MI and/or IL: a chance for the Jet Train?

It may be a failed government program, gentlemen, but it isn't that way because of its technology

The country that tested the fastest trainset with that technology, France, wants nothing to do with that technology right now. The Turbo TGV, which ran way back in the late 60s at 192 mph, is a museum piece and a curiosity. I wouldn't want a JetTrain on the rails, to make us more dependent upon rogue states like Iran…

With oil still at around 70 a barrel (and it could spike on any terror activity or hurricane or whatever), the JetTrain's <b>dead</b>. Even Bombardier admitted it wouldn't be very fuel efficient (gas turbines aren't at the constantly varying power setting trains run at).

Pulling 3 Amfleets at 135? Whoopie. That's like, what? Besting a 30's vintage E unit by 10mph?

Nobody's got their sights set on faster than 110mph right now, meaning that GE's P units are more practical. Above that would likely be new start, which means electrification's a no brainer, especially as speeds get above 125mph, where the light weight and high power becomes critical to operation, unless you want to look at Talgo's interesting but stillborn unit, which is a heck of a lot more proven than the Jettrain is (It's based off of more or less existing, known technology, though the specific unit's not proven either)

BBD couldn't translate the JetTrain's supposed advantages into a cost advantage, which is why the thing lost out in Florida (about the only thing near a sale, so far).

Every 'new and improved' turbo has been a failure - the Turbotrain, the RTG, the RTLs, the GT units, the Super Steel rebuilds. They've all fallen short on mileage promises and reliability (the Super Steel rebuild that made it into service was showing oil trails from the stack early on, which is basically a sign of pending failure - I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak pulled the unit because they felt a failure was comming quick).

Oh yes, the EPA's tightening up rail emissions in the comming years. Don't bet on a turboshaft engine being able to meet the rail standards without aftertreatment, which means SCR, a huge issue for anyone.

All the world's leaders in high speed rail agree that electric traction is the way to go. Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Sweeden, Spain, etc. Gas turbine technology died years ago.

Nasadowsk wrote:Every 'new and improved' turbo has been a failure - the Turbotrain, the RTG, the RTLs, the GT units, the Super Steel rebuilds. They've all fallen short on mileage promises and reliability (the Super Steel rebuild that made it into service was showing oil trails from the stack early on, which is basically a sign of pending failure - I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak pulled the unit because they felt a failure was comming quick).

I don't think that was necessarily a sign of impending failure. The Rohr Turboliners had those same oil trails all through the 80's and into the 90's, and they kept on running.

hsr_fan wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:Every 'new and improved' turbo has been a failure - the Turbotrain, the RTG, the RTLs, the GT units, the Super Steel rebuilds. They've all fallen short on mileage promises and reliability (the Super Steel rebuild that made it into service was showing oil trails from the stack early on, which is basically a sign of pending failure - I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak pulled the unit because they felt a failure was comming quick).

I don't think that was necessarily a sign of impending failure. The Rohr Turboliners had those same oil trails all through the 80's and into the 90's, and they kept on running.

The age of oil is coming to an end. It seems unwise to plan any more large scale uses for oil.

Sweden has a train running on biogas. (It's not high speed but a local DMU, but it does show what is possible. Of course biogas could be replaced by natural gas).

In the interim electricity from nuclear and other non-carbon emitting sources is the most likely.

A very influential person in the rail industry in Britain believes hydrogen will be important, especially for lines that do not have enough traffic to justify overhead wires. The necessary fuel cells are already being developed. This system would have some of the advantages of electric trains - no emissions, smoothness of control without the expense of wires or third rail. I suspect hydrogen will not be suitable for high speed trains and that overhead lines will always be the choice there.

Personall the JetTrain idea needs to bite the dust. Electrification on commercial rail routes beween large metros need toe be implimented sooner rather than later. If we could get more trackage set up for 125 mph+ operations, we could see a comback in rail travel. The distance between Washington DC and Chicago is around 700 miles. If we had 125mph+ operations on a commercial only line connecting to the NEC, we could see that trip take less than 6 hours with intermeediate stops compared to near 12 when on current Amtrak service. Already the Acela has become much more popular along with State Run commuter railroads due to the higher gas prices. If we can get over the political hurdle on this issue, this will be a great thing for our country.

