Acela turbines

I may be comparing apples to oranges, or posting in the wrong thread, but how would the passenger service turbines compare to the ones used by the Union Pacific in the late 50's and 60's? Were the freight versions more efficient than the diesels of the day because the turbines were able to operate at relatively constant speed due to the terain and distances involved on the UP? Weren't several types of fuel used? I seem to remember reading that the UP used both #6 oil (normal diesel fuel is #2) and even bunker C (Almost mud if not heated) for fuel.

The issue isn't fuel consumption (though that's one of the issues).

The issue is maintenance. If you look at the published works on UP turbines, the grit from surface air was a huge factor on accelerated wear of the turbines themselves.

The 1-2X Big Blow series lasted less than 15 years from 1st in to last off. Contrast that with any number of SD-40-2s.

Keep in mind that batteries used in hybrid applications are computer controlled to make sure they are not taxed at all, if possible. They are also kept at ideal temperatures, etc., etc.

The reason most batteries are so short lived in regular applications is that they are not used as efficiently as possible. If you're powering a laptop, it does you no good to have a battery that is kept at a 50-80% charge or whatever range for its entire life. In a vehicle where you're doing regenerative braking and such, it's a different story -- the batteries are not there to keep things running, but to assist and save energy when it's efficient to do so.

FYI, also a six year old Prius is not the latest generation.

Some batteries are really built to last!

Me thinks, were way off course here.

Moderator's Note:

For the moment, the thread is locked. PM sent to Tad and Dave...

We'll reopen this now.

Let's get back to the point at hand. The extra information regarding other forms of propulsion are quite nice, but also quite off topic.

Prius batteries, batteries in space, and what not, in the vernacular, "gotta go."

Back to Acela turbines.

Dave Becker

I thought the discussion of batteries was relevant to the topic as it was hypothesized that a hybrid propulsion system is what would allow a turbine-motored passenger locomotive to be possible. The desirability of having a constant load and speed on the turbine is why the hybrid approach might be favored.

HYbrid means more than just Batteries, and powering passenger locomotives with battery Hybrid technology will never happen.

Funny, I thought the topic was the Bombardier JetTrain? Or are we back to Fantasy Island?

You know, I still don't think we should give up on turbine trains. Sure the previous implementations were not as successful (I think the RTL was probably the closest) but we did learn a lot from each generation in their use in the field. For example, the RTL had a huge centrifugal air filter to keep debris to damage the engine which was a problem with other generations.

I would like to see Amtrak at least give the Bombardier JetTrain a test run in revenue service; I think it would work ideal on the day routes such as the Maple Leaf. The quicker acceleration would shave off quite amount of time.

For the record, with the UP RTEL locomotives, the maintenance costs were kind of offset with the fact UP used the oddball byproducts from oil refineries for fuel which were acquired at next to nothing. But then the refineries realized they could make plastics from said by-products and well they were not next to nothing from UP anymore.

The problem with Turbines is they consume fuel on I think a hourly ratio not MPG. Yes they would make a route faster but at what cost. One of the reasons I remember for why the Rebuilt NYS Turboliners were only Albany to NYP was because of fuel consumption. They thought it would be better to maximize their use between shorter distances so they didn't send them to Buffalo or Toronto or for that matter Montreal.

Otto Vondrak wrote:Funny, I thought the topic was the Bombardier JetTrain? Or are we back to Fantasy Island?

I think were back on Fantasy Island but trying hard to tie in the Jet Train.

What everyone fails to see here is if the Jettrain was any succes, would USDOT and Bombardier have shelved the project ????
The answer is they did shelf the project , conclusion the Jettrain was a failure (no matter what the Jettrain cheerleaders say) the project came to screeching halt specially since the pulling power of the jettrain was utterly pathetic.

DutchRailnut wrote:What everyone fails to see here is if the Jettrain was any succes, would USDOT and Bombardier have shelved the project ????
The answer is they did shelf the project , conclusion the Jettrain was a failure (no matter what the Jettrain cheerleaders say) the project came to screeching halt specially since the pulling power of the jettrain was utterly pathetic.

Well Dutch, my understanding is that VIA wanted to buy the JetTrain but Bombardier didn't want to let them pull LRC cars specifically with it citing that it would compromise safety.

And yes, its shelved but not stopped.