AC/Diesel Dual-Mode Locomotives in the news

amusing erudition wrote:Hell, Caltrain would be eligible too when they electrify and start opening branches or extensions.

I doubt they'd electrify all the way to Gilroy (the majority of their trains terminate in San Jose), so they might be in the market from the get-go.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

amusing erudition wrote:Hell, Caltrain would be eligible too when they electrify and start opening branches or extensions.

I doubt they'd electrify all the way to Gilroy (the majority of their trains terminate in San Jose), so they might be in the market from the get-go.

Their plans are to electrify to Gilroy, principally because the new Transbay Terminal will require electrics (it's not just a cosmetic upgrade) and the few trains they'd be running out to Gilroy would not be worth the capital cost compared with just powering it. When full-service branches (Dumbarton Bridge service, for example) start up, they might have more a reason to have a dual-mode train, rather than electrifying for that. Plus this is thought of as a start of the California HSR project (some people actually think ahead) since that area will be readily upgradeable when that plan comes around.

It's good news for SEPTA on a different front though, since I don't think that's Caltrain-owned track south of San Jose, meaning they'd be powering a freight road's (Union Pacific) tracks. That screams "precedent" for Schuylkill Valley service.

-asg

(Response redux: Also, it's about 30 miles from San Jose to Gilroy. At $1 million per track-mile for AC electrification of the single-track line, that's $30 million. Caltrain runs five-car consists, as I recall, double-level. Even one 10-car train of single-level DMMUs would easily cost $30 million, which I base on the Silverliner V contract. -asg)

jb9152 wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote:Watch this fade rapidly when Warrington departs.

SEPTA doesn't need dual-modes to restore diesel service (all of the alternate routes to 30th Street's lower level have been discussed to death)...

Can't "fade rapidly" when Warrington departs. ARC depends on it, and it's the single most important capital improvement in the NJT plan going forward. The governor just affirmed strong support for it, so it's not going away.

The only other option for NJT would be to electrify all territory that is currently operated by diesels, and that is *not* going to happen.

Or they could electrify the Main Line to Suffern and RVL to Raritan, Shuttlize services west of Dover, west of MSU, North/West of Suffern, West of Raritan, NJCL south of Long Branch, and have the current setup with the ACL, and PVL (or electrify it). I see this possibly happening w/in 25 years.


And I really think that a third rail extension could help, as then NJT could purchase third rail dual mode engines, which are already on the market. Clearances and such can be overcome much easier than developing these new locos.

Just a thought...

And I really think that a third rail extension could help, as then NJT could purchase third rail dual mode engines, which are already on the market. Clearances and such can be overcome much easier than developing these new locos

That wouldn't help SEPTA, though. Not that it matters, since SEPTA doesn't need to do "dual-mode" to do diesel operations.

Irish Chieftain wrote:That wouldn't help SEPTA, though. Not that it matters, since SEPTA doesn't need to do "dual-mode" to do diesel operations.

Need and possibility are two different things. SEPTA doesn't need to run diesel services at all. It certainly would be preferable to get trains that could run to all parts of the downtown area, which is a part of why they built the tunnel to begin with. Service into 30th St. lower-level is a myopic stop-gap and will far delay introduction of a comprehensive solution to this problem, either dual-mode operation or electrification of the lines, because of SEPTA-typical complacency.

It also has an air of impermanence to it, like the diesel Railworks runs, that would make it really easy to justify cutting it again after a few years, or cutting it back to a shuttle a la Newtown in the '80s, which would almost certainly not happen if they made the lines fully accessible to all of their other equipment. Dual-mode equipment would also be harder to divest than diesel engines and trailer cars, which might keep them from rash decisions if they decide it's not working out a few years down the road.

-asg

SEPTA doesn't need to run diesel services at all

Tell that to their city bus division...besides, I wasn't describing SEPTA feeling a "need" for expansion, merely that they do not need a certain piece of equipment (the nonexistent catenary dual-mode) if they were to restore service to diesel routes.

Service into 30th St. lower-level is a myopic stop-gap and will far delay introduction of a comprehensive solution to this problem

What problem is that? The only problem I can see, with all due respect, is a lack of rail service in and out of Center City proper, from the former diesel lines. Further, there remains the "problem" of SEPTA regarding the regional rail service as a glorified subway system—they need to start looking at Philly as a terminus again, because this "service to all points downtown" focus seems to make them shrink the outlying service, even from electrified points.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Tell that to their city bus division...besides, I wasn't describing SEPTA feeling a "need" for expansion, merely that they do not need a certain piece of equipment (the nonexistent catenary dual-mode) if they were to restore service to diesel routes.

