DM/DE-30 problems

I called the complaint line to raise holy hell and as we speak, i've got a list of reps, senators (NY & US) to write to.

We were trucked via school buz out east. Maybe the RR should become a bus company if they can't get the train biz right. i don't give a rats ass if euipement doesn't work, that'w why my tax $ pay suposed 'experts" to do. if the airline industry can fly planes while bleeding billions a year couldn't a RR with a relatively healthy subsidy (for the moment) get brand new 3.7 million dollar junkers to work just 2x a day? I mean really. Excuses are meaningless.

Regards,

<i>I called the complaint line to raise holy hell and as we speak, i've got a list of reps, senators (NY & US) to write to. </i>

May/may not do anything. The MTA is starting to become a hotbutton issue, though.

<i>We were trucked via school buz out east. Maybe the RR should become a bus company if they can't get the train biz right.</i>

You've not taken LI Bus, I gather....

<i> i don't give a rats ass if euipement doesn't work, that'w why my tax $ pay suposed 'experts" to do.</i>

Well, yeah. 1/2 the problem was Prendergast was from out of the area and wouldn't know a real train if it bit him on the ass, and he was calling the shots at the LIRR at the time. Hell, he didn't even <i>live</i> on LI, and never used the LIRR. Bauer actually tried to patch things up and made some progress (meeting with commuters regularly helped smooth things out bigtime, and things did in fact get better), Dermody didn't carry the momentum, IMHO. And like it or not, he's becomming more and more of a lightning rod for commuter complaints, esp after he and the MTA all gave themselves a nice pay raise...

As for consulatants? They were told to design something that doesn't generally work very well, as opposed to being told "You have X dollars and we need a one seat ride on these lines". IMHO, that would have resulted in more electrification and DMUs to fill in the gaps, thus giving more peop;le a one seat ride, but not everyone. But the existing setup gives a one seat ride only to the people who's life can be planned around those 4 magic diesel runs in the moring and evening.

<i> if the airline industry can fly planes while bleeding billions a year couldn't a RR with a relatively healthy subsidy (for the moment) get brand new 3.7 million dollar junkers to work just 2x a day?</i>

You're lucky the LIRR even runs them that much. Most 'commuter' rail operations don't, and thus get soaked even more on equipment costs. IIRC, Tri Rail spends like 25% of their fuel costs just in the yard idleing. Imagine if you left your car running all day how expensive it would be to use!

Then again, why on earth did the LIRR even go to EMD for a passenger locomotive? EMD simply doesn't have the ability to build a decent one. They haven't built anything approaching a modern passenger diesel in about 40 years. Yes, I know NIH reigns supreme in the US railroading industry, yes, I know most carreer beareuacrats don't know anything about technology or what's current and what's not, but still, a look overseas to see what's being done there should have been made. And you wouldn't have seen EMD's overweight, overpriced, underpowered, unreliable, noisy, slow junk in passenger use. Yes, this would have required a break from status-quo-lowest-common-denominator, but the LIRR of all RRs in the US has a long history of innovation, and frankly, the new diesel fleet isn't very innovative, unless you're living in the 1970's.

<i> I mean really. Excuses are meaningless. </i>

Not to government agencies. To them, excuses are legitimate reasons why things are the way they are. When you look at the LIRR as a whole and the contect of when the DE/DMs were ordered, they make absolutely no sense, since they didn't save the LIRR any money and didn't improve service much. But for some reason, an organization that's not flinching at spending 7 billion to drill a couple of miles of tunnel couldn't drag itself to spend 1/10th as much (if that) just electrifying almost the entire damm system and dumping diesel operation altogether, save for a few DMUs on the Greenport scoot and past Patchauge. The sad thing is it would have poised the LIRR for a big service expansion if/when ESA pens, and resulted in better service sooner anyway, AND save the LIRR money in the long term by dumping the dual fleet and standardizing on almost one type of equipment, not to mention much better operational flexibility. And it probbably wouldn't have cost much (if any) more that the DE/DM/C cars did.

Why didn't the LIRR use the F59's that seem to be working farily well in other parts of the country?

