# MISC | Is diesel rail that bad?



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...

Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...

...Does it really matter of your normal commuter 75-100Mph and regular intercity trains 100-130Mph...are diesel?

People quite often just think that if a rail network is mainly diesel, its backwards, slow, lacking in investment and dirty...

England does have a mainly diesel rail network, and sometimes, yes, you get trains like this...










But most of the time its not all bad...all of the main lines run 125Mph tilting trains...










_*Do you shudder at the thought of diesel trains?*_


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I don't know how efficient Diesel trains are, I know however, that electric trains are better when it comes to acceleration (especially also at low speeds), furthermore they are not limited by fuel they have to carry around with them.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

this is obviously very complex

in switzerland the terrain pretty much demanded 100 % electrification
in france electricity is generated from nuclear power which is a hell of a lot cheaper (and makes them more independent)
it is more economical to reduce pollution at a huge factory rather than on every single trainset

and for me, at least in case of commuter rail, it boils down to acceleration

a diesel train has to carry enormous weight with it, wherease say a stadler flirt can accelerate like a rocket, which is pretty important when it comes to average speed (not top speed!) on lines where these trains have to stop every 3-5 kms (most s-bahn and commuter lines in the whole of europe)


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...


Diesel is not bad per se. It's just a waste of energy on frequently used railway lines.



poshbakerloo said:


> Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...
> 
> ...Does it really matter of your normal commuter 75-100Mph and regular intercity trains 100-130Mph...are diesel?


Yes, it does matter. Electric powered trains are much cheaper to operate. Not only doesn't have an EMU to carry its energy. It also returns part of its kinetic energy back into the power system when slowing down. Furthermore has an electric engine a much greater efficiency factor than a Diesel engine.

EMUs are lighter.
-> greater acceleration
-> less attrition on the rails



poshbakerloo said:


> People quite often just think that if a rail network is mainly diesel, its backwards, slow, lacking in investment and dirty...
> 
> England does have a mainly diesel rail network...


British trains look good. The system overall, however, is not so good. It is simply way behind railway networks on the continent in terms of efficiency and capacity.

With an expected rise in energy costs the advantage of electric powered trains will become even greater in the future. The quicker Britain electrifies the better it is for the whole country.


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

Also, electric trains last longer than diesel (less moving parts). EMUs compared to their DMU counterparts are smoother (no underfloor engines) and thus provide superior passenger comfort, in addition to superior performance mentioned above.

Diesels are fine for lightly trafficked secondary lines that don't warrant the high infrastructure costs of electrification.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

gramercy said:


> in switzerland the terrain pretty much demanded 100 % electrification


Additionally to this reason there are two major reasons why Switzerland has 100% electrified tracks.
- No fossil resources (coal/oil) within the country.
- Water power. (Water is the only major natural recource of Switzerland and all of the electricity used by trains is generated by water power.)


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

gramercy said:


> this is obviously very complex
> 
> in switzerland the terrain pretty much demanded 100 % electrification
> in france electricity is generated from nuclear power which is a hell of a lot cheaper (and makes them more independent)
> ...


I agree with all of that.

From a more aesthetic point of view: I prefer Diesel trains because the tracks don't come with nasty overhead wiring that ruins the landscape. In Holland we call that sort of thing _horizon pollution_.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

flierfy said:


> British trains look good. The system overall, however, is not so good. It is simply way behind railway networks on the continent in terms of efficiency and capacity.


_Some_ networks on the continent, I wouldn't say that the british network is way behind Romania, Portugal or Poland.

In fact I think that in terms of capacity we are behind France and Germany, similar to Italy but carry more passenger/kms than any other network in Europe.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

When I get my train in the morning I just love it when I get on a carriage where the underfloor engine is turned off, I can sleep then.

Other days I'm sat right above the engine, vibrating and loud.

Diesel is shite.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> I agree with all of that.
> 
> From a more aesthetic point of view: I prefer Diesel trains because the tracks don't come with nasty overhead wiring that ruins the landscape. In Holland we call that sort of thing _horizon pollution_.


There is a simple solution for that: Use a life rail!


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

Slagathor said:


> nasty overhead wiring


well, as it is expected, the swiss make a good job of cleaning that up too
they always use aluminium and/or stainless steel which looks very modern and clean


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

In terms of efficiency, electrified tracks beats diesel hands down because diesel needs to carry it's own energy source(Diesel fuel) while electrified trains does not meaning they are lighter not needing to carry the extra mass.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Slagathor said:


> In Holland we call that sort of thing _horizon pollution_.


