Does anybody know if any demonstration or trial runs are going on or have been schedualled in the near future?
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/suburban/bombardier5/press19.html
Interesting topic, but I thought the railroads already tried turbines. Oh well whats good in the past is always better in the future.
I think the recent hikes in fuel prices have nixed the project. Diesel propulsion is more economical with regard to fuel.
Bombardier seemed to have stopped trying to interest Train Operators in Britain in the Jet Train. Instead it seems the next generation of High Speed Trains will be diesel powered.
Did Bombardier return the Amtrak cab car used for demo projects ??
I expect the Jet train powerhead(locomotive) to quitly be scrapped in a few years.
another taxpayer money hole in us rail history, thank you USDOT.
Unless someone can come up with a cheap low grade fuel. At various times there has been talk of using coal slurry in gas turbines.
They have used coal fired turbines in the past. 2 coal laden carriers, NW’s Jawn Henry and C&O massive M-1 turbine engine were both coal fired turbines. They might have been able to work out the problems but they were still more expensive mantanence and operation wise than the simpler and cheaper newfangled dismals and were withdrawn from service.
C&O M-1 Turbine
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/chesturb/chesturb.htm
NW Jawn Henry
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/nwturbine/nflkturb.htm
This motive power uses a jet engine and does not burn coal. Unlike the NYC one off experiment that mounted a jet engine on top of a RDC, this jet is integrated into the power plant. I keep thinking of the failed Turboliners and what has changed since then that makes this a serious contender, if it is. I cant imagine nothing was learned from the Turboliner fiasco.
Turbine power on the rails has shown promise, which has not been redeemed out on the road. The least unsuccessful turbine power cars were the Rohr turboliners built in 1975, based on the French cars Amtrak bought in 1973. They proved to be very “thirsty” and liked to run when they had the “right fuel” to burn. Attempts to run them on less expensive fuels, only showed how sensitive they were to lesser quality fuels. The most typical results were increased fuel consumption,smoke, and sluggish performance. Their fixed consists were mitigated by making the trains all-reserved. They always rode well and had a mix of coach and business (or first) class seating. There aren’t any potential buyers out there, which accounts for Bombardier’s silence on the subject.
Gas turbine power for cars, trucks, trains keeps turning up every so often. Each time it quietly goes away. Until the fuel consumption issue can be resolved, it’s a non-starter and the most recent one from Bombardier falls in with the rest of the attempts. It was taken out of contention before the current fuel cost spike.
Dale
What is this, the misinformation thread?. The locomotive in question IS NOT a “jet”. A jet engine derives its power from the reaction to a high velocity stream of gases. A turbine produces torque on a shaft by the action of gases on a turbine wheel. It’s a gas turbine, not a jet.
The Jawn Henry and the M-1 were steam turbines. The coal was burned in a boiler to provide the steam. Gas turbines have been tried with coal, notably by UP, but have not been sucessful due to the abrasion problem among others.
Scott
“The state-of-the-art Bombardier JetTrain* locomotive is powered by a jet engine derived from a Pratt & Whitney PW 150, which replaces the traditional diesel engine found in most current rail equipment.”
From the Bombardier Press Release
Clarification of Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine
Well, it doesnt appear I will be trackside for a test run anytime soon.
Also these non-electric high speed trainsets are a recurring theme in American railroading. The EMD Aerotrain (aka Jet Rocket on the CRI&P,) NYC X-plorer, United Aircraft’s Turbotrains, Rohr’s Turbotrains, and Bombardier’s LRC all come to mind here as brilliant failures. Even if the new Bombardier Jet-Train got some service, the reccord on those type of trains is not good at best.
Cheers!
~METRO
How does the Jettrain compare to these past examples? I see no basis of opinion other than it has not worked in the past.
With that kind of thinking, the airline industry would still flying DC-6’s.
The GM Aerotrain was and is legitimately labeled a failure. The idea was taking widened bus bodies, sticking single-axle trucks at each end with airsprings, and making it into a train. It works with buses, doesn’t it? The whole concept didn’t take into account the lateral compliance issues with a long-wheelbase “truck” (the single axles at each end of their “bus”) and those of a shorter wheelbase truck and the whole notion of hunting and critical speeds. Of course it shook to pieces at rode speed – they guys designing it didn’t know anything about rail-wheel dynamics.
What was a failure about the Alan Cripe Turbo Train or the Turboliners apart from helicopter turbines drink too much fuel? The Alan Cripe Turbo Train is a good design and I understand some people are thinking of building it using Detroit Diesel truck engines in the style of the CRC DMU instead of the turbines. And aren’t they still running the LRC in Canada – I understand the locomotives have been replaced with Genesis Diesels on account of age, but the cars are in service.
Turbines, steam or gas, are probably not well matched for railroad usage as they tend to operate efficiently at full power and drop off in efficiency as you throttle them. The jet airplane throttles its engines efficiently by flying in the thin air of the high alitudes while helicopters are power hogs that need the engines going full blast anyway. The electric power people have turbines of differing sizes in their plants that they t
The problem of the UA Turbos was simple, it was also one of the problems with the Aerotrain and conversely was the reason the Budd RDC was such a resounding success: Inflexable train length with an unreliable propulsion system.
Amtrak killed the UA Turbos quickly, mainly for fundamental design flaws that were later rectified in the slower-speed ANF Turbos. However, the design of the coaches was truly revolutionary, and the tilting aspect has proven itself to be quite an improvement in technology over conventional coaches.
The main drawback of these systems however, and the major reason the later trains were failures was because of set train length. Amtrak had to test out the trains on a multiple of runs before they found a route with predictable enough patronage to warrant a fixed trainset. Running these trains would be in regional service only, not in distance national.
That said, the main and only drawback I’ve seen so far of the Bombardier Jet Train is that of fuel consumption. The rolling gear, and most other systems are based upon the third generation TGV, a very reliable rail system.
Cost is the major considderation in a large new system such as this, North American railroads are notoriously conservative in spending on new technologies that are unproven. The time needed for roads to accept AC traction has shown this perfectly.
I’d look for a high-speed conventional diesel system, such as the Brit’s HST before anything else. Also how about just upgrading trackage, signaling and reducing grade crossings so that the Genesis locomotives can live up to their full speed potential before we invest heavily in new technologies. Remember how much it took in time, funding and faith, to get the Acela system working properly.
Cheers!
~METRO