Why didnt Emd make units for Metra

[Nasadowsk]

<i>As to the EMD sale, i too think that the sooner the better.</i>

At least for GM. IMHO, the end result will be EMD leaving the new locomotive market. Right now, Phase II emissions can be more or less met by the 710. I doubt it'll survive the next wave. A new prime mover is a multi hundred million project, and it'll be 4 stroke (EMD's 2 stroke design is inherintly poor on HCs). I.e., it'll be more like the H engine and less like the typical EMD 2 strokes. Or, a ground up new design. Big bucks, and unproven territory.

Of course, selling 'renewal parts' and aftersales support could give a good steady stream of $$$ or a decade or two or three. Cheap and easy money. That's what investors like...

<i> It has not been a focus of GM at all, and the results speak for themselves.</i>

Why would it be? If anything, GM's focus these days is more finance than anything. EMD is, and probbably always was, a small part of the pie.

<i>We'll know in the next year or two whether EMD intends to be any kind of a player in the passenger market.</i>

They don't. Their last order was junk, they've not even bothered bidding on other more recent orders.

<i> I hope they are at least taking part in discussions with commuter agencies, as there are a couple of them that need to do some serious shopping coming up.</i>

Amtrak's got a good number of late model, stored P-40s. When they collapse, there will be another few dozen P-42s out there, all late model and serviceable. They'll go at fire sale prices - ideal for startups.

<i> The midwest high speed rail initiative for one is going to need a lot of equipment when that gets started,</i>

The MWRRI is a paper project now, and if it ever goes anywhere, will need equipment of a type that EMD not only doesn't make, but has no experience making.

<i> plus metra expansions and other projects around the country.</i>

Metra won't buy EMD. They didn't last time, the 610 can't be sold anymore in the US now. Other projects? They'll go for cheap used Amtrak power, or tag onto the PL-42 (though that will be hard - the PL-42 can't meet Phase II EPA), or MP orders (though the 610 can't meet EPA either).

<i> Sure would be nice to see some new EMD builders plates out there hauling fast passenger trains again.</i>

It's not going to happen. GM, nor whomever buys EMD, will want to make the few hundred million dollar investment to design a new passenger locomotive, and who's going to buy them anyway? GE has stated their new PAX offerings will only be sold with a minimum order of 15 or so units, which means for a startup operation they're unavailable, and right now, save for the MBTA, there's no big turnover in passenger diesel fleets on the horizon. The MBTA might be interesting to watch, but even then, EMD might not bother stepping up to the plate, especially if the MBTA wants AC units.

[MEC407]

<i> plus metra expansions and other projects around the country.</i>

Metra won't buy EMD. They didn't last time, the 610 can't be sold anymore in the US now. Other projects? They'll go for cheap used Amtrak power, or tag onto the PL-42 (though that will be hard - the PL-42 can't meet Phase II EPA), or MP orders (though the 610 can't meet EPA either).

I assume you meant "645" when you wrote 610.

Presumably, the new MP36s to be built for New Mexico this year will contain a 645. The 710 was made Tier 2-compatible, even when everybody said that it couldn't be done -- there ought to be a good chance that the 645 will be made Tier 2-compatible as well.

[Nasadowsk]

Ack, 645.

Can it be made EPA phase II? Maybe Why bother, it's a dinosaur.

The 710? I'm amazed GM didn't see the writting on the wall years ago. Or maybe they did, and that's why they're looking to dump EMD.

They'll need a new prime mover for phase III, and phase III will come soon, given that rail diesels are about as dirty as you can get and still be allowed to use it in the US (Phase II is a joke vs highway standards, to say nothing of gas car engines). The EPA's already talking about a new wave of heavy duty diesel regulations, and rail will no doubt be included in it. Cutting down to road diesel levels will require new designs from EMD (and likely GE), but would be worth it in the long term. It's also pretty easy to do - today's rail diesels don't have EGR, cataltysts, particle traps, or any of the other technologies that have been on bus and highway engines for years (decades) now.

[stentman]

forgive a naive question, but on the subject of the actual engines, I've always been under the impression that the 2 stroke EMD was better for commuter service than the 4 stroke GE. This is due to the quicker spin up time and acceleration of the EMD, which can save significant amounts of time on a multi-stop commuter run.

I remember Metra tested the genesis units, as well as some 6 axle freight units a while back on some simulated schedule runs and they were not impressed with either. That would help understand why they continue to use the 2 stroke 645, in addition to the ease of maintenance of carrying parts for only one engine. thoughts?

[mxdata]

The EMD turbocharged 2-stroke cycle engines are rather unusual in their ability to accept massive blocks of load very rapidly, which is one reason that they are used in many nuclear power plants for emergency diesels powering reactor fill pumps, and in USN nuclear aircraft carriers. However this rapid block-load pickup capability is really not that big a factor in railroad passenger locomotives, since you don't want a starting acceleration rate that endangers standing passengers.

Now that commuter rail stations are equipped for wheelchair access, a big variable in station stop time is whether you may need to position to accept a wheelchair customer. In that scenario, having a more powerful locomotive can help you recover the schedule if you are running late from an extended station stop, by improving the higher-end acceleration rate. But you still don't want to throw all the passengers off their feet with too high an acceleration rate, the lawsuits get too expensive.

[mp15ac]

Here is an interesting question/idea. Because of FRA rules regarding the crash resistance of passenger locomotives, neither GE or GM are producing any such units (P42DC/P32ACDM & F59PHI).

Meanwhile, Alaska RR purchased from EMD additional SD70MACs with head-end power generators factory installed for passenger service in 2004 (after the FRA rules changed).

Here's the question/idea: rather than order expensive custom-designed and built passenger locomotives for commuter, why not follow Alaska's example and order freight diesels with head-end power units factory installed. It's not like these engines need to be setup for high speed operation (like Amtrak). What they need is to be good at is acceleration.

Any comments?

Stuart

[mxdata]

Unfortunately a six axle 390,000 lb. freight locomotive could encounter a number of problems operating in commuter service where the shops and other facilities are designed around a four axle unit in the 260,000-280,000 lb. range. And trying to squeeze a HEP unit into the little space available in a current four axle freight unit is pretty tough, some of them hardly have enough room for an APU stay warm package.

A couple railroads overseas use a separate HEP car, usually with two engines diagonally opposite each other in the car, with a walk through passageway so the car could be put in the middle of a longer train if needed, and the load divided between the two engines. That lets you run any available locomotive on the train, but the disadvantage is that now you have added one more piece of equipment that has to be fueled and serviced at the end of each run, and switching a car out of the middle of a train to go to the locomotive facility for fuel is pretty time consuming.

[timz]

Somebody asked about GM vs GE acceleration. Far as I can see it's still true that a GE takes something like 10 seconds longer to cover the first mile than a GM with the same train-- but they're probably equal after that.

(Specifically, a MetroNorth P32 with 6 Comets will typically take 115 seconds, a NJTransit F40/GP40 will take 105.)

Mxdata seemed to suggest that GMs could do better if we didn't have to worry about knocking the passengers off their feet with the lightning acceleration. Surely that's never been a concern with any locomotive-hauled train?

(Somebody once said the ALP46 was deliberately limited to 0.5 meters/sec per second for that reason, but the ALP44 isn't, and the one time I rode a three-car train with an ALP44-- 60 mph in less than 40 seconds, and probably would have done the standing-start mile in 70-75 seconds-- I don't remember passenger stability being the least bit of a problem.)

[MEC407]

According to a friend of mine who runs locomotives on Amtrak, the EMDs are slightly faster off the block, but the GEs accelerate better than the EMDs once you get to about 40 MPH (i.e., a P40 can go from 40 to 79 faster than an F59 can).

[mxdata]

The acceleration rate a passenger locomotive can generate with a train from a stop is a function of several factors including (but not limited to) the locomotive weight and train weight, the rate at which the excitation control system allows power output to build up, and the efficiency of the wheelslip system which influences the maximum tractive effort you can generate with a particular weight on powered axles. Horsepower does not become the limiting factor, until you get up to a speed where the full available power can be applied without generating uncontrolled wheelslip, that speed varies with different types of locomotives.

I don't know the purpose of timz's "lightning acceleration" line, that is not any comment I made. Every passenger locomotive we put into service where I work has to pass an acceleration and braking test. If the locomotive control systems are contributing to high acceleration rates or lurching, they get immediate attention.

While there isn't much slack in a passenger train, what is there is of major concern, and if you were to ride an acceleration and braking test you would quickly see why.

Passenger trains have to be operated in a manner which assures the safety and comfort of ALL the passengers, particularly those who are least capable of walking and maintaining their balance. To do otherwise is inviting major problems.

[Nasadowsk]

The comfort/safety limit of acceleration is far far far above what any EMD or GE locomotive can achive, even pulling a short train. DMU and EMUs it becomes an issue, and LRT/subway it's generally the limiting factor if the equipment's light enough to begin with.

The other factor is controlling the onset of acceleration, which is easy via computer control.

I'd say the fastest mainline stuff would be a 3 car NJT Arrow train, followed by longer Arrows, Silverliners, and downard from there (though an ALP-46 pulling under 6 cars is punchy). Slowest would be MBTA, Metra, or Amtrak stuff, which in which the only way to make them accelerate fast is to drop them off a cliff.

Fastest accelerating subway I've ever been on would be the Market Frankford stuff, but even there, standees aren't that uncomfortable, and those things can ROCKET out of stations.

PCC cars are noteable for their starting ommph, but still ok for standing in. Supposedly, they did a lot of research on this when developing them.

Conventional US diesels pulling conventional cars? Jerking imposed by slippage is more of an issue, and that's entirely a function of the obnoxious weight of US passenger cars plus a lousy coupler design. Wheelslip can be best handled with AC traction technology, which has been around for so long now (two decades), it's insane GE or GM doesn't offer it standard (then again, their domestic customers aren't very bright...)