From a Swiss point of view there isn't much landscape to see in Holland anyway  :runaway:

I never had a problem with them honestly. Now the wires of the trams and trolley-buses are another story.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

earthJoker said:


> From a Swiss point of view there isn't much landscape to see in Holland anyway  :runaway:


I would argue that the complete lack of anything resembling hills makes power cables and railway tracks all the more obvious:










The single greatest aspect of Dutch landscape is the surreal feeling of emptiness and unlimited views. If you put up a few electricity pylons or construct electrified railways, you have to be extremely careful not to rape the whole area.

That's why the Dutch government has been investing heavily in underground electricity cables. I suspect the railways will face some sort of aesthetical make-over within the next few decades as well.



> I never had a problem with them honestly. Now the wires of the trams and trolley-buses are another story.


I actually disagree completely. I think the wires of trams add a cosmopolitan feel to the average city streetview whereas railways disturb open landscape.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

I don't like those huge overland power cables either, just look at the Linthebene it's crazy.









Just one example:








This is one of the most famous motives in Switzerland (including the train). I don't see where the overhead wires look that bad.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

not to mention that in switzerland it would be impossible to use a third rail because of the snow (i think)


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

The pictures of overhead cables in Switzerland just illustrate that, although you can make this system look _less bad_, you can never actually make it look _good_. Kudos to the Swiss for trying, of course. But this appears to be an unsolvable issue (where third rail isn't an option).


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

i disagree

on this basis you could say that the trackbad should be made of grass..because thats more natural

but thats not how things work


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

"thats not how things work"??

There are degrees, aren't there? Nobody is saying the railway track should be made of wood and the trains of sheepskin. But overhead wiring in open farmland is probably more intrusive than overhead wiring in an urban environment to the average person. It just stands out more.


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> The pictures of overhead cables in Switzerland just illustrate that, although you can make this system look _less bad_, you can never actually make it look _good_. Kudos to the Swiss for trying, of course. But this appears to be an unsolvable issue (where third rail isn't an option).


It is just Your personal and a bit useless opinion. I love how electrified railways look like. Most of people I know prefer electrical transport too because of acceleration. Do not make your opinion like the only truth. 

Swiss railways are amazing and fit in landscape greatly.
:cheers:


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

If my opinion is irrelevant, then so is yours.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

*I live in a state where its half and half the busiest lines are Electric and semi busiest are Diesel for now , soon will be electric in 10 years after some projects are completed. New Jersey is a unique system and very big , every large city in NJ is served by Rail and some cities have Light Rail*  

*our Old EMU*









*Our New EMU (i know its big and i don't care what you think about America Trainsets and Locos)*











*Old DMU* 










*New DMU*










*Old Trainsets*










*New Trainsets, *note NJT & Metro North share trainsets on some routes in NJ*










*New Bi-Level sets*










*Gladstone line Trainsets*










*~Corey*

All Pictures are gathered form Wikipedia except one Flickr account


----------



## Qaabus (Aug 4, 2006)

earthJoker said:


> From a Swiss point of view there isn't much landscape to see in the _Netherlands_ anyway


That's because the average Swiss has never seen a horizon. Those ugly mountains obstruct your views, like a prison.  :runaway:


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

I love double decker US train sets.



Slagathor said:


> If my opinion is irrelevant, then so is yours.


It is true 
It is ugly or not is only our opinion, it is not like commie blocks where 70% or more think they are ugly


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

furthermore, the new EMUs allow for feeding back the energy from braking into the system and all the way to another EMU that is accelerating at the exact same time


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

I have no problem with DMU, or diesel locomotives. In fact, NJ transit has a very nice collection of locomotives ranging from 40 year old veterans to brand new tier 3 4 stroke beasties that can accelerate all most as fast as an EMU.

The support structure of the overhead lines of the HBLR are actually kinda nice, they make them look like lamp posts when running on the street, then on viaduct they are round tube columns.

I really don't have a problem with overhead lines for train power, but i think transmission lines could be put underground. Problem is people want big huge cars and smooth roads, not reliable ascetically neutral power grid. Priorities are a bit backwards here, but hey at least W is out of office. 

- A


----------



## Belxos (Nov 8, 2009)

Slagathor said:


> "thats not how things work"??
> 
> There are degrees, aren't there? Nobody is saying the railway track should be made of wood and the trains of sheepskin. But overhead wiring in open farmland is probably more intrusive than overhead wiring in an urban environment to the average person. It just stands out more.


In a lot of historical city centers overhead wires are found extremely intrusive while some high trees can easily hide overhead wires in an open environment.

(Off course, it's all very subjective)


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

Nexis said:


> *I live in a state where its half and half the busiest lines are Electric and semi busiest are Diesel for now , soon will be electric in 10 years after some projects are completed. New Jersey is a unique system and very big , every large city in NJ is served by Rail and some cities have Light Rail*
> 
> *our Old EMU*
> 
> ...


