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.
<boast mode>(I just inherited an old UAC turbo train operating manual
this week...:) )</boast mode>
Turbine power was initially considered for the French TGV; it is the petroleum
crisis in 1974 that decided them to go electric. The TGV001 prototype was turbine-powered.
And the RTG turbo trains weren't exactly failures either (they are still running
in France).
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.
This has nothing to do with the issues I am voicing; the UAC (and the UP Big
Blows) were also fully compliant for FRA ratings... However, the buffing-strength
ratings are merely an excuse to justify the unacceptable lack of ATC on most
of north-american signalling systems. In Europe, it is unthinkable to have the
smallest switcher go without ATC; heck, the german Indusi
system was invented in the 1930's!!! (Follow the link, Indusi is incredibly
ingenious; even though it is based on magnetic induction and resonance, it can
run even with mechanical signalling with no electric power whatsoever).
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.
Nowhere in the little information available do I see comparative figures for
fuel consumption in full-power/vs idle modes... However, I stated that hotel
power requirements mean that there will be still some significant demand on
the turbine even when the train is idle. However, I am not convinced the turbine's
fuel consumption will vary according to load (but, it is a rather moot point,
because running at 150 mph will ask for plenty of power).
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.
I somehow suspect that it uses current electric locomotive components in the
traction department... I know Bombardier, and they don't invent much (they buy
all their technology). You should see the MU cars they make; they're horrible
kitbashs of various technologies - some components were designed more than 50
years ago...
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.
I don't think this is a problem; turbine helicopters don't set fire to nearby
buildings... If you mix the exhaust with enough air, you can cool it down significantly.
After all, there is so much energy coming out of it.
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.
Is that on GT? Hopefully not... What happens with the RTG modernization projects
we heard about some years ago?
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.)
But does the AT&SF has the ATC mandated for >79 mph running? Plus, I
don't honestly see it pulling Superliner coaches at high-speed, the high center
of gravity... And will the lightweight hog have enough weight on drivers to
climb the mountain grades?
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.
Yet it is the only sensible long-term way to do it. Turbine-power is at best
a stopgap measure. As such, it is a good solution to lure people back onto trains.
Once you have a cricital mass of people going, it becomes easier to justify.
However, one thing that will need to be done is to tackle the airline lobby
head-on; best way would be to associate them. In Canada, Air-Canada has it's
fingers in an eventual TGV pie, because they know very well how expensive it
is to run airplanes, and they saw what happenned (oblivion) to domestic air transport in
France when the TGV came online 20 years ago.
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.
Still, with the amount of power needed to move a train at high-speed, using
gas turbines will soon reach a wall only electrification can break.
Let me get this straight: The TGV runs at 320mph... on tracks rated for 250mph. Oh, that's gonna be fun.
This was during a test run, some 11-12 years ago. The test run was with a modified, lighter (3 cars - 2 first-class and one test coach) and souped-up train. What was interesting is that the record-breaking run was done not only with a full complement of journalists, but with the French transportation minister on board (hence the first class coaches)...
blockquote> And so are diesel locomotives. I had the misfortune to attend
an outdoor wedding that happened to be near a trainyard, and the ceremony was
completely drowned out by a nearby idling locomotive.
That's what happens when you go to a trainspotter's wedding...
It wasn't built by Bombardier (it was only making snowmobilles then), but by United Aircraft and Canadian Vickers in 1966. It was then leased to CN. VIA inherited it in 1977 and ran more or less it until 1984... But it was a nice train to ride, as the bar car was in the cab, so you could watch the track ahead (and grab your beer glass before the train would start to shake in curves)...
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
Or you can beat the shit out of some arabian country to get their oil for free...
Another turbine advantage is they can run on almost anything flammable,
given the right nozzles etc. Some power plants actually burn pulverized coal
in their turbines. They can also run on methane, LNG, etc... so if/when it
becomes unfashionable enough/too expensive/whatever to power the trains with
dead dinosaurs, they can switch over to something else... (methanol anyone?)
