Higher speed rail- 125mph will put GE at disadvantage

[kaitoku]

GE Engines to Lose Steam If High-Speed Rail Judged Too Slow

U.S. taxpayers have spent $1.5 billion to allow Union Pacific Corp. (UNP)’s tracks between Chicago and St. Louis to carry faster passenger trains, one of the biggest projects in President Barack Obama’s high-speed rail program.

Now a panel advising the same agency that oversaw the work may require it to be re-done so trains can go even faster, to the potential benefit of Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and Siemens AG (SIE) and the detriment of General Electric Co. (GE)

“In a time of great fiscal constraints, why should taxpayers pay more money to save a fraction of travel time that can’t even be achieved unless states spend billions of dollars more to undo work they have already done?” Rob McKeel, general manager of global locomotive operations for GE, said in an e- mail.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... oo-slow#p1

[Albany Rider]

Reading the article, the problem for GE seems to be that they do not have an engine design that can do 125 mph while EMD has designed an engine that can meet the 125 mph speed specification. So rather than work to met the higher coming standard GE wants everyone else to dumb down. GE abandoned the passenger diesel market after the Genesis and the passenger electric engine market even earlier. Probably the find it cheaper to pay lobbyists to kill progress rather than design something for the future. Sad for a company that use to say that progress was its most important progress.

Tony

[Tommy Meehan]

It's an interesting issue.

The higher speed, while cutting travel time between Chicago and St. Louis, would require more spending on track work for the trains to run at full speed, as 125-mph corridors can’t have grade crossings across roads under U.S. regulations. Grade crossings would have to be replaced by overpasses or underpasses, or closed.

Eliminating all the grade crossings will probably cost some BIG BUCK$. But I agree it would seem more sensible to buy locomotives with a 125 mph top speed NOW rather than engines limited to 110.

.

[electricron]

It's not a GE vs CAT spat. If you read all of the news article, the argument between 125 vs 110 mph is based more with track classification. That 110 mph tracks can have at grade crossings and that 125 mph tracks can't. In rural Illinois, and in most of America using square mile grids, building overpasses and underpasses every mile becomes very expensive. It's was recently rebuilt for 110 mph trains, why spend more for locomotives capable of 125 mph?

[TedBell]

It cost $1.5 billion to upgrade UP's tracks? What would it have cost to lay new dedicated passenger tracks?

[Tommy Meehan]

A committee with representatives from states, U.S. regulators and Amtrak, the U.S. national passenger railroad, is developing specifications for train engines to be bought with high-speed rail money from Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill. About $1 billion awarded to states in August 2011 for locomotive purchases has been held up until those standards are issued.

The group, called the Next Generation Equipment Committee, must decide whether to require equipment to run at top speeds of 110 miles per hour (177 kilometers per hour), the standard for the Federal Railroad Administration’s work with Illinois on the Union Pacific tracks, or 125 mph. It also could allow either standard or permit states to choose.

Sounds like they can pretty much decide whatever they want.

The people who would like to see 125-mph locomotives purchased are arguing, I think, that this would allow for ongoing incremental improvements. That sections of the route could get grade-crossing elimination work done and then could have the speed limit raised now.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

There was a 120 MPH gearing option for the EMD F-units and a 117 MPH gearing available for the E-units. It's also a documented fact that EMD offered Amtrak a very conventional 16-645 powered locomotive, riding on conventional Blomberg trucks, geared for 125 MPH. Not a big deal, just a matter of gearing.

The problem is that short of spending billions on grade separation projects on couple of current non-grade separated 110 MPH regional corridors, there is absolutely nowhere to run a 125 MPH locomotive, and gearing locomotives for this speed is a total waste if they'll just be running on 79 MPH and 110 MPH right-of-ways. You'd be better off with a large common fleet of 110 MPH locomotives that can be used on both regional corridor and long distance trains, which represents the status quo.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

A committee with representatives from states, U.S. regulators and Amtrak, the U.S. national passenger railroad, is developing specifications for train engines to be bought with high-speed rail money from Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill. About $1 billion awarded to states in August 2011 for locomotive purchases has been held up until those standards are issued.

The group, called the Next Generation Equipment Committee, must decide whether to require equipment to run at top speeds of 110 miles per hour (177 kilometers per hour), the standard for the Federal Railroad Administration’s work with Illinois on the Union Pacific tracks, or 125 mph. It also could allow either standard or permit states to choose.

Sounds like they can pretty much decide whatever they want.

