• Siemens to manufacture 83 Intercity Trainsets for Amtrak: Design, Delivery, Acceptance

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 308 posts
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 21
  by Marcop23
 
eolesen wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:54 am Keep in mind that 70 years ago, single E units rated at 2400hp (or less) used to handle much heavier cars and consists than what the Siemens sets look to be.

Having two power cars at about 2600hp combined should be just fine. If they manage to get the combined power up to 3000-3600hp, even better.
[...]
Yes, but it seems to me that the Siemens trainsets are going to be push-pull so just one locomotive.
  by STrRedWolf
 
Strike MARC from the possible recipient list on those Sprinters. They're going dual-mode.

From the funding requests made by Maryland's Congress critters:
PROJECT TITLE: Dual Locomotives for Commuter Rail Service in the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel

Location: Baltimore, MD

Recipient Name: Maryland Department of Transportation

Project Purpose: Funds will be used to purchase up to 12 dual mode electric/diesel locomotives to operate in the new B&P tunnel once its construction is complete. The upgraded locomotives will allow for increased train speeds, more fleet capacity and flexibility, reduced emissions, and improved service reliability, including new and express trips.

Amount Requested: $1 million
  by STrRedWolf
 
njtmnrrbuff wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:24 am Those dual powered trainsets continuing onto points south might be waiting at WUS for 15 minutes rather than 5 minutes. Assuming that Amtrak still decides to have the passengers boarding in DC who are heading south wait for passengers who are coming from the north getting off, that requires a longer dwell time than five minutes. Remember that at WAS, you can only access the building from the south end of the platform. Plus many of those platforms are still low level.
scratchyX1 wrote: I don't understand. You mean that people are traveling from the south through first street tunnel, just to transfer and go south again? Couldn't they just transfer at ALX?
Wouldn't the trains still have to contend with limited slots over long bridge, even with the reduced transfer?
The run-through tracks at WAS are low-level and require embarking passengers to travel through a corridor and down an elevator or escalator to a low-level platform, then back up into the train itself (given that they're likely Viewliners). This takes more time than you think!

Time reduction? Maybe 15-20 minutes. And to be honest, Mr. Norman, I'd be weighing the cost of MARC+Amtrak ODN-WAS-RVR over just Amtrak BWI-RVR.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
Yes, to access the run through low level platforms at WAS, people do have to walk through a passageway to access the escalators and elevators that connect to the run through platform tracks. It's not just the fact that passengers may be getting off in DC and then many would be boarding there. Even at NYC Penn Station, Amtrak trains running between DC and Virginia points to Boston have to layover in NYC for at least 10 minutes, despite there being high level platforms and multiple escalators and elevators from the waiting area upstairs to the platforms. I'm sure that there will be time built into the schedule both north and south of DC for these trains so don't be surprised if you see the dwell time at DC a little longer than you might think but not as long as right now.

As for travel from a Odenton to Richmond or any other station south of Alexandria, if the fare isn't more expensive than doing MARC to DC and then picking up your Amtrak train to go points south, I think it's probably worth it to board Amtrak at BWI. You may get more time on your Amtrak train plus if something goes extremely wrong with MARC, you might miss your Amtrak train in DC. It's like a person who lives in Rahway who wants to go to Providence, RI, if you are concerned more on time, then I would say get over to Metropark, rather than take NJT to NWK or NYC.

It doesn't surprise me that MARC is looking at going dual mode. The main advantage of that is just like the Amtrak Siemens Intercity Trainsets, the MARC dual modes would be able to run in diesel territory. MARC should still look into also the Sprinters after more of those Intercity Trainsets enter revenue service.
  by eolesen
 
Marcop23 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:22 pm
eolesen wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:54 am Keep in mind that 70 years ago, single E units rated at 2400hp (or less) used to handle much heavier cars and consists than what the Siemens sets look to be.

Having two power cars at about 2600hp combined should be just fine. If they manage to get the combined power up to 3000-3600hp, even better.
[...]
Yes, but it seems to me that the Siemens trainsets are going to be push-pull so just one locomotive.
Yeah, it's an assumption on my part about double ended power. Regardless, the Charger is a 4000(+)hp locomotive. I can't imagine they'd need to go with a smaller prime mover to accommodate dual mode, but even if they did, that would still be far closer to 3000hp than to 1300. That's more output than an E unit, and an average trainset of 6-8 cars should fit well within that power rating.
  by Railjunkie
 
