RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
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.
neroden said:
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.
Click to expand...
But batteries are a millstone to efficiency. Under optimal conditions you recover 80% of what you put in. Under realistic conditions its 60% or less. The rest of the system would have to be extremely efficient to make good on that. Plus of course energy wasted in lugging around very heavy batteries does not make for a highly efficient locomotive overall.

Batteries have a part to play in lightweight railcars covering short distances. But technology will have to develop quite a bit before they can be used for traction of heavy locomotives.
 
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. The Union Pacific turbine engines were a disaster. The United Aircraft Turbo Train was so bad Amtrak sabotaged the equipment so they could take it out of service. The Turboliner I sets were removed from service after less than ten years. The Turboliner IIs were likewise canned.

Amtrak went through hoops to avoid using the Turboliner IIIs. And then the very man pushing for their use becomes Amtraks CEO and promptly disowns them.

Even Bombardier calls their Jettrain a disaster.

Please take your ideas about turbine engines and stick them where the sun don't shine. There is no place for them in an industry where the only sensible form of power is the Diesel engine. Just like in over the road use.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What was wrong with the JetTrain? I thought it could give you service up to 150 mph on non-electrified rail lines. I don't know how many places it would work, but getting tilt cars up to 150 mph on non-NEC routes would be cool. I imagine the problem was that the turbines gulped fuel like it was going out of style, but I have never seen the problems spelled out.

Green Maned Lion said:
Even Bombardier calls their Jettrain a disaster.
Click to expand...
 
Dutchrailnut said:
and the jettrain had problems pulling more than 4 cars, because of light weight on drivers, also the fuel ecconomy went down the drain when run with more than one car test consist.
Click to expand...
Did Amtrak pay for the JetTrain as part of the Acela deal? I ask this because a fossil fueled version was mentioned in numerous printings at the time, as part of the contract that eventually gave birth to Acela.
 
cirdan said:
But batteries are a millstone to efficiency.
Click to expand...
That's why I said it would depend on battery technology.
I happen to know of some stuff under development which should vastly improve the state of the art of battery technology. If it manages to get into production, the situation regarding batteries could look very different in ten or twenty years.
 
Nonsense. Battery technology leaps that made the Tesla technology possible came from mobile device development. Battery technology advancements coming henceforth will also come from mobile device development. Why? The auto companies simply do not have the money to fund that kind of R&D research, nor the desire. Apple and Samsung hold the cell phone market basically between them. Statistics:

Company - Market Cap - Revenue - Profit

GM - 60 billlion - 155 billion - 5 billion

Ford - 70 billion - 146 billion - 7.2 billion

Toyota - 188 billion - 216 billion - 9.4 Billion

Tesla - 30 billion - 2 Billion - (32 Million)

Apple - 571 billion - 171 billion - 37 billion

Samsung - 177 billion - 217 billion - 32 billion

At the end of the year, after all investments in the future, Tesla, Toyota, GM, and Ford combined have less profit left over to spare on investing in battery technology then just Apple.

Ford, GM, and Toyota have a myriad of things that they need to invest money on researching. And the truth of the matter is, despite its phenomonal market capitalization, Tesla has very little money to lever on investing anything. Apple, on the other hand, derives over 80% of its profit from manufacturing products (laptops, phones, and tablets), the life blood of which is to fit, into a smaller package than last year, more power, more features, more capability, and a better battery life into a smaller physical space.

I applaud Tesla for revolutionizing the auto industry. I applaud Elon Musk for starting the first viable automobile business from ground up since Soichiro Honda. But the truth of the matter is, the auto industry is a highly unprofitable business, fraught with years of massive losses, terrible returns on investments, and a practically non existent profit margin. They will piggyback on the advancements that turned a moribund computer company (which I bought for the equivalent of, I swear to god, 57¢ a share) into the largest company in the world.

Tesla didn't do much in the way of battery advancements. They took the battery advancements that the mobile device business made possible, and demonstrated what happens when you take actually capable batteries, and design a car around them. The Tesla doesn't have the battery packaging problems of every other electric vehicle out there, for instance- it was designed from the ground up as an electric car. It isn't bound by other companies architectures, and wasn't bound by other companies cost constraints. They decided to design a technological tour de force that demonstrated that electric cars were viable. Not as efficient as a diesel-electric hybrid, no, but viable.
 
Thanks for that interesting analysis, Green Maned Lion.

Some observations.

In mobile devices, computers etc, the emphasis of battery design is not on efficiency (nobody looks at overall power consumption and choses their smartphone on the basis of that). Emphasis is on batterly life and overall energy stored. So if there is a new battery technology that can store say, 20% more energy in the same space and weight, but charging / discharging efficiency is 10% less, you take it anyway because having that much more battery life when you're on the road is more vauable to you than the costs of electricity. Not so with electric vehicles where electricity costs will be a major cost factor for owners.

