• 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

  by west point
 
The only thing needed for Albany service is to extend the CAT from NYP about a mile. There does not seem to be understanding that using third rail limits speeds. Also, acceleration. That is due to high current draw at the 600 -750 DC power is too much for third rail shoes. This subject keeps coming up about 3rd rail current draws for locos. Locos out of GCT always switch as soon as possible to diesel out of the Park Ave tunnels. That was true for FL-9s. Imagine an ALC drawing 4200 HP not twice as much as a FL-9 but much more. Remember an ES-44 can draw at least 1600 amps maybe more?

EMUs do not need that much current for each car . Only 300 - 500 HP each car.
Last edited by west point on Thu Mar 03, 2022 12:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
  by west point
 
electricron wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:54 pm
scratchyX1 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:37 pm Electrifying to at least Fredericksburg, so VRE can have metro like service with EMU should be left in plan.
Sounds like a great idea. who do you suggest should pay for the electrification?
VRE, Amtrak, Virginia, or a combination of the three?
How much do you think it might cost?
Caltrain electrification is going to cost $2.3 Billion for the infrastructure and the trains, for just 51 miles.
Union Station in DC to Fredericksburg is 54 miles, where will another $2.3 Billion come from?
You neglected one important fact. Caltrain is replacing almost all its equipment and buying the Stalter EMUs. VRE would not need to buy anything but motors to replace locos. One problem that I do not know answer. Can CAT be installed in the first ave tunnels so to clear for the occasional Superliners & VRE Cars?
A question for Caltrain and VRE if it would go electrification. How much will each receive for sale of equipment no longer needed?

Another point is "IF" the new set up of power cars comes about. Then Amtrak will not need any additional equipment. It might only require one track with CAT. Train could use loco on another track until back under CAT.

This power car proposal will allow Amtrak to install CAT at layover stations to provide power to trains overnight. For station tracks not on mainlines they could also have CAT for trains. RVR and RVM plus layover proposed south of the James River could be possible. One item is how much warm up time the prime movers need?
  by west point
 
eolesen wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 3:42 pm It will have the pantagraph and switchgear needed to provide HEP and traction power. Technically the ALC's engine won't need power. The traction motors do.

Dead weight in the form of a power car is a tradeoff for not having a regionally limited fleet or carrying that dead weight inside the engine's car body. Being business class, power car is already going to be lighter via fewer seats...
This setup has many advantageous. The first is weight. The ALCs will have the same or some less weight. Only will need some switch gear. The use of CAT power in the BC car prevents the need for the heavy 25Hz / 60Hz dual voltage transformer and the necessary rectifier(s). That reduces loco wear and tear on the tracks which was a real consideration for some passenger bridges especially MNRR. That is especially on the Albany route. No need for DC third rail pickups and relays. MNRR is a different setup need.
Speculation:
Suspect that Rectified DC & battery power will be supplied to the ALC's inverters by heavy duty jumpers & relays much like loco and slaves are used? Now about HEP. ALCs will be used not on the Siemens cars. The loco inverters will still be needed to provide HEP and other various AC power requirements. DC back to the power car will charge the batteries. Probably the power cars can provide HEP thru an inverter in a pinch from batteries. If loco is calling for run 8 then all loco HP can go to the traction motors with the batteries providing HEP when of AC CAT. That will be important as the ALCs will be geared for 125 which will take higher amps when accelerating.
  by MattW
 
west point wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:30 pm The only thing needed for Albany service is to extend the CAT from NYP about a mile. There does not seem to be understanding that using third rail limits speeds. Also, acceleration. That is due to high current draw at the 600 -750 DC power is too much for third rail shoes. This subject keeps coming up about 3rd rail current draws for locos. Locos out of GCT always switch as soon as possible out of the Park Ave tunnels. That was true for FL-9s. Imagine an ALC drawing 4200 HP not twice as much as a FL-9 but much more.