Back when CN had it's turbo-train, mechanics would clean the turbines
by running them full blast for a few minutes, then quickly switch the fuel for...
water. The water would expand to steam thanks to the hot turbine, and they would
run for at least 10 minutes on water alone...
I doubt that existing trains will be able to be retrofitted with one of
these things - at least, they won't be able to to take full advantage.
If you're trying to build a high-speed train, all the running gear has
to be rated for that high speed. That means suspension, brakes, etc. etc,
and applies to all the carriages, not just the locomotive.
High-speed is made possible by the tracks, not the trains. The french TGV (the
fastest - 515 km/h that's 320 miles per hour) is a souped-up ordinary
train. No exotic technology, no fancy tilt mechanism, no esoteric power system.
Just bigger transformers, faster traction motors, faster gearing and more powerful
brakes.
But the track. Oooh, the track, it's a smoooooth gentle nicely laid ribbon
of steel, designed to be travelled at speeds up to 250 miles per hour.
Re:Remindes me of the JATO Impala story
on
Jet Turbine Locomotives
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
Ha! When CN inaugurated it's Turbo Train back in 1966, the train hit a truck
at a crossing. The train was going at 125 miles per hour, but the crossing gates
were timed for 96 miles per hour, so when the train went by the crossing, the
gates weren't down yet...
Re:Remindes me of the JATO Impala story
on
Jet Turbine Locomotives
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
This actually was done in 1966 by the New-York Central railroad... They fitted
two jet engines to a Budd Rail-Diesel-Car and sent the contraption careening
down the pike at speeds up to 183 miles per hour in Western Ohio.
Although this looks promising on paper, one can but wonder if that turbine
locomotiveis yet another boondoggle (sp?).
Given that the turbine's fuel appetite does not significantly changes when
the turbine goes from idle to warp factor nine (unlike a diesel), one
wonder what fuel economy will be with a SINGLE 5000 hp turbine engine.
Okay, granted, with hotel power (to light-up the cars and air-condition/heat
them), you still suck some power from the engine when the train is stopped.
One would think that a sensible way to address this problem would be to use
10 smal 500 HP engines whose number that kick-in would depend of the power needed
at a time. But of course, this would mean higher maintenance costs and more
chances for something to go wrong. However, modular design could make it easy
to replace a turbine.
Case in point: the old United Aircraft Turbotrain, designed in the
sixties, had 6 Pratt & Whitney PT-6turbine engines, each
one of which could be replaced by three mechanics in less than 30 minutes
(this was a NICE train: the bar was in the engine's cab, so
you could look at the track ahead whilst sipping a beer, and switch to a stiffer
drink whenever the train missed a school bus or a gasoline truck at a crossing).
Even if we end-up with a super-magical turbine locomotive that runs all the
time and doesn't suck fuel all the time as well, we'd face a little problem
that is caused by the turbines's very suitableness for powering aircraft: low
weight.
Of course, low weight means less power needed to go at high speed. But is means
also less weight on drivers. Perhaps railroads will be clipping newspapers coupons
looking for sand clerance sales (sand can be injected right in front of driving
wheels to boost adhesion if the wheels start to slip Wheels will definitely
slip if there isn't enough weight on them)...
So, one wonders of the suitableness of a turbine locomotive-hauled passenger
train. Will it slip? Will it haul? I'm afraid that a turbine
engine will have to be weighted up... But that weight need not be always deadweight.
Big cities call for big commuter train traffic: the thing electrification is
for. So, why not add a pantograph and power transformer allowing for full-power
operation under catenary when approaching terminals? At least, this will reduce
downtown air pollution.
Wouldn't a better way be to have distributed traction throughout the train?
You keep power generation in a lightweight power car (it would hardly be a locomotive
anymore), and have traction motors throughout the train itself, so to take advantage
of the weight there, too. Smaller traction motors, too, or at least, bigger
derated ones. The first french TGVs had powered axles under the passenger coaches,
and the Hikari Japanese bullet-trains running
on the Shinkansen, as well as the newest german ICE trains
have distributed powered axles through the trains (and the ICE-3
trains are real neat, too because the front seats of the first cars look on
the track ahead, over the engineer's shoulders).
