RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
jis said:
If they acquire them by exercising the options then it will be Siemens. Not EMD or MPI.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...
Just a question regarding MPI, is the new Tier IV, 5400 HP MP40PH-3C upgrade, probably regeared for 125 MPH with a larger fuel tank (1850 gallons probably isn't enough for LD) something Amtrak could possibly consider? GO Transit is currently having their MP40s upgraded to the new standard, so it is there, along with being a proven platform.
 
What is it about the MPX, outside of the smaller fuel tank that Amtrak doesn't like? Its not vaporware, its here and running. And is it me or does the MPX ride a on a longer than normal platform for a four axle locomotive. The MPX could be Amtrak's next F40, but looks odd riding on such a long platform.
 
With the contract and options in place with Siemens specially with an engine that has significant common parts with the electrics, specially on the electric drive and truck components, I'd be very surprised if Amtrak would go with anything else at this point. MPI will of course have to figure out how to get a carbody that meets Amtrak's requirements too. Of course if a state goes off on its own it can get anything they please. I would be very very surprised if MPX becomes Amtrak's next F40. I do not think it will.
 
My last 4 Chev's

1996 Tahoe - 285K miles

1997 1500 pickup 241K miles

2003 Tahoe 186k miles (still own it)

2003 Suburban 157k miles (purchased used, still run it)

all with the 8 cyl motors, oil changed every 3K (religiously)
 
The MPXpress is HEAVY- WAY too heavy for Amtrak. Metra's MP36s weigh 297,700 pounds. I don't know what the MP40s weigh since I don't run them but they have to be at least as heavy as our MP36s are. Compare that to Amtrak's P42s which only weigh 268,000 pounds. Metra doesn't allow the MP36 to run on 3 different lines because it is too heavy for bridges on those lines- UP North, UP Northwest, and Southwest Service. I would imagine there are a lot of places it's too heavy for on the Amtrak system as well.

The MPXpress is as tall as an F40, too, and as we all know there were lots of places the F40 didn't fit in the northeast. That's why the P40/P42 were designed in the first place. I can't imagine Amtrak would ever go from finally having a locomotive with no restrictions back to one that did, it just wouldn't make sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amfleeter said:
Just a question regarding MPI, is the new Tier IV, 5400 HP MP40PH-3C upgrade, probably regeared for 125 MPH with a larger fuel tank (1850 gallons probably isn't enough for LD) something Amtrak could possibly consider? GO Transit is currently having their MP40s upgraded to the new standard, so it is there, along with being a proven platform.
Click to expand...
For one thing, with the kind of axle load that MPI has the engine will possibly never get certified to operate at 125mph. As it is NJT is having a heck of a time getting the ALP45-DP with similar axle loads getting certified, and it is quite possible that it will never run in commercial service at 125mph due to the damage that it does to the track, though physically it is capable of doing so in E-mode.
 
You have government regulation to thank!! The MPXpress and ALP45 had to be that heavy to meet the current crashworthiness standards (which the P42 and F59 does NOT meet). The MPX is the heaviest 4 axle unit ever built. I would NEVER want to ride in one at 125mph. It's plenty bouncy already at 79mph.
 
I really wonder how Siemens is going to pull off the Charger, if the MPX had to be the heaviest 4 axle ever built to pass the standard. Could 6 axles be the answer to the weight conundrum with diesel pax units?
 
A six axle 125 mph locomotive? A single run will require the track to be realigned after the run. :p 6 axle trucks and high speed don't play well together.

Actually ALP45-DP is essentially an ALP-46 with a downrated main transformer and with two high speed diesel engines added on. Its weight has more to do with the diesel engines than with crash protection. It has the same crash protection that the ALP-46 has. If its OHE electric capability was removed it would be a considerably lighter engine absent the heavy main transformer. I don;t think Siemens will have any problem making the engine light enough to be certified for 125mph.
 
What if the locomotives were in A1A-A1A wheel arrangement like the E units were? Wouldn't that help with the high speed operation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole point is that with the modified Tier I buff strength rules in the CEM annex it should not be necessary for engines to be as heavy as they are today. It is generally a bad idea to use trucks with more than 2 axles for high speed operations. That is why no one uses them. It is also a bad idea for high speed trains to be super heavy, since building suspension that behaves well at high speed for heavier equipment is much harder. Also heavier equipment does greater damage to track thus increasing maintenance costs and making service that much less financially viable. There are many such good reasons to control weight of equipment if one wants to be serious about running things at higher speed, rather than to try to just put lipstick on a pig and call it high speed.
 
I do wonder, with all the advancement in the last decade or two with turboshaft engines, which have become vastly more efficient since the days of the Turboliner and GTELs - to a degree where they're actually competitive with diesels in many applications, especially the marine industry, if turboshafts might actually be the future of prime movers, as they become more and more efficient - especially considering the fact they're so much lighter and smaller.

A suitable engine actually does exist - the widely used PW150A turbprop, which develops 5071 HP. It'd need a conversion to a turboshaft - which from my understanding, isn't that hard when it's a turboprop, since you just need to convert the mechanical parts to output the horsepower in a different manner, and possibly some emissions upgrades - exhaust flow shouldn't be a problem - I'd imagine you could use a GEVO or SD70ACE body and convert the 'wings' into exhausts to keep the very hot air off workers. Only weighs about a quarter of an EMD 710, too. I'd imagine if Amtrak or someone else suggested interest, one of the jet engine manufacturers would be happy to oblige this experiment - probably GE, not P&W, though. GE would not be happy if a railroad talked to P&W.

