GENERAL ELECTRIC PASSENGER DIESELS

[Jtgshu]

I've always thought a great way for EMD to make a passenger locomotive would be to offer the JT42 export locomotive to Amtrak in an A1A-A1A configuration. It has less weight and smaller height, meaning it might be optimal for passenger work even out east.

As for a commuter, I think an SD70 would fit the bill nicely, maybe even a 710-12-cylinder or A1A-A1A variant with an HEP pony motor.

An SD70 would fit nicely - but the 4300 HP or so of a V16 710 is pretty slippery with a 4 axle loco (the 6 axles are a problem, like dutch listed above)- trust me, I know......the PL42AC can be VERY slippery and actually slower than a DC GP40 once wheel slip starts.

I would think a PL42 DC might be a little firmer footed, wth the way the PL42AC gives power from its inverters, which can be very wierd (That might be an Alstom control system thing too, as the engine itself isn't producing the bursts of power like it puts out to the rails...). Also, in higher horsepower locos, the slower loading of a GE might be helpful for the increased power and less wheel slip, ESPECIALLY in bad rail conditions. Thats obvious with the say P40/P42 compared to the PL42ACs - which ive run both over the same routes with same train consists, the P40 was much more firm footed than the PL42, however, the PL42 is faster (when it has traction and good rail). An engineer who knows how to get the GE to respond and wake up can make it fast and close the gap, but ive never been able to make it go faster than the PL42s

The increased power of the loco over a 3000/3600 HP passenger loco/Geep varient is very nice, but it can come at a cost. More power isn't always better, especailly limited to 4 powered axles. However, I wonder if the C4 (whatever the offical title would be for them) truck that GE developed for the BNSF wouldn't find a place in a passenger loco, as it seems like the best of both worlds kinda, but i would think the added machinery of the truck would be a turn off to a passenger/commuter agency

[goodnightjohnwayne]

The number one concern for the EPA should be dealing with the effects of heat trapping gases. The Hippies in California may have been able to push through all sorts of crazy emissions controls, but they come at the expense of atmospheric aerosols that reflect sunlight and help mitigate the effects of CO2 build up.

I also think the EPA is beginning to suffer from scope creep. While off-road engines certainly are the largest source of certain types of pollution, the quantity of pollution is far less than it was back in the day. With the exception of rail yards that can concentrate diesel pollution within a small area (and can be handled as special cases), the main line locomotive fleet is not presenting a threat to anyone. I have more problems from poorly maintained dump trucks and stink-buggies than the occasional diesel locomotive that labours up the steep grade 1/2 a block from my apt. Perhaps they should declare victory on old school pollutants and get to work on something more important like leaks of Methane and other high impact heat trapping gases. Getting trucks and commuters off of the road with policies that support cost competitive diesel engine technology will save more lives than cutting the small amount of NOx they generate.

You're talking about an entire separate issue. If you're really concerned about methane, then you should focus on agricultural issues, since that's the primary source of emissions. When it comes to methane emissions, you're going up against "Got Milk?" Think livestock not diesels.

For the moment, the Global Warming....ummmm.....Climate Change......ummm.......Global Climate Disruption....issue isn't the focus of global attention. Actually, since CO2 is proportional to fuel consumption, the entire diesel industry has always been focused on reducing CO2. No railroad, trucking firm or shipping line wants to burn more fuel. Since less diesel equals less CO2, the issue is a moot point. Nobody builds a commercial diesel without trying to keep fuel consumption and CO2 as low as possible. I guess you could say that Rudolph Diesel was fighting Global Warming....ummmm.....Climate Change......ummm.......Global Climate Disruption from day one.

On the other hand, carcinogenic diesel particulate emission kill people. You're worried about the wrong things.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

I've always thought a great way for EMD to make a passenger locomotive would be to offer the JT42 export locomotive to Amtrak in an A1A-A1A configuration. It has less weight and smaller height, meaning it might be optimal for passenger work even out east.

As for a commuter, I think an SD70 would fit the bill nicely, maybe even a 710-12-cylinder or A1A-A1A variant with an HEP pony motor.

An SD70 would fit nicely - but the 4300 HP or so of a V16 710 is pretty slippery with a 4 axle loco (the 6 axles are a problem, like dutch listed above)- trust me, I know......the PL42AC can be VERY slippery and actually slower than a DC GP40 once wheel slip starts.

I would think a PL42 DC might be a little firmer footed, wth the way the PL42AC gives power from its inverters, which can be very wierd (That might be an Alstom control system thing too, as the engine itself isn't producing the bursts of power like it puts out to the rails...). Also, in higher horsepower locos, the slower loading of a GE might be helpful for the increased power and less wheel slip, ESPECIALLY in bad rail conditions. Thats obvious with the say P40/P42 compared to the PL42ACs - which ive run both over the same routes with same train consists, the P40 was much more firm footed than the PL42, however, the PL42 is faster (when it has traction and good rail). An engineer who knows how to get the GE to respond and wake up can make it fast and close the gap, but ive never been able to make it go faster than the PL42s

The increased power of the loco over a 3000/3600 HP passenger loco/Geep varient is very nice, but it can come at a cost. More power isn't always better, especailly limited to 4 powered axles. However, I wonder if the C4 (whatever the offical title would be for them) truck that GE developed for the BNSF wouldn't find a place in a passenger loco, as it seems like the best of both worlds kinda, but i would think the added machinery of the truck would be a turn off to a passenger/commuter agency

Agreed. There really isn't much of any point in producing ever more powerful passenger locomotives, and looking at future emissions regulations, it looks like genset locomotives are the future. Instead of a singe massive 4,500+ horsepower low rpm diesel, you might be looking at 4 or more medium rpm diesels hooked up in series. Most likely, future diesel locomotives will be using the same engines as Class 8 trucks, only in a genset arrangement. When you think about it, it makes sense because Class 8 truck diesels have huge volumes and will be the focus of engineering.

[Jtgshu]

Agreed. There really isn't much of any point in producing ever more powerful passenger locomotives, and looking at future emissions regulations, it looks like genset locomotives are the future. Instead of a singe massive 4,500+ horsepower low rpm diesel, you might be looking at 4 or more medium rpm diesels hooked up in series. Most likely, future diesel locomotives will be using the same engines as Class 8 trucks, only in a genset arrangement. When you think about it, it makes sense because Class 8 truck diesels have huge volumes and will be the focus of engineering.

Well, we will find out in a few years how true that theory holds up, with the delivery of NJTs and AMTs dual mode ALP45DP locomotives. Gensets have kinda proven themselves in yard/switching service (although not a runaway success and I wonder how many will be built once all the gov't incentives go away), but mainline service is a whole other animal.

The 2 medium speed CAT diesels that are going to be in the dual mode are going to be put to the test. Sure, its not gonna be like its lugging a heavy coal train up a 2 percent grade for 20 miles, but they are going to be constantly going from full throttle, to idle, full throttle to idle all day and providing HEP so they might not be going to idle, im not sure how that is going to work.

there seems to be two trains of thought (pun intended) - there hasn't been a dual prime mover mainline loco since the Es (as far as I can remember and tell). So either the Es were way AHEAD of their time, OR there was a reason why there hasn't been a dual engined loco SINCE then.....

PERSONALLY, i think they are going to work fine, but I think they are going to have their shortfalls. and the weakest link in them is going to be the prime movers. 2 engines means double the maintence. Loosing one for whatever reason, you loose teh whole loco (because the type of service NJT is going to run them in, the 2000 HP isn't going to be enough - mainly the tunnels into NY and the heavy Multilevel cars) Also, i think there is going to be complaints about the loudness of the locos and the 2 diesel engines. NJT has MP20 switchers with the CAT 3516 I bleieve they are, and they are REALLY loud when under heavy load. I mean they sound really cool, but they are REALLY loud. i can't imagine how it would sound with two of them running at full tilt (I think the ALP45DM are going to have 2 3512 diesels, but im not sure). Its going to be much louder (IMO) than an F40 "screamer"

The way the loco is set up, the electrical transformer and inverters, etc seem to be located inbewteen the two diesel engines in the middle of the loco. But NJT was forced to restrict themselves to a certain axle loading limit to these locos with the requiremnt of them being 4 axles.

I think a dual mode loco is a perfect candidate for a 6 axle loco, or better yet the C4 GE truck (what is the offical name of that?) and the END V8 710 that is going into the ECO rebuilds. If the loco must be configured in its current structure, with the electrical equipment in the middle of the two diesels, the 2000 HP V8s would be ideal. But if it could be reconfigured to a single engine, I think a standard V12 powerplant from whoever, GE or GM would be just fine.

NJT wants the loco to be as good as their diesels locomotives PL42s and up near the performance of their ALP44 locos. Its a tall order, but I think it can be done, but I think the loco could be much more successful if the constants that it had to be designed under.

Ive said it before as well on other threads, that if this loco, or at least concept, is successful it could really be a game changer for the industry and could bring a resurgence of interest in electriciation for the freight guys....the restrictions of electrication, namely having to wire every inch of railroad would no longer apply.....

But getting back on topic, if the 710 can be made compliant with future EPA regs without major changes, I think the railroads will be very receptive to that (something that might be a problem with GE - can the EVO do it or will there need to be another redesign?). The medium speed engines do have a place, but the experience and knowledge that the railroads (in both transportation and mechanical) have with known models and equipment, that is VERY important to them, as that saves them a LOT of money. And not having to retool and retrain their own employees is another bonus. Also, isn't there a lot of Cat service contracts that are sold? That could cause some issues with mechanical forces and union contracts with bigger railroads, something that might not be thought of by most folks, but it is a very real factor.

[GP40 6694]

I doubt those $10M monsters are going to be game changers. They are just weird, expensive locomotives. NJT is making a huge mistake by not just electrifying where they want to run electric service. And, they might be able to run with only one engine, since most of the fast running and all the tunnel running is done in electric mode.

Freight is never going to use dual-modes as they are too expensive, too heavy, and too complicated to be cost effective, unless it is for a very specific case like a New York freight rail tunnel or something. Freight electrification is going to come sooner or later, at least on the most used main lines and helper districts, since diesel fuel isn't getting any cheaper or more plentiful, but for runs that need to go out of electric territory, it is going to be diesels all the way, or an engine change at the border.

[D.Carleton]

Well, we will find out in a few years how true that theory holds up, with the delivery of NJTs and AMTs dual mode ALP45DP locomotives. Gensets have kinda proven themselves in yard/switching service (although not a runaway success and I wonder how many will be built once all the gov't incentives go away), but mainline service is a whole other animal.

The 2 medium speed CAT diesels that are going to be in the dual mode are going to be put to the test. Sure, its not gonna be like its lugging a heavy coal train up a 2 percent grade for 20 miles, but they are going to be constantly going from full throttle, to idle, full throttle to idle all day and providing HEP so they might not be going to idle, im not sure how that is going to work.

For the record the CAT 3512's are not medium speed, they hit max HP at 1800 rpm. The only reason they are in use is because the dry weight of the two is 18,340 lbs. lighter than a 7FDL16 and 14,840 lbs. lighter than a GEVO-12. To the best of my knowledge there are no CAT 3512's in regular passenger service anywhere, ergo, no vote of confidence. However, since this is supposed to be a GE topic there may be a GE answer. The Jenbacher derived P616 is a 1500 rpm primemover developing about 4k HP and its dry weight is almost 800 lbs. lighter than the two CATs. Its length is 27 inches longer than just one of the CATs. Now the likelyhood of GE granting Bombardier access to its engines is about the same of Amtrak reinstating the Sunset across the panhandle of Florida, but, who knows?

[goodnightjohnwayne]

[Also, isn't there a lot of Cat service contracts that are sold? That could cause some issues with mechanical forces and union contracts with bigger railroads, something that might not be thought of by most folks, but it is a very real factor.

Well, that would seem to make sense. Instead of maintain an oversized, high cost workforce for maintaining EMD/GE PMs, a commuter rail agency could simply have a service contract with Cat, which would save a fortune in benefits costs. Cat has a big fleet of trucks for servicing emergency generators and various off road applications. It could mean an end to old fashioned shops, where workforces are sized around peak periods of activity, but spend much of their time idle. You could even contract on an hourly basis.

[GWoodle]

[Also, isn't there a lot of Cat service contracts that are sold? That could cause some issues with mechanical forces and union contracts with bigger railroads, something that might not be thought of by most folks, but it is a very real factor.

Well, that would seem to make sense. Instead of maintain an oversized, high cost workforce for maintaining EMD/GE PMs, a commuter rail agency could simply have a service contract with Cat, which would save a fortune in benefits costs. Cat has a big fleet of trucks for servicing emergency generators and various off road applications. It could mean an end to old fashioned shops, where workforces are sized around peak periods of activity, but spend much of their time idle. You could even contract on an hourly basis.

