SC-44 Siemens Charger Locomotives

NH2060 wrote:

ApproachMedium wrote:Honestly with the success of the last how many years of the GEs as long haul road power for Amtrak i am surprised they did not go with this power package.

But has Amtrak itself actually decided on anything yet? The Midwest/Northwest states are the ones buying the base order of 32 Chargers upfront with the 225 option locos being presumably for LD routes.

Perhaps Amtrak wants to wait until the pre-production/1st production Chargers and even F125s leave the factory in order to put all options on the table before making a decision. They're not exactly rolling in dough as it is so whatever they buy to replace/upgrade everything has to be worth the money.

It's structured so:
-- Base order addresses the power shortage for these states above-and-beyond the current diesel roster.
-- Option #1 on the order replaces the rest of the corridor power in these states, retires the west coast F59PHI roster to shorten the bench of differing makes Beech Grove needs to maintain, and frees up some P42 reinforcements for elsewhere (which probably means they can yank the remaining Dash 8's from revenue service and banish them to non-revenue only, and can re-mothball the 15 P40DC outliers).
-- Option #2 is the biiiiig national order with larger fuel tanks suitable for LD service, which retires the P42's and shrinks them to an all-Siemens loco fleet (save for the P32 dual modes, which are an end-of-decade TBD replacement).

It is all under Amtrak's control because they dictated the specs and they're forcing the states to abide the way the options are structured. Unless they have to abort the order after the base units because of some debacle, the options are the only way forward and the states can't go 'rogue' ordering whatever they please for the next power purchase.


Basically, if the Cummins thing doesn't work out and *IF* these things are as modular as claimed they've got 2 chances--at each of the Option decisions--to make a power plant switch. And the base order is far and away the smallest # of units in the contract so if they have to later swap out the power plant on the base units for commonality with what they go with on the option units that won't be too bad a bath they take on the swap-outs.

It's a risk no doubt, but they've got some measure of safety valves built-in to the order to make adjustments before they get in too deep. So isn't necessarily fatal if they take it on the chin here.

The 15 P40DCs probably wont go anywhere. At least a handful of them will be kept for the AutoTrain with the oddball gearing for freight speeds.

GE has created a repower "kit" for passenger locos,MBTA's HSP-46's are turning into the "proof of concept" for that kit,
when they finally shake off the defects and bugs from MPI,that "kit" should prove out in commuter service.

Backshophoss wrote:GE has created a repower "kit" for passenger locos,MBTA's HSP-46's are turning into the "proof of concept" for that kit,
when they finally shake off the defects and bugs from MPI,that "kit" should prove out in commuter service.

I think GE's actions are certainly very sensible. However, both EMD and GE are doing themselves a great disservice by allowing a serious and significant competitor to enter the North American market which they have had a lock on for so long.

They don't seem to be taking the "Charger" as a serious threat for the moment. And that's understandable. Unproven power plant, unproven manufacturer. And the list goes on. But I think its worth writing (and discussing) now about the fact that if Siemens is successful they will not only have a new engine in the market but it will be independent of current offerings from other North American manufacturers. For example, Siemens didn't merely decide to enter the U.S. locomotive market but they did so without using GE or EMD power. That is what I think constitutes the most radical step.

Cummins is certainly debatable as to reliability in rail applications. But inexperienced in building and running diesel engines they are not. Furthermore, Cummins is a North American manufacturer of diesel engines, which means that the Charger, unlike its electrified cousin, is unlikely to have issues adapting to North American operating conditions. I would say if anything the Charger should have demonstrably better odds of success than the ACS-64 because the "guts" of the unit are well acclimated to the conditions it will operate in. Look at how the ACS-64 has done and tell me that you think the Charger won't do better on all counts. Unimaginable.

The ACS-64 has to operate on the NEC using the jig saw puzzle of electrified infrastructure and signals with European electrical equipment to boot. The Charger will face none of that and will do so with a North American engine under the hood. If I were Siemens I would have my research and design teams working on a freight copy of the Charger for sale in the North American market. Someday we may find ourselves mentioning Sacramento in the same breath as Erie and Muncie.

