lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm
F40 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:04 pm
Whenever a new law is enacted, there is always a grandfather clause which older entities are not subject to if they met the requirements in place at that time. This goes for anything: stations built before the ADA, drugs on the market before the FDA was created, etc.
Sorry this is simply not the case in this instance. Any time an engine is remanufactured, it needs to be in compliance with the corresponding tier regulations at the time of remanufacture. For example, Tier 0 engines built prior to 2001 had a PM limit of 0.6. A tier 0 engine remanufactured today has a PM limit of 0.22. See https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php.
In 2008, when Tier 3 and 4 emissions standards were rolled out (with actual rolling stock meeting this requirement by 2011/12) this made Tier 0-2 standards more stringent, but nothing which stipulates locomotives which were built when Tier 0-2 was in place need to meet Tier 3 or 4 standards when remanufactured. The PL42AC's were built between 2003-2006. This would make them Tier 1. The 2006's, almost at the cusp of Tier 2. There is no logic behind not overhauling them because you can't make PL42AC's Tier 4.
lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm
A PL42AC, as counterintuitive as it might seem, almost certainly outputs more pollution per passenger-mile than an SUV bought in the last decade. Nothing ironic about it. Furthermore if you care about taking cars off the road, you should be in favor of dual-mode expansion, as it's well-known that a one-seat ride is a great way to get people out of cars and into transit.
Go to energy.gov, and you will certainly see commuter rail and intercity rail per-passenger mile fuel economy beat that of any sort of automobile. By this logic, a campaign should be run to get people off these "diesel-spewing" trains and into gas-guzzling SUV's, further contributing to traffic jams and more CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Specifics will vary but as an example, a Geep can consume about 200 gallons on a 30-mile commuter route. If it serves 300 passengers (on the low-end), it will have taken up to 300 cars off the road. Assuming 30 mpg per auto (not everyone will be in Civic's or get highway miles), this makes the "diesel-spewing" loco 33% more efficient than if everyone on the train took to driving. Taking the train is inherently "green," as the train is going to run regardless, but driving means that much more energy will be used to power your car, not the other way around.
Where is this "one-seat" ride you speak of for the Hoboken Division lines? Anyone in Bergen/Passaic counties cannot hope for a one-seat ride anytime soon. If Gateway/SEC loops were on the horizon, shovel-ready or in the ground, then it is sensible to order more dual-modes. But not at this stage.
lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm
Anytime a locomotive is built too specific and only for one railroad (which brings with it limited spare parts or usefulness of parts, inability to overhaul (i.e. to Tier IV) or not cost effective to overhaul, inability to sell) spells disaster. To add, NJT is having ALP45's replace them where dual modes are not needed. Well what about the SEC loop? At the rate we are going in which significant delays, massive red tape, and cost overruns are the norm, that should not even be considered when planning to procure new locomotives. Neither locomotive represents forward thinking or practical thinking, all things considered.
Dual-modes provide operational flexibility, and having a more unified fleet with more common replacement parts and repair procedures provides its own kind of operational savings. I'd be more concerned about long-term viability and reliability of Bombardier, but I guess with the Alstom buyout we can look forward to…the dubious track record of that company. Something to think about for our politicians — how did we end up with absolutely zero domestic manufacturing base for an entire transportation sector? But that's neither here nor there.
It is sad it came to this, and "they don't build them like they used to." You would think the builders we rely on (Alstom, Siemens Mobility, headquartered in France and Germany respectively) have the know-how to build quality locomotives/rolling stock. ACS-64's may suffer the same fate as the PL42's in going without a rebuild at the rate things are going. And not a great track record already for the new ALC-42's and SC-44's. Maybe NJT had no choice after all.
