SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

ApproachMedium wrote:That does not sound like the ACs-64 propulsion sound. I also want to know why these people are so lucky that they can actually shut their ditch lights off, because if thats the case i wish somebody would get the sense to allow the ACS to do the same thing.

You can say that again! When I had a Siemens tech riding he said that Amtrak wanted them that way...

It frustrates me to no end because I am constantly being blinded on the daily by annoyed NJ Transit engineers that think I am the dick. Id shut the breaker to do something else but since I am now live on camera 24/7 I aint messing with nothing in there!

Caltrans Charger undergoing testing:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/610031/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like the roof fairing they added to reduce the drag on the bilevel behind it. It's interesting to see the height difference between the two.

San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Update:

The new State purchased Charger locomotives began arriving at the Oakland Maintenance Facility in late November and have been undergoing initial testing with each passenger car type to ensure all systems operate correctly. Currently, three Charger locomotives have been delivered. On Saturday March 18th and Sunday March 19th, the first Charger locomotive will operate as a test train between Oakland and Bakersfield to complete the required 500-mile burn-in compliance test. As the remaining locomotives complete the initial testing with the passenger cars, they will also be tested over the San Joaquins Corridor

Page 148/155 in large PDF
http://sjjpa.com/getattachment/Meetings ... Packet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any word on when MARC will get their Chargers? Those should go through testing rather quickly.

STrRedWolf wrote:Any word on when MARC will get their Chargers? Those should go through testing rather quickly.

MARC's order is being laundered onto the back of Illinois' corridor options to net MARC a better price, so manufacture of their units is entirely dependent on whether IDOT taps more options beyond the +14 extras they recently exercised. The MARC units right now are scheduled for manufacture end-2017, but Illinois can exercise more corridor options at-will. If they choose to those additional options will preempt MARC in the manufacturing queue, and MARC won't see theirs until Q1/Q2 of 2018.

There's currently a pool of 38 remaining PRIAA options up-for-grabs between CA, WA/OR, IL/MI, and IL/MO to split as they see fit. California is a sure bet to drain half of them because it needs +15 more units to achieve full retirement of its state-owned F59PHI and Dash 8 rosters, to go along with the purely fleet-expansion base order. The way Caltrans is loading up they're an even bet to lather on still more padding, which will probably leave around 20 option units for the other states to mull over. They'll be under a lot of pressure to do something with those last options so the PRIAA order is good to the last drop before Amtrak starts moving onto the 150 national options. Deals will be cut amongst the states to stuff more units somewhere and that could shift around the MARC delivery schedule by several months (but probably no longer that that) depending on where all that horse-trading leads.

https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/port ... &NavMode=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amtrak looking for long distance locomotives.

Docs available in a ZIP file download here: https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/port ... 6565a217df" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty much inevitable that the first chunk of the 150 national options on the Charger would get action after the first half of the corridor options were drained. This RFI filing means things are going exactly as planned with the corridor locos and they are now summoning Siemens for final specs lockdown of the larger fuel tanks that differentiate the national options, so they can get this show on the road.

RFI is really nothing, its a notice of what Amtrak want and for suppliers to send their brochures. a Request For Information.

frequentflyer wrote:https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/port ... &NavMode=0

Amtrak looking for long distance locomotives.

I don't think that link is working properly,

DutchRailnut wrote:try next post

Thanks! Most interesting requirement being maximum sustained speed while pulling 8 cars is just 110 mph. Therefore it is possible another manufacture besides Siemens could win the order for up to 150 new locomotives.

Exceedingly, exceedingly unlikely because AMTK already has the contract signed/sealed for the 150 national options on the Charger. That's the cover-your-butt boilerplate legalese if the corridor base order were some sort of epic disaster and they needed to rebid. There's a 0.0% real-world chance they're going to do anything but tap the Siemens options they already have contractual access to. The RFI just repeats for document compliance purposes what's already been settled for years about what Siemens is going to deliver for those 150 national options on the contract.

