TheOneKEA wrote:There is also the fact that a push-pull configuration is always going to beat up a locomotive faster than if the locomotive had to run around the consist after arrival.Why would this be the case?
Railroad Forums
Does MARC have a power problem brewing on the Penn Line?
- Discussion related to DC area passenger rail services from Northern Virginia to Baltimore, MD. Includes Light Rail and Baltimore Subway.
Moderators: mtuandrew, therock, Robert Paniagua
Has Siemens even tried to market a "commuter version" of the ACS-64 to SEPTA,or MARC?
Or did Siemens price itself out of the market??
Or did Siemens price itself out of the market??
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!
SEPTA is at least thinking about a software-downrated Sprinter.
Don't forget, the Sprinter wasn't a one-off effort. The Charger diesel loco is Siemens Mobility's attempt at using the Sprinter template to create a common family platform of North American passenger power. Those things on-order for Amtrak and All-Aboard Florida are intended to be a first-generation "Sprinter with an internal combustion engine" and replicate the Vectron series of Euro locomotives. Vectrons come in diesel, AC electric, DC electric, and multi-system electric versions with different power ratings and modular internal compartments and mounting brackets that can swap out to different power ratings, voltage inputs, work configurations (single-end or double-end cabs, etc.), additional components required for certification to run across certain national borders, and so on. While the extra FRA cruft the Sprinter/Charger have to carry makes that fine-tuned level of configurability impossible here, they are looking at the long view with these two makes having mutually-supporting economy-of-scale. Probably with second generations a lot more Vectron-like at having real swappable modularity. As is both Sprinter and Charger will use same traction motors, same trucks, same software, and some modest degree of configurability and downrating/uprating customization of the power output. You figure the TOTAL market beyond Amtrak for the Sprinter alone isn't much more than ~35 units with SEPTA, MARC, and the MBTA being the only 3 potential electric customers with any discernible need for things (and the latter two very unlikely to have any interest). But the Charger? Amtrak already has +75 and +150 escalator options on its base order of 32 to bring its total number of units to 257 if all options are exercised...enough to replace every P40, P42, and F59 on the nationwide roster. And All-Aboard Florida is starting with 10 units and a +10 option. There could be 277 Chargers in active service or testing 5 years from today. By comparison 12 years of production the entire MPI MPXpress lineup (a successful make by any measure) have only come out to 220 total units...including MARC's pending one.
That's where Siemens wants to stake out its dominance. The Charger is most definitely going to get high commuter rail interest because of the sheer footprint of that fully optioned-out Amtrak order, and for every additional Charger that's ordered it's going to improve the Sprinter's economy-of-scale, parts supply, and bring the future unit prices on the whole Siemens family way down. Then consider that they are almost certainly going to be offering dual-mode versions (overhead or third rail configurations) of the Sprinter/Charger with the Amtrak P32's, Metro North P32's, and LIRR DM30's all up for replacement between 2020-2025. And GO Transit pursuing its system electrification, and California having a couple of partial--but incomplete--electrification going online on Caltrain and the San Joaquin.
If they execute on this 'family' strategy like they hope they would they're better-positioned than anyone to rapidly take over market leadership. MPI may simply be too small to innovate that fast and compete at that scale, and EMD has had to bet the farm on the F125 to get itself back into the passenger game or else they may simply have to decide to exit the market and retrench to freight. GE's got the component dominance to either reload for its own competing 'family' offering on the passenger side or just supply the guts for every small locomotive works' products under-the-hood and make a mint on selling Tier IV upgrade kits for every displaced Genesis, F59PH/PHI, etc. that hits the aftermarket for rebuilds. The buying options are going to be really, really good for commuter rail in another 5 years. Enough that MARC playing it coy right now might not be the worst thing in the world when price points in 2020 vs. price points in 2015 factor in.
Of course, what they should be doing is trying to use this dieselization threat to ransom some AEM-7AC remans--which are plenty fresh for another 10 years of light-duty commuter rail service--out of Amtrak with service-and-support package as a peace offering for ending the threat. Then shift the MP36 option order to displacing the GP39's instead. MARC management would lay legitimate claim to "You magnificent bastards!" if they could pull that off. Alas...not sure it's a wise bet to take the over on those odds.
Don't forget, the Sprinter wasn't a one-off effort. The Charger diesel loco is Siemens Mobility's attempt at using the Sprinter template to create a common family platform of North American passenger power. Those things on-order for Amtrak and All-Aboard Florida are intended to be a first-generation "Sprinter with an internal combustion engine" and replicate the Vectron series of Euro locomotives. Vectrons come in diesel, AC electric, DC electric, and multi-system electric versions with different power ratings and modular internal compartments and mounting brackets that can swap out to different power ratings, voltage inputs, work configurations (single-end or double-end cabs, etc.), additional components required for certification to run across certain national borders, and so on. While the extra FRA cruft the Sprinter/Charger have to carry makes that fine-tuned level of configurability impossible here, they are looking at the long view with these two makes having mutually-supporting economy-of-scale. Probably with second generations a lot more Vectron-like at having real swappable modularity. As is both Sprinter and Charger will use same traction motors, same trucks, same software, and some modest degree of configurability and downrating/uprating customization of the power output. You figure the TOTAL market beyond Amtrak for the Sprinter alone isn't much more than ~35 units with SEPTA, MARC, and the MBTA being the only 3 potential electric customers with any discernible need for things (and the latter two very unlikely to have any interest). But the Charger? Amtrak already has +75 and +150 escalator options on its base order of 32 to bring its total number of units to 257 if all options are exercised...enough to replace every P40, P42, and F59 on the nationwide roster. And All-Aboard Florida is starting with 10 units and a +10 option. There could be 277 Chargers in active service or testing 5 years from today. By comparison 12 years of production the entire MPI MPXpress lineup (a successful make by any measure) have only come out to 220 total units...including MARC's pending one.
That's where Siemens wants to stake out its dominance. The Charger is most definitely going to get high commuter rail interest because of the sheer footprint of that fully optioned-out Amtrak order, and for every additional Charger that's ordered it's going to improve the Sprinter's economy-of-scale, parts supply, and bring the future unit prices on the whole Siemens family way down. Then consider that they are almost certainly going to be offering dual-mode versions (overhead or third rail configurations) of the Sprinter/Charger with the Amtrak P32's, Metro North P32's, and LIRR DM30's all up for replacement between 2020-2025. And GO Transit pursuing its system electrification, and California having a couple of partial--but incomplete--electrification going online on Caltrain and the San Joaquin.
If they execute on this 'family' strategy like they hope they would they're better-positioned than anyone to rapidly take over market leadership. MPI may simply be too small to innovate that fast and compete at that scale, and EMD has had to bet the farm on the F125 to get itself back into the passenger game or else they may simply have to decide to exit the market and retrench to freight. GE's got the component dominance to either reload for its own competing 'family' offering on the passenger side or just supply the guts for every small locomotive works' products under-the-hood and make a mint on selling Tier IV upgrade kits for every displaced Genesis, F59PH/PHI, etc. that hits the aftermarket for rebuilds. The buying options are going to be really, really good for commuter rail in another 5 years. Enough that MARC playing it coy right now might not be the worst thing in the world when price points in 2020 vs. price points in 2015 factor in.
Of course, what they should be doing is trying to use this dieselization threat to ransom some AEM-7AC remans--which are plenty fresh for another 10 years of light-duty commuter rail service--out of Amtrak with service-and-support package as a peace offering for ending the threat. Then shift the MP36 option order to displacing the GP39's instead. MARC management would lay legitimate claim to "You magnificent bastards!" if they could pull that off. Alas...not sure it's a wise bet to take the over on those odds.
dt_rt40 wrote:As it was even the morning regional that typically carries MARC passengers had to use a low platform because the high ones were all tied up in the morning..... in a first world country when they electrified the other lines they'd put in level boarding...