But of course, one hits other problems, such as safely sending traction power
throughout the train. You're talking at something like 1000 amps at 600
volts there. Coupling/uncoupling cars would cause problems, and at each
car, you also have connections that can go wrong. 100 years ago, in Paris, a
subway train caught fire, killing more than 100 people. The cause: high-intensity
traction power sent through flexible cables throughout the train. Such lessons
from the past are not easily forgotten...
An lighter articulated train would be better in this respect, but then, you
end-up with with an unflexible consist.
A normal train car has two 4 wheel trucks, one at each end. On an articulated
train, adjacent cars share the same truck. Since trucks are rather heavy,
you end up with significant weight savings (a 10 car normal train
has 20 trucks, whereas an articulated 10 car train has only nine count
them right, and don't do a fencepost
error). The downside is that you cannot easily remove or add a car,
they are all stuck together, so you have an inflexible train which can't be
adjusted for varying loads.
But, again, adding cars and removing them is expensive, more expensive than
hauling around empty seats (or it seems, looking the way some MBAs with adding
machines seem to think in railroad adminive departments). But, after all, the
french TGVs are articulated, so this is less a problem it might see.
Aha! Let's compromise on, oh, four car articulated, self-contained (1 first
class parlour/club-car, 2 second class coaches, bar car &
checked luggage/bicycle space with reversible control cab) units, two of which
could be powered by one power car. So a 16 car train could be feasible, and
you can retain some flexibility.
And then, do we have a tilt-train? Tilt-trains
are attractive, but is still one more thing that can go wrong. And with motorized
trucks, you have less room to put the needed power-banking mechanisms...
A tilt train is a train that will tilt in the curves to compensate
for cant deficiency. Cant deficiency is when the
track is banked less than what would be needed for the speed the train goes
through the curve. So, to prevent people from being tossed around curves,
you simply tilt the train inwards, much like an airplane that does a banked
turn. The new Bombardier Amtrak Acela train is a tilt-train,
as well as the Bombardier VIA Rail LRCs that have been running
for more than 20 years in Canada.
There are two kind of tilt-trains: passive-suspention and active-suspension.
Passive-suspension tilt trains are simply hung down and swing out in curves,
whilst active suspension trains have electronic acceleration sensors that
control hydraulic rams that tilt the carbodies. The old United Aircraft
Turbo train and the old Talgo Pendular trains had passive
suspension.
It should work politically: engineers looove that kind of contraptions! And
politicians looove to be associated with forward-thinking technology...
But what kind of engineers? Aircraft engineers are clueless about railroad problems
(one should remember the woes suffered by the late UAC turbo train), and railroad
engineers are justifiably wary of sleek lightweight technology that falls apart
at the slightest rail joint...
I am afraid that having efficient turbine power for high-speed passenger trains
would end-up in a costlier, less flexible exercise than using electrified off-the-shelf
technology in the long run...
The guys who bitch the most at flash are those whose platforms cannot support the flash shit, especially when the flash does stuff that is totally useless to present the information; that is, flash just for the glitzyness sake.
For the last 15 years, I've always told my boss that I am 2-3 days behind where I'm really are in my work. So, whenever the shit hitts the fan, I am always able to slither out unscathed...
Slashdot Mirror
Turbine power was initially considered for the French TGV; it is the petroleum crisis in 1974 that decided them to go electric. The TGV001 prototype was turbine-powered. And the RTG turbo trains weren't exactly failures either (they are still running in France).
