# MPI MP36 and Amtrak



## frequentflyer (Nov 24, 2009)

I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.


----------



## MattW (Nov 24, 2009)

The MP36 is a good locomotive, but I believe the problem is they're too tall. The brochure says 15' 6" for height, the P42s are 14' 8" tall and I believe the F59PHI (Sufliner type) is 15' 11" tall. The Superliner cars at 16' 2" tall can't fit into Penn station so I'm not sure if the MP36s or a possible dual-mode derivative could fit either. They are a very pretty good looking locomotive. In fact, someone produced an MP36 Amtrak repaint for MSTS and I put it on the head end of a Capitol Limted at WAS and it didn't look bad at all!

[EDIT] Yea, KLW TrainSim has the locomotive repaint on their site. Google them, Addons->KLW Based Reskins and it's right there up top.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2009)

MattW said:


> The MP36 is a good locomotive, but I believe the problem is they're too tall. The brochure says 15' 6" for height, the P42s are 14' 8" tall and I believe the F59PHI (Sufliner type) is 15' 11" tall.


P42s are nominally 14' 6" tall. 14' 8" would be a bit too tall for the North and East River tunnels in New York. 14' 6" is the max that can safely get into Penn Station. The NJT and LIRR Multi Level cars are 14' 6" tall too.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 25, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.


Amtrak, for their main locomotive fleet, needs something that can fit into Penn, as mentioned. But also, the MP36 is a fairly weak loco- 3600 hp. It also has limited range. None of these things matter on a commuter engine, but for Amtrak's needs, they are all deal breakers.

Lastly, the MP36 is highly compromised by its design which is intended to be built generically in relatively small numbers. Amtrak has specialized requirements, and also has a diesel fleet of some 250+ locomotives, as opposed to the individual commuter roads which have few locomotives.

Keep in mind that none of the three big commuter roads use the MP36- NJT, LIRR, Metro-North. NJT has some old F40s and Geeps, plus their 33 Alstom PL42s, which are European in design and unique to NJT, with the rest of them scheduled to be replaced by Bombardier ALP-45DP Electro-diesel dual modes. LIRR uses DE30s and DM30s, both EMD and of unique design to that road (and are admittedly junk). Metro-North uses Genesis locomotives, both P32ACDMs and P40s bought from Amtrak. They also have a few F units around. They technically own a few F40s and Geeps, but those are used by NJ Transit.

Amtrak, NJTransit, LIRR and Metro North have something in common- they are all huge. When they buy power, they can afford to amortize the cost of an engine best suited to their needs, even if its a clean sheet design.

Really, when you get down to it, the MP36's main advantage is its low price.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Nov 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak, for their main locomotive fleet, needs something that can fit into Penn, as mentioned. But also, the MP36 is a fairly weak loco- 3600 hp. It also has limited range. None of these things matter on a commuter engine, but for Amtrak's needs, they are all deal breakers.
> Lastly, the MP36 is highly compromised by its design which is intended to be built generically in relatively small numbers. Amtrak has specialized requirements, and also has a diesel fleet of some 250+ locomotives, as opposed to the individual commuter roads which have few locomotives.
> 
> Keep in mind that none of the three big commuter roads use the MP36- NJT, LIRR, Metro-North. NJT has some old F40s and Geeps, plus their 33 Alstom PL42s, which are European in design and unique to NJT, with the rest of them scheduled to be replaced by Bombardier ALP-45DP Electro-diesel dual modes. LIRR uses DE30s and DM30s, both EMD and of unique design to that road (and are admittedly junk). Metro-North uses Genesis locomotives, both P32ACDMs and P40s bought from Amtrak. They also have a few F units around. They technically own a few F40s and Geeps, but those are used by NJ Transit.
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong, because I can't cite my source (other than my memory) but the F40PH's weren't really the ideal locomotive for the whole Amtrak fleet, were they? You mention the range of the MP36, which I assume is dictated by fuel capacity, which jogged my memory about the F40's. IIRC, they were short-legged, too, having been designed, essentially, for commuter/corridor service. Amtrak's debacle with the SDP40F, and the subsequent banning of that loco on certain railroads, sort of forced Amtrak into using the F40's fleetwide.