I think the back story here is that to a certain extent neither EMD or GE were willing to give Amtrak favorable terms or were fundamentally interested in the order. Siemens on the other hand saw Amtrak as an ideal breakthrough customer for North America and even figured out a shrewd entry strategy using a well known North American engine manufacturer. If complacency is ultimately the root cause for this shakeup this is the kind of story that will be studied in business schools for years to come.

EMD was having fits to make the 710 tier IV compliant,the proposed F-125 will use a Cat Prime mover
that can be tier IV compliant,at present Detroit Diesel,Cat,and Cummins engines for Class 8 trucks
use some form of exhaust after treatment chem. As that seems to be the trend for Cat(EMD) and Cummins
Prime movers in RR use. GE's EVO prime mover is tier IV compliant ,but not sure sure how.
The "charger" may become the SD90/43 of this time,a not so great loco,built in small numbers.

The only reason the P32ACDMs were made for amtrak etc is because the state of NY funded a good part of the order. I think the first half came with the first batch for Metro north. Whatever the next "dual mode" to be made for Amtrak will be the same engine that LIRR and MNCRR get all at once. They learned from their mistakes with the DE/DM30s and with the age of the P32ACDM fleet getting up there with no overhaul, other than the metro north units, its getting down to grind time. They have been running the amtrak units into the dirt for years now. They really dont behave well anymore and doing anything out of the ordinary with them seems to goof them up. I think after years of 3rd rail arcs, abuse, and voltage fluctuations on DC 3rd rail they really are not what they once were.

Amtrak will run them until they cant anymore just like they did with the FL9s. I just really wish there was a plan for these much closer into the future. With the 706 gone for the last almost 4 years now if amtrak looses another P32ACDM it could put empire service in jeopardy. There has been talks among the 3 railroads to possibly aquire some kind of overhead wire dual mode for MNCRR hudson river penn access, LIRR (Changover at Woodside) and Amtrak since the wire is already there, and you would eliminate the gapping issue. The one main concern though is Amtrak, MTA and NYS do not want to foot the bill for 9 million dollar a piece locomotives that are not as fuel efficient as what they are running now. Siemens supposedly has something up their sleeve but we shal see. I personally would love to see a top to bottom overhaul/rethink of the current P32ACDm with modern electronics (Current stuff is 20+years old), more HP, GEVO power, and maybe better trucks.

ApproachMedium wrote:The only reason the P32ACDMs were made for amtrak etc is because the state of NY funded a good part of the order. I think the first half came with the first batch for Metro north. Whatever the next "dual mode" to be made for Amtrak will be the same engine that LIRR and MNCRR get all at once. They learned from their mistakes with the DE/DM30s and with the age of the P32ACDM fleet getting up there with no overhaul, other than the metro north units, its getting down to grind time. They have been running the amtrak units into the dirt for years now. They really dont behave well anymore and doing anything out of the ordinary with them seems to goof them up. I think after years of 3rd rail arcs, abuse, and voltage fluctuations on DC 3rd rail they really are not what they once were.

Amtrak will run them until they cant anymore just like they did with the FL9s. I just really wish there was a plan for these much closer into the future. With the 706 gone for the last almost 4 years now if amtrak looses another P32ACDM it could put empire service in jeopardy. There has been talks among the 3 railroads to possibly aquire some kind of overhead wire dual mode for MNCRR hudson river penn access, LIRR (Changover at Woodside) and Amtrak since the wire is already there, and you would eliminate the gapping issue. The one main concern though is Amtrak, MTA and NYS do not want to foot the bill for 9 million dollar a piece locomotives that are not as fuel efficient as what they are running now. Siemens supposedly has something up their sleeve but we shal see. I personally would love to see a top to bottom overhaul/rethink of the current P32ACDm with modern electronics (Current stuff is 20+years old), more HP, GEVO power, and maybe better trucks.

It depends on what the needs are for MNRR and LIRR. If the P32 spec is fine as-is, it wouldn't be difficult at all to "kit" a bunch of new ones out of old P42DC/P40DC's. The P32 and HSP-46 use the same traction motors, the monocoque shell squares the approximately ~10K lb. weight difference with an HSP, and modern regen braking tech ought to shrink the radiators, etc. enough to make the E-mode components an easier and less weight-penalizing insertion. New dual-modes could end up almost as straightforward a remanufacture as the "P46AC" remans that GE is certainly going to be pushing hard with the kit upgrades if/when Amtrak starts dispersing them. For that reason, MNRR/LIRR studying an HSP-46 lineage dual opens up the widest possible set of purchase options (all-new or reman) for plotting that 2020 purchase.