The only DMU in use in New Jersey is the RiverLINE light rail DMU. The rest are locomotives or EMU. HBLR and NCS have EMU light rail. Arrow 3 are EMU main line heavy rail. The "bi-levels" are multi-level vehicle or MLV. Bilevels are a different type of railcar. We don't have trainsets in the united states aside from the acela, everything else is individual coaches. Also, not all big cities are served by rail, in fact several medium and large cities in NJ are totally without rail transportation since private carriers such as the CRRNJ shut down back in the 70's. NJ used to have more pax track miles per person than any state, it's about 1/13th of what it used to be, thankfully NJT is trying to restore as much of the old service as possible.

- A


----------



## Frank J. Sprague (Nov 19, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...
> 
> Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...
> 
> ...


Virtually all transportation in the US is dependent upon petroleum, of which the US imports two thirds. Rail electrification is an off the shelf technology which does not suffer when something happens in the Middle East, that would seem to be it's major advantage.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

JoKo65 said:


> There is a simple solution for that: Use a life rail!


Here in the UK. pretty much most of the south east and London area uses 3rd rail. And also some of the Liverpool lines. The main issue seems to be the top speed. The fastest 3rd rail train is the Class 442 (105Mph)


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

In addition to whay everyone else already said, I must add that rail 
technology has evolved quite fast those last years, so that if a given
level of service was requiring electric traction ten years ago, it is not
necessarily the case anymore now. We now produce DMUs with such
a level of comfort and performance that it can perfectly do what EMUs
did 10 years ago. So it's not an all black-and-white situation.

Also, it is certainly a matter of habits too. European manufacturing
tends to produce very good electric traction rolling stock, but is
very poor when it comes to build reliable diesel locs. As an example,
Iranian railways still operate the diesel locs that they got from the
US in the sixties, because they perform better than the Prima locs
they got from France 5 years ago... So we tend to electrify a lot
because we pretend that diesel is unreliable. But look at the new
operators, they do not have the same relationship with the rail
industry that national operators still have, so they grew wiser and
buy class 66 engines - US design - and they don't suffer unreliability
problems.

On the other hand, when it comes to electric traction, even mother
america buys from Europe, despite their "buy american" laws... The
AEM-7s that operate Amtrak trains on the NEC are based on a
swedish design, and the new NJT electric locs whose pictures
have been posted here are also pure European technology. Same
for the Acela trainsets. The last electric loc that was designed
entirely in the US was the EE60 and it has been a complete failure.
It's therefore no real surprise to hear the US railway managers
say that electrification is inherently inefficient...


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

We had some really neat DMU in the us for about 30 years.

Budd company RDC:









Budd company SPV2000:









The SPV2000 was not nearly as successful or reliable as the RDC, however many of both types were in use up to the mid 80's.

- A


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

earthJoker said:


> Just one example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's worth noting that the Gornergratbahn uses 3-phase current instead of the usual single-phase setup. That is, it has two separate live wires (current 120 degrees out of phase) for each track (with the rails acting as the ground). And it still manages to look lean and graceful.


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

Frank IBC said:


> It's worth noting that the Gornergratbahn uses 3-phase current instead of the usual single-phase setup. That is, it has two separate live wires (current 120 degrees out of phase) for each track (with the rails acting as the ground). And it still manages to look lean and graceful.


For the rails to be ground they need return cables. There are too many variations & inconstancies in the rail not to mention they are usually set on insulators to allow free movement on the tie/sleeper. Are there any photos of the return cables??

- A


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

metsfan said:


> For the rails to be ground they need return cables. There are too many variations & inconstancies in the rail not to mention they are usually set on insulators to allow free movement on the tie/sleeper. Are there any photos of the return cables??
> 
> - A


I think you might be confusing the properties of the ground rail with that of the caternary or live third rail. While some subway systems use a separate, insulated "fourth" rail for the ground, none of the systems shown here do. I do not see any other "cables" or "insulators" along the tracks.

For three-phase systems, there are two hot wires and one neutral wire (in this case, the rails).


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Is diesel rail that bad? When people 'brag' about how good there countries rail network is, quite often they quote the percentage that the network is electrified...
> 
> Although I can see for true HSR you need electric trains for 180-200Mph running...
> 
> ...


I "once" rode on those pieces of pure cr*p that they call Voyagers over there ... I swore to myself that I would NEVER AGAIN comit such foolishness act!!!!!!



There is no "peace" in traveling at 125mph inside a industrial strenght food/cake bakery/mixer (or whatever extremely depreciative name you wish to call those things). :lol: 

The HST with their _*top'n'tail*_ configuration are "sufferable" ... the _*one'engin'per'coach*_ newer trains are pure cr*p in terms of passenger confort (specially the excessive noise levels and trepidation).


