The case for freight locomotives as passenger power

[Tadman]

I used to accept that married pairs were not acceptable for long distance. I don't anymore. A P42 is essentially a HEP car plus a prime mover/propulsion unit, very permanently married. Yet they keep doing that, no problem. HEP system dies, they have to pull the entire unit at the next Amtrak shop, regardless of if it can pull a train.

If flexibility were really that important, a baggage car with room for two HEP sets on skids would be the way things went. Perhaps with doors for easy forklift or jib crane access. You could swap them with a boom truck at any major station or division point.

Same thing with dual modes. A dual mode is essentially a diesel locomotive and a third rail locomotive sharing traction motors and frame. If flexibility were really important (and we know space is always at a premium in dual modes), they'd have a semi-permanent married pair with diesel and radiators in the A and third rail x-former and HEP in the B. Either one craps out, and maintenance guys at ALB or NYP or SSYD can make the cut to remove the offender and available sub is swapped in.

[ApproachMedium]

Yea, im sorry thats again not a good comparison. A locomotive has ways for redundancy internally in a single unit. HEP cars are not efficient because now you have to lug around more weight, another fuel container that can spill, another engine that needs to be maintained using totally different parts from the main engine. A baggage car with HEP motors would create another problem, use of space, weight, noise, safety etc. The same problem exists if the car fails or the loco fails its HEP. you loose the HEP. So no gains.

For the amount of time that a dual mode spends on 3rd rail the current situation works perfectly fine. Theres no need to keep an entire second unit for 5 miles of 3rd rail. Also every locomotive unit cab or not needs a locomotive inspection for mechanical and air brakes. Double the maintenance time on daily inspections. Not a good idea.

[Tadman]

Yea, im sorry thats again not a good comparison. A locomotive has ways for redundancy internally in a single unit. HEP cars are not efficient because now you have to lug around more weight, another fuel container that can spill, another engine that needs to be maintained using totally different parts from the main engine. A baggage car with HEP motors would create another problem, use of space, weight, noise, safety etc. The same problem exists if the car fails or the loco fails its HEP. you loose the HEP. So no gains.

For the amount of time that a dual mode spends on 3rd rail the current situation works perfectly fine. Theres no need to keep an entire second unit for 5 miles of 3rd rail. Also every locomotive unit cab or not needs a locomotive inspection for mechanical and air brakes. Double the maintenance time on daily inspections. Not a good idea.

This is the Amtrak equivalent of having cake and eating it, too.

First, we're seeing that shaft-driven HEP/ETH is a one-time thing and was really only a big thing on the F40 series. It wasn't before and it's not now. The P40/42 saw inverter-driven HEP/ETH, and now many new-builds are going back to pony motors, just where HEP started in MILW E9s from EMD around 1962. Recent commuter orders and even the VIA F40 retrofits all have pony motors. So the notion that a pony motor is bad seems to be receding quite fast. Evidently the bean counters don't have enough of a problem with them to stop them from being the prevailing technology. As for stocking parts, most appear to be Cat or Cummins units supported by myriad local outlets.

Second, now that we've established the pony motor is the favored HEP/ETH method, how would shifting that to the baggage car create more weight? A Cummins QSK-XX weighs the same wherever it sits. And the fuel tank issue is not nearly the problem it once was, given that fuel cells prevail today. We've seen that the new baggage cars run fairly empty, and they're already off limits to passengers so noise and safety aren't that big of a concern.

Having an HEP pony motor in the baggage means the lights could be kept on in the train during motor changes at Washington and be off much less in switching moves at Spokane or Albany. It also means when power goes bad, the train keeps its heat and lights. Finally, having a pony motor on skids in the baggage car (versus trapped in a monocoque body) means it could be swapped in 20 minutes in case of problems with a jib crane or forklift. The baggage car is back on the road almost immediately.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Mr. Dunville, I believe you were in swaddling clothes (or maybe even "weren't") when these babys were roaming the rails:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=2865532

Well I was, as a paying (OK; Pass or Half Rate) passenger.

They were very simply trouble prone and/or unreliable.

If there were a failure en route, the only way to try and restore HVAC (plus lighting) was to stop the train so a train crew could enter the car and "try....".

More likely was to "tuck it out" to PHL or NYP to see if an Electrician assigned to a station position could have a go at it.

So much for departing the station; no so much for ten miles beyond.

Possibly Mr. Carey is out there reading and chooses to comment.

[Tadman]

Only in museums for me. I was a 1981 guy.