Now, they served well, don't get me wrong...but the F40PH wasn't the first choice for long distance.

Does the MP draw hotel power from the prime mover or a pony engine? If the former, that would cut what...600 horsepower from the rating?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 25, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak, for their main locomotive fleet, needs something that can fit into Penn, as mentioned. But also, the MP36 is a fairly weak loco- 3600 hp. It also has limited range. None of these things matter on a commuter engine, but for Amtrak's needs, they are all deal breakers.
> ...


the Mp can either draw hotel power from the prime mover or a 2nd engine. it depends on the model the mp36ph-3c and MP40ph-3c all have a 2nd engine to drive hotel power. the mp36ph-3s draws hotel power from the main engine.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 25, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, because I can't cite my source (other than my memory) but the F40PH's weren't really the ideal locomotive for the whole Amtrak fleet, were they? You mention the range of the MP36, which I assume is dictated by fuel capacity, which jogged my memory about the F40's. IIRC, they were short-legged, too, having been designed, essentially, for commuter/corridor service. Amtrak's debacle with the SDP40F, and the subsequent banning of that loco on certain railroads, sort of forced Amtrak into using the F40's fleetwide.
> Now, they served well, don't get me wrong...but the F40PH wasn't the first choice for long distance.
> 
> Does the MP draw hotel power from the prime mover or a pony engine? If the former, that would cut what...600 horsepower from the rating?


You're correct. Actually, their problems with 6-axle trucks on all three engines ordered with it (SDP40F, P30CH, and E60) made them eschew the design entirely- generally considered superior for passenger engines up to this point.

You are also correct that the F40s were designed more for short-distance service, derived as they were from road-switchers (its basically a Geep with a cowl). Contrariwise, the P42s are much more long-distance oriented, but is also a decent short-distance locomotive.

One of the biggest ironies is that we now know the SDP40F was actually a good road engine. Its problem was the high-mounted water tank and steam generator causing instability on bad track. With the tank removed, ATSF used them to good effect on the Super-C. Of course, both engines were highly compromised by their intention to be easily convertible for freight service, the SDP40F more so. Nobody thought Amtrak would last long. By the time the Genesis came around, it became fairly obvious Amtrak was gonna be around a while.

A few MP36s use pony engines, but most of them draw it off the prime. The pony is an option.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Nov 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You're correct. Actually, their problems with 6-axle trucks on all three engines ordered with it (SDP40F, P30CH, and E60) made them eschew the design entirely- generally considered superior for passenger engines up to this point.
> You are also correct that the F40s were designed more for short-distance service, derived as they were from road-switchers (its basically a Geep with a cowl). Contrariwise, the P42s are much more long-distance oriented, but is also a decent short-distance locomotive.
> 
> One of the biggest ironies is that we now know the SDP40F was actually a good road engine. Its problem was the high-mounted water tank and steam generator causing instability on bad track. With the tank removed, ATSF used them to good effect on the Super-C. Of course, both engines were highly compromised by their intention to be easily convertible for freight service, the SDP40F more so. Nobody thought Amtrak would last long. By the time the Genesis came around, it became fairly obvious Amtrak was gonna be around a while.
> ...


Yes, the SDP40F lasted quite a while on the ATSF. I don't think I ever saw one in service--I was born in '81 and by the time of the Eagle derailment in Woodlawn (2 miles from my house) in November of '83, the train was running with F40's. However, I've always had something of a soft spot for that engine, because when I was very young (before I had my own subscriptions to any magazines) I'd scavenge old issues of Trains and Model Railroader from yard sales, train shows, etc. One of the very first Model Railroader issues I got had a pretty long, detailed article about kitbashing an SDP40F. The article included photos of the real thing in service, and it just seemed like a mighty locomotive, big and brawny. Others will disagree, but I even thought they looked good in bloody nose paint, though the few that got cigar bands did 'fit' better with their trains.

