Railroad Forums 

  • Bombardier ALP-45DP on the NEC

  • 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

 #1522683  by Backshophoss
 
Alp-45DP is NOT middle distance passenger power,ONLY good for commuter traffic TOO small fuel tanks ,under horse in diesel mode,m
use TOO much Fuel.
The Alp-45DP is a MOTOR with STANDBY DIESEL POWER!
 #1522757  by Tadman
 
I didn’t know EXO was dumping the 45DP fleet. Are they for sale or storage? I can’t imagine they’re or much use to anybody else.
 #1522761  by Backshophoss
 
AMT is getting Dumped out by another commuter service in Montreal,so their ALP45's might wind up on the used power marketplace.
Metrolynk(GOT)just might buy up that entire fleet.
 #1522766  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Backshophoss wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:42 pm AMT is getting Dumped out by another commuter service in Montreal,so their ALP45's might wind up on the used power marketplace.
Metrolynk(GOT)just might buy up that entire fleet.
Metrolinx (Ontario), not Metrolink (Southern California).
 #1522779  by rcthompson04
 
Tadman wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:28 pm I didn’t know EXO was dumping the 45DP fleet. Are they for sale or storage? I can’t imagine they’re or much use to anybody else.
I don’t think they are being officially dumped yet, but Exo is not going to use them under wire any longer.
 #1522780  by D.S. Lewith
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:37 pm
Tadman wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:28 pm I didn’t know EXO was dumping the 45DP fleet. Are they for sale or storage? I can’t imagine they’re or much use to anybody else.
I don’t think they are being officially dumped yet, but Exo is not going to use them under wire any longer.
Looks like the ALP-45DP's purpose has been defeated. Better order up Chargers and sell the ALP45s to NJT
 #1522875  by STrRedWolf
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:48 am With Exo no longer using its ALP-45DPs for electric service in the near, wouldn’t leasing a few as a proof of concept make sense? Lease 3 or 4 for the Pennsylvanian and see if reduced speeds (really only an issue on the NEC) are worth eliminating the engine change at Philadelphia. If it works with the Pennsylvanian, it might be worth exploring on other routes.
Really doesn't, considering the operational routing: Electric decouples on the southbound end and a diesel recouples on the north/westbound end. Pennsy 30th street's just set up to do that nicely.

DC is a maybe for saving track time, but... you're burning more fuel/using more power and hauling more weight (because heavier engine). Saving 12+ minutes of manpower (maybe six people on the ground?) VS the power and fuel bill saving by swapping engines in DC? I think the latter saves more money with current engine tech.

Let me say it here -- we need a diesel/electric dual-mode that's as light as the Sprinters, does 150 MPH on both diesel and electric, and has the range of the existing diesels being used. Only then can we kill engine swaps.
 #1522893  by D.S. Lewith
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:21 amLet me say it here -- we need a diesel/electric dual-mode that's as light as the Sprinters, does 150 MPH on both diesel and electric, and has the range of the existing diesels being used. Only then can we kill engine swaps.
Which is why it's gonna be better practical for Amtrak to find an electro-diesel multiple unit like the Hitachi Class 800s/802s or the Stadler FLIRT bi-mode models as opposed to yet another electro-diesel locomotive. It also has the added benefit of replacing their Amfleets (virtually all of which have reached 40 years if service and are in need for a replacement) but it comes at the cost of rendering most of their ACS-64s obsolete (though they can sell several of them to SEPTA and Metro-North Railroad). A electro-battery hybrid would solve this but we've yet to see a battery locomotive cover the same amount of distance as a regular diesel before needing to refuel.
 #1522894  by mtuandrew
 
Funny you mention electro-battery hybrids, Mr. Lewith. Wabtec/GE has partnered with BNSF to test what’s essentially a battery-equipped road slug (an unpowered locomotive that draws electricity from another unit to power its own motors.) The test unit has a battery pack that gets recharged from a diesel, can help boost a consist when starting and accelerating, and regenerates power when braking. No word on whether they plan to design one for passenger use though.

https://railroad.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170248
 #1522895  by DutchRailnut
 
Battery power has limitations other than getting a train out of gap or a quick switching move and railroads do NOT like battery power in tunnels due to gas/explosion hazards.
 #1522906  by electricron
 
Just thinking slightly out of the box of a potential solution for NEC trains being extended toward Vermont, New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania services. Use the Siemens Sprinter on the NEC, and use a diesel electric power van immediately behind to provide the electric power vs the catenary. Stadler FLIRTs do this, but the power van is kind of small. What would be so wrong using a larger power van car based upon a Siemens intercity car?
 #1522913  by mtuandrew
 
electricron wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:06 pm Just thinking slightly out of the box of a potential solution for NEC trains being extended toward Vermont, New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania services. Use the Siemens Sprinter on the NEC, and use a diesel electric power van immediately behind to provide the electric power vs the catenary. Stadler FLIRTs do this, but the power van is kind of small. What would be so wrong using a larger power van car based upon a Siemens intercity car?
I really want to be snarky and remind everyone that Amtrak already has diesel-electric power vans called General Electric P42s and Siemens Chargers, but I guess the point here is to have only a prime mover in a car body without a cab or traction motors. It might save a little weight as compared to having both a diesel and a motor on the same consist, but would still be less efficient than switching motor for diesel and vice versa. Also, Amtrak owns more diesels than it owns ACS-64s, and even with 69 of them in service I think they’d rather keep their motors on the NEC full-time.
 #1522922  by dowlingm
 
Exo won’t be using the 45s under wire because the wire (Deux Montagnes) was taken away from them and given to REM. That’s not a statement on whether Exo was happy or not as I don’t have that info, but even if they loved them, that’s where things stand.
 #1522925  by STrRedWolf
 
electricron wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:06 pm Just thinking slightly out of the box of a potential solution for NEC trains being extended toward Vermont, New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania services. Use the Siemens Sprinter on the NEC, and use a diesel electric power van immediately behind to provide the electric power vs the catenary. Stadler FLIRTs do this, but the power van is kind of small. What would be so wrong using a larger power van car based upon a Siemens intercity car?
You're still hauling another car's weight, which means more power usage. In non-caternary areas, you're hauling dead weight in essentially a cab car. In electric areas, you're hauling a heavy cut-out engine, IE dead weight. Thus you have to spend the electricity/diesel fuel to haul useless equipment around. That costs money, and isn't Amtrak supposed to not waste money?

The FLIRTs are whole-consist connected trains, like the Tailgos, but with engines on both ends. You can see an example of them on HinduCowGirl's Youtube channel. You could have one end electric and another end diesel, but you still have the same problem as above, and you'll get new problems: If one car in the middle breaks, the whole train's out of service. Plus, they're incompatible with the existing fleet, and you can't extend the train (easily).