"I was riding the head end of a GP40FH (sorely in need of a rebuild or retirement) and it took from the Elizabeth (NJ) curves to Linden station to get from 55 to 95 I think was the max speed we got up too because the next signal knocked our cab signals us down..."
Don't sneer at any 3000 hp unit that gets from 55 to 95 between the Elizabeth curve and signal 177. That's the best you could expect with four cars; with five cars it would be unlikely even with 2700 hp at the rail.
Railroad Forums
Why didnt Emd make units for Metra
- Discussion of Electro-Motive locomotive products and technology, past and present. Official web site can be found here: http://www.emdiesels.com/.
Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM
"I'd say the fastest [accelerating] mainline stuff would be a 3 car NJT Arrow train, followed by longer Arrows, Silverliners, and downard from there..."
3 cars... what's that, five powered trucks? So maybe that would do better than an even number of cars.
Amtrak regularly runs AEM7s with 3 Amfleets-- it would be nice to see their maximum effort. If the AEM7 can match the ALP44, I'd say (in a side-by-side standing-start contest) it would catch up to the Arrow IIIs by the one-mile mark and pull away from them after that. Even if the Arrows were allowed 100 mph.
And presumably the Acela can do about as well. If they ever again schedule an Acela stop at Princeton Jct I'll be curious to see how it does when it's not slowed by terminal trackage.
3 cars... what's that, five powered trucks? So maybe that would do better than an even number of cars.
Amtrak regularly runs AEM7s with 3 Amfleets-- it would be nice to see their maximum effort. If the AEM7 can match the ALP44, I'd say (in a side-by-side standing-start contest) it would catch up to the Arrow IIIs by the one-mile mark and pull away from them after that. Even if the Arrows were allowed 100 mph.
And presumably the Acela can do about as well. If they ever again schedule an Acela stop at Princeton Jct I'll be curious to see how it does when it's not slowed by terminal trackage.
So long as all teh MU's are working, each pair puts out about 1100hp, and if you got six pair (12 cars) you'd have a 6600hp set....but there is hardly, if ever (ive never noticed any) wheelslip with MU's, and that power goes to the rails - each powered truck is only 375hp. (pairs have 3 powered trucks) The longer the train, the better the braking, and in some cases, probably better acceloration too.
Yea, I guess I should give the ol' FH more credit, but that thing sounded like it was gonna tear itself to shreds......and shoot something right through the electrical cabinet behind us!!!!
F40's seem to be a favorite of most NJT engineers that I have spoken too, and in my own cab rides, have a much better ride and are a LOT quieter than the GP40's, even teh cowled FH's. But my personal favorite is any GP40PH, with a "normal" cab able to see out the back, bouncing along at 90 plus MPH, and I mean bouncing!!! Its amazing how individual loco's, like passegner cars, get personalities, and they all have their own benefits, adn quirks!!
Can't wait to get a ride in the PL42's. If they are anything like the '46's in cab comfort, oh boy, wow, those things are like Cadillacs!!! (not the ol SP SD9's!!!!)
Yea, I guess I should give the ol' FH more credit, but that thing sounded like it was gonna tear itself to shreds......and shoot something right through the electrical cabinet behind us!!!!
F40's seem to be a favorite of most NJT engineers that I have spoken too, and in my own cab rides, have a much better ride and are a LOT quieter than the GP40's, even teh cowled FH's. But my personal favorite is any GP40PH, with a "normal" cab able to see out the back, bouncing along at 90 plus MPH, and I mean bouncing!!! Its amazing how individual loco's, like passegner cars, get personalities, and they all have their own benefits, adn quirks!!
Can't wait to get a ride in the PL42's. If they are anything like the '46's in cab comfort, oh boy, wow, those things are like Cadillacs!!! (not the ol SP SD9's!!!!)
On the RR, "believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see"
John, aka "JTGSHU" passed away on August 26, 2013. We honor his memory and his devotion to railroading at railroad.net.
John, aka "JTGSHU" passed away on August 26, 2013. We honor his memory and his devotion to railroading at railroad.net.
metra 613 wrote:How com there are makeind 13 sd70s for Australian and ween metra wanting 27 units there told metra that was a big order so tha why metra went to mpi so is 13 more then 27 no no we have to put up with the mp36s in chicago i hate them i wish emd made metra some f59s i know there be alot better then the mps and wont brake down all the toime it said to see the f40c get replace by some junk made in a farm somewere out in idahoYou say the F59PHI's wouldn't break down as much? Just spend a month on Amtrak's West Coast Service trains.
metra 613 wrote:it that why everone i know that work for metra hates them then all there do is brake down and how come ween i watch them u can see a f40ph move fater then them just becasue there have 3600 hp doesnt mean anything too me and any time i ride a train with one it lateAn engineer friend of mine, who I just talked to within the last 5 minutes of my posting this, said:
"The F40PH's are faster starting out, but the MP36's are faster once you get 'em moving. Its just getting 'em moving that is slow." And for you guys who think they're slow in general, I saw engine 416 pull a westbound into National Street 5 minutes early tonight. This train odviously did not leave Chicago 5 minutes early; and from what I hear they're on a tight schedule; so it would take a fast engine to be able to get upto 5 minutes early at National Street.
