CtDOT/SLE GP40-2H STATUS THREAD

[DutchRailnut]

The NYC S motors had their share of problems despite having more shoes than a genesis , same with the T motors.
the largest beast was the ex CUT P5b's but those exceeded the lenght of todays genesis units.
In old days a lot of interlockings had switches only good for 30 mph which are far shorter than todays 45 and 60 mph switches.

Also with those engines if you shut off the trottle the biggest draw was the Air compressor and Motor generator to charge batteries.
On todays Genesis even at idle, the load of the HEP is around 7 times 75Kw plus all those fans and gadgets in the Genesis making all that noise

[BiggAW]

Is the issue the gapping of the third rails and coming back onto them, or the amperage/ voltage wanting to arc to the wheels (path to ground?).

If its going to the wheels and thus to ground, why would that happen any more than on the EMUs? Is the placement of the third rail shoe slightly different? The ability for power to arc over from the shoe to the wheel shouldn't depend on the amperage being drawn, only the voltage potential in the rail, which is the same all the time.

If it is between the shoe and the rail, then that can depend on amperage. If this is the problem, couldn't it be solved by a pair of relays? If a mechanical relay were installed that was triggered by voltage, but had a slight (1/2 to 1 second) delay, when the loco came back on third rail, the power would be shut off, and the relay would give power to the locomotive only after it was in full contact with the rail, largely eliminating the arcing. The only possible case that could cause a problem was where there was a fairly short gap, run through at high speed. The relay wouldn't shut off in time to stop an arc. In this case, the second relay, an instantaneous solid state relay would be wired in series, so that when the voltage drops out (the gap) the power to the locomotive would be instantly shut off, but still take time to come back on when the train reached the other side of the gap.

Is there a technical issue with that solution, or is it simply that when the locos were designed diesel fuel was $0.89/ gallon? If they could shut down their Prime Movers at Pelham, they could probably save a fair bit of fuel on their Danbury-GCT run? The savings would be even bigger on the Hudson and Harlem lines, as the lower lines are longer than the length of the New Haven Line's third rail portion...

[RearOfSignal]

The P32acdm does run at full horsepower on third rail, infact its at certain speeds the engine actually produces at least 3350 HP in Third rail mode, the P32acdm is NOT a full time electric locomotive and is only suppose to run in Electric between GCT and CP5, third rail operation actually gets tricky for a locomotive due to gaps, and at speeds over 45 mph the chances increase to get flash overs from shoes to wheels.
Picture a electric welder that instead of 32 volts and 125 to 325 Amp runs at 770 volt at 3370 Amps, it would total the locomotive in no time.
MU cars with a lenght of 2 x 85 feet do have way less gappin g than a single locomotive of 69 feet.

Also on third rail mode the P32acdm does not have Dynamic/blended brake, as that inverter is used as step up inverter stepping up the 770 volt to 1400 volt DC for the DC buss on the Genesis which feeds the traction and HEP inverters.

Amtrak's P32acdm's are same as MNCR P32acdm's except for emergency hatch and different third rail shoes.
As for why DE/DM can run full speed lets first establish that the DE/DM are lemons and perform far below par compared to a GE P32acdm.
As for arcing ask LIRR why one of their DM units fully cooked due to arcing.
As for MU's doing less arcing I have explained that a 2 x 85 foot MU spans gaps a lot better than a 69 foot locomotive drawing 8 times as much power.

Dutch has already answered your question twice. If your locomotive is only 69 ft long(even less considering the distance between third rail shoes on one side) it is going to gap more than a EMU pair with third rail shoes about 170 ft apart from end to end. Plus the EMU's draw less power anyway.

Is there a technical issue with that solution, or is it simply that when the locos were designed diesel fuel was $0.89/ gallon? If they could shut down their Prime Movers at Pelham, they could probably save a fair bit of fuel on their Danbury-GCT run? The savings would be even bigger on the Hudson and Harlem lines, as the lower lines are longer than the length of the New Haven Line's third rail portion...

