Good and interesting stuff! Thanks, Jerry.
(please “go on and on” anytime!)
Jerry,
Thanks. This is good information and offers a practical, light weight traction power alternative for fast trains (110-150 mph) where electrification is neither available or practical.
Jerry,
Yet another thank you for posting information on the TM-1800. The sfc figure at 50% power is impressive.
That engine would make a sweet prime mover for a commuter locomotive, especially a hybrid design. Th lighter weight of the turbine-generator package would allow for a larger battery.
- Erik
Questions about fuel consumption. What is “BSFC”?
Also as mentioned could a turbine be set up in a hybred for passenger rail? The comment that one of the 2 turbines was shut down whilst cruising. (In other words fire up the 2nd turbine when you needed to accelerate from a stop) I vaguely recall that the US Navy was using a combination diesel/gas turbine in ASW frigates & destroyers. Using the diesels when all that was needed was to puter about, but when speed & manueverability was needed(put the pedal to the metal) they could fire up the turbines.
Forgive my ignorance on this. And please forgive me if I seem to ramble(It’s kind of late)
-
Could you design a turbine powered train for fuel economy? I would think if you designed the power systems around a specific running speed combined with turbine battery electric operation you do better on fuel economy. It is my impression that gas turbines generally were more reliable than internal combustion diesels. (fewer moving parts) , correct me if I’m wrong.
-
If I recall correctly gas turbines do very well in situations were they are run at constant speed(most engines) and at or near the maximum power.
By the by what is the fuel consumption of tier 2 diesels compared to gas turbine?(ie the power plant in a SD 70 evo or GEVO (EMC OR GE respectively)
It s late am going to post this & go to bed. I’ll try to edit this down next chance I get.
It is kind of sad to these train sets currently. I’m thinking they may end up down in Mexico like the PA’s or so many Baldwin diesels.
Many Thx IGN
To all of you who caught it, mea culpa for my typo, 3000 hp commuter locomotive diesel is what I meant, not 300 hp. It warms my heart that you read my comments so carefully.
Narig01:
My turbine expertise is in aviation. I do not know how well it would translate to railroading.
Pros:
Turbine engines are much more reliable than reciprocal engines. They make more horsepower per pound of weight. They are fairly economical to keep fuel in. They are not fussy about which combusible liquid you put in them.
Cons:
They are not suitable for direct drive because they make very little low end torque. They work best running wide open for long periods of time. They work very well running generators and auxilary power units. In large helicopters, they often must be started with the rotor system disengaged because of the low end torque issue. In either type of aircraft, when they are driving a propeller or rotor, they are brought up to a given RPM and remain there for all aspects of operation. Acceleration is accomplished by changing the pitch, rather than the speed, of the rotor or propeller.
In a railroad engine, it seems to me like they could be used effectively to run an alternator or generator for turbine/electric or for head end power, but would be a very poor choice for direct drive.
However, I really believe that railroads should be electrified. But that is a discussion for another thread.
For direct drive, you need a BIG reduction gear set similar to gas turbine engines on Navy ships.
BSFC is brake specific fuel consumption. It’s a measure of an engines fuel efficiency. In English units it’s lbs of fuel per brak
Back in the late 1990’s the US Department 0f Energy partnered with the FRA to do some serious research on building a hybrid version of the
Even if the turboliners were not 30 years old they are equipment not ready for this time. Conceived when fuel was cheap that operating expense has balloned. Since the equipment is only a full power efficient machine there is not anywhere at present that characteristic can be used. If the equipment was able to take power off a third rail when in a station then efficiency would go up.
An example of efficient operation would be: NY Penn station to Albany using Metro North and new third rail to Croton then the turbo to Albany with third rail in Albany station. Then non stop to Schenectady with a third rail there then non stop to Buffalo (another third rail) on the water level route (no up and down profiles). However since there is no third track or PTC yet on that route its speed advantage cannot yet be used (many years in the future). Also some third rail would have to be installed at those stations where it would stop and storage/maintenance tracks. A better location might be a limited stop Chicago - St. Louis if the passenger demand was sufficient. I’m sure you readers may think of other locations. Maybe Washington - Jacksonville.
