EMD to build North American passenger locomotives once again

Jtgshu wrote:Yea, it kinda does look like a PL42.....a PL42-2 if you will......hahaha
As NJT has found with the ALP45 dual mode locos, the Caterpillar powered engines are VERY thursty, like an unbelievable amount of thurst. Couple that to small fuel tanks (again, for weight issues) and their range is kind of limited and definitely has to be considered in advance before dispatching one. It seems like CAT engines are relatively efficient in yard service, (as NJT has found with the MP20 switchers) but when the locos are running under full power out on the road.......drink drink drink drink.

I would venture to say that, at least under Metrolink duty, those C175-20s shouldn't be straining too hard. Metrolink consists are lighter in comparison with the heavier NJT trains, and the locomotives won't be required to accelerate to 125 mph, possibly ever. Running them at the more reasonable track speeds around 60-70 (and at some parts lower) with lighter trains should incur fuel savings for Metrolink in comparison to it's current fleet of locomotives. But I guess we'll have to wait and see what the actual data yields.

We might be getting off-topic, but since Fan Railer brought it up, I have to ask... why are they buying 125 MPH locomotives if, as you say, they won't be running at 125 "possibly ever"?

MEC407 wrote:We might be getting off-topic, but since Fan Railer brought it up, I have to ask... why are they buying 125 MPH locomotives if, as you say, they won't be running at 125 "possibly ever"?

I read on one of the articles that it would provide Metrolink "the option to expand service" once high speed rail came to the area. The statement was vague and does not really hold much worth unless they are planning a 3-4 track corridor in the LA metro area. Otherwise, I can't really see Metrolink's diesel powered service sharing a two track configuration with the new HSR trainsets.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if NJT would pick a few of these up... Would be interesting..

Why would they ?? between the PL42ac's and ALP45DP's their up to their armpits in diesels.

DutchRailnut wrote:Why would they ?? between the PL42ac's and ALP45DP's their up to their armpits in diesels.

To start replacing Geeps. Just a hypothetical thought. The ALP45s can't realistically be relied on as full time diesels.

Technically all Geeps have been replaced.

DutchRailnut wrote:Technically all Geeps have been replaced.

lol yea... i thought this was ironed out on the ALP-45 thread some months ago...

Lol, if this is what the EMD F125 is going to sound like, then I approve:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4z39G_BoIM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The class 68 in this video uses the C175-16 while the F125 would use the 20 cylinder variant. Either it's me, or this engine has a distinct EMD sort of sound to it.

I only had a chance to listen to it through my tinny laptop speakers, but the "winding up" sound seemed very similar to an old non-turbo EMD. Interesting!

Fan Railer wrote:Lol, if this is what the EMD F125 is going to sound like, then I approve:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4z39G_BoIM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The class 68 in this video uses the C175-16 while the F125 would use the 20 cylinder variant. Either it's me, or this engine has a distinct EMD sort of sound to it.

Thats not just you.. When it loads up it sounds very similar to the Geeps.

I wonder if they didn't secretly stick a 567 in there and said it was a C175. It does smoke an awful lot haha

EMD protests the choice of the Siemens Locomotive over its own F125 for the multi-state / Amtrak procurement of High Speed Diesel locomotives

From "Afigg" over at Amtrak Unlimited:
EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens. Lengthy Railway Age article with specifics on EMD's argument that the Siemens' proposed loco won't meet the 125 mph speed requirement: EMD protests locomotive contract award. Don't know enough to determine how much merit EMD's protest has, but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award to where the September, 2017 funding deadline becomes a serious issue.
 
Excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:
 

Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs).
 
The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”

My response:
Once again, the "lack of HP" of the Siemens locomotive necessary to sustain 125 mph operations (according to EMD) can be easily solved by specifying a 5200 hp QSK120.

Full protest letter here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205490917/HSR ... 4-Original" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;