Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: Harry Conover (hhc314_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: 11 Aug 2004 12:44:12 -0700

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<AjnSc.21125$Mq1.1084022@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:XFfSc.21015$Mq1.990024@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> As does every existing HSR line in the world -- France, Germany,
> >>> Spain, Japan, etc. all use overhead electric, not turbines.
> >>
> >> I am not pushing turbines. I have just noted that the U.S. tends to
> >> propose
> >> them as the only way to make a high speed rail service without the
> >> development of the electical infrastructure.
> >
> > The world record for a turbine train is 378km/h; none is in service
> > faster than 200km/h. The world record for an electric train
> > (actually, all trains) is 515km/h, and they'll soon be raising the
> > operating speed from 300km/h to 320km/h in France.
>
> And when you do not have the infrastructure to support even a 125 mph
> turbine because your rails are too fucked up from heavy freight, what do
> these numbers relaly mean? Not that you have the OPTION of an electric train
> in most of the country because you do not have the power grid for it. The
> turbine electric is chose,not because it is fastest but because it is the
> most practical option that does not involve rebulding the rail lines and the
> power grid.

Agreed.

Having worked in both heavy rail and rapid transit for 10-years (in my
earlier career), I've observed that few people comprehend the enorous
drawbar force that a locomotive must have available to start a train
from a dead stop.

Like you, I can't see a value for a traction engine that can pull a
train safely at above 100-MPH, without a very state-of-the-art track
bed that can support operations at such speeds (at least here in the
US, including the Northeast Corrider). Due to the physics involved, I
am of the opinion that to support very high-speed rail traffic
requires a "captive rail system" similar to that used on roller
coasters. To my knowledge, no such system has been implemented
anywhere in the world.

Today, diesel electrics are the norm. This is largely because of
their great performance, low-maintenance, and high-reliability --
important considerations for rail system operators. Turbines, in spite
of their performance potential, really scare away most rail system
operators in the US because of high maintenance, and questionable
reliability.

> > HSR competes with air, which moves at 800km/h but has about an hour
> > and a half of passenger delay, so 200km/h rail is only competitive up
> > to about 400km (250mi). 320km/h rail would be competitive out to
> > 800km (500mi). That's twice the distance.

Sorry, but I'd consider that a pipe dream!
>
> Some people would take rail for comfort, convenience and to have a view.
> However, you are right in that maglev is probably the most competitive high
> speed link for long distances. Not that it is any likelier than your all
> electric service and for the same reasons.
>
> >
> > Also, the TurboLiner doesn't meet FRA regulations for new production,
> > so after you refurb the few that are left you'd need 5-10 years of
> > development to get one out the door, and if it's to be certified for
> > 125mph operation _now_ it'd have to be two to three times the weight
> > per passenger of the older trains.
>
> If they want it to be used, the regulations will change. You keep bringing
> up silly issues. Is this connected to the blind spot or just another
> idiosyncracy?
>
> > That means a lot more fuel
> > consumption, even longer acceleration, etc. These rules are the main
> > reason Acela is such a dog compared to TGV, even though it's built by
> > the same people.
>
> I can agree that the safety regulations for the FRA are somewhat antiquated,
> and depend on mass rather than design. However, I have no solution for this
> as the regulations have been built up by heavy lobbying over decades and
> there is no simple solution.

Same here. I wouldn't obsolete FRA regs, but I'd definitely augment
them.

                                                    Harry C.

Quantcast