Don't forget Cat also bought Progress Rail. They may have more than one location to service locos. The dealers will have a supply of parts if the don't already.

The January TRAINS talks about the purchase of EMD by Cat. Your guess is as good as any about what the new Muncie IN plant can produce. Give Cat/EMD some time to see what the combo can do. Watch EMD/Cat give GE a run for it's money.

[v8interceptor]

The TRAINS article specifically mentions that one of the reason's Pogress Rail is building the new plant is to compete for the upcoming AMTRAK diesel locomotive contract. They can't meet the "Built in America" clause if they assemble the units in Ontario.
I am curious as to whether the MPI/GE joint venture to build the MBTA locomotives means that GE is shelving its plans to offer it's own in-house built Gnesis replacement (the unit pictured on the Vegaras site)...

[goodnightjohnwayne]

The TRAINS article specifically mentions that one of the reason's Pogress Rail is building the new plant is to compete for the upcoming AMTRAK diesel locomotive contract. They can't meet the "Built in America" clause if they assemble the units in Ontario.
I am curious as to whether the MPI/GE joint venture to build the MBTA locomotives means that GE is shelving its plans to offer it's own in-house built Gnesis replacement (the unit pictured on the Vegaras site)...

It makes sense for GE to make money off PMs and leave the low-tech business of passenger locomotive building to MPI. In any case, the Genesis was a very expensive and specialized design, and as we all know, the market for passenger locomotives quickly dried up, and most likely will dry up again as part of the boom-and-bust replacement cycle. In hindsight, beyond the Metro-North dual-mode order, there never was going to be a commuter rail market for the Genesis, since it was an expensive, specialist design.

The MPI/GE partnership represents the best of both worlds. GE gets to bolster its core business, while participating in a one time opportunity, keeping a toehold in the market so that EMD/CAT doesn't gain a complete monopoly on passenger locomotive PMs. It's a win-win. I can't wait to GE powered locomotives running on recycled Blomberg trucks - although it's happened before....

[Allen Hazen]

Re: "I can't wait to GE powered locomotives running on recycled Blomberg trucks - although it's happened before...."

The Blombergish trucks MPI is using aren't recycled: they are a new (though obviously Blomberg-inspired) design, with a slightly longer wheelbase than an EMD Blomberg: designed specifically to allow MPI to use GE traction motors without truck modification.

(As for trucks, my dream is different. 4-axle passenger diesels are getting VERY heavy, and high axle loadings at high speed are not good for the track. So MY dream would be for someone to bring back the A1A truck. ... Imagine a stretched Genesis on trucks copied from an Alco PA! (Well, I did say "dream"!))

[mtuandrew]

(As for trucks, my dream is different. 4-axle passenger diesels are getting VERY heavy, and high axle loadings at high speed are not good for the track. So MY dream would be for someone to bring back the A1A truck. ... Imagine a stretched Genesis on trucks copied from an Alco PA! (Well, I did say "dream"!))

I'd rather that stretched Genesis rode on a radial axle version of the ES44C4's trucks.

[DutchRailnut]

you obviously never rode a 6 axle unit at over 70 mph or you would withdraw that statement real flippin fast.

[D.Carleton]

I can't wait to GE powered locomotives running on recycled Blomberg trucks...

Heretofore there have been two attempts to mate three-phase traction motors to Blomberg trucks: ABB’s rebuilding of Amtrak F40 202 and EMD’s F69AC. Neither were exactly rip-roaring successes. Besides, early concept drawings of the HSP-46 depict the use of fabricated trucks similar to those on the Genesis Series. The Blomberg era will draw to a close someday, but it’s been an incredible run.

[mtuandrew]

you obviously never rode a 6 axle unit at over 70 mph or you would withdraw that statement real flippin fast.

To me or to Mr. Hazen? You're right, I haven't, but I don't know why a 3-axle steerable truck with the proper spring pack wouldn't ride smoothly at speed. The old Alco truck, perhaps not so much.

Granted, Amtrak doesn't really need any power with six axles... I can't exactly see them ordering a GEVO-16 Genesis (though what a beast that would be - 6000 hp in a single passenger diesel!)