The people who would like to see 125-mph locomotives purchased are arguing, I think, that this would allow for ongoing incremental improvements. That sections of the route could get grade-crossing elimination work done and then could have the speed limit raised now.

It's not worth the investment to raise standards from 110 MPH to 125 MPH, either in terms of increased ridership or increased fares. I'm a big fan of complete grade separation, but when you consider the costs and relatively low frequency of service on these regional corridors, mostly in the midwest, it makes no sense whatsoever. Truth be known, these markets are probably far more fare sensitive than time sensitive.

The reality on the ground is that existing and upcoming commuter locomotive, or even rehabilitated former Amtrak locomotives, are perfectly suitable for each and every current 110MPH right-of-way. It would be a tremendous waste to buy 125 MPH locomotives when just about any design running on recycled Blomberg trucks would be perfectly adequate and probably a lot more reliable.

[amtrakowitz]

It's not a GE vs CAT spat. If you read all of the news article, the argument between 125 vs 110 mph is based more with track classification. That 110 mph tracks can have at grade crossings and that 125 mph tracks can't. In rural Illinois, and in most of America using square mile grids, building overpasses and underpasses every mile becomes very expensive. It's was recently rebuilt for 110 mph trains, why spend more for locomotives capable of 125 mph?

I've never heard of "US regulations" requiring anything of the sort regarding grade crossings and speeds faster than 110 mph. Sounds like Businessweek is mistaken.

The FRA says the following (which seems arbitrary):

• For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits).
• For 110-125 mph: FRA permits crossings only if an "impenetrable barrier" blocks highway traffic when train approaches.
• Above 125 mph, no crossings will be permitted. …

The use of impenetrable barriers is a topic of research that has a number of advantages and disadvantages:

• Advantages : Barriers limit risk to passengers and employees on high speed trains; wireless communication may reduce installation costs; obstacle detection systems enable the train to stop if the crossing is bocked.
• Disadvantages : Barriers must close well in advance of train arrival to confirm crossing is clear and permit train to stop if necessary; mechanical systems will be costly and must be maintained; barriers may damage motorists’ vehicles who ignore the warnings.

No other country requires these mechanical "impenetrable barriers", and even the FRA admits it to be a "topic of research" that potentially would come to a dead end in favor of some logical alternate.

There was a 120 MPH gearing option for the EMD F-units and a 117 MPH gearing available for the E-units. It's also a documented fact that EMD offered Amtrak a very conventional 16-645 powered locomotive, riding on conventional Blomberg trucks, geared for 125 MPH. Not a big deal, just a matter of gearing.

It's also a matter of horsepower. The Alco DL-109 also had 120-mph gearing options, but back then, trains had quite a few diesel locomotives in MU formation, which would multiply the effective horsepower and tractive effort. Amtrak used to MU three F40PHs on long LD trains (9000 horses), but the gearing of the F40PHs still held possible top speed down to 103 mph.

[DutchRailnut]

GE has a 125 mph locomotive on the books, its based on the locomotive currently being built for MBTA.
The HSP-46 is being built by MPI but with GE AC propulsion/GEVO engine, the 125 mph model could be made again with partnership with MPI.

[amtrakowitz]

Are they willing to put this one forth as a competitor to EMD/CAT and Siemens though?

[electricron]

Are they willing to put this one forth as a competitor to EMD/CAT and Siemens though?

I don't think anyone can answer that question because the required specifications hasn't been settled? If the specifications only ask for 110 mph for top speed, why submit a locomotive capable of 125 mph?

[David Benton]

125 mph with a diesel , only way to do that with a reasonable weight is to put a loco on each end .

[mtuandrew]

125 mph with a diesel , only way to do that with a reasonable weight is to put a loco on each end .

Why not two locomotives at the front? For that matter, why two locomotives? A single 4200 hp locomotive should be able to reasonably haul at least four cars at 125 mph.

goodnightjohnwayne is correct - 125 mph with a diesel is no great feat, only a matter of changing the gear sets. In fact, railroads do it all the time, trading top speed for tractive effort. Assuming that there are no tracking problems with the trucks or other safety issues - of course Amtrak would go to Pueblo to recertify the class at higher speeds - I don't see why an existing P42 couldn't serve at higher speeds.

[The EGE]

Locos at both ends eliminates the need to turn trains or use cab cars. I'd sure as hell rather have a locomotive than a cab car going through grade crossings - safer for passengers and crew alike.