Most high speed railways function as trunk routes with trains originating or continuing off the high speed line on conventional speed lines. Unlike Europe, US railways are not electrified. Speeds up to 150 mph are practical for non-electrified routes, branches, or unimproved sections of HSR corridors.
It's one thing to reach high speeds with shortened trains in tests and quite another with a more commercially viable train between stops, curve restrictions, or high speed segments only 10-20 miles long. This is significant with incremental or phased development of fully grade-separated sections initially shared with freight through largely rural areas. This allows the concurrent elimination of at-grade road crossings and future shared electrification along freight lines which is not possible with a new and separate high speed passenger alignment.
Having a tilting Talgo train is significant too because curve restrictions are not as severe and allow more rapid recovery over a shorter distance. While Acela is a good fit for the Northeast Corridor, the rest of the country is devoid of high-level platforms and need for gauntlet tracks where many stops are of a low volume nature and is compatible with long-distance and suburban double-decked trains.
Fifteen years ago I did a calculation with the best available information for Talgo trains for acceleration time and distance by 5 mph speed increments. A 15-car train with a 4,000 hp locomotive on each end could reach 150 mph from a stop in 6.9 miles and from 110 mph in 4.5 miles. With a cafe unit and 2 business class coaches, the train would have 406 seats.
If electrification costs were about $40 mil. per mile (http://leonard.csusb.edu/research/documents/1014FinalReport.pdf), wouldn't it make sense to electrify some of these routes at the beginning, even with the higher initial cost ($1.2 Bil., CHI to STL)? The benefits are cheaper operating expenses, better performance, and electrification seems inevitable anyway.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The ALP46A is an example of a dual powered loco. If some variation of this loco could be built for 150MPH operation could the extra power needed for the HSR operation be used by electrifying those segments that would operate at HSR speeds? That way only the route portions that need the extra HP including acceleration segments could be first electrified?
blue streak 1 The ALP46A is an example of a dual powered loco. If some variation of this loco could be built for 150MPH operation could the extra power needed for the HSR operation be used by electrifying those segments that would operate at HSR speeds? That way only the route portions that need the extra HP including acceleration segments could be first electrified?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd An interesting idea. Could have a 5000 HP gas turbine and and a 1000 HP DE gen set instead of the two Cat 3512s. Either or both could feed the DC buss. The DE gen set when in terminal areas, the gas turbine when on the road. When the gas turbine was doing the heavy lifting on the road, the DE gen set would have HEP duty.
This looks good in theory but has a bit of the Rube Goldberg in it. The complexities involved could have a negative effect on availability.
oltmannd blue streak 1: The ALP46A is an example of a dual powered loco. If some variation of this loco could be built for 150MPH operation could the extra power needed for the HSR operation be used by electrifying those segments that would operate at HSR speeds? That way only the route portions that need the extra HP including acceleration segments could be first electrified? An interesting idea. Could have a 5000 HP gas turbine and and a 1000 HP DE gen set instead of the two Cat 3512s. Either or both could feed the DC buss. The DE gen set when in terminal areas, the gas turbine when on the road. When the gas turbine was doing the heavy lifting on the road, the DE gen set would have HEP duty.
blue streak 1: The ALP46A is an example of a dual powered loco. If some variation of this loco could be built for 150MPH operation could the extra power needed for the HSR operation be used by electrifying those segments that would operate at HSR speeds? That way only the route portions that need the extra HP including acceleration segments could be first electrified?
For what you're proposing, I would suggest the Bombardier Jettrain locomotive, perhaps with an added HEP genset, would seem to be a better option than a turbo ALP46A....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
One of the technical problems of electric HSR is that not only do you have to worry about the dynamics of the wheel-rail interface, you also have to worry about the pantograph-wire interface, with the pantograph bouncing and the resulting arcing and voltage spikes in the electrical equipment.