To High by almost a foot, To short distance, No Dual Mode, and believe me a F59 is no Cadilac either, they ride like S**t and are very cramped.

To blame EMD for the troubles of LIRR is nuts. I have posted here before on the very subject and EMD did not want to build the DM/DE as LIRR specified, but the customer is always right. F59s are very reliable since they changed the fireing order on the 710 engine. I worked on F59s for five years so I have a clue as to how they work, and they work much better than a GE does. Blame the people who designed the duckbill platypuss of locomotives.
EMD knew tapping hotel power off the traction alternator was trouble when they built the F-69AC locomotive about ten years ago. What is done is done.
Since everyone here knows what all the solutions to the LIRR woes are, lets all meet at Bruno's in Ronkonkoma with the lap tops and CAD programs and we will design our own version of the Platypuss over some beer and pizza.
My vote for a starting point is a 16 cylinder split cooled tier two emisions 710 juiced up to 4300hp, four D87BTR motors and a fifth D87 mounted in the carbody to run the 480V alternator for hotel power. No inverters to deal with, and in third rail teritory, shut the engine down and run the traction motors (still DC) and the HEP motor off the third rail. Use an electric air compressor ala SD75 (and GE). Put retractable third rail shoes on the coaches and bus it to the locomotive to eliminate the gapping problem OR add a small pantagraph on the top of the locomotive carbody and use the 11,000v over head like they did 80 years ago. Life is good. Please send my consulting fees to my home address. That will be $12,000,000. Thank you.

<i>To blame EMD for the troubles of LIRR is nuts. I have posted here before on the very subject and EMD did not want to build the DM/DE as LIRR specified, but the customer is always right.</i>

EMD bid, EMD won. If they didn't want to build it, they shouldn't have bid.

<i> F59s are very reliable since they changed the fireing order on the 710 engine. I worked on F59s for five years so I have a clue as to how they work, and they work much better than a GE does. Blame the people who designed the duckbill platypuss of locomotives. </i>

The F59s are also technological diosaurs in a pretty body. After building the same basic thing for 50 years, I'd damm well hope they can get it right.

<i>EMD knew tapping hotel power off the traction alternator was trouble when they built the F-69AC locomotive about ten years ago. What is done is done. </i>

Funny, others seem to do it just fine. AFAIK, GE did it, and others have done it.

<i>My vote for a starting point is a 16 cylinder split cooled tier two emisions 710 juiced up to 4300hp, four D87BTR motors and a fifth D87 mounted in the carbody to run the 480V alternator for hotel power</i>

DC traction and a dinosaur of a prime mover? No thanks. DC traction sucks hard and the 710 for all it is is a lousy choice for passenger service. Way too heavy, way too big.

I'd look at a ~4200hp prime mover from MTU, Cummins, MAN, Detroit Diesel, etc. 1/3 the weight, much smaller, cleaner, quieter. Then add a competently designed AC traction system (i.e. ABB, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, etc). Retain the 3 inverter design. Forget dual mode, it never works right, it's not worth the extra money. Set a target weight of 100 tons (still should be achiveable under FRA). 4200hp, so you lose maybe 500 for HEP, and you're figureing an 85% tranmission effiancy, gives you 3150 into the motors. Not an AEM-7 by any means, but better than the existing LIRR units.

<i> No inverters to deal with, and in third rail teritory, shut the engine down and run the traction motors (still DC) and the HEP motor off the third rail.</i>

You'd then need to add a whole DC control system. i.e., you've just designed the FL-9, which didn't work from day one.

<i> Use an electric air compressor ala SD75 (and GE). Put retractable third rail shoes on the coaches and bus it to the locomotive to eliminate the gapping problem OR add a small pantagraph on the top of the locomotive carbody and use the 11,000v over head like they did 80 years ago.
</i>

The retractable shoes were for 600V DC. Once the catenary went into Penn, the DC overhead was pulled and the DC pans removed from the DD-1s.

Paul wrote:To blame EMD for the troubles of LIRR is nuts. I have posted here before on the very subject and EMD did not want to build the DM/DE as LIRR specified, but the customer is always right.

