SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

What ever the technology you will have so much water vapor and co2. And if not enough Oxygen then CO. Any figures on how much CO2 produced with 1 gallon diesel ?

Hydrogen? Then you get water vapor that will corrode everything including passengers if not immediately ventilated. Ventilation ? Freezing or extra hot platforms.

Hydrogen in tunnels ?? try telling NYFD , betya they remember the Hindenberg.

I remember suggesting hybrid diesel/battery/third rail locomotives for GCT switchers and got my ass handed to me, by CMO/Engineering and safety

A diesel/battery combo would still be "dual mode" and probably be just as complex or moreso. And hope the batteries never wear out in the tunnel

That'll cut down on hauling capacity. I doubt they make batteries powerful enough to haul an 8 car set plus engine through NYP, let alone NYP to DC. I doubt they could even charge quickly enough.

edit: Just as I was hitting submit here my mind immediately went to thorium salts, aka nuclear train engines. Thorium salts don't melt down and irradiate half the planet (do your googling for why). I wonder how much power that will push.

STrRedWolf: http://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13 ... batteries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both GE and Sumitomo did partially develop molten-salt batteries, GE for locomotives in particular. The GE project was terminated two years ago, but I don't know the status of Sumitomo's project or whether it was intended for transportation use.

STrRedWolf wrote:TThorium salts don't melt down and irradiate half the planet (do your googling for why). I wonder how much power that will push.

Nuclear reactors change power pretty slowly, and have all sorts of other fun issues.

if you want to use nuclear power to move trains, just go the route France did. it works.

mtuandrew wrote:
Both GE and Sumitomo did partially develop molten-salt batteries, GE for locomotives in particular. The GE project was terminated two years ago, but I don't know the status of Sumitomo's project or whether it was intended for transportation use.

NaS batteries are a non starter in a tunnel. They like to catch on fire. When they catch on fire, they can't be put out - you have to let them burn out. Water won't work (reacts with the sodium - boom), and foam doesn't work (the reaction is exothermic). Imagine a tunnel fire under the Hudson or East River. Everyone gets out fine - but the locomotive burns for a week or so. That'll put a damper on service, esp if the tunnel breaches...

But why even bother with all of this? For commuter runs, the better answer is just to extend the electrification. For NY to Albany - just electrify up to Albany, and do your power swaps there.

This country needs to get over its irrational fear of catenary sooner or later. The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost in the end.

Nasadowsk wrote:
But why even bother with all of this? For commuter runs, the better answer is just to extend the electrification. For NY to Albany - just electrify up to Albany, and do your power swaps there.

This country needs to get over its irrational fear of catenary sooner or later. The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost in the end.

Kind of complicated but M-8 type commuter cars would work on the Hudson line to NYP. Extend CAT to beyond Spuyten Duyvill so it could use the under running 3rd rail. Of course you still have the problem of a 25 Hz capable transformer and it being somewhat heavier. But all these cars could at least operate on the New Haven line and future New Haven to NYP. The long range solution of course would be for Amtrak to convert Sunnyside and NYP - somewhere toward Newark to 60 Hz. Only a suspicion but converting the North river tunnels to 60 Hz might be impossible without closing the tunnel bores for some length of a time ? ? It certainly took Amtrak quite a bit of time to convert the Hell Gate branch to 12.5 kV 60 hZ.

Does Siemens sell any variants of the Charger in Europe that might have useful features for the US market?

mod note

Please keep on topic - Siemens Charger. Thanks!

east point wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:
But why even bother with all of this? For commuter runs, the better answer is just to extend the electrification. For NY to Albany - just electrify up to Albany, and do your power swaps there.

This country needs to get over its irrational fear of catenary sooner or later. The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost in the end.

Kind of complicated but M-8 type commuter cars would work on the Hudson line to NYP. Extend CAT to beyond Spuyten Duyvill so it could use the under running 3rd rail. Of course you still have the problem of a 25 Hz capable transformer and it being somewhat heavier. But all these cars could at least operate on the New Haven line and future New Haven to NYP. The long range solution of course would be for Amtrak to convert Sunnyside and NYP - somewhere toward Newark to 60 Hz. Only a suspicion but converting the North river tunnels to 60 Hz might be impossible without closing the tunnel bores for some length of a time ? ? It certainly took Amtrak quite a bit of time to convert the Hell Gate branch to 12.5 kV 60 hZ.

Why is that necessary, electrify the branch with 25 kV 60 Hz till the tunnel and go there with the third rail...

BandA wrote:Does Siemens sell any variants of the Charger in Europe that might have useful features for the US market?

In Europe there are dualpower loc's but not many, most of Europe is electrified with DC and AC . So Loc's has dual power(most electric and last mile diesel) and a few exceptions (full dual power), but its not very common.

SRich wrote:Why is that necessary, electrify the branch with 25 kV 60 Hz till the tunnel and go there with the third rail...

Yep, either extend the overhead from PSNY to Spuyten Duyvil or extend the underrunning third rail the same distance. From what I understand, newer MNRR/LIRR equipment can switch seamlessly between overrunning or underrunning third rail with spring-loaded dual-position shoes. Railroaders (Dutch, etc.), am I correct or misguided?

West Side Branch electrification doesn't really affect Amtrak, but more robust third rail electrification would be a game-changer for the North River Tunnels. There's no reason Amtrak can't install a substation in New Jersey and extend the existing third rail from the mouth of the tunnels to appx. Secaucus or Newark, which allows them to run a 750vdc/diesel under Corridor wires and still handle trains in regular service (as opposed to what I've been told is only sufficient for rescues) through the tubes. It makes a Charger DM (or whichever brand) that much cheaper and more capable off-wire than what we've seen with the ALP-45DM's teething issues - and tbh it keeps Amtrak from being tempted to make more of its NEC fleet dual-mode, because a dual-mode Charger (etc.) won't ever be as capable as a straight electric motor.

The "dual mode under over shoe" i think is still an experiement. I dont know of any real world use as of yet. We are still removing metro north shoes to bring their cars down to arch street for PTC mods, and the Amtrak p32s set for GCT have been switched to under running shoes with non retractable arms.

dumb question. If both routes into NYP/Grand Central are MTA, how come there wasn't a project to have a unified third rail for NYC operations? instead of some over rail, and others, under rail?