Slashdot Mirror
Jet Turbine Locomotives
An anonymous submitter writes "I saw this article in the paper today. Not only is it lighter than a comparable diesel engine, it should burn the fuel more completely and be a bit better for the environment. Not to mention it is much faster. They should make more of a point that the North American railway system needs a major overhaul in order to support faster trains." The Department of Transportation has some information about next-generation trains, including a design incorporating a flywheel to improve acceleration.
Living next to a railway crossing - I wonder how loud it's going to be - Judging from Jet's flying in and out of airports - I'll be moving away from any railroad tracks.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
As of right now, most North American railways are used to transport cargo, and the very fact remains that speed isn't really a problem right now, as even though trains are very slow, a speed increase would probably not be necessary, as it would only cost more on shiping. On the other hand, these new technologies could be more useful in other places, such as the Far East, where rail transport is still the primary way to transport both passengers and cargo.
UP had a few turbine locos in the 1960's but they didn't do well. In the past, the problem with turbines in locomotives has been low efficiency (especially at part throttle) and low reliability. They are getting better, but I doubt that you'll see them in freight locos in the near future. Their lighter weight is not a big advantage in freight pullers. Sounds good for lightweight passenger travel, though.
Here is Bombardier's own page on it and a photo of the locomotive.
---Mike
It won't get slashdotted. It's a major news site.
Mod this down. If you like the content, GO TO THE SITE.
Take my karma when above comment is lower than mine
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Because of Japanese expertise in this area, other countries (other asian states, some european) either licence the technology outright or tap the experts to develop their own technology (recently China and Korea are doing this).
The problems the US faces are known quantities. Why re-invent the (fly-) wheel? The comparative advantage of nations is real. The US should shelve its hubris and buy a proven japanese design rather than investing in more white elephants.
This isn't about some jackass engineer at Bombardier strapping a jet engine onto a flatcar to make it go faster. Bombardier is proposing the use of a turbine in the same way they are used in natural-gas fired power plants. Presumably, the turbine will drive a generator whose electricity output will drive electric motors as in a conventional diesel locomotive.
I'm all for it if it will bring high-speed rail service to North America. Electrifying the existing rail system will take decades if it happens at all--Canada and the U.S. just aren't densely packed enough to support the infrastructure investment seen in Europe. If we can get high-speed non-electric locomotives, we might see high-speed rail service to more cities, offering a viable alternative to the inconveniences of air travel.
~Idarubicin
The answer does not lie in the reduced weight of the engine compared to the whole train, rather the more powerful engine/motor they can put in the engine car using the same form factor.
Is it too much to ask that submitters read the article they're submitting? The entire reason this train was developed is so it could be used on existing tracks with a minimum of modifications. It's right there in the second paragraph of the article: "Bombardier believes its 240-kilometres-an-hour JetTrain is the answer to providing high-speed rail service throughout North America using existing track and without the prohibitive cost of electrifying rail networks."
Trains are nearly obsolete? Gee, try telling that to the rest of the developed world. Most Japanese people ONLY use trains. The way to get around Europe is on the trains. In fact, it is not TRAINS which are obsolete, but the US and Canada, who still have these ridiculous diesel engines that are just not suited to getting people around (I had the misfortune--or the adventure--of geting around China for a month on diesel trains--30 hours from Canton to Shanghai; ugh). North America needs to jump on the railway bandwagon for a lot of reasons, most importantly to reduce energy consumption and associated air pollution. You may not realize it, but as much as gas costs now, it's STILL far, far less than what the rest of the world pays, thanks to a fossil of a fossil-fuel-hungry government. Unfortunately, this train doesn't really address that issue very well, as it still uses fossil fuel (albeit less than all those passengers driving SUVs). To really clean things up, we need electric trains, like the rest of the developed world. From a convenience standpoint, however, this train--should it be accepted by the public, which it won't be, since we all love our farcical SUVs so damn much--would make life a whole lot easier. Instead driving hours to get up to my meeting in San Francisco next weekend, I could sit on a train, kick back, drink a beer, read some news on my PDA, watch the scenery fly by, take a nap, and wake up refreshed and ready to work. I would not have had to deal with bastard drivers, getting lost, or even paying attention to where I was going. I also would not have had to be security screened, sniffed by drug dogs, had my fingernail clippers taken away, or sit in a cramped, loud seat in a fart-smelling plane. Trains are the way to go for short-to-medium length trips, and people like you, with your 1950's idea of the railroad, are the people who keep it from happening. Go on, spend some time abroad. Take advantage of other countries' great train systems. If you come back still thinking trains are "obsolete," I'll refund you the cost of reading this post. ;)
You know, the state of North American railways is in many ways worse than in some third world countries. Why can't we get proper electic locomotives like everyone else has?