Best Regards,
Patrick A.

OK....looks-wise to me, JetTrain rocks. Can't beat its sleek lines.

Talgo had an americanized diesel powered high speed locomotive on their drawing boards (maybe still do.....ran a close second on looks in my book too). Seems that Talgo powerplant might work well in the BBD JetTrain car body. Near as I could tell from the drawing, it appeared to be a diminutive truck sized V-10 or so. Perhaps the turbine's weight versus the Talgo's plant would be comparable, no?

Another thing, don't be too quick to be slobbering at the prospect of JetTrain being scrapped. USDOT may still intend to use the unit to test other propulsion theories. Not that it doesn't raise my eyebrows in skepticism, but there was a plan to test a "flywheel" propulsion system at one time. In addition to the small diesel prime mover possibility above, being that the unit is structurally FRA High Speed certified, (yeah, heavy, blah-blah.......) it is the most logical test bed for any other propulsion technology such as the hydrogen fuel cells mentioned earlier.

We may yet have a breakthrough technology that will see high speed trains zipping down new right-of-ways that are not much more than basically track and ballast.

BTW, for you train sim junkies, www.train-sim.com has a free JetTrain add-on for Microsoft Train Simulator. Looks pretty cool.

george matthews wrote:A very influential person in the rail industry in Britain believes hydrogen will be important, especially for lines that do not have enough traffic to justify overhead wires. The necessary fuel cells are already being developed. This system would have some of the advantages of electric trains - no emissions, smoothness of control without the expense of wires or third rail. I suspect hydrogen will not be suitable for high speed trains and that overhead lines will always be the choice there.

One problem with hydrogen is how do you get it? I think right now the most common way is to get it from carbon fuels or by using electric current to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen. Not very efficient – alas.

OK....looks-wise to me, JetTrain rocks. Can't beat its sleek lines

Its exterior looks exactly like the Acela Express and HHP-8, apart from not having pantographs. Looks don't get trains moving—consider the relative homeliness of the workhorse AEM-7.

it is the most logical test bed for any other propulsion technology such as the hydrogen fuel cells mentioned earlier

Why would a gas-turbine be compatible with hydrogen fuel-cell power? You'd have to throw the whole inside out and start over. May as well use a whole different power car, one that doesn't have brake-wear problems…

Irish Chieftain wrote:

It may be a failed government program, gentlemen, but it isn't that way because of its technology

The country that tested the fastest trainset with that technology, France, wants nothing to do with that technology right now. The Turbo TGV, which ran way back in the late 60s at 192 mph, is a museum piece and a curiosity. I wouldn't want a JetTrain on the rails, to make us more dependent upon rogue states like Iran…

It's worth remembering France's Energy policy. The 1973 oil crisis led to a change of policy. France has built huge numbers of nuclear power stations and relies on nuclear for almost all its electricity. Connected with this is a policy of encouraging electrically powered public transport. Thus Diesel and other oil powered locomotives are not considered for mainline use. They do have diesel for minor lines but most of the network is electrified.

It also resulted in a reversal of the policy on town transport. From 1945 until the 1970s all tramways were abandoned (as in Britain). Since then trmaways have been built in many cities.

It went further. One can rent electric cars, but this policy hasn't caught on in a large way.

GeorgeF wrote:

george matthews wrote:A very influential person in the rail industry in Britain believes hydrogen will be important, especially for lines that do not have enough traffic to justify overhead wires. The necessary fuel cells are already being developed. This system would have some of the advantages of electric trains - no emissions, smoothness of control without the expense of wires or third rail. I suspect hydrogen will not be suitable for high speed trains and that overhead lines will always be the choice there.

One problem with hydrogen is how do you get it? I think right now the most common way is to get it from carbon fuels or by using electric current to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen. Not very efficient – alas.

We are all going to have to get serious about climate change. Exxon is at last being confronted by the Royal Society for its campaign of lies.

Iceland has a policy of converting all oil uses to hydrogen from its hydro and geothermal. How far can this go? If we have the will, it can go very far indeed.

The simple fact is it will always take more energy to make hydrogen than you can release from using it. It's thermodynamics.

