• ALP-45-DP Usage/Service Patterns

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: Tadman, nick11a, Kaback9, ACeInTheHole

  • 580 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 39
  by Matt Johnson
 
CNJGeep wrote:
thought these were originally intended for the NJCL from Bay Head to NY Penn and the Raritan Valley Line from High Bridge to NY Penn Station?
They've run on most of the lines in revenue service, and have run test trains on each line. Don't expect to see one-seat rides to NY anytime in the near future, acc't capacity issues in the tunnel.
Aren't there currently Bay Head - Long Branch trains connecting with Long Branch - NYP trains that could be merged into a single train?
  by 25Hz
 
Pardon my error, lot of stuff on my mind, very long & busy day.

In any case, the midtown directs were run using the 45's on the short stretch of NEC march 2 and 3. They have not run in service on any other trains that utilize the NEC as of this posting.

I am really not sure we will ever see them regularly on trenton or brunswick trains, but who knows!
  by 25Hz
 
Matt Johnson wrote:Aren't there currently Bay Head - Long Branch trains connecting with Long Branch - NYP trains that could be merged into a single train?

Sure you could merge the train and make it one seat ride, but you would have to do it in a way that going to bay head doesnt make you miss your slot to get back to nyp. Pretty sure it'd take a rework of the entire schedule. Another thing, where would the displaced equipment go? What if theres a problem, the combined train is now the shuttle, what if the shuttle never comes? Easier to run the shuttle to newark than take a diesel from hoboken and go save teh day.....you see what i'm sayin? Lot of stuff for the NJT folks to figure out before we ever see them run the way they were intended, and even if they all ready have a plan its gonna be a bit before they implement it....sandy made sure of that.
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Yeah, if those statistics were correct, more than 20 of them are out of commission, we're not going to see them in any other regularly scheduled Penn Station services for a long time until those other 20 are back online and those dozen of that 20 which dont belong to us yet are run through acceptance testing.
  by morris&essex4ever
 
25Hz wrote:Pardon my error, lot of stuff on my mind, very long & busy day.

In any case, the midtown directs were run using the 45's on the short stretch of NEC march 2 and 3. They have not run in service on any other trains that utilize the NEC as of this posting.

I am really not sure we will ever see them regularly on trenton or brunswick trains, but who knows!
If there's any sort of catenary work done on the NEC, maybe the 45's will do Trenton-NYP runs.
  by Jtgshu
 
25Hz wrote:
Matt Johnson wrote:Aren't there currently Bay Head - Long Branch trains connecting with Long Branch - NYP trains that could be merged into a single train?

Sure you could merge the train and make it one seat ride, but you would have to do it in a way that going to bay head doesnt make you miss your slot to get back to nyp. Pretty sure it'd take a rework of the entire schedule. Another thing, where would the displaced equipment go? What if theres a problem, the combined train is now the shuttle, what if the shuttle never comes? Easier to run the shuttle to newark than take a diesel from hoboken and go save teh day.....you see what i'm sayin? Lot of stuff for the NJT folks to figure out before we ever see them run the way they were intended, and even if they all ready have a plan its gonna be a bit before they implement it....sandy made sure of that.
uhhhhh what?

If they were to make a one seat ride from BH to NY and vice versa, it wouldn't matter if it was used on shuttles on other trips. say for example, it ran on 4356 as a shuttle, then ran on 4355 as another shuttle - it gets to bay head, turns and now runs to NY as a combined 4372/3272 (I dont' know if these actual trains would work time wise, im just using an example) get to NY and then run as a combined 3289/4389 to BH. It would be the same thing the equipment does (or I should say did) when Hoboken/BH trains were running full strength. except go to NY instead of Hoboken.

