Acela turbines

there's a blurb in the new trains about a joint study between Bombardier and the FRA with Acela turbine electric locomotives. they were experimenting with turbine electric locomotives to see if reliable electric power could be had without catenary...at speeds of up to 150 mph. the experiment was scrapped since states were mostly interested in service in the 110 mph range. anyone have any more knowledge? sounds pretty interesting.

Suburban Station wrote:there's a blurb in the new trains about a joint study between Bombardier and the FRA with Acela turbine electric locomotives. they were experimenting with turbine electric locomotives to see if reliable electric power could be had without catenary...at speeds of up to 150 mph. the experiment was scrapped since states were mostly interested in service in the 110 mph range. anyone have any more knowledge? sounds pretty interesting.

I don't think this is a new idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetTrain

Dead as a door nail . Oil prices saw to that . nobody in the world uses turbines anymore , not that they ever did apart form the odd oddity .

The Bombardier Jet Train. Was the name for this service it was aimed at I think the Toronto-Montreal Corridor and then they decided to take it on tour around the North America. I have seen pics of the Power Car and what looks like an Amfleet in Tampa.

Like others said gas prices pretty much killed this off. The only place to see this thing in action is on MSTS if you download it

Moderator's Note:

We've been here before...

American Heritage Magazine on the NYC RDC-3 retrofitted with GE J-47-19 Jet engines

Pictures of the NYC train, and the Soviet Union was inspired to try it

Of course, we can't forget the Union Pacific love affair with turbines:

Article from Wikipedia

Website covering both the UP and the N&W attempts at steam turbine locomotives

More coverage of the UP steam turbine

Short article on the UP website

I won't even discuss Amtrak's several episodes with turbines. Others such as Mr Johnson can do that very well instead.

The long pole in the tent is metallurgy for fan blades. On the line, there is a little thing called dust or grit. It wears at fan blades. Turbines through the years have proven relatively expensive to maintain relative to either catenary or the Diesel engine.

Of course, someone will not learn from history and give it another try. Everything old is new again.

I've wondered if there's anything that can be cannibalized from the "Jet Train" if it's not going to be used again. At the very least, the exterior body panels are the same as the Acela's. Maybe the trucks and suspension components too? Amtrak might be able to get a few good Acela parts from it. Although, I'd rather see it in a museum somewhere!

The entire shell and trucks and cab are basicly same as ACELA powerheads and therefore the entire unit is currently stored at the AAR test center in Pueblo Colorado.
Chances of it ever running again are slim to none

I wonder if Amtrak could get Metroliner cab car 9652 back. It was sold to Bombardier for use with the Jet Train loco.

sure , but at what price.

DutchRailnut wrote:sure , but at what price.

Free as a we are sorry gift for all the headaches caused by the problems the Acela sets have had.

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.

Yes id say Amtrak can leave that 1 old cab car alone and worry about there rolling stock at hand. However as its has been said what was old can come back as new.. I think there is hope for the jet train just not in the form it was presented in. to fast of a technology jump, that is what was the demise of all the previous ones.. the reason it bombed out was not because of cost although that factor did help it was because of unreliability. AS we have all seen in the Past every turbine powered train VIA or AMTK have gotten there hands on crapped out in a few years because the development and technology was not right. The Jet train has a totally new turbine and is backed by Pratt and Whitney this time. That taken into consideration along with technical advancements in the last 20 years could make this technology a profitable competitor. AS it Is documented the P&W ST40 turbine (turbine used in the jet train) is roughly 30% more fuel efficient than the current diesel locomotive available today at the same HP output (5000 hp). The one thing I found fishy and it was also said before in the section is the Maintenance cost. P&W and bombardier left that part out! I believe they first need to prove there turbine claims to most major railroads before the idea can be brought any further. How about this? Get 2 of amtraks P40's stored dead in Delaware( Amtrak is not doing anything with them anyway). Let P&W and GE modify it, takeout the diesel and drop in a ST40 and demonstrate it as the P50 run it on some Illinois route hard for 6mths to a year and see how well it performs.

buddah wrote: AS it Is documented the P&W ST40 turbine (turbine used in the jet train) is roughly 30% more fuel efficient than the current diesel locomotive available today at the same HP output (5000 hp).

No, it's not. The ST-40's thermodynamic efficiency is in the realm of 33%. Most rail diesels are closer to, or over, 40%. The JetTrain died because it wasn't any better than a P-42 at anything but sucking fuel. Bombardier tried selling it everywhere and couldn't even unload it to their own government, who generally buys anything with their name on it.

I believe they first need to prove there turbine claims to most major railroads before the idea can be brought any further.

Why bother? It's been proven, repeatedly, by everyone, that gas turbines are fundamentally unsuited for rail use. There's never been a truly successful use of them as a rail prime mover. The closest 'success' was the UP turbos, which worked until someone figured out all that waste oil could be used to make plastics, at which point the UP turbos went to the scrapper, since they no longer burned an effectively free waste byproduct of the oil refining process.

Let P&W and GE modify it, takeout the diesel and drop in a ST40 and demonstrate it as the P50 run it on some Illinois route hard for 6mths to a year and see how well it performs.

Why bother? Anyone who's followed the industry knows the outcome. The single, only proponent of gas turbines for rail use in the world, is the US department of transportation. Even the French, who made very limited use of them (I think 5 or 10 sets in intermittent service), gave up long ago.

Look at it this way - We just came out of one of the most oil-friendly administrations and eras in recent history. If the turbine had any chance, it was within the last 15 years. And it went nowhere.

Even the French, who made very limited use of them (I think 5 or 10 sets in intermittent service), gave up long ago.

They used one or more on the Paris-Cherbourg line (convenient for my nearest ferry). I remember travelling on one. There was nothing special about its running. The track could only support ordinary speeds.

Since then, about 15 years ago, the line has been electrified and speeded up.

Turbines also have the shortcoming that, relative to other propulsion systems, their fuel consumption at idle is a substantial percentage of their fuel consumption in service.