SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

DutchRailnut wrote:maybe in past due to control issues , but with AC traction and HEP inverters the engine is governed for load not throttle settings

don't forget that average tugboat these days is two locomotives with AC traction DE drive

That may be true but but nothing compares to the good old EMD engines we have at amtrak for work service. The new wabco things using the same dash 3 EM2000 controls do not run as well with their horrible 12 cyl twin turbo caterpillar engines. Bunch of junk. Always loaded with problems. Check engine lights. Clogged filters. The same control system on the GP38-H3 645 non turbo EMD mover pretty much never has a problem, doesnt break down on me when I need it and is simple to repair. Unfortunatly with all of this tiers of emissions baloney anything new with the classic EMD movers is basically dead.

again ac vs dc and lots of those issues seem maintenance ?

Both engines are EM2000 controlled. have AC alternators and DC traction motors. Same model trucks and traction motors. Only real difference between the two is one altoona upgraded the other wabco built. The EMDs run better longer with less maintenance than the 4 stroke caterpillar. Why? I shop the new ones all the time. The old ones that were upgraded only see 92 day inspections. Thats where I dont see this cummins thing pulling thru. Its Tier 4. It probably has lots of particulate filters. Have you seen how well amtrak is at changing filters? It probably also has a piss tank for DEF fluid. We are lucky we get windshield washer fluid. If someone doesnt top off that DEF, you are gonna have a train stuck out there in the wild in limp mode or worse, dead in the water. Marine engines have zero emissions standards basically. This Cummins thing being used in marine applications is not going to be the same as railroad at all. With all the Tier 4 emissions components added you are looking at less power and much much more maintenance to keep up on. This is going to cost money and time to deal with. That is why I wanted to see it PROVEN operating in a railroad environment with all of its emissions baloney functioning in all its glory before I will tell anyone that this was a good investment.

Any chance of utilizing VW-style emissions control software on these things?

Matt,ARE you crazy,VW has fines up the wazoo and a nightmare recall to reprogram all of the screwed up
ECU's,but this is not the first time,NJDOT claimed the the class 8 truck engine Control units were rigged to
to run a certain way during testing ,this happened back in the early 2000's.
Cummings,Cat,and Detroit Diesel were all involved then.
It was a nightmare for all the trucking fleets to completely reprogram all the ECU's in 2 years

Believe this will happen soon enough,Delays due to running out of DE Fluid out in the middle of nowhere!

This thread makes me feel better about my Land rover running like a hairy goat.
I would say a traditional diesel wouldn't be able to get a heavy train up to 125 mph, I don't think they have any choice but to go high speed. That is more akin to marine or truck technology than railroad.
Speaking of 125 MPH, has that lawsuit been resolved ?

ApproachMedium wrote:Marine Environment does not equal railroad.

True! Never-the-less, a marine environment is a real world environment, not in someone's R&D lab.

Besides, didn't the Paxman Valentas from the marine environment power the British 125mph HSTs for several decades before they were finally re-engined recently?

Yes, they did,some of them on 20 hour daily diagrams, racking up 1/2 a million miles a year.
Probably the most successful diesel ever for British Rail.
However, I think they were re-engined in the 90's or so , this would be their 3rd engine going in recently.

The first re-engine was in 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxman_Valenta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David Benton wrote:This thread makes me feel better about my Land rover running like a hairy goat.
I would say a traditional diesel wouldn't be able to get a heavy train up to 125 mph, I don't think they have any choice but to go high speed. That is more akin to marine or truck technology than railroad.
Speaking of 125 MPH, has that lawsuit been resolved ?

Why wouldn't it? As I've said before, if a 2000 hp E-unit can get a shortish train over 110 mph, why can't a 4400 hp Genesis get a shortish train over 125 mph? Keep in mind also, the LRC only had 3750 bhp on tap, but multi-car LRC trains exceeded 130 mph (over 95 mph continuous, including stops) on tests at Pueblo back in the 1970s.

first a genesis is 4200 hp max and if it is single unit providing HEP it is only 3750 hp due to max engine speed of 900 RPM.

My bad, I had a brain fart, but my point still stands that a traditional railroad prime mover doesn't lose its practicality above 110 mph.

1. British/european trains are not american trains. They are much lighter so much less HP to reach higher speeds.

2. there is nothing against the traditional prime movers and vehicle top speed. Its the emissions thats the problem, and with that horsepower. The cummins engine is smaller and provides much more power in a smaller total engine displacement. So we will see what happens. The traditional GE FDL16 probably could run up to 125mph if it was coupled to a modern traction system and geared properly. But with the current traction system if the gearing was upped to be able to reach 125 it might have trouble starting on grades with longer trains because the vintage DC traction system is just not set up to adhere in those situations.

On the 125 mph capability, for the commuter railroads it is not really needed and may never be for some of the west coast services. This is for two reasons, first they are limited to 79mph on any of the track they share with freight. Second they are too heavy and don't go far enough between stops. Both Metrolink and Surfliner focus on trains with 6 Bilevel cars and Metrolink is now running some 8 car trains with double locomotives.

Attached is a chart of Speed vs Power vs Distance This is for a 6 Bilevels using the Davis equation for both 3000HP and 3800HP (plus a 3rd 7000HP line for electrics). The 3800HP is an estimate of what the Charger will be putting out after HEP on 6 Bilevels.

With 3800HP it takes 16 miles to reach 110, looking at the curve it looks like 125 is not even possible. (there was an article about EMD protesting on these grounds, but this is not their analysis)

I agree there is nothing wrong with making new locomotives that can go at higher speeds if someday they may be used in that application, but for the majority of commuter rail out here this is not a good justification for not rebuilding the older locomotives and just buying new ones at $6+ million a copy.

If someone has a different analysis I'd be happy to see it.