Most HST nowadays is electrified precisely because it saves in _micromanagement_ of the infraestructure and rolingstock.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Jonesy55 said:


> _Some_ networks on the continent, I wouldn't say that the british network is way behind Romania, Portugal or Poland.
> 
> In fact I think that in terms of capacity we are behind France and Germany, similar to Italy but carry more passenger/kms than any other network in Europe.


:dunno:


Define your criteria please ??? :bash:


----------



## Get Smart (Oct 6, 2008)

i hate diesel trains, they are dirty and bad for the environment, in highbury and islinglon station (london) sometimes i see these diesel cargo trains pass by and they belch a lot of black smoke, and the platform stinks. electric trains are the best


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

poshbakerloo, don't feel bad about British rail. Just think about America, and you won't feel bad anymore.

But your point is well-made. From an engineering perspective, what counts in achieving high speed is essentially the power-to-weight ratio, which is generally much higher for electric locomotives than diesel locomotives.

However, it is still possible to design trains running on non-electrified rail lines that can achieve high speed. The use of turbocharged 2-stroke diesels, and especially modern gas turbines, provides a very high power output, perhaps operable in the 140-180 mph range. It is unfortunate that most 2-strokes are designed for high torque rather than high speed. Combined with batteries and regenerative braking, you can attach more power cars and/or motors in the consist, achieving even higher power density.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

Facial said:


> However, it is still possible to design trains running on non-electrified rail lines that can achieve high speed. The use of turbocharged 2-stroke diesels, and especially modern gas turbines, provides a very high power output, perhaps operable in the 140-180 mph range. It is unfortunate that most 2-strokes are designed for high torque rather than high speed. Combined with batteries and regenerative braking, you can attach more power cars and/or motors in the consist, achieving even higher power density.


but it will never reach the electric trains because it would still have to carry a lot more weight

if you make some sort of a hybrid diesel train thats even worse, just imagine the weight of those batteries

not to mention the fact that all of those advantages already exist with EMUs and a remote power source


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

Diesel struggling in Kerala, India:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6fPfhWS0K8

Diesels in Pelopponesos, Greece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29dr4yIOVn4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hklZn1_xw9E&feature=related

I loved that train. I'm going to miss it when it's gone.


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

I seem to have messed up the first link to the Pelopponesos train:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29dr4yIOVn4&feature=related


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

metsfan said:


> Budd company SPV2000:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So that's where the Amcan came from. Interesting.


----------



## Augusto (Mar 3, 2005)

gramercy said:


> not to mention that in switzerland it would be impossible to use a third rail because of the snow (i think)


No, surprisingly the snow is not an issue. 2 mountain narrow gauge railways in France use a live rail: le Train Jaune de Cerdagne (Cerdagne Yellow Train), near the spanish border, and the Chamonix (France)-Martigny (Switzerland) line. On this line the live rail is only used on the french side though. 
A main standard gauge railway in the french Alps mountains, the Maurienne line, also used to have a live rail until the 70'. 

Train jaune from http://www.sunfrance.com:


----------



## RelaxInPireaus (Nov 2, 2008)

Mot of the railways in Greece use diesel locos.

And I am not complaining. They provide quide adequate service to railways.

Of course everything will soon change and most traffic will be fulfiled by electric ones, and this is already happening on many destinations.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

> So that's where the Amcan came from. Interesting.


As far as I know, it's the other way around, mate... The SPV is a
(rather unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to build a motorcoach
out of an amfleet car, not te opposite. The original amfleet car design
was derived from the Metroliners, which were fast EMUs used on the
electrified part of the north-east corridor. This is where this kind of
round-shape section was born.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

> No, surprisingly the snow is not an issue. 2 mountain narrow gauge railways in France use a live rail: le Train Jaune de Cerdagne (Cerdagne Yellow Train), near the spanish border, and the Chamonix (France)-Martigny (Switzerland) line. On this line the live rail is only used on the french side though.
> A main standard gauge railway in the french Alps mountains, the Maurienne line, also used to have a live rail until the 70'.


And this remains so only because the french do not want to allocate the 
money to replace this anachronic third rail with a catenary. But believe
me, there are problems with it in winter, more than enough. And if they
replaced it on the Maurienne line (which sees most of the international
traffic between France and Italy), it was not without reason. Before its
conversion, the reliability of this line in winter was a catastrophy.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

^^ There are astonishingly still a lot of oddities inside the french network.

