New LD Locomotive Order Placed

[frequentflyer]

Long story short. Most of the LD network that routinely operate with more than one diesel have the power for acceleration and schedule for portions of the trip.  There are specific instructions regarding the use of multiple engines and it varies by train and terrain. While just about any train CAN operate with a single engine (even the auto train has done it when one of the units shuts down) the guidelines tell you where you multiple units are allowed isolate additional units and operate with one for portions of the trip.

Most train operate with two units on line for the trip.

I don't think it would be cool. I think it would be a functional nightmare not unlike the Acela.  Imagine hitting something and needing to lift that nose to rescue/tow it. Even if you automate the process, those latches can be damaged by impact or be subject to power loss.

That will add to the time it takes to rescue the set. To me, that isn't worth "the look."

The Via locomotives has the better looking nose and front coupler for elephant style hook ups. Do not think its that big of an issue.

 

[Amtrak706]

Quite the self fulfilling prophesy to make something up and then hold it up as an example of Amtrak's incompetency.

What exactly did I make up? By defenition one of two things happened; either Amtrak got permission to use the photo though payment or otherwise, or they just used it without permission. Of course we don’t know which one happened since none of us work in Amtrak’s media department. My comment that they probably did it the dumb way wasn’t a statement of fact. It was just a quip based on a long history of observing Amtrak making excruciatingly poor decisions in almost every way possible and bungling nearly every major project they have.

 

[TiBike]

To send the thread further into the ditch, the picture is copyright Siemens Mobility and credited as "rendering courtesy of Siemens Mobility". Whatever sins you might imagine have been committed, it wasn't by Amtrak.

 

[Amtrak706]

To send the thread further into the ditch, the picture is copyright Siemens Mobility and credited as "rendering courtesy of Siemens Mobility". Whatever sins you might imagine have been committed, it wasn't by Amtrak.

Nice catch, I didn’t see that. In that case I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they did it the right way, lol.

 

[cocojacoby]

To send the thread further into the ditch, the picture is copyright Siemens Mobility and credited as "rendering courtesy of Siemens Mobility". Whatever sins you might imagine have been committed, it wasn't by Amtrak.

I really don't like the name Siemens Mobility.  Sounds like a company that builds ADA equipment.

 

[west point]

Lots of posts to consider.

1.  The Crescent actually has more hills than thought.  ATL - Toccoa - then down to the Savannah river- then up to Clemson / Greenville then down to CLT.  North of Greensboro is hog back and hills to about Manassas.

2.  2 locos are important for the acceleration of trains to MAS track speed after stops and the many siding stops for freight trains.

3.  A big difference from P-42s is that HP delivered to traction motors will vary on chargers as HEP loads varies.  So at times low HEP load will get almost all HP to AC traction motors.

4.  Chargers are rated at 125 MPH.  That means a slightly different traction motor to wheel ratio.  That "MAY" mean slightly more problems getting full HP to wheels at low speed probably not with AC traction ?

5.  Amtrak at present has no idea how the efforts to speed up some routes outside the NEC will increase the MAS.  example if Michigan trains get 110 or even 125 MPH the need to more quickly accelerate to those speeds becomes apparent.  Michigan trains now have had at times 2 P-42s on short trains to get to the MAS quicker.

6.  Extra Chargers on LD trains might be a prudent standby in case of a major ( week or more ) failure of the NEC power systems either the PRR 25 Hz, , MNRR, or the New Haven BOS route.

7. For regular ferrying Chargers on the NEC on regionals probably would not need 2 unless no electric was on line.

8.  It may be that Amtrak will purchase the option that will enable to idle one or more Chargers en route by the engineer when only one would be needed ?

9.  Running the Chargers first on the Starlight was great idea for break in and first on line appears prudent.  Then Cal Z to CHI for same reasons of being close to Siemens in case of some kid of recall .  Then the Builders and SW Limited.

10.  Agree that the SE USA trains should not get them until the next order.

 

[neroden]

Lots of posts to consider.