Where it gets complicated is the unanswered question: just how equal does the MTA want its diesel mode and E mode. Unlike the P32's which were always intended for very limited "get in the tunnel/get out the tunnel" E-mode, the DM30AC pieces o' crap were ostensibly supposed to have wider range on 3rd rail. Until couple of them went up in smoke trying to and that practice was more or less ended. If they insist on equal power in both modes, like a shoed ALP-45DP, then all bets are off whether it's even possible to do something GEVO-based. Much less similar enough overall to a P32 or HSP-46 to be plausibly "kittable". They'll need high-performance or genset diesel engines to make it fit. And that also gets a bit divergent from Amtrak's needs since they only have to spit out of the tunnel, not control their emissions on much higher commuter rail frequencies by taking advantage of as much 3rd rail running territory as available without gapping problems (which might mean going to diesel mode at the first grade crossing on a given line).

For obvious reasons Empire services may have to be the outlier from the one modular make fleet strategy, but there's a lot they have to hash out here with NYS on how to serve the MTA's needs and square the maintenance costs for what's assigned to Albany. It doesn't surprise me that this order is going to trail the straight diesels + options by 3-5 years on the calendar the way it times with the MTA fleet plan and the extra planning overhead involved. At the end of the day they can deal with it if fleet availability is a dicey proposition on the Empire for a few years longer while breathing a sigh of relief everywhere else in the country. It's a lot easier and less resource-intensive to focus on mitigation for one stretched equipment pool instead of 3 or 4.

The DM30AC's would have been fine if they hadn't tried to make them so unique. They are good locomotives internally, they just have too much extra garbage that has hampered them in their time.
It stinks that now reliability is almost always a major issue with each new engine with more technology then the ones before. I know trying to get the most up to date items in the engines, but the more they do so the more they take things out of the engineers hands. Not to mention they are creating more liabilities and more things to maintain, which again is good and bad. It's a good time to be a specialist in the computer field.

Believe it or not, other than having no dynamic braking on the P32 in 3rd rail mode, they run very well on the 3rd rail. They do not have much power. They can go to the 8th notch unlike the DM30. The P32ACDM is much better suited in my opinion for "going the distance" on 3rd rail however not even metro north runs theirs on 3rd rail power too far out of the park ave tunnels. Its bad enough these things have not the best HP in diesel mode in 3rd rail its even worse. They electronically limit it to 3200hp peak and about 1500 constant. They cant pull well going up hill with more than 5 cars on 3rd rail but can get a train up to 60mph on it. In diesel you can get much more speed and much more power over time.

Right now with the way everything is jammed in the P32ACDM they would have to basically gut it and start all over again if you wanted to get some more "features" out of it like better regen braking. As it is right now the dynamic brake feeds back in to the DC link which also powers the HEP and any excess is fed into the dynamic resistor grid. (no separate alternator like the P42/40) Once you go in to 3rd rail mode you loose all dynamic braking because there is no engine running to keep the DC link voltage up when the engine runs out of 3rd rail voltage in the gaps. Anyone thats ridden on the DM30 trains knows about the bucking the trains to because anytime they run off 3rd rail the motors go in to dynamic brake to keep the DC link up and try to keep HEP on. GE opted out of this because of space issues and because of the weight a rougher ride with the engine slamming back and fourth into the train everytime it his a gap in the 3rd rail.

Using the same package thats in the HSP for the P42s/P40s would probably be a good idea. Why spend more taxpayer dollars on a whole new engine when you have carbodies that can keep going and going. While they are at it all the F40s still stored in Bear untouched should take the 710ECO upgrades and could be used for extra reserve power for the corridor for when the power goes out. Keep a couple in Philly, DC, Adams yard. When they arent being used for passenger service rescue etc during the day at night they can be used for work train service. It would sure be better than the useless junk they have now that can barely pull 300 amps per traction motor.