The corridor vs. national specs difference probably does include some tradeoffs for speed vs. HEP load given that these are the LD-certified versions that have to haul power-hungrier diners, sleepers, lounges, etc. that the plain old coach-hauling corridor/commuter Charger doesn't. Bigger fuel tank capacity is the main physical difference, but the slight differentiation between nat'l vs. corridor units also entails different performance optimizations. Corridor units will never be in rotation on an LD set outside of one-off tag-alongs for equipment swaps, while national units will be jack-of-all-trades like the P42's and must be calibrated that way. That includes being jack-of-all-trades on all the Eastern state-sponsored routes where electric-to-diesel engine change points by necessity force those state routes to draw from the same diesel pool as the LD's and Regionals that engine-swap in WSH, ALB, NHV, etc. Or where the handful of isolated diesel-only route outliers (Springfield Shuttle, Downeaster, Heartland Flyer, etc.) have their locos laundered out of a nat'l engine-swap or LD equipment base making a buy of self-owned corridor Chargers logistically impractical for those states.


The only places where 125 MAS on diesel is ever going to be fully realized are on the routes where the states have already bought the 125 MPH-rated corridor configuration: the emerging HSR corridors in the Midwest, and Cali when routes like the San Joaquin start relocating partially over to CAHSR. Diverging NEC routes will always swap from electric at WSH, NHV, or Philly/Harrisburg so 125 on the diesel legs isn't a consideration for the 25-year + rebuild lifespan of this nat'l order. The Empire Corridor will hash these 110 vs. 125 MPH MAS considerations out with its separate dual-modes order still to come. And Springfield and Richmond will be electrified when they finally demand speeds >110 because electric acceleration is the far bigger difference maker than raw MAS when it comes to those NE Regional routes' denser stop spacing. I can't think of any route chained to the national pool where this pretty minor speed difference is going to pose any sort of constriction over the maximum foreseeable lifetime of the vehicles. At the rate we're funding things not even the corridor order is ever going to see a real-world 125 odometer reading in revenue service. But nonetheless all the places that are "couldas" and "shouldas" for emerging-speed HSR are the ones who've already plunked down for the 125 MPH units, so they have it covered if their designated corridors ever do get some $$$ love. Once NEC electric & ALB dual-mode engine swaps are factored in, the rest of the country tied to the nat'l diesel pool simply doesn't overlap enough of those futuristic >110 corridors for it to be any consideration. In the highly unlikely event that changes...pull aside a few dozen of the large-tank units for re-tuning mods to 125. It's a slight enough performance difference that it should be a wholly orthodox change doable without major rebuild.

Doubt they will make any changes as far as HEP and horsepower ratio. Considering these are already programmed for 800kW HEP and sort the traction power available based on HEP load since they share a common DC link. The only thing I think you will get on the off corridor version is the software tweaked for more aggressive preemption of the higher HEP demands for prime mover loading of the DC link vs corridor options. Corridor trains tend to spend their time in a close proximity of the same climate throughout the day. Long haul trains can and will see varied temps within a 12-24 hour time span on their daily use, which changes HEP demands quickly as floor heats shut down and AC compressors start to kick over, food service cooling starts to work harder as ambient temps rise etc. A train leaving DC in 32 degree weather will be in Florida in 85 degree sunshine and humidity in less than 16 hours.

Another thought to consider is that the P42s are capable of hitting 110mph, but ill tell you this they really aren't able to "sustain" it unless you have more than one. 80-90mph is much easier to sustain on them. On the Carolinian we had one, hauling a dead ACS64 and 7 cars one of them being a loaded baggage car the train saw 110mph between philly and DC twice, for a matter of 30 seconds at one point and about 3 minutes at another. So their demand to "sustain" 110mph isn't too far off from what the current Chargers probably can do already. They might be able to hit 125mph, but how quickly and for how long, with a long haul train and over grades etc.

Have any Chargers been received by a railroad east of Pueblo yet?
Thanks!
Andy