Bombardier ALP-45DP on the NEC

[Triaxle]

Regarding the excess weight of an AC dual-mode: Why not 3 axle trucks? That would reduce the axle weight, reduce damage to the tracks, yet allow the whole wish list to be installed in one chassis. In theory.
There must be a reason 3 axle trucks aren't considered, as Amtrak now uses zero such locomotives. But they ran over those same rails for ages with the E and F series locomotives. 3 axle trucks are more advanced now and handle curves better, so there must be some other reason for their non-use.

[mtuandrew]

Amtrak had a very bad experience with the six-axle EMD SDP40F (several derailments at speed) and found the GE E60CH and P30CH to both be very rough-riding. Even though the SDP40F was eventually cleared (it was the baggage cars causing oscillation, which led to the catastrophic derailments), Amtrak found that all three of these machines were causing more rail damage than they liked.

Self-steering trucks didn’t exist in the 1970s, but we have come a long, long way since then. A hypothetical dual-mode could easily have A1A-A1A self-steering trucks (four motors, six axles) and use the same technology that lifts the center axle slightly as GE does, in order to increase the starting traction.

[DutchRailnut]

3 axle trucks be they all powered or A1A were never really to kind on tracks , below 79 mph yes, but above no no no .

[STrRedWolf]

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.

Past the tunnel into Penn, it's not electrified at all. The bridge itself doesn't quite allow it as well.

[DutchRailnut]

both the Bridge and entire west side freight line were equipped with third rail , long before Amtrak.

[Matt Johnson]

3 axle trucks be they all powered or A1A were never really to kind on tracks , below 79 mph yes, but above no no no .

Did that apply to the classic E units? I believe they were geared for well above 100 mph but I'm curious as to whether they actually ran that fast.

[Tadman]

On some railroads they did - the IC was well known for running 100mph in southern Illinois. So was the CB&Q, MILW, and CNW.

Due to axle loading restrictions, quite a few locomotives in the UK are six axle, including the passenger variant of 47, 57, and 92. The 92 runs the Sleeper and is permitted 110mph provided the train is over an hour late. The 57 still pulls the Riviera, and I'm not sure what top speed is there.

[mtuandrew]

Wikipedia says the Class 57 has a top speed (or is governed at) 95 mph.

100 mph running was pretty common in the USA behind six-driver steam (sometimes even over 110 on a daily basis, like the CMSP&P F7 class powering the Hiawatha), and I believe there were even eight-driver engines that hit that kind of speed on a regular basis. Compared to those, the short truck wheelbase of an E-unit must have seemed like a godsend - and EMD did offer gearing up to about 120 mph.

Chalk this up to “things that won’t happen”, but I’d be very interested in seeing how the SD70MACH conversions perform above 80 mph. Steerable trucks seem a mature enough technology that high-speed units could adopt them too.

[ThirdRail7]

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.

Well, this depends on ridership. What is left out is storage space. There isn't an infinite amount. As an example, Norfolk only holds 9 pieces of equipment. If you need to add another coach to accommodate ridership, the presence of another engine (that isn't even being used) could impact potential ridership. Bryant Park in Richmond is another example. They have a 7 piece limit. If the train is going to lay up in this location, you already have to cut a coach at WAS. Adding another engine would mean you'd have to cut another coach or not send the train. There are numerous examples and while you can probably add to the infrastructure in some places, other areas can not be extended and some would generate a large expense.

Still, once they are done with the overhauls on the ACS fleet, I think they could spare a few to go down south for a day. You'd need to train personnel and establish a parts supply at the outlying points. If would also leave the ACS at an unapproved facility, which would mean the builder is not responsible for delays associated with failure, but it is probably doable.

[Tadman]

Wikipedia says the Class 57 has a top speed (or is governed at) 95 mph.
Chalk this up to “things that won’t happen”, but I’d be very interested in seeing how the SD70MACH conversions perform above 80 mph. Steerable trucks seem a mature enough technology that high-speed units could adopt them too.

That's a good question and it would be interesting to see one sent to Colorado for testing.

What is left out is storage space. There isn't an infinite amount. As an example, Norfolk only holds 9 pieces of equipment. If you need to add another coach to accommodate ridership, the presence of another engine (that isn't even being used) could impact potential ridership. Bryant Park in Richmond is another example. They have a 7 piece limit. If the train is going to lay up in this location, you already have to cut a coach at WAS.

You know what's crazy? The Brits will deadhead a train 30-50 miles for storage. There are no shoves from the yard into Euston, for example, older motors deadhead ("ECS" for empty coaching stock) the train downtown. The motor is then sometimes dragged back north to the yard where it waits for the next assignment. Some of the Scottish sleepers run all the way to Polmadie (south of Glasgow) for storage during the day.

It boggles the mind how far they will deadhead a train for daytime storage.

[Jeff Smith]

Amtrak is looking at Dual Mode Sprinter/Chargers. They wouldn't want an ALP-45DP. And it will be DC mode. It would be nice to have an AC dual mode for Virginia NEC and Springfield, MA, but I think VA would be too far unless you solve the fuel and weight issue.

The only other place I could see an ALP-45DP is in commuter service for Metro North Penn Access. Operationally, the branches except New Canaan are already diesel, and I would think would be in fuel range. All you do is change the operation pattern of the through branch trains to Penn from GCT using those slots; change at Stamford or New Rochelle cross-platform. Pop up the pans at Bridgeport and South Norwalk. Maybe even CtDOT would be interested for the Hartford Line.

It also saves extending third rail from Harold.

But Amtrak? I can't see it.

[mtuandrew]

Regardless of Harold, Amtrak needs to extend third rail west of the North River Tunnel portal if they’re serious about running dual-mode Chargers on the Corridor. I hope they aren’t planning that operational method though.

[STrRedWolf]

Regardless of Harold, Amtrak needs to extend third rail west of the North River Tunnel portal if they’re serious about running dual-mode Chargers on the Corridor. I hope they aren’t planning that operational method though.

Amtrak needs to find where to get the power from. The power barely reaches out to the current extent now.

[mtuandrew]

Amtrak needs to find where to get the power from. The power barely reaches out to the current extent now.

Agreed with that. I’ve suggested a transmission line from PATH or the NJT Hudson-Bergen LRT - that should be enough for a few daily trains.

[Nasadowsk]

Why not just dump the antique and obsolete 25Hz system for 60Hz at 12.5kv, and be done with it? There's NOTHING on the corridor that requires 25Hz power. There hasn't been since the last SLII/SLIII dropped its pan years ago.

25Hz power is a dinosaur. It's well past time it should be dumped. There's no reason a modern NEC needs it.