EMUs do not draw that many amps as each car only needs 300 - 500 HP each.
The last I knew, the Empire Connection had catenary for the same length as third rail.
  by BandA
 
So the ALC-42E should cost about the same as an ALC-42, just with the addition of an extension cord!! Since the new Auxiliary Power Vehicle & Battery Car has no traction units or control stand I assume it gets the inspection schedule of a coach instead of a locomotive. There is no diagram in the document, so we don't know if the guts will go on top or under the floor. Here is a brochure for an Auxilary Power Supply which is DC input, apparently for Germany's Baden-Württemberg regional Commuter Rail? but gives you the idea of a modular system. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/ ... us-144.pdf
  by chrisf
 
BandA wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:35 am Would be slick if the ALC-42E has regenerative brakes that feed into the power car battery and/or back to the power grid.
The diesel Chargers have regenerative dynamic braking that routes the power back into HEP, so it'd seem like a no-brainer to also route back to the battery as well.
  by west point
 
A problem with the power car is going to be weight and balance. The weight of the car will be somewhat heavier especially with a 25 / 60 Hz transformer plus rectifier and necessary relays. Also, the Power cars HEP inverters? That weight will be determined by the max HP useable in electric mode. What will be the HP rating of the ALC traction motors? Have not even heard what the 300s have?

Balancing the weight of the transformer(s) and batteries for equal weight on both trucks will be interesting? There has been an assumption by myself and others that all that equipment would be in the front section with BC behind? Maybe better with opposite side passages on each end into the BC section. That would balance weight both fore and aft, and side to side.
  by west point
 
SRich wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:46 am Is there even an need for Amtrak for 3 rail pickup loco's if there is overhead wire for te last mile to NY Penn?
I cannot see the need normally. However, if Amtrak wants the ability to detour to GCT then it would need 3rd rail shoes on the power car or loco. The need for conversion of the DC 3rd rail power will take some different wiring. As I understand it, now CAT AC off the transformer is rectified to a higher DC voltage than 3rd rail. If that means a different feed to inverters, then I have no idea.

Further thought would be 3rd rail pickups if Amtrak wanted to operate on Long Island using its 3rd rail for electricity. All this distribution certainly solves the overweight problems going into GCT.

Cannot see any need but with this DC capability it could operate on the METRA electric lines CAT.
  by frequentflyer
 
west point wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:50 am A problem with the power car is going to be weight and balance. The weight of the car will be somewhat heavier especially with a 25 / 60 Hz transformer plus rectifier and necessary relays. Also, the Power cars HEP inverters? That weight will be determined by the max HP useable in electric mode. What will be the HP rating of the ALC traction motors? Have not even heard what the 300s have?

Balancing the weight of the transformer(s) and batteries for equal weight on both trucks will be interesting? There has been an assumption by myself and others that all that equipment would be in the front section with BC behind? Maybe better with opposite side passages on each end into the BC section. That would balance weight both fore and aft, and side to side.
I imagine most of the gear will be underneath for low center of gravity and weight balance.

Its in Siemens interest this concept works and works flawlessly since they will be maintaining it. Warranty work makes Siemens no money.
  by lordsigma12345
 
A little more info has been on how these new trainsets will work. As stated earlier they will have a Charger locomotive on one end with a cab coach on the other end with the cab section of the cab coach based off the Charger cab. There will be four types of the ICTs. The diesel variant which will be able to operate with an SC-44 locomotive will be used on the Cascades. The other variants will use the new dual mode Charger (ALC-42E) which can be powered by its on board diesel engine or via electricity provided by a trailing business class/power car known as an auxiliary propulsion vehicle (APV). Two versions that will operate on the NEC will utilize a catenary auxiliary propulsion vehicle which will contain the pantograph, and transformer cabinets. Power will be relayed to the traction motors on the Charger locomotive as well as a powered truck on the APV which will together provide the required acceleration for operating on the NEC mainline. One variant will have 8 passenger coaches and will operate the Northeast Regional services including those which head into Connecticut and Virginia. The other will have 6 coaches and will operate the Pennsylvanian, Keystones, Vermonter, Carolinian, Downeaster, and Palmetto. The final variant will have an APV containing batteries which will provide power to the Charger when operating near Penn Station and will be used on the Empire Service, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and Ethan Allen Express.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26