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

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:22:00 -0400

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.

> 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.

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.

>
>>>>> Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos
>>>>> actually require ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but
>>>>> you brought up passenger rail.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger
>>>> trains in Europe using electricity.
>>>
>>> No, I started by talking about "Most long-distance freight in Europe
>>> is electric"; you mentioned passenger rail first.
>>
>> Well, that is splittting hairs. The electrifictions of rails in
>> Europe was primarily driven by the need for high power, low weigth
>> for passenger travel
>> so it immediately comes to mind when discussing electrically powered
>> trains
>> in Europe which YOU brought up.
>
> The European railways were electrified long before TGV showed up in
> 1981.

First off, the TGV program started in the '60s. Secondly, the TGV drove the
need for an electric train since diesel trains were limited in speed, and
thirdly, they built the first completely separate, electified line
specifically for the TGV, with special track, avoiding level crossing and
other hazards to high speed rail.
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/background.html

>
> S