New LD Locomotive Order Placed

cpotisch said:

At least the New Haven line uses catenary for a solid chunk of the route. And why is the Harlem Line a better candidate than the Hudson Line for an extension to Albany?

Click to expand...

Sea level rise is likely to flood the Hudson Line, repeatedly.  The Harlem line stays high from 125th street all the way up, and is therefore much more resistant.

jis said:

You are correct about the need to be able to get to GCT under exceptional circumstances. That would definitely require keeping a small fleet of 3rd rail dual modes around. Fortunately, with the advance of solid state power electronics it is now almost practical to build trimode engines, and I understand some have just been built elsewhere. But as you said, no matter what, they are technically complex beasts.

As for standardizing voltage and frequency, Amtrak at one time had such a plan, which eventually got shelved given the cost of changing the ~12kV 25Hz system to 25kV 60Hz system for the entire NEC South and SEPTA. The existence of the original plan that prompted NJT to go with 25kV 60Hz when they refurbished the Hoboken Division. OTOH, MNRR just changed the frequency to 60Hz and got rid of all the specialized 25Hz gear but did not change the voltage.

Click to expand...

By the standards of road construction projects, it's really not that expensive to convert the frequency to 60 Hz.  The voltage can be handled as with MNRR, or upgraded where it's easy.  Amtrak has just been penny-pinching for so long...

I believe it would make the most sense to convert the Penn Station area first, so that future service which doesn't enter New Jersey doesn't have to screw around with 25 Hz.  I believe that was prevented by NJT having consists which couldn't handle changing frequencies and voltages on the fly, but these are going away.

Just-Thinking-51 said:

Thanks for the 1st paragraph.  The 2nd paragraph is unnecessary.  Never occur to me technically infeasible.  Just thought nobody order it before.  The whole AC, DC sources, and different overhead mishmash is slowing become much more standard.  Still we have multi voltage on the NEC, wonder if they have a long term plan to standardized the voltage.  Or is a accident standardization happening.  (Easy of new transformers to change inputs seemless.) So at some point everyone equipments can go everywhere, and they just convert the last few spots of different voltage to a standard voltage from Boston to Washington.

Click to expand...

Changing voltage in a tap changing transformer has not been a problem since the '60s. It is just that around here the fiefdoms have been so strong that deliberately such capabilities have not been brought in until much later.

It is not just power delivery systems that cause equipment to be unable to go everywhere. For example, even though LIRR and Amtrak are essentially using the same interoprable ACSES overlay, the underlying cab signaling systems have inconsistent use of coding frequencies that makes it impossible for Amtrak engines to operate on LIRR legally. The nature of the incompatibility is such that LIRR trains can operate on Amtrak trackage. Given money that can be fixed too.

But the bottom line issue is that when funds are hard to come by and there are tunnels and other things that can cause complete disruption of service due to failure, the limited resources go towards fixing those. power and signaling system inconsistencies are much lower priority since they can easily be worked around, especially when new equipment is ordered.

Actually the situation even around New York is not as bad as for international trains in Europe for example. Of course they do have a plan for standardizing train control systems across the board, but it is acknowledged that even under the best of circumstances it will take 40-50 years to get there. They have no plans for standardizing on OHE voltage/frequency. They have decided to live with at least 3 systems going forward, if not 4. Interestingly, with the advent of Tram-Trains, where a street running LRT from the downtown, eventually gets on the main line to get to distant suburbs, running intermingled with main line suburban and long distance trains, is just adding to the mix, since no one will electrify street catenary with 25kV.

neroden said:

 

Click to expand...

Just as a data point. MARC has said that HHP-8s and Chargers are preferred for the higher speed stretches on the NEC. Remember that MARC is the 125 mph commuter railroad. MARC often has 8 cars as shown here. http://www.railpictures.net/photo/665091/ . Seven Kawasaki bi-levels and a single level bike car appears to be a common setup. I read that the Kawasaki cars are getting bike racks which, I presume, would lead to 8 bi-level car trains.

Aren't the Kawasakis actually Multi-Level like the Bombardiers, with the vestibule in the middle level?

jis said:

Aren't the Kawasakis actually Multi-Level like the Bombardiers, with the vestibule in the middle level?

Click to expand...

Yep.

The way MARC is attracting riders it may be that more coaches will be needed whenever MARC can finally order them ?  Those extra cars are going to put MARC in a bind as Chargers will not be able to meet Amtrak required MAS and acceleration  MARC did not order any ACS-64s which are going to be needed especially for locals with their many stops.  It may be MARC will have to operate on the NEC with 2 Chargers on the longer trains.  That is going to really put the hurt on MARC as it interchanges train sets between all three lines.  MARC may have to rethink its equipment allocations.  This is just another reason that the NEC needs 4 tracking of the MARC segments but no money to be found.