And I'm not sure what's in those cars, so I can't comment any more than "cool".

But I know plenty of hospitals and office towers use cat/cummins backup generators. I know plenty of railroads use them in both locomotives and HEP vans. I seem to remember even the Cascade Talgo uses them in the "baggage" unit.

It's a thing. It works well. We need to get our heads out of the sand. The practice of pretending to be this awesome specialized passenger railroad that needs super high tech high speed awesome equipment is a farce. Amtrak is the Ignatius J Reilly of passenger railroads. A tremendous sense of self importance secured to an empty locker of accomplishment wrapped in a ridiculous costume that overall drives people away.

Yes, let's build more custom monocoque high speed whatever with design by Cesar Vergara and let them fail in the desert for 17 hours. That's worked so well for 48.8 years.

[ApproachMedium]

First, we're seeing that shaft-driven HEP/ETH is a one-time thing and was really only a big thing on the F40 series. It wasn't before and it's not now. The P40/42 saw inverter-driven HEP/ETH, and now many new-builds are going back to pony motors, just where HEP started in MILW E9s from EMD around 1962. Recent commuter orders and even the VIA F40 retrofits all have pony motors. So the notion that a pony motor is bad seems to be receding quite fast. Evidently the bean counters don't have enough of a problem with them to stop them from being the prevailing technology. As for stocking parts, most appear to be Cat or Cummins units supported by myriad local outlets.

Second, now that we've established the pony motor is the favored HEP/ETH method, how would shifting that to the baggage car create more weight? A Cummins QSK-XX weighs the same wherever it sits. And the fuel tank issue is not nearly the problem it once was, given that fuel cells prevail today. We've seen that the new baggage cars run fairly empty, and they're already off limits to passengers so noise and safety aren't that big of a concern.

Having an HEP pony motor in the baggage means the lights could be kept on in the train during motor changes at Washington and be off much less in switching moves at Spokane or Albany. It also means when power goes bad, the train keeps its heat and lights. Finally, having a pony motor on skids in the baggage car (versus trapped in a monocoque body) means it could be swapped in 20 minutes in case of problems with a jib crane or forklift. The baggage car is back on the road almost immediately.

p42/40s do not have inverter driven HEP its still a 3rd alternator running off the main engine. Newer tech on stuff like the SC44 and PL42 is inverter driven, and the P32 dual mode. Pony motors ON a locomotive is not a bad idea for stuff that spends a lot of time in idle, like commuter service. For amtrak, its always moving so its actually more efficient fuel wise that way.

The weight matters where it is located. With baggage cars at the rear this creates an issue in a collision or derailment with that weight pushing the train. You want it towards the front. Weight like this towards the rear makes for horrible train handling as well. I know what it feels like to have heavier cars on the hind end of a train vs the front, its like a boat anchor. Also you cannot do your cake adn eat it too idea of hep on during engine changes because splitting a train in any way would require the HEP turned off so that people can work between the train. I dont see where you think a motor can be swapped in 20 mins with some jiber jaber crane or forklift. Ive been in the shop when they swapped motors out on GP40PH-2s and GP38-H3s and it takes A LOT MORE than 20 minutes to swap an HEP plant out. Try more like, 4-8 hours. The real answer here is run two locomotives if you are worried about HEP. If one looses HEP, you run off the other. And on these modern inverter drive AC units this is never an issue unless you loose main engine which you wont be going anywhere, anyhow. If you loose the HEP inverter you steal a traction motor to run HEP. And on the ACS-64 and SC44 its got a dual redundant system so if one inverter fails it has a backup so you dont steal any traction motors.

Also keep in mind having HEP in a baggage car gives the engineer zero control to shutting the HEP down during 3 step protection if the crew needs to go under or between the train for any reason. It gives them zero control of the HEP in a forward collision, or any other circumstances where the HEP must be shut down to prevent any kind of issues. Smoke is another one, if there is a fire along the tracks or heavy smoke killing the HEP from the lead end shuts off all HVAC and fresh air intakes so that cars wont fill up with smoke. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to keep HEP in the locomotive itself and give engineer full control and none of this baggage car waste of space dragging dead weight nonsense.

[mtuandrew]

You still haven’t demonstrated the need for freight locomotives + HEP sleds, Tad. Sounds like a way to burn twice as much fuel as the equivalent Genesis or Charger and limit speeds to 60 mph for the foreseeable future, even on infrastructure that supports higher speeds.

