The case for freight locomotives as passenger power

[David Benton]

Is there any reason to suggest freight locomotives break down less than passenger locomotives do ? and this is because of the design ?

[nomis]

I think the causal trackside observer wouldn’t notice if there was an issue with a freight locomotive. There is usually multiple engines on a consist, and as long as the train can keep on moving to the next repair point & off the main line, well the freight cars won’t tweet ‘bout it.

[ApproachMedium]

Dont be fooled. freight railroads have many many many more locomotives than the passenger railroads do. They break down just as fast, faster, and more often than passenger trains do we just dont know about it because they are quickly replaced, added on, or theres enough HP to move the train without anybody noticing.

[MattW]

The facts exist on any Tier 3 or 4 locomotive. They suck up fuel if they are not being run because of emissions controls. Any HEP car is going to need to have a Tier 4 motor, which will need DEF added, a DPF and go thru regen cycles which consume far more fuel than a standard diesel engine with no emissions controls. Because these would be a new device, they will not be exempt from emissions. An NJT ALP45 Tier 3 consumes 2/3 more fuel during layovers with HEP enabled than a traditional 645/710 16 cyl with a cat 800kW HEP plant, which is pre emissions. The SC44 has the same idle HEP enabled fuel consumption problems from regeneration, and id imagine the F125 does also. I am not sure what a Tier4 SD70ACe would be because they do not idle long, they shut down and run the auto start stop cycles so they are not running constantly and clogging up the DPF. Data would have to be obtained off a HEP modified unit to see what it is, but i cant imagine its any good.

If they used an old prime mover for the HEP car, would it have to comply with the new emissions? In fact, could the HEP cars be built from a stripped down locomotive? Would that have any benefits (i.e. existing MU connections)?

[DutchRailnut]

answer yes cause its new construction.
no as HEP requires high RPM to comply with frequencie requirement unless a inverter is used.

[DutchRailnut]

HEP cars have never been succes be it in early Amtrak days , the European Talgo's or French INOX TEE sets.
the are heavy to lug around , basically require a attendant and save nothing.

[mtuandrew]

HEP cars have never been succes be it in early Amtrak days , the European Talgo's or French INOX TEE sets.
the are heavy to lug around , basically require a attendant and save nothing.

I’m gonna forestall Tad who’s probably coming here to tell us about how he personally knows about industrial generators that are virtually maintenance-free and can supply 10kW at 240VAC single-phase. Great, but it still costs more weight to haul one around, and even if the FRA didn’t regulate them as locomotives (unclear), they pose another point of danger in accidents. At least the skid-mount pony engines in locomotives help with adhesive weight.

[R Paul Carey]

In my Amtrak experience (1971-77), the use of head-end power cars was introduced about 1975 with the introduction of the Amfleet. The replacement of steam-heat and genemotors advanced with the head-end power conversion of the "heritage fleet" about four + years later. By that time, the fact was well accepted that - based upon the E-60 and SDP-40 experience (P30's too) - Amtrak had successfully discovered that "off the shelf" freight power did NOT work well, for many and sufficient reasons well reported by others.

Amtrak's use of HEP cars suffered from the effects of insufficient/inconsistent maintenance practices typical of Amtrak generally in those early years.
Of course,sloppy maintenance/oversight - wherever present - would yield the same ill effects today as before.

Use of a stand-alone HEP car introduces a totally avoidable variable ("the car"), at a cost that's not insignificant. Or, if carried as part of any other type of car, a sub-optimal utilization is the result of another "special purpose" car.

I see there are advocates for a "skid-mount", to imply a neat, quick, and easy exchange at the point of failure (or first maintenance point), also implying the assigned equipment cycle could be protected. This feature was also touted by the Budd Company for their RDC's. I would be most interested to hear from others with RDC/SPV experience just how well THAT worked, in practice!

In conclusion, it would seem that "best practice" today would be to incorporate HEP as is presently done, on purpose-designed passenger motive power.

