The case for freight locomotives as passenger power

[bdawe]

Illinois is obviously a clown-show, but it's not like it's cancelled. When the PTC kinks are worked out there will be 110 mph running again, no?

[mtuandrew]

Illinois is obviously a clown-show, but it's not like it's cancelled. When the PTC kinks are worked out there will be 110 mph running again, no?

When the PTC kinks are worked out, and when there’s the political willpower to force UP into compliance with their UP-SP merger agreement allowing higher-speed rail on the former Alton Road. As Mr. Norman says, the Union Pacific got a shiny new railroad at taxpayer expense, saving them a ton of capital expenditure money over having to upgrade the C&EI or C&NW STL-CHI routes to handle the equivalent amount of tonnage.

By canceling the ALD-42 order (or shifting them to Regional service) and ordering six-axle freight units as a wholesale replacement for the national system P42s, Amtrak would be in effect saying, “the Federal government will not ever push the Class I railroad industry to provide better utility to the American people. Our long-distance service will never improve beyond today’s level. In fact, we aren’t even sure there will be a National system rather than a Balkanized state-run set of trains, so we want engines that we can sell to freight railroads. Also, we would rather burn more fuel.” The obstacles to higher-speed rail on a national level are political and economic, not technological, and the solution for new Amtrak motive power is a political and economic one rather than switching to a different technology.

(However, Auto Train would be a good use of leased freight power.)

[Gilbert B Norman]

(However, Auto Train would be a good use of leased freight power.)

Mr. Stephens, lest we forget:

https://images.app.goo.gl/tNAZDcaGErD4Av677

[Tadman]

By canceling the ALD-42 order (or shifting them to Regional service) and ordering six-axle freight units as a wholesale replacement for the national system P42s, Amtrak would be in effect saying, “the Federal government will not ever push the Class I railroad industry to provide better utility to the American people. Our long-distance service will never improve beyond today’s level. In fact, we aren’t even sure there will be a National system rather than a Balkanized state-run set of trains,

The historical data shows that you are 100% correct. No president has had much regard to Amtrak. Either party. Let's just call a spade a spade.

The legal record shows that the Class I are under no obligation to provide any utility and the trend is away from that obligation, not toward it. The historic data also shows that the long distance service is statistically insignificant.

so we want engines that we can sell to freight railroads. Also, we would rather burn more fuel.” The obstacles to higher-speed rail on a national level are political and economic, not technological, and the solution for new Amtrak motive power is a political and economic one rather than switching to a different technology.

The primary obstacle is legal, then economic. It's a taking, and that's a constitutionally protected issue. That means the economics are astronomical.

Also, the freight railroads don't want Amtrak's broken rusty stuff. They have 5,000 road switchers in storage.

[ThirdRail7]

I'm not known for my mechanical leanings, but I will say that I'm on Tadman's side in terms of HEP. This shouldn't surprise anyone who remembered when I joined the board since this is one of the first threads I started:

On-Board Generators for Passenger Cars?

I give you the Cliff Note's so you don't have to read the entire thread.

My premise was simple:

As new passenger cars are ordered, should some (if not all) of them be equipped with on board generators for emergencies?

Yesterday wasn't a great day for the NEC in my opinion. There were quite a few disabled trains and a large number of them were without HEP. Even today, a train was wrapped in the wire. Amfleets are very unforgiving in extreme weather, so imagine sitting for 3 hours in hot or cold weather while waiting to be rescued. I'd venture to say the rest of the equipment isn't much better.

I'm sure this is a pipe dream, particularly this would be extremely expensive and would cost an arm and a leg in maintenance. However, things happen. Trains break down. HEP converters fail.

Generators were used years ago. I think it is time for them (or something similar) to make a comeback. It would be nice if the passengers didn't freeze or swelter as they await a rescue.

A few days later, I was at it again:

How about this:

Is it possible to install a back-up generator on the engine or ONE car and back feed the entire system? The generator could be used for the HVAC and battery charging. The lights would remain on the battery.

The reason I'm hell bent is 97 was out there for 3 hours with a dead HHP-8. 2257 was out there until 2259 pulled alongside of it for a transfer. Fortunately, the weather wasn't extreme. However, this could have been a mess, and I've seen this show before. If you could keep some of the amenities for the passengers as they are stranded, the cost would pay for itself in customer service.

I remember when we had strategically placed diesels for such emergencies. We could hop on a train and rescue ourselves. Now, you attempt to scramble an engine and hope for the best as passengers sit in a silver shell.

Something has to be done.

Tadman immediately caught on

I think we're confusing two things here.

1. Normal operations HEP
2. Backup emergency power

I don't think anybody with a decent grasp of history and operations would advocate going back to non-locomotive-supplied HEP for Amtrak revenue equipment. It's costly from many perspectives, including acquisition, installation, and maintenance. You'd also have to fuel all 9 cars of each train, not just the power. Imagine what that would do to train schedules.

That said, some sort of backup power might be smart for when the motive power dies. If it takes three hours to rescue a stranded corridor train, should there be a power alternative? Not enough to run the full heat/lights/outlets, but enough to power every third light and run the blower fans in order to keep trains safe? This is the critical issue in this thread. Would you advocate installing a small genset on each lounge or diner that could supply emergency limited power to 4-5 cars? When the food service car is restocked at the end of each run, it's also fueled, rather than having a generator on each car that must be fueled and maintained.

I'm not necessarily in support of such, but it's important to straighten out what we're arguing here. There's no reason to reinvent the HEP wheel, but there might be reason to add a limited backup.

At this point, a game plan and a pitch developed. Tadman went for the Cafe placement, I went for the new viewliner fleet (which STILL hasn't fully arrived so we might as well have done it) while Approach Medium and DutchRailnut endorsed adding them to engines.

The problem was adding additional generators to the engines added 15 feet to them which wouldn't allow for usage on the NEC.

That is the reason I can't say there is a case for freight engine because we DO use diesels through NYP, BAL, PHL and other catenary challenged locations.

That being said, I am in total agreement that something needs to be done to ensure HEP capability during prime mover failure. I find it hard to believe that Siemen's (as an example) can't come up with a unit that can fit the criteria for length, height, power, and reserve.

[ApproachMedium]

Electronics get smaller, and engines can make more power with less but unfortunatly, emissions controls add the weight you lost sometimes. And the case of an electric loco with a backup generator, well it could make the case for limp home features like the euros are doing, but you wouldnt be able to fit something in an electric loco, plus fuel, plus emissions, that would stay in the 4 axle weight requirement. I probably brought that up in the old thread too.

[Greg Moore]

If you're looking at the Viewliner II fleet, order more baggage cars (I think it's an area Amtrak still underserves) and block off off a corner and put a generator in it.

[ApproachMedium]

If you're looking at the Viewliner II fleet, order more baggage cars (I think it's an area Amtrak still underserves) and block off off a corner and put a generator in it.

Corner? Youd need to put it in the middle of the vehicle to balance the load. Putting it on the ends of the car will cause uneven loading. This will also make it difficult to put pallet loads and bikes in. I still think this is a dumb idea and solves nothing of the original "problem". Nobody has still yet answered putting a genset in the baggage car and the noise problen either. Sending a conductor in there if they have to pass thru the generator part to access baggage at every stop will require hearing protection beyond regular ear plugs as these motors are very loud inside. it would never fly with safety, the unions. etc.

[bdawe]

I don't know how relevant it is, but 'HEP in the baggage' is the practice of the Rocky Mountaineer

[ApproachMedium]

I don't know how relevant it is, but 'HEP in the baggage' is the practice of the Rocky Mountaineer

The Rocky Mountaineer is a luxury tour train that cant be compared to daily intercity amtrak service. That HEP In a baggage car is the entire car, it provides no baggage service. Its a generator car.

[eolesen]

I'm skeptical about a skid mount approach without a dedicated car designed for HEP.

Every generator I've been around required a lot of space for cooling and dedicated intakes for air. I'm not sure that would work too well in an enclosed space like a baggage car. Neither does having fuel tanks inside.

If you've ever seen the generator cars that the UP runs, they have massive intake vents on the sides and exhaust on the roof, and fuel tanks underneath. They also have six axle trucks.

I'm all for freight models using the inverter cutout. As I said, it's in use today at ARR. Nothing new to invent or to be bleeding edge about. Price point should be lower too.

[RRspatch]

I seem to remember Amtrak having a lot of problems with generator cars back in the 70's. During my tower operator days on the NEC I remember several times seeing a GG1 pulling a dead generator car past the tower with dark Amfleet cars in tow. That problem went away with the E60's and AEM7's.

As someone else has mentioned Amtrak already has shops to maintain their locomotives. Those same shops can also maintain the HEP generators in those same locomotives. Adding a car around a generator that should be in a locomotive is just adding another piece of equipment to maintain.

[ThirdRail7]

I'm hopeful the next round of power has a redundant HEP system. Even the current Acela set is useless if both power cars fail. That being said, some railroads probably still charge by the axle. A six-axle power unit that is heavy enough with all the Tier 4 stuff may be an issue, particularly with weight.

[mtuandrew]

Moderator Note: renamed for a little more clarification. Carry on.

[Tadman]

I'm hopeful the next round of power has a redundant HEP system. Even the current Acela set is useless if both power cars fail. That being said, some railroads probably still charge by the axle. A six-axle power unit that is heavy enough with all the Tier 4 stuff may be an issue, particularly with weight.

That might be a plus on CN territory. A six-axle baggage with HEP up front and bike racks in back makes a lot of sense. You can charge $10/ea for bike spots.