Right now, the only rational prospect for hydrogen would be large scale adoption of nuclear power. Even if the planned plants in the US get built, they'll only keep the current balance of nuke/oil/gas/coal/hydro/etc.

As for the age of oil being over? Who cares, methane hydrates are showing so much promise right now, it's creepy. Last I read, known deposits already are greater than all the known oil and coal out there, and geologists aren't certain if we've found it all, or at the tip of a (huge) iceberg.

In any case, it looks like the JetTrain is flat out dead. The flywheel part of the experiment is just a hold out from the early 90's when flywheels were going to be the world's next big savior. That didn't work out (flywheels have been played with off and on in transit for years anyway).

The bigger issue is, what's the point of JetTrain, when it holds little advantage over a conventional US diesel. None over international best practice, and electrification isn't very expensive when you're building a high speed line anyway. In Florida, Bombardier couldn't turn the supposed 'advantage' of JetTrain into a financial one of any significance, and the proposed system with them was considerably slower and relied heavily on single track construction.

BBD's on patents don't explain why JetTrain should be any more reliable or efficient than past turbo experiments, and the operating environment the things would run in is about as bad as you can get for turbines - dusty, broadband vibration, and constantly changing power....

I am getting a little confused here. Is the ultimate goal to find a way to use the Jet Train, or to find a way to have high-speed rail in Florida?

It just seems to me that there are a few too many people voting down high speed rail due to problems with the Jet Train technology.

cloudship wrote:I am getting a little confused here. Is the ultimate goal to find a way to use the Jet Train, or to find a way to have high-speed rail in Florida?

It just seems to me that there are a few too many people voting down high speed rail due to problems with the Jet Train technology.

My impression is that the person who started this thread likes the idea of a Turbine powered train and wants to see more of them.

There are other choices for higher speed. For example in the 1970s intercity train travel in Britain was losing passenger numbers. The British Rail board intended to electrify the main lines and wanted a faster train to improve business before that happened. They asked the engineering department (BR then had a manufacturing business) to design a stopgap trai with the capability of doing 125 mph. It took about two years from that point before they came into service. They designed the Mark 3 passenger carriages, with a powerful diesel locomotive at each end. The HST 125 is still running and it saved the InterCity network.

In the event the government vetoed much of the electrification and only two main lines were electrified, the West Coast mainline toScotland and the East Coast mainline. On many other lines the HST 125 still provides a fast service.

This is not genuine High Speed, but it is a lot better than what came before and the electrified lines still don't go any faster, though some of the newer trains on the ECML are capable of more, if the money could be spent on the signalling. But 125 is considered a good commercial speed. It beats road traffic.

A version of the HST was sold to Australia and is used on some lines in New South Wales. However, it does not go as fast there. I have tried it, the XPT from Grafton to Sydney.

george matthews wrote:My impression is that the person who started this thread likes the idea of a Turbine powered train and wants to see more of them.

What nitwit authored this thread anyway? Oh wait… it was I. To say another Jet Train, let alone a fleet, will not be built is obvious enough to be an axiom. It was not my intent to suggest the Jet Train be anything more than a rolling curiosity. If my words were unclear so as to be construed as anything else I apologize.

What the original post proffered was an exercise of the possible. Already extant is a locomotive supposedly capable of 150 MPH. Hopefully a right-of-way (or two) will soon be available for 110 MPH. Temporarily marrying these variables would be nothing more than a publicity stunt. But it could be a very successful stunt. Lest we forget, the high-speed network of France started with turbo-trains.

However, something else needs to be noted here. Earlier this week at Railway Age’s Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads forum it was brought out that there is no talk anymore of High Speed Rail in any legislation currently under consideration. High Speed Rail is dead in America. Where we go from here is anybody’s guess.

D.Carleton wrote:However, something else needs to be noted here. Earlier this week at Railway Age’s Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads forum it was brought out that there is no talk anymore of High Speed Rail in any legislation currently under consideration. High Speed Rail is dead in America. Where we go from here is anybody’s guess..

The politicians owned by the oil companies may be booted out of power. In that case the policies needed for stopping climate change may start being presented at the Federal level. Rail will be an important part of those policies.