Acceleration on them is a joke, pure and simple. You're not going to fall down standing on one leg on a US diesel train. The weight moving around is way too high and the HP virtually nonexistant. You simply can't get the HP:weight ratio needed to be speed competitive with driving, letalone approach the limits of comfort WRT acceleration.

[mxdata]

Hopefully you are not going to fall down on a "US diesel train" because the locomotive is functioning properly, that is exactly why locomotives get tested.

With only 1750 horsepower to work with, an FL9 with a sticking load control pilot valve or sticking load regulator vane motor can easily generate a start that causes injuries. I once saw a foreman standing in the cab of an FL9 take a tumble when it made an unexpected maximum field start, and the unit was not generating anywhere near the rated HP when it did that.

The same is true with an F40PH that has a defective IDAC.

And over on the other side of the world, I once saw a GT26 with a loose field pole connector on the traction alternator unload and reload in throttle six almost instantly, throwing the manager of the railroad off his feet, and that was operating on a freight train at the time. By the way, that equipment had one of the coupler systems that you find so superior.

But believe whatever you want, it makes no difference to me. I spent some time working in both Europe and Asia, and I frankly prefer working with the customers in the US, regardless of your negative opinion of them.

[Jtgshu]

Ive never been on or worked a revenue passenger train, powered by a GP40 derivite (or F40) at NJT where acceloration was a concern of knocking people over. The 3000hp of the '40's doesn't seem to allow for a real jerky ride, and real rough and tumble accelorations (of course, all are subject to the mechanical health of the loco). There is a more a potential with '46's adn MU's and I have been on trains were I have been knocked off my feet either from a stop-start acceloration or from throttling out while at speed (more so in Arrow MU's than push pulls) but I have never experienced a 3 or 4 car push pull set powered by a '44 or '46 - that would be fun!

But a lot of that is the engineer's ability to control slack, and it is quite possible to knock people off their feet due to slack action, especially with a 46, but I have seen and expienced severe slack action on 3 car GP40 powered sets (that takes some skill on the engineer's part!)

Mx, working in commuter type passegner service on a daily basis, never have any of my trains been able to make up time because of higher acceloration later on. The key factor in making up time is acceloration out of the stations, because all the loco's are limited to the speed of the track, if they can even get up to the MAS - maximum allowed speed - of that stretch of railroad. In some parts of commuter service, that just doesn't happen.

But in a way, your right, I mean, the difference between throttling out after say going through a crossover at limited speed (45) in an 8 car push pull set powered by an ALP44 is significantly different than an 8 car MU set, and in those cases, the MU set might nearly be up to max speed - 90mph, while the '44 is just gettign up to 70. In that case, there is a positive difference. But IMO, most of the time is lost (and can be made up) between getting in and out of stations faster, rather than in "roll on" acceloration

Although, in one instance, I was riding the head end of a GP40FH (sorely in need of a rebuild or retirement) and it took from the Elizabeth (NJ) curves to Linden station to get from 55 to 95 I think was the max speed we got up too because the next signal knocked our cab signals us down for the divergment at Union to head down the Coast Line (2 miles away - thanks to Amtrak's two mile blocks!) In that case, a better functioning loco or a different model with higher end acceloration would have help us, but in the end, i think its the in and out of stations that's more important. That 10 sec example given above, over the course of 15 to 20 stops equals about 200 seconds. Over three minutes. Thats a LOT of time in commuter service to make up!!!

[mxdata]

I agree totally, you can't make up time when you are up to speed and running on the limit, you have to do it on the acceleration to MAS. A big factor in whether you can recover at all is how close together your station stops are.

By the way, what cab signal system are you running on NJT, is it the PHW nine aspect system?

[Jtgshu]

Im not sure what system you are referring to, but if its what Im thinking, yes, we did, but NJT has been phasing it out.

The system that was used had a seperate light for each cab aspect, I.E. the speedo in the center, either digital or analog, with lights on the outside - RES, 20, 30, 45, 60, some have 80, and MAS. (there might be another indication in there, im not positive off the top of my head)

The older ALP44's, Comet 3 cabs, and the diesels all still use this system. Im not positive what system is in teh Comet 1's.

However, the Comet 4 cabs, and all the MU's have been converted to the SES system, Speed Enforcement System. Supposedly the entire railroad (NJT rails) is to upgraded sometime in the future to ASES, Advanced Speed Enforcement System - the Pascack Valley Line already has it, and is the testing ground for it.

the SES is similar to the older cab signal system, but everythign is electronic, with one digital LCD screen, and instead of lights like 30 or 45 or whatever lighting up, a green bar lights up to show the allowed speed on the screen. According to many engineers, its a lot more sensitive and "touchy" than the older system, which allowed them to better "rush" signals......

Cab signals are still a bit of a haze to me, (im ONLY a Conductor - gotta cut me a break hahaha) but im understanding them better and better, but there isstill a LOT for me to learn with them!!!!!