Future of the Amtrak Genesis locomotive?

With more and more Siemens chargers showing up on Amtrak properties, is the Genesis era ending? Does anyone knows if GETS (or soon to be former GE transportation) is even making an effort to compete in the passenger market?

I understand Chargers use Cummins engine, is Cummins trying to make a serious inroad into the locomtive market?

The most recent "GE" passenger locomotives (in North America-- I think some of their exports are used on passenger trains) were, I think, the recent commuter locomotives for Boston. GE clearly didn't want to tool up for a short run of a nonstandard design (profitable GEVO freight units were filling the shop floors), and sold the propulsion systems -- diesel engines, traction motors, etc -- to an outside contractor who build the carbodies to put them in.

Cummins has been interested in the railroad market for a LONG time. Many GE industrial switchers had Cummins engines. As of a few years ago, Cummins had a diesel engine big enough for North American freight locomotives: I believe there is a test/demonstrator unit (an SD40 rebuilt with the big Cummins engine) out there.

We could be in for … interesting times … in the locomotive market.

Re Cummins and locomotives:
https://cumminsengines.com/showcase-ite ... &#overview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Allen Hazen wrote:I believe there is a test/demonstrator unit (an SD40 rebuilt with the big Cummins engine) out there.

Not sure if it's the same one you're thinking of, but they've got a demo unit in service (since 2015) that was built from an SD90MAC-H core.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqF4kObDMw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SD40, SD90… it's hard to keep those off-brand locomotives straight! Yes, that's probably what I was remembering. Thank you for the details and link!
--
The engine is… different. The 16-cylinder QSK is rated at 4400 horsepower (hmm… wonder how they chose that output to aim for (Grin!)), but the cylinder volume is only about half that of an FDL. Top speed is 1800rpm, instead of the ?? 1050 ?? rpm of the FDL. So it's probably smaller and lighter in weight than a standard U.S.-style locomotive prime mover, which is good for the niche market of high speed passenger units. But my impression is that the larger cylinders of the bigger engines make for better fuel economy (better volume to surface area ratio, so less energy lost through the cylinder walls), and the lower rpm of "medium speed" diesel engines reduces wear and tear and so makes them less maintenance intensive. Does anybody here know how the QSK compares in fuel efficiency and (predicted) frequency-of-repair to engines like the FDL (with the GEVO being superior to the FDL on the first and I would suspect the second count)? Unless Cummins can match the competition on these fronts, I would think they would have a hard time penetrating the freight locomotive market.

(Oh. I think something I read suggested that the QSK engine uses Urea to achieve Tier 4 emissions standards: something very unpopular with large freight railroads, and that GE put a lot of work into avoiding with the Tier 4 GEVO. I don't understand Cummins's strategy.)

The guy they interviewed from Indiana Rail Road seemed to suggest that they were experiencing superior fuel economy compared to their existing fleet, which I interpreted as their 16-710-powered SD90MACs. He also said that the QSK-powered MAC pulled better.

Truck and bus engines that use urea aftertreatment typically have better fuel economy than truck and bus engines that use EGR. That might or might not be true of locomotive engines with EGR vs. locomotive engines with aftertreatment; I'm not sure. Truck and bus engines that use urea aftertreatment are also typically more reliable than truck and bus engines that use EGR, but again I don't know whether or not that translates to locomotive engines.