Acela turbines

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.

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

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

First, Mr. Nut, I think new glasses are in order:

A.) There are THREE cars in this video and the first two are Amtrak Horizon cars; I can't honestly tell what the trailing car may be, so it could be the FRA Metroliner car.
B.) It looks a lot faster than 70 to me and I quote the Bombardier website: "These dynamic trials demonstrate that the locomotive operates smoothly and safely at 150 mph and above." Would they lie? Who knows? The website is still up in 2009, so it looks like Bombardier is still hoping it will get a serious taker at some point.

My contacts at Bomba, who were most enthusiastic about JetTrain's performance, have since moved on and I've lost touch with them. Perhaps you could share some of yours so I can independently verify your claims.

I gave up cheerleading the JetTrain long ago, but I've seen a lot of inaccurate and sometimes vehemently anti-JetTrain posts from several folks lurking around this subject. Now, I don't know if it's due to an intense desire to keep any non-electric technology from making inroads into high speed rail, but my suspicious nature still tells me that either somebody is getting paid, or has an intense political agenda, to keep up a disinformation campaign against this technology.

You say JetTrain was shelved because it was a technological failure. I say it was shelved because nobody wanted to pay for the technology and this country still isn't ready for it. You say "potato"; I say "potahto".

Wow and it only took you 8 months to answer that post ??? no wonder Jet train has no real fans

Champlain Division wrote: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

Looks like NJT on the AC branch. Only they do it with diesels. And the PL-42 ain't any louder (I live next door to the Lincoln Park station...)

IMHO, the gas turbine as a prime mover is an idea who's time will never arrive. The fuel consumption issues are inherent in the prime mover itself, are NOT related to the transmission design, and put it at a significant disadvantage. There's a reason why even France, their biggest booster historically, gave up on them.

Remember, the TGV was conceived as a gas turbine powered train.

Of course, a rational energy policy would help. While the French are busy building wave #2 of Areva's EPR nuke plant (which is just a modernized Westinghouse 4 loop), we're busy arguing over whether or not Unistar can start on the groundwork for Calvert Cliffs 3. And Bell Bend and Nine Mile 3 are at least a few years behind that.

Ironically, the next 'new' nuke to open in the US will be a 30 year old plant (Watts Bar #2) that was never finished. The TVA's still talking about finishing Bellefonte - same reactors as Three mile island. They're THAT desperate to get away from coal, and the NRC takes forever to approve a new license...

Looks more like the FRA test track...

It IS!

Champlain Division wrote:
I gave up cheerleading the JetTrain long ago, but I've seen a lot of inaccurate and sometimes vehemently anti-JetTrain posts from several folks lurking around this subject. Now, I don't know if it's due to an intense desire to keep any non-electric technology from making inroads into high speed rail, but my suspicious nature still tells me that either somebody is getting paid, or has an intense political agenda, to keep up a disinformation campaign against this technology.

You say JetTrain was shelved because it was a technological failure. I say it was shelved because nobody wanted to pay for the technology and this country still isn't ready for it.

I don't think that there was any "conspiracy" against the JetTrain. In fact, I think that it came very close to several major orders, both in Florida and in Canada, and the failure of both initiatives wasn't tied to any conspiracy, or any aspect of the design itself, but the harsh fiscal and political realities. Canadian politics prevented the VIA Rail order, despite the obvious temptation to support a make work project. Florida was a different story. We all know the tale that railfans like to tell of the 2004 referendum. Did the Florida electorate really vote "No" when they meant to vote "Yes" due to the confusing wording of the proposition? I think that this conspiracy theory came about because of the "hanging chad" controversy of the 2000 election and has very little basis in fact. The reality is that most Floridians thought high speed rail was about as useful as a down parka on a Miami beach. The Fluor/Bombardier consortium did a great job of very nearly getting the contract, but a poor job of convincing the electorate. It's clear that most Floridians just didn't want to pay higher local taxes to subsidize a train service that very few would ever have used. I also think that a lot of passenger rail supporters didn't feel all that bad about the Bombardier's surprising last minute defeat, as the Acela woes were still fresh in everyone's memory, along with a number of other corporate faux pas.

Bombardier most likely would have delivered a workable system, although the early track record of the Acela probably damaged the credibility of the JetTrain at a critical time. I also think that the continuing concerns surrounding the Acela undermine any future prospects for the JetTrain, more so than the traditional issues associated with gas turbine locomotives. I think that the Pratt and Whitney Canada gas turbine in question would most likely have been successful in service, and the fuel consumption and longevity issues would have been manageable, and that P&W was the strongest link in the entire proposal. I also think that Bombardier should have stuck with its highly profitable snowmobiles and jet skis and should have stayed out of aerospace, and most definitely shouldn't have attempted an inexplicable global hegemony of the passenger railroad equipment market.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: I don't think that there was any "conspiracy" against the JetTrain. In fact, I think that it came very close to several major orders, both in Florida and in Canada, and the failure of both initiatives wasn't tied to any conspiracy, or any aspect of the design itself, but the harsh fiscal and political realities.