Because North America is very big, and relatively sparsly populated. It is not at all certain, that electrifying the entire grid is an economically optimal solution. In remote areas there are no power plants, so either you have to construct new ones in the middle of nowhere or the power has to go through very long cables (which causes a lot of losses).
Tor
There's a lot of surface area in the US so there's a lot of open space to cover for any rail system.
One reason Japan's rail system is so much better than the United State's is because Japan is just that much smaller of a country. And as for Europe, Texas alone probably equals the space covered by several European countries.
Although many people seem to think of them in the same way. Jet fuel is a very close relative to diesel fuel. . . and kerosene, and in a pinch they can often be substituted for one another, so substituting jet fuel for diesel will have *no* effect on the enviroment, per se. However, burning jet fuel more completely than a diesel engine burns its fuel will, indeed, have a positive effect and is virtually soot free.
You want a nasty fuel enviromentally? Very little is worse than ordinary pump gasoline.
KFG
The submitter noted that "...the North American railway system needs a major overhaul in order to support faster trains." Frankly, I wonder if that's likely.
Even without regard to the current economic climate, no one (especially the U.S. Federal government) seems too interesting in overhauling the railway system. Rail travel is great, but Amtrak has been begging to cease service on many, many routes because, for the most part, people don't ride trains anymore. Most travellers seem to feel that flying is cheap (enough) and safe (enough), and even with the new airport security measures, flying is faster than train travel.
As for cargo trains, previous posters correctly observed that faster cargo transport is not a compelling need.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't know if you are familiar with rail service in Europe but it is a good alternative to flying or driving. For example high-speed rail is considered THE way to travel between Paris and Brussels.
.5 hr to get into downtown Portland. 4.5hrs total. .5hr to station, .5hr to .25hr waiting for departure, 2.5hr train ride, .25-.5hr to get to destination in Portland. 3.5hr-4hr total.
There are train corridors that already are quite popular such as Vancouver BC-Seattle-Portland, Boston-NYC-DC, and LA-San Diego. Many areas have corridors they would like to see higher speed, more frequent, and more reliable service. In some cases the states and cities are even willing to invest their own money (YVR-SEA-PDX Talgo service).
If I want to travel between Seattle and Portland (about 200 miles) I have 3 options:
1. Fly, 1hr to get to airport, 2hrs to clear security and check in, 1hr for flight,
2. Drive, about 4 hours, 6 or more during rush hour or if there is an accident.
3. Train,
and trains don't require a body cavity search.
If we were willing to invest even a fraction of the total subsidies given to either the auto industry or air travel industries in passenger rail services people actually wanted to use we could probably achieve ridership rates approching Europe.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
This is exactly what a diesel engine does. Spins a generator so it can drive an electric motor. Hell we could have nuclear trains if we wanted.
The US is not ready for high speed trains, the infrastructre is FUBAR. Railroad crossings are lethal at the moment and likely to become worse with 100mph+ trains.
The Amercian public is not wishing to travel by train, so get the passangers off the track and make them exclusively for freight.
The best thing that could happen is for AmTrak to be put out of it's misery it's assets sold off and everyone forget about rail travel in the US.
Maybe in 50 years if nothing better has come along America can rediscover trains but until the current crippled system is ripped out nothing will improve.
The problem with shutting down the system is the loss of right-of-way. IF you loose that the game is over forever due to cost of replacing the land as well as NIMBY issues. There have been some attempts at rail banking (saving the right-of-way after the rails are pulled out. As much as I would like to see rail upgraded "distroying the line to save the line" just won't work.
Oil exploration and energy generation in general are economic activities. The more oil costs, the more marginal fields will be exploited and the more alternatives will be found. This will take years and years, as it already has taken years and years. It's not like there's one tap in the ground and when it goes dry there is no more oil There are a number of different quality oil sources in the ground, and some are more expensive to exploit. As the price of oil goes up, they will become economically feasible, and there will be enormous economic advantages to find cheaper sources of energy. At some price, biofuel will be feasible, at some price wind power will become feasible, and at some price, solar power will become feasible. Gasoline cars will never be obsolete because those alternatives will be used for applications that are flexible with regards to the source of their energy (anyone that uses electricity for example) when those alternatives are cheaper than oil, so the demand for oil will decrease dramatically, leaving only those who have no choice but to use oil as the only market for oil.
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
"Unfortunately, this train doesn't really address that issue very well, as it still uses fossil fuel"
Actually, it addresses it very well. With the JetTrain, you have a fossil-fuel turbine generating electricity which turn electric motors on the train wheels. With an electric train, you probably have a fossil-fuel turbine generating electricity which turn electric motors on the train wheels.
