Amtrak ALC-42 Procurement (Long-Distance LD Charger Variant)

Then there’s this variation making the rounds...

Wonder when the filmmaker will start to complain,the re's no remake on the horizon,but they still control the rights.

Marcop23 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:14 am Railcolornews has made an unofficial render of the ALC-42 livery:

https://railcolornews.com/2020/08/06/us ... e-charger/

That blue looks much darker. I like that.

Marcop23 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:14 am Railcolornews has made an unofficial render of the ALC-42 livery:

https://railcolornews.com/2020/08/06/us ... e-charger/

A bit of a tangent: What gets me is that there is a site that is dedicated to covering new livery on trains. Talk about a specific niche!

They did do a good render, though. I kinda like it.

We sort of like rebuilding the P-42s. Several items
1. Use of AC traction the obvious fuel savigs.
2 However you have as well HEP might need only a notch 3 or 4 prime mover speed to provide enough power. It might even vary with load ? So when traction power not needed then prime speed much less. As well when in dynamics part could be diverted to the HEP inverter. The long waits at some stations would cut the noise and fuel consumption,
3. The trucks problem may not be fixable unless new trucks are installed. Maybe anyway with AC traction motors ?
4. Parts is a problem. The contract would need a guarantee of at least 20 years of parts with only say a 5% temporary shortage of no more than say 90 days. Any shortage of parts supplied within 5 hours. Parts for locos at terminals SEA, EMY , LAX, SAS, NOL, ATL, Florence, Sanford, MIA, CLT, RVR, CHI = All locations, Beech, WASH, Bear, Wilmington, PHL, ALB, SSY, New Haven, BOS, Brunswick , ME. Would GE like those restrictions? hardly think so ?
5. Plenty of extra noses for grade crossing collisions. That applies to new Siemens as well.
6. Fuel capacity might be a problem if the rebuild requires DEF.
7. Must be fully compatible operating with one or more SC-44s (ALC-44). That includes with P-42 at one end and Siemens at other end.
8. Will require the FOC connection operatable with any function that will ever be added.
9. Controls at rear to operate in case needed to operate in reverse until can reach place to turn around.

Amtrak looked at rebuilding the P42 and for all the reasons you mentioned (except for rear hostler controls - they were deemed unnecessary in both the Genesis and the Charger) concluded that it would be cheaper in the long run to buy new. Structural integrity of the Geneses seemed to be a consideration too.

Though I’m intrigued by the possibility of making the GE 7FDL (and maybe even the EMD 710) Tier 4 compliant with SCR. That would be acceptable for passenger roads, even if freight lines prefer to meet Tier 4 with exhaust gas recirculation.

Have they ever considered rebuilding them into this???

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:28 am Have they ever considered rebuilding them into this???

I just answered that question on Twitter actually. Rumor has it that Amtrak considered and rejected these, just as they considered and rejected making NPCUs from the retired AEM-7 fleet. The Genesis is actually less suitable than the AEM or the HHP-8, due to its monocoque body supporting most of the engine’s weight through the side walls. Cut holes in the side and you’ve lost all structural integrity. And since one of the justifications of the NPCU rebuild was that they could be both baggage cars and control cabs, this just eliminates all pretense of being more than a box of air on wheels. Better to have a cab car that could at least theoretically be useful as more than a 100-ton control stand.

They’re also only certified to 110 mph, and have had issues with cracked trucks. Not too useful in Corridor service, and off-NEC they could be replaced by an F40 NPCU.

I swear if Amtrak spends money on rebuilding those things........

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:28 am Have they ever considered rebuilding them into this???

Here is one thing. If the P-42s were just demotored and used to lead what would be the financials for saving ALC-44s and remaining P-42 from the many grade crossing accidents. I just hate the thought of more ALC-44s getting taken out of service by the next crazy TT driver. Plus Amtrak could use up all the spare fronts. The truck problem is of course a problem.t

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:30 pm The Genesis is actually less suitable than the AEM or the HHP-8, due to its monocoque body
supporting most of the engine’s weight through the side walls. Cut holes in the side and you’ve
lost all structural integrity. And since one of the justifications of the NPCU rebuild was that they
could be both baggage cars and control cabs, this just eliminates all pretense of being more than
a box of air on wheels.

Same issue with the Amfleets, as a baggage/combine variant with loading door would compromise the fuselage shell.

You might also recall the postwar heritage fleet, and with the Budds having an integral (load carrying) stainless body, the Budd coaches that were later baggage conversions had their own issues.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:37 pmSame issue with the Amfleets, as a baggage/combine variant with loading door would compromise the fuselage shell.

You might also recall the postwar heritage fleet, and with the Budds having an integral (load carrying) stainless body, the Budd coaches that were later baggage conversions had their own issues.

It doesn’t help that the Amfleet only has (rough estimate) 3/4 of the internal volume of a Viewliner, with that aircraft fuselage-style body. Not only would a pair of baggage doors play structural havoc with the Amfleet, a Heritage bag would be more suitable to carry wide and tall loads.

I swear, Amtrak could have bought twenty-five Comet III or IV cabs when NJT ordered theirs (set up as Horizons with outboard-bearing GSI trucks) and been set for the next thirty years - until about 2025. Bombardier probably would have even built them a combine coach-baggage version if they’d asked nicely, since that was before the Acela Express debacle and Amtrak still got along swimmingly with BBD.

Here's a glimpse of the first ALC-42 (and the first VIA Rail Charger as well at the very end, sporting its own nose attachment):

I like the nose on the VIA unit better than the ones bound for the States

"Day 1" Livery (and other 50th schemes on P42s)


The official Phase 7