I started riding the Texas Eagle right about the time, maybe a year prior to, the Pepsi Cans being delivered. I remember in Chicago how loud it was when you'd walk to the front of the train with the F40's screaming all around, and how amazed I was at the relative quietness of the GE's. (Incidentally, whoever decided to trash the Pepsi Can paint scheme should be strung up...those Dash 8's looked terrible in Phase IV and look almost as bad in Phase V.)

Vis-a-vis the Genesis, I can remember when the locomotive debuted in Trains Magazine, back when it was the AMD103. Again, others will disagree, but I find the Genesis to be very aesthetically pleasing--the early P40's even more so, due to their flush, front-mounted strobe lights and "tearing through the ribbon" stripe fade toward the rear. They're so ubiquitous now that lots of railfans just aren't enthralled with them anymore, but I'm partial to them. That distinctive GE chug, the "whoop" and shimmy when the air compressor kicks in...those things just add to the overall experience of passenger train travel.

~Blake


----------



## cpamtfan (Nov 25, 2009)

MN no longer uses the F10s or FL9s, they now use Brookville BL20s. But I do agree that the MP36s aren't what Amtrak needs, they need a specifically designed locomotive to fit their needs.


----------



## VT Hokie (Nov 25, 2009)

The MP36 is a very heavy locomotive (the heaviest 4 axle diesel out there, as I recall.) And as mentioned, at 3600 hp, it's not a high horsepower diesel. GO Transit does operate a 4000 hp version, but nonetheless, GE manages to get 4200 hp out of the 128 ton Genesis while the 150 ton MPI locomotive doesn't even match that hp. I suspect that high speed stability and ride quality are superior on the GE locos.

We'll see how MARC's MP36's do in 100 mph NEC service...


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 25, 2009)

The only application where the MP36's would be somewhat logical would be in California service or Hiawatha service. As far as a national application is concerned it's not a logical choice at all. Regardless, the P-42 fleet should still have another 10 years or so of life left in them.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> We'll see how MARC's MP36's do in 100 mph NEC service...


That's assuming they ever get in service. 



battalion51 said:


> Regardless, the P-42 fleet should still have another 10 years or so of life left in them.


Which is why now Amtrak should at least start thinking about what comes next - by the time requirements are written, money is found, units are ordered and delivered and tested, it'll be about time to start retiring them before they start falling apart.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 25, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, the P-42 fleet should still have another 10 years or so of life left in them.
> ...


Well what would you say works, what is your bullet-list of basic requirements for the P42's replacement?


----------



## BlakeTyner (Nov 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Well what would you say works, what is your bullet-list of basic requirements for the P42's replacement?


I'm curious about this, too, so long as we're spitballing.

What disadvantage would there be in keeping the Genesis design but updating the guts? Give it a GEVO prime mover and whatever the current generation of electronics happens to be, but keep the monoque body (possibly with stock bolty noses) and everything else to save on design costs. That's assuming, of course, that GE would be willing to ramp up the assembly line for another order of P42's (P44's?) -- but aren't they producing some passenger units for overseas? Can't recall.

I guess at the end of the day what I'm asking is: will the situation in a few years warrant a new, ground-up design for a long-distance Amtrak locomotive? At the time the F40's were wearing out, the answer was absolutely yes. Now? Other than emissions requirements and slightly improved on-board circuitry, I'm wondering if we're dealing with a design that ain't broke.

~Blake


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 25, 2009)

I would argue that any new design should have a separate engine for HEP generation. If you were to throw GEVO guts in there that would be feasible because it runs on a 12 cylinder block, where as the current DASH 9 motor that's in there is a 16 cylinder block. Thus, smaller engine, more room for an HEP motor. I think a lot of the issue isn't so much the skin of the engine as it is the components that you rely on day in and day out.


