Bombardier Jettrain

[TH&B]

I agree that the jet train is demented for the reasons you state. Exactly what is the advantage compared to light weight deisels now in existance? Turbines are only efficient at full power, even high speed trains have to run at medium power often in reality. Deisel electrics, deisel hydrolics and straight electrics do this quite well, wich is why they are the prefered choice of power.

Any advantage with turbine will be offset by many disadvantages. Turbines are for airplanes and staionary generators where you run your engine at one constant speed most of the time and shut off when not in use. Trains can't run like that normaly.

[TH&B]

I agree that the jet train is demented for the reasons you state. Exactly what is the advantage compared to light weight deisels now in existance? Turbines are only efficient at full power, even high speed trains have to run at medium power often in reality. Deisel electrics, deisel hydrolics and straight electrics do this quite well, wich is why they are the prefered choice of power.

Any advantage with turbine will be offset by many disadvantages. Turbines are for airplanes and staionary generators where you run your engine at one constant speed most of the time and shut off when not in use. Trains can't run like that normaly.

[Anonymous]

For 110 mph you don't need oddball design. For 110mph a good diesel will suffice (you just don't need to buy at GE :) )

Capital costs are about the same. Less for the track without wires - obviously, but actual service of electric trains is cheaper then diesel which still is less expensive then turbine. In a frequent corridor like service these savings will add quickly - and the expense of the wires will come back in a matter of few years.

20 tonnes may be a margin between making profit and making loss. German's learned it the hard way with ICE 1 trains. They were so heavy that they were quickly derated from 175 to 155 or even 125 mph to save the track.

When you get a ROW you plan for the highest speed possible (220 mph in europe atm, unless major hills are on the way). The physical plant may be good for 100 or less mph, but ROW should be good for 150+

With just 110 mph, and already FRA mandated blocks of lead on the tracks you just might want to get the wires and offer shuttling freight along with passangers. Always extra profit.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Jet train weights 90 tonnes
HST power head weighs 70 tonnes

that is 20 tonnes you will have to pay in extensive infrastructure mainentence.

150 mph track costs 30mil/mile
150 mph track with wires costs 32mil/mile

That is neglible, and will come back in fuel costs and maintenence.

Uh, that's maintenance. What about capital?

And, ain't NOBODY gonna build a 150 mph ROW in this country any time soon. But, there will be 110 mph upgrading of exisitng ROW here and there in the next decade. That's where JetTrain would fit in.

Better to have a 5000 HP, 90T loco in that service than a 4000HP 130t one!

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Jet train weights 90 tonnes
HST power head weighs 70 tonnes

that is 20 tonnes you will have to pay in extensive infrastructure mainentence.

150 mph track costs 30mil/mile
150 mph track with wires costs 32mil/mile

That is neglible, and will come back in fuel costs and maintenence.

The HST doesn't meet US FRA buff and collision requirements, nor do the cars; that's where the extra 20 tonnes comes from...

[Anonymous]

Jet train weights 90 tonnes
HST power head weighs 70 tonnes

that is 20 tonnes you will have to pay in extensive infrastructure mainentence.

150 mph track costs 30mil/mile
150 mph track with wires costs 32mil/mile

That is neglible, and will come back in fuel costs and maintenence.

[Tulyar15]

Not only is electrification expensive but part of the success of the British HST's has been down to the fact that their lightness enables them to go anywhere and accelerate faster than older trains even on lines where the speed limit is 100mph or less. A Gas Turbine powered train would share these advantages. This is why the British HST was the first high speed train to be exported - the Australian New South Wales Railways bought them in the 1980's and are now rebuilding them with the latest version of the Paxman engine.

[oltmannd]

Electrification is VERY expensive. JetTrain is a very high HP lightweight passenger locomotive - much more suitable for 110 mph running than a P42.

Quite a few of the designated high speed corridors in the US would be a good fit for JetTrain.

[Anonymous]

Jet train was a demented idea from the beginning. It only serves one purpose - running at 150 mph without wires. But since 150 mph track is marginally more expensive with them, then it is without - and JetTrain is more expensive to run then strainght electric - noone in their right mind would buy it.

Besides - why would the british be intrested in 90 tonne loco from the usa when they got building light diesels down to art themselves?

Noone will buy JetTrain - there is no infrastructire to use it in the US, and noone is intrested in a mutation of the Acela abroad...

[Tulyar15]

Bombardier were trying to interest some of the Train Operators in Britain in JetTrain as a replacement for the diesel High Speed Trains (HST)'s which are now 30 years. But it now seems more likley that an updated HST, "HST2" will be built. The choice of power unit will most likely be a choice between the latest version of the Paxman engine which powers the existings HST (already a number of HST's have been rebuilt with this engine, which should extend their life for another 10-15 years) or a German MTU engine which is currently being tried out by Great Western in a couple of rebuilt locos. I've seen these a couple of times now and they are certainly a lot quieter and cleaner than the old engine! I gather the MTU engine is a direct descendant of the Maybach engines used in the diesel hydraulic locos that the Western region built in the 1950's and 1960's. I guess it s a question of watch this space.

[jchnhtfd]

I believe M636C is correct. The thing worked, so far as I know, quite well. There are two little details, however, which make it problematic: where would you run it, and who would pay for it?

Keep in mind that the Green Goat technology, which is very successful at what it is meant to do, is not meant to be used for main line operation. It's great for switching, and we'll see a lot more of it, and possibly for frequent stop commuter service (where that isn't electric already), but has no real advantage for use when the prime mover is operating at reasonbly high power most of the time.

[M636C]

My understanding was that the power car was basically an Acela power car with the pantograph and transformer removed. In their place was a gas turbine leased from the US Marine Corps, being a spare main engine from a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC). The power car was a funded experiment paid for by the US DOT, but the passenger trailer cars were additional Acela type cars built and paid for by Bombardier. At the end of the experiment, the turbine was to go back to a USMC warehouse, and the power car and possibly the trailers could be converted to standard electric Acela cars, if Amtrak wanted them.

M636C

[passengerfan]

With the ever increasing price of fuel they would have been better to have looked at Green Goat high speed rail technology.

[oltmannd]

As far as I know, it was successfully tested at 150 mph at the Pueblo test center, went on tour a few places in the US and that's it.

No demos, no orders, nada, nil!

But, its a really neat idea and should there ever be any money for new corridor development......

[Supermicha]

What happened to Bombardiers Jettrain? Were the tests successfull? Are there any orders?

Thanks