Alan Cripe of TurboTrain fame had been advocating for gas turbine propulsion on the NEC until the end of his life in the mid 1990's. The idea is that with a minor expenditure in fuel, you could obviate a major expenditure on constant-tension catenary, which soaked up a goodly portion of the Acela budget completing the Hartford-Boston gap in electrification.
NARP, bless their dark little hearts, noted the passing of Alan Cripe by snarking that Mr. Cripe was advocating gas-turbine trains as a lower-cost subsitute for the electrification that was dear to the NARP agenda at the time he died.
You could take this an additional step and run gas turbine express trains all the way from Boston to D.C., eliminating all speed restrictions related to the older-type catenary. Of course you would need "dual mode" capability for the NYC tunnels, where Jerry Pier told us the Albany Turboliner low-speed "dual mode" costed out more than the whole gas turbine main powerplant.
And not using overhead electric power would be Politically Incorrect, and yes, I have been beating the Environmental Drum with regard to Amtrak's green-ness or lack thereof.
On the other hand, all of the money spent on the catenary project could have gone towards Jerry Pier's regenerative turbine engine, which would have had application for corridor project nationwide.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
There must be some sound reasons why moving toward and having electrification is the rule almost everywhere outside North America. And the problems of a stable catenary seem to have been worked out by engineering departments elsewhere as well. It is really quite hard to swallow the notions that everyone else is wrong or foolish and/or our situation is so unique that other methodologies must be rejected.
I have virtually no information on the ALP46; but it sounds like a possible dual-power alternative even if it takes an A1A+A1A wheel arrangement to spread the axle load. For electrified 220-mph service, almost three times more power will be needed when sections of a corridor are completed.
We all would like electrified corridors eventually; but it seems my point was lost that this will take time and some services will not be fully electrified. In the interim, a high-speed locomotive will be needed to implement some service improvement and demonstrate the impact on attracting new riders to bolster the argument to move ahead.
An interesting idea. Could have a 5000 HP gas turbine and and a 1000 HP DE gen set instead of the two Cat 3512s. Either or both could feed the DC buss. The DE gen set when in terminal areas, the gas turbine when on the road. When the gas turbine was doing the heavy lifting on the road, the DE gen set would have HEP duty.
The problem is that, by trial and error, 8,000 total hp for traction was needed for a Talgo with 406 seats to achieve quick enough acceleration to 150 mph. I can see that a single 5,000 hp diesel or turbine could provide both traction and head end power at possibly lower weight. I was thinking a 4,000 hp engine was less of a stretch. Some miscalculation of mine could change that one way or the other; but it shows the relative order of magnitude compared to conventional services.
This is high speed lite for lower density routes where railway grade separation is as much as can be justified initially, or where electrification comes at a later phase for full high speed running on a major high speed trunk line.
150 mph non- electrified service is quite feasible but not with present day passenger locomotives that have too much unsprung weight. This generates excessive "P-2" forces which tear up the substrate. The gas turbine hydraulic Turboliners have very low unsprung weight and have been run at 140 mph during acceptance testing. Calculations indicate 150 to be quite feasible but it's pushing the limits of the truck design.
The tilting feature of the Talgo is nice for passenger comfort but has nothing to do with safety
Jerrry Pier
schlimm There must be some sound reasons why moving toward and having electrification is the rule almost everywhere outside North America. And the problems of a stable catenary seem to have been worked out by engineering departments elsewhere as well. It is really quite hard to swallow the notions that everyone else is wrong or foolish and/or our situation is so unique that other methodologies must be rejected.
And there must be some sound reasons why people in France are going nuts over raising the retirement age from 60 to . . . age 62! And why a proposal to adjust the social welfare system to keep their financial house in order, reflecting the reality of increasing lifespans and low birth rates, results in people setting fire to cars in the streets.
And there are also sound reasons why France can go carbon-neutral with their vast fleet of standardized nuclear plants and people in the U.S. are wringing their hands about the impossibility of even building one or two of those things. Or why domestic-partners-who-prepare-family-meals in Japan have put up with rice prices, their staple food, that are multiples of what one pays in U.S. supermarkets.