3rd rail , odd signaling , near the alps there are still a lot of fun things to discover. :cheers:



Facial said:


> poshbakerloo, don't feel bad about British rail. Just think about America, and you won't feel bad anymore.
> 
> But your point is well-made. From an engineering perspective, what counts in achieving high speed is essentially the power-to-weight ratio, which is generally much higher for electric locomotives than diesel locomotives.
> 
> However, it is still possible to design trains running on non-electrified rail lines that can achieve high speed. The use of turbocharged 2-stroke diesels, and especially modern gas turbines, provides a very high power output, perhaps operable in the 140-180 mph range. It is unfortunate that most 2-strokes are designed for high torque rather than high speed. Combined with batteries and regenerative braking, you can attach more power cars and/or motors in the consist, achieving even higher power density.



No ... in this particular subject we can easily say that even the USA is AHEAD of the UK.

There are more people served by HSR there ... this of course acording to some naysayers the HSR speed is always 1mph over wichever speed is attainable in the UK... isn't it so?. :lol:

Diesels and Gas turbine are OK ... but only if you are in the process of implementing a small frequencies network (say 1tph each direction) ... nothing in the grand scale of the british network would assume the "backward inability" to implement nationwide electrification there ... that and ATC/ATP/whatever. hno:


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

MarcVD said:


> As far as I know, it's the other way around, mate... The SPV is a
> (rather unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to build a motorcoach
> out of an amfleet car, not te opposite. The original amfleet car design
> was derived from the Metroliners, which were fast EMUs used on the
> ...


Yeah, I looked this up. The cars have had such an odd history :lol:. I guess the SPVs were converted back. So (if they are still in use) if you are riding in an Amfleet you may actually be in one of these old SPVs.


----------



## metro_minotaur (Feb 7, 2009)

our suburban rail network in the city of Adelaide, Australia has been run by diesel trains since the 1920's and DMU's since the 1950's. Our existing diesel fleet of trains and most lines on our network will be converted to electric in 2 years. 

We are the last Australian City with a passenger rail system to be running diesel trains, in addition to that our rail infrastructure is quite poor with uninviting suburban stations and worn out track. With the conversion to electric is a complete upgrade to the track, stations and a lot of new EMU's.

DMU's in operation since 1980:


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

MarcVD said:


> As far as I know, it's the other way around, mate... The SPV is a
> (rather unsuccessful, to say the least) attempt to build a motorcoach
> out of an amfleet car, not te opposite. The original amfleet car design
> was derived from the Metroliners, which were fast EMUs used on the
> ...


Correct, the SPV2000 were (slightly lower speed) diesel iterations of the Metroliner, and where the Amfleet design originated. The RDC was a more successful design because it was never meant to be high speed, and could fit many markets, you could run a train of one unit up to 14 units, and the RDC 3 and 4 could go as many as you wanted due to brake upgrades (at least this is what i've read).

- A


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

He Named Thor said:


> Yeah, I looked this up. The cars have had such an odd history :lol:. I guess the SPVs were converted back. So (if they are still in use) if you are riding in an Amfleet you may actually be in one of these old SPVs.


They were never amfleets to begin with. The ones in that photo are from the Shore Line East service, i believe they are at the new haven storage yard with some out of service amfleets probably needing repairs. There are 2 currently at Hudson Yard along the northeast corridor between newark penn station and secacus junction in NJ. They were metro north, but i'm not sure what they are doing there, they've been there a while.

- A


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

metsfan said:


> They were never amfleets to begin with. The ones in that photo are from the Shore Line East service, i believe they are at the new haven storage yard with some out of service amfleets probably needing repairs. There are 2 currently at Hudson Yard along the northeast corridor between newark penn station and secacus junction in NJ. They were metro north, but i'm not sure what they are doing there, they've been there a while.
> 
> - A


Oh, I was under the impression that Amtrak had acquired them. So are the Metro North ones just regular locomotive-pulled cars now?

Also, do you know if this one still exists?
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/spv2000a.jpg


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

No, they have been retired.

- A


----------



## zivan56 (Apr 29, 2005)

All of our railways in Western Canada are diesel. There used to be an electrified track in BC called the "Tumbler Ridge Subdivision" that was ~130 km and was used for about 20 years...but demand for transporting stuff in that area dwindled.
The cost to electrify the railways through here would be astronomical due to the distances.


----------



## siamu maharaj (Jun 19, 2006)

gramercy said:


> furthermore, the new EMUs allow for feeding back the energy from braking into the system and all the way to another EMU that is accelerating at the exact same time


A better option would be a hybrid engine. Use the braking to power electric motors for initial acceleration. That'd solve the slow acceleration problem of diesel locomotives.


----------



## Snarieninuera (Nov 21, 2009)

*Is diesel rail that bad*

Ok, I was sitting at a light and a guy pulled up next to me. He actually asked me if my lovely bike was a diesel. I answered him no obviously and asked him why. He said the engine was knocking like a diesel. Luckily the light turned green and the conversation was over. It did get me thinking though. The bike does knock quite a bit and my dealer told me that all k1200rss sounded like this. Here are a couple thought I had, someone please tell me if I am out of my mind or could these things help. 1 - new air filter, letting the engine breathe better, 2 - new higher efficient muffler, 3 - loose engine mounts?, 4 - synthetic oil only have 13k miles...or any other suggestions.

