Railroad Forums 

  • The case for freight locomotives as passenger power

  • 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

 #1539293  by MattW
 
SouthernRailway wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:32 am Will Amtrak be moving to one locomotive per long-distance train (assuming it’s short enough) once Chargers are available for them?
Doubtful, many times the second locomotive is there for reliability if the first one has an enroute failure. Regional trains are one thing since in theory a rescue locomotive and/or mechanical forces are closer.
And is the second Genesis on a long-distance train turned on and running? Or is just turned off and pulled?

Thanks.
Usually turned on and running. From what I understand, with the P42s, the lead engine is just providing traction while the second engine provides HEP plus traction. This makes it quieter for the train crews.
 #1539305  by bdawe
 
A point I haven't seen discussed here is that Amtrak actually can buy passenger power 'off the show room floor,'

It's just that that show room is at Siemens or Alstom or Stadler or who-have you rather than at GE or EMD for the EU market, now that the FRA has legalized modestly-modified Euro-compliant passenger rolling stock in the US. It's just a shame that this had to be after the orders for Chargers and Sprinters and those designs had to more heavily "americanized"
 #1539307  by DutchRailnut
 
in general if there is multiple locomotives everything must be functioning , unless its shipped as non-complying locomotive( § 229.9) which can not be done in revenue service .


CFR 49 § 229.13 Control of locomotives.
Except when a locomotive is moved in accordance with § 229.9, whenever two or more locomotives are coupled in remote or multiple control, the propulsion system, the sanders, and the power brake system of each locomotive shall respond to control from the cab of the controlling locomotive. If a dynamic brake or regenerative brake system is in use, that portion of the system in use shall respond to control from the cab of the controlling locomotive.
 #1539312  by MACTRAXX
 
Everyone: This is a really good debate here about locomotives...

The Amtrak locomotives that AM had mentioned in his post from 4/10 were the
ill-fated SDP40F class and not the FP45 that dated before Amtrak.

Since Approach Medium and Dutch are current and former locomotive engineers
they know what locomotives would be good for high(er) speed passenger service.

I remember an interesting comparison between these two electric locomotives
using horse breeds to describe them:

AEM7-Throughbred Race Horse - designed for passenger trains and high speed.
E60CP-Clydesdale - found to be best for heavier train hauling at lower speeds
(80 mph or less) with their limitations.

Off the shelf heavy weight six axle freight locomotives could be described in this
manner as a "Clydesdale" in that they may work well with heavier and longer
trains (The Auto Train is probably the best example) but not so much with
shorter speed-conscious services around the system. Another good example
that comes to mind was the Amtrak P30CH and how they were used.

Ever since I was a child I have had a respect for anyone that operates a train
no matter what type or what their job title was - Engineer or Train Operator.
Without them you have no railroad or rail transit system...MACTRAXX
 #1539337  by ApproachMedium
 
Amtrak runs two locos so that failures, of any kind, can be quickly replaced by the other unit. HEP runs off the rear unit not for quiet for the crews, because a GE is still loud either way. Its done so that once the train makes track speed they isolate the lead unit to save on fuel. The lead unit is supposed to only be used for accelerating the train from a stop, otherwise its isolated. The autotrain is an exception for this as the auto train NEEDS both units to keep the train moving over grades. It also needs both units for dynamic brake ability.
 #1539407  by Tadman
 
bdawe wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:23 pm A point I haven't seen discussed here is that Amtrak actually can buy passenger power 'off the show room floor,'

It's just that that show room is at Siemens or Alstom or Stadler or who-have you rather than at GE or EMD for the EU market, now that the FRA has legalized modestly-modified Euro-compliant passenger rolling stock in the US. It's just a shame that this had to be after the orders for Chargers and Sprinters and those designs had to more heavily "americanized"
That's a good point and a very big leap forward. But it still doesn't account for the fact that our infrastructure here is much different. The off-shelf European equipment works great in the European environment. Mostly temperate climate, immaculate track, high speed, frequent maintenance. Over here, you might be able to change the maintenance culture a bit, but the track won't change. The speed won't change.