1.  The Crescent actually has more hills than thought.  ATL - Toccoa - then down to the Savannah river- then up to Clemson / Greenville then down to CLT.  North of Greensboro is hog back and hills to about Manassas.

2.  2 locos are important for the acceleration of trains to MAS track speed after stops and the many siding stops for freight trains.

3.  A big difference from P-42s is that HP delivered to traction motors will vary on chargers as HEP loads varies.  So at times low HEP load will get almost all HP to AC traction motors.

Could retrofitting of cars with LEDs and construction of new cars and even the removal of full-service dining be reducing the HEP loads?  Or is it simply dominated by heat?

4.  Chargers are rated at 125 MPH.  That means a slightly different traction motor to wheel ratio.  That "MAY" mean slightly more problems getting full HP to wheels at low speed probably not with AC traction ?

Max power at rail is apparently 3900 hp?  Whatever that means.  I can't find that rating for the Genesis engine.

5.  Amtrak at present has no idea how the efforts to speed up some routes outside the NEC will increase the MAS.  example if Michigan trains get 110 or even 125 MPH the need to more quickly accelerate to those speeds becomes apparent.  Michigan trains now have had at times 2 P-42s on short trains to get to the MAS quicker.

A sign that we might need two Chargers in many places, on high-MAS track anyway.

6.  Extra Chargers on LD trains might be a prudent standby in case of a major ( week or more ) failure of the NEC power systems either the PRR 25 Hz, , MNRR, or the New Haven BOS route.

7. For regular ferrying Chargers on the NEC on regionals probably would not need 2 unless no electric was on line.

8.  It may be that Amtrak will purchase the option that will enable to idle one or more Chargers en route by the engineer when only one would be needed ?

9.  Running the Chargers first on the Starlight was great idea for break in and first on line appears prudent.  Then Cal Z to CHI for same reasons of being close to Siemens in case of some kid of recall .  Then the Builders and SW Limited.

The Starlight could certainly use the hauling power over the mountains.  And it's *long*.  Based on what I'm hearing, it would definitely be a two-locomotive train. 

My conclusion: there will have to be a followup to this order, because it's not enough to handle all the long distance trains.

10.  Agree that the SE USA trains should not get them until the next order.

 

[neroden]

Serious question: Can the Empire Connection take catenary?  I ask since in context, if the wires would fit then electrifying the line for the approach to Penn Station and then rolling this together with a generalized dual-mode order would probably make more long-term sense than having two sets of dual modes (one for NYP-ALB and the other for the NEC).

(Of course, this gets me wondering about stupid things such as attaching an electric motor to a DMU north of WAS or a diesel motor to an EMU south of WAS...)

What Jis said.

But what I'd add: AC overhead power pickup and conversion requires one hunk of equipment; DC third rail power pickup and conversion requires a different hunk of equipment; a diesel engine requires yet a different (and much larger) hunk of equipment.  A battery locomotive requires yet a fourth hunk of equipment (probably comparable to the diesel engine).

Putting these all in one carbody makes for a very heavy and large vehicle.  Even putting two in one carbody is pushing it, and I think they're not going to put three in one carbody.  This is why you see weirdness like Amtrak running on diesel through Metro-North territory.

I'd like to see Metro-North converted to overhead catenary.  (I'd also like to see the Hudson line raised above future-sea-level-rise levels, or the Harlem Line rebuilt to connect to Albany, but that's another matter.)

 

[NSC1109]

You expected competence?

I expected someone at Amtrak procurement would’ve remembered “hey, we ordered all these cars in one paint scheme for a reason”. Clearly they didn’t. 

 

[Anderson]

What Jis said.

But what I'd add: AC overhead power pickup and conversion requires one hunk of equipment; DC third rail power pickup and conversion requires a different hunk of equipment; a diesel engine requires yet a different (and much larger) hunk of equipment.  A battery locomotive requires yet a fourth hunk of equipment (probably comparable to the diesel engine).

Putting these all in one carbody makes for a very heavy and large vehicle.  Even putting two in one carbody is pushing it, and I think they're not going to put three in one carbody.  This is why you see weirdness like Amtrak running on diesel through Metro-North territory.

