Genesis discussion (AMD-103, P40DC, P42DC)

Buffalo? Why not Toledo?

Sounds more like an Empire service. I doubt there’s much of a Boston-Buffalo market, I’m not sure how heavily traveled I-90 is.

Now, this could work for a Western MA service perhaps to Pittsfield and the Berkshires. Or a Boston-Montreal service? That’s always bandied about.

The slow loading of the P-42s on LD trains also has effects on schedule keeping. All routes including the NEC have numerous slow zones and the ability of accelerating out of those are problematic. Many posters have noted that the ACS's rapid acceleration on the NEC is much faster than previous motors. May be one reason Amtrak decided not to rebuild P-42s to AC traction?

A single P42 does not accelerate well, regardless of whether if it is leading a long distance or a corridor train, unless if they are doubleheaded. Even if a P42 is pulling a two car train out of a station, the P42 still struggles with acceleration. Many long distance trains use doubleheaded P42s. The Genesis unit is meant to handle trains that don't stop every few miles. Those Sprinter engines can accelerate great! The AEM7s did a nice job too.

When the Chargers enter revenue service, it will be great to see them not only accelerate well on corridor trains, but the long distance ones as well. There are long distance routes that have stops every few miles. For example, the Coast Starlight stops at both Oakland Jack London Square and Emeryville which are very close to each other.

Don't count on any corridor trains running from Boston to Upstate NY anytime soon. There are a lot of hills along the old Boston & Albany between Springfield and the Albany area. The tracks curve a lot as well.

I slightly disagree with some of the above, once a P42 loads and the turbo gets going, they do accelerate pretty well. They were made to pull the heavy LD trains and not run in commuter service.

I'm gonna disagree on the lack of acceleration as well. On a recent trip on the Harlem Line, my return shuttle to Wassaic was powered by one of the Amtrak leasers and it accelerated notably faster than the Brookvilles.

Even the Empire Trains get up to track speed pretty quickly with their units

It is a fact that the P42s load amps pretty slowly, but this was done on purpose by GE. In fact, as delivered they loaded even slower than now. There was a “racehorse package” applied to many of the units several years ago to enable slightly faster loading. But it would be entirely possible for Amtrak/GE to update the computers and have the motors load just as fast as a Dash 9 does, which are mechanically very similar. I’m not sure why they made the decision to do that; it may have to do with concerns over passenger engineers suddenly having to deal with the long mail and express laden trains back in the late 90s, but that is just a guess.

NaugyRR wrote:... and it accelerated notably faster than the Brookvilles

My Dad van loads faster than the Brookvilles...

Our understanding is the slow loading of the P-42s is a result of having to meet EPA emissions requirements. Fast acceleration means too much co2 and Noz.

east point wrote:Our understanding is the slow loading of the P-42s is a result of having to meet EPA emissions requirements. Fast acceleration means too much co2 and Noz.

Why is that, when the p42 is leading (and presumably has HEP on) is already emits a huge load of CO2 and NOx etc, it's already spinning at 900 rpm and the only extra load is amps for the traction motor's.

daybeers wrote:

benboston wrote:Amtrak could use all of the extra trains to make a new service between Boston and Buffalo. This is a perfect corridor because with appropriate track upgrades the travel time could be drastically reduced. At about 500 miles it is only 50 miles longer than the NEC. Also, it has a large amount of decently sized cities, Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Albany, Schenectady, Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo, Utica. This means that if they made it into a high-frequency service, then the ridership would be quite high.

I think you're dreaming a bit here What track upgrades would you suggest? Due to hills, the travel time, especially between Boston and Albany, is quite a bit longer than driving.

I think that a Boston-Buffalo service could certainly be viable. Why? Saves a lot of driving, and could be at a comparable cost, especially for those travelling with one or two people. I go from Worcester to Rochester several times a year, it runs about $130 in gas and tolls alone both ways (getting about 23MPG). It takes 6-7.5 hrs depending on traffic. LSL takes 9 hours to get here, which includes the hour in Albany to switch the train. Even at the existing time I know many people that use it to get here to ROC, primary issue is the train arrives at 9PM. If they shaved that down to 7 hours and had more frequency it would certainly be considerable for a lot of people I think, especially those travelling for college or business. I would choose it, but I have to have my car while I am here. The fare on the LSL is around $55 for the trip, which is about the same or cheaper than most bust service.

It also has transfer opportunities to go to Conn & NYC from Springfield, which would add more potential passengers to the route. If they did have the extra motive power from the Charger order & better coach availability from Amfleet replacements I think it would be a viable corridor to try.

I'm more interested in what might happen to the locomotives than I am about hypothetical new corridor that might be able to be started up...

If GE could redo the loading to a racehorse setting, I could still see some interest in the commuter sector.

Think of how many commuter agencies got their starts with hand-me-downs from GO Transit...

Correct me if I'm wrong the Downeaster uses P42s, and the Downeaster has very short distance between stops, by no means is it a LD route.

You're right, it's a typical commuter schedule, and with a P42, I guess it's a good thing it's a short train...

east point wrote:Our understanding is the slow loading of the P-42s is a result of having to meet EPA emissions requirements. Fast acceleration means too much co2 and Noz.

I believe the Genesis units were built to Tier 0 specs (effectivethrough 2001, if my memory is correct), and they have not been rebuilt since, so they are still held to that standard, which is not much, and the same as the SDP40s and F40PHs. Any difference in performance is going to be due to GE's design, not regulatory requirements.

the EMD are 2 stroke roots blown motor. they have faster throttle response than a 4 stroke. also the 4 stroke suffers from turbo lag more.

ever see how long an rs-3 loads