Which brings me right back to one of my biggest complaints. We buy stuff for imaginary high speed european operation and then run it 50-70mph all day down the UP. Why? All we get are rusted monocoque bodies and cracked trucks and an overall package that is approaching end of life (not rebuildable) at 20 years. We have heard from the insiders what a frustration the European power on the NEC is.
ApproachMedium wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:39 pm A Gp40 and an F40 are very much the similar machine yes. But you guys are talking about current off the shelf things. Which these things do not equate to. yea you could have a GP40 pull an amtrak train. In fact they did it. So go for it. Put a HEP motor in the back. But all you are doing at that point is going backwards in the time machine and not making any progress forward. You are running a 45 plus year old locomotive to pull passengers around in 2020.
The GP40/F40 is just an analogy to a very viable concept. After that we saw the F59. More recently we've seen MPI build the MP36 with a 710. That appears to be out of production, but there are plenty of SD70's in storage and CP is buying SD80's as parts donors.

Also, it's important to define progress. Just coming up with new ideas doesn't get us anywhere. The passengers want to arrive reliably on time and have good options and frequencies. They don't care what pulls the train if it gets to Boston or Detroit on time. It could be a Caboose with the floor cut out and a Camel inside trotting down the tracks Flint-stone style. Provided they don't smell the s***, the passengers are happy.
 #1539426  by mtuandrew
 
Tadman wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 amThat's a good point and a very big leap forward. But it still doesn't account for the fact that our infrastructure here is much different. The off-shelf European equipment works great in the European environment. Mostly temperate climate, immaculate track, high speed, frequent maintenance. Over here, you might be able to change the maintenance culture a bit, but the track won't change. The speed won't change.
I’ve never heard of Moscow being particularly temperate :P nor is Russia State Railways known for its immaculate track. Might be they have a different maintenance regimen than Amtrak, or maybe they have regulations that are more lax, but they use European designs too.
Tadman wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 amWhich brings me right back to one of my biggest complaints. We buy stuff for imaginary high speed european operation and then run it 50-70mph all day down the UP. Why? All we get are rusted monocoque bodies and cracked trucks and an overall package that is approaching end of life (not rebuildable) at 20 years. We have heard from the insiders what a frustration the European power on the NEC is.

The GP40/F40 is just an analogy to a very viable concept. After that we saw the F59. More recently we've seen MPI build the MP36 with a 710. That appears to be out of production, but there are plenty of SD70's in storage and CP is buying SD80's as parts donors.
Maybe the frustration is due to Amtrak not having had the funding to properly train employees on how to maintain the new equipment? And it being a new equipment system? And that the 25Hz system is unreliable and poorly buffered against voltage spikes? The AEM-7 soldiered on for about 40 years with one major rebuild; never heard of any complaints except for the very beginning, immediately pre-rebuild, and very end of their service. The American E60CH and E60MA rebuild wasn’t great for NEC service, and the Canadian-American HHP-8 just wasn’t great all around.

As for rusted monocoque bodies, the Genesis will be in Amtrak service about as long as the frame-on-body F40PH - 25 years, give or take a few. The F40 was a simpler design and packed fewer features and less horsepower with higher fuel consumption, yet Amtrak chose not to ask for a rebuild. May have been a political decision... whatever. The F59 has had about the same service life for Amtrak National, and only NCDOT is keeping them in service in the Amtrak network.
Tadman wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 amAlso, it's important to define progress. Just coming up with new ideas doesn't get us anywhere. The passengers want to arrive reliably on time and have good options and frequencies. They don't care what pulls the train if it gets to Boston or Detroit on time. It could be a Caboose with the floor cut out and a Camel inside trotting down the tracks Flint-stone style. Provided they don't smell the s***, the passengers are happy.
Would you be happier commuting in a 1995 Chevy full-size pickup, standard cab with a 350 V-8 but rebuilt to more-modern spec, or a 2020 Honda Accord Sport? Which would provide more day-to-day reliability? Which one has better fuel economy and lower operating costs? Which one makes the neighbors give you the side-eye? Which one fits in your garage better? Which one is more comfortable to ride in? Which one has dealer support for the foreseeable future? Both are capable of 70 mph; which one is also easily capable of cruising at 100 if you wanted?

Point is, freight locomotives are great for dragging thousands of tons at low speed. Passenger locomotives are great for pulling hundreds of tons at any speed between the teens and the low hundreds. Get the right tool not just for the job you’re doing, but also the job you will do.