I'd like to see Metro-North converted to overhead catenary.  (I'd also like to see the Hudson line raised above future-sea-level-rise levels, or the Harlem Line rebuilt to connect to Albany, but that's another matter.)

Here's the thing: Once you get out of the Empire Connection tunnels, you don't need third rail DC pickup.  You really only "need" electrification for the tunnels.  If anything, you could (in theory) yank the third rail stuff in the tunnels there and just go to all-AC power.

Notably, dual-modes would also be of use here if the "through Penn" services that MNRR has mooted for a while were to come to pass (since you could go NHV-NYP on overhead cat and then NYP-POU on overhead cat/diesel rather than needing an additional power source swap).  I suspect that in the scheme of things this would be not-insanely-expensive compared to having an "oddball" equipment order thrown in, especially if MNRR can be convinced to pay for at least part of the cost.

 

[railiner]

Just want to clear this up...does the Empire connection tunnel carry both A/C catenary, AND over-running (LIRR type) third rail for the short stretch to CP Empire?

 

[jis]

Just want to clear this up...does the Empire connection tunnel carry both A/C catenary, AND over-running (LIRR type) third rail for the short stretch to CP Empire?

Yes.Actually AFAIR both stop a little short of CP Empire. But they certainly come out of the tunnel.

 

[Thirdrail7]

This thread is really starting to venture off the course of an initial 75 unit order.  Dual modes aren't necessarily considered because if anyone recalls, when Mr. Anderson mentioned getting DMUs, and /or Emus, he did say he wanted to explore the possibility of pursuing a DMU/EMU combination unit that will allow trains to pass from seamlessly between electrified territory and non electrified territory without an engine change.

The Empire connection is equipped for diesel, AC and DC operations. Any serious conversation about dual modes should wait until we see what is occurring with the single level fleet replacement plan.  If memory serves, the RFI should appear early next year.

 

[jis]

The same consideration regarding choice of third rail vs catenary dual mode holds true for both ED/DEMUs or locomotives. Personally, something like the Hitachi Class 80x perhaps the 10 car and the 5 car versions deployed in UK but built to US single level loading gauge would be wonderful. They are the quietest dual modes MUs in diesel mode that I have ever been on.

 

[neroden]

This thread is really starting to venture off the course of an initial 75 unit order.  Dual modes aren't necessarily considered because if anyone recalls, when Mr. Anderson mentioned getting DMUs, and /or Emus, he did say he wanted to explore the possibility of pursuing a DMU/EMU combination unit that will allow trains to pass from seamlessly between electrified territory and non electrified territory without an engine change.

You know, I must have missed that entirely.  Citation?

Given the space and weight requirements -- nobody's ever built a single-car diesel/catenary hybrid which carries passengers -- I assume the idea would be to have a consist with traction motors on all wheels, but with "power car" boxes for the electric and diesel pickup.

This doesn't really replace the necessity of dual-mode locomotives!  You need through service from NY to Chicago, it needs to have sleepers and baggage cars, it needs to be able to change consist length with the seasons, and it needs to be able to go through the Empire Connection on electric power because people will get ticked off by the smoke if you go through on diesel power more than occasionally.  Several other routes which would benefit from catenary/diesel hybrids would benefit from seasonal consist changes as well.

 

[cpotisch]

I'd like to see Metro-North converted to overhead catenary.  (I'd also like to see the Hudson line raised above future-sea-level-rise levels, or the Harlem Line rebuilt to connect to Albany, but that's another matter.)

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?

 

[cpotisch]

Just want to clear this up...does the Empire connection tunnel carry both A/C catenary, AND over-running (LIRR type) third rail for the short stretch to CP Empire?

Yes.Actually AFAIR both stop a little short of CP Empire. But they certainly come out of the tunnel.

So why do they use third rail? From what I’ve heard, catenary is superior to third rail in many ways. I know that Amtrak doesn’t have any catenary dual modes, but why is that the case, as well? 