I can thus see that at some point there will have to be a divergence of technologies. And the automakers will have to pony up the money for research.
 
The particular technology revolution I have in mind should generate batteries with much better energy storage / weight ratios and lower charge/discharge losses, but there will be still a number of different types depending on the duty cycle. If it needs to be able to release high power fast you get a different design from if it needs to hold energy for long periods with little "storage leakage"; these seem to be tradeoffs.
 
jis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry for being a bit late, but in all actuality, the ALP-45DP isn't physically capable of hitting anywhere near 100 mph (MAS on the NJT system, all on the NEC), much less 125 mph with any heavy train. I was in the cab car of a NYP bound train a few weeks ago, and we had a 45 at the rear shoving 10 MultiLevel Coaches. With the throttle wide open, we balanced out at 89 mph, 1 mph short of the ALP-45DP's current MAS (the engineer even said to the conductor that he didn't even have to worry about throttling back at 90 mph because we'd never reach that speed with that consist). Point being, at 4000 kW (5360 hp) in e-mode, that locomotive develop enough continuous tractive effort to reach the advertised top speed with a heavy NJT consist anyway.
 
The ALP45 iirc was rated at 125 with 8 MLVs. Increase consist weight by 30 percent, I presume the top speed might go down a bit.
 
Looks like the Charger's only 12.5 feet tall - it will easily fit the Hudson Tunnels. Suprising - I was thinking it was going to be 14.5-15.2 feet tall. Hell, it's shorter than the P42 and the ACS-64. Wonder if it's based off the Eurorunner shell.

Also, the cab's nearly identical to the ACS-64.

On another note, Nippon-Sharyo now has competition for coach-building from Siemens. Don't know where this will go - N-S has a serious experience advantage building North American passenger coaches.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amfleeter said:
Looks like the Charger's only 12.5 feet tall - it will easily fit the Hudson Tunnels. Suprising - I was thinking it was going to be 14.5-15.2 feet tall. Hell, it's shorter than the P42 and the ACS-64. Wonder if it's based off the Eurorunner shell.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would they design a different carbody for the Charger when they have a perfectly good one they can borrow from the Sprinter? Afterall money does not grow on trees to fund these additional adventures in design.
Similarly Bombardier basically just tweaked the ALP-46 carbody to get the carbody for ALP-45.

Besides the Charger would have been in violation of the RFP requirements if it came out to be taller than 14'6" anyway.

Also, the cab's nearly identical to the ACS-64.
Click to expand...
Ditto
On another note, Nippon-Sharyo now has competition for coach-building from Siemens. Don't know where this will go - N-S has a serious experience advantage building North American passenger coaches.
Click to expand...
You mean in addition to Bombardier and Alstom, surely? Also not to mention CAF? The most deployed FRA railcar in the US at present probably is Bombardier built. Just look at LIRR and Metro North to see what I mean.
 
Railway Age
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Amtrak RFP seeks 28 next-gen HSR trainsets
Written by Douglas John Bowen


  • inShare







Amtrak

Amtrak said Wednesday, July 2, 2014 it has officially issued

its Request for Proposals for up to 28 next-generation

high speed trainsets to replace its current Acela Express

equipment on the Northeast Corridor.
...

Current manufacturers of HSR equipment ... will be eligible to

submit bids, Amtrak said. Responses are due by Oct. 1, 2014,

an Amtrak spokesman informed Railway Age.

++++++++++++++++

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

May I congratulate Amtrak on its high grade secret-keeping

abilities if it got bids and not a word about them has leaked.

LOL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WoodyinNYC said:
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

May I congratulate Amtrak on its high grade secret-keeping abilities if it got bids and not a word about them has leaked.

LOL.
Click to expand...
If there was not an extension of the October 1 deadline, then the bids have been submitted. The bid review and assessment process is a very structured and controlled one, in part to prevent lawsuits from the losing bidders. Beyond perhaps a public acknowledgement of the bids having been submitted, I would not expect to see any public statements from Amtrak for months.

Railway Age posted a news report earlier this week on Amtrak equipment plans, that indicated that the bids for the HSR trainsets have been submitted: Amtrak's new wheels hit the rails. The article is mainly a rehash of previous reports, so the writer might have been assuming that the bids were submitted.
 
I don't know what Amfleeter is talking about (or looking at, for that matter), but the ACS-64 and the new Charger locomotive share the same body shell, and thus have the same roof height of 12'6".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top