Bombardier ALP-45DP on the NEC

[Bonevalleyrailfan]

Just an observation here regarding the use of trainsets and power at both ends. Brightline has been running this exact setup for almost 2 years now. They don't seem to have issues with trainsets out of service due to single car issues. Nor do they appear to have issues with running 2 heavy diesel electric locomotives at each end. One major difference between Brightline and Amtrak (and other state funds trains) is that Brightline actually keeps their fleet very well maintained through their agreement with Siemens. Maybe the real issue here is maintenance and reliability.

Why didn't California and the Midwest spend the money for a similar arrangement with Siemens for their trains?

[Tadman]

Thus you have to spend the electricity/diesel fuel to haul useless equipment around. That costs money, and isn't Amtrak supposed to not waste money?

I think you've cut to the core of the issue but perhaps over-simplified as well. Amtrak is not supposed to waste money, but what is wasting money? Does it cost more to dwell for 30 minutes at a terminal while power is changed? Does it cost more to baby the power because it's low-production specialized stuff with no support base? Does it cost more to drag backup power around?

At the end of the day, perhaps running one straight electric and one straight diesel on either end is cost effective. I'm not claiming it is, I have not seen numbers. But consider the AC64 and the P42 are pretty solid power and would make for a seamless combo. We saw this concept work with the NJT casino shuttle a few years ago.

As of 2019, no dual mode has proven overly successful, which means someone somewhere is incurring serious costs to keep them on the road.

We also have seen plenty of successful top-and-tail power arrangements in the US, UK, EU, and Japan. Pretty much all of the original HST sets (TGV, ICE, 43-class, Acela, etc...) carry power at both ends.

[EuroStar]

While I have no access to the proper numbers to prove it, I am definitely in the camp that thinks that an electric engine on one end and a diesel on the other is the most cost effective way to do this in the US for trips where the un-electrified portion of the trip is not multiple times he length of the electrified one. The cost of the extra diesel fuel to drag the electric engine around for the diesel portion of the trip as well as the extra electricity to drag the diesel around on the electrified portion is definitely less than the all-in-cost (wages plus benefits) of the staff required to switch the engines. The extra wear and tear on the inactive engine is also minor. Look at it this way, commuter railroads regularly drag around 5-8 car trainsets with only 2-3 cars open during off-peak and weekends. For them the extra cost of power, diesel and extra wear and tear is dwarfed by the expense of staff required to make and break the trainsets. In all likelihood the same is true for Amtrak -- they operate in the same country, with the same electric and diesel prices and face the same labour markets.

The real reason why this is not done now is not the cost of the diesel fuel or electricity, it is the lack of capital dollars. Amtrak does not have enough electric motors to constantly have several of them wonder around in Virginia or further south. The same is true for the diesels. There are not enough of them to let them wonder around the NEC. If the capital dollars were there, a Sprinter on one end and a Charger on the other is the way to run most of the trains that go south of DC, especially the ones that go only to Virginia.

[Nasadowsk]

I think you've cut to the core of the issue but perhaps over-simplified as well. Amtrak is not supposed to waste money, but what is wasting money? Does it cost more to dwell for 30 minutes at a terminal while power is changed? Does it cost more to baby the power because it's low-production specialized stuff with no support base? Does it cost more to drag backup power around?

At the end of the day, perhaps running one straight electric and one straight diesel on either end is cost effective. I'm not claiming it is, I have not seen numbers. But consider the AC64 and the P42 are pretty solid power and would make for a seamless combo. We saw this concept work with the NJT casino shuttle a few years ago.

I don't see why dragging a dead loco around is such a bad thing all of the sudden. Ideal? No. But bad? I don't see it. It's no stupider than the cabbages or the LIRR's power cars were. It looks silly, maybe that'll get someone to pony up the money for more electrification.

As of 2019, no dual mode has proven overly successful, which means someone somewhere is incurring serious costs to keep them on the road.

Einstein had a comment about trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Most 'dual modes' elsewhere are electrics with a small 'last mile' diesel on them. There are no numbers on how well the ALP-45s really do. NJT isn't saying, Bombardier isn't saying. That says something. (Being in service doesn't - the DM-30s are notoriously unreliable but the LIRR won't get rid of them)

We also have seen plenty of successful top-and-tail power arrangements in the US, UK, EU, and Japan. Pretty much all of the original HST sets (TGV, ICE, 43-class, Acela, etc...) carry power at both ends.

IIRC, SNCF used to have at least one scheduled service where a TGV had a diesel bumped up to it to get it the last few miles to the end of the route. It looked absurd but it worked. I think the line was finally electrified all the way a few years back.

[mtuandrew]

Dual-mode DC-diesel engines aren’t that difficult, the equipment has historically been easier to tuck into a somewhat-longer diesel body. The DM30 is kind of a flop, but the FL9 and P32ACDM have both been quite successful. They’re only helpful for last-mile service into NYP because otherwise they’re running diesel under wire.

Dual-mode AC-diesel engines aren’t so easy to fit in either weight or size requirements. I feel like it’s a minor miracle that Bombardier was able to shoehorn in a full AC transformer, two prime movers, two alternators, a diesel tank, and an electrical & electronics suite able to handle inputs from all of the above.

[Tadman]

I don't see why dragging a dead loco around is such a bad thing all of the sudden. Ideal? No. But bad? I don't see it. It's no stupider than the cabbages or the LIRR's power cars were. It looks silly, maybe that'll get someone to pony up the money for more electrification.

I certainly won't label top and tail as stupid, it seems to be the most reliable and seamless solution.

In the past I've advocated for the next dual mode to really be two drawbar-coupled units (with power bus between) back to back: one straight diesel and one 600vDC straight electric. Both would have third rail shoes to eliminate gapping. If one drops out, the power is run to the shops, a mechanic unbolts the drawbar, and the pair is mis-matched to something else for a few weeks while the offending member is repaired.