 

[railiner]

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?

I think he was just wishing for the Harlem north of Wassaic to Chatham, where it connects to the Boston and Albany line, to be restored to service...it would be a longer route to Albany, but is probably higher, out of reach of river flooding in the future... :unsure:

 

[jis]

So why do they use third rail? From what I’ve heard, catenary is superior to third rail in many ways. I know that Amtrak doesn’t have any catenary dual modes, but why is that the case, as well? 

You already answered your first question. Amtrak does not have catenary dual mode because none were available until very recently. They were considered technically infeasible even as recently as 10 or so years back. Even the ones available currently in the US cannot apparently change modes while in motion. Elsewhere they can.

I believe if you had spent five minutes on google you could have answered the questions yourself. You are a bright guy.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

You already answered your first question. Amtrak does not have catenary dual mode because none were available until very recently. They were considered technically infeasible even as recently as 10 or so years back. Even the ones available currently in the US cannot apparently change modes while in motion. Elsewhere they can.

I believe if you had spent five minutes on google you could have answered the questions yourself. You are a bright guy.

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.

 

[west point]

We believe that Amtrak wants dual diesel / third rail DC is a possible need to operate them to GCT 'such as last summer.  The main thing is getting a very reliable over running / under running 3rd rail pickup either permanent or modular ?  Now MNRR will need a  permanent one if they ever run commuter EMUs down the west side to NYP.  How MNRR will operate the proposed east side service from New Rochelle may still  to be determined.  

 

[Thirdrail7]

You know, I must have missed that entirely.  Citation?

I "probably"  h34r: heard about it in more depth but here is a public, rough reference from earlier this year:

https://www.midwesthsr.org/SleeperTrains

Amtrak’s latest five-year plan indicates that it is looking towards unified trainsets instead of individually coupled cars, which would be a significant step forward for American passenger trains. Unified trainsets are safer, more comfortable and more efficient to operate. Amtrak is also interested in trains that can seamlessly switch from overhead electric power to diesel, which would eliminate time-consuming engine swaps. It would also make it easier for Amtrak trains to take advantage of new electrified corridors, like CrossRail Chicago.

If you click the link to to the fleet plan, you'll notice a reference to DMUs or possible DEMU for short distance corridors on page 15.

This doesn't really replace the necessity of dual-mode locomotives!  You need through service from NY to Chicago, it needs to have sleepers and baggage cars, it needs to be able to change consist length with the seasons, and it needs to be able to go through the Empire Connection on electric power because people will get ticked off by the smoke if you go through on diesel power more than occasionally. 

This doesn't necessarily mean you need a fleet of specialized locomotives.  Let's say they bought a bunch of DEMUs, eliminating the need for as many diesels and assigned them to the Empire service.  That would leave the LSL as the stand alone train that would need a dual mode. Instead of ordering  special units, it would be easy enough to pull up to Empire or Jervis, attach an electric to the LSL and pull it in. The same can go for the way out.

Additionally, with the additional and revitalization of the exhaust system in NYP, they sometimes just operate in diesel mode...as long as there isn't a long dwell period.

There is only one real reason to consider a dual mode and I will mention it in my next post.

 

[Thirdrail7]

You already answered your first question. Amtrak does not have catenary dual mode because none were available until very recently. They were considered technically infeasible even as recently as 10 or so years back. Even the ones available currently in the US cannot apparently change modes while in motion. Elsewhere they can.

I believe if you had spent five minutes on google you could have answered the questions yourself. You are a bright guy.

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.

The main thing that was left out is the need to possibly operate to GCT, which doesn't have catenary.  It may be prudent to have a small amount of flexible engines in case it is necessary to utilize their facility. It will also allow Metro-Norht to enter the station.

 

[jis]

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.

For all practical purposes the NY region is basically stuck with 2.5 overhead electrification systems and two third rail electrification systems for the foreseeable future, even more so as time goes on since it is so much easier to construct multi system engines now.

 

[railiner]

Amtrak would also have to have nose doors on loco's, besides under running third rail to enter GCT, correct?