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.
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
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
There is a country (Japan) that spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on train design research and has hands down by far the most effective rail network in the world from everything from technical efficiency of trains to timeliness.
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.
You missed the whole point of the article. All of Japan's (And Europe's) high speed trains are electric powered. For the US to use these technologies would require a huge investment on upgrading the current track to electrified. This engine will work on any track, and will save quite a bit of money in the long run if it actually works as described.
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.
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
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.