Obviously I meant rail, though many of their buses in the city could reasonably be converted to non-diesel if they cared to make the investment.

What problem is that? The only problem I can see, with all due respect, is a lack of rail service in and out of Center City proper, from the former diesel lines. Further, there remains the "problem" of SEPTA regarding the regional rail service as a glorified subway system—they need to start looking at Philly as a terminus again, because this "service to all points downtown" focus seems to make them shrink the outlying service, even from electrified points.

The only problem you see is the lack of service? Likewise all due respect, but there's the myopia. Through service and service cuts were not directly related. Service didn't drop because of the through-routing per se, merely because of its limitations. If the solution had been an elevated structure connecting the two sides of the system and diesel equipment could still run through downtown (how ugly that would be), I fully expect SEPTA still would have contracted service, though they may have done so differently. Of course electric services to Ivy Ridge and West Chester were cut just like the unpowered routes.

Merely the fact that they are serving multiple downtown stations is not the death knell for these services, except that they can't run diesel engines inside the tunnel itself. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Services were cut around the time the tunnel opened and therefore because of it. I don't buy it. Which services were cut was dictated by the tunnel, naturally, but not that things were cut.

The ability to run onto a branch on the other side of the system is a minor effect of this connection; all things equal a service that served all three stations and then turned in Powelton Yard (or coming from the other side, Roberts) would be superior to a service that served only one of the three stations. It doesn't prevent Center City from being a terminus, merely adds parts that are served while still focusing on suburb-city transportation.

Just because most other cities or rail systems don't have the luxury of multiple stations in the central business district doesn't mean that it's the wrong way to operate. Obviously Boston is considering long-term a similar connection; New York is considering a pair of connections that will allow trains to use either (but not both) of its midtown stations. Many European cities have these types of connections. Other cities like Chicago and Montreal have stations that are very close together where service to both wouldn't matter (Millennium/Randolph St. Station notwithstanding).

I agree it shouldn't be run like a subway, but commuter rail also doesn't have to be a stop every 10 miles in the suburbs and then one station in an inconvenient part of downtown. Other cities just make it look that way, to their discredit.

-asg

(After waking up a bit more and coming in to work, I will amend this to say that the through-routing itself was probably the cause behind the R6 matters but that it was not the cause of the death of Newtown, Quakertown/Bethlehem (particularly given the line being closed while there was still a viable diesel terminal), and West Chester. My point stands as such: the diesel/tunnel problem can be solved without the nonexistent through-routing problem being "solved".)

We've been through this promise of an AC/diesel locomotive before. The fundamental problem remains of packaging it all and keeping the weight down.

How much does a transformer weigh? I know a SLIV weighs about 62.5 tons, while a Bombardier coach railcar weighs 50.0 tons, so that's about 12.5 tons to add electric propulsion.

How much does diesel generator big enough to pull a railcar weigh? If you have one car with electric and another with diesel, you can expect to cut the acceleration in half if you only use one source.

On the other hand, speeds within the Center City tunnel are limited to about 20 to 30 mph, except for the climb from Market East north, which is also a steep uphill grade. Until the diesel can be powered up to provide additional power, it's going to be pretty slow up that hill.

Under wire, both the diesel and electric units would provide propulsion power. Then, in non-electrified territory, the performance would drop again, both acceleration and top speed would be affected.

From an equipment utilization standpoint, it would be best to drop off cars that aren't needed at the changeover point. As the train makes its way outbound, it's dropping off passengers and becoming more empty. At some point, you don't need the extra cars.

You could have a 5-car train to Lansdale, with the 2 DMUs continuing to Quakertown, and the remaining 3 cars going to Doylestown. On the Norristown line, you could have the DMU go to Reading while the EMU makes the short trip to Elm St.

At Fox Chase, the DMU would continue to Newtown, while the EMU is turned for the return trip to Center City and Chestnut Hill West.

With an EMU/DMU combination, it can be done fairly quickly since they don't need to disconnect HEP cables.

amusing erudition wrote:(After waking up a bit more and coming in to work, I will amend this to say that the through-routing itself was probably the cause behind the R6 matters but that it was not the cause of the death of Newtown, Quakertown/Bethlehem (particularly given the line being closed while there was still a viable diesel terminal), and West Chester. My point stands as such: the diesel/tunnel problem can be solved without the nonexistent through-routing problem being "solved".)