I dunno. I think they’re neat. I’m gonna ask Santa to bring me one for Christmas. I’ll figure out what to do with it once he brings it.[;)]
Concerning gas turbine fuel consumption, see my previous comments on recuperation. The numbers for a recuperated TF50R virtually match a good diesel over the speed range when adjusted for the lighter weight of the locomotive. The Turboliners operated with both turbines in accelration mode but shut down one for constant speed running. They also have 3rd rail capability which was used in the tunnels approaching Penn Station as well as when stopped at the platform. This system, which runs only 7 minutes per trip, costs as much as the the whole turbine-hydraulic system.
The UAC Turbotrains did use multiple small gas turbines but not for reasons of fuel economy. Five Pratt & Whitney 400 HP ST6B turbines were used to provide 2000 HP for traction, A sixth was used for the APU. The turbines were connected by a 3 input gear box in each powercar. This scheme was used for no reason other than it was the only turbine available from UAC who were building the trains. To add insult to injury, they relied on the torque conversion properties of the power section to adjust output, which was a loser from the start. As a consequence, the ST6B seldom reached its 500 hour TBO (marginal for the service anyway.) without a failure. The gear trains were also unreliable with the end result an availability of just 60%. In recognition of these problems, UAC offered a TMT3 version in the bidding competion with the Rohr Turboliner in 1974. The TMT employed an 1120 HP Avco Lycoming gas turbine driving a Voith 411rBu hydraulic transimssion but it was too late and the train was never built.
On the hybrid subject, the FRA flywheel project was doomed from the start by the laws of physics. The flywheel system weighed over 20 tons and would have had to be contained in a trailer car. Never heard anything on projected costs but it’s safe to say they would not compare favorably with the one time $7 million cost of recuperating the TF50. I mentioned this to the FRA Program mana
I suppose the word of a Program Manager carries more weight than what is on their website, but it seems the two things the FRA is interested in funding these days are 1) anything to do with safety – either structural or having to do with signals or other systems to keep trains safely separated, and 2) they seem to be interested in lightweight, high-power, fuel-efficient propulsion systems with some hint of interest in turbines of the type you are talking about
I mention these things because they don’t seem to be interested in tilting suspensions, either active or passive pendulum, self-steering trucks or guided axles, trucks and suspensions that suppress wheel hunting at high speeds. At least with the aviation industry there are NASA centers that study advanced technology for passenger airliners instead of simply air traffic control schemes or safety-oriented matters. Safety is important yes, but in the late 60’s, early 70’s, there still seemed to be interest in basic research on high-speed trains with consideration of the wheel hunting problem, which has a lot of bearing on how much maintenance you have to do with HSR on maintaining wheel and rail profiles and maintaining bushings and wear surfaces on the trucks, along with the amount of wear that the suspension design inflicts on the track and on the train itself.
As to this recuperated turbine, what kind of heat exchanger do you have in mind> One kind is a fixed plate-type heat exchanger. The other kind is a rotating drum. I was working for a short time at Ford Motor Research in the mid 1970s, and I saw pieces of the ceramic heat exchanger of the Ford Truck Turbine all over the place.
The Ford Truck Turbine apparently was a big project – one of the buildings on the Dearborn Research campus was c
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
I suppose the word of a Program Manager carries more weight than what is on their website, but it seems the two things the FRA is interested in funding these days are 1) anything to do with safety – either structural or having to do with signals or other systems to keep trains safely separated, and 2) they seem to be interested in lightweight, high-power, fuel-efficient propulsion systems with some hint of interest in turbines of the type you are talking about
I mention these things because they don’t seem to be interested in tilting suspensions, either active or passive pendulum, self-steering trucks or guided axles, trucks and suspensions that suppress wheel hunting at high speeds. At least with the aviation industry there are NASA centers that study advanced technology for passenger airliners instead of simply air traffic control schemes or safety-oriented matters. Safety is important yes, but in the late 60’s, early 70’s, there still seemed to be interest in basic research on high-speed trains with consideration of the wheel hunting problem, which has a lot of bearing on how much maintenance you have to do with HSR on maintaining wheel and rail profiles and maintaining bushings and wear surfaces on the trucks, along with the amount of wear that the suspension design inflicts on the track and on the train itself.