The P32AC-DM was not designed to a full time electric locomotive. The dual mode capabilities are not to save fuel, but rather to move trains into/out of GCT where 700 VDC third rail is the only option for propulsion for passenger trains.

But weren't talking GP40's?

[BiggAW]

RearOfSignal,

You totally missed my point. I understand they were designed that way, but the question is, is it impossible to have a locomotive that size run on third rail or was it a design trade-off they made at the time because diesel fuel cost $0.89 or whatever? You just restated the facts from which my question stems, which I already knew.

The issue is the amperage. The EMU's can, and do, gap out as well, and then reconnect with some arcing to the third rail, so that's not the issue in itself. It's the amperage, which is much higher on a P32, since its hauling itself, plus however cars, whereas the EMUs are all working together, and other sets in the train are powered when one set is off the third rail, so its powering only itself or less. We already established that too.

Because the reconnection is the issue, could a system that disconnects the power as soon as the power drops out so that it would wait to reconnect until the shoe is in full contact with the rail solve the problem and allow Danbury locomotives to run off of third rail from Pelham (and the equivalent for Hudson/ Harlem)?

The whole system is a hack-around to allow trains from Danbury and the upper lines to run into GCT, and are hence imperfect, unlike the regular New Haven line trains, which use an extremely elegant system with the at-speed Pelham Pantograph Put-down/up. The question is whether they could be made less imperfect (arguably close to perfect on the Hudson/ Harlem since they use third rail).

[RearOfSignal]

Yes, I am sure that any builder could build a full time third rail electric locomotive if the really wanted to. But please besides reduced emissions, what would be the benefit of such a venture? And please, please how does this relate to GP40's? Start a new thread, our Otto/Kevin split this one. If you want answers to your questions at least ask them in the right place.

[BiggAW]

Cheaper to run (diesel fuel costs at least 4x as much as electricity), lower emissions in an urban area, lowered noise in that area, more power if designed to deliver it, since it wouldn't be dependent on its prime mover's maximum capacity. The usual benefit of electrics. It would only make sense because the third rail is there anyways, and required anyways for GCT.

[RearOfSignal]

Your posts makes no sense, GP40's don't run into GCT or into third rail territory, so why does a replacement need to have third rail capabilities. No it doesn't make sense.

[DutchRailnut]

non of his post make sense, he still questions people like Noel with over 40 years on railroad, he questions an amateur like me with 25 years on railroad, and keeps on going with his misguided info, that he keeps spewing as gospel, and all that from a guy who has never worked on railroad, a transit agency, or any related job ??

[DutchRailnut]

Locomotive Overhaul (Project No. TBD)

<SNIP> for GP40

In addition to the overhaul of the P-40 locomotive, the Department plans to have a Top Deck
Overhaul (TDO) performed on the six (6) GP-40 locomotives also used in the SLE service.
These locomotives were manufactured in 1971 and remanufactured in 1996. This work consists
of replacement of major engine parts with inspection and replacement of other components as
needed. This type of program will allow another 3-6 years of service life. Estimated timeframe
on this overhaul work is contingent upon securing funding, once the Department secures
funding the normal course for a contract bid, and award could take between 6-8 months, actual
construction work on the locomotives would be approximately 2 months per locomotive.

[FL9AC]

It's nice to see everything being planned for an overhaul including the GP40's...those things are beasts! I just hope they lower the cooling fans and maybe move the AC units off the roof for better catenary clearance ...wishful thinking I'm sure lol.

[Clean Cab]

I'm glad to learn of the pending overhaul of the GP-40s, but I wonder what they'll be used for? Haven't they been replaced on SLE trains by the P-40s?

[Ridgefielder]

Just a guess, but: NH-H-S? Certainly would be better 50+ year old F-units...

[jt42cwr]

Hello,

Can anyone update me on the current status of the CDOT GP40 fleet? Are all in active service at the moment, or are any stored?

Thanks.

[DutchRailnut]

They see little use during hot days , west of new haven they short catenary due to their height and sagging wire.
A Few were being used this winter.

[ChrisU]

Are any of these engines still running?