I would guess that Newtown, Allentown-Bethlehem-Quakertown, and Pottsville-Reading services were cut because of high oil prices in the 1970s, a reduction in federal subsidies to transit, and low ridership.

Does anyone have a schedule from the 1970s for those lines? How many trains ran that far per day?

The West Chester branch also had very low ridership west of Media, and the PRR ran a single car train to West Chester that met with every other train at Media, according to a 1955 timetable.

Remember that this was 1979 to 1983, where the idea was to cut your way to profitability, at least at Conrail. Also remember that David Gunn was at SEPTA during this period.

Lucius Kwok wrote:We've been through this promise of an AC/diesel locomotive before. The fundamental problem remains of packaging it all and keeping the weight down.

How much does a transformer weigh? I know a SLIII weighs about 62.5 tons, while a Bombardier coach railcar weighs 50.0 tons, so that's about 12.5 tons to add electric propulsion.

How much does diesel generator big enough to pull a railcar weigh? If you have one car with electric and another with diesel, you can expect to cut the acceleration in half if you only use one source.

On the other hand, speeds within the Center City tunnel are limited to about 20 to 30 mph, except for the climb from Market East north, which is also a steep uphill grade. Until the diesel can be powered up to provide additional power, it's going to be pretty slow up that hill.

Under wire, both the diesel and electric units would provide propulsion power. Then, in non-electrified territory, the performance would drop again, both acceleration and top speed would be affected.

From an equipment utilization standpoint, it would be best to drop off cars that aren't needed at the changeover point. As the train makes its way outbound, it's dropping off passengers and becoming more empty. At some point, you don't need the extra cars.

You could have a 5-car train to Lansdale, with the 2 DMUs continuing to Quakertown, and the remaining 3 cars going to Doylestown. On the Norristown line, you could have the DMU go to Reading while the EMU makes the short trip to Elm St.

At Fox Chase, the DMU would continue to Newtown, while the EMU is turned for the return trip to Center City and Chestnut Hill West.

With an EMU/DMU combination, it can be done fairly quickly since they don't need to disconnect HEP cables.

You would need probably more than a 3:2 ratio of EMU:DMU for the tunnel and part of the hill, and I'm not even sure if the two types of cars can use similar controls. A 3:1 ratio would be better, but with the amount of time it would take to couple and uncouple the cars, it might just be better to have a connection anyway, rather than wasting time with connecting the cars.

I would guess that Newtown, Allentown-Bethlehem-Quakertown, and Pottsville-Reading services were cut because of high oil prices in the 1970s, a reduction in federal subsidies to transit, and low ridership.

Does anyone have a schedule from the 1970s for those lines? How many trains ran that far per day?

The West Chester branch also had very low ridership west of Media, and the PRR ran a single car train to West Chester that met with every other train at Media, according to a 1955 timetable.

Remember that this was 1979 to 1983, where the idea was to cut your way to profitability, at least at Conrail. Also remember that David Gunn was at SEPTA during this period.

The mentality of saving yourself to prosperity continues at SEPTA today. I don't think you can argue that diesel services were cut due to oil prices. If that were true, SEPTA would have made a larger investment in the trolley system instead of closing lines, depots and selling rolling stock.

During the 1970's, most Conrail operated diesel services were only a handful of trips per day.
Newtown had 6 trips per day
Bethlehem had 6 trips per day
RT to Newark was 2 trips per day (Crusader, Wall Street)
Pottsville 5 trips/day.

I don't think the diesel factor had anything to do with the line's discontinuation (as in running in the tunnel). The objective was to reduce expenses, so the first routes to go were the Conrail operated diesel routes in 1981. Killing Newtown in 1983 meant SEPTA no longer had to maintain special equipment for a single route, which was a poor performer. The later closures (Ivy Ridge & West Chester) were simply done again to save money. This company continues to operate on the premise that saving money comes before fufilling the mission of the company: transport people.

Its silly to think that SEPTA would consider investing in proprietary equipment for their railroad. Their patterns indicate they want to standardize the entire system, like the subways. You'll see RDC's at Newtown and Lansdale before you see a dual mode loco on SEPTA tracks.

jfrey40535 wrote:Its silly to think that SEPTA would consider investing in proprietary equipment for their railroad. Their patterns indicate they want to standardize the entire system, like the subways.

Of course. We consider their doing it; that's what we do here. There's nothing wrong with standardization by itself. It's when standardization happens by cutting everything non-standard, rather than by reforming it. I agree that the focus on finances has shifted their interest away from transporting people; if they had a better source of funding to achieve that goal, like the other parts of the transportation sector, this wouldn't be such a problem.

