posted
Bombardier Offers Jet Locomotive Tue Oct 15, 4:28 PM ET
By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The maker of America's fastest train is shopping around a new product that could bring high-speed rail service to areas outside the Northeast.
Bombardier Transportation says its new "JetTrain" locomotive, powered by a jet engine, can reach 150 mph without needing overhead electrical lines like those used by Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express.
Bombardier led the consortium that built Acela Express, which operates in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor — the only electrified intercity corridor in the nation.
Pierre Lortie, president of Montreal-based Bombardier, said Tuesday he is confident the equipment problems that have plagued Acela Express will not hurt sales of the new locomotive.
He said several states are developing high-speed rail, and the company is targeting proposed high-speed lines within California, between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, between Chicago and St. Louis, between Tampa and Orlando in Florida, and between Toronto and Montreal.
Lortie said the company could begin closing deals in the next few months.
Bombardier has worked on the JetTrain for four years in partnership with the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration. Each side has invested about $20 million, Lortie said.
The company says the new locomotive fits American demands because it is environmentally friendly, lightweight — thus causing less wear and tear on tracks — and capable of going into operation without major improvements to rail lines.
"We believe JetTrain high-speed rail is the technology for America because it's better, it's faster and it's sooner," said Lecia Stewart, Bombardier's vice president for high-speed rail for North America.
The locomotive is powered by a Pratt & Whitney jet engine rather than a traditional diesel engine. Bombardier says it is 20 percent lighter than a diesel locomotive and can accelerate twice as quickly. It is also designed to meet stringent U.S. safety standards.
Development of the non-electric locomotive is one piece of an ongoing effort by the Federal Railroad Administration to pave the way for high-speed rail around the nation.
Bombardier showed off its new product at Union Station. The prototype locomotive — cherry red, with an American flag decal and the words "Turbine Powered" on its snub nose — sat at a station platform.
The Federal Railroad Administration did not participate in the event, since it was a commercial product kickoff. But spokesman Warren Flateau said the FRA remains "very much a part of the partnership."
Also not represented at the event was Amtrak, which despite its financial woes remains the only current provider of regularly scheduled intercity passenger rail in the United States. Amtrak says it needs $1.2 billion from the government just to maintain operations for the next year and has shelved expansion plans, including those for high-speed rail.
Lortie acknowledged that Amtrak could be a potential purchaser but said high-speed projects being developed outside Amtrak's oversight are more promising.
He specifically cited Florida, where voters two years ago passed a constitutional amendment requiring construction of a rail network, with trains exceeding 120 mph, by November 2003.
Amtrak and Bombardier are locked in a legal battle over production delays and equipment problems that marred the introduction of Acela Express.
Bombardier, a world leader in manufacturing regional jets and train cars, sued Amtrak in 2000, contending the railroad held up production through shifting demands and bad decisions. It is seeking at least $200 million in damages.
Amtrak blames Bombardier and says that, under its contract, it reserves the right to seek more than $250 million in penalties. On Sept. 30, a judge denied Amtrak's motion to dismiss the case.
Amtrak and Bombardier continue to work together on equipment problems that grounded the Acela Express fleet for part of August. Lortie said the cracking that occurred underneath the high-speed locomotives was "an unfortunate technical issue, but I think it is behind us."
posted
I first read about this on another board. The response there was overwhelmingly negative, for reasons I do not understand.
Personally, I think it is worth pursuing, if the operating costs are reasonable, and it doesn't have the noise problems earlier experiments had. It would open up high-speed rail to places where electrification is not practical or cost-effective.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
The New York Central railroad fiddled around with a jet engine-powered train decades ago. Apparently, after tests, they decided it wasn't such a hot idea after all.
A big problem with 150 mph trains is that the tracks have to be able to handle them. That's why the Acela is hardly the high-speed marvel it was supposed to be. For most of its run along the Northeast Corridor, it can't travel any faster than a conventional train.
Jet engines are an idea worth revisting. But since Amtrak isn't likely to get the money to embark on a major track building campaign before the 25th century, we're unlikely to feel that jet stream rippling through our shorts anytime soon.
posted
Dilly, if memory serves me correctly this is a totally different concept from the "jet-powered locomotive" of many decades ago. I remember seeing that locomotive in the Collinwood yards in Cleveland. It had, if I recall correctly, two jet engines mounted on top of the engine, and apparently derived its power in the same way a jet airplane does today - through the direct thrust of the engines.
The new Bombardier unit is powered by a jet-powered TURBINE, not by direct thrust. The jet engine is located inside the locomotive's body. The turbine, I presume, will be used to produce electricity to drive the locomotive. I would guess that there are far fewer moving parts in this design than are found in the typical diesel locomotive of today, so I would think maintenance costs will be substantially less.
Your comments regarding track speeds are certainly correct, but I suspect these locomotives do not have to travel at 150 mph to be a good investment.
posted
From what I have read on other boards, most of the sub-150mph(and even sub 120mph)speeds are on tracks that are owned by other entities(like the MBTA in Massachusetts and CDOT in Connecticutt)or shared with commuter rail agencies(SEPTA and NJTransit come to mind). But Amtrak is solely to blame for not havinging to tracks up to standard everywhere else on the corridor.
Posts: 55 | From: Chelsea, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak is solely to blame for not having to tracks up to standard everywhere else on the corridor
No actually, Congress is really to blame for stiffing Amtrak for about $2½ billion a while back...
Incidentally, this locomotive is old news. Bombardier built this "Acela power-car" lookalike in conjunction with the FRA; Amtrak never had an order for this loco. It's just a newer version of the old gas-turbine loco.
posted
Bombardier has a press release and links to phots on a press release page. I can't make a direct link because the site has so many darned frames that I can't get the correct URL.