Yeah, people beyond the borders of North America have catenary systems workable to 200+ MPH, but all of this costs money, to build and to maintain. There are strong mercantilist pressures in many countries to forgo the consumption of oil (substituting hydro or coal -- this "green power" thing is recent and it is not clear how this is working out financially), much as there is a political tradition in a major East Asian trading partner to pay three times as much for rice than if they got it from Arkansas.
Your response is nothing but a string of irrelevancies. France and many other nations have been electrifying for years, long before any "green" considerations were on the table. So even dismissing that or its corollary, GCC, which I suppose also should be in your skeptical quote marks, how about national security considerations or simply more efficient transportation?
schlimm Your response is nothing but a string of irrelevancies. France and many other nations have been electrifying for years, long before any "green" considerations were on the table. So even dismissing that or its corollary, GCC, which I suppose also should be in your skeptical quote marks, how about national security considerations or simply more efficient transportation?
What if France is electrifying for the same reason that Japanese families pay multiples of world market price for rice? What is so irrelevant to speak of non-market reasons why nation states around the world, including the U.S., do any of a number of things?
What if regenerative-cycle gas turbines. combining light weight, low maintenance, and high power, made for light weight high-speed trains that were more energy efficient than the automobiles and airplanes they replaced, and if we could have more of them for the same amount of money, on balance saving more imported oil or GHG emission or whatever metric than your program of electrification, which by necessity, depends of fossil-fuel generated electricity given the baseload nature of the electric usage of trains and the intermittent nature of the wind-power alternative?
What if for the cost of the Acela electrification we could have "Acela-rated" NEC train service without the speed limitation of the existing catenary and had money left over to do the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, or at least portions of it?
Paul, I'm not an engineer. The reason I ask the question is that there seems to be a consensus around the world in very different nations (differing in size, density of population, economic systems, level of development, etc.) that electrification is the desired way to go forward. When there is such a degree of consensus, it suggests that for those holding to positions to the contrary, the burden of proof lies with them. I'm sure one may encounter that phenomenon in many fields and to dismiss such a position as electrification seems rather arbitrary. When even the military is considering replacing gas turbines in newer Abrams tanks and gas turbines have not been the choice for rail motive power for years, it seems to me you need to make a more convincing case for them than what ifs.
schlimm Paul, I'm not an engineer. The reason I ask the question is that there seems to be a consensus around the world in very different nations (differing in size, density of population, economic systems, level of development, etc.) that electrification is the desired way to go forward. When there is such a degree of consensus, it suggests that for those holding to positions to the contrary, the burden of proof lies with them. I'm sure one may encounter that phenomenon in many fields and to dismiss such a position as electrification seems rather arbitrary. When even the military is considering replacing gas turbines in newer Abrams tanks and gas turbines have not been the choice for rail motive power for years, it seems to me you need to make a more convincing case for them than what ifs.
Here, it makes some sense in that context that NH to Boston was done and it might make sense to extend it down to Richmond VA. But, elsewhere, where we're only trying to go 110 mph, don't have a large network of wires already strung and don't need obscene amounts of power to go 220 mph, a gas turbine is an excellent fit.
As for "greenness", electrification in the US would be considerably less "green" than either diesel electric or gas turbine. Power generation efficiency is nearly a draw between the three sources, but transmission losses make electrification the loser.
An engineer starts with the problem statement and then finds solutions, picking the one that is best by the objective measures defined or implied in the problem statement. "What is the problem?" and "How will we know the solution was effective?" are the starting points. You don't start with "electrified, 220 mph HSR from NY to Chicago" or "more sleepers on Cal Zephyr" or "new baggage/dorms for Amtrak" (I couldn't let it lay there. ) and then gin up a list of justifications for doing it.
There is no "default" position that has to be negated to allow an alternative. Although, judgement about the state of the art of the competing solutions is a factor.