Thanks

Ted


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

siamu maharaj said:


> A better option would be a hybrid engine. Use the braking to power electric motors for initial acceleration. That'd solve the slow acceleration problem of diesel locomotives.


hybrid technology is a waste of time and effort everywhere, because you STILL have to carry the weight of the fuel AND now youve added more weight because of the additional engine(s) and batteries

and all that added weight spoils the efficiency and the acceleration


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

siamu maharaj said:


> A better option would be a hybrid engine. Use the braking to power electric motors for initial acceleration. That'd solve the slow acceleration problem of diesel locomotives.


Diesel electric engines are pretty much "hybrid". They are quite common but heavier if am not mistaken though.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

gramercy said:


> hybrid technology is a waste of time and effort everywhere, because you STILL have to carry the weight of the fuel AND now youve added more weight because of the additional engine(s) and batteries
> 
> and all that added weight spoils the efficiency and the acceleration


It's better than a diesel engine by itself. Suppose a train has one locomotive, and 10 coaches. The coaches are non-powered. Thus, even when accounting for the weight of the batteries in a separate battery-powered locomotive, the power density and energy density both increase for the entire train.

Fuel is also saved at the same time, because on each acceleration both power sources are at work, but each time it brakes, all of the energy goes into the batteries. Provided that there are enough batteries, the cycle lifetime will be acceptable. Actually, you don't even have to use Li-ion, NiMH suffices in one of the designs. It saves money in the long-term. However, business plans are usually very short-term. This is why few diesel hybrids or battery-electrics exist.

A fully electrified line is superior in power density, no doubt, but the longer the line, the more cost for installation of overhead catenaries. Thus, there is probably a break-even point.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> Diesel electric engines are pretty much "hybrid". They are quite common but heavier if am not mistaken though.


True. Most of them are hybrid, but not regenerative.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

He Named Thor said:


> Yeah, I looked this up. The cars have had such an odd history :lol:. I guess the SPVs were converted back. So (if they are still in use) if you are riding in an Amfleet you may actually be in one of these old SPVs.


It was not a conversion... May be I did not express myself too well. The 
design of the amfleet car/metroliner has been used to build the SPV 
motorcoach but they have been built anew. I wonder if this picture is
recent, I thaught that the SPVs had been scratched.

On the other end, before the SPV you had the RDC, a much more successful
design, which dates back almost from end of WW2. Those ones have indeed
been used as hauled coaches at the end of their life. I remember whole trains
of RDCs hauled by one loc, F40PH or something like that, on suburban lines
out of Boston North Station, with the RDC engines idling to produce power
for the A/C. That was back in the 70ies. Things have hopefully upgraded 
since then over there !


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

MarcVD said:


> It was not a conversion... May be I did not express myself too well. The
> design of the amfleet car/metroliner has been used to build the SPV
> motorcoach but they have been built anew. I wonder if this picture is
> recent, I thaught that the SPVs had been scratched.


Got it. 

The Wikipedia page threw me off, as it mentions the spvs being converted to passenger cars. 




> On the other end, before the SPV you had the RDC, a much more successful
> design, which dates back almost from end of WW2. Those ones have indeed
> been used as hauled coaches at the end of their life. I remember whole trains
> of RDCs hauled by one loc, F40PH or something like that, on suburban lines
> ...


You never really know in this country. hno:


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

Several companies here make battery diesel switchers. The diesel engine only charges the batteries, braking is regenerative as well.

- A


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

I have to say that diesel trains are much worse than electrics. They are noisy as hell and the pollution is terrible. I live in the west of England and all our trains are diesels, our network has suffered from years of underinvestment and poor management. Recently they have announced the electrification of the great western main line and south Wales line, which will be the first improvement since the 70s. It will cut the current Bristol to London time of 1h44m to 1h25m, which would be a major improvement. I have used the trains in the south east before which are electrified and they are brilliant, reliable, quick and cheap. Most of the UK stands out as backwards when it comes to railways by still using diesel.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Stainless said:


> Most of the UK stands out as backwards when it comes to railways by still using diesel.


I don't really see diesel as backwards. Not as good at electric maybe, but modern high speed diesel trains I don't think are that bad. A lot of the turbostars really are quite good.


----------



## transman (Oct 23, 2008)

diesel trains are slow and noisy and they stink, electric is the way to go


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> I don't really see diesel as backwards. Not as good at electric maybe, but modern high speed diesel trains I don't think are that bad. A lot of the turbostars really are quite good.


