Amtrak Empire, LIRR, MNRR/CTDOT Dual Mode Procurement - Charger Variants

Both Alstom and Siemens produce a number of trains for Europe and the UK that have a pantograph on one (or two) coach(es) and powered bogies distributed across multiple coaches. Seems to me that having one vehicle provide power to traction motors on another vehicle "is proven".

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 10:07 am No. Only Chargers. My point was that they should.

The only thing I would contend with the Airo sets is that it's harder to extend (more to connect) VS regular consists. Commuter rail needs more flexibility, especially if they get advance notice of school trips to NYC's museums. For that now, just hook another car, connect air, power, and communications.

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 7:00 pm Both Alstom and Siemens produce a number of trains for Europe and the UK that have a pantograph on one (or two) coach(es) and powered bogies distributed across multiple coaches. Seems to me that having one vehicle provide power to traction motors on another vehicle "is proven".

Powered slugs have been around since the 70s

I've thinking. Metro North should also acquire for each SC42-DM an APV with 2 powered trucks and 3th rail pick up shoes... the HEP can be build in the APV and draw off power from a DC link between de locomotive and auxiliary power unit and then the train has four powered trucks. Ensure a quicker ride.

Forwarded to me by Nomis. CTDOT has exercised their option.

NGEC May documentation had a quick blurb about the MetroNorth Chargers. The first two shells are ahead of schedule.

Also noted that CDOT executed their option, with a 2027 delivery date.

There was mention that there may be difficulties testing the third rail equioment at Pueblo. There is track with third rail at Pueblo however the description I read seemed that it was more for subway equipment. Either way, there's progress.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:15 pmYou did notice that the SC-42DM has both the electrical pickup and diesel in a single engine, i.e., if its design is dumb, its no dumber than the ALP-45DP, and unlike the ALP-45DP, can run on the 101 miles of the MNRR that are electrified?

Third rail DMs are dumb for three reasons:

1. Third rail isn't continuous, so locomotives can gap out.
2. Third rail has a hard time dealing with the amperage of a single modern locomotive compared to EMUs.
3. Third rail only operates on closed commuter systems, not Amtrak.

Third rail DMs are dumb because the capital would be better spent to just electrify to Poughkeepsie, Danbury, Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, and Patchogue, and end one-seat service north of Southeast and east of Patchogue in favor of limited direct diesel service to White Plains and Jamaica with standard off-the-shelf diesel push-pull or DMU equipment. Most service on those lines would be better served by DMU service connecting at Ronkonkoma, Patchogue, and Southeast.

Extending the electrification north of Harmon to Poughkeepsie? Never going to happen. Not unless a new additional route with sufficient clearance for freight gets built (at taxpayer expense), and Metro-North decides (for some foolish reason) to completely replace their existing third rail electrical infrastructure along the Hudson with overhead wire since the expense to extend third rail an additional 40+ miles along a river that's prone to flooding doesn't make sense. You're stuck with third rail into GCT because of clearances (not enough room in the tunnels or station to add overhead wire safely) as a result of decisions that were made over 100 years ago at the dawn of electrification. You're stuck with overhead wire on the New Haven line because of those same decisions (made by a competing railroad).

Extending third rail on the LIRR out further does make sense, because of the traffic density, but north from Harmon to Poughkeepsie? Never.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:09 pmExtending the electrification north of Harmon to Poughkeepsie? Never going to happen. Not unless a new additional route with sufficient clearance for freight gets built (at taxpayer expense), and Metro-North decides (for some foolish reason) to completely replace their existing third rail electrical infrastructure along the Hudson with overhead wire since the expense to extend third rail an additional 40+ miles along a river that's prone to flooding doesn't make sense. You're stuck with third rail into GCT because of clearances (not enough room in the tunnels or station to add overhead wire safely) as a result of decisions that were made over 100 years ago at the dawn of electrification. You're stuck with overhead wire on the New Haven line because of those same decisions (made by a competing railroad).

Extending third rail on the LIRR out further does make sense, because of the traffic density, but north from Harmon to Poughkeepsie? Never.

