RAILROAD.NET

Would there be a advantages for Amtrak to run the Bombardier
ALP-45DP on some of their runs on the NEC? like the lines that go into Virgina and the ones that goes to Springfield. I wold think that this could save time switching out engines in DC and new Haven.

I got the impression that the 125 mph qualification runs didn't go so well. I think the 45DP is just too heavy (shades of the E60?). What is the max allowed speed currently? I know it's either 90 or 100 mph, not sure which. NJ Transit's ALP-46s rountinely run at 100.

BBD is NO LONGER a Amtrak supplier/Vendor,they were given the boot after the HHP-8/Acela I lawsuit was settled
Believe the ALP-45DP MAS is 90 mph,as are the MLV I & II MAS on the NEC
The given is that is in Electric mode with pan up

Whether Amtrak's versions could reach 125 mph speeds or not is unknown, but what is known is that NJT's versions can not. 100 mph max speeds is 80% of 125 mph, so one could state that an Amtrak train using them would be 20% slower. 20% of 60 is 12, so a train would take 12 minutes longer every hour on the route. A 2 hour trip at 125 mph would take 24 minutes longer at 100 mph, a 3 hour trip 36 minutes longer, etc.

But beyond D.C. to the South, the locomotives can run at the same speeds. Using the locomotives Amtrak uses today require a half hour locomotive switch at D.C. For those few riding through D.C. there is little to no time savings with either type of locomotive. For the majority who ride only north of D.C. on the NEC there would be a significant time lost.

So, who will Amtrak wish to provide a better service to, NEC only passengers or Southerners? I think their history points the answer to just NEC only passengers, which is reflected by the existing locomotives in their fleet.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:12 am BBD is NO LONGER a Amtrak supplier/Vendor,they were given the boot after the HHP-8/Acela I lawsuit was settled
Believe the ALP-45DP MAS is 90 mph,as are the MLV I & II MAS on the NEC
The given is that is in Electric mode with pan up

They may get back, depending on how well the rehab'ed HHP-8's work on MARC's trains. So far, my guess is two of them are rehabbed now, and MARC's been impressed enough to run the entire set through.

Or Amtrak could just speed up its power changes at WAS.

Can someone enlighten me here? So the ALP46As don't ever run at 125mh. They do not need to for NJT as commuter rail has no use for that, but were they ever tested at 125mph? May I venture to guess that the answer was no, but maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in. Then how did they ever expect the ALP45DPs to do fine at 125mph? Those things have basically the same electrical traction as the ALP46As.


As for that calculation that electricron posted. Those assumptions are way off in my opinion. And the algebra is off too. A 2 hour trip at 125mph covers 250 miles. At a 100mph the same distance is covered in 2.5 hours, so the difference is 30 minutes, not 24. In real life while a NYP-WAS train pulled by ALP45DP will be slower than one pulled by a Sprinter, the continuous running above 100 mph is not merely sufficient for the difference to be that large. Also note that even the Acela does not do the NYP to WAS in 2 hours. The fixed infrastructure needs too much work for that. Neither of that is a reason for Amtrak to buy the ALP45DPs, but good for Amtrak that they tested them.

I'm sure there is concern at Amtrak that running one train at 100 when the ones behind it can do 125 results in what streetcar operators used to call "dragging the line"; the Florida trains and the Crescent were always difficult to fit in when it was 90 vs. 110.

Overall the ALP45DP hasn't been a runaway success. It's not an abject failure, either, but I don't know that it's enough of a home run for another carrier to adapt (ignoring Montreal which seems to have no procurement strategy other than abject schizophrenia). They are known for very high fuel usage in diesel mode, which is a tough consequence to swallow, especially with the unrest in the middle east on the rise.

If the Virginia corridor trains were to have open season on rolling stock, I'd suggest the IEP/800 class from Hitachi in the UK, which is based on a proven platform used globally and a known hybrid of AC electric and diesel. I've been on a few and they're not bad, other than the euro-trash seats.

I was under the impression that the Cat 3512 doesn’t meet Tier IV specs anyway. Maybe BBD could rework the machine with a lighter and more efficient prime mover(s)?

This is still a problem that I feel could be solved with faster engine changes. Bring it down to 10 minutes and there’s really not much delay to an intercity schedule.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:16 pm Overall the ALP45DP hasn't been a runaway success. It's not an abject failure, either, but I don't know that it's enough of a home run for another carrier to adapt (ignoring Montreal which seems to have no procurement strategy other than abject schizophrenia). They are known for very high fuel usage in diesel mode, which is a tough consequence to swallow, especially with the unrest in the middle east on the rise.

If the Virginia corridor trains were to have open season on rolling stock, I'd suggest the IEP/800 class from Hitachi in the UK, which is based on a proven platform used globally and a known hybrid of AC electric and diesel. I've been on a few and they're not bad, other than the euro-trash seats.

The Class 800 are great EMU trains, up to 9 cars in length and have 528 seats. The EMU/DMU versions are not great because of overheating problems, either 5 or 9 cars in length and have 270 - 528 seats. The electro-diesel or Bi-Mode version has 3 GU (diesel generator units) per five car set and 5 GU per nine car set. A 5 car set has a GU situated under vehicles 2/3/4 respectively and a 9 car set has a GU situated under vehicles 2/3/5/7/8 respectively. According to Modern Railways magazine, the limited space available for the GUs has made them prone to overheating. It claims that, on one day in summer 2018, "half the units were out of action as engines shut down through overheating".

FYI: It gets both hotter and colder in the USA than it does in England.

Small fuel tanks don't help.the Cat prime movers are repurposed Class 8 truck engines,less "horsepower" in diesel mode.
Most of NJT's fleet of ALP-45DP's are coming due for work on the Heads to maintain tier III emissions,and any leftover "Sandy" damage
not tended to at that time.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:19 pm This is still a problem that I feel could be solved with faster engine changes. Bring it down to 10 minutes and there’s really not much delay to an intercity schedule.

This is the correct answer. If Amtrak doesn't have the balls to propose stringing catenary up on the Richmond route and New Haven/ Springfield, then at least get the operations act together.

The 45's only operator, NJT, has been tight lipped on their perormance/reliability, which doesn't bode well. Montreal's dumping theirs. It's known they're getting overhauls already. Maybe not as bad as the DM-30 fiascos, but the last thing Amtrak needs it yet another dead end unreliable locomotive. Add a speed restriction that makes them a dispatching headache on the NEC, what's the point?

EuroStar wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:05 pm Can someone enlighten me here? So the ALP46As don't ever run at 125mh. They do not need to for NJT as commuter rail has no use for that, but were they ever tested at 125mph? May I venture to guess that the answer was no, but maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in. Then how did they ever expect the ALP45DPs to do fine at 125mph? Those things have basically the same electrical traction as the ALP46As.

I believe the 46As were tested at 125+ mph with no issues. They're capable of it even though NJT currently operates at 100 max. But the ALP-46 weighs in at somewhere around 100 tons, vs something like 142 tons for the 45DP.

Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:20 am

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:19 pm This is still a problem that I feel could be solved with faster engine changes. Bring it down to 10 minutes and there’s really not much delay to an intercity schedule.

This is the correct answer. If Amtrak doesn't have the balls to propose stringing catenary up on the Richmond route and New Haven/ Springfield, then at least get the operations act together.

Richmond to DC is CSX or NP territory. Amtrak doesn't own it. Can't say who owns New Haven to Springfield.