SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

east point wrote:Corridor Chargers on LD trains may have a problem with the smaller fuel tank ? Might mean Amtrak would have to buy fuel at usually non refueling points. That increases station dwell ?

2200 gallon for the P40/P42's vs. 1800 gallon for the statie Chargers (2200 on the nat'l options). But factor in the generational leap in fuel efficiency and that's not a big difference. LD Chargers will be able to go a really extra-long distance before refuelings, is all.


Since Beech Grove's still going to be doing all manner of heavy maint on these things above-and-beyond what L.A. and Seattle shops are equipped for, there will absolutely be instances where an LD train like the Empire Builder, Cali Zephyr, or SW Chief is going to be tasked with ferrying Caltrans- or WSDOT-logoed Chargers over the continental divide in equipment swaps. Probably with many of those trips running them powered (if not necessarily leading) since those routes are all standard 2-loco lashups. So the borrowing legalese is kind of integral to the S&I agreements for simply operating the standardized equipment at all, not just an idle what-if question for patching somebody's emergency fleet shortage.

They could go dead in trail they do stuff like that all the time. There is not an absolute 2 engine max/min on long hauls. They could have 3 engines, and the charger not leading.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:2200 gallon for the P40/P42's vs. 1800 gallon for the statie Chargers (2200 on the nat'l options). But factor in the generational leap in fuel efficiency and that's not a big difference. LD Chargers will be able to go a really extra-long distance before refuelings, is all.

So the 1800 gal capacity ones go as far or farther than the 2200 gal P40/P42s? If they match or better, there's little room for complaint.

STrRedWolf wrote:[
So the 1800 gal capacity ones go as far or farther than the 2200 gal P40/P42s? If they match or better, there's little room for complaint.

That is a point that we forgot. Have no hard figures but have heard that the loco providing HEP has 5 - 15% or maybe more extra fuel burn. That is because the P-42 HEP loco has to run at a constant 900 or 1200 RPM. The Chargers do not have to be run that fast so anytime Charger is providing HEP downgrade the diesel can go toward idle. That is due to generator is supplying rectifier that goes to inverters HEP and traction. Almost forgot --- Charger in dynamic will provide current to HEP inverters.

p42 Runs at 890-900 rpm for HEP. There is nothing higher than that. 1200RPM is Notch 8 with HEP disabled on that locomotive. The charger uses and inverter drive system and inverter HEP so there is only one alternator, at idle theoretically they should provide a fuel savings for HEP power over the P42s. But the cummins engine has no real world data in railroad use to prove any of that yet. We dont know what it is going to be with the propulsion output either. You know they said the ALP45 was going to save fuel, turns out they use about the same when moving a train but when idle supplying HEP they use about 2/3 more fuel than most diesel locomotives. They are far worse on fuel economy idling running lights and air.

Apples-oranges comparison, though. The ALP's are pairs of 3512C HD gensets; the Charger is a conventional QSK95 prime mover. It might be too early to accurately benchmark the QSK95's first outing in a passenger loco against something that's been in mass deployment since the U-boat era like the 7FDL-16, but it's not at all a stretch to bet that a conventional diesel using conventional prime mover and 2nd-gen AC inverter technology is likely to be a whole hell of a lot more predictable at hitting the dartboard around its efficiency target than the Frankenstein genset dual-mode creation that had to pervert its engine selection around its morbidly obese weight profile in order to exist at all. Entirely different universes re: what risks to performance/efficiency are being imposed by the difficulty of the overall vehicle designs.

This isnt an "apples to oranges" thing, my point was that they sold NJ Transit and the public on fuel efficiency with those two smaller engines and all of the software, but the reality was that it did not work that way. The Cummins engine says fuel efficiency as well, but what will the reality be? We wont know until this stuff is in service on the daily for months at a time and we get some real world, broken in statistics. Esp with seasonal changes, speed changes etc.

ApproachMedium wrote:1200RPM is Notch 8 with HEP disabled on that [P42] locomotive.

FDL16s never do more than 1050 RPM, do they?

correct 900 for HEP and 1050 on a p32acdm as max or a p40/42 when not delivering HEP

According to my friend down in a diesel engine shop, the 3512C HD engine used in the ALP45DP is a common marine engine used for on-ship power; his guess is that the issues with it in a locomotive is like trying to use a generator to charge a plug-in electric car while its moving at 75 MPH down the interstate.

The problem is they are running at least one of the two at almost top speed all the time to provide HEP. When the train goes to move, both run pretty much full speed until it makes whatever track speed the train needs to do. In diesel they are almost always hauling heavy stainless cars like the Multilevels so the engines are getting a lot more of a workout than they would trying to move a small tugboat or a fishing boat.

Yes, he was getting at that with his analogy...his guess the Cummins QSK95 will be reliable as from what he knows, its from the same people who handle on-road truck engines in their R&D which is probably just as demanding as a locomotive and he would be surprised if there is any major issues with the engine.

Has anyone seen a Charger testing on MARC? Three were delivered on 12/9 and they are supposed to test first on the Brunswick and Camden lines.
Andy

It would probably be better to ask this in the DC, MD, VA forum. That being said, I did see a photo of all 3 units parked at the Riverside (Baltimore) Yard this afternoon, so it doesn't look like any testing has been done yet. I'd imagine employees would need to be familiarized with them before testing could be carried out.

That's how it was when the MBTA first got its initial HSP-46 pilot units. They stayed entirely within yard limits for the first couple weeks as employees hit the books on qualifications. A lot of it's static training so the shop staff can poke around and get familiar.