The JetTrain would use slightly more energy because it has to push a large engine and a big tank of fuel around. It's minimal compared to the weight of the load, though.
An electric train would use massive amounts of energy and resources to build out electric tracks over thousands of miles.
it's a one time versus an ongoing cost.
Compared to SUV's, the savings are fricking massive.
Bryan
What ever happened to Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) engines? It seems like they'd be perfect for a locomotive application, inasmuch as they can take fuel directly to electricity with no moving parts. A quick Google search shows one old but promising article on an LMMHD auto engine, and that's about it: comments on the infeasibility of this approach would be appreciated.
I fail to see how a jet train will make much difference given that passenger rail travel is generally a failure in North America.
There is the immediate issue of population density - it is not high enough to economically justify the huge construction and maintenance costs. Very few passenger routes (mainly between large cities in the North East) actually turn a profit.
Of course, this exact same argument could be levelled against passenger car travel, as the hidden subsidies in the form of public roadworks, tax benefits to car manufacturers and oil companies, etc. all add up to about 4 times as much as the visible cost of owning and operating the average car.
The issue then becomes, at the core, one of culture. We are wedded to our cars, they are ingrained into our very way of life far more than their mere utilitarian purpose entails. Life in America revolves around the car, not the other way around. Given that, passenger rail travel has no hope of succeeding beyond a few niche markets.
Finally, the high-speed rail travel is only moderately successful even in its ideal arenas of rail-crazy Europe and Japan. The Eurostar, Thalys and ICE make a profit (and that's BEFORE accounting for public subsidies) only over middle distances connecting the major hubs, i.e. London, Brussels, Paris. Other routes to Switzerland, Germany and the South of France have always been making huge financial losses, even more so now with the advent of low-cost, low-frills airlines that get there in half the time.
think of anti-noise and anti-IR technology developed for military aviation - most attack helicopters now-a-days are virtually silent (until its right on top of you) and have very low IR signatures (to avoid Stingers)
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
I'm really not sure why everyone gets down on American railroads. American railroads are completely different beasts from those in Western Europe and Japan. They are geared towards freight, particularly bulk freight. They move huge quantities very cheaply. Do Europeans have anything comparable to the 100+ car long freight trains that are common in the US? (Just drive I-80 west of Iowa. Original transcontinental railroad still handling hugh trains.) Also remember that the US freight equipment tends to be much larger (because of all of the grade separation requirements, railcars in Europe must fit under all of those old underpasses, while upgrading to stacked containers requires many fewer modifications to the road in the US.)
Huge freight trains and fast passenger trains just don't mix well on the same lines. The US could build dedicated passenger lines (like European governments did) in some locations, but a national network just doesn't make much sense. Even the regional networks would require constant subsidies to operate.
I know, its off topic.
Until you're trying to tow a trainload of coal up a steep (by train standards) mountain grade..
But it will give billions to the nearly-bankrupt air-transport industry...
I think you're basing your assessments on the old United Aircraft Turbotrains and the even older GE Big Blow locomotives that Union Pacific Railroad ran during the 1950's and 1960's.
Fortunately, if you've read Bombardier's web page, JetTrain has been designed with the following in mind:
1. The train is designed to meet the very strict FRA requirements for crash survivability, requirements that are actually stricter than those in much of Europe.
2. The JetTrain locomotive uses far more modern gas turbine engines than the old Turbotrain. Remember, Turbotrain was built during the 1960's; with 30 years of research and development since then derived from developing quieter, more fuel efficient and less-polluting jet engines for the commercial aircraft industry since 1970, Pratt & Whitney today can deliver a gas turbine engine for the JetTrain that will use much less fuel, spew out way less exhaust emissions and generate far less noise than the old Turbotrains.
3. Because JetTrain is a clean sheet design, it won't have to owe anything to current diesel-electric locomotive technology, technology that emphasizes more on initial pulling power for heavy trains. Remember, the entire JetTrain trainset uses the latest in materials technology to keep the weight down while still meeting FRA safety standards.
If Bombardier can demonstrate it can properly cool the hot exhaust from the gas turbine engine so it doesn't become a fire/high-temperature hazard to nearby objects, JetTrain with its potential 155 mph (250 km/h) top speed could be just the train for a number of Amtrak routes here in the USA. Already, Amtrak is in the process of upgrading the Chicago to Detroit corridor to handle trains in excess of 100 mph; JetTrain would be a natural for this route. And since Amtrak's Southwest Chief long-distance train between Chicago and Los Angeles runs mostly on AT&SF railroad trackage (which was rated for 100+ mph operation back in 1937!), imagine a JetTrain variant of the Southwest Chief going between Los Angeles and Chicago in under 36 hours! (That is faster than the record for this route set by the Santa Fe Super C freight train in the late 1960's.)
