Railroad Forums 

  • P32-8BWH retirement

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1268319  by jp1822
 
And what is going to replace them? They currently have been filling in as regular service on the Pennsylvanian. Unfortunately, the new electrics won't make it to Pittsburgh.
 #1268328  by Matt Johnson
 
jp1822 wrote:And what is going to replace them? They currently have been filling in as regular service on the Pennsylvanian. Unfortunately, the new electrics won't make it to Pittsburgh.
512 seems to make semi-regular appearances down here in Virginia as well.
 #1268344  by Jersey_Mike
 
The 500 series can be used for switching operations and MoW work due to their road switcher configuration with stairs at the four corners.
 #1268348  by BM6569
 
It's probably just that, a rumor. If there were any serious considerations about them being retired anytime soon, you would have seen it posted here.
 #1268359  by electricron
 
BM6569 wrote:It's probably just that, a rumor. If there were any serious considerations about them being retired anytime soon, you would have seen it posted here.
??? Rumor or not, I'm reading about it here !!!
Just how do you distinguish rumors from facts ???
 #1268460  by BuddSilverliner269
 
With a shortage of engines all across the country do you honestly believe that these will be retired? I haven't heard anything at work but that's not to say it's not happening but has anything new been ordered to take there place? Nope. They do make pretty good yard engines with the air conditioning. :)
 #1268467  by emd645e3
 
I wish this were true. Two trips on one of those dogs will really make you love electric locomotives.
 #1268507  by amtrakhogger
 
Jack of all trades engines. Philly usually has the 512, 513, and sometimes the 514.
 #1268595  by Backshophoss
 
The P-32-BWH was the "proof of concept" for the P-32dm,P-40,and P-42 designs,may become
GE's "testbed" for the EVO-series "high speed passenger kits" for the repowering of the fleet,
following the MPI/GE HSP-46's built for MBTA.
If there're 5xx's to be retired, it must be some of the SW's or MP's.
 #1268651  by DutchRailnut
 
to put a GEVO in would not only have to totally upgrade electrical system due to higher output but would need a totally different cooling system.
basically you would start by stripping entire locomotive down to flatcar with cab, at probably higher cost than new locomotive.
 #1268659  by Tadman
 
Dutch is basically right - it would be like building a Genset, you use the frame and cab and that's about it. Would it cost more than a new locomotive? That's a good question because the only GEVO-powered passenger locomotive is built in such small numbers that your r&d costs are awful high per-unit.

Personally I would think a good rebuild would be best choice because with a few exceptions, these units aren't used that hard and don't go far from the yard very often. They're not counted on to move a train across snowy Montana at 3am like most of Amtrak's power has to do, they have to shuffle cars around Lorton or 14th street.
 #1268662  by mtuandrew
 
DutchRailnut wrote:to put a GEVO in would not only have to totally upgrade electrical system due to higher output but would need a totally different cooling system.
basically you would start by stripping entire locomotive down to flatcar with cab, at probably higher cost than new locomotive.
How would rebuilding a B40-8W into an ES33H be significantly more difficult than EMD making a GP50 into a GP30ECO? That's a rhetorical question, because I doubt it would cost >$3M for a repower, and because I don't want to draw us that far down a rabbit hole. Just wondering if Amtrak's mechanical department has considered it, as a testbed for future GEVO passenger power and as up to date road-switchers.
 #1268668  by DutchRailnut
 
If Amtrak wanted to try a GEVO unit they could always lease/borrow a New HSP-46ac from MPI at considerable less cost.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7