Well yes, but EMD is in the business of building locomotives the LIRR is not. If they couldn't build a quality product to the the customers specifications then they should not have built them at all. I may be ignorant regarding locomotive technology beyond what I need to know to do my job, but in reality what exactly did the RR request that is so outrageous?? Dual Mode operation? Computer Control? I don't see any ground breaking technology in this equipment.

"I'd look at a ~4200hp prime mover from MTU, Cummins, MAN, Detroit Diesel, etc."

How common are single-engine 4200-traction-hp 100-ton (90-ton?) diesel locos in the rest of the world? These are V-16s? 45-degree, 90-degree, what? Cylinder size? Maximum RPM?

What are Cummins and DD 4000-hp engines used in? Not locomotives I assume?

<b>bluebelly</b> point s out an obvious fact:

<i>Well yes, but EMD is in the business of building locomotives the LIRR is not. If they couldn't build a quality product to the the customers specifications then they should not have built them at all.</i>

I agree (woah, we agree on something! ) If EMD couldn't do it, they shouldn't have done it. Apparently, they thought they could, they couldn't, and they screwed up. This is EMD's fault, not the LIRR's.

<i> I may be ignorant regarding locomotive technology beyond what I need to do my job, but in reality what exactly did the RR request that is so outrageous??</i>

Beats me. On paper, the DE-30 is nowhere near agressive in design, the DM-30's only outstanding hurdle is that it incorporates a feature that historically never works right.

<i>Dual Mode operation? Computer Control? I don't see any ground breaking technology in this equipment.</i>

Dual mode has never really worked well for anyone, but there's a huge amount of problems with these things that isn't related to the DM feature. There's <b>zero</b> excuse for them being overweight, having numerous vibration and fatigue issues, chucking oil out the stack like an oil well, noisier than my Harley, generally not very reliable. IMHO, EMD dropped the ball on it, and they should be the ones picking up the tab for these things, instead of blaming the LIRR (Voided warrenties? These things didn't work from day one!).

Technologically, the DE-30 is not groundbreaking at all. It's just a repackaged freight locomotive, like all of EMD's "passenger" units are.
 
 
<b>timz</b> pops in after our picture break with:

<i>How common are single-engine 4200-traction-hp 100-ton (90-ton?) diesel locos in the rest of the world?</i>

Not surprisingly, they're not very common. Generally, by the time RRs start needing units of that level of performance, they're already stringing catenary on the line. Siemens has in their catalog a 2100 (traction motor input) HP (1600kw) diesel - 80 metric tons. I'm guessing Bombardier and others have a more or less comperable product, and could probbably offer a 100 ton (us) 4200 loco. And I say this because historically, there were units in the range of 4200hp, 88 (us) tons. Dual engine though. I think that was a limitation of engine technology.

Technically, to fit it into the FRA ruleset, it would be a bit challanging. But that's why design engineers exist

The state of the art for electrics is much much more impressive - 9000+ HP in an 80 metric ton, 4 axle unit. The Swiss in particular like this type of light, high power locomotive.

<i> These are V-16s? 45-degree, 90-degree, what? Cylinder size? Maximum RPM? </i>

They are 16, 18, or 20, and generally 1500-1800rpm or so:

Cummins QSK78-L 3500 hp @ 1900 rpm 9.9 tons
MTU 20V 4000 R42 3621 hp @ 1800 rpm 9.3 tons
Detroit Diesel 20V 4000 R42 similar data
MAN B&W Paxman VP185 18V 3753 hp @ 1500 rpm 11.2 tons
MAN B&W Paxman VP185 18V 4157 hp @ 1800 rpm 11.2 tons

Those are US tons.

Thus, looking at the bottom one, darn near 4200 hp can be had out of an existing prime mover that's 11 tons. Or you go lighter and get the top one.