As I recall, the various Turboliners (United Technologies, French ATG, and Rohr) used by Amtrak and VIA go back to the late 60's and on into the 70's. They were phased out for many reasons (excessive fuel consumption, poorer acceleration then Diesel, etc). In Germany and the UK electrification was pretty sparse at that time and in the UK, the first APT was a turbine, as was the first TGV in France. Nevertheless, turbines were quickly rejected. Going back even further, the UP had a large fleet of turbines, powering ~10% of its freight service. They were retired for excessive fuel use and high maintenance costs. The same problems of high maintenance and terrible fuel usage plagues the Abrams tanks. In the latter case, cost is not the problem but keeping a fuel supply open on the battlefield is.
I understand the gradualism approach and perhaps that might sense in some apps. But in corridors where there HSR would be viable or other routes where there is very heavy freight tonnage and higher speed is sought, if we seek true modernization, electrification seems inevitable. Therefore, why keep delaying and using dated technology? Additionally, it would be interesting to see what the costs have been per mile for fairly recent electrification of existing track in places like Germany or Italy. I wonder if the $40 mil./mile figure we have seen mentioned here is all that accurate.
Moving back to HSR, I was wondering what would be the likely overall time for running CHI-STL, using 110 mph, with some higher speed (~150) stretches, with 3 intermediate stops (Joliet, Bloomington and Springfield)? Would the extremely slow segments approaching Union Stations in CHI and STL be improved? I was looking in the back of a 1957 CNW timetable and noticed back then there were 11 trains each way, with some making the run in just over 5 hours.
UA turbos were from late 60's and the "lots of little turbines", when gas turbines were just becoming mature. That design didn't work out all that well.
The ROHR/"French" turbos were from the mid to late 70s and were successful. They ran 20+ years and were retired for a bunch of reasons, none related to "failed technology". In fact, as turbine technology was still evolving rather rapidly at the time of their construction, they did amazingly well.
The UP turbines were successful, too. Remarkably so given they were the first of their kind. Although they were slower speed, industrial-type gas turbines. They became obsolete not because of any particular design problem but because of the rise of catalytic cracking in the refining industry. The #6 fuel they burned, which was virtually a refinery waste product in the early 50's was being cracked and used as blending stock for lighter fuels. This ran it's price up close to #2 diesel.
The fuel usage issue is at idle, not under load. This can be mitigated with a small diesel engine gen set.
I can eventually see new HSR routed being built between city pairs, but the big cost is going to be getting new routes into and out of the cities. France, Germany, et.al. solved this by using their already electrified routes into and out of existing terminals and stations - and all that goes with. We don't have that, so the best solution might not be stringing wires.
I am concerned that FL is painting themselves into a corner with their Tampa - Orlando line. This project only makes sense if it eventually expands north and south from Orlando. They have turfed themselves out from integrating with the rest of the passenger rail network. There is no chance of a single seat ride over from Miami to Tampa until they build the rest of the route. You'll have to take a taxi from Amtrak Orlando to the airport to do it.
Also, the current trend in freight rail is LOWER hp/ton to improve fuel economy. Small changes in avg moving speed don't make much difference commercially, but they do in fuel cost. Terminal to terminal speed improvements have more to do with reducing bottlenecks and improving low speed portions of routes and not much to do with not being able to bring enough power to bear on the train. If electrification occurs on frt transport, it will be to avoid the volatility of petroleum prices.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218/917003603_23f4904fcb_o.jpg
This shows the nineteen sites in the US applying to build nuclear power plants; having trouble uploading a map. Perhaps t
his Crescent from Texas to Upstate New York is a region where electrification should be considered. In othere areas, I do not know what the projected future power source for electrification is; so some other power needs to be considered.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
There may be nineteen sites applying to build, that doesn't mean that nineteen construction permits will be issued.
