The question was not about fuel efficiency, it was about speed without electrification. The Bombardier Train is capable of 150 mph.
Obviously the cost of speed was too high. They took it on tour around the USA. They couldn’t sell it. It now lives in a museum. It looks just like the Acela.
It looks like an Acela locomotive because it pretty much was one. They took out the main transformer and plopped in a gas turbine - generator set. I believe the gas turbine was a helicopter gas turbine derivative. So, it was mostly off the shelf stuff pieced together.
The development was funded in part by the FRA as part of the high speed rail program. I’d say it was more a “proof of concept” design than a final product as there is currently no non-electrified corridor that needs more than a 110 mph locomotive design.
It does make for some interesting thoughts about how high speed corridors could be build out and improved in stages rather than in one fell-swoop.
As much as we would like to do away with expensive electrical lines and maintenance that comes with them , they are a benefit. If you wanted to achieve speeds higher than 120mph you would need a special design train with special parts and engineering required to design special versus electric high speed trains which have a variety of manufacturers all over the world. Besides the goal is 205mph regular service is the goal here not 120-150mph Oil is also several times more expensive than then electricity, one of the reasons why I might add that rail transit is increasing in popularity. Sure electricity isn’t inherently cheap but it free you from the rollercoaster that is the fuel market just ask freight rail what they think of oil prices. Not too happy about it. The gap further grows if electricity can be partially made in house through say solar panels which advancements will make them much cheaper in the future. Another advantage is regenerative breaking which allows energy to be sent back to the electrical grid. The advantages of electrification are just far too great not to use, atleast for the purpose of high speed trains. With high speed rail you might as well “go all the way” because HSR projects have high engineering requirements and cutting corners isn’t wise. Just my .02
Although there isn’t a definite figure denoting speed limit for diesel locomotives , clearly the higher speeds the more they get behind electrics because of their much lower specific power output per mass unit ( modern electrics turn out about four times the power per unit of engine mass as diesels ) .
Higher speeds not only ask for higher tractive effort to overcome increasing running and air resistances (!! thus vastly increased power output since it’s the product of speed by effort !!) but in order to commercially use these high speeds to any advantage acceleration must also be more energetic to contain time and road needed to reach scheduled speed . This is why performances like those of modern electric multi-unit trains are simply beyond reach with diesel traction .
Off hands I’d figure practical passenger train speed range with diesel traction to extend to some 100 - 110 mph , with a very slow possible approach of 120 mph on long through-runs , the latter describing pretty much an economic as well as technical limit for thermal energy locomotives , generating traction power on board as in contrast to electrics drawing it continuously from wire .
Regards
Juniatha
Um, what about the British Rail HST, also known as the Intercity 125. A pair of lightweight Diesel power cars (about 2000 HP each) at the ends of a rake (as the British call a consist) of lightweight Mark-III coaches. I am thinking that train achieved 125 MPH in regular service quite handily.
IMHO it is not the top speed that is most important.
On present tracks with their many slow sections it is acceleration that is most important.
As pointed out above the power output of an electric is about 4 times as much as a diesel for loco mass. So the more the speed restrictions and grades the more power required.
The Joilet - East ST. Louis line is essentially flat and not many sharp curves.
If the route from Dallas - Houston meets these same criteria then a diesel can be allowed.
The biggest problem is grade crossings and the present FRA limit of 110 MPH for a 4 quadrant improvced crossing and 90 MPH for other grade protected crossings.
Otherwise the expense of grade separations for higher speeds than the above 90 & 110 are required.
…or these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_221
125 mph diesel electric MU cars, with tilt.
Paul -
well , if you consider it handily …
(deleted by = J = )
Regards
Juniatha
Add :
That’s what I call a swift get-away:
Taurus 1216 series Bo-Bo electric 0 – 220 km/h in 40 seconds ; 0 - 230 km/h in ~ 45 seconds
UP’s M-10001, the original City of Portland, hit 120 MPH on a five mile stretch of track in Nebraska on the 56 hour LA-NY run in 1934. At that time, the train was powered by a 12 cyl, 900HP Winton 201A engine, consist was the engine followed by 6 cars. Needless to say, it did have an ample chance to build up speed and it was lighter and had a much lower drag coefficient than current Amtrak designs.
A diesel electric locomotive equipped with a ~5 ton Lithium battery should have acceleration close to that of an electric locomotive, but the battery would have to be changed out monthly with existing battery technology. A hybrid gas turbine/battery locomotive might make more sense, the lighter weight of the prime mover would allow for a larger battery (chief advantage being cycle life) and the battery would allow the gas turbine to run much closer to constant output than possible without a battery. In both cases, the battery would allow for recovery of braking energy.
Strange German dialect they were speaking in the cab . . . sounded like Polish!
Hi,
Yes, the voices in this video are definitely Polish.
Now about speed limits for locomotives. In 2008 I read in one of British railroading journals (sorry, I don’t remember which one) about estimated top speed limits for different types of locomotives in regular usage. Diesels were supposed to go up to 125 mph (200 km/h), electrics powered by 3 kV DC (like the one on video) up to 150-155 mph (240-250 km/h), electrics powered by 25 kV 50 Hz AC up to 210 mph (315 km/h); beyond that only electric multiple units with all axles powered can go. Of course, for test runs and record settings some extra speed can be squeezed from all types of locomotives.
The reasons for the limits are as follow: locomotive has to to propel its own weight and weight of any cars attached. So EMU can top all locomotive speeds because all its axles are powered and it has best ratio of mass to tractive effort and mass to power. Diesel locomotive has the worst ratio of mass to power, because it has to carry prime mover and fuel. Difference between electrics powered by 3 kV DC and 25 kV AC comes from amount of power which can be delivered through catenary, i.e. with the same value of current running through the catenary 25 kV network can deliver about 8 times as much power as 3 kV network (exact calculation must include passive power for AC network).
Of equal importance is the curvature. Real estate limitations on curvature may limit top speed.
Wait–38 seconds/mile = 95 mph; 103 mph = 35 seconds/mile (divide 3600 by seconds to get spped; divide 3600 by speed to get seconds).
Back in 1964, I was riding IC #4 (the Louisiane) up to Jackson, Miss. I timed one mile above Crystal Springs at 35 seconds–we had two E8’s or E9’s, RPO, baggage, and three coaches (more headend cars were added in Jackson, and more passenger cars were added in Memphis). The IC had ABS and nothing more on this line.