A lighter, higher power locomotive would be better - once the train gets rolling, all a locomotive is is dead weight, especially with today's AC traction systems. Witness the ALP-46's noted acceleration abilities, despite being slightly lighter than an ALP-44 and considerably more powerful. If you math out the TE curve of most US passenger diesels, you'll see that weight becomes a non factor at about 15mph, or lower, especially in DC traction ones, which can't get good adhesion anyway. Everyone else figured this out years ago - that's why European locomotives have such lopsided HP:weight ratios in comparison to US types. Granted, with the weight of the C cars, you have less choice, but the C car design, and the LIRR's choice of them is a whole different story than motive power (though the two have to be matched).

Sure, they are getting 8,000 hp out of light weight locomotives in Europe. They are also electrics and they do not have the factor of adhesion that would allow those locomotives operate here with any degree of success. They do not run 10,000 to 15,000 ton trains like we do in this country.What needs to be "high tech" about a recipricating engine?
If I read this right, some feel that 4300 hp is not the norm? I beg to differ. Here at Union Pacific, any locomotive of 3.000 h.p or less is classified as "low horse power". With almost two thousand EMD SD70Ms on our system, (and more on the way) horsepower is 4300. Don't forget all the GE Dash9s and AC44s at 4400, and now the new C45ACTEs at 4500 with a twelve cylinder! We even go higher with the GE AC-6000s and EMD SD90MAC, both at 6,000 Hp. You much hated DE30 is nothing more than an F59AC that doesn't work
Lets debunk a few myths here.

The EMD "F" units were (as built) freight locomotives, excepting the FP-7/9s. All had the 16-567 engine, The GP 7/9 had the exact equipment layout. The diff being in the construction differances in the carbodies.
The E units had two 12 cylinder 567s, only four traction motors and 38" diameter wheels.
The Alco FA were laid out mechanicaly the same as the RS2/3s, using the same components. Even the much beloved Alco PA was laid out the same as the 16 cylinder hood type freight units.

So, what did distinguish the passanger units from the freights? Steam heat
and higher speed gearing and in most cases a flashy paint job. GP7s and 9s and RS2s and 3s were passanger units when steam boilers were equiped in the short hood. Later on, it was 20 cylinder 645 SD45 (or SDP45s) with a steam boiler in the rear of the carbody. Both Southern Pacific and Erie Lackawanna rosterd these units. A EMD F40 is identical to the GP40, except the cowling, hep and gear ratio.

HEP is not a new idea.Check out Baldwin's RP-210-1 built in 1955. It had two Maybach engines: an MD-655 1,000 hp V12 for traction and an MD-440 570hp V8 for the 440 volt hep.

Today's standard locomotive engines are 45º Vee engines, Alco 241, 244,and 251s were all 45º, same as EMD's 567-710, and 265H engines and GE's 7FDL and 7HDL. Excluding inline 6s and 8s of course.
All run at a maximum rpm between 900 to 1050. The closest thing Detroit Diesel has is the 16V149, and that is a real POS engine.
So, at least as far as us freight guys go, 4,400hp is the norm.
The question I need answered is "Just what needs to be high tech?"

<i>Sure, they are getting 8,000 hp out of light weight locomotives in Europe. They are also electrics and they do not have the factor of adhesion that would allow those locomotives operate here with any degree of success. They do not run 10,000 to 15,000 ton trains like we do in this country.</i>

Sure they're not good for heavy freights. <b>They're not designed for freight because they're passenger motors!</b> The LIRR doesn't run 10,000 ton freights, it runs passenger trains. Which are a heck of a lot lighter, even under the FRA's rules. They don't need superweight locomotives because they don't pull superweight trains.

Anyway, they get 30 - 35% adhesion just like American units do. The sad thing about all the '"they're too light talk" is that even a 25 year old design like the AEM-7 is more powerful than an F-40 in just about every way. An ALP-46, slightly lighter but with AC traction, will outpull an F-40, period. If you work the math out, all the weight of US "passenger" diesels is perfectly useless above 15mph, and marginally useless below, especially with obsolete DC traction systems.

<i>What needs to be "high tech" about a recipricating engine? </i>

Why do we need to use 50 year old technology, especially when today's stuff really is better?

<i>If I read this right, some feel that 4300 hp is not the norm?</i>

In Europe, for a passeger diesel, it's not.