Are we comparing this to a P32ACDM 3200HP in which HEP is supplied off one of the 3 generators?? If so It truly isn't 3000 HP. 6 cars with a 7XX isn't bad 7MEH 8 with a tail wind you will eventually hit 110mph. A simple trip down the Hudson Sub on AMT 48. Eight cars one dual mode, 110 ish then like Ron Popeil "set it and forget it" at 80. Trying to speed back up to 90 after an 80 curve is almost useless unless you enjoy a challenge.
  by scratchyX1
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:02 pm
njtmnrrbuff wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:24 am Those dual powered trainsets continuing onto points south might be waiting at WUS for 15 minutes rather than 5 minutes. Assuming that Amtrak still decides to have the passengers boarding in DC who are heading south wait for passengers who are coming from the north getting off, that requires a longer dwell time than five minutes. Remember that at WAS, you can only access the building from the south end of the platform. Plus many of those platforms are still low level.
scratchyX1 wrote: I don't understand. You mean that people are traveling from the south through first street tunnel, just to transfer and go south again? Couldn't they just transfer at ALX?
Wouldn't the trains still have to contend with limited slots over long bridge, even with the reduced transfer?
The run-through tracks at WAS are low-level and require embarking passengers to travel through a corridor and down an elevator or escalator to a low-level platform, then back up into the train itself (given that they're likely Viewliners). This takes more time than you think!

Time reduction? Maybe 15-20 minutes. And to be honest, Mr. Norman, I'd be weighing the cost of MARC+Amtrak ODN-WAS-RVR over just Amtrak BWI-RVR.
Oh, ok, that makes sense. I did the Baltimore-was commute for years, I know the union station layout. including the rusted canopy over the lower level tracks, with the constrained escalators. That makes sense, rushing from upper level to lower level sucks.
It also makes sense that MARC is going dual mode, those can replace both the GP39H-2, and the AEM7, And be used for Virginia service.
  by STrRedWolf
 
scratchyX1 wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 10:33 am Oh, ok, that makes sense. I did the Baltimore-was commute for years, I know the union station layout. including the rusted canopy over the lower level tracks, with the constrained escalators. That makes sense, rushing from upper level to lower level sucks.
It also makes sense that MARC is going dual mode, those can replace both the GP39H-2, and the AEM7, And be used for Virginia service.
I think dual-mode for MARC makes sense for trainsets that move from diesel to electric territory. For instance, I know MARC's Brunswick line 871 turns into Penn 410, and if that goes dual-mode, you avoid an engine swap.
  by SRich
 
I"ve read many comments. The last few pages are more an discussion about ACS-64 then the new purchase. @admin/mod splitting to a different topic?

I have an question. How can Amtrak sign a contract when the funding for the new set isn't available?

I think for the new Electro-Diesel it will be fine. There are now worldwide more and more dual power locs been build.

I only don't understand why Amtrak is ordering a Diesel-Battery hybrid loc when there is a perfect third rail system. I think that "only" third rail equipment has less weight then a separate battery car. And second part of that not understanding is that is using third rail energy from the LIRR is more expensive then a battery car, why aren't the batteries nog build in the passenger cars. They could be semi permanent coupled with each other and the diesel loc.
  by MattW
 
I wonder if the battery car is designed to avoid the gapping issue for push-pull trainsets? As I recall, Amtrak requires dual mode third rail trains to have an engine at both ends in Penn Station so that at least one engine always has contact with the third rail. Or at least the engineer leading from the locomotive so if there's a gapping issue, they can fire up the engine (which doesn't fully make sense since the engine should be able to be remotely stop/started from the cab car). I also wonder if the battery car itself will be third-rail capable to allow charging if not propulsion. It isn't clear right now if the battery car will function as a B unit locomotive, or if it will just supply power to a locomotive. I wouldn't think the latter though since the FRA seems to frown on sharing traction power across a non-permanent coupling. There's also the issue I posted earlier of using a battery car lets Amtrak run electric along the entire Empire Connection which would improve air quality in that tunnel, without having the capital cost of extending the third rail or catenary.
  by eolesen
 
SRich wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:03 pm I have an question. How can Amtrak sign a contract when the funding for the new set isn't available?

I only don't understand why Amtrak is ordering a Diesel-Battery hybrid loc when there is a perfect third rail system.
Amtrak has $200m from a previous funding authority from Congress. If they don't get more taxpayers money, the plan is to obtain private financing.

Third rail is only a solution in a couple cities. Battery hybrids can be a benefit in places like Chicago where the train sheds are covered by buildings and particulates are a major concern.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
After more of these dual powered trainsets enter revenue service, I can certainly see the Vermonter and the NE Regional Trains that continue to Springfield from New Haven scheduled to lay over at New Haven Union Station for two minutes just like the Northeast Regionals heading to and from Boston.