MN should switch from third rail to 25kV/60 overhead from Highbridge to Poughkeepsie. This would allow a meeting point with the PRR 11kV/25 system in NYP for service down the Empire Connection, and Amtrak electrification to Albany. It would allow for Harlem Line trains to access Yankees-153rd via third rail, and provide a path for freight to come down to Oak Point that is free of third rail entirely. An M-10 fleet that is common with the New Haven Line would be used for AC/DC operation. The existing M-7 fleet would be mostly consumed by capacity enhancements to the Harlem Line with triple tracking to NWP and substation upgrades allowing for 12-car trains to Southeast. Any remaining part of the fleet could be converted over to LIRR operation for expanded electrification on LIRR which would eat up those cars several times over.

There appears to be consensus on the need to install 25 Kv 60 Hz CAT from the end of 25 HZ at NYP to Albany station and the maintenance facility + the wye. It maybe for whatever reason that it could only be 12,5 Kv especially the first part out of NYP. So we are preaching to a choir that is tone deft.

There is an advantage of electrifying this rote that Amtrak did not have for the New Haven BOS electrification. Not all the electrification needs to be activated for a continuous electrification. If only ICTs are to be used there can be gaps with the quickest sections done first. But Amtrak or NY DOT will need to purchase the line first. In NYC connections to Con Edison would be much easier as only 2 substation for backup will be needed. Any of the NY Central 3rd rail substation connections would be beyond repair.

The biggest problem of installing CAT is the potholing and installing concrete columns in the ground. There is much investigation to locate any utilities and in 3rd rail territory the feeders. AS well any rock that plagued the BOS installation.

And how are you going to address the need for full freight clearances under those wires you're dreaming of? Just because the GM plant in Tarrytown doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean that the route isn't still designated a clearance route for freight. Full TOFC/COFC clearances are required to be maintained all the way down to High Bridge where the Oak Point Link splits off. How many billions will it take to build an entirely new freight route so that the wires you want can be strung without blocking those clearances?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for electrifying where it makes sense. However, it doesn't in this case. In addition, don't forget that CSX owns the ROW north of Poughkeepsie. Yes, it's leased to Amtrak for them to use, maintain, and dispatch. But you had better believe that CSX will block any installation of electrification along those tracks unless the taxpayers build them an entirely new separated route.

Catenary can clear double stacks. Why would a new route be needed?

Is the route already Plate "H"? If so then may require raising a few clearance impediments. If not plate "H" still same answer. Does CSX run domestic double stacks on the route or maybe just international double stacks?

They don't currently run either - but legally it's designated as a clearance route, and currently has clearances allowing (according to CSX's clearance map) 18'2" operation. That clearance level has to be maintained, even if it's not currently being used. Since the current "standard" for catenary is about 20-21', that would still allow the necessary clearances. However, there may well be a number of current overhead obstructions (old signal bridges, roads, etc.) that would need to be raised to accommodate overhead.

Yes, it's possible. However, there are three key issues that would all need to be resolved for it to actually happen:

1) Metro-North would need to be willing to spend billions of dollars replacing an existing system that currently works well (and that they need to keep because of GCT clearances) just to make operations more complicated. I view that as extremely unlikely.
2) Amtrak (once Metro-North had spent the money in #1) would need to spend billions of dollars adding catenary to a line that currently hosts about 20 passenger trains/day. That's about half the number they run between New Haven and Boston. While there might be an environmental benefit from spending that money, Amtrak has much more pressing needs in other areas that would provide larger environmental benefits.
3) CSX would need to agree to both #1 and #2. While they might not be able to stop #1, they have complete veto power over #2.

I'll repeat - I don't see that happening.

To bring this back to the topic of procurement, my thought is it would be orders of magnitude more expensive to not only change the Hudson line north of SD , but also requiring MN to get their OWN Dual Modes for their own line. For EVERY. SINGLE. COACH. Add in additional maintenance and inspection costs. So a fleet of HUNDREDS of dual modes, likely additional DM’s to replace the diesel fleet currently used for north of CH, instead of maybe 30 DM’s. Millions, if not a billion, because someone thinks a fleet of 30 DM’s is “silly”. Non-sensicle.