I have not investigated the local politics surrounding any of these projects, but it is my feeling that there is a social-political shift towards resuming nuclear development (my dream is that this will lead to harnessing fusion...) Nuclear energy development in France was tied to building their TGV network, and hydro-power development supports the Trans-Siberian line. The industrial changes necessary for high-speed rail go far beyond tracks and catenary...
To quote the Siemens HSR ad from page 2 of August 2010 Trains,
"What if a train could help drive our economy?"
As far as why Electric in other countries.
It could be as simple as access to fuel. Japan and France have no petroleum at all. The US did and does and at the time, we imported far less of it. As a strategic matter, Using Fossil fuels for transportation makes less sense in those places and so Electric dominates.
Which isn't to say electric couldn't be a good or better option in the US and certainly environmental concerns real or imaginary become strategic as well, but I think they whole "Why did they go electric" question isn't as simple as "It must clearly be the best."
Because the Corollary is: "Why didn't the US?"
And if you assume that Electric is always the best choice, then what answer do you arrive at? Because we're stupid? would seem to be the only viable one and that's not reasonable.
Gents
If I may be permitted a view from the east side of the Atlantic.
1. The fastest non electrified rail service in the world is found in the UK. The High Speed 125 train does what it says on the tin - travel at 125mph day-in-day-out. No other country has diesel service at over 100mph.
2. 125mph is not high speed - yes it's quick but proper high speed is 150mph plus.
3. This requires dedicated routes in most cases
4. Horses are required in huge numbers as speeds increase. Wind resistance for one increases with the square of the velocity. TGV trains now have in the region of 11,500hp (8,800kw) to haul about 360tons, the best part of 32hp per ton.
5. No diesel engine can generate that amount of power and remain within weight limits and loading guages and still be quick. They can just about do the HP, but the thing's a monster not designed, or designable for high speed. Quite good at hauling freight, but actually slightly overpowered for that.
6. High horsepower at high speed generally doesn't have the same problem with adhesion that exists with high horsepowers at low speed. As noted above it's only 360 tons that needs to be started.
7. Gas turbines have been used, and they did get up to pretty high speeds - from memory 197mph in French tests on an early TGV version before the decision was made to go electric. Fuel economy even then was a reason to go for electricity as gas turbines used up fuel when moving slowly at rates far higher than comparable electrics drew power from the wires.
8. But gas turbines are not mature technology - they simply haven't got the years of day to day running that straight electrics have.
To conclude 125mph non-electric running is practical - it happens daily over here in the UK. But anything more is all electric. May I also suggest, as mentioned in earlier posts that reliance on tried and tested technology is most likely more sensible than going for broke with something new. I know things do move on, but best be incremental rather than great leap forward.
The use of turbines in RR use brings up several points.
1. Aircraft use of turbines has several maintenance issues.
2. Each start and stop is considered a "cycle". After so many "cycles" depending on model the turbine is required to be torn down and overhauled. Of course RR use would not require such rigid schedules.
3. Modern turbines require a 5 minute warm up before applying full power.
4. Most turbo shaft turbines usually require a 10 minute warm up with gradual increases in shaft speeds. This is true on natural gas peaking electric power generators.
5. The Navy who uses many turbo shaft power plants has this same restriction however if a war emergency use is needed a 1 minute warm up is allowed with certain maintenance protocols afterward.
6. Turbines are generally run with a start, take off power, cruise, descent, landing power, and shut down. The constant up and down power requirements of RR ROWs and station stops really preclude present turbines from operating in an enviroment these turbines were designed. Maybe that is one reason that the UA turbos suffered from maintenance problems.
7. The partial power problems when going down hill or just coasting is not addressed in this thread.
Cricketer,
Thank you for mentioning the IC 125's... I enjoyed them many times with my Britrail pass 15 years ago. Diesel push-pull trains on good tracks are impressive enough to lure drivers from their automobiles. Even 90 mph DMU's would be a step above most of Amtrak.
blue streak 1 The use of turbines in RR use brings up several points. 1. Aircraft use of turbines has several maintenance issues. 2. Each start and stop is considered a "cycle". After so many "cycles" depending on model the turbine is required to be torn down and overhauled. Of course RR use would not require such rigid schedules. 3. Modern turbines require a 5 minute warm up before applying full power. 4. Most turbo shaft turbines usually require a 10 minute warm up with gradual increases in shaft speeds. This is true on natural gas peaking electric power generators. 5. The Navy who uses many turbo shaft power plants has this same restriction however if a war emergency use is needed a 1 minute warm up is allowed with certain maintenance protocols afterward. 6. Turbines are generally run with a start, take off power, cruise, descent, landing power, and shut down. The constant up and down power requirements of RR ROWs and station stops really preclude present turbines from operating in an enviroment these turbines were designed. Maybe that is one reason that the UA turbos suffered from maintenance problems. 7. The partial power problems when going down hill or just coasting is not addressed in this thread.
Those and others' post bring up a lot of good points. So if we desire anything over 125 mph, turbines do not seem to be the way to go. And probably not Diesel either. So using non-electric units provides only a middling upgrade from current services. That is ultimately wasteful, because for short term savings, we will spend much more in the long term, if (big if) we ever electrify to true HSR (160+ minimum).
The fastest passenger train to cross this country left the station 75 years ago. It might be more productive just to debate how slow our trains should go, rather than their maximum possible speed. For example, instead of going hog-wild spending for one train that goes from Disney World to the beach, why not raise the speed of trains to Florida and really make a difference in passenger transportation? And 100 mph diesel trains are totally practical.
Maglev , why not raise the speed of trains to Florida and really make a difference in passenger transportation? And 100 mph diesel trains are totally practical.
, why not raise the speed of trains to Florida and really make a difference in passenger transportation? And 100 mph diesel trains are totally practical.
Maglev: you have hit the nail on the head. For good timing is not the high speed that matters but the elimination of slow speeds!
1. CSX has proposed to make the WASH - MIA route to be built for 70 MPH freights especially double stacks. CSX of course wants some government help.
2. Since almost 20% + of all passengers on AMTRAK covers the route from WASH - Richmond then the planned 3 tracking of that portion should allow 110MPH service. Then later continue 3 track on to Florence then JAX - MIA.
3. The route from NYP - MIA is approximately 1400 miles.
4. 110 MPH non stop diesel service (both P-42s and rebuilt P-40s are geared for that speed) would take about 13 hours.
5. WASH motor - engine change of 30 minutes. Made no allowances for higher NEC speeds.
6. 30 station stops with acceleration and slowing of 5 minutes and station dwell of 3 minutes gives an additional 4 hours of delay. (isn't that number really interesting and stand out?). Higher speed might bring so many passengers to allow for a limited stop + regular silver service)
7. Allow 10% delay time that is present in Amtrak schedule times = 1 Hr 20 minutes.
8. That gives a total time NYP - MIA of 18 Hr 50 Min instead of 28 Hrs 30 Min.
9. Similar reductions of times gives NYP - ORL 16 Hrs; and a 2 stop (WASH, Florence) of 14 HRS
WASH - ORL 13 Hrs; and a 1 stop 11 Hrs
10. 90 MPH auto train ( car carriers are being modified for that speed) gives approximately 11 Hrs 30 min with Florence stop. instead of 17 Hrs 30 Min. May even be able to eliminate Florence stop but that is cutting it close for crew time!
11. Amazing enough the 70 MPH intermodals that run non-stop except for crew change fit in with the many Amtrak train stops.
12. Expensive? Of course! But certainly would tie into other routes including your cited TPA - ORL HSR! The rebuilding/elimination of grade crossings and HSR # 50 turnouts certainly is a big cost and since PTC is going to be installed anyway that cost is a sunk cost.
I see this as probably a 3 track system to allow fluidity of the route and not interfere with freights. Passenger trains could pass on one of the freight tracks maybe at a lower speed?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.