You'll see RDC's at Newtown and Lansdale before you see a dual mode loco on SEPTA tracks.

That scenario is also likely, though, at this point, an RDC to them is roughly as specialized as a dual-mode engine or a DMMU would be, just older in concept; someone else running dual-mode equipment would put the two on closer footing. Shuttles aren't going to be as popular as through service, but if they would just start running the things and establish a baseline popularity, a shuttle would be the springboard to electrification, which could only serve to make them more popular.

By which I mean, a waxed-mustached criminal-type person will tie the Pitcairns down on the tracks silent film-style.

-asg

amusing erudition wrote:

jfrey40535 wrote:Its silly to think that SEPTA would consider investing in proprietary equipment for their railroad. Their patterns indicate they want to standardize the entire system, like the subways.

Of course. We consider their doing it; that's what we do here. There's nothing wrong with standardization by itself. It's when standardization happens by cutting everything non-standard, rather than by reforming it. I agree that the focus on finances has shifted their interest away from transporting people; if they had a better source of funding to achieve that goal, like the other parts of the transportation sector, this wouldn't be such a problem.

You'll see RDC's at Newtown and Lansdale before you see a dual mode loco on SEPTA tracks.

That scenario is also likely, though, at this point, an RDC to them is roughly as specialized as a dual-mode engine or a DMMU would be, just older in concept; someone else running dual-mode equipment would put the two on closer footing. Shuttles aren't going to be as popular as through service, but if they would just start running the things and establish a baseline popularity, a shuttle would be the springboard to electrification, which could only serve to make them more popular.

By which I mean, a waxed-mustached criminal-type person will tie the Pitcairns down on the tracks silent film-style.

-asg

Who cares about popularity? This is subsidized rail. If people want it enough, they'll take it. If there are good service levels, then the line deserves upgrades (through-service, electrification, etc.). Lines like the R6 Cynwyd have existing infrastructure, and if there wasn't say an electric route, they would not be having service on that line.

The taxpayers care. If no one rides it people will care even more. I agree a shuttle would be a good, cheap start. That was the plan in 1981, eventual electrification to Newtown. It was studied, never happened. SEPTA was busy spending money rehabbing PCC's and trolley lines that would be soon be gone.

Lines like the R6 Cynwyd have existing infrastructure, and if there wasn't say an electric route, they would not be having service on that line.

Ivy Ridge and West Chester had infrastructure too. They're both memories now. I agree the only reason Cynwyd remains is because it is electrified, but a route being electrified does not exempt it from SEPTA's evil ways. I would still consider Cynwyd endangered, with Fox Chase as the close runner up. If state funding continues to deteriorate, and expenses continue to skyrocket (how many years do we need to test the subway-surface signal system???), these lines will fold and become cheap merry bus routes.

SEPTA is not Metro North or NJT. Not even a fraction of either of those organizations, which is why we'll never see something as intuitive as dual mode propulsion. SEPTA does need better funding, but it also needs competent planners, leaders and managers, people with real background in real transportation, not these clowns that came from Bob's pretty good limousine service.

<i>You would need probably more than a 3:2 ratio of EMU:DMU for the tunnel and part of the hill</i>

Why? An EMU can easily be built for better than 1,000 HP today. More than enough, especially with modern inverter drives. If you keep both units down to a reasonable weight (sub 100,000 lbs), you'll get good performance even with 1/2 the cars being unpowered. Plenty of EMUs in the past were built with less HP and more weight (the EL units were 800 or so per 125,000 lb or so pair).

<i> and I'm not even sure if the two types of cars can use similar controls.</i>

Sure they can. Even diesel hydrualics. And, DH drive is how you make a DMU anyway- far lighter and simpler. With a computer matching up the characteristics, it's very possible.

<i> A 3:1 ratio would be better, but with the amount of time it would take to couple and uncouple the cars, it might just be better to have a connection anyway, rather than wasting time with connecting the cars.</i>

* Close the doors between the DMU and EMU section.
* Fire up diesel motors.
* Press uncouple button while entering station at 15mph.
* Diesel unit continues at speed through station, electric terminates at station.

How much longer than a normal SEPTA stop does that take, again?

The nice thing about compatible DMUs and EMUs is you're not tied to some sloppy compromise (as all dual modes are). You can make independant EMU and DMU trains if needed, or mix and match as needed. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, why not just make them all the same size? It's easier and more flexible.