Amtrak Siemens Charger locomotive (SC44, ALC42, ALC42E) (2015 - 1Q 2024)

[Fan Railer]

Probably just "fast for freight. The majority of freight territory is limited to 55 MPH on straightaways.

Back to Charger related news, it seems like the MARC guys will get play around with it for a few days before it gets sent back to Chicago. Here is the move yesterday to get it from BOS back to WAS @ RTE:

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Probably just "fast for freight. The majority of freight territory is limited to 55 MPH on straightaways.

Thanks that sounds more reasonable, I think I also remember the other part of their calculus was they carried a lot of limestone, hence heavy duty ties and ballast iirc.

 

[Karl1459]

IIRC there was a time (in the 1980's) I was driving on I-80 in Nebraska near Julesburg with traffic moving a wee bit over the speed limit (about 75) and the UP freights were going a wee bit faster...

 

[jis]

Probably just "fast for freight. The majority of freight territory is limited to 55 MPH on straightaways.

Thanks that sounds more reasonable, I think I also remember the other part of their calculus was they carried a lot of limestone, hence heavy duty ties and ballast iirc.

They do carry limestone, but I am yet to see one of those trains here in Melbourne. What I see here is just a parade of TOFC/COFC/intermodals and an occasional manifest.

 

[railiner]

Doesn't the BNSF transcon have a 90 mph speed limit.

In places, yes. For Amtrak. To the best of my knowledge, though, no BNSF trains operate faster than 70mph.

Years ago, the premier AT&SF freight train was the all TOFC/COFC "Super C", which IIRC, ran nonstop (except for fueling and crew changes), between their Chicago and Los Angeles yards via Raton Pass. I believe its top speed was 70 MPH ( not sure).

I believe they charged extra tariff, for containers or trailers carried on that train...

 

[railiner]

Upon further research, I read on Wikipedia and Trainorder's, that the Super C was authorized to "operate at passenger train speeds"

 

[MikefromCrete]

I have a quick off-topic question for anyone that chooses to answer. Are there any freight trains that operate above 70mph? I suppose there are some that may operate up to 79mph but I don't know of any on the east coast.

I believe not in the US at this time. There is intermittent discussion among the western roads of raising speeds for intermodals, where time is money, but the "low-hanging fruit" is still in intermodal yard operations, which are much slower than they should be.

Several railroads, especially CSX and NS, are actually planning to reduce speeds on their secondary main lines in order to save money on maintenance. Seems like a totally bad idea to me, but that's what rail execs are thinking in order to placate Wall Street about failing revenue due to the steep decline in coal traffic, as well as just about every other commodity.

 

[MattW]

I have a quick off-topic question for anyone that chooses to answer. Are there any freight trains that operate above 70mph? I suppose there are some that may operate up to 79mph but I don't know of any on the east coast.

I believe not in the US at this time. There is intermittent discussion among the western roads of raising speeds for intermodals, where time is money, but the "low-hanging fruit" is still in intermodal yard operations, which are much slower than they should be.

Several railroads, especially CSX and NS, are actually planning to reduce speeds on their secondary main lines in order to save money on maintenance. Seems like a totally bad idea to me, but that's what rail execs are thinking in order to placate Wall Street about failing revenue due to the steep decline in coal traffic, as well as just about every other commodity.

CSX just did that to the Georgia Subdivision portion of the ex-Georgia Railroad. Earlier this year it went from a 50mph railroad with two daily intermodals Atlanta-Savannah to a 25mph railroad with just a few locals, and two through freights.

 

[neroden]

Several railroads, especially CSX and NS, are actually planning to reduce speeds on their secondary main lines in order to save money on maintenance. Seems like a totally bad idea to me, but that's what rail execs are thinking in order to placate Wall Street about failing revenue due to the steep decline in coal traffic, as well as just about every other commodity.

CSX is fundamentally run by incompetents and has been for an extraordinary number of decades. They may end up declaring bankruptcy. Which would be a good time for the states to buy up the passenger lines. Start planning now.

NS shouldn't be making these mistakes, but they were always a "coal road" and are probably having trouble making the transition.

It's rather worth noting that the STB came out with its "revenue adequacy" numbers, determining which railroads are covering their costs of capital (for 2015, for US operations only). Of the class Is: BNSF, UP, CN, and CP are doing so. CSX, NS, and KCS are flunking. This is probably OK for KCS, which has become a sort of tail on a giant Mexican operation which is probably covering its cost of capital. Not so for CSX and NS.

(I should clarify that it makes perfect sense to scrap lines whose existence is entirely coal-based, since the coal business is dying. It's reducing speeds on *other* lines which makes no sense, and CSX seems to be doing this because they're run by incompetents.)

