Sprinter ACS-64 Electric Loco: Siemens.

AEM7AC920 wrote:

pbj123 wrote:I know it's a good thing there will be more reliable engines to replace the AEM 7's and HPP 8's, but they will still be pulling 35 year old Amfleet coaches. Less breakdowns but still coaches that are too hot, or too cold, or leak in the rain, or fill up with snow in the winter. Sorry to put a damper on this thread, but these engines solve only half of the problem.

Really where did you get amfleets from ACS64 (this is the name of the thread no?) Yes there are coaches that have defects but come on they are really not that bad as you make it seem and it's not like every other one has problems that effect passenger comfort. Pretty sure having a reliable loco in the first place is a bigger issue then minor here and there coach defects that are repairable.

Yea, i have ridden amfleets doens of times, never an issue ever. Amfleets are an asset, not a liability. they will be retired when the time is right.

As for ACS64 and on topic, how many amfleets/horizons are they rated to move in revenue service?

read the specs or use google, as this question has been discussed before, now lets drop anything not relevant to ACS-64

25Hz wrote:As for ACS64 and on topic, how many amfleets/horizons are they rated to move in revenue service?

As many as Amtrak wants. They have the tractive effort and horsepower to pull way more than Amtrak ever would... it's about how much acceleration they want. Look at most diesel trains running two P42's with relatively few cars, and then the Auto Train running two P42s. The difference? The Auto Train can't get out of it's own way, but that' OK, as it only stops once for a crew change and refueling, and occasionally if it gets put in the hole by the host railroad.

NHAirLine wrote:As many as Amtrak wants. They have the tractive effort and horsepower to pull way more than Amtrak ever would... it's about how much acceleration they want. Look at most diesel trains running two P42's with relatively few cars, and then the Auto Train running two P42s. The difference? The Auto Train can't get out of it's own way, but that' OK, as it only stops once for a crew change and refueling, and occasionally if it gets put in the hole by the host railroad.

There is a more realistic limit as to what the ACS can handle HEP-wise and breaking-wise. While I don't know the precise limit, "as many as Amtrak wants" isn't really accurate. Plus there might be "hidden surprises" in store for us, i.e. the ACS's experience huge amounts of track hunting if pulling consists of more than x cars and so on.

Why did Siemens design the ACS-64 with only two cabs?

Because they performed cost-benefit analyses and realized it was not worth having 4 cabs for those rare sideways movements, and although 3 cabs would still let them move in one direction perpendicular to the tracks without turning the locomotive 90 degrees, it didn't give them as much flexibility as the 4 cab design. 2 cabs seemed to be the best compromise, enabling the locomotive with little delay to go in either direction parallel to the tracks.

lirr42 wrote:

NHAirLine wrote:As many as Amtrak wants. They have the tractive effort and horsepower to pull way more than Amtrak ever would... it's about how much acceleration they want. Look at most diesel trains running two P42's with relatively few cars, and then the Auto Train running two P42s. The difference? The Auto Train can't get out of it's own way, but that' OK, as it only stops once for a crew change and refueling, and occasionally if it gets put in the hole by the host railroad.

There is a more realistic limit as to what the ACS can handle HEP-wise and breaking-wise. While I don't know the precise limit, "as many as Amtrak wants" isn't really accurate. Plus there might be "hidden surprises" in store for us, i.e. the ACS's experience huge amounts of track hunting if pulling consists of more than x cars and so on.

Supposed to be like 18 long distance cars. Its rated at 2,000kW. Twice that of an HHP-8 or Reman. Its two fully redundant 1,000kW systems side by side for more or less when one module fails you still have enough HEP for even a 14 car LD train with diners sleepers and all and you loose zero traction since it does not need to sacrifice a traction motors power modules to provide HEP.

ApproachMedium wrote:

lirr42 wrote:

NHAirLine wrote:As many as Amtrak wants. They have the tractive effort and horsepower to pull way more than Amtrak ever would... it's about how much acceleration they want. Look at most diesel trains running two P42's with relatively few cars, and then the Auto Train running two P42s. The difference? The Auto Train can't get out of it's own way, but that' OK, as it only stops once for a crew change and refueling, and occasionally if it gets put in the hole by the host railroad.

There is a more realistic limit as to what the ACS can handle HEP-wise and breaking-wise. While I don't know the precise limit, "as many as Amtrak wants" isn't really accurate. Plus there might be "hidden surprises" in store for us, i.e. the ACS's experience huge amounts of track hunting if pulling consists of more than x cars and so on.

Supposed to be like 18 long distance cars. Its rated at 2,000kW. Twice that of an HHP-8 or Reman. Its two fully redundant 1,000kW systems side by side for more or less when one module fails you still have enough HEP for even a 14 car LD train with diners sleepers and all and you loose zero traction since it does not need to sacrifice a traction motors power modules to provide HEP.

Which while VERY nice, is a bit of overkill since those advantages really only help LD trains for a VERY small portion of their journey

Matt Johnson wrote:Why did Siemens design the ACS-64 with only two cabs?

Can you clarify?

Fan Railer wrote:

by Thomas » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:09 pm

I watched a Youtube video of these new locomotives. Amtrak just made a solid investment. ...

Honestly, not to steer off topic, but seriously, how old are you? Like, 12? 13?

Ouch, that had to hurt. I'm sorry.

Thomas, let me venture to explain why (I think) you got that slapdown.

Probably everyone on this thread already thought Amtrak made a solid investment, with about 90% certainty, rising with every day of more-or-less trouble-free testing. And few to none of us reached that confidence level from watching a You Tube video. Srsly.

We were all young once and we can appreciate your apparently youthful enthusiasm. And as any reporter can tell you, there's no such thing as a dumb question. When you asked "How loud is it?" we got useful answers.

But this bare and bubbly assertion was the kind of over-enthusiasm that usually appears naive or immature. And relying on just one source is always high risk, and therefore not smart.

Another sign of immaturity is that too many times you ask questions already discussed. How about reading a number of threads from the very first posting to the most recent? (That's what I try to do before adding my comments.) You'd learn a lot, many of your questions would be answered, and it wouldn't seem so much like you're blurting into a conversation among old hands when you make your next post.

Hope this helps.

Tadman wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:Why did Siemens design the ACS-64 with only two cabs?

Can you clarify?

I was thinking of a 3, 4, or 5 cab design for sideways and vertical movements, but Patrick explained the rationale quite well!

We have any whereabouts on 605 and 606?

yeah at Siemens in Sacramento, last unit shipped was 604

Interesting. I wouldve thought theyd ship by now.

beanbag wrote:Interesting. I wouldve thought theyd ship by now.

IIRC, only the testing units got released from the plant. Once the thumbs up comes, then more units will ship once known punch-list items are dealt with.