And just because Omaha is recalcitrant doesn’t mean Fort Worth or Calgary is.
 #1539428  by Tadman
 
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:38 am
As for rusted monocoque bodies, the Genesis will be in Amtrak service about as long as the frame-on-body F40PH - 25 years, give or take a few. The F40 was a simpler design and packed fewer features and less horsepower with higher fuel consumption, yet Amtrak chose not to ask for a rebuild. May have been a political decision... whatever. The F59 has had about the same service life for Amtrak National, and only NCDOT is keeping them in service in the Amtrak network.
Not true, the F59 is half generation older than most of the P42 fleet. It showed up just before the early P40 and many of those were laid up for quite some time. Then when the truck cracking happened they brought them back out.
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:38 am Would you be happier commuting in a 1995 Chevy full-size pickup, standard cab with a 350 V-8 but rebuilt to more-modern spec, or a 2020 Honda Accord Sport?
'
Chevy truck x1000. And the sales and longevity numbers back me up. https://www.foxnews.com/auto/the-10-bes ... s-and-suvs

mtuandrew wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:38 am And just because Omaha is recalcitrant doesn’t mean Fort Worth or Calgary is.
I used UP as an example. No freight railroad from 1971 to 2020, 49 years, has created a >79mph railroad. ATSF and CNIC have significantly pruned the available trackage for >79mph. UP CN CP BNSF CSX NS - none of them. Amtrak long distance 2020 is Amtrak long distance 1971. Same train, same routes, similar timetables, different stripes. And despite the proliferation of corridor trains, the routes remain the same and I bet the timetables are pretty similar. We can't even pony up the market rate for trackage rights to get the trains to run on time let alone actually go faster.

The faster they realize this, embrace it, and conduct accordingly, the better chance the railroad has to be something meaningful and relevant.
 #1539472  by slchub
 
ApproachMedium wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:12 am Amtrak runs two locos so that failures, of any kind, can be quickly replaced by the other unit. HEP runs off the rear unit not for quiet for the crews, because a GE is still loud either way. Its done so that once the train makes track speed they isolate the lead unit to save on fuel. The lead unit is supposed to only be used for accelerating the train from a stop, otherwise its isolated. The autotrain is an exception for this as the auto train NEEDS both units to keep the train moving over grades. It also needs both units for dynamic brake ability.
No longer the case with PTC. PTC calculates braking efforts based upon both motors being on-line and running. This is a bummer as I loved isolating the lead. There are several places I would isolate when running the Auto Train between Sanford and Florence. That said, I would love to see some nice 6 axel units for the AT, but we don't have the mechanical facilities nor a turning point in Sanford for them. The wye is too tight for 6 axels on the Aloma.
 #1539490  by eolesen
 
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:38 am Would you be happier commuting in a 1995 Chevy full-size pickup, standard cab with a 350 V-8 but rebuilt to more-modern spec, or a 2020 Honda Accord Sport? Which would provide more day-to-day reliability? Which one has better fuel economy and lower operating costs? Which one makes the neighbors give you the side-eye? Which one fits in your garage better? Which one is more comfortable to ride in? Which one has dealer support for the foreseeable future? Both are capable of 70 mph; which one is also easily capable of cruising at 100 if you wanted?
I'd take the Chevy. My current happy commuter ride is a 2003 Jeep -- out of production for almost a decade, but components that are easily obtained and largely compatible with components from older and newer model Jeeps. Easily maintained by just about anyone including me... I've taken it up to 90 on occasion, but why would I want to do that when the flow of traffic never exceeds 75 and is usually closer to 60?

Would you rather have a captive power fleet, or something:

* any host road could repair on the spot vs. hauling it to an Amtrak shop
* with parts easily available and will continue to be available as long as there are places like Larry's or NREX
* with the ability to pool, lease and borrow as needed when you need power
* equipped with control systems that don't require massive training if you wind up with foreign power
* able to lease out during slower times and/or sell with decent residual value

I've seen many UP business trains operating with freight power at passenger speeds. Just because they're designed for slogging it out with mile long double stacks or coal trains doesn't mean they can't gallop with a dozen lightweight cars...
 #1539498  by mark777
 
Somebody mentioned the LIRR above. Many commuters will not hesitate to tell you that the LIRR's best locomotives were the trusty GP38s mixed with the MP15s. So maybe a sleek and slender passenger locomotive isn't always ideal for every occasion. The guys working the AT would probably not be disappointed if they were given two six axle GES or GMs to move their train and still do the same speeds.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8