Nasadowsk wrote:Ack, 645.They'll need a new prime mover for phase III, and phase III will come soon, given that rail diesels are about as dirty as you can get and still be allowed to use it in the US (Phase II is a joke vs highway standards, to say nothing of gas car engines). The EPA's already talking about a new wave of heavy duty diesel regulations, and rail will no doubt be included in it. Cutting down to road diesel levels will require new designs from EMD (and likely GE), but would be worth it in the long term. It's also pretty easy to do - today's rail diesels don't have EGR, cataltysts, particle traps, or any of the other technologies that have been on bus and highway engines for years (decades) now.That's because aside form pipelines, rail is the most fuel-efficient mode of land transportation, even before Tier-2 came infot effect.
Highway vehicles are given tougher standards because they pollute more, not less.
The per HP-hour limits for rail are still significantly higher than road diesels, and how much, if any cleaner, rail is (or even more efficient), is subject to debate. From the US DOT's own data, flying is roughly 1/2 as efficient than intercity rail, but remember that the FRA's new regulations will significantly increase fuel use, and airliners are getting progressively more efficient. Once the energy numbers cross, the last excuse for the antiquated Amtrak system, i.e. it somehow makes environmental sense, will be gone.
For commuter rail, it's very hard to argue that a commuter train is cleaner than driving - modern automobiles have gotten so amazingly clean, a car today driving 500 miles pollutes less than a car from 1968 does parked in the sun. A lot less.
As far as freight - for what the RRs move, i.e. bulk loads at virtually no speed, they're likely more efficient. Note I didn't say cleaner. It would take a lot of analysis to see what comes on top, and it's hard to compare because RRs can't move anything at truck speeds, which initself skews the numbers around.
In any case, that's not an excuse for being dirty, especially given the technology to clean up diesels is old and proven by now, and used virtually everywhere else.
For commuter rail, it's very hard to argue that a commuter train is cleaner than driving - modern automobiles have gotten so amazingly clean, a car today driving 500 miles pollutes less than a car from 1968 does parked in the sun. A lot less.
As far as freight - for what the RRs move, i.e. bulk loads at virtually no speed, they're likely more efficient. Note I didn't say cleaner. It would take a lot of analysis to see what comes on top, and it's hard to compare because RRs can't move anything at truck speeds, which initself skews the numbers around.
In any case, that's not an excuse for being dirty, especially given the technology to clean up diesels is old and proven by now, and used virtually everywhere else.
Nasadowsk wrote:The per HP-hour limits for rail are still significantly higher than road diesels, and how much, if any cleaner, rail is (or even more efficient), is subject to debate. From the US DOT's own data, flying is roughly 1/2 as efficient than intercity rail, but remember that the FRA's new regulations will significantly increase fuel use, and airliners are getting progressively more efficient. Once the energy numbers cross, the last excuse for the antiquated Amtrak system, i.e. it somehow makes environmental sense, will be gone.Everything is getting more fuel efficient, because the market force demands it (lower fuel costs/lower operating costs). Other than that, I don't really understand your argument.
For commuter rail, it's very hard to argue that a commuter train is cleaner than driving - modern automobiles have gotten so amazingly clean, a car today driving 500 miles pollutes less than a car from 1968 does parked in the sun. A lot less.Ha ha, you so crazy.
As far as freight - for what the RRs move, i.e. bulk loads at virtually no speed, they're likely more efficient. Note I didn't say cleaner. It would take a lot of analysis to see what comes on top, and it's hard to compare because RRs can't move anything at truck speeds, which initself skews the numbers around.[/quote]
Take a trainload of freight and move that very same trainload by semi. I dare say moving it all by train is much more fuel efficient.
In any case, that's not an excuse for being dirty, especially given the technology to clean up diesels is old and proven by now, and used virtually everywhere else.Right, we have to clean up and impose high costs on everyone based on an emotional "we need to be cleaner just because!" argument
It would take a lot of analysis to see what comes on top, and it's hard to compare because RRs can't move anything at truck speeds, which initself skews the numbers around.The last time I was on a highway parallel to a train track, the trucks doing a little over 100 km/h were being overtaken--passed--by a CN freight train travelling in the same direction.
The per HP-hour limits for rail are still significantly higher than road diesels, and how much, if any cleaner, rail is (or even more efficient), is subject to debate.Um... Not really. It's generally accepted that rail is at least three times and up to ten times more efficient than road.