Seriously, MARC should look into DEMUs if they wish to run a world class credible suburban service at 125mph but with frequent stops. The D for their non electrified lines. For operation just on the Penn Line EMUs would be way more efficient.

But all this has nothing to do with new LD locomotives since MARC ain’t LD.

jrud said:

I read that the Kawasaki cars are getting bike racks

Click to expand...

Some of them have them, I was in one last week.

The fuel economy is going to be a major issue. I really wonder what they will do to improve it.Commuter/short distance trains probably need better acceleration to sprint to their next stop while the long distance trains are more of a marathon.

Thirdrail7 said:

The fuel economy is going to be a major issue. I really wonder what they will do to improve it.Commuter/short distance trains probably need better acceleration to sprint to their next stop while the long distance trains are more of a marathon.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which locomotives you're referring to, but the Chargers already have better fuel economy than the antique P42s.

neroden said:

I'm not sure which locomotives you're referring to, but the Chargers already have better fuel economy than the antique P42s.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this applies to current version. Their range (adjusted for fuel capacity) has not been as great as the P42s, which is why they altered the rules for acceleration to reduce fuel consumption. It was explained to me in great detail (too much to be honest) but there was cause for concern, particularly when they were tested with a lot of cars, under load for long stretches. The ALP45 in diesel mode have a similar issue.   That is one of the reasons this engine wasn't a slam dunk.

Jokingly speaking ... the P42s load so slowly they should rightfully consume less than a sprightly performing engine. [emoji3]

Yeah, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this is just an artifact of an locomotive which can accelerate faster.  The requirements for Tier 4 do use a little energy, but the lighter bodies and more efficient traction motors should make up for it.  Nothing will make up for the energy lost by accelerating faster though!

cpotisch said:

Yep.

Click to expand...

Beyond Superliner and Superliner derivatives (and specialized Canadian/Alaskan tourist trains) are there any bi-level passenger cars that don’t go down (and up) to the vestibule level at the ends? I’m racking my brain for any bi-level cars on the East Coast or in Europe where you walk between cars on the upper level. Even most West Coast commuter trains have that layout.
Surfliner Chargers appears to be push/pulling up to 7 cars. . The ten car train had a locomotive at each end.
Finally, I wish I could find the reference, but I remember a claim by MARC that substituting an MP36 for a (healthy) HHP-8 actually only added a few minutes to the schedule. They still preferred the faster accelerating electric, but it didn’t kill the schedule.
To me MARC is the train on the Camden Line paralleling my MetroRail train, so I’m watching and not riding. Though my subway train appears to accelerate pretty quickly when it wants.

jrud said:

 ​

Finally, I wish I could find the reference, but I remember a claim by MARC that substituting an MP36 for a (healthy) HHP-8 actually only added a few minutes to the schedule. They still preferred the faster accelerating electric, but it didn’t kill the schedule.
 

Click to expand...

The problem is they may not kill their schedule but a few minutes is the difference between clearing the path for the train behind you or interfering with the train behind you, which may cause your train to be places aside.

The Talgo bilevels in Finland are one better than Superliners. They have gangways at both levels.

Thirdrail7 said:

The problem is they may not kill their schedule but a few minutes is the difference between clearing the path for the train behind you or interfering with the train behind you, which may cause your train to be places aside.

Click to expand...

It does actually kill the schedule, using the MP-36 instead of an electric has been cited by them as the reason for delays in the past.

jis said:

The Talgo bilevels in Finland are one better than Superliners. They have gangways at both levels.

Click to expand...

Some of the earlier "Ultra Domes" on the Alaska cruise trains also have access on both levels...

Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.  

dgvrengineer said:

Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.  

Click to expand...

Does the Talgo’s suspension system make this possible?
Operationally you always want as much power and redundancy as you can get. Trying to keep with HHP-8s and Chargers on the highest speed lines instead or MP36s indicates this desire. I was just pointing out that at times MARC has explicitly tried to make it seem unimportant. It depends on what they are trying to prove at the time.

The Finnish Talgos do not use the tilting Talgo suspension system. They are more conventional, actually they are not even branded as Talgo anymore. It was a turnkey contract or something like that apparently. Talgo does manufacture rail equipment that is not classic Talgo Pendular too apparently.

I can't recall; wasn't Amtrak supposed to be getting some locomotives which could be used both on the NEC (north of WAS) as well as points south so that there wouldn't be engine switching in DC?

Nothing like that is on the order books. 

LookingGlassTie said:

I can't recall; wasn't Amtrak supposed to be getting some locomotives which could be used both on the NEC (north of WAS) as well as points south so that there wouldn't be engine switching in DC?

Click to expand...

There’s been plenty of discussion about it on AU, but Amtrak definitely doesn’t have any new dual-modes officially in the works at this point.