The case for freight locomotives as passenger power

[Tadman]

What bdawe said. Check out pics if you need to, but the recent ICE (and clone Eurostar, AVE, Russkie version) have ability to board right behind the driver and look into his/her compartment. The Shinkansen has always been EMU. (Read "Old Man Thunder"!)

ICE 3, or Intercity-Express 3, is a family of high-speed electric multiple unit trains operated by Deutsche Bahn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_3

The trains were powered by 25 kV AC electricity at 60 Hz with all axles of all cars powered by 185 kW traction motors, giving a 220 km/h (140 mph) operation top speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_Series_Shinkansen

The British Rail Class 800 AT300 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway and London North Eastern Railway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800

We're way afield of using SD70 for passenger power, other than to show that Amtrak's "It's never gonna work/It didn't work in 1968" mantra is bunkos. JR started high speed EMU at the same time the Metroliner entered service. One lasted 40 years, one was junk.

[David Benton]

Yeah , I don't know how Freight SD70's and HSR EMU's got in the same thread. We seem to be throwing everything in here for the sake of an argument here.

the BR 37, 47, 90, 91, 92, well the 37 and 47 were lightweight(by USA standards) 100 mph machines, The class 90 series had body suspended traction motors , connected to the axles by quill drives to reduce unsprung weight. Virtually nothing in common with SD70's or any US freight locomotives.

[slchub]

My question to all pushing this idea , have you ever ridden a freight engine at 75> 80 mph ???
My guess is no , they ride like a lead sled and I would be off on disability pretty fast . they may ride good (even at speed) pulling a freight.
but pulling a passenger consist would be pure insanity.

Indeed. The only thing I miss about my freight days is heading into the hole and getting out to walk around for a bit. Every now and again we will get a freight sled to power on the Auto Train and I'm grateful for the P40's that we run. The only good thing about the freight motors is the greater visibility and better-quality seats.

[mtuandrew]

slchub and others: how does the P32-8BWH compare to a P42/40/32DM for ride quality? And the F40PH? And the GP38H? (And any other freight locomotives in passenger service, like the LIRR MP15s, the ARR SD70MACs and the MNRR BL20s.)

Also, how does the ride quality for engineers translate into ride quality for passengers?

[DutchRailnut]

the BL20gh is a branch line locomotive the few places it can do 70 (its max) is not very smooth.
the passengers do not feel ride on engine.

[ApproachMedium]

slchub and others: how does the P32-8BWH compare to a P42/40/32DM for ride quality? And the F40PH? And the GP38H? (And any other freight locomotives in passenger service, like the LIRR MP15s, the ARR SD70MACs and the MNRR BL20s.)

Also, how does the ride quality for engineers translate into ride quality for passengers?

Even worse!!! Those Dash 8bwh things are terrible, they barely get up to 100mph and the ride is nothing worth dealing with.

[njtmnrrbuff]

The P32-8BWH units are designed for freight operation as well as moving equipment around yards. They aren't really designed to handle passenger trains. I have ridden behind them and they take a very long time to get up to speed. I rode behind one on Northeast Regional Train # 125 heading to Norfolk in 2013 and that same year, I rode behind one on Train # 42. On the Keystone Corridor, we got up to 80.

I think the BL20GHM engines are good for 75. They get up to that speed for short distances.

[DutchRailnut]

don't forget the P32-8bwh is a DC propulsion locomotive and despite being 3200 hp at max RPM they are a chunck less in HEP mode.
engine rpm in HEP mode instead of 1047 is 900 rpm dropping HP to about 2700 instead of 3200.
then depending on hep load it reduces the traction hp even further.
also a DC locomotive levels out at about 75% of traction after field shunting etc.

[mtuandrew]

Even worse!!! Those Dash 8bwh things are terrible, they barely get up to 100mph and the ride is nothing worth dealing with.

I had no idea they were even good for 100 mph.

[ApproachMedium]

Even worse!!! Those Dash 8bwh things are terrible, they barely get up to 100mph and the ride is nothing worth dealing with.

I had no idea they were even good for 100 mph.

Good for 100mph, thats it.