This has nothing to do with the issues I am voicing; the UAC (and the UP Big Blows) were also fully compliant for FRA ratings... However, the buffing-strength ratings are merely an excuse to justify the unacceptable lack of ATC on most of north-american signalling systems. In Europe, it is unthinkable to have the smallest switcher go without ATC; heck, the german Indusi system was invented in the 1930's!!! (Follow the link, Indusi is incredibly ingenious; even though it is based on magnetic induction and resonance, it can run even with mechanical signalling with no electric power whatsoever). Nowhere in the little information available do I see comparative figures for fuel consumption in full-power/vs idle modes... However, I stated that hotel power requirements mean that there will be still some significant demand on the turbine even when the train is idle. However, I am not convinced the turbine's fuel consumption will vary according to load (but, it is a rather moot point, because running at 150 mph will ask for plenty of power). I somehow suspect that it uses current electric locomotive components in the traction department... I know Bombardier, and they don't invent much (they buy all their technology). You should see the MU cars they make; they're horrible kitbashs of various technologies - some components were designed more than 50 years ago... I don't think this is a problem; turbine helicopters don't set fire to nearby buildings... If you mix the exhaust with enough air, you can cool it down significantly. After all, there is so much energy coming out of it.Is that on GT? Hopefully not... What happens with the RTG modernization projects we heard about some years ago? But does the AT&SF has the ATC mandated for >79 mph running? Plus, I don't honestly see it pulling Superliner coaches at high-speed, the high center of gravity... And will the lightweight hog have enough weight on drivers to climb the mountain grades? Yet it is the only sensible long-term way to do it. Turbine-power is at best a stopgap measure. As such, it is a good solution to lure people back onto trains. Once you have a cricital mass of people going, it becomes easier to justify.However, one thing that will need to be done is to tackle the airline lobby head-on; best way would be to associate them. In Canada, Air-Canada has it's fingers in an eventual TGV pie, because they know very well how expensive it is to run airplanes, and they saw what happenned (oblivion) to domestic air transport in France when the TGV came online 20 years ago.
Still, with the amount of power needed to move a train at high-speed, using gas turbines will soon reach a wall only electrification can break.blockquote> And so are diesel locomotives. I had the misfortune to attend an outdoor wedding that happened to be near a trainyard, and the ceremony was completely drowned out by a nearby idling locomotive. That's what happens when you go to a trainspotter's wedding...
It wasn't built by Bombardier (it was only making snowmobilles then), but by United Aircraft and Canadian Vickers in 1966. It was then leased to CN. VIA inherited it in 1977 and ran more or less it until 1984... But it was a nice train to ride, as the bar car was in the cab, so you could watch the track ahead (and grab your beer glass before the train would start to shake in curves)...
But it will give billions to the nearly-bankrupt air-transport industry...
High-speed is made possible by the tracks, not the trains. The french TGV (the fastest - 515 km/h that's 320 miles per hour) is a souped-up ordinary train. No exotic technology, no fancy tilt mechanism, no esoteric power system. Just bigger transformers, faster traction motors, faster gearing and more powerful brakes.
But the track. Oooh, the track, it's a smoooooth gentle nicely laid ribbon of steel, designed to be travelled at speeds up to 250 miles per hour.
Ha! When CN inaugurated it's Turbo Train back in 1966, the train hit a truck at a crossing. The train was going at 125 miles per hour, but the crossing gates were timed for 96 miles per hour, so when the train went by the crossing, the gates weren't down yet...
Although this looks promising on paper, one can but wonder if that turbine locomotiveis yet another boondoggle (sp?).
Given that the turbine's fuel appetite does not significantly changes when the turbine goes from idle to warp factor nine (unlike a diesel), one wonder what fuel economy will be with a SINGLE 5000 hp turbine engine. Okay, granted, with hotel power (to light-up the cars and air-condition/heat them), you still suck some power from the engine when the train is stopped.
One would think that a sensible way to address this problem would be to use 10 smal 500 HP engines whose number that kick-in would depend of the power needed at a time. But of course, this would mean higher maintenance costs and more chances for something to go wrong. However, modular design could make it easy to replace a turbine.
Even if we end-up with a super-magical turbine locomotive that runs all the time and doesn't suck fuel all the time as well, we'd face a little problem that is caused by the turbines's very suitableness for powering aircraft: low weight.
Of course, low weight means less power needed to go at high speed. But is means also less weight on drivers. Perhaps railroads will be clipping newspapers coupons looking for sand clerance sales (sand can be injected right in front of driving wheels to boost adhesion if the wheels start to slip Wheels will definitely slip if there isn't enough weight on them)...