Go to http://www.bombardier.com Click on "English." On the next page click on "What's New" at the top, and you will get a list of press releases. The Jet Train is the second one down.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
Via Rail had a "Turbo" train on the Montreal/Toronto corridor in the 1970's. I rode it once and loved it. As I remember, the trip was quite fast and smooth. I think United Aircraft built it. I also rode a similar train from Boston to New York in the early 70's. You could stand behind the engineer in a seating area and see the speedometer. I remember that it got up to 115 miles per hour around Providence, RI!
------------------ nel dowd
Posts: 8 | From: bishop, CA , USA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
It sound like it will guzzle gas, as most jets do. I really doubt that if it isn't as fuel efficient as todays diesels, which aren't that efficient, it will be a flop. Fuel is perhaps the largest operating expense for any transportation company. If it is more efficient, then it should do well. It is mentioned that it is environmentally friendly, but what does that really mean?
Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chief, Curiously Bombardier's website doesn't give any fuel consumption information. It does say it reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared to a diesel locomotive. It also claims to be fairly quiet, and is significantly lighter than diesel locomotives.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
From what I read about it, the turbine engine is fairly small (compared to a diesel engine). Jet engines run on a derivative of kerosene which burns cleaner than diesel fuel. However, turbine engines do tend to have a voracious appetite for fuel.
Turbines have been proven successful in railroad applications since the 50's. UP had a major turbine program - some of theirs could produce 10,000 horsepower. Because they had fewer moving parts, they were easier to maintain. However, the sheer cost of their fuel consumption (UP's ran on bunker C fuel oil) when compared to diesels made their continued operation impractical. They also had the distinction of being extremely loud, hence the nickname "big blows."
It will be interesting to see whether Bombardier can market this engine as a practical alternative for passenger railroads.
posted
JetTrain again? Good luck to BBD trying to palm off this ill-advised Acela-lookalike gas-turbine-powered power car that the FRA tricked them into building prototypes of with no orders on the horizon.
In case anyone is wondering, the output is supposed to be some 5000 hp and the thing burns diesel fuel. This is outdated already, since 12-cylinder diesel prime movers currently exist that have output of 6000 hp. High-speed diesel trains have been tested at speeds of over 150 mph already, with lower horsepower moving the trains overall.
BBD, if anyone ever orders this thing, will insist upon the buyers mating it with Acela coaches—which can only stop at high platforms and not low platforms. This would mean expensive building of high platforms at low platform terminals, plus possibly dedicating platforms to the train.
Since these power cars meet FRA Tier II crashworthiness and emissions specs, expect them to have the same problems as the Acela Express power cars. It has been postulated that excessive weight without enough axles to support it, possibly bad weight distribution, has contributed to said woes...
And oh yes, the FRA is not serious about HSR in the USA whatsoever. If they were, why have they not endeavored to set up federal trust funds that would provide funding for the additional signaling required for operation at speeds like 150 mph, nor even considered building dedicated HSR corridors so that 200 mph would be possible? All obfuscation and wastage of public money. The FRA should be disbanded.
Not to mention that this very thread is off-topic since Amtrak is not ordering this locomotive.
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 11-06-2003).]
posted
I hardly think this is off-topic; it's a nice diversion into what could (and may) occur should Amtrak ever see equitable funding. To make a silly analogy, it is like having car nuts not paying any attention to the advances in racing just because they don't drive on special ovals at 150+. It's not all about horsepower. As proven by the (opinion: ugly) UA turbotrains as well as the later Rohr counterparts, speed is derived from efficiency. What better place to demonstrate this than a train? The UA turbos had 1000 horsepower, the Rohr rebuilds had 1600 or so. The latest iteration of these trains has somewhere around 1800. However, they will use less fuel due to advances in turbine technology. These movers don't have to accelerate a coal train, just a passenger set. It's also about how well the power is applied to the running rail. Amtrak is undertaking capital improvements to its infrastructure as part of a five year plan. Irish is correct with the numbers; consider how many of the above-mentioned NEC problems would not have surfaced had CONgress (the opposite of PROgress) not shafted Amtrak between 1997 and 2000 to the tune of 2.5 billion $US. Just open the latest timetable. "These investments take time and money, and you won't see these changes everywhere or all of a sudden." A good portion of US railroad property could handle operation to 90 miles per hour for passenger trains, if an automatic train stop (PTC, ATS, etc.) system were installed. That and grade crossing improvements to take care of the idiots that want to injure themselves and others, and you could have a passenger train operating at seriously competitive speeds. As other posters have stated, the lopsided attitude of American government (with respect to transportation) is to blame- the Twentieth Century Limited operated on the same right of way as the current LSL, had more stops for coal and water, and did it all in the 1940s faster than today's train, which is limited to 79 mph running in many places. Americans had the technology (cases like this prove that they still do) but then people stopped caring. As I see it, the only things that need to be done are: 1. ATS implementation- higher speed limits. 2. Grade crossing improvement and elimination. 3. Infrastructure improvements- curve easing, bridge replacement, track maintenance, etc. (I'm a civil engineer! Hire me!!!) Engineers tell me repeatedly they could shave x number of minutes off their running times if and only if there weren't so many slow orders. I agree. This nice little contraband timetable shows that an Amtrak engineer has FAR more to do than just regulate train speed at a constant 79. This is due to infrastructure. You'd think government would sit up and notice- even AASHTO (a highway group) says investment in rail infrastructure should be a priority. I suppose that's all for now. Just don't dismiss something like this as being impractical or insignificant. The changes are coming, the equipment is surfacing. I still remember the residual smell after the 1988-ish Niagara Rainbow (then spec'd with a Turbo set) went by.
------------------ F40PH #757099-8 March 29, 1976-August 17, 2001 Requisecat in pacis
Printer-friendly view of this topic
