Jet Train

General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: gprimr1, mtuandrew

Re: Jet Train

Postby Champlain Division » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:40 pm

Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Re: Jet Train

Postby amtrakowitz » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:46 am

Not by playing old footage on Youtube it isn't.
User avatar
amtrakowitz
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Jet Train

Postby David Benton » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:30 am

if you want high speed diesel , then i think a high reving diesel genset(s) is the way to go .
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
User avatar
David Benton
 
Posts: 7808
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jet Train

Postby Champlain Division » Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:12 am

It rises again in that this is the first time I have seen that footage on YouTube. And I have searched "JetTrain" frequently from time to time over the years and this is the first time it has popped up for me. (BTW, who said anything about wanting high speed diesel?)
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Re: Jet Train

Postby David Benton » Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:34 pm

Imeant the whole purpose of the jet train was to get a high speed diesel , ( or non electrified hsr ) , and a trubine is not the way to do it . hence the quiet death .
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
User avatar
David Benton
 
Posts: 7808
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jet Train

Postby amtrakowitz » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:16 pm

David Benton wrote:if you want high speed diesel , then i think a high reving diesel genset(s) is the way to go

Why is that? Because of the MTU 4000s that some of the Class 43s in the UK were re-engined with...?
User avatar
amtrakowitz
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Jet Train

Postby David Benton » Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:51 pm

well , yes that is an excellent example , even the original paxmans could get up and go , with acceleration 2nd only to an electric . i just think there would be so much equipment avaliable in the genset market , it would make costs low .
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
User avatar
David Benton
 
Posts: 7808
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jet Train

Postby george matthews » Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:06 am

David Benton wrote:well , yes that is an excellent example , even the original paxmans could get up and go , with acceleration 2nd only to an electric . i just think there would be so much equipment avaliable in the genset market , it would make costs low .

Are there any hydrogen-fuel cell locomotives yet? There is a one car train in Sweden that runs on biogas.
george matthews
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Re: Jet Train

Postby amtrakowitz » Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:43 am

george matthews wrote:
David Benton wrote:well, yes that is an excellent example, even the original paxmans could get up and go, with acceleration 2nd only to an electric. i just think there would be so much equipment avaliable in the genset market, it would make costs low.

Are there any hydrogen-fuel cell locomotives yet? There is a one car train in Sweden that runs on biogas.

BNSF tested a hydrogen fuel cell locomotive in 2009. This was a switch engine, and no further word has been forthcoming about it. I've certainly never heard of a high-speed passenger type.
User avatar
amtrakowitz
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Jet Train

Postby David Benton » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:41 pm

i think fuel cells will die a quiet death too . Lithuim batteries in some form or the other seem to be the way to go .
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
User avatar
David Benton
 
Posts: 7808
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jet Train

Postby Eliphaz » Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:25 pm

User avatar
Eliphaz
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Amherst, MA

Re: Jet Train

Postby Champlain Division » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:09 am

I remember a similar concept in a made for TV movie about a fictional "Nations First Coast-To-Coast Jet Powered Monorail."
Richard E. "Rick" Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
Piedmont Division NMRA
Conyers,GA
User avatar
Champlain Division
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Conyers, Georgia

Re: Jet Train

Postby george matthews » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:21 am

Champlain Division wrote:I remember a similar concept in a made for TV movie about a fictional "Nations First Coast-To-Coast Jet Powered Monorail."

What is the obsession some people have for monorails? 100 years of experience with monorails has shown that the bi-rail has overwhelming advantages over the mono.
george matthews
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Re: Jet Train

Postby djlong » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:38 am

Out in the open field, I agree with you. In urban setting, monorails make more sense.

The advantages are a smaller footprint, less 'sunshine obstruction', quieter and ease of constructing the tracks (pre-fab sections). Look at some of the designs that Seattle had for making their proposed monorail pylons almost invisible compared to an old El.

Where land acquisition isn't an issue, steel wheel on steel rail can't be beat.
djlong
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:29 am

Re: Jet Train

Postby electricron » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:21 am

djlong wrote:The advantages are a smaller footprint, less 'sunshine obstruction', quieter and ease of constructing the tracks (pre-fab sections). Look at some of the designs that Seattle had for making their proposed monorail pylons almost invisible compared to an old El.


Monorail is a smaller footprint than light rail or commuter rail?
Kuala Lumpur's Monorail
Image

Vancouver's Sky Train
Image

While I'm not capable of measuring the dimensions of the vertical pillars between monorail and light metro rail trains, they look approximately the same to me. Additionally, I wanted to point out the size (length) of the trains and the vehicles.

DFW's TRE commuter rail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyTjc3W4T8
I'll agree traditional commuter rail viaducts have significantly larger pillars. But then again, that locomotive and double deck Bombardier railcars are significantly heavier.

And I suggest that physical science suggests the heavier the train weighs the larger and stronger the pillars and supports must be. Monorail trains aren't automatically lighter than light rail trains. The length of the trains is just one of many items that determines that. Others include length of the vehicle, width of the vehicle, height of the vehicle, materials used to make the vehicle, and crash worthiness of the vehicle....
electricron
 
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion - Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests