• Bombardier ALP-45DP on the NEC

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  by mtuandrew
 
Amtrak owns NHV-SPG free and clear. Whether they feel there’s appropriate volume for either catenary or third rail, I haven’t a clue.

I suppose Amtrak or NYSDOT could rent a few Montreal ALP-45DPs for the Adirondack if there’s a power shortage. That wouldn’t be utterly outlandish even if it would be overkill.
  by Acela150
 
mtuandrew wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:19 pm This is still a problem that I feel could be solved with faster engine changes. Bring it down to 10 minutes and there’s really not much delay to an intercity schedule.
"Faster" Engine swaps are not possible. You have to remember Blue Flag rules and laws apply, as well as the track layout in WUT. It doesn't really allow for an engine change to be performed in under 20-25 minutes tops.
  by mtuandrew
 
Acela150 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:59 pm"Faster" Engine swaps are not possible. You have to remember Blue Flag rules and laws apply, as well as the track layout in WUT. It doesn't really allow for an engine change to be performed in under 20-25 minutes tops.
From the Hitachi 802 thread:
east point wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:38 pm Loco changes at WASH are not usually the controlling metric for station dwell. Instead it is the movement of passenger to / from the main station waiting area. Each platform serves 2 tracks and the stairway /escalator is located at one end of the platform for trains of the south. As well VRE may be using the same platform causing major congestion. It has been noted that weekend trains average lesser dwell at VRE times.

"IF" the expansion of WASH Union station is ever complete that will 2 additional access point for each platform then passenger congestion may be reduced allowing quicker dwell times. Have noted that a few days ago that one LD train made a 12 minute turn at WASH. Now the conditions at NHV and Albany are unknown.
Bolding mine. I’m going to assume that 12 minute turnaround was done safely - hopefully Amtrak doesn’t prove me wrong.

Working in a career where safety is paramount, it is easy to throw up your hands and say, “we can’t do it faster.” No, that just means you don’t have the right tools, crew, or procedure for the job. Maybe Washington Union Station trackage needs to be rearranged a bit to allow multiple diesels to stage at the through tracks, or maybe Amtrak needs to dedicate more crew or training to the task.
  by STrRedWolf
 
At the very least, get cross-track switches between tracks 22 and 23, 24 and 25, as well as 26 and 27. Their location must be at the south end of the platform. That'll get the times down for sure when you have more flexibility to switch those engines!
  by EuroStar
 
Matt Johnson wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:53 am
EuroStar wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:05 pm Can someone enlighten me here? So the ALP46As don't ever run at 125mh. They do not need to for NJT as commuter rail has no use for that, but were they ever tested at 125mph? May I venture to guess that the answer was no, but maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in. Then how did they ever expect the ALP45DPs to do fine at 125mph? Those things have basically the same electrical traction as the ALP46As.
I believe the 46As were tested at 125+ mph with no issues. They're capable of it even though NJT currently operates at 100 max. But the ALP-46 weighs in at somewhere around 100 tons, vs something like 142 tons for the 45DP.
I am confused. How can the weight be a issue as long as we are talking about operating in electric mode with the pantograph up? So the ALP45DP weights about as much as an ALP46A and one passenger car. Does that mean that the ALP46As with one passenger car will fail the 125 mph test? This makes no sense to me. Now if you told me that the difference is due to dynamic loading in curves due to the increased length of the ALP45DPs over the ALP46As, I will understand. Even axle loading makes little sense to me as the higher weight per axle should increase the friction with the rails reducing wheel slip, no? I am not saying that you are wrong, but I really do not understand what makes the difference in electric mode.
  by njt/mnrrbuff
 
In the five year Amtrak equipment plan from 2019 to 2024, it says that there is a proposal to order hybrid diesel/catenary locomotives which would really cut down on the dwell times with of trains that perform engine changes. It's too long at Washington Union Station, especially when heading south. The same thing goes with 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. The ride on the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is too long to begin with anyway. I have ridden all the way to Pittsburgh multiple times.
  by D.S. Lewith
 
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:02 am In the five year Amtrak equipment plan from 2019 to 2024, it says that there is a proposal to order hybrid diesel/catenary locomotives which would really cut down on the dwell times with of trains that perform engine changes. It's too long at Washington Union Station, especially when heading south. The same thing goes with 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. The ride on the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is too long to begin with anyway. I have ridden all the way to Pittsburgh multiple times.
Worth mentioning that Amtrak did talk about the ALP-45DPs and concluded that its top speed and weight don't meet Amtrak’s requirements for NEC/state corridor through train operation.
  by njt/mnrrbuff
 
This dual powered unit would be some sort of Charger. The ALP45DPs that run on Transit are good for 100, I believe. They don't top that on many of the lines but on the NEC, they do.
  by rcthompson04
 
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:29 pm This dual powered unit would be some sort of Charger. The ALP45DPs that run on Transit are good for 100, I believe. They don't top that on many of the lines but on the NEC, they do.
Wouldn't a Charger (or dual mode City Sprinter) have the same problems as the ALP45DPs in terms of performance and weight?

Developing such a train might not be economically viable anyway. What is the market size for such power? 10-20 for Amtrak and maybe 7 for SEPTA if they go ahead with the Phoenixville extension.
  by east point
 
It is apparent that a dual power loco is going to be heavier than present desired on each axel. That at first look say make the trucks 3 axel however 3 axel locos do not seem to behave well at high speeds ?
  by Matt Johnson
 
east point wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:02 am It is apparent that a dual power loco is going to be heavier than present desired on each axel. That at first look say make the trucks 3 axel however 3 axel locos do not seem to behave well at high speeds ?
My idea of a quick and easy dual mode high speed trainset that meets North American specs is the Brightline/Virgin USA trainset but with ACS-64 internals in one of the locomotives and of course a diesel on the opposite end of the train.
  by Backshophoss
 
The Charger dual modes might get A-1-A trucks to deal with the weight.
The 2 truck engines of the ALP-45DP are the unit's weak link,BBD should have done a little more R&D on prime movers.
  by Acela150
 
DutchRailnut wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:38 pm Don't you love it when buffs have all answers ??
As always thank you for your "valuable" contributions....
mtuandrew wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:25 pm
Acela150 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:59 pm"Faster" Engine swaps are not possible. You have to remember Blue Flag rules and laws apply, as well as the track layout in WUT. It doesn't really allow for an engine change to be performed in under 20-25 minutes tops.
From the Hitachi 802 thread:
east point wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:38 pm Loco changes at WASH are not usually the controlling metric for station dwell. Instead it is the movement of passenger to / from the main station waiting area. Each platform serves 2 tracks and the stairway /escalator is located at one end of the platform for trains of the south. As well VRE may be using the same platform causing major congestion. It has been noted that weekend trains average lesser dwell at VRE times.

"IF" the expansion of WASH Union station is ever complete that will 2 additional access point for each platform then passenger congestion may be reduced allowing quicker dwell times. Have noted that a few days ago that one LD train made a 12 minute turn at WASH. Now the conditions at NHV and Albany are unknown.
Bolding mine. I’m going to assume that 12 minute turnaround was done safely - hopefully Amtrak doesn’t prove me wrong.

Working in a career where safety is paramount, it is easy to throw up your hands and say, “we can’t do it faster.” No, that just means you don’t have the right tools, crew, or procedure for the job. Maybe Washington Union Station trackage needs to be rearranged a bit to allow multiple diesels to stage at the through tracks, or maybe Amtrak needs to dedicate more crew or training to the task.
I tend to agree with the dwell time being Pax related. I'm curious to know which train turned and burned a power swap in DC in 12 minutes. But I still stay to my opinion that cause of a wide variety of factors in DC it takes about 20 minutes at a minimum to swap from a Diesel to a motor.

Conditions at NHV are much more power swap friendly. Trains coming from Boston or Springfield pull in on a track, not sure of the track number. They pull down to the end of the platform where they cut the Diesel off and a motor backs on. Same going to Boston or Springfield.
  by D.S. Lewith
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:40 amDeveloping such a train might not be economically viable anyway. What is the market size for such power? 10-20 for Amtrak and maybe 7 for SEPTA if they go ahead with the Phoenixville extension.
Which is why I don't consider it to be practical (tempting buying just locomotives compared to trainsets may be) for them. Amtrak and SEPTA are better off just buying dual-mode multiple units.
  by rcthompson04
 
With Exo no longer using its ALP-45DPs for electric service in the near, wouldn’t leasing a few as a proof of concept make sense? Lease 3 or 4 for the Pennsylvanian and see if reduced speeds (really only an issue on the NEC) are worth eliminating the engine change at Philadelphia. If it works with the Pennsylvanian, it might be worth exploring on other routes.