So, one wonders of the suitableness of a turbine locomotive-hauled passenger train. Will it slip? Will it haul? I'm afraid that a turbine
engine will have to be weighted up... But that weight need not be always deadweight. Big cities call for big commuter train traffic: the thing electrification is for. So, why not add a pantograph and power transformer allowing for full-power operation under catenary when approaching terminals? At least, this will reduce downtown air pollution.
Wouldn't a better way be to have distributed traction throughout the train? You keep power generation in a lightweight power car (it would hardly be a locomotive anymore), and have traction motors throughout the train itself, so to take advantage of the weight there, too. Smaller traction motors, too, or at least, bigger derated ones. The first french TGVs had powered axles under the passenger coaches, and the Hikari Japanese bullet-trains running on the Shinkansen, as well as the newest german ICE trains have distributed powered axles through the trains (and the ICE-3 trains are real neat, too because the front seats of the first cars look on the track ahead, over the engineer's shoulders).
But of course, one hits other problems, such as safely sending traction power throughout the train. You're talking at something like 1000 amps at 600 volts there. Coupling/uncoupling cars would cause problems, and at each car, you also have connections that can go wrong. 100 years ago, in Paris, a subway train caught fire, killing more than 100 people. The cause: high-intensity traction power sent through flexible cables throughout the train. Such lessons from the past are not easily forgotten...
An lighter articulated train would be better in this respect, but then, you end-up with with an unflexible consist.
But, again, adding cars and removing them is expensive, more expensive than hauling around empty seats (or it seems, looking the way some MBAs with adding machines seem to think in railroad adminive departments). But, after all, the french TGVs are articulated, so this is less a problem it might see.
Aha! Let's compromise on, oh, four car articulated, self-contained (1 first class parlour/club-car, 2 second class coaches, bar car & checked luggage/bicycle space with reversible control cab) units, two of which could be powered by one power car. So a 16 car train could be feasible, and you can retain some flexibility.
And then, do we have a tilt-train ? Tilt-trains are attractive, but is still one more thing that can go wrong. And with motorized trucks, you have less room to put the needed power-banking mechanisms...
It should work politically: engineers looove that kind of contraptions! And politicians looove to be associated with forward-thinking technology... But what kind of engineers? Aircraft engineers are clueless about railroad problems (one should remember the woes suffered by the late UAC turbo train), and railroad engineers are justifiably wary of sleek lightweight technology that falls apart at the slightest rail joint...
I am afraid that having efficient turbine power for high-speed passenger trains would end-up in a costlier, less flexible exercise than using electrified off-the-shelf technology in the long run...
Pornography: what gives me a hard-on, and makes me whip-out my dick and jerk-off.
The guys who bitch the most at flash are those whose platforms cannot support the flash shit, especially when the flash does stuff that is totally useless to present the information; that is, flash just for the glitzyness sake.
No flash crap...
No blazing colours...
Hmmm. Looks like a lot of web "designers" will be pissed!!!! And out of a job when their bosses read the book!!!!
No flash crap...
No blazing colours...
Hmmm. Looks like a lot of web "designers" will be pissed!!!! And out of a job when their bosses read the book!!!!
Whoooa!!!! Pal, my goal is merely to shock people. No need for such philosophical rhetoric. Save your neurons to blast the RIAA or the MPAA!!!
For the last 15 years, I've always told my boss that I am 2-3 days behind where I'm really are in my work. So, whenever the shit hitts the fan, I am always able to slither out unscathed...
TV?
I'd like to see if a beowulf cluster of those would be more stupid than the collective of everyone watching the boob tube...
I'd like to see if a beowulf cluster of those would be more stupid than the collective of everyone watching the boob tube...
I'd like to see if a beowulf cluster of those would be more stupid than the collective of everyone watching the boob tube...
I wonder what kind of horror stories we'll see...
Which part of "one time" you do not understand???
It's a study done by some french institute back around 1995.