As for battery powered trains running on the Empire Corridor, honestly, I was a tad surprised to hear that news but on the other hand, it will be great not to have too long of a layover at Albany-Rensellaer for these trains. Trains like the Ethan Allen and the Empire Service trains that run to Niagara Falls, NY layover at ALB for 10 minutes, I believe. If there was a way to maybe take a few minutes off of there. The Adirondack and Maple Leaf's engine change at ALB takes too long. I think it was close to 30 minutes.

Amtrak's own trains usually only operate with a single locomotive on one end of the consist. Occasionally there will be an engine on each end of the consist and this usually happens when a loop or wye is out of service somewhere. LIRR does put DM30 locomotives on both ends of the trains that head to and from NYP.
  by electricron
 
SRich wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:03 pm I only don't understand why Amtrak is ordering a Diesel-Battery hybrid loc when there is a perfect third rail system. I think that "only" third rail equipment has less weight then a separate battery car. And second part of that not understanding is that is using third rail energy from the LIRR is more expensive then a battery car, why aren't the batteries nog build in the passenger cars. They could be semi permanent coupled with each other and the diesel loc.
Hybrids diesel locomotives with batteries can have regenerative breaking, which saves 25%-35% on fuel. A Dc shoe for 3rd rail without regenerative breaking does not achieve the same amount of savings, considering there is just a few miles ran using 3rd rail.
With these fuel savings, there is a better chance Amtrak will want to run these hybrid locomotives all the way to Toronto, Montreal, and Burlington and avoid the prolong wait in Albany for locomotives changes.
I am sure the fuel savings from hybrid operations will easily pay off the higher expense of installing batteries on these Empire Service trains.
  by west point
 
Someone please explain where all the Li will come from? Li Battery technology is still in its infancy. Burned up airplanes, B-787s re placing whole battery system including fire protection, ford cars, Teslas, computers, cell phones etc. Then there is fire protection. When they burn they produce their own oxygen. Don't use water on battery fire, Tell that to Podunk volunteer fire department.

I cannot imagine a battery fire in the present old Hudson tunnel bores that do not have emergency cross connection evacuation passageways. Or for that matter the 4 East river tunnel bores. At least the new Gateway bores will have cross connectors.

Then we have a loco that will have over a 3000 HP 3600 amps at 750 volts and 4600 amps at 600 volts equivalent draw. Oh and on top of that HEP and battery charging current at what (?)1000 amps. Third rail shoes will burn out especially when gaping or worse start a fire. Can any DC substation even handle that kind of draw ? It will be interesting to have someone supply short term current ratings of third rail shoes ?

Another thought is at what rate will batteries need to recharge to maintain running over a route ? 1000 amps does not appear to be enough ? An 8 or 10 car train is going to eat up alot of battery power in a hurry. possibly overheating Li battery and fire.

EDIT ; What type operation did NYC use with its battery electric locos ?
  by Railjunkie
 
MattW wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:52 pm I wonder if the battery car is designed to avoid the gapping issue for push-pull trainsets? As I recall, Amtrak requires dual mode third rail trains to have an engine at both ends in Penn Station so that at least one engine always has contact with the third rail. Or at least the engineer leading from the locomotive so if there's a gapping issue, they can fire up the engine (which doesn't fully make sense since the engine should be able to be remotely stop/started from the cab car). I also wonder if the battery car itself will be third-rail capable to allow charging if not propulsion. It isn't clear right now if the battery car will function as a B unit locomotive, or if it will just supply power to a locomotive. I wouldn't think the latter though since the FRA seems to frown on sharing traction power across a non-permanent coupling. There's also the issue I posted earlier of using a battery car lets Amtrak run electric along the entire Empire Connection which would improve air quality in that tunnel, without having the capital cost of extending the third rail or catenary.
No, Amtrak does not require dual mode trains to have an engine at both ends. Empire trains run dual mode trains everyday with one engine as does NJT. If I gap coming in I just call PSCC and ask permission to fire up the diesel and get out of the way. There is a slight grade up to the platforms, which if your speed is to low or depending on how they route you can cause trouble..

If Amtrak should require the Empire to runs push pull trains with dual modes on either end it can be taken care of by three easy clicks of a switch ( a few Hail Marys wouldn't hurt ) and a couple of pushes of a button from the leading unit and through GE magic you have gone through the mode change. You hope... There are still a few P42s kicking around that had there slow speed backing rheostats pulled and replaced for mode change ability when we did GCT a while back.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 21