----------



## MattW (Nov 25, 2009)

If it wasn't for those dang New York tunnels, I'd say to heck with the P42 design, just toss a HEP engine in the GEVO body and use the same assembly line. The DASH-8s you see running around occasionally look pretty dang good IMHO especially in the Phase V paint. Only problem will be the NIMBYs and them looking like "freight" engines.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 25, 2009)

MattW said:


> If it wasn't for those dang New York tunnels, I'd say to heck with the P42 design, just toss a HEP engine in the GEVO body and use the same assembly line. The DASH-8s you see running around occasionally look pretty dang good IMHO especially in the Phase V paint. Only problem will be the NIMBYs and them looking like "freight" engines.


I don't know about the Dash 8 series, but I know the Dash 9-44CWL can only do 65mph (73 possible).


----------



## Shotgun7 (Nov 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't for those dang New York tunnels, I'd say to heck with the P42 design, just toss a HEP engine in the GEVO body and use the same assembly line. The DASH-8s you see running around occasionally look pretty dang good IMHO especially in the Phase V paint. Only problem will be the NIMBYs and them looking like "freight" engines.
> ...


That's only because they're geared for lower speeds. As freight engines, the computers and gears are placed at settings allowing for high-powered, slow freight movements. Make some minor modifications to them both, and you can easily gear it for high speed passenger hauling capability. The Genesis Series' mechanical closeness to Dash 8's and Dash 9's is a testament to this flexibility.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 25, 2009)

I'm not doubting the mechanical similarities, but you can't argue that some minor tweaks and a Dash 9 can replace a P42 in most respects, and I still don't think "minor modifications" would get a Dash 9 up to 103mph, much less the 110mph needed to be an improvement over the P42.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I'm not doubting the mechanical similarities, but you can't argue that some minor tweaks and a Dash 9 can replace a P42 in most respects, and I still don't think "minor modifications" would get a Dash 9 up to 103mph, much less the 110mph needed to be an improvement over the P42.


It might need a different truck design, but there is no reason why with different gearing, the basic engine couldn't provide the power. The Dash-8 P32-BWH's can do 110, IIRC.

However, hood body diesels are not aerodynamically efficient. At the slow speeds most freight trains move, this is entirely irrelevant, but on a passenger train doing 110 its critical.

I'd be surprised if Amtrak doesn't toy with the ALP-45DPs. If they can use more powerful diesels in them, the basic technology would allow for Amtrak to offer 125mph service in areas that don't have cat electrification- yet be able to handle catenary if it ever gets strung up, even in short segments.

Even if not ALP-45DPs, I bet you the ALP-45DP body could be comfortably modified to handle a more traditional diesel-electric set up, and would also allow for Penn access.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 25, 2009)

The ALP-45DP would be an ideal engine in corridor areas that see trains going on and off catenary on a regular basis. It would be great for trains like the Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, and Northeast Regionals. Makeup wise these trains are very similar to the NJT trains that the motor was designed for. Part of me wonders if it would possibly be practical for the Empire Connection as well. AFAIK the third rail only is needed for a very short distance, so it wouldn't be too expensive to put catenary up in that short stretch. You'd then create an engine commonality for Empire Corridor trains with other select Northeast Regionals. The larger the pool of engines the better...


----------



## AlanB (Nov 26, 2009)

Most of the engineers don't even flip the switch until the engine pops out of the Empire Connection tunnel, at which point they're already under cat as it is. The third rail does extend into the tunnel a ways, but again half the time they aren't even bothering to use it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.


Last I heard, GE was out of the passenger unit business too. There was some recent talk that they might get back into it. Perhaps the upcoming Amtrak order is large enough for them to consider.

The MP-40 seems to be breaking in well on 12 car, double-deck GO trains in Toronto and more are on order. A lot of the main components on the MP-40 are EMD designed and can no doubt be adapted to Amtrak or Via service.

Regards,

Gord


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 27, 2009)

The MP-40 is an ok engine for Amtrak use in captive service. For example, if the new bi-level order doesn't happen and Michigan somehow wins a multi-billion dollar lottery and decides to create Amtrak Michigan, and start running 20 round trips to Pontiac and 10 round trips to Port Huron and 10 round trips to Grand Rapids and a round trip to Mackinaw, or some such, and they buy 100+ cars for this service, buying MP40s to haul them would be ok.