While having high-speed electric trains with overhead wiring is nice, you're forgetting that setting up all that catenary wiring is exorbitantly expensive, especially when you also have to tie in that wiring into the local electrical grid. And don't forget the NIMBY crowd that might not be too thrilled by the installation of all that wiring for various reasons.
I think if Bombardier can work out the bugs on JetTrain, it may become the primary form of locomotion for high-speed rail in the USA, mostly because you can skip out on the expensive overhead catenary wiring installation.
...It's the switching and signaling. Amtrack's older fleet of Diesel trains have an operating speed of 103mph. The more recent trains introduced in the mid 90s can do 110mph in service. Most of the switching and signaling on Amtrack's thousands of miles of non-electrified track require a human to see and react to the signal. So, with the exception of high-speed electric routes, most Amtrack railways are limited to 79mph for safety reasons. Municipalities also have the power to limit train speeds at a local level, if 79mph is considered too dangerous. Amtrack introduced a computer-based switching system to counter this, but I imagine just like everthing else Amtrack has attempted, it was implemented half-assed at best. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/12/high.speed.trains/
Until a switching system SOMEWHERE NEAR the complexity of the FAA's air-traffic control system is introduced, it doesn't matter how fast you can make the engine go.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
1) I like trains.
2) I don't like planes.
3) I would rather see the world than see the clouds.
4) Speed doesn't really mean anything to me, I can work on a train while traveling.
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
Flywheels to help acceleration? I was under the impression that flywheels 'store' energy to help keep the cruising speed constant despite sudden changes in energy delivered from the engine. For example, in your car, when you push in the clutch, isn't it the flywheel whose rotational momentum buffers your wheels from the now-disconnected engine? Correct me if I'm wrong - this stuff interests me.
I would prefer that you did some research before you begin spouting off a load of bullshit about a topic you know nothing about. Gone are the days of 40 rail sticks that need to be bolted together by hand. On all the Class 1 railroad main-lines in the United States (Union Pacific, BNSF, etc,) there is a federal mandate for continuously welded rail that will support heavy freight (>10,000 foot trains, several thousand tons) at 79 MPH. The rail that is laid is welded continuously after being extruded in 1000+ foot pieces.
The reason not all rail in the United States is welded is because our railroads need to maintain 100,000+ miles of track. This is an amazing task. Probably 70,000 miles is not welded rail, and was probably built in 40 foot sections. One rail weld cost approximately 600 dollars (US) because of the precision and method necessary to not compromise the integrity of the rail itself. If we assume conservatively that we have 50,000 miles of rail to weld, will 40 foot rails, and at 600 dollars per weld, the total comes to approximately 8 billion dollars. This expense would have minimal benefit because the rail that would be welded does not carry enough traffic to justify the expense.
Finally, the main reason our railroads are not electrified (other than the massive amount of electrification that would have to occur) is the type of cargo we haul on the railroads. European and Japanese railroads are primarily passenger railroads. This function lends itself to high speed and low weight. Our railroads are primarily freight carrying, and long heavy trains at that. Currently, to take a loaded, 10,000 foot train over Cajon Pass in California (approx 2% grade for 20+ miles), 6 6000 horsepower locomotives are required. Each of these locomotives generates approximately 4-5 MegaWatts at peak capacity. That is enough to power a multitude of homes. The logistics of delivering that kind of power is just unreasonable. Some mining railroads use electric locomotives, or used to. Kennecott Copper in Nevada and Utah comes to mind immediately. They had some of the largest electric freight locomotives ever built, and yet they dieselized. Why? because the cost of providing 12,000 volts over a couple hundred miles of rail was prohibitively expensive. Can you imagine the immense cost of doing the same for the entire US rail system? It would be impossible.
Electrification works great on a small scale, for passenger operations. Large scale freight operations do not lend themselves particularly well to electrification.
Please at least have some facts before you make a post bashing the US rail system. The rail system works amazingly well for the scope of the operations it has to carry, and the distances it has to cover. I guarantee you that we would be much less prosperous as a country without them.
They called me crazy, but we showed them didn't we?
Everyone has a car for the 300m trips. After that commuter flights, or flights are real cheap, and faster than rail ever could get. How long does a flight from NY to LA take? How much does it cost? Are you ever going to get that price/performance with rail (and still get some sort of performance)?
That is why there isn't the infrastructure investment. No one rides them. That is why AmTrack, as heavily subsidized as it is, slowly whittles its lines away year after year.
Flights are just too damn cheap, or you have a car (or can rent one). Gas is cheap, cars are cheap, flights are cheap in relation to other areas of the world. No one cares about rail anymore in this area. That is why we don't spend the money.