With Cat/EMD out of the running for this year (at least),GE EVO series and the MTU prime movers already tier IV
compliant,Cummins has a very long and steep row to hoe before it can be considered a reliable prime mover for RR service.
Siemens is betting the "farm" with Cummins for now.
Cummins has had minor sucess as a "gen-set" supplier,lets see if that prototype test unit runs or becomes a "shop queen".
It's a matter of time before Amtrak's HHP-8's are sent back to BBD for salvage/scrapping.
BBD should try to repair some of the "retired" Hippos and sell'em cheap to make MARC happy
Wonder if MARC is waiting for NJT to finally order the next gen of Arrow MU's?
compliant,Cummins has a very long and steep row to hoe before it can be considered a reliable prime mover for RR service.
Siemens is betting the "farm" with Cummins for now.
Cummins has had minor sucess as a "gen-set" supplier,lets see if that prototype test unit runs or becomes a "shop queen".
It's a matter of time before Amtrak's HHP-8's are sent back to BBD for salvage/scrapping.
BBD should try to repair some of the "retired" Hippos and sell'em cheap to make MARC happy
Wonder if MARC is waiting for NJT to finally order the next gen of Arrow MU's?
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!
If Sprinter is Buy America compliant and meets SEPTA RFP, is there another option for SEPTA/MARC? BBD is in all sorts of financial problems and organisational upheaval (just brought in a new CEO from outside the family/company) so I doubt they will relish the cost of bringing a locomotive assembly line to North America.
Adirondacker wrote:.... in a first world country when they electrified the other lines they'd put in level boarding...Not really true. Of the various countries with "real" rail system, IIRC only the UK and Japan have predominently level boarding. But of course with the European trains, it's usually less of a step-up than with Amtrak trains outside the NEC. Seemed on the TGV, for example, that it was about 1/2 as many steps as getting on an Amfleet at Aberdeen.
.... don't forget, the Sprinter wasn't a one-off effort.You seem to know a lot about this...do you work for Siemens? (JK) In any case, if we have to have diesels for some reason, yes, I'd rather they be state of the art ones instead of whatever they have recently purchased. As F-line's article suggests, we are getting to the point, technologically, where there really *shouldn't* be that much of a difference between a diesel and an electric locomotive. If no US or Canadien(ahem) manufacturer can create a top of the line one anymore, why mess around with one that isn't? Believe me we export plenty of wheat, coal, and natural gas to make up for buying a few locomotives overseas.
chrisf wrote:A locomotive used in a push-pull consist will often stay with that particular consist during the entire period in which that consist is in passenger service, thus ensuring that it spends most of its time out in service. A locomotive that is instead timetabled to run around its consist will sometimes cut off and be replaced with another locomotive, allowing the first locomotive to go into the yard or to wait in the passenger terminal to serve as a replacement. This means that the locomotive won't be as heavily utilized and will spend part of its time sitting without turning a wheel, and this reduces wear and tear on the prime mover and running gear.TheOneKEA wrote:There is also the fact that a push-pull configuration is always going to beat up a locomotive faster than if the locomotive had to run around the consist after arrival.Why would this be the case?
Over on the Amtrak forum there is/was a lot of discussion about how the use of push-pull on the Keystone services accelerated the wear and tear on the AEM-7s.
TheOneKEA wrote:This means that the locomotive won't be as heavily utilized and will spend part of its time sitting without turning a wheel, and this reduces wear and tear on the prime mover and running gear.It's just awful the way Amtrak used them in revenue service hauling passengers instead of having them sit in the yard.
Over on the Amtrak forum there is/was a lot of discussion about how the use of push-pull on the Keystone services accelerated the wear and tear on the AEM-7s.
TheOneKEA wrote:Locomotives don't earn their keep by sitting still. Trains don't earn their keep without locomotives to move them. The standard for the industry is to run the locomotives the allowed 92 days between mandated inspections with only routine servicing being done (fuel, sand, toilet, brake shoes). If power utilization decisions are made, it doesn't matter if a individual locomotive is being used in push-pull service, it will get replaced with another locomotive to be used in push-pull service.chrisf wrote:A locomotive used in a push-pull consist will often stay with that particular consist during the entire period in which that consist is in passenger service, thus ensuring that it spends most of its time out in service. A locomotive that is instead timetabled to run around its consist will sometimes cut off and be replaced with another locomotive, allowing the first locomotive to go into the yard or to wait in the passenger terminal to serve as a replacement. This means that the locomotive won't be as heavily utilized and will spend part of its time sitting without turning a wheel, and this reduces wear and tear on the prime mover and running gear.TheOneKEA wrote:There is also the fact that a push-pull configuration is always going to beat up a locomotive faster than if the locomotive had to run around the consist after arrival.Why would this be the case?
Over on the Amtrak forum there is/was a lot of discussion about how the use of push-pull on the Keystone services accelerated the wear and tear on the AEM-7s.
In most cases, at the major destination terminal, the locomotive is on the 'outbound' end of the train and is easily replaced. In as much as there is no overnight commuter services, and commuter agencies do not haul freight overnight, there is no utilization advantage to have commuter trains hauled by a locomotive on the leading end and then running around the train for it's next trip as additional tracks and switches are required to pull that off.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
100% agree. Modern locomotives, either freight or passenger, need to be designed to handle constant use so it's perfectly reasonable that they should be used in this manner. My belief though is that the MP36s that MARC uses for their services are at risk of increased wear and tear, not from push-pull in general, but from the push-pull service pattern in use on the Penn Line. I have a feeling that the MTA may end up spending more resources than they may have expected to keep them working well.
Adirondacker wrote: It's just awful the way Amtrak used them in revenue service hauling passengers instead of having them sit in the yard.Yes, quite awful. But it is an interesting thought exercise to consider how much less worn out they could be if they had only been used for head-end haulage instead of push-pull.
TheOneKEA wrote:And an interesting thought experiment that the locomotive's manufacturer, the accountants and operating personnel at Amtrak ( and other railroads ), people who collect paychecks for doing this, evaluated all the scenarios and decided that push-pull made the most sense.Adirondacker wrote: It's just awful the way Amtrak used them in revenue service hauling passengers instead of having them sit in the yard.Yes, quite awful. But it is an interesting thought exercise to consider how much less worn out they could be if they had only been used for head-end haulage instead of push-pull.
I think a sarcasm tag was missing from my posts...
For what it's worth, I agree with your position and everything you said about the economics of push-pull working versus head-end working and that it is a more efficient use of assets. I simply believe that the MTA used a different process to evaluate the suitability of this style of working than Amtrak did and that the former will spend more money on maintenance and have less on-time performance in comparison.
For what it's worth, I agree with your position and everything you said about the economics of push-pull working versus head-end working and that it is a more efficient use of assets. I simply believe that the MTA used a different process to evaluate the suitability of this style of working than Amtrak did and that the former will spend more money on maintenance and have less on-time performance in comparison.
With all of Amtrak's AEM-7ACs now retired, what is MARC using to pull the longer consists on the Penn Line?
A MARC spokesman told me that the commuter rail will be leasing two P42s from Amtrak and that the five of the six HHP8s and the MARC AEM-7s will be returned to service because it will be about two years until the new Chargers begin arriving.
What is the story on an HHP-8 that is stored unserviceable?
Andy
A MARC spokesman told me that the commuter rail will be leasing two P42s from Amtrak and that the five of the six HHP8s and the MARC AEM-7s will be returned to service because it will be about two years until the new Chargers begin arriving.
What is the story on an HHP-8 that is stored unserviceable?
Andy