MPI HSP46 passenger locomotive, powered by GE GEVO-12

I've been hearing about this for the past couple of months, but until now, none of the press releases had any comments from anyone at GE, and the comments from MPI about GE's involvement were a bit vague. Today, GE finally added their voice and we can now consider this "officially official": MPI will be building passenger locomotives powered by GE's GEVO diesel engine and GE's AC traction systems, among other GE components and technology. There will be 20 of them, designated MPI HSP46, to be delivered to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in 2012-2013.

Highlights:

• They will meet the upcoming EPA Tier 3 emissions standards.
• Assembled in Boise, Idaho by MPI.
• GE components built in Erie and Grove City, Pennsylvania: diesel engines, HEP systems, computer control systems, traction control systems.
• MPI will supply the brake systems, air systems, and cooling systems.

For more info: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 71003.html

Thanks for posting that, MEC407!
There were stories earlier in the year that Amtrak was going to buy new locomotives, and GE was certainly interested in their business, but I haven't heard much recently about that. Amtrak and commuter agencies may want different products, but I would suspect that doing a deal like this to have MPI build "locomotive mechanical portions" for passenger diesels might might indicate that GE regards work on a wholly-GE "GEVO Genesis" as on the back burner.
---
As a rough rule of thumb, take the engine, the electricals, and the rest as one third each of a diesel-electric locomotive by value. So an Alco-GE (GE motors, generator, and control system mated to an Alco engine in a unit built in the Alco shop) was one-third GE. A Fairbanks-Morse Erie-built (GE motors, generator, and control system mated to an F-M engine in a unit built by GE-Erie) might be two-thirds GE. These new passenger units ((GE motors, generator, and control system mated to a GE engine in a unit built by MPI) might also be two-thirds (but a DIFFERENT two-thirds) GE.
---
And you don't see new stories datelined Wilmerding, PA, very often! Back in the 1970s, when I was a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh, I made a few pilgrimages out to the Westinghouse Air Brake plant (just east of where the PRR/PC/ Conrail/NS main line goes under a very high concrete highway bridge, on the north side of the tracks, separated from the tracks by a concrete-lined river/drainage ditch): the last PRR I1sa 2-10-0 (now at some railway museum in western New York State) was at that time displayed on Wabco's front lawn.

Interesting to see a GEVO12 engine in a commuter unit.

For the engineers out there, how does a ES44 load up compared with a SD70ACe? NJT and MetroNorth are really the only 2 commuter railroads to brave a GE on commuter service for the loading issues.

Not one new commuter engine, be it GE or EMD or whatever will ever load as older units.
EPA rules simply prohibit conditions such as existed in old days with turbo lag etc.
These days the engine simply won't run up to spped but waits for computer signal on right Turbo Speed, right Turbo oil pressure, Right temperature etc etc etc
Yes a Genesis is a bit slower from start but once over 15 mph will pull the chrome of a trailerhitch.
The Genesis will get from 0 -60 in same time and distance as a old pair of FL-9's.
A Genesis will still get 0-60 in sametime/ Distance as a F40ph , with same train, despite the slower initial start.

DutchRailnut wrote:Not one new commuter engine, be it GE or EMD or whatever will ever load as older units.
EPA rules simply prohibit conditions such as existed in old days with turbo lag etc.
These days the engine simply won't run up to spped but waits for computer signal on right Turbo Speed, right Turbo oil pressure, Right temperature etc etc etc
Yes a Genesis is a bit slower from start but once over 15 mph will pull the chrome of a trailerhitch.
The Genesis will get from 0 -60 in same time and distance as a old pair of FL-9's.
A Genesis will still get 0-60 in sametime/ Distance as a F40ph , with same train, despite the slower initial start.

Yes, a GE will get to 0-60 in about the same time/distance as a Geep or F40, but the Geep or F40 has 1200 less HP.

they can be very quick, just require a different kind of running than an EMD. Actually require some skill on the engineers part, with the EMDs you just go to notch 8, on the GE thats the absolutely worst thing you can do. But if you know how to run them, they can be nearly as quick as say a PL42, which has the same HP, 4200HP, but EMD powered. Of course im talking about the existing Genesis/P40/42s, not the new GEVO powerplant locos

But thats a good comparison, they can pull the chrome off of a trailer hitch - hahaha

Not really a P40 in HEP mode is only max 3650 HP due to reduction in engine speed to 900 rpm.
and still lose another 100 hp for each car supplied with HEP(maybe more for NJT multilevels).
The NJT F40ph-2cat has 3000 Hp pure pulling power, as HEP is delivered by the Caterpillar HEP set.