I'd add 'technical' realities there too. Would it have worked? Probably. Would it be reliable and 'like an electric without catenary'? No. Fiscally, even the proponents tended to admit that the operating costs would have been high - remember these were the days of 'cheap oil', and today, they'd be a non starter.

The reality is that most Floridians thought high speed rail was about as useful as a down parka on a Miami beach.

Given the layout of Florida, the almost total lack of in city/regional transit options, I'd say they were right. IIRC, even a few consultants brought in from Europe were asking the same questions. Florida was starting to lean towards an electric system anyway. Today, it'd be a no brainer, especially once the proposed two unit nuke near Crystal River gets built (The state's ok'd it, they're waiting for the NRC to get off its fat ass and sign off on it).

Bombardier most likely would have delivered a workable system, although the early track record of the Acela probably damaged the credibility of the JetTrain at a critical time.

They barely delivered one with Acela. And it's only 'workable' because Amtrak puts up with a lot of problems they shouldn't have to deal with, under the assumption that somehow HSR is that much more expensive to run (it's not, at least overseas).

. I think that the Pratt and Whitney Canada gas turbine in question would most likely have been successful in service, and the fuel consumption and longevity issues would have been manageable, and that P&W was the strongest link in the entire proposal.

The fuel issues weren't 'manageable'. Turboshafts are fuel hogs, period. Even the cores on modern turbofans aren't much better, but the overall engine is because of the trend of putting bigger and bigger fans on, plus fans are still maturing. The actual core portions aren't getting much better - slightly better combustors and slightly better compressors and blades. Maybe 1 or 2%. The reality is that a gas turbine being throttled around all day, sucking in dirt and junk, at fairly high air temperatures, isn't going to be efficient. IIRC, the ST-40 lost about 1/3 of its power above 80 degrees anyway. So what then - no 150mph on hot days?

I'm not bashing P&W's engine here - it's a great unit. But so was the PT-6 in the Turbotrain, and the various units used in the RTL over the years. They're just not very good at rail propulsion.

I also think that Bombardier should have stuck with its highly profitable snowmobiles and jet skis and should have stayed out of aerospace, and most definitely shouldn't have attempted an inexplicable global hegemony of the passenger railroad equipment market.

They're doing well in aerospace, though. Both them and Embraer are starting to chip away at Boeing at the low end, with stuff that's a lot better than the 737. Airbus has killed the 747's market, and the 787's an ostrich so far. So, BBD might soon be the only commercial jetliner builder in North America.

Of course, the Canadian taxpayer has been bankrolling out the firm for ages now...

As for rail, BBD should have stayed out of it - none of their attempts have been that great, and they're typically bringing up the rear along with Ansaldo-Breda, w.r.t. ability to deliver. And they sucked up ABB's rail division, which had a lot of great ideas back then. In any case, their biggest fan, the NY MTA, seems to have caught on - the last few orders have been going to Almost and Kawasaki.

Almost Alstom?

Yeah, I call 'em Almost like everyone else, though honestly, save for the HHP-8s, I've don't get why everyone hates 'em.

The Comet Vs? Big deal, it's a *comet* The lowest form of passenger railcar imaginable. They ALL suck, they ALL ride like crap, they're ALL falling apart.

The PL-42? The best I can figure is "Oh noes! It's French!' and "'It's got computers!". I like 'em, they're a hell of a lot quieter than the old junk NJT has, and they apparently can in fact pull a train.

I've not heard much bad about the zillion or so subway cars they've pooped out for the NYCTA.

IMHO, the biggest issue with them is they're French. People don't like French firms, for whatever reason. It's not quality - they make excellent stuff, their industrial equipment is easily on par with the Germans and Swiss and Sweedish.

In addition what Nasadowsk said , Alstom makes a product according to specifications provided by customer and its consultants.
The weak point in Comet V's is the crap that NJT engineering thought up, and consultants aproved, not Alstoms fault.

The PL42 is built on a proven platform, yet in our effort to go with Amercan made parts, to comply with stupid laws, we as Americans screwed up the reliability of the locomotive.

As far as countries we don't like , its growing with all rethoric and no substance, French, British, Germans, Turkey, Italy, Dutch etc and why do we hate them cause in their exersise of freedom they have the balls to not see things the way USA wants them to see things.

As far as those stupid laws, we worry about 20 or 40 passenger locomotives imported into USA, and that they will be made with American parts, yet if the EU were to impose same restrictions we would loose orders of 40 to 90 locomotives a year, yes the lifeline of GE and EMD, protectionism is stupid and for feeble minded voters.