This idea was poo-pooed but I haven't seen a better idea run yet.

[Matt Johnson]

Plenty of room for ACS-64 propulsion in here, keep the diesel on the other end!

[Hudson2640]

There is another reason why towing a dead engine is not really viable. There will be more fuel consumption to drag the second engine. But the bigger issue is that once you get south of Washington DC, you are on CSX property, and from my understanding is that CSX charges Amtrak trains by the axle to operate on their tracks. Would that additional cost for dragging a dead engine be worth the time savings?

[EuroStar]

... and from my understanding is that CSX charges Amtrak trains by the axle to operate on their tracks. Would that additional cost for dragging a dead engine be worth the time savings?

Charging per axle? Is that the typical way this is done between freight railroads? It seems logical if we were talking about freight cars, but south of DC time slots are the precious commodity, not the length of Amtrak's (or VRE) trains. The passenger cars are definitely lighter and wear the rails less than the freight cars, but if CSX is charging per axle, then yeah, dragging the electric engine down to Richmond or Newport News begins to look as a loosing proposition.

[electricron]

... and from my understanding is that CSX charges Amtrak trains by the axle to operate on their tracks. Would that additional cost for dragging a dead engine be worth the time savings?

Charging per axle? Is that the typical way this is done between freight railroads? It seems logical if we were talking about freight cars, but south of DC time slots are the precious commodity, not the length of Amtrak's (or VRE) trains. The passenger cars are definitely lighter and wear the rails less than the freight cars, but if CSX is charging per axle, then yeah, dragging the electric engine down to Richmond or Newport News begins to look as a loosing proposition.

I agree, it would be a losing proposition if the electric locomotive was being dragged. But suppose it was doing the pulling instead, with smaller diesels supplying the electric power to it from the car immediately behind it? If Stadler can do it on FLIRT trains, the technology exists to do it on Siemens trains.

It not the technical challenges that makes this unlikely, it is a number challenge, Amtrak does not own enough electric locomotives in their roster to use them south of D.C.

[mdvle]

I agree, it would be a losing proposition if the electric locomotive was being dragged. But suppose it was doing the pulling instead, with smaller diesels supplying the electric power to it from the car immediately behind it? If Stadler can do it on FLIRT trains, the technology exists to do it on Siemens trains.

But that doesn't change the underlying problem - the Stadler bi-modes still have the weight and axle penalty that a separate diesel locomotive would have.

[mdvle]

The FLIRTs are whole-consist connected trains, like the Tailgos, but with engines on both ends. You can see an example of them on HinduCowGirl's Youtube channel. You could have one end electric and another end diesel, but you still have the same problem as above, and you'll get new problems: If one car in the middle breaks, the whole train's out of service. Plus, they're incompatible with the existing fleet, and you can't extend the train (easily).

The Flirt's on HinduCowGirl are electric only - Norwegian Class 75. They don't have "engines" as such but like any modern emu several of the wheelsets under the passenger areas are powered.

The areas you see on the videos behind the cab are likely crash protection zones that most high speed capable trains in Europe seem to have at cab ends.

Norway does have bi-mode Flirts on order but they will be Class 76 and don't arrive until 2021.

The bi-mode Flirts use what are called "powerpacks" by Stadler which is an additional car in the middle of the train that carries no passengers but just the diesel engines (with a centre corridor for pass through by passengers).

[electricron]

But that doesn't change the underlying problem - the Stadler bi-modes still have the weight and axle penalty that a separate diesel locomotive would have.

Four car FLIRTs with just electric propulsion have 5 bogies or trucks, two of which have electric motors. Bi-Mode four car FLIRTs have 6 bogies or trucks, two of which have electric motors and are located on both ends of the train. One extra bogy is a small price to pay to eliminate half hour locomotive changes in D.C. and New Haven.
Additionally, there are two independent diesel generator sets within a Stadler diesel power car or van. If one set is down for whatever reason, the other set is available to supply power to keep the train moving. Likewise, having the power bogies on opposite ends of the train also increases reliability in case one fails, the remaining bogy can get the train to the end of its trip, although getting there slower.
Whereas I do not think the Stadler trains are the best choice for Amtrak, their use of a diesel power car or van can be used on Siemens trains to provide Bi-Mode operations. It would be just adding an additional type car or van onto the trains that need it.

[StLouSteve]

We discussed having an engine on both ends (diesel and electric) over on the New York State Amtrak topic and the idea got shot down. I thought the prospect of run through service (one seat rides) between Toronto, upstate NY to PHL, Balt and DC as well as Montreal/Albany to DC was intriguing and avoids tying up NYP for an engine change, but others pointed out that with a diesel in the consist, the MAS may be reduced making the train a slow poke on the corridor (plus the dragging of dead weight issue).

Amtrak also currently seems to be having some issues with their Genesis dual modes and only uses third rail for a very small section of the Empire Connection.

[superstar]

We discussed having an engine on both ends (diesel and electric) over on the New York State Amtrak topic and the idea got shot down. I thought the prospect of run through service (one seat rides) between Toronto, upstate NY to PHL, Balt and DC as well as Montreal/Albany to DC was intriguing and avoids tying up NYP for an engine change, but others pointed out that with a diesel in the consist, the MAS may be reduced making the train a slow poke on the corridor (plus the dragging of dead weight issue).

Amtrak also currently seems to be having some issues with their Genesis dual modes and only uses third rail for a very small section of the Empire Connection.

Hasn't that been the case for years? I thought they only ever used third rail for a mile or so outside of NYP. I don't think the Empire Connection is even electrified all the way to Spuyten Duvil.