Another article with some additional info -- specifically, that the MPI-GE partnership may continue beyond this initial order of locomotives:

http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-tim ... be-ongoing

With Electro Motives new relationship with MPI competitor Progress Rail, I wonder if they cut MPI off from using EMD electrical equipment. The EMD electrical equipment is also made in Canada so there might be a problem with "buy American" for passenger locomotives. I think EMD is still smarting after the LIRR DE/DM fiasco of a one off design as all these commuter orders seem to be evolving into. GE has deep pockets to lose money on this and its only an order for 20 units anyway.

One technical detail came out in the second article you linked to, MEC407: top speed of 103 mph. That, as I recall, was the top speed quoted for Amtrak's first (P40) Genesis locomotives. I would ordinarily take this as suggesting that the new units would have the same motors and gearing as the Genesis, but the first article said they would use AC motors, and Genesis (except for the dual-mode group) used DC motors.

Expect a propulsion package same as P32acdm minus dual mode switchover gear, the P32 was about 200% over engineered, we can run about 2800 HP on two traction motors.
and with a 4200 Gevo engine the engineroom setup will be about same, only mods would be cooling system.
Even if Amtrak goes for GE again don't expect a DC locomotive, a new Genesis would almost certainly be a AC propulsion unit.

Allen Hazen wrote:One technical detail came out in the second article you linked to, MEC407: top speed of 103 mph.

Correct, but it sounds like they'll be capable of going a bit faster than that, even if the contract only specifies 103:

"Specifications on the new locomotive call for it to travel up to 103 miles per hour, although Neupaver said it's being built for around 110 mph, based on technology that eventually could be used for even higher speeds."

Considering that these are being built for the MBTA, I'll be surprised if they ever go above 60. (That's a jab at the T, not a jab at MPI or GE!)

DutchRailnut wrote:Expect a propulsion package same as P32acdm minus dual mode switchover gear, the P32 was about 200% over engineered, we can run about 2800 HP on two traction motors.

I love how if what you say is true, then with 4 traction motors, one could run about 5600 hp on a P32, which only has a maximum wheel horsepower from the prime mover of about 3000 (after subtracting power lost in the transmission system and HEP drain).... normally speaking, that wouldn't make any sense at all....

Electricaly the locomotive is 200% over designed, the HEP takes about 100 hp of traction for each car supplied.
so on a 7 car train a max of only around 2500 is possible in diesel, a bit higher in third rail mode.
The max I have seen with two traction motors cut out was 2800 on traction circuit.

DutchRailnut wrote:Electricaly the locomotive is 200% over designed, the HEP takes about 100 hp of traction for each car supplied.
so on a 7 car train a max of only around 2500 is possible in diesel, a bit higher in third rail mode.
The max I have seen with two traction motors cut out was 2800 on traction circuit.

hmmm i c, so then what is the output rating for each individual traction motor?

Fan Railer--
GE's AC60 freight locomotive is 6,000 hp on six axles -- 1,000 hp of engine horsepower per axle -- but I think part of the secret of very high tractive effort on an AC-motored locomotive is that different axles can draw different currents (so, roughly, the one's with the best instantaneous adhesion are putting out more power than the ones going over grease spots on the rail), so the motors should have at least a short-time rating significantly above that.
The PC32acdm may not have the same traction motors as the AC60 (McDonnell's book says the P32acdm has GEB15 motors as opposed to the GEB13 on GE's domestic AC freighters), so this may be comparing apples and oranges. But if Dutch (who works for Metro-North) says the electricals of a P32acdm are massively over-designed and that they can operate at 2,800 hp with two motors cut out, I'm prepared to believe him!

(Comparison: Pennsylvania Railroad's P5a, R1 and DD-2 electric locomotives had 1,250 hp per powered axle, and could, I think, operate at a significant overload for short periods.)