AMTK822401 wrote:

ApproachMedium wrote:Using the same package thats in the HSP for the P42s/P40s would probably be a good idea. Why spend more taxpayer dollars on a whole new engine when you have carbodies that can keep going and going. While they are at it all the F40s still stored in Bear untouched should take the 710ECO upgrades and could be used for extra reserve power for the corridor for when the power goes out. Keep a couple in Philly, DC, Adams yard. When they arent being used for passenger service rescue etc during the day at night they can be used for work train service. It would sure be better than the useless junk they have now that can barely pull 300 amps per traction motor.

I've always wondered why they have kept F40PHs in storage for so long and have never used them...good idea though.

Oh, I thought that the stored fleet of F40PHs was subject to a lease-back scheme that prevented Amtrak from disposing of them. They'd be good feedstock for an F33PH-ECO program though, similar to how Norfolk Southern is rebuilding its GP50s into GP33ECOs.

And if I ran a state regional passenger rail service, I'd be considering just that---assuming it was cost-effective.

mtuandrew wrote:

AMTK822401 wrote:

ApproachMedium wrote:Using the same package thats in the HSP for the P42s/P40s would probably be a good idea. Why spend more taxpayer dollars on a whole new engine when you have carbodies that can keep going and going. While they are at it all the F40s still stored in Bear untouched should take the 710ECO upgrades and could be used for extra reserve power for the corridor for when the power goes out. Keep a couple in Philly, DC, Adams yard. When they arent being used for passenger service rescue etc during the day at night they can be used for work train service. It would sure be better than the useless junk they have now that can barely pull 300 amps per traction motor.

I've always wondered why they have kept F40PHs in storage for so long and have never used them...good idea though.

Oh, I thought that the stored fleet of F40PHs was subject to a lease-back scheme that prevented Amtrak from disposing of them. They'd be good feedstock for an F33PH-ECO program though, similar to how Norfolk Southern is rebuilding its GP50s into GP33ECOs.

And if I ran a state regional passenger rail service, I'd be considering just that---assuming it was cost-effective.

FWIK, the F40's in Bear are being kept as potential candidates for future NPCU conversions.

amtrakhogger wrote:FWIK, the F40's in Bear are being kept as potential candidates for future NPCU conversions.

I believe you, but why? I thought the new Midwest and California regionals were supposed to have these Chargers on one end and NS/Sumitomo cab cars on the other. Also, there aren't any new off-NEC trains that could use an NPCU from what I recall, and if there are, the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois trains will be giving theirs up soon enough.

What good are NPCUs when amtrak is trying to push 110mph rail corridors?

ApproachMedium wrote:What good are NPCUs when amtrak is trying to push 110mph rail corridors?

I'll do you one better: what good are Chargers' 125 mph capability to the Midwest or California, when no line off the Northeast Corridor is closer than a decade away from sustained 110 mph service? The Midwest coalition is drinking the Kool-Aid, unfortunately, and I only hope it doesn't come back to bite them.

At least Amtrak ought to be able to certify the NPCUs for 110 mph if it wants, considering that generations of EMDs past were good to that speed. Besides, an F40 NPCU carries the majority of its weight lower than an uncut F40PH does. That said, there's that pesky matter of the cab cars I mentioned earlier.

mtuandrew wrote:

amtrakhogger wrote:FWIK, the F40's in Bear are being kept as potential candidates for future NPCU conversions.

I believe you, but why? I thought the new Midwest and California regionals were supposed to have these Chargers on one end and NS/Sumitomo cab cars on the other. Also, there aren't any new off-NEC trains that could use an NPCU from what I recall, and if there are, the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois trains will be giving theirs up soon enough.

Contingency if their budget gets slashed and they have to get creative again to pad the cab numbers. That's pretty much the origin of the original NPCU's, right?


I doubt they'll ever be needed. The bi-level corridor contract is signed with the options baked in. The states won't short the number of cab cars they need when it comes to the options, because if they have to turn to more NPCU's to cover the shortages I'm sure they fully expect Beech Grove is going to gouge them on the costs of conversion. There'll be some single-level cabs freed up from the Midwest to send back East. And in the East with the V2's looking like a tentative winner their preferred option is almost certainly going to be doing another order of them that replaces all the Metroliners while buffing out the cab ranks.

Storage for future conversion considerations just means they're covering their butts in case Congress succeeds at bringing the pain.