If you compare the efficiency rates of diesel engines to electric motors then it IS backwards.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ I tend to agree. The on site pollution is also not to be ignored, especially next to very frequented diesel tracks.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Rebasepoiss said:


> If you compare the efficiency rates of diesel engines to electric motors then it IS backwards.


Sure ! But one should not forget that the electricity that is transformed
into motive power at an efficiency above 90% is itself coming, mostly, from a
thermal power plant whose efficiency is, at best, at 40% or so. So, for the
complete energy supply chain, diesel is not that far behind electric.


----------



## metro_minotaur (Feb 7, 2009)

transman said:


> diesel trains are slow and noisy and they stink, electric is the way to go


that is very true. but i've been on electric trains that are very slow, noisy and they also smelt really bad. but that train was fairly old, was probably from the 1950's


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

I might be wrong on my beliefs, but diesel passenger rail = crap, third world for me.


----------



## jchernin (Jul 21, 2005)

yes electric is better.

*but diesel rail beats no rail at all, and sometimes is the only appropriate alternative.*

take my area in the north bay of the san francisco bay area. we are right now building a diesel commuter line that spans over 70 miles. since the line will be shared with heavy freight locomotives, diesel (FRA-compliant DMUs) were chosen as the best type of vehicle for this kind of service. it was difficult enough to get the region to vote yes (by a necessary two-thirds majority no less) to a .25% sales tax to fund the project, the public would never have supported the huge cost (and waste) of electrifying the entire line. keep in mind this line will have a est. daily ridership of about 5000 - not bad for the type of service and the relatively low population. 

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/

btw - if u do the math, this train (even tho it is diesel) is far better for the environment than the cars it will take off our roads and freeway(s).


----------



## jchernin (Jul 21, 2005)

> *United Kingdom Commits to Further Rail Electrification*
> 
> December 15, 2009
> 
> ...


a good article relating to electrification taken from the transport politic


----------



## KiwiGuy (Jul 9, 2009)

Oh dear, New Zealand trains are almost entirely diesel. However, we are getting new "hybrid" trains from China and there are plans for a high speed link between Auckland and Wellington which should be electric and enter service around 2012 (Fingers crossed).

In the meantime, we'll just have to stick with our ancient, badly funded and maintained railway infratructure.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

MarcVD said:


> Sure ! But one should not forget that the electricity that is transformed
> into motive power at an efficiency above 90% is itself coming, mostly, from a
> thermal power plant whose efficiency is, at best, at 40% or so. So, for the
> complete energy supply chain, diesel is not that far behind electric.


the french use nuclear power ... most others use either damns or other sources of EASILY AVAILABLE free power (such as water , wind or solar).

People tend to INVEST FOR THE FUTURE when building such infraestructures ... the british are just negating reality (until HS2 is built at least). :cheers:

Most routes that are served with 100mph diesels could be better served by 140mph tilting EMU's ... most routes served by 124mph DMU's could be served nowadays by 200mph HS trains ... most of the track infraestructure upgrades could be WELL PAID OVER if you had done that 20 years ago.

Heres a couple of random examples:

Paddington-Didcot could take 15 minutes (200mph trains) or 20 minutes (140mph trains) 

the entire London-Peterborough-York trip could be sheduled for a little over 55 minutes (trains at 200mph or more) ... you have the signaling , electrification and 4 track space available to do so ... just needed to invest propperly at a propper time ... they choose not to do so.

from yorkto the north a ATP stiled tilting train would save HUGe amounts of time ... again ... not done. 

Midland Main line and GWR not being electrified could (and should) be considered crimes against the nation ... or something like that. :lol:

Nevermind the commuter areas where diesels still run ... travel times FELL abruptly when an EMU replaces a DMU service ... acceleration is nothing alike. hno:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Heres a couple of random examples:
> 
> Paddington-Didcot could take 15 minutes (200mph trains) or 20 minutes (140mph trains)
> 
> ...


The Great western main line is getting electrified and so is the Liverpool-Manchester route. All the express DMUs here are tilting, I'm not big fan of them mainly because of the noise inside.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Riding the UK rail network is like time travel for me. Yes it is backwards.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

sotavento said:


> Most routes that are served with 100mph diesels could be better served by 140mph tilting EMU's ... most routes served by 124mph DMU's could be served nowadays by 200mph HS trains ... most of the track infraestructure upgrades could be WELL PAID OVER if you had done that 20 years ago.
> 
> Heres a couple of random examples:
> 
> ...



175mph on the GWR, maximum, for some sections, 155mph for much of the rest of it. It could not be higher, but that is still a massive improvement.

Most of the rest of the network would get nothing like as fast a service if the existing track is upgraded. And upgrading the existing network for speed is costly way of achieving little.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

goschio said:


> Riding the UK rail network is like time travel for me. Yes it is backwards.