If Amtrak is hurting for reliable power on long-distance trains, sure, investigate some of those 5th-generation AC4400CW and SD70MAC diesels sitting in dead lines across the country (though it would be smarter to lease new 6th- and 7th-generation power) and use their own Geneses as HEP sleds. That would be a wise choice for the Auto Train which is limited to (I believe, don’t quote me) 70 mph. However, Amtrak rightly chose a passenger-specific locomotive in the AMD-103 and is choosing another with the ALC-42, with the expectation that it will build out its 80+ mph network and will need cars and locomotives to suit.

[mtuandrew]

Moderator Note: Trimmed this off into its own topic.

[David Benton]

Gotta factor in a 20-30 year life span. Hopefully Amtrak trains won't be doing 60 -70 mph in 30 years time. Mind you, I'd hope they are all electric/ hybrid by then.
To me it would make way more sense to have similar parts to the Electrics if you want economy of scale Pretty much everything but the prime mover vs the transformer could be based on the same parts. look at the offerings of Hitachi etc , electric /diesel/ battery , hybrids of the 3 to different degrees , all in the same shell. I would think they have the same traction motors etc.
Note : Kiwirail uses freight locomotives with Hep in the baggage car. But we are talking 5 trains .

[Tadman]

Gotta factor in a 20-30 year life span. Hopefully Amtrak trains won't be doing 60 -70 mph in 30 years time. Mind you, I'd hope they are all electric/ hybrid by then.

Since 1920 there's been one change of power type, steam to diesel, and constant 70-ish mph top speeds. Given the last 100 years historical data I do not anticipate any changes away from diesel or 79. It's mostly private and busy right of way, which is a big hurdle to electrification.

[Tadman]

You still haven’t demonstrated the need for freight locomotives + HEP sleds, Tad. Sounds like a way to burn twice as much fuel as the equivalent Genesis or Charger and limit speeds to 60 mph for the foreseeable future, even on infrastructure that supports higher speeds.

If Amtrak is hurting for reliable power on long-distance trains, sure, investigate some of those 5th-generation AC4400CW and SD70MAC diesels sitting in dead lines across the country (though it would be smarter to lease new 6th- and 7th-generation power) and use their own Geneses as HEP sleds. That would be a wise choice for the Auto Train which is limited to (I believe, don’t quote me) 70 mph. However, Amtrak rightly chose a passenger-specific locomotive in the AMD-103 and is choosing another with the ALC-42, with the expectation that it will build out its 80+ mph network and will need cars and locomotives to suit.

I mean, what else do we need? The Genesis is 20-30 years old. The bodies, which are the structure, are rotting. The PM's catch fire. The HEP fails. BN requires triple redundancy up north on a train that could probably use one. Most of the time, it's either HEP or PM that fails, not both. It's a totally broken system that was invented by Amtrak and the rest of the world has moved on to varying degrees. Via has pony motors, Argentina has HEP vans, China has HEP vans, Talgo HEP vans, Ireland has HEP vans. Most diesel-oriented rail passenger is no longer (maybe never) used shaft-driven HEP.

Last week we saw a 17 hour delay as a result. The cost, both in terms of direct dollar outlay and bad PR, is just nuts.

[Tadman]

The weight matters where it is located. With baggage cars at the rear this creates an issue in a collision or derailment with that weight pushing the train. You want it towards the front. Weight like this towards the rear makes for horrible train handling as well. I know what it feels like to have heavier cars on the hind end of a train vs the front, its like a boat anchor. Also you cannot do your cake adn eat it too idea of hep on during engine changes because splitting a train in any way would require the HEP turned off so that people can work between the train. I dont see where you think a motor can be swapped in 20 mins with some jiber jaber crane or forklift. Ive been in the shop when they swapped motors out on GP40PH-2s and GP38-H3s and it takes A LOT MORE than 20 minutes to swap an HEP plant out. Try more like, 4-8 hours. The real answer here is run two locomotives if you are worried about HEP. If one looses HEP, you run off the other. And on these modern inverter drive AC units this is never an issue unless you loose main engine which you wont be going anywhere, anyhow. If you loose the HEP inverter you steal a traction motor to run HEP. And on the ACS-64 and SC44 its got a dual redundant system so if one inverter fails it has a backup so you dont steal any traction motors.