<i>I beg to differ. Here at Union Pacific, any locomotive of 3.000 h.p or less is classified as "low horse power".</i>

That would be most of their fleet.

<i> With almost two thousand EMD SD70Ms on our system, (and more on the way) horsepower is 4300. Don't forget all the GE Dash9s and AC44s at 4400, and now the new C45ACTEs at 4500 with a twelve cylinder! We even go higher with the GE AC-6000s and EMD SD90MAC, both at 6,000 Hp.</i>

You're violating the laws of physics here. A locomotive with a 6000 hp prime mover simply does not have 6000 hp at the wheel. It's flat out impossible. You are losing nearly 1000 HP through transmission losses. This is why the main alternator needs to be large, why it gets hot, why the invertes are large, need cooling, and why the cables and contactors and all are thick. If they were 100% efficient, they could be made tiny. This is basic physics.

<i>So, what did distinguish the passanger units from the freights? Steam heat and higher speed gearing and in most cases a flashy paint job. GP7s and 9s and RS2s and 3s were passanger units when steam boilers were equiped in the short hood. Later on, it was 20 cylinder 645 SD45 (or SDP45s) with a steam boiler in the rear of the carbody. Both Southern Pacific and Erie Lackawanna rosterd these units. A EMD F40 is identical to the GP40, except the cowling, hep and gear ratio. </i>

The difference between American frieght and passenger units. Everyone else long ago realized a passenger train is not a short freight train and developed more suited locomotives.

<i>So, at least as far as us freight guys go, 4,400hp is the norm. </i>

4400 hp minus parasitic losses times transmission efficiency.

Or, 4400 - maybe 200hp, times about 85% equals 3570hp into the motors, though really this should be kW.

<i>The question I need answered is "Just what needs to be high tech?"</i>

Why should US passenger rail be stuck in the 1950's? Especially now that taxpayers are paying for it? Today's technology, when built by competent companies, really is better. Witness how NJT was able to take an off the shelf European passenger locomotive, and has used it in service with considerable success (or, as sucessful as a locomotive hauled train is going to be in short stopping commuter service). They've got an electric that went into service with little trouble, is no heavier than their older units, significantly more powerful, and has proven quite reliable.

Which is no surprise because instead of going to an also-ran in the market (At this point, EMD is a one trick pony with no hope in the international market - nobody wants their junk anymore), they went straight to the leaders. This is why EMD didn't get the PL-42, GE didn't get the ALP-46, and why GE was passed over for the M-7's propulsion system. Nobody wants last weeks leftovers anymore when it comes to moving people. Because when properly built, todays stuff is flat out better.

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned it yet that a large part of the blame of the failures of the DE/DM30's falls on the shoulder of Super Steel Schenectady. Besides screwing up the assembly of the DE/DMs, they also were dropped by GM as a builder for other EMD products, such as the SD70MACs.

As for consulatants? They were told to design something that doesn't generally work very well, as opposed to being told "You have X dollars and we need a one seat ride on these lines". IMHO, that would have resulted in more electrification and DMUs to fill in the gaps, thus giving more peop;le a one seat ride, but not everyone. But the existing setup gives a one seat ride only to the people who's life can be planned around those 4 magic diesel runs in the moring and evening.

One of the LIRR's biggest problems over the years has been a habbit of giving builder construction spec's rather than performace spec's. Give the builders flexability in designing the equipment so it runs properly, rather than trying to make a platapus design work.

Well, yeah. 1/2 the problem was Prendergast was from out of the area and wouldn't know a real train if it bit him on the ass, and he was calling the shots at the LIRR at the time. Hell, he didn't even live on LI, and never used the LIRR. Bauer actually tried to patch things up and made some progress (meeting with commuters regularly helped smooth things out bigtime, and things did in fact get better), Dermody didn't carry the momentum, IMHO. And like it or not, he's becomming more and more of a lightning rod for commuter complaints, esp after he and the MTA all gave themselves a nice pay raise...

