Amtrak’s Growing Pains with Siemens Locomotives

Emmett wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:48 am This is almost unrelated, but I am pretty sure that the ACS-64's (on the Keystone Corridor) are being completely replaced by ALC-42 and SC-44 locos. Someone tell me if this is correct.

Everything I can find published by Amtrak suggests that is the case, but since there are notes in the same documents that WDOT SC-44s will pull some new train-sets, I don't see why ACS-64s couldn't be used with the new train-sets unless there is some strong reason not pull one of the electric-capable train-sets without using that extra powered truck (and ACS-64s can't be modified to utilize that truck). Amtrak does have a good case to only order train-sets that provide the overhead for the ALC-42Es as having train-sets that require an electric locomotive on the NEC adds another variation to their planned NEC train-sets.

You are correct. Some will be remaining. Most will be replaced by the "ALC-42E" Charger that's part of the "Airo" trainsets. I also suspect that with the larger number of Acela 2 trainsets that the Acela equipment will handle the bulk of the captive Boston - New York - DC frequencies that don't leave electric territory and that the bulk of the Regionals will venture off the corridor into diesel territory somehow (IE more Virginia service, service to Boston via inland route, other examples.)

I doubt that we'll have ALC-42E's on the Regionals and day-trip trains that wander off the NEC. We've seen reports that it would be a ALC-42 with an electric booster/business car combo. The ALC-42E's are destined for the Empire Service lines -- because they run on third rail in Metro North territory.

Per https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y22-27.pdf pages 125 and 126, all ICTs will be delivered with ALC-42Es with the possible exception of those going to the Cascades services. The ALC-42E is a ALC-42 that can pull power from the ICT instead of using its diesel engine. Amtrak is expecting to eliminate its use of third-rail power with this order (though I haven't any indication of how they plan to power the Lake Shore Limited once the P32ACDMs are retired).

Okay, I thought the ALC-42E's were a different engine. I stand corrected. The ALC-42E's are just "we can suck power from an auxiliary unit" be it caternary or battery.

It basically turns the ALC-42 into a really expensive slug... I have to wonder how hard it would be to retrofit existing locomotives to be able to draw power from the auxiliary unit.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

daybeers wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:23 pm I thought some ACS-64s will stick around for pulling LDs on the NEC.

DB and Everyone - From the Amtrak Five Year Plan - Page 132 (bottom) -

"Amtrak's purchase of ICTs will reduce the number of ACS64 electric locomotives required for daily service.
As a result Amtrak will likely have surplus ACS64 electric locomotives available for resale or lease to commuter
agencies or the secondary market in the late 2020s. The exact quantity of units displaced and timing have yet
to be determined"

This paragraph was the ONLY mention about the ACS64 replacement with ICTs in the Amtrak Five Year Plan.

Does anyone know the latest design/build status of any ICT dual mode locomotives for the new Airo train sets?

This is still untested and unproven technology at this point - I feel that the ACS64 fleet will be around for some
time to come until these new ICTs are determined without doubt to be road-worthy as replacements...

There are enough "bugs" now with the Siemens Charger ALC-42 diesel fleet - let alone something more
elaborate as these ICT dual-mode locomotives are going to be...Count me as a ICT skeptic...MACTRAXX

I am a ICT skeptic as well. Would it really make sense to run trains not venturing outside electric territory with such a system? It would seem to be overkill running them on Keystones. To that point, I could see the last service with Amfleets being the Keystone Service with ACS-64s at both ends.

I am curious who would want them for commuter use. They will be about 15 years old when they are probably phased out (if not older). Doubt SEPTA would want more even though they seem to be pretty good in SEPTA service.

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:42 amI haven't any indication of how they plan to power the Lake Shore Limited once the P32ACDMs are retired.

Can the Alternating Current catenary in the Empire tunnel be used? Of course, that won't help with any detour to Grand Central.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:32 pm I am a ICT skeptic as well. Would it really make sense to run trains not venturing outside electric territory with such a system? It would seem to be overkill running them on Keystones. To that point, I could see the last service with Amfleets being the Keystone Service with ACS-64s at both ends.

I am curious who would want them for commuter use. They will be about 15 years old when they are probably phased out (if not older). Doubt SEPTA would want more even though they seem to be pretty good in SEPTA service.

I would think the Amfleet I's would be retired, with the Amfleet II's being used with an ACS-64 for in-electric service. I also would think we'd do the Amfleet II's with an ACS-64 on one end and a HHP-8 cab on the other.

The only reasons I can see on why they would use an ALC-42E+cat for Keystone and electric-only Regional are:

• You don't have an engine variant to have to maintain.
• If the caternary power dies, you got *DIESEL* power.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:31 pm I doubt that we'll have ALC-42E's on the Regionals and day-trip trains that wander off the NEC. We've seen reports that it would be a ALC-42 with an electric booster/business car combo. The ALC-42E's are destined for the Empire Service lines -- because they run on third rail in Metro North territory.

Amtrak DOES NOT use Metro North third rail at any time during the trip between Croton Harmon and CP 12. The shoes are different, over vs. under riding and they will break off. IF MNRR third rail is to be used for GCT service as in the past one of two things happened either the third rail was pinned in the down position or the shoes were flipped. Issues with this were some crossings were just high enough to rip shoes off on Amtrak territory hence the pinning and unpinning of shoes in RHI. The crossing issue was addressed and they now can be set up for MNRR.

Are they really talking about running diesel under wires or dragging a diesel around on every single electric train, save Acela?

They are talking about having trains that eliminate the need to change engines on Northeast Regional services while extending the NEC beyond the current limits of the catenary. Currently 8 of the 18 daily Northeast Regional services extend to 4 different cities in VA, and there are plans to increase that to 13 terminating in VA. Eliminating the engine change in DC would be a significant operational advantage for those trains (the Crescent, Cardinal, and Silver Service trains will continue to change engines at Washington).

So, yes, they are talking about dragging a diesel around on some trains, but the ALC-42Es are designed so the entire locomotive remains functional when drawing power from the power car it's coupled to (including its motors), so it's the just the diesel power plant that and fuel that are being dragged around, not an entire locomotive (or its 15-30 tons of a 130 ton locomotive that is "dead weight" when powered electrically).

The ALC-42E/APV combination has some items that have not been disclosed except by speculation by some including my mistake to also speculate.
1. Will the ALC-42E be able to operate by itself without the APV connected?
2. What electric items will be in the APV?
3. Will APV have a HEP inverter?
4. How many traction motors on APV?
5. HP on those traction motors? Same 978 HP motors that are on ALCs?
6. What method and type power specification of connections between ALC-42Es and the APV
7. Any auxiliaries on APVs?
8. One or 2 PANs on APV
9. Any PAN on ALC-42Es or maybe just a provision for one?

Am sure others will have other questions!