Also keep in mind having HEP in a baggage car gives the engineer zero control to shutting the HEP down during 3 step protection if the crew needs to go under or between the train for any reason. It gives them zero control of the HEP in a forward collision, or any other circumstances where the HEP must be shut down to prevent any kind of issues. Smoke is another one, if there is a fire along the tracks or heavy smoke killing the HEP from the lead end shuts off all HVAC and fresh air intakes so that cars wont fill up with smoke. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to keep HEP in the locomotive itself and give engineer full control and none of this baggage car waste of space dragging dead weight nonsense.

This whole answer can be summed up as "we did it this way in 1971 and we're not going to change" which is why Amtrak is the laughing stock of passenger trains. I don't buy any of it.

First, regarding weight and placement of the HEP van. If weight and placement were really a problem, run it up front. But it's not. The trailing NPCU can and sometimes does have an HEP generator at the other end. If it doesn't, it has a huge cement block. Talgo trains also have a HEP generator that trails half the time. Diesel passenger trains in China, Argentina, and Ireland have a trailing HEP van frequently. The reason it's not a big deal is that the generator weighs about five tons, maybe a bit less. That's negligible. How nelgligible? A Horizon car has a ten ton weight difference compared to a Superliner. Somehow nobody complains about the increased weight of running a Superliner on the back of a train. Or an NPCU. The British diesel HST 43-class runs with locomotives bracketing the train all day every day, hundreds of trains, 50 years. Nobody complains about that weight of a prime mover-equipped locomotive trailing.

The concept of running an HEP van at any point in the train is completely proven.

Second, the use of "jibber jabber crane" implies less than expertise on cranes. I'll fill in here, as I'm in the crane business. If the HEP pony motor were mounted in a van with side doors, it could be removed in less than half hour from time of chocking it inside the shop. You have three quick disconnect cables (one for each phase) just like between cars. You have a cock and drain on the fuel line. You have a roof port. You have the whole thing on a skid. Unbolt the skid, unplug the three cables, disconnect the fuel line. Lift three inches off the mounts with a jib crane, which accesses through the roof port. Travel out the side door. Lower (6 feet?) to the ground.

A crane with 5 short ton capacity can lift/lower at 26fpm. Amtrak's standard right now is 15fpm because the cranes are rated at 55 short tons, and that's for new shops like Seattle. At Beech, some cranes are original Alton Box cranes from 1912 and some are Whiting from 1985-ish. The originals likely lift/lower slower than molasses, maybe 6-8fpm. Same for the Shaw cranes that are in Delaware. And don't forget our super special Genesis that requires lifting everything out the top, so the lift cycle is 10' up and 16' down rather than 3" up and 6' down. The lifting cycle time of a 5 short ton crane over 6' is far shorter than a 55 short ton antique over 16'.

TLDR the current and apparent future design of super special engines coupled with current shop protocol means there will be little flexibility in favor of a glamorous speedster that is never used within it's potential.

Adopting HEP vans would greatly increase flexibility and allow for change-out outside shops in case of emergency. It would also allow for freight power substitution or even whole-scale adoption of the SD70 platform.

[eolesen]

You shouldn’t need a separate power car with the SD70’s and the factory delivered inverter HEP

ARR seems to make their trains work with SD70’s. Metra will eventually be doing the same. Why it wouldn’t work for Amtrak is beyond me.

[WhartonAndNorthern]

You shouldn’t need a separate power car with the SD70’s and the factory delivered inverter HEP

ARR seems to make their trains work with SD70’s. Metra will eventually be doing the same. Why it wouldn’t work for Amtrak is beyond me.

ARR runs inverter HEP by stealing one of the traction inverters. That loco runs with one truck (3 motors) cut out.

[east point]

Seems like all the new locos and motors are all providing HEP from inverters. That may not be true for the DC traction motored locos some agencies ordered in the near past. 2 locos on every train except the Builder in winter provides enough redundancy . That is enough IMHO. Now for short trains maybe use a retired loco sans prime mover with a standby HEP generator. Put that as the lead unit and when the next TT decides to play chicken the most you loose is another retired unit to the scrapper. That makes for several items.
1. Fuel consumption is maintained in the following loco.
2. If following loco 's HEP failed start up the standby HEP I n the lead loco.
3. You get a operational 4 or 6 axels for the axel count runs.
4. The unit will be required to pass a 125 MPH certification ?
5. Diesel fuel tank already certified.
6. Saves at most wrecks with TTs any damage to an operative loco which is important in the long run. Too many times a loco involved with a vehicle is tied up under various litigations.
7. Might give this unit a weight loss treatment if it does not cause ride problems ?
8. May become a cabbage for bags and some freight ?
9. If prime mover in second unit has to be reduced then standby HRP can take over some load ?