, either. Perhaps you forgot again that entities like SNCF, DB, Renfe and JR are set up very similar to Amtrak? the only difference being, they are getting the money.
Irish Chieftain
 

Postby AlanStormCrew » Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:09 pm

what is this all about? :)
AlanStormCrew
 

Postby hsr_fan » Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:24 am

The "Jet Train" has emerged from oblivion and made an appearance in Tulsa, Oklahoma. No idea what it's doing there...
hsr_fan
 

Some question to passenger haul engines

Postby .Taurus. » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:36 pm

HI
Irish Chieftain wrote:SD89MAC

What is so special to these class?
Is the correct name SD 89 MAC-H ?
In the i-net i found the information, that they use the 12-265H with 4500 HP.


Is it possible to use a standard freight engine (like SD 70 ACE , SD 70 M-2 , Dash9 or GEvo) to haul passenger trains? Not just in case of necessity esp. as a full time job?
The first problem; the engine need a HEP support. -> Solution: only 4 of 6 axle are driven, the converter of the 2 undriven axle produces the HEP.
Are these changes a big problem with the modern AC traction propulsion?


Why do modern passenger locomotive have 12 cylinders (F 59 PHi, Genesis, MP36PH-3)


Which advantages and disadvangtes have a seperate HEP power supply (built in of a second engine) ?


I found the hole topic very interesting, because in europe (esp Germany) have mostly only diesel-hydraulical propulsion.

Greets
Andi
User avatar
.Taurus.
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Some question to passenger haul engines

Postby george matthews » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:23 pm

.Taurus. wrote:I found the whole topic very interesting, because in europe (esp Germany) have mostly only diesel-hydraulical propulsion.

Greets
Andi


Not in Britain. There was a class of diesel hydraulics, on the western region, but they are extinct.
george matthews
 
Posts: 4549
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Re: Some question to passenger haul engines

Postby .Taurus. » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:03 am

george matthews wrote:
.Taurus. wrote:I found the whole topic very interesting, because in europe (esp Germany) have mostly only diesel-hydraulical propulsion.

Greets
Andi


Not in Britain. There was a class of diesel hydraulics, on the western region, but they are extinct.

OK, it's true, my statement is so not correct. :wink:
In Germany almost every engines are hydraulics, only the 'Ludmilla' and the modern Siemens engines are diesel-electrical.
But u are right, in France, in the UK and Spain are diesel-electricals very common!
Maybe our producer (MaK and Voith) have spend many money for the diesel-hydraulical propulsion !?!

Greets
User avatar
.Taurus.
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Germany

Postby Champlain Division » Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:10 pm

Here's a link where you can see some pics of JetTrain on its visit to Tulsa.

http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/sho ... hp?t=13883

Judging from the posts, Bombardier may have done some mods on the unit that they want to test out in Pueblo.
Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion - Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests