Jump to content
randomguy65

New Siemens Charger locomotive.

Recommended Posts

It looks like Siemens has released what the Charger will look like in a model. They did the same thing with the ACS-64.

 

See here: http://www.mainlinediesels.net/imgs/SiemensCharger_Profile_BottomLeft.jpg

 

They also did the same thing with the ACS-64: http://www.railcolor.net/imgs/content/model_siemens_acs2.jpg

 

 

Side note: EMD has also revealed the final look of the new F125. See here: http://www.progressrail.com/cda/files/4546792/7/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevH_Screen.pdf

Edited by randomguy65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the F125 looks way better but if they both run well for years that's all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the F125 looks way better but if they both run well for years that's all that matters.

 

I wonder which locomotive (the F125 or Charger) will the MTA choose to replace their locomotives for their Metro North and Long Island Rail Road Services...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will either or both be interested in building some of them as dual modes? Both the LIRR and the MNRR use them. I am aware that 2 different 3rd rail systems are in place, and most of us aren't big DM fans, but the reality is a batch of them will end up being bought anyway. If you add on the Amtrak Empire fleet, the quantities get up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of these fit into the New York City tunnels.

The F40s and F59PHIs certainly don't.

 

The Charger definitely does and I believe the F125 does, with a 14 foot seven inch height.

 

However, the F125 would not be allowed to go through the new East Side Access tunnels due to the 13 foot, six inch height clearance requirement in the 63rd street tunnel segment.

 

When is Amtrak likely to replace their DM locomotives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the Chargers are shorter in height then even the P42s.

 

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the Amtrak ones are 1998-2001 deliveries, I'm sure someone will correct that as necessary. The first ones would be getting close using 20 years for a passenger diesel, but with major rebuilds they can go on a lot longer. I think MNRR has been overhauling theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 63rd street tube is 13-6 the locomotive won't matter because the c-3 cars they pull are 14+, which means only the m7 and m9 (eventually) will be heading there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Charger definitely does and I believe the F125 does, with a 14 foot seven inch height.

....

When is Amtrak likely to replace their DM locomotives?

It would probably be the state of NY that would buy the P-32 replacements, not Amtrak. On the Amtrak system, only the NYP-ALB corridor needs diesels with a 3rd rail shoe. If NY owns the locomotives, they won't have to pay an annual capital charge to Amtrak.

 

The PRIIA vehicle specifications webpage has a draft spec for a Dual Mode (DC 3rd rail) locomotive. When the times come for NY to buy P-32 replacements, I would expect both Siemens and EMD will submit bids with modified versions of their passenger locomotives. There is even a discussion document on that page about tje maximum speed requirement for a dual mode locomotive for the Empire Corridor, Which concludes that the maximum operating speed for the dual mode with a 3rd rail shoe on the Empire corridor is 110 mph, so the spec can back off the 125 mph requirement. So the state of NY, Amtrak, the FRA, and the PRIIA committee have been busy writing a detailed spec for a P-32 replacement.

 

BTW, we have a long thread here on the RFP and placement of the order for 35 Siemens Charger diesel locomotives. It has not posted to for months, because there has been little to no news about the Siemens Charger diesels recently. Siemens is presumably busy assembling the first test and pre-production units. BTW, a discussion about replacing the P-32s should have its own thread, because those might not be built by Siemens if EMD or even Bombardier lands the order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we say P32 here we mostly mean P32ACDMs and not the P32-8WH s which a pure diesel-electrics and not dual mode, which Amtrak has several of (5xx series).

 

The replacement for P32-8WHs would simply be the Chargers or F125s depending on what Amtrak chooses to get.

 

P32ACDM is an open issue.

 

For Amtrak one could argue that it should consider getting a larger number of catenary dual modes enabling use south of Washington DC at least in Virignia service. But Amtrak so far has been quite reluctant to even consider such.

 

MNRR and LIRR of course do not need anything other than third rail dual mode and they could actually get them with the new transition third rail shoes which can work on both third rail types in the NY area.

Edited by jis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally I think the F125 looks way better but if they both run well for years that's all that matters.

 

I wonder which locomotive (the F125 or Charger) will the MTA choose to replace their locomotives for their Metro North and Long Island Rail Road Services...

 

well the EMD F125 exceeds max height by one inch , the max allowable height for both GCT and NYP is 14' 6 ".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the Chargers are shorter in height then even the P42s.