[Tadman]

I'd like to propose a new idea here. Saying "it didnt' work in ____ year so it won't work now" is pretty silly. You know what else didn't work in the past? Streaming video on the internet. Making synthetic rubber. Curing cancer and polio. Powered and manned aircraft. Merging railroads. Reducing crews from 5 to 2. Powering trains without burning coal or wood. Building trains from stainless steel. Making trains go over 100mph. Making trains go over 200mph. Using turbochargers on diesels.

Lets make a list of "Amtrakisms" of things that "don't work".

1. Six axle passenger trucks, like the BR 37, 47, 90, 91, 92. The GT12, GT22. The FP45, SDP40(not f), SDP35, SDP45. Never works anywhere but off Amtrak and MILW.
2. High speed EMU's. Like virtually every modern HST fleet in the world. Never works anywhere other than the rest of the world.
3. HEP/ETH pony motors and/or HEP vans. Never works anywhere but most Talgos, entire VIA F40 fleet, Go transit, China, India, etc...

[bdawe]

I'd add DMUs to that list of antique-didn't-works

[ApproachMedium]

Talgos dont require much power. I dont think the talgo HEP van even provides more than 500kW. its a much lighter unit. What we would need in an amtrak regular loco needs to be 800kW to 1000kW. No comparison.

VIA Rail F40s have the pony motor setup because they run two motors and split the HEP left and right side trainline so they can provide more power to a longer train, effectively doubling HEP capacity. Doing this with two motors makes the process a lot simpler and provides redundancy. Minimal comparison.

The only reason why amtraks new HST is not a EMU set is because this is what alstom sold them. There was no requirement between emu or non emu that i recall but maybe I am wrong. There was a point where the Siemens Velario set was pitched and I was hoping thats what would come thru.

[DutchRailnut]

The Talgo onboard unit is pretty much only used for Emergencies.

[Patrick Boylan]

I'd like to propose a new idea here. Saying "it didnt' work in ____ year so it won't work now" is pretty silly.

That may be valid sometimes, but also sometimes silly is "I just got a shock sticking a fork in the electrical outlet. I wonder what will happen if I do it again?"

2. High speed EMU's. Like virtually every modern HST fleet in the world. Never works anywhere other than the rest of the world.

Are French TGV or Spanish AVE or Japanese Shinkansen etc... not modern HST, or are they not locomotive hauled? I don't think VIRTUALLY every modern HST fleet uses EMU's, at least not for their fastest service.

[MattW]

I'd like to propose a new idea here. Saying "it didnt' work in ____ year so it won't work now" is pretty silly.

That may be valid sometimes, but also sometimes silly is "I just got a shock sticking a fork in the electrical outlet. I wonder what will happen if I do it again?"

Well if this time I use an insulated fork while standing on a non-conductive surface... (NOTE: STILL please do not do this, I'm illustrating the point of learning from past mistakes and improving the process rather than abandoning an idea altogether [even if in this example the idea is stoopid])

2. High speed EMU's. Like virtually every modern HST fleet in the world. Never works anywhere other than the rest of the world.

Are French TGV or Spanish AVE or Japanese Shinkansen etc... not modern HST, or are they not locomotive hauled? I don't think VIRTUALLY every modern HST fleet uses EMU's, at least not for their fastest service.

Uh, the Shinkansen isn't, nor is the AVE 103.

[bdawe]

Are French TGV or Spanish AVE or Japanese Shinkansen etc... not modern HST, or are they not locomotive hauled? I don't think VIRTUALLY every modern HST fleet uses EMU's, at least not for their fastest service.

Most *new* high speed trains have been EMU for some time. I'm quite certain all Shinkansen have been EMU since the 0 series. TGV have been traditionally push-pull, and the new Avelias Horizon for SNCF are push pull, but the Euroduplex are EMU. Pendolinos are mostly EMU, as are the Hitachi A-Trains the UK are ordering. Most of the Chinese, Swiss, German, Indian orders in recent decade all EMU.

sort by year, and most of the new orders seem to be EMU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_trains, with some very particular holdouts in SNCF, Amtrak & Talgo

This makes sense, since EMU accelerate faster, can handle higher grades.