Passenger Trains > Bombardier rolling out Rocket Train

Wonder what Marin Hottubber thinks of all this?


MONTREAL (CP) - Canada\'s Bombardier Inc. will roll out this week - in Washington - a jet engine-powered locomotive it has been quietly developing for years in partnership with the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration.

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.

It calls JetTrain the first high-speed, non-electric locomotive designed for the North American market.

It uses a turbine engine to generate power, instead of the diesel engine used in nearly all locomotives in North America for the past 40 years.

Spokesman Warren Flatau of the Railroad Administration said the agency has invested $13 million US in developing the turbine-powered locomotive since about 1997. With Bombardier matching that, JetTrain has cost at least $41 million Cdn so far.

Flatau said JetTrain is just one of several initiatives under that governments and private companies have been exploring as a solution to growing highway congestion in several inter-city corridors in the United States and Canada.

He said the Railroad Administration can\'t endorse a commercial product "but Bombardier is the company that stepped up to the plate when we put out the word we were interested in doing this project. We believe that the project holds great potential for bringing about the high speed services that people across the country are expressing a desire for."

Flatau said Bombardier and Amtrak are next going to show off the train at various sites where authorities are pushing for high-speed, inter-city service.

He said he doesn\'t know if it will travel to Canada. Via Rail has just handed in a report requested by Transport Minister David Collenette on how to speed up rail service in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Via\'s best trains reach 150 km/h where track quality permits.

However, as Bombardier Transportation executives show off the 21-metre-long prototype to authorities at Washington\'s Union Station on Tuesday, Amtrak officials could be excused for a certain skepticism.

Amtrak and Bombardier are in a nasty legal battle over the trouble-plagued Acela Express high-speed electric train recently introduced on the northeast corridor linking Boston, New York and Washington.

There has been a rash of train delays and breakdowns with Acela, the first high-speed train service in North America. Amtrak ordered 18 from Bombardier and its French partner Alstom, and 15 have been delivered.

Although the train is popular thanks to its speed and comfort, Amtrak has vowed never to buy another.

The JetTrain locomotive develops 5,000 horsepower, with about half the weight of some current diesel freight locomotives. Flatau also said it\'s quiet and has "rather remarkable acceleration capabilities."

Ross Capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, said he is not aware of any non-electric locomotive in service that can reach 240 km/h.

Capon said the big question for JetTrain\'s market success is how much it costs and how much fuel it requires. "That\'s going to be one of the main issues."

It is not the first time a jet turbine has been used to move a train.

Jerome Pier, a consultant on the Bombardier design, said there are seven trains operating since 1977 in New York State using jet turbines incorporated into coaches.

Pier, owner of a private consulting group based at Carlisle, Ont., said the "power-car" trains have 3,000 horsepower each, not enough to reach high speeds. He said the JetTrain breaks new ground by its power and speed.

Best known as propulsion engines for jet aircraft, turbines are also adapted to drive backup electrical generators for utilities and to power pipelines.

The JetTrain prototype was assembled at Bombardier\'s plant in Plattsburgh, N.Y.

> It calls JetTrain the first high-speed, non-electric locomotive designed for the
> North American market.

This is just the turbine-electric locomotive designed in conjunction with the Acela Express. Something that Amtrak never ordered, to boot. Now Bombardier\'s trying to unload it on the highest-bidding sucker...

Plus, the above statement is false. Is Bombardier pretending to not have heard of the UAC Turbotrain or the Rohr Turboliner? Please...

Is this the same locomotive that they have been testing out at Pueblo, CO at the FRA test center? And has a body similar Acela? Tilt mechanism?

And the cars I would assume are basically Acela equipment?

> Tilt mechanism?

AFAIK, no Acela power car has a tilt mechanism, only the passenger cars. This would be the turbine Acela, built in anticipation of expansion of Acela-style service beyond (and unconnected to, in particular cases) the electrified confines of the NEC...

Where other than the NEC would they be able to test this thing in the real world? I hope that they take it for a spin or two between WAS and NYC, I would like to see it.

A jet is not a rocket, and no matter what you call it a Gasturbine is not a Jet engine.
the Gasturbine other than shaft horspower, unless its driving a Turbofan is not a Jet engine.

Its essentially an HHP-8 carbody

It\'s interesting to read the article and see the different types of hype (and possibly different sources) for the hype. It accurately states it isn\'t the first time turbines have been used and doesn\'t call it a rocket. I\'m guessing they want to differentiate it from other turbine vehicles as being designed for much higher speed service than the others. Turbines have been used in marine and especially naval ship applications for years and few folks call them rocket or jet ships.

karldotcom wrote:

> Capon said the big question for JetTrain\'s market success is
> how much it costs and how much fuel it requires. "That\'s going
> to be one of the main issues."
>

Its going to require lots of fuel according to a study by University of Texas:

http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/publications/PDF/PN249.pdf

1,113 gallons to go from NY to Boston (231 miles). That\'s 4.82 gallons per mile!

Jim

http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/publications/PDF/PN249.pdf
>
> 1,113 gallons to go from NY to Boston (231 miles). That\'s
> 4.82 gallons per mile!
>
That\'s with the conventional alternator setup; the newer flywheel setup reduces that to 1,024 gallons, or 4.43 gallons/mile. Still substantial...

Years ago GE built jet-electrics at UP\'s request.

The problem was not only the fuel tenders the units needed but most significantly, the fact that the jet engines used almost the same fuel amount loaded as unloaded.

Doug Dunham

Mind you, the old GE "Big Blows" were plagued by the following problems:

1. They used fuel like crazy, thanks to the inefficient gas turbine engine technology of the 1950\'s.

2. They were horrendously noisy. I believe the state of California banned them because they were far noisier than the diesel-electric locomotives of that period.

3. The locomotives spewed out quite a lot of smoke when the engine was running.

4. The locomotives had such a hot exhaust they became fire/high-temperature hazards to any nearby object.

Small wonder why Union Pacific retired them in a New York minute when better diesel-electric locomotives became available in the 1960\'s.

However, I\'m sure that the Pratt & Whitney PW150 gas turbine used on JetTrain has benefited from the jet engine technology P&W developed in the last 35 years to lower noise levels, improve fuel efficiency, and reduce harmful exhaust emissions for the commercial aircraft industry.

Given that JetTrain is a "clean sheet" design, the train can be lighter, still meet FRA Tier II safety requirements, not be a fire/high-temperature hazard from the engine exhaust and can top out at over 150 mph. This may be just the train to introduce truly high-speed train service to much of the USA, as you don\'t need the exorbitant expense (not to mention NIMBY complaints) in regards to installing overhead cantenary wiring for true electric trains.

>Given that JetTrain is a "clean sheet" design,
>the train can be lighter, still meet FRA Tier >II safety requirements, not be a fire/high-
>temperature hazard from the engine exhaust and
>can top out at over 150 mph

UAC\'s Turbotrain could "top out" at over 170 mph. The record still shows that this locomotive burns excessive amounts of fuel like its predecessors. Just another white elephant that Bombardier\'s trying to unload, really.

The same problems that plague the Acela Express power cars may yet hurt these units, if the gas-turbine factor gets to be overlooked. Since there\'s no other track that supports 150 mph running except Pueblo\'s test track and 18 miles of the Northeast Corridor, we won\'t be able to prove this in daily operation, like has been done with the AE...