 

peter

http://w3.usa.siemens.com/mobility/us/en/interurban-mobility/rail-solutions/high-speed-and-intercity-trains/Documents/Charger%20DE_Locomotive_DataSheet_LR.pdf

 

12.5 feet high.

 

The P42 is 14 feet 4 inches according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesis

 

The F125 is 14 feet 7 inches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F125

Edited by George K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catenary dual-modes would make a lot more sense than third-rail dual-modes. Any future longer-distance electrification will use catenary. Third-rail dual-modes are kind of dumb, so let's hope Siemens wins a bit for a catenary dual-mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless New York is going to replace their third rail with catenary, someone is going to need to build a dual mode with a shoe, no matter how dumb it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless New York is going to replace their third rail with catenary, someone is going to need to build a dual mode with a shoe, no matter how dumb it is.

Right. Grand Central will not get catenary anytime soon if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but LIRR can live with overhead dual mode to get to Penn Station. They do not absolutely positively need a third rail dual mode, unlike MNRR in Grand Central.

 

LIRR cannot get into ESA with loco hauled C3s at all due to clearance issues, so that is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see if Metro North uses a Charger Dual Mode in the future, and the Long Island Rail Road chooses a catenary Dual Mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catenary dual-modes would make a lot more sense than third-rail dual-modes. Any future longer-distance electrification will use catenary. Third-rail dual-modes are kind of dumb, so let's hope Siemens wins a bit for a catenary dual-mode.

I don't see what is "dumb" about a locomotive that has to work with the legacy systems in the NYC region. As already posted, LIRR and MNRR are not about to ditch their 3rd rail systems.

 

For the record, the specifications for the Dual Mode diesel locomotive with a 3rd rail pickup call for the following requirements

  • Sustained 110 mph capability in diesel-electric mode and sustained 80 mph in electric mode (Nominal 700 VDC 3rd rail).
  • For operation in corridor service (routes up to 600 miles in length) without refueling or other servicing.
  • Interoperable with existing single level or multi-level vehicles in mixed consist to be specified by the purchaser and the following Amtrak vehicles: Amfleet, Viewliner, Long Distance Single-Level Car, Horizon etc., including existing motive power of purchaser.
  • Montreal: The locomotive must meet the requirements which will allow the operation of the locomotive in diesel mode at Montreal Central Station. This operation mode means the diesel engine has low RPMs (thus creating less emissions and noise) when generating only HEP for the train.

 

Standardization

  • Dual mode (Nominal 700 VDC 3rd rail electric and diesel-electric) locomotive shall provide for standardization of components with those used in the PRIIA Diesel-Electric Passenger Locomotive (Specification 305-005) to the maximum extent practicable;
  • Consider providing a common platform for potential future locomotives using straight diesel-electric propulsion and electric power provided by an overhead catenary system. Any future dual mode diesel-electric/AC catenary locomotive shall provide for standardization of components with those used in the PRIIA Diesel-Electric Passenger Locomotive (Specification 305-005) and any PRIIA Dual Mode (DC 3rd Rail) Passenger Locomotive Specification developed from this Requirements Document, to the maximum extent practicable.
  • The locomotive shall have the ability to draw power from the under-running 3rd rail when in Metro-North Railroad territory and from the over-running 3rd rail when in Amtrak or Long Island Rail Road territory.

So, how about the ultimate Swiss army knife eastern corridor service locomotive: 110 mph in diesel mode, 125 mph from 25/60 HZ overhead catenary, and 80 mph on under and over-running 3rd rail shoes? And do all this without being a massively heavy locomotive nor overly expensive to operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the specifications for the Dual Mode diesel locomotive with a 3rd rail pickup call for the following requirements

  • Sustained 110 mph capability in diesel-electric mode and sustained 80 mph in electric mode (Nominal 700 VDC 3rd rail).

Gross. Should do 125 in electric mode, but will never happen with a third rail shoe... sounds like Metro-North is writing the specs, based on keeping its stupid, unique-in-world, energy-wasting, speed-limit-creating electrification.

 

So, how about the ultimate Swiss army knife eastern corridor service locomotive: 110 mph in diesel mode, 125 mph from 25/60 HZ overhead catenary, and 80 mph on under and over-running 3rd rail shoes? And do all this without being a massively heavy locomotive nor overly expensive to operate.

Great idea, but that's not being specced, it's just being suggested at something to "consider", while running off the legacy systems is being specced, so you know what you'll get. :-( I repeat, this is gross and backward-looking "planning". Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where exactly is it going to run at 125 with third rail power?

 

Instead it should be able to run at 125mph under diesel power.

Edited by jis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×