Acela turbines

Its not upto Bombardier to deside what it should pull.
And in one test once they added two cars behind the metroliner test car the unit barely got out of the barn, it was a dog.
It really never ran in any kind of Demo service, other than just the Metroliner car, it was towed from location to location in a dog and pony show that failed to perform.
The locomotive is owned by USDOT and only marketing was done by Bombardier.

Kaback9 wrote:

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.

are you in a race to get to 2000 posts or something ???

DutchRailnut wrote:Its not upto Bombardier to deside what it should pull.
And in one test once they added two cars behind the metroliner test car the unit barely got out of the barn, it was a dog.
It really never ran in any kind of Demo service, other than just the Metroliner car, it was towed from location to location in a dog and pony show that failed to perform.
The locomotive is owned by USDOT and only marketing was done by Bombardier.

Well Bombardier felt they could; I'm guessing they threatened VIA with voiding any service contracts or warranties they offered on it if an LRC car the minute it was coupled.

Funny you mention the Metroliner cars they used for testing; the cars Bombardier suggested they used were some sort of derivative of them!

We're at the point we haven't discussed Amtrak for something like two pages. That's not bad, it's just not Amtrak. I'm going to temporarily freeze this - if you want to keep discussing the current topic of turbines, drop me a PM and I'll relocate it to High Speed. If there's no desire to continue that way and you have some genuine Amtrak-related jet train material, please PM myself or co-mod Pablo (Dave Becker) with a synopsis of your comment and we'll open it up again.

On another note, I'd like to thank you guys for an enlightening and civil discussion. Things have been extremely cordial and civil for the first week or so of my moderatorship and I've really enjoyed the civility.

Edit: We're headed over to the HSR forum. Enjoy the discussion.

I think weve established the railroad turbine is a dead horse , on maintenance grounds if nothing else . fuel wise , it would need some kind of hybrid technology to allow it to run at a constant speed where it would achieve a reasonable fuel usage .

David Benton wrote:I think we've established the railroad turbine is a dead horse , on maintenance grounds if nothing else . fuel wise , it would need some kind of hybrid technology to allow it to run at a constant speed where it would achieve a reasonable fuel usage .

I have no doubt that electric traction is the only mode for the future. On busy lines power will come from overhead or third rail. On less busy lines power will come from fuel cells with such energy stores as hydrogen and methanol. Rail and shipping will be the most convenient users of fuel cells. As they produce electricity all the benefits of electric traction can be achieved without overhead.
No more oil guzzlers should be designed.

DutchRailnut wrote

Its not upto Bombardier to deside what it should pull. And in one test once they added two cars behind the metroliner test car the unit barely got out of the barn, it was a dog. It really never ran in any kind of Demo service, other than just the Metroliner car, it was towed from location to location in a dog and pony show that failed to perform.

A couple pics of JetTrain at one of those dog and pony shows:



Full size image:

http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp90 ... opView.jpg



Full size image:

http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp90 ... 103201.jpg

For what it's worth, methinks some folks are exagerating the JetTrain's "lack" of performance by kicking it when its down. For several years there was a video of the locomotive hauling those Amfleet cars along the high speed track at TTCI on Bombardier's website and, I will swear on a bible or anything else you want to use, that it was haulin' a__ at the 135 mph limit for the Amfleet cars!

BTW, anybody got that video in their files? I'd love to be able to put it in my "My Videos" file.

Only video from Pueblo was with same Metroliner car, Richard so proof is in putting, the jettrain was a Dud.
Your a great cheerleader but the people at Bombardier, that I know do not share your enthusiasm, in fact they think its a Dud and that is reason the jettrain is stored at AAR test center.
with no further planning for testing or sales runs.

DutchRailnut wrote:Amtrak and Bombardier squared off on that a long time ago, so for Amtrak to obtain that car its cash baby.
The car is heavely modified however, with rumored to have 4 sleeping cubicles and shower installed for technicians and half the car has computer stations to monitor the gas guzzler.
Its not in any type of Amtrak acceptable shape.

Sounds a lot like the FRA car that was open for inspection at the WAS Terminal anniversary celebration last fall.

Same type of car: a Metroliner cab car, but the FRA T-16 is a different car, than the Bombardier/DOT car.

hmmmmmmm , they seemed more interested in the golf cart .... , maybe its closer to future tehnology than the jet train is .