Another note is that jet engines could be used to supply the power to a dual mode in both modes - jet engines (should) be able to run on just electricity, reducing the weight of a dual mode.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amfleeter said:
Another note is that jet engines could be used to supply the power to a dual mode in both modes - jet engines (should) be able to run on just electricity, reducing the weight of a dual mode.
Click to expand...
Did you perhaps forget that the transmission usually used with turbine engines is still electrical? :p What do you exactly mean when you say that turbine engines can run on electricity?
 
jis said:
Amfleeter said:
Another note is that jet engines could be used to supply the power to a dual mode in both modes - jet engines (should) be able to run on just electricity, reducing the weight of a dual mode.
Click to expand...
Did you perhaps forget that the transmission usually used with turbine engines is still electrical? :p What do you exactly mean when you say that turbine engines can run on electricity?
Click to expand...
Electricity can be used to heat up the air inside the engine in the combustion chamber without using fuel. Should have clarified that. The technology itself was actually developed for nuclear-powered aircraft, if you want a little fun fact about it.
 
andersone said:
My last 4 Chev's

1996 Tahoe - 285K miles

1997 1500 pickup 241K miles

2003 Tahoe 186k miles (still own it)

2003 Suburban 157k miles (purchased used, still run it)

all with the 8 cyl motors, oil changed every 3K (religiously)
Click to expand...
If we play that game, my last 7 Mercedes
1976 Mercedes-Benz 240D Diesel 1,042,525 - tboned in accident oil change ~3500 miles

1982 Mercedes-Benz 300D Turbodiesel 761,415 - blew up in failed experiment with waste gate modification. ~3500 mile oil change

1985 Mercedes-Benz 300TD Turbodiesel 456,000 - sold it when my dad bought me a car to "get that eyesore off my property" ~3500 oil change

1995 Mercedes-Benz C220 198,000 - sold to Russian exporter due to problems with wiring harness -7500 oil change

1995 Mercedes-Benz E300 Diesel 306,000 - I still own it. It's off the road due to body seem problems- I think due to bad accident repair. Caught it too late, though, too much rust. ~7500 oil change

1979 Mercedes-Benz 300SD Turbodiesel 276k miles - toy, really. Restored it. West coast car. Changed the oil once, only drove it 6-7000 miles in the 5 years I owned it. Sold it to finance purchase of a Ford van for my business.

2005 Mercedes-Benz ML350 130k - daily driver. I don't enjoy it much. I've never much cared for gas cars, and it breaks a lot. I'm trying to hold out for the new Vito minivan next year. -14000 mile oil change

All cars serviced by Mercedes-Benz of Little Silver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amfleeter said:
I do wonder, with all the advancement in the last decade or two with turboshaft engines, which have become vastly more efficient since the days of the Turboliner and GTELs - to a degree where they're actually competitive with diesels in many applications, especially the marine industry,
Click to expand...
After doing my research, I find that the issue with turbine engines (of any sort) is that they like to run at pretty high minimum speeds. If your required power and energy draw is consistently high, they're marvelously efficient (which is why they've taken over all stationary large thermal power plants). But if you're just using a trickle of power, that means either you have to use much more fuel than you really needed to, or you have to turn the turbine on and off a lot -- which also uses a lot of energy and is quite problematic. Which is why small engines are piston engines.

So, in this case, the problem with turbine engines in railroad locomotives is that railroads are too efficient -- they use too little energy to make turbines worthwhile! As a result, the only way I could see a turbine engine working in a locomotive is if the immediate power source for the locomotive was a huge set of batteries, with the turbine being used solely to recharge the batteries; this would allow the turbine to run continuously at top efficiency for hours and then turn off for hours, rather than adjusting as the power demands of the locomotive change. This would be a different design from standard diesel locomotives, and its viability will depend on the state of battery technology.
 
neroden said:
Amfleeter said:
I do wonder, with all the advancement in the last decade or two with turboshaft engines, which have become vastly more efficient since the days of the Turboliner and GTELs - to a degree where they're actually competitive with diesels in many applications, especially the marine industry,
Click to expand...
After doing my research, I find that the issue with turbine engines (of any sort) is that they like to run at pretty high minimum speeds. If your required power and energy draw is consistently high, they're marvelously efficient (which is why they've taken over all stationary large thermal power plants). But if you're just using a trickle of power, that means either you have to use much more fuel than you really needed to, or you have to turn the turbine on and off a lot -- which also uses a lot of energy and is quite problematic. Which is why small engines are piston engines.

So, in this case, the problem with turbine engines in railroad locomotives is that railroads are too efficient -- they use too little energy to make turbines worthwhile! As a result, the only way I could see a turbine engine working in a locomotive is if the immediate power source for the locomotive was a huge set of batteries, with the turbine being used solely to recharge the batteries; this would allow the turbine to run continuously at top efficiency for hours and then turn off for hours, rather than adjusting as the power demands of the locomotive change. This would be a different design from standard diesel locomotives, and its viability will depend on the state of battery technology.
Click to expand...
From what I've been told about the UPRR and other gas turbine locomotives is that the efficiency of a gas turbine is pretty good when running at or near full load, but as soon as you reduce the throttle, efficiency drops away very rapidly. The railroad environment, with all its slow sections and idling is thus far from ideal for that type of technology.
 
That's why it would only work if it were done as a battery-electric locomotive, with the turbine recharging the batteries. The turbine would *only* operate at full load, or not at all. Requires huge batteries to deal with the changes in traction motor power demand as speed changes etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top