The biggest road block to this type of schedule is lack of diesel fueling facilities in Bay Head. They are thirsty mo-fos..... Using them to Hoboken would allow them to be fueled up in Hoboken. Running a BH train to NY might mean that that equipment might have to turn for a train to say Port Morris or Raritan where it can be fueled. Which would further complicate the train manipulation and make life even more miserable.........haha
  by kilroy
 
The biggest road block to this type of schedule is lack of diesel fueling facilities in Bay Head. They are thirsty mo-fos..... Using them to Hoboken would allow them to be fueled up in Hoboken. Running a BH train to NY might mean that that equipment might have to turn for a train to say Port Morris or Raritan where it can be fueled. Which would further complicate the train manipulation and make life even more miserable.........haha
There you go again JT, injecting reality into the discussion. You railroaders are all the same.
  by Jtgshu
 
kilroy wrote:
The biggest road block to this type of schedule is lack of diesel fueling facilities in Bay Head. They are thirsty mo-fos..... Using them to Hoboken would allow them to be fueled up in Hoboken. Running a BH train to NY might mean that that equipment might have to turn for a train to say Port Morris or Raritan where it can be fueled. Which would further complicate the train manipulation and make life even more miserable.........haha
There you go again JT, injecting reality into the discussion. You railroaders are all the same.
:)
  by michaelk
 
I'm curious about the fuel situation- i saw mention of them using more fuel in the other thread and got me thinking- then JT's latest words of wisdom and now I have a pile of questions- sorry- ;-)

do the 45's actually use more fuel per mile compared to another recent vintage locomotive?
If so is it becasue they have less efficient engines or becasue they weigh much more?
Or is it that the tanks are that much smaller?
Or is there something else i didn't think of?
(or is it some combination of some/all of the above)

I know I've read here that there are fuel moves from Bayhead north on the weekend. Are there mid week moves too or do the Bay Head- Long Branch shuttles actually run a full week in between fueling? Is that so long in between becasue they only run a short distance between bay head and long branch over and over?

How long does a "typical" (if there is such a thing) diesel go between fueling? If you put a DP in it's place how much more would it need to be fueled- like twice as often or 50% more etc.
  by Patrick Boylan
 
michaelk, I know nothing about your other points, but smaller tanks, although they will require you to fuel more often, will not make you use more fuel. All other things being equal smaller tanks will improve fuel efficiency since they'll be lighter than larger tanks, especially when full.

I'm still mystified about why they don't refuel in Bayhead. I've heard the reason was NIMBY's don't want a fueling pad, or fueling trucks, there, which seems far fetched to me. I'm sure there must be plenty of gas stations along the Jersey shore for automobiles, and I don't see much difference between a bunch of gas stations and a locomotive fueling station. I'm also going to bet that there are lots of homes along the shore that don't have piped in natural gas heat, and I don't see much difference between using trucks to deliver home heating oil and deliver locomotive diesel fuel.
  by cobra30689
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:I've heard the reason was NIMBY's don't want a fueling pad, or fueling trucks, there, which seems far fetched to me.
Not far-fetched at all. That IS the reason. There is more money, influence and ignorance within a 5 block radius of that yard than you can shake a stick at.....they whined LOUDLY when NJT rebuilt the yard and got their way. I'd be willing to bet you can file the 5 mph MAS on the running track under the same reasoning..........
  by ThirdRail7
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:michaelk, I know nothing about your other points, but smaller tanks, although they will require you to fuel more often, will not make you use more fuel. All other things being equal smaller tanks will improve fuel efficiency since they'll be lighter than larger tanks, especially when full.
I'm sure JT can weight in, but I suspect all things aren't equal. Most diesels may have a larger fuel tank, but they also don't have a giant transformer and related equipment for electric operation. That stuff doesn't look light.
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Two medium speed engines vs. one low speed prime mover combined with over 25% less fuel capacity compared to the Geeps (1800 vs. 2500 Gallons) due to the need to keep their weight down per Amtraks weight requirements for use on the NEC are the culprits. So in a sense yes the electrical equipment does play a part adding weight to the locomotive. JT let me know if I missed something.
Last edited by ACeInTheHole on Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by Patrick Boylan
 
thank you ThirdRail7. I wasn't trying to say all other things were equal, I was just needling michaelk's wording which asked if they used more fuel BECAUSE the tanks were smaller. I repeat, tank size does not mean they use more fuel, in fact smaller tanks will mean they use less fuel because smaller tanks and the fuel they contain will weigh less than larger tanks.
Smaller tanks will mean you have to refuel more frequently, and if there's a lot of deadheading to get from for example Bayhead to the refueling spot, that's gonna be less efficient than larger tanks.
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Patrick, any fuel economy benefit from the lighter weight of the smaller tanks vs. the Geeps would be thrown out the window by the two higher speed engines.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 39