Should Amtrak have considered new Motivepower 5400 HP Locomotive?

[bostontrainguy]

MP54AC_647.jpg

(179.59 KiB) Downloaded 2680 times

Okay. I first have to admit that I didn't know this creature existed but apparently there is a new MPX model locomotive with dual engines that can generate 5400 hp! There are times I look at some Amtrak trains and just wonder if two engines are overkill (e.g. Boston section of the LSL). Anyway I found this interesting:

The MP54AC is the latest locomotive in the MPXpress family. It is designed to meet Tier 4 emissions standard. The MP54AC uses a pair of Cummins 16-cylinder QSK60 engines rated at 2,700 hp which qualifies it as the most powerful diesel-electric passenger locomotive in North America. During periods of low power demand the locomotive can operate on just one engine. The MP54AC is intended to compete with the EMD F125 and Siemens Charger.

How many Amtrak trains could run with one engine I wonder.

[RRspatch]

I'm going to say NO. The reason I'm saying NO is the same reason the 6000 HP freight units from GE and EMD didn't catch on .... too many eggs in one basket. If one unit goes down you have either a very slow freight that will stall on the first significant grade or a dead train on the main. Looking at Amtrak and it's level of maintenance you're also looking at a dead train should a unit die. Another down side is you're also looking at a much greater fuel burn. Yes, diesel fuel prices are low at the moment but won't stay that way.

So no, high horse power diesels aren't the way to go. The sweat spot is 4400 HP on the freight side and 4200 on the passenger side. I will be very surprised if any passenger operator jumps at the MP54AC. Yes, I do know about METRA's SD70MAC program. It will be interesting to see just how well that works out.

[bdawe]

I'm going to say NO. The reason I'm saying NO is the same reason the 6000 HP freight units from GE and EMD didn't catch on .... too many eggs in one basket. If one unit goes down you have either a very slow freight that will stall on the first significant grade or a dead train on the main. Looking at Amtrak and it's level of maintenance you're also looking at a dead train should a unit die. Another down side is you're also looking at a much greater fuel burn. Yes, diesel fuel prices are low at the moment but won't stay that way.

So no, high horse power diesels aren't the way to go. The sweat spot is 4400 HP on the freight side and 4200 on the passenger side. I will be very surprised if any passenger operator jumps at the MP54AC. Yes, I do know about METRA's SD70MAC program. It will be interesting to see just how well that works out.

But are you looking at much greater fuel burn? The MP54 have two 2700 hp engines and runs on only when when not needed. I would suspect that, rather than replacing two p-42 with one MP54, you'd end up one-to-one replacing and just having faster trains for the reason you cited.

OTOH, you can really see why GO is their only customer - getting those enormous 13 car go trains up to 95 mph and one engine seems to call for more horsepower

[bostontrainguy]

I'm going to say NO. If one unit goes down . . . you have . . . a dead train on the main.

I did think about that. It has built in redundancy with two separate engines.

Maybe it would be equivalent to one of these pulling a four car Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited (no problem with 5400 HP). Now if one engine fails you are left with 2700 HP pulling four cars.

Similarly, say you got two 4400 HP engines, 8800 HP total, pulling an 8 car Silver Star and one engine fails. Now you got 4400 HP pulling 8 cars. The advantage goes to the MP-54.

It must be noted that Amtrak has run the Star with only one engine.

You have to also figure in the maintenance part of this with a possible reduction in the number of units needing service over the life of the engines.

[Wash]

Not to get off-topic, but the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited runs with two P42's not because it's too heavy to run with one, but because it makes splitting/recombining the train in Albany easier. Right now, all they have to do to combine the two sections is take the P32 off the New York section and back the Boston section on to it; if the Boston section only ran with one locomotive they'd have to shunt an additional locomotive onto the front of the train every time, reconfigure MU controlls, etc.

[NorthWest]

The challenge with the MPXpress platform is weight; the spec sheet shows an axle load of 70-72 tons, which is greater than many freight locomotives and almost exactly the same as the ballasted 436,000 lb freight units meant for heavy haul service. This kind of weight thrown around at higher speeds makes a mess of track structures, even if the locomotive is at least theoretically capable of 110MPH.