Here's why turbines have a tough time competing with electric locomotives for high speed train service:

Here is fundamentally what is required of a high speed trainset for greater than 120MPH service:

1. A great deal of power is required, much of it to overcome wind resistance. Every doubling of speed requires 9 times more power to overcome wind loads (inverse-cube law). This is why a 425HP Chevy Corvette cannot hit the highest speed its transmission gearing would otherwise allow. At the highest speeds, even 425HP just isn't enough.

2. All rolling equipment needs to be lightwieght; not so much to enable faster acceleration up to speed, but more to avoid tearing up the track. A heavy trainset will require a lot of track maintenance ... too much. High speed trainsets require lightweight locomotives and lightweight passenger cars. Usually, they have to be made out of aluminum to keep the weight under control.

The main challenge in making a high speed transet powered by diesel is that diesel engines make the locomotives too heavy. And you can't skimp on the diesel engine because so much power is needed. Think about a helicopter. A helicopter uses essentially the same fuel as a diesel locomotive (kerosene), however, due to the fundamental need for a lightweight engine, a jet turbine is used instead.

So, swapping out a diesel engine for a jet turbine solves the weight problem. A jet turbine easily enables a high speed trainset to be very lightweight and provide enough power.

Just a few problems remain:

1. Fuel efficiency/cost
2. Turbine maintenance. Electric motors are much more reliable and require much less maintenance. However, this difference as not likely to be as decisive as the fuel efficiency issue.

To better understand the fuel efficiency issue, take a look at the many modern natural gas fired electrical power plants in use today. Specifically, the ones called "co-generation facilities". The term is essentially shorthand for "two-stage". In the first stage, natural gas powers a gas turbine that drives an electrical generator. The exhaust (waste heat) is then used to boil water and is used to drive a steam turbine also driving a generator. The resulting efficiency of a modern co-generation plant absolutely blows away an ordinary gas turbine or diesel engine. A diesel engine usually has an efficiency of about 25-32%, a while a co-generation plant is around 65%. A gas turbine is less efficient than a diesel, and at times, is much less efficient such as when loads are low or when idling.

Since a gas turbine in a high speed trainset can't afford the space or weight of steam turbine generator equipment, it has no choice but to throw away half the energy in the fuel it uses. The electric high speed trainset, of course, is far more efficient since it can consume the electricity generated at the highly efficient co-generation plant. Transmission losses, by the way, from the plant to the trainset are only about 6-8%, and motor efficiency is 85-90%, so it is still way ahead of either the gas turbine or the diesel.

If you make a trainset with a diesel locomotive, it weighs too much and you can't afford the track maintenance that would be needed. If you use a gas turbine, you'll have high expenses resulting from the combination of fuel cost and turbine maintenance.

Yo Nut!

Here's a link to that video I was talkin' about. This does not look like performance suggesting it could barely get out of the barn!

http://www.transportation.bombardier.co ... hrono.html

Yo it proves diddly squat on how long it took to get it going, btw that only looks like about 70 mph .

ChrisBrock wrote: If you make a trainset with a diesel locomotive, it weighs too much and you can't afford the track maintenance that would be needed.

That reminds me of the argument for the original Metroliner EMU cars, which the PRR intended for high-speed service without substantial improvements to the right-of-way. Obviously, the original Metroliner EMUs were easier on the track than GG1 locomotive, but they also weren't capable of truly high speeds over deplorably neglected track. Track conditions are typically the limiting factor in passenger rail service, and if a conventional locomotive capable of 103-110 mph is limited to 79 MPH due to signaling and track conditions, the same will be true of a gas turbine locomotive, despite the obvious power-to-weight ratio advantages.

Personally, I think that he JetTrain proved quite well that you don't need a specialized trainset for high speed rail, a point that was clear when the locomotive pulled "Metroliners" employed conventional Amfleet coaches. No doubt, the JetTrain locomotives would have pulled the current LRC equiment in Via service, if funding hadn't been cut, and the tests indicated that they did perfectly well pulling Amfleets and Horizons.

Obviously, I'm not hostile to the concept of a gas turbine locomotive, but I also don't favor purchasing exotic locomotive or trainsets. The reality is that the JetTrain was a workable concept, but would have required a substantial upgrade in the Quebec-Windsor corridor for true high speed rail service, the costs of which would far exceed the costs of the JetTrain locomotives themselves. It was always been possible to increase Via Rail corridor speeds to those of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, even without electrification. That was the entire point of the LRC, and as we all know, despite the many technical fault and complications of the LRC concept, not to mention the LRC locomotives themselves, track conditions have always precluded 125 mph operating speeds anyway.