[Engineer Spike]

I did quick read through the thread, so probably missed something. My take is that a locomotive with shaft driven alternator, a generator set, or inverter all have the ability to fail. It doesn't matter if the HEP equipment is on the locomotive or a HEP car. On most long distance trains, a multi unit consist is needed to move the train. If engine 1 and 35 are in the consist, a HEP failure in one can be rectified by switching it to the other unit. If a prime mover, or other propulsion equipment fails, the second unit may be able to at least pull the train into a clear. In this event, freight units have been borrowed to aid in the train propulsion, if one unit is not enough.

Having a HEP car gives only one source. if it fails, the train is dead in the water. It might not be the HEP generation equipment which fails. the car itself might end up with a brake valve failure, or maybe a hotbox. It is also an extra car to pull, which may not be needed on some trains. On single unit trains, he distance to somewhere where a shop can fix it is not too far away. An example it the Adirondack. They've had units fail, and the D&H had had to send a relief engine. since the train is small enough, the most practical thing to do is to transfer the passengers to a motor coach. Having a second backup unit would be a waste of fuel, time on inspections and repairs. The host railroad may charge trackage fees based per piece of equipment. Failures are uncommon, so rescues by freight company locomotives don't happen all that often.

I believe that part of the specification of the P40/42 was body clearance to be able to go anywhere. Many locations , especially in the northeast were off limits to the F40, and the B32-8w. I think this might be part of the reason for using specially built power.

[ApproachMedium]

I did quick read through the thread, so probably missed something. My take is that a locomotive with shaft driven alternator, a generator set, or inverter all have the ability to fail. It doesn't matter if the HEP equipment is on the locomotive or a HEP car. On most long distance trains, a multi unit consist is needed to move the train. If engine 1 and 35 are in the consist, a HEP failure in one can be rectified by switching it to the other unit. If a prime mover, or other propulsion equipment fails, the second unit may be able to at least pull the train into a clear. In this event, freight units have been borrowed to aid in the train propulsion, if one unit is not enough.

Having a HEP car gives only one source. if it fails, the train is dead in the water. It might not be the HEP generation equipment which fails. the car itself might end up with a brake valve failure, or maybe a hotbox. It is also an extra car to pull, which may not be needed on some trains. On single unit trains, he distance to somewhere where a shop can fix it is not too far away. An example it the Adirondack. They've had units fail, and the D&H had had to send a relief engine. since the train is small enough, the most practical thing to do is to transfer the passengers to a motor coach. Having a second backup unit would be a waste of fuel, time on inspections and repairs. The host railroad may charge trackage fees based per piece of equipment. Failures are uncommon, so rescues by freight company locomotives don't happen all that often.

I believe that part of the specification of the P40/42 was body clearance to be able to go anywhere. Many locations , especially in the northeast were off limits to the F40, and the B32-8w. I think this might be part of the reason for using specially built power.

Youve got it!

[mtuandrew]

Has anyone in recent American or Canadian history tested a six-axle diesel at speeds above 80? If so, how did it perform, especially if steerable trucks?

I know Tad is arguing for speeds of 79 mph or lower, but that simply won’t be acceptable in a near future where PTC allows 80 mph and above on long sections of Class I or state-owned railroads. (Class I hosts may have objections, but that is for another thread.)

[eolesen]

I suspect UP has probably had business trains running faster than timetable speed... those usually have road power on the point, even when the E9's are in the consist.

[Tadman]

I know Tad is arguing for speeds of 79 mph or lower, but that simply won’t be acceptable in a near future where PTC allows 80 mph and above on long sections of Class I or state-owned railroads. (Class I hosts may have objections, but that is for another thread.)

I don't know that it is for another thread. I'm asking to take a practical approach here. Other than San Diego, Detroit, and NEC, Amtrak runs on freight tracks behind freight trains. BNSF and UP are not going to suddenly open an even bigger track slot for trains to move 90+mph. They are already unhappy with the rates they are paid for a 79mph slot.

We're not going to see higher speeds any time soon. The one experiment, Saint Louis, was a disaster. 10 years later, we have a big goose egg. Meanwhile over on the Detroit line, which Amtrak controls, all that money spent and 110mph is for nothing when trains are frequently delayed by NS. If PTC isn't shut off due to moon gravity or something entertaining like that. Also, if we continue to pretend the LD trains are a viable transportation option, all the 110mph running in the world won't make up for (a) origination delays which are all too common; (b) delays en-route which cascade and make the 110mph flyer just as late as the rest.