For commuter rail, it's very hard to argue that a commuter train is cleaner than driving - modern automobiles have gotten so amazingly clean, a car today driving 500 miles pollutes less than a car from 1968 does parked in the sun. A lot less.Does the fact that a new car pollutes less than an old car put it ahead of a train? Last time I checked, a 10-car bilevel commuter train has a capacity of just under 1500 passengers. Last time I checked, most cars have a capacity of 5 people but rarely actually carry more than the driver. It seems to me that when comparing a single-locomotive train with about 800 cars...........
--Michael Eby
--http://trainiax.net
--http://trainiax.net
<I>Does the fact that a new car pollutes less than an old car put it ahead of a train?</i>
No, but the fact is, today's cars are amazingly clean. This weekend, the NY Times announced a cleanup program in NY state. 6 coal burning power plants will be refitted with newer emissions controls. The reduction is equal to removing 2.9 million cars from the road, and <b>every</b> diesel truck and bus in the US.
Maybe the real answer is stationary sources?
<i> Last time I checked, a 10-car bilevel commuter train has a capacity of just under 1500 passengers. Last time I checked, most cars have a capacity of 5 people but rarely actually carry more than the driver.</i>
Outside of NY during the rush hour, or Chicago or Boston, you rarely see 10 car trains filled to capacity. And, realize - that 10 car train will idle all day in a yard. An automobile? It'll shut off
<i> It seems to me that when comparing a single-locomotive train with about 800 cars </i>
Figure that locomotive will also idle all day, and it's basic pollution levels are high. Realize, under California's SULEV standards, a car's total hydrocarbon emissions over the 100,000 mile life of the car is required to be less than equivelent to one pint of gas. Ever see the top of even the 'low emissions' DE-30s in NY? They spit oil like fountain...
For that matter, California's now looking to regulate *lawnmowers*. Why? A lawnmower running for an hour puts out more pollution than 50 cars in rush hour traffic for an hour....
Could rail be cleaner than cars? Of course. But, this requires rail engines to actually be clean, and they're not. And there's no reason they can't be - the basic mechanisms to clean them up are off the shelf technology, inexpensive, and reliable.
No, but the fact is, today's cars are amazingly clean. This weekend, the NY Times announced a cleanup program in NY state. 6 coal burning power plants will be refitted with newer emissions controls. The reduction is equal to removing 2.9 million cars from the road, and <b>every</b> diesel truck and bus in the US.
Maybe the real answer is stationary sources?
<i> Last time I checked, a 10-car bilevel commuter train has a capacity of just under 1500 passengers. Last time I checked, most cars have a capacity of 5 people but rarely actually carry more than the driver.</i>
Outside of NY during the rush hour, or Chicago or Boston, you rarely see 10 car trains filled to capacity. And, realize - that 10 car train will idle all day in a yard. An automobile? It'll shut off
<i> It seems to me that when comparing a single-locomotive train with about 800 cars </i>
Figure that locomotive will also idle all day, and it's basic pollution levels are high. Realize, under California's SULEV standards, a car's total hydrocarbon emissions over the 100,000 mile life of the car is required to be less than equivelent to one pint of gas. Ever see the top of even the 'low emissions' DE-30s in NY? They spit oil like fountain...
For that matter, California's now looking to regulate *lawnmowers*. Why? A lawnmower running for an hour puts out more pollution than 50 cars in rush hour traffic for an hour....
Could rail be cleaner than cars? Of course. But, this requires rail engines to actually be clean, and they're not. And there's no reason they can't be - the basic mechanisms to clean them up are off the shelf technology, inexpensive, and reliable.
If anybody wants to believe that the technology to make diesel engines cleaner is proven, come spend a few days at the truck service facility where I work. Watch the new low emission variable geometry turbos fail, watch the wastegates fail, watch the EGR valves fail, watch the electronics fail, watch components under the hood fry from all the excessive heat generated by these anti-pollution devices and talk to the drivers about how their fuel mileage has gone into the toilet since the EPA 2004 engine rules went into effect. I don't see how burning MORE fuel can EVER be a good thing for reducing emmissions, unless you consider that a truck broken down in the shop waiting for improved parts that the manufacturers haven't figured out how to build yet, doesn't pollute at all!
Nasadowsk wrote:No, but the fact is, today's cars are amazingly clean. This weekend, the NY Times announced a cleanup program in NY state. 6 coal burning power plants will be refitted with newer emissions controls. The reduction is equal to removing 2.9 million cars from the road, and <b>every</b> diesel truck and bus in the US.What does that have to do with railroading?
Could rail be cleaner than cars? Of course. But, this requires rail engines to actually be clean, and they're not. And there's no reason they can't be - the basic mechanisms to clean them up are off the shelf technology, inexpensive, and reliable.They already are, but you refuse to accept that for some reason.
For those who think the MP36s are good, I refer you to the following.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... c&start=15
Check out bones' post near the bottom of the page dated: Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:39 pm. This is someone who has to deal with those pieces of garbage almost every day.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... c&start=15
Check out bones' post near the bottom of the page dated: Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:39 pm. This is someone who has to deal with those pieces of garbage almost every day.