But for the general fleet, Amtrak needs something else. List of requirements for an Amtrak engine:

1) It must fit into NYP.

2) It should be able to fit into NYG. (it makes life easier for weird situations)

3) It MUST have a range of at least 500 miles- at about 4 gallons to the mile, that means it needs a 2000 gallon fuel tank.

4) Given that refueling stops are rarely more then about 250 miles apart, it MUST be able to idle providing hotel power for at least 36 hours with a half tank of fuel. Imagine a donner pass situation as an example. A commuter engine has no need for this, but on an LD train it is almost critical.

5) It must be aerodynamically efficient. Given passenger engines move at speed, it is critical to decent fuel efficiency.

6) It must be able to move and track comfortably at 110, perhaps even 125, mph.

7) This is Amtrak. This thing needs to be forgiving, capable of tolerating an operation where "State of good repair" is the best they aim for. The F40 was a rugged engine, it could handle Amtrak's limited maintenance. The Genesis, likewise. A commuter line doesn't need this. Amtrak runs routes they can't afford to run. They cut repairs and so on rather then cutting frequencies because cutting frequencies on some of their important trains means eliminating sizable chunks of our nations passenger rail network. NJ Transit runs short, you see reverse-peak and off-peak trains cut. Amtrak doesn't have that luxury.

The Genesis is ideal for all of these things. Its low height and the fact that its prime mover is sunken so that it rides between the trucks, gives it a low center of gravity. This allows it to move more comfortably around a curve at speed compared to a taller engine like a MP40, and more importantly, gives it better stability at speed.

Because Amtrak maintains a fleet of some 250 diesel engines, they all need to have these features to survive the system. Interoperability is an Amtrak mantra.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 27, 2009)

I wonder if they should have an order with an option of up to 300 units. the current fleet size seems to barely stretch, and with all the talk of expansion-- they'd have enough in the transition but as they start retiring P40s and P42s, the final standing fleet of LD prime movers needs to be above 250 IMHO.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 27, 2009)

500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 27, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> 500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...


I was talking minimum requirements.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 27, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > 500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...
> ...


500 would be too minimum.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 27, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...


The F40s couldn't even hit 500 out west.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 27, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


And that was insufficient.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 28, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> And that was insufficient.


I don't feel like getting into a "I'll have the last word" game with you, Micah.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 28, 2009)

As of now, you're winning.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 28, 2009)

First name basis?

You simply have to have a range of 700 miles, perhaps more. It is only logical that the minimum performance requirements of tomorrow be a step above the minimum requirements of today, and certainly not the requirements of yester-year. This is a given, and I don't even know why it is up for discussion since you yourself admit the F40s weren't meant for LD service. Why would you even think to use one of their old standards to set the bar?


----------



## Mark (Nov 28, 2009)

In the book "GE Evolution Locomotives" by Sean Graham-White, he makes mention that GE has a concept locomotive, the NGPL or Next Generation Passenger Locomotive. It is only a brief mention but it does indicate that GE is at least thinking/planning on being the ones who design and build the next series of locomotives for what would most likely be Amtrak.

That being said, I'm sure that MPI would be capable of designing and building a locomotive to Amtrak's specs but I doubt that the current MP36 or 40 would meet Amtrak's needs. I agree with GML on the height issues and the need for a fleet that can function system-wide like the P42s.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 28, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> First name basis?
> You simply have to have a range of 700 miles, perhaps more. It is only logical that the minimum performance requirements of tomorrow be a step above the minimum requirements of today, and certainly not the requirements of yester-year. This is a given, and I don't even know why it is up for discussion since you yourself admit the F40s weren't meant for LD service. Why would you even think to use one of their old standards to set the bar?


Sure.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was merely pointing out the reasons why the MP36/MP40 are not reasonable options for Amtrak's primary power. The longer the range, the better, keeping in mind the weight of several thousand gallons of diesel.

