More EMD prime movers for commuter service.

[Phil Hom]

WILMERDING, Pa., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Wabtec Corporation (NYSE: WAB) today announced that its MotivePower subsidiary has signed a $12.7 million contract to build commuter locomotives for the Mid-Region Council of Governments in Albuquerque, N.M., which is planning to initiate commuter rail service in the region.

The contract includes five MPXpress(R) locomotives, spare parts and training to be delivered in 2005. The locomotives, to be manufactured in MotivePower's Boise, Idaho facility, will be similar to those built for San Francisco's Caltrain commuter line in 2003.

"We're proud to be part of the new commuter rail service in Albuquerque and confident our MPXpress locomotives will live up to the performance standards they've set in San Francisco," said Mark S. Warner, MotivePower's vice president and general manager.

Compared to earlier-model commuter locomotives, the MPXpress units feature higher-horsepower engines to increase acceleration, greater fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, microprocessor controls and compliance with the latest crashworthiness standards. The units include a significant number of components produced by other Wabtec subsidiaries.

Lawrence Rael, executive director for the Mid-Region Council of Governments, which is working on behalf of the New Mexico Department of Transportation to implement the project, said: "We were impressed with the performance and environmental characteristics of MotivePower's MPXpress locomotives and look forward to putting them into service. We have a very ambitious schedule for the implementation of service, and we were amazed that we could purchase such high-quality locomotives and still meet our timeline."

Wabtec Corporation ( http://www.wabtec.com ) is one of North America's largest providers of value-added, technology-based products and services for the rail industry.

[pateljones]

Wabtec uses EMD prime movers? Which one is going in this order, 710s?

[Allen Hazen]

Am I misremembering, or were the Caltrain locomotives like the ones for Chicago's METRA: immensely overweight critters with 645 engines built by a GE subsidiary (using engine frames from Poland)?
(GE rail -- formerly transportation systems -- website has an ad for their rebuilding and maintenance and spare parts business which, after noting that EMD is a trademark and that they have no connection with the owner of that trademark, advances the claim that they are able to provide fully EMD-compatible parts. Apparently this goes right up to complete engines!

[byte]

I love the way they brag about the performance of the CalTrain units, but not the ones Metra bought, which have been fairly unreliable. Kinda makes you think because there are more than four times as many Metra units as there are CalTrain units.

[F40CFan]

I love the way they brag about the performance of the CalTrain units, but not the ones Metra bought, which have been fairly unreliable. Kinda makes you think because there are more than four times as many Metra units as there are CalTrain units.

Yeah. That would make a lovely advertisement. "They run in the sun, but blow in the snow".

[AmtrakFan]

At least EMD is getting some business

[MEC407]

At least EMD is getting some business

Actually they aren't, because these engines are not being built by EMD. They are based on EMD's design, but are built by a GE subsidiary.

[498]

The "645FZ" crankcase which GE now markets, originated back in the mid-1990s when EMD refused to sell parts to MK Rail (Boise Locomotive) because they were producing new locomotives (MK1200G and MK5000C), and in response MK assembled a team to find replacements for almost every significant component in the EMD product. The crankcase, which is quite different in construction from the EMD one but accepts all the same rotating and reciprocating parts, was assigned to Engine Systems (formerly TMS) in Latham NY for sourcing and marketing as they had several production specialists who did business with firms in eastern europe. It was sourced with a large engine manufacturer (a Sulzer licensee) in Poland.

The Metra and Caltrain locomotives only look alike on the outside, the machinery is quite different. The Caltrain units use the 645 engine for propulsion only, they have a separate HEP powerplant. The Metra units have the 645 driving a HEP alternator through a front end driveshaft, and feed the output through an inverter to maintain constant frequency regardless of the speed of the prime mover.

As others who manage and maintain locomotives have noted in other postings, there are certain combinations of components which seem to work far better than others in commuter locomotives, even though the most reliable combinations may be a bit more expensive to maintain. The Metra arrangement where one engine powers everything creates a situation where a problem which shuts down that engine results in a totally dead unit which cannot power the train, and cannot heat or light it either. Passengers tend to notice this condition very quickly. Separate engines for propulsion and HEP are more expensive to maintain, but if the HEP engine dies the equipment can still make it home (although uncomfortable passengers may bail out at the next station and take another train), and if the main engine dies you can still heat (or cool) and light the train while you are waiting for the rescue power to arrive.

The trend in recent years has been toward extensive customization of commuter locomotives for each operator, and away from standardization. Much of this is being driven by personalities and preferences in the engineering departments of the various commuter agencies. The net result is that passenger locomotives are becoming more expensive, more complicated, and are being built in smaller groups which require specialized parts and technical support. This probably is not a good thing, but it is just the way it is right now.

[F40CFan]

The Metra arrangement where one engine powers everything creates a situation where a problem which shuts down that engine results in a totally dead unit which cannot power the train, and cannot heat or light it either.

Here in Chicago, since 1974, all of our commuter locomotives have one engine powering everything. Until now, this has been a reliable arrangement.

[498]

If you will kindly read my entire post rather than just pulling individual sentences out of it you will understand it a lot better. Some of us out here are operating fleets where mixes of several different configurations of equipment exist, and get to directly compare availability and MTBF for several locomotive types, rather than a fleet where all the units are single engined.

[c604.]

498 (or anyone else that knows too) I've got a question. On locomotives with separate HEP engines, when the main engine fails leaving only the HEP engine running, will the locomotive cooling system still function to cool the HEP engine or is the HEP engine basically running on borrowed time before overheating at that point? Thanks.

[498]

In the case of our units that have separate HEP engine-generator sets, the HEP engine functions are totally independent of the propulsion engine once the HEP engine is running. The HEP engine does require starting air from the locomotive air system, but the HEP air start reservoir has a check valve which isolates it from the locomotive system in the event that the main system loses pressure due to some operating problem, so you would still have air for a couple of starts if the rest of the system dumped. If you are operating on a train with the HEP on line, and the propulsion engine has a failure which shuts it down, you can sit there with the HEP engine operating as long as you have fuel in the tank.

The locomotives also have layover systems to keep the engine(s) warm, which are generally plugged in within about ten minutes of arrival at a yard, so the units do not have to sit there idling. On the units with one engine providing both propulsion and HEP the only layover option is to plug in to external power. On the units with an engine for propulsion and a separate engine for HEP, it is possible to heat the propulsion engine from the running HEP engine system if you needed to.

Please do not interpret my postings to mean that some units are "unreliable", that is NOT the point I am trying to make here. Some equipment combinations do seem to consistently perform better than others, but you do not get the opportunity to compare between them unless you are operating a fleet which has several types of systems represented. I am not at all interested in arguments over what is "best" or "worst" on the railroad, virtually every commuter service provider charts the performance of each group of locomotives on their system and when you compile those month after month you get a pretty good idea what is going on.

[F40CFan]

Thanks for the lecture. I did read your entire post.

[RailBus63]

I am not at all interested in arguments over what is "best" or "worst" on the railroad, virtually every commuter service provider charts the performance of each group of locomotives on their system and when you compile those month after month you get a pretty good idea what is going on.

I appreciate your insights on real-world experience with locomotives and railroad operations. One of my frustrations with these boards is the crowding-out of intelligent discussion by foamers who offer little beyond the usual 'EMD rules! GE sucks!' type of messages. Nothing wrong with being a fan, but some of these folks take any criticism of their favorite locomotives personally.

Jim D.

[498]

Jim, thanks for your comment. I have to review the performance of a fleet of locomotives of several models with varied equipment every day, and what I post just reflects what I am seeing.