The other problem is that it doesn't fit the tunnels into NYP, so there would be a need for two fleets of diesels. The SC-44s are far lighter, fit the tunnels, and have a top speed of 125 MPH.
I'm also not sure they're that much more expensive if ordered in quantity.

https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlined ... motive.pdf

[SouthernRailway]

One more powerful locomotive makes sense, and a dual-mode locomotive for trains that run on both electrified and non-electrified lines also makes sense. Even if this particular locomotive might or might not make sense.

[bostontrainguy]

The other problem is that it doesn't fit the tunnels into NYP, so there would be a need for two fleets of diesels. The SC-44s are far lighter, fit the tunnels, and have a top speed of 125 MPH.
I'm also not sure they're that much more expensive if ordered in quantity.
https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlined ... motive.pdf

No diesels run through the tunnels in NYP.

[bdawe]

The other problem is that it doesn't fit the tunnels into NYP, so there would be a need for two fleets of diesels. The SC-44s are far lighter, fit the tunnels, and have a top speed of 125 MPH.
I'm also not sure they're that much more expensive if ordered in quantity.
https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlined ... motive.pdf

No diesels run through the tunnels in NYP.

This is true, but 1) amtrak likes having the ability to haul diesels as needed through their own entire network as needed (special services, non revenue moves, power failures etc) and likes having a platform that can at least physically be adapted as the necessary Empire connection dual mode

[WhartonAndNorthern]

I'm going to say NO. If one unit goes down . . . you have . . . a dead train on the main.

I did think about that. It has built in redundancy with two separate engines.

No, it doesn't. How many Amtrak trains can survive on 1700 HP which is what's left when you lose an engine and still need to provide HEP?

You have to also figure in the maintenance part of this with a possible reduction in the number of units needing service over the life of the engines.

I'd expect an increase in maintenance with these as railroads who adopted three engine "genset" switchers found. Two engines means two oil changes and a repeat of any maintenance tasks that need to be done on one engine.

[mtuandrew]

Worth remembering that Amtrak inquired with EMD about reopening an E-Unit production line in the 1970s. (Sorry for not citing sources - this may be apocryphal.) Someone must have liked the idea of two engines on one frame.

The MPI MP54PH itself seems like the wrong solution, but I’d be interested to see where the concept could go with a blank-sheet design meant to reduce weight.

[Pensyfan19]

Worth remembering that Amtrak inquired with EMD about reopening an E-Unit production line in the 1970s. (Sorry for not citing sources - this may be apocryphal.) Someone must have liked the idea of two engines on one frame.

The MPI MP54PH itself seems like the wrong solution, but I’d be interested to see where the concept could go with a blank-sheet design meant to reduce weight.

In that case, what locomotive do you guys think Amtrak should purchase (other than the Siemens Charger)?

[David Benton]

Only in America!. too heavy , and what about the smaller trains like the springfield shuttles etc . ?

[mtuandrew]

Pensy: why not the Charger? It isn’t like there’s a better all-around passenger option on the American market right now, though I think the F125 deserves more love.

Mr. Benson: I think the Shuttles and SPG-NHV-NYP service is the perfect place for Amtrak’s P32ACDM and P42 fleet to live out their golden years. But as for twin-engine locomotives - back in the 1930s the Rock Island wanted a trailing locomotive (B-unit as opposed to A-unit leaders) that could also be used as a leader. EMD obliged with the AB6, which was essentially an E6B minus one of two engines and plus a control cab & baggage compartment. The Rock later installed a second engine but kept the unique flat-face cab instead of the usual sloped E6A nose. For Springfield service, had Amtrak decided on the MP54 I feel like they could have done the same trick, ordering a dozen MP27PH units with a single 2700 hp Cummins instead of the customary two engines, and leave the remaining space open for bikes or the like.

[Backshophoss]

This MPI Unit is the passenger version of the DDA-40X a bit of overkill, 2 Cummings prime movers gives me pause
TOO large and heavy for the Park Ave viaduct ad NY Penn.