When exactly was it you did that? It really not that bad, overcrowded yes, but that has a lot to do with the silly population density here.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

sotavento said:


> the biggest trains in the USa are indeed coal trains ... and they use electrics to pull them ... so that is not the definite advantage of diesels.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats only line in Utah and those are left over Amtrak Locos.....


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Nexis said:


> Thats only line in Utah and those are left over Amtrak Locos.....


I think I saw that line when I was on holiday there...is it in the south of Utah? I cnt remember any town names in the area tho


----------



## railzilla (Feb 20, 2010)

It is true that all US railroads which switched from electrics to diesels went bancrupt. The longest railway in the world Transsib is electrified. So it would make sense in the long term to electrify at least some transcontinental corridor in the US. However the US railroads are listed companies. Every quarter te have to show off some good numbers. Thus they do not make investments which only pay off in 20 years. On the other side Chinese thing in very long terms and so they have a massive electrification program.


----------



## lowes48 (Jan 18, 2010)

sotavento said:


> the biggest trains in the USa are indeed coal trains ... and they use electrics to pull them ... so that is not the definite advantage of diesels.


These look like electric locomotives to you?:


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

^^ In fairness he said the biggest were electric, hauling coal. He didn't say all coal was hauled electrically. Though he may be wrong nonetheless.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

lowes48 said:


> These look like electric locomotives to you?:


I love these trains!


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

It's like a snake.  Really, freight trains in this country are so underrated IMO.


----------



## larven (Sep 12, 2002)

Those locomotives must be seriously powerful if two of them can pull all those coal hoppers!


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

^^

Indeed. But the most powerful freight locos reside in... you guessed it... China, for the use of... you've guessed it again... haulin coal.

But yes. Electric power trains are more powerful in general than their internal combustion counterparts, even for hauling coal. The largest reason for the ineffeciencies of internal combustion is the machincial transmission.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

larven said:


> Those locomotives must be seriously powerful if two of them can pull all those coal hoppers!



I bet there are two more at the end.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Nexis said:


> Thats only line in Utah and those are left over Amtrak Locos.....


.. as long as Utah remains one of the 50 my statement holds true. :bash:



lowes48 said:


> These look like electric locomotives to you?:
> 
> [IMG_]http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/3/2/9/7329.1270476484.jpg[/IMG]
> [IMG_]http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/1/7/0/8170.1270483098.jpg[/IMG]
> [IMG_]http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/7/5/9475.1270005952.jpg[/IMG]


Yes ... diesel-electric to be precise. :cheers:

Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???

imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ... 




























hno:


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

sotavento said:


> .. as long as Utah remains one of the 50 my statement holds true. :bash:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In Utah that line is powered by the Coal Power Plant the Coal is delivered too , here in the Northeast the lines are powered by Hydro , wind , and other clean sources.


----------



## lowes48 (Jan 18, 2010)

sotavento said:


> Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???
> 
> imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ...
> [/IMG]
> ...


I wasn't talking about the primary source of fuel for the locomotives, I was responding to your post about electric locomotives and saying that the heaviest coal trains in the US aren't hauled by electricity alone.


----------



## lowes48 (Jan 18, 2010)

sotavento said:


> Don't you see the basic flaws in that pictures ???
> 
> imported petrol is used to feed those locomotives who haul coal to the powerplants who in turn lighten up yoiur cities ...
> [/IMG]
> ...


I wasn't talking about the primary source of fuel for the locomotives, I was just responding to your post about electric locomotives and saying that the heaviest coal trains in the US aren't hauled by pure electric powered locomotives


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

railzilla said:


> It is true that all US railroads which switched from electrics to diesels went bancrupt.


What you say here is not true.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

We never really see much freight in the UK. I only ever see it at rush hour going thru Manchester Piccadilly I dunno why they run them at the worst time ever


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

^^ One time I was on a GNER train going from Edimburg to Newcastle and we were "stopped" so a couple of freight(coal trains) could pass ahead of us ... :lol:


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> We never really see much freight in the UK. I only ever see it at rush hour going thru Manchester Piccadilly I dunno why they run them at the worst time ever


Freight is fairly common on the GEML south of the Felixstowe branch, mainly because of the container port there.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

DMU's like these will replace some Push-pull lines Trainsets in Boston , Chicago , & Seattle.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BM93_Signatur.JPG









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gtw_riverline.JPG









http://www.flickr.com/photos/southerncalifornian/2322217987/sizes/l/


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Nexis said:


> DMU's like these will replace some Push-pull lines Trainsets in Boston , Chicago , & Seattle.


The odd thing is that these trains are considered "light rail" in the US, with all attending complications, whereas in Europe they comply with the current mainline rail TSI safety requirements just fine...


----------