I'm a little suspicious that, the way the eastern freight railroads are going, we may be headed for Conrail 2. Should never have privatized Conrail.

 

[neroden]

I thought I'd heard or read that the FEC ran freight fairly fast - was that just "fast for freight"?

I could be wrong because this is a hazy memory. But IIRC, *top* speeds weren't much higher than anyone else, but they had few speed restrictions, their dispatching meant the trains weren't stopping for signals or meets often, and they had efficient yard operations, so their *average* speeds were really high.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I thought I'd heard or read that the FEC ran freight fairly fast - was that just "fast for freight"?

I could be wrong because this is a hazy memory. But IIRC, *top* speeds weren't much higher than anyone else, but they had few speed restrictions, their dispatching meant the trains weren't stopping for signals or meets often, and they had efficient yard operations, so their *average* speeds were really high.

In my own hazy memory, of 'I read it somewhere', is that FEC keeps its tracks in very good state of repair compared with other freight operators, contributing to higher average speeds.

 

[jis]

FEC certainly has its tracks in very good shape around here in Melbourne. All concrete ties and CWR, with very well groomed and maintained ballast base. Much better than anything I have seen on CSX which tends to skimp on ballast.

 

[Thirdrail7]

. Should never have privatized Conrail.

 

[jis]

Unfortunately, the way the 3R law was crafted, just like Amtrak was supposed to become profitable so was Conrail. Under L Stanley Crane (another ex-Southern man) with not inconsiderable help from the Staggers Act, it actually did, and then there was much pressure on the Hill to get rid of it and get it off the government's books, and so they did.

 

[KnightRail]

Time for 4601, 4602, and the MARC coaches to change scenery. Their escort is arriving in the mile high to retrieve.

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately, the way the 3R law was crafted, just like Amtrak was supposed to become profitable so was Conrail. Under L Stanley Crane (another ex-Southern man) with not inconsiderable help from the Staggers Act, it actually did, and then there was much pressure on the Hill to get rid of it and get it off the government's books, and so they did.

"Lemon socialism". We can't have the government making a profit! Vital to put those profits in the hands of privateers! Force the government to be funded off the backs of taxpayers!

Sane countries like Norway are perfectly happy to let the government run profitable operations (in their case, their oil fields).

 

[Fan Railer]

Time for 4601, 4602, and the MARC coaches to change scenery. Their escort is arriving in the mile high to retrieve.

Headed to Chicago, presumably? MARC coaches continuing on back to DC?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Headed to Chicago, presumably?

MARC coaches continuing on back to DC?

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Saw pictures of them at NYP. Aren't diesel locomotives not allowed in NYP?

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Saw pictures of them at NYP. Aren't diesel locomotives not allowed in NYP?

It was likely being powered by an attached electric locomotive at least until it got through the NYP approach tunnels.

 

[Fan Railer]

Headed to Chicago, presumably?

MARC coaches continuing on back to DC?

I'll never get enough of your sense of humor lol. Thanks

Saw pictures of them at NYP. Aren't diesel locomotives not allowed in NYP?

It was likely being powered by an atttached electric locomotive at least until it got through the NYP approach tunnels.

The diesel was running straight through NYP. Technically there is an ordinance that prohibits diesel prime movers from running underground in NYC, but there are times when exceptions are made for various reasons under various conditions, as I understand it. At any rate, the Cummins diesel is EPA Tier IV compliant, and therefore emits far less in terms of exhaust particulates than the Tier 0 P42s.

 

[PVD]

NYC Transit has a good number of diesel work motors.

 

[Fan Railer]

The Subway system uses diesel work motors as a safety measure and a necessity. Third rail power is turned off in work zones, so you wouldn't be able to get electric equipment through the area on its own power anyway, and with diesel only power, you don't have to worry about accidentally bridging dead sections on third rail.

 

[neroden]

The Subway system uses diesel work motors as a safety measure and a necessity. Third rail power is turned off in work zones, so you wouldn't be able to get electric equipment through the area on its own power anyway, and with diesel only power, you don't have to worry about accidentally bridging dead sections on third rail.

I believe London uses battery locomotives for the same purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_battery-electric_locomotives

(Though London does use diesels too.)

This is definitely a better idea. Given the air quality problems in tunnels, it would be much healthier for the maintenance workers.

 

[Fan Railer]

Considering NYCT just ordered 28 brand new work diesels, I doubt anyone is thinking of battery electrics down in procurement lol. Likewise, any such proposal for procurement of battery electrics would be met with stiff skepticism and opposition from within.