Back in 1997 (I think) Newsday had an article about the delays in the LIRR receiving the C-3's and the DE/DM's. I wrote them a letter (which they printed) pointing out that Amtrak MetroNorth was already running their P32ACDM with Bombardier Horizon coaches. I also pointed out that there was no reason why the LIRR couldn't use the same equipment.

Well a few days later Prendergast wrote a reply (both printed in the paper, and a personal copy mailed to me). He claimed that the GE dual-mode diesels didn't accelerate quickly enough (of course changing the gearing might make a difference), and that passengers on the LIRR wanted 2-2 seating, not 3-2 seating. Of course, then, why did the LIRR buy M-7's with 3-2 seating if that was so important.

Well, what wasn't printed by Newsday in my original letter was my theory as to why Prendergast wanted different equipment for the LIRR than what was being used by MetroNorth. I stated that by claiming to need different equipment based on different operating requirements he could justify that the LIRR and MetroNorth, while both under the auspices of the MTA, were different railroads, and thus, required their own upper-level mangements (why not have one preisdent, etc, for both lines).

Stuart

<i>I'm suprised that no one has mentioned it yet that a large part of the blame of the failures of the DE/DM30's falls on the shoulder of Super Steel Schenectady. Besides screwing up the assembly of the DE/DMs, they also were dropped by GM as a builder for other EMD products, such as the SD70MACs. </i>

Well, it says EMD on the builder's plate, EMD got the contract and subbed it out to Sooper Steal. Doesn't get EMD off the hook at all.

<i>One of the LIRR's biggest problems over the years has been a habbit of giving builder construction spec's rather than performace spec's. Give the builders flexability in designing the equipment so it runs properly, rather than trying to make a platapus design work. </i>

This pretty much explains most recent LIRR equipment orders. It's generally a lot better to give a set of performance specs, let the builder meet them as they see fit.


<i>Back in 1997 (I think) Newsday had an article about the delays in the LIRR receiving the C-3's and the DE/DM's. I wrote them a letter (which they printed) pointing out that Amtrak MetroNorth was already running their P32ACDM with Bombardier Horizon coaches. I also pointed out that there was no reason why the LIRR couldn't use the same equipment. </i>

NIH. Pure and simple.

<i>Well a few days later Prendergast wrote a reply (both printed in the paper, and a personal copy mailed to me). He claimed that the GE dual-mode diesels didn't accelerate quickly enough (of course changing the gearing might make a difference), and that passengers on the LIRR wanted 2-2 seating, not 3-2 seating. Of course, then, why did the LIRR buy M-7's with 3-2 seating if that was so important. </i>

The GE claim is bull. And I'm no fan of GE's stuff either, but the fact is even the LIRR's own simulations showed them P-32 to be adequate. not my opinion, but that of the MTA IG.

Prendergast, before he arrived in NY, was from Chicago. He wouldn't know a well run rail operation if it bit him in the ass. Ever take Metra? It sucks royally. It's slow, the equipment's cramped, there's only one door per side. Looking at their ridership, they serve and area bigger than the LIRR and MN put together, yet move fewer people than either the LIRR or MN, and their weekend ridership is nonexistant, which means that their weekday ridership exists only because traffic in Chicago's that bad. In other words, people use them because they're the lesser of two evils, whereas even the LIRR manages to get discresionary ridership, sugessting that it actually holds advantages over driving, period.

<i>Well, what wasn't printed by Newsday in my original letter was my theory as to why Prendergast wanted different equipment for the LIRR than what was being used by MetroNorth. I stated that by claiming to need different equipment based on different operating requirements he could justify that the LIRR and MetroNorth, while both under the auspices of the MTA, were different railroads, and thus, required their own upper-level mangements (why not have one preisdent, etc, for both lines). </i>

IMHO, it was NIH plus him trying to force Chicago style railroading (which doesn't even work in Chicago) on NY, instead of looking at the actual situation that existing. Had he, we'd have Comets and P-32s, or Comets and used diesels as a temporary solution until electrification was complete.

The concept of double decker equipment is sound, it's just yet to be well implemented in the northeast. Dual modes is less so, but it's something we're stuck with until people get over their hatred of EMU operation.