As to this recuperated turbine, what kind of heat exchanger do you have in mind> One kind is a fixed plate-type heat exchanger. The other kind is a rotating drum. I was working for a short time at Ford Motor Research in the mid 1970s, and I saw pieces of the ceramic heat exchanger of the Ford Truck Turbine all over the place.
The Ford Truck Turbine apparently was a big project – one of the buildings on the
Were those direct drive or turbine/electric?
The FRA Program Manager for the Flywheel program is no longer there. I doubt that he had anything to do with the choice of a flywheel development program, he just had to manage it.
As you are probably aware, tilt is there for passenger comfort and has nothing to do with safety. The Acela has it as does the LRC in Canada. Only the Talgo has it in Europe, the high speed lines are built to avoid curves that might require tilt. The FRA doesn’t like cant deficiency above 3 inches but Europe goes well above that on some their feeder lines. I guess it depends on what passengers are used to.
The trucks under the RTL Turboliners are an ANF (now Bombardier) design for 125 mph service. They do not hunt at speeds up to 140 mph and have acumulated more than 20 million miles of troublefree service in the Empire Corridor. For higher speeds, I would look to successful European designs
Concerning recuperators, a major constraint on most applications is size and weight. On a locomotive this is not a problem. While my experience with heat exchangers has been with compressed air, I tend to favor a series, tube style, counterflow design with the goal of getting the combustion air temperature as close to that of the exhaust as possible. The AGT1500 did not use this style because of space constraints but the L100, which was developed to replace it (but never produced), used a tube style, a Garrett design I believe. I think the TM1800 uses a tube style as evidenced by its effective recuperation but can’t swear to this.
I had totally forgotten the gas turbine work done on trucks. It might be worth another look to take advantage of natural gas a fuel. A down sized L100 gas turbine comes to mind. First cost would be high but with a 24,000 hour TBO and CNG incentives, life cycle costs could be competitive.
Problems of gas turbines are multiple and must be treated globally.
-
It’s important to decrease sales prices by two ways : increase quantities and develop materials and components out of existing aeronautical gas turbines. This point was partially obtained with TM1800
-
Decrease fuel consumption particularly at partial load. This point has been solved with TM1800 which keeps constant specific fuel consumption to 50% of max power
-
Operate gas turbine as gas turbine and not with diesel engines spirit. Gas turbines do not need constant survey and with electronic survey system, they are maintained “on condition” without special shop and workers devoted to their maintenance.
If these goals are obtained, advantages of gas turbines are important:
-
low pollution and with electrical traction,no pollution in cities
-
lightness to increase speed
-
multiple powering motors with electrical solutions to obtain better acceleration
-
availability allowing to start and stop gas turbines when necessary
-
low oil pollution and consumption decreasing oil tank volume and oil replacement
With gas turbines, french trains have reach more than 310 Km/h and demonstrate capability to operate at high speed
Welcome aboard.
With regard to the 3" unbalance. I always had in my mind that the Rohr turboliners had some ability to at least tilt less toward the outside of the curve due to their overall smaller profile and the ultimate pick of these trainsets over the UA turbos with passive tilt.
Given that the FRA simply does not seem to want to allow very high unbalance that could be obtained by active tilting equipment is there a sweet spot of say 6" unbalance that would come from a passive system which merely prevented the body from rolling to the outside of the curve? I have read the various articles in interface regarding the L/V ratios at high unbalance and this seems to be the way forward for mixed use lines. Wasn’t 4.5" unbalance allowed by the UP for outside bolster trucks. I have found this in a lot of engineering references.
C’mon Jerry you were doing good until you made the statement about only Talgo using tilt in Europe. virtually all European builders have tilt designs running somewhere in Europe. You have the Class 390 Pendolinos and Class 221 Super Voyagers in the UK using Alstom (Fiat) technology. The X2000 trains in Sweden using Bombardier technology, in Germany the Class 611, 612, ICE-T, and ICE-TD DMU and EMUs. In Switzerland the ICN EMUs, and in Italy the various ETR series Pendolino EMUs. And I know I am missing some. The ICE designs in Germany use Siemens technology. I haven’t tried to count them but it is likely that Talgo has built or designed one-third or less of all tilting trainsets in Europe.