It MUST be able to hit 500 miles, running at an (excessive) consumption rate of 4 GPM, which is probably not all that far for a locomotive attempting to shove itself up a 4-5% grade. Better range is obviously a plus. But you must also consider some of the limitations affecting Amtrak's need to fit into Penn. The Genesis sinks the prime mover so that it rests in between the trucks the same way a Superliner sits part of its passenger cabin between its trucks. The problem with this is that the fuel tanks are usually stored in the location that now contains the prime mover.

That means that for the most part, as in the Genesis, the fuel tanks must be located aft, foreward, or astride the prime mover. Astride makes access difficult. Mounting it foreward or aft of the prime means that the fuel tank would be more highly located. A higher located fuel tank raises the center of gravity at full load and makes that center of gravity mobile. I.E., diesel fuel sloshes. Not as bad as water, but it does. The higher up the fuel tank, the more the fuel receives the forces of motion, the more the fuel sloshes, the more that center of gravity oscillates, and its a geometric progression. The more weight for the fuel, the more weight is sloshing around.

In other words, the more fuel an engine with a sunken prime carries above its trucks, the higher that fuel sits, the more the center of gravity oscillates, the more likely the engine is to derail at speed or on bad tracks. And Amtrak doesn't need another SDP40F.


----------



## Neil_M (Nov 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That means that for the most part, as in the Genesis, the fuel tanks must be located aft, foreward, or astride the prime mover. Astride makes access difficult. Mounting it foreward or aft of the prime means that the fuel tank would be more highly located. A higher located fuel tank raises the center of gravity at full load and makes that center of gravity mobile. I.E., diesel fuel sloshes. Not as bad as water, but it does. The higher up the fuel tank, the more the fuel receives the forces of motion, the more the fuel sloshes, the more that center of gravity oscillates, and its a geometric progression. The more weight for the fuel, the more weight is sloshing around.
> In other words, the more fuel an engine with a sunken prime carries above its trucks, the higher that fuel sits, the more the center of gravity oscillates, the more likely the engine is to derail at speed or on bad tracks. And Amtrak doesn't need another SDP40F.


Never heard of fuel tank baffles? Obviously not.


----------



## SunsetLimited01 (Nov 28, 2009)

Is it possible Amtrak just might try six axle engines again? I have doubts that would happen, but if it does all I would have to say for that is OMG! :blink:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 28, 2009)

SunsetLimited01 said:


> Is it possible Amtrak just might try six axle engines again? I have doubts that would happen, but if it does all I would have to say for that is OMG! :blink:


Somebody at the top indicated to me that this was under consideration but not likely. If they ended up going the F40 route and making standard road engines into Amtrak's next mainline diesel, then it might happen, since both GEs and EMD use 6-axle trucks in their main line motors.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 29, 2009)

maybe go with 5 axels instead. 3 in the back 2 in front. i've seen some passenger locos like that.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Nov 29, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> maybe go with 5 axels instead. 3 in the back 2 in front. i've seen some passenger locos like that.


6 axle locomotives again would be track killers and would restrict locomotives to certain routes.

the chances of 6 axle locomotives in passenger service in US are zero to nill, even Europeans are backing away from 6 axle power other than freight.

as for 5 axle locomotives they were cool to carry the huge water tank needed for steam generator but since the one odd axle had no propulsion it was more of hinderance than a benefit.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 29, 2009)

Last time I checked the P-42's do use mainline Engines, the highly popular GE 7FDL. That motor was used in the DASH 7, DASH 8, DASH 9, and Genesis series before being discontinued when the GEVO engine was introduced. I don't think it gets much more mainline than that...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 29, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> Last time I checked the P-42's do use mainline Engines, the highly popular GE 7FDL. That motor was used in the DASH 7, DASH 8, DASH 9, and Genesis series before being discontinued when the GEVO engine was introduced. I don't think it gets much more mainline than that...


Amtrak's mainline motors, what they use on their system. As oposed to the F59PHis they have that are restricted to certain areas, for instance.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 1, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.


Well in an almost timely fashion, it would appear that Amtrak might not be looking at anything from Motive Power at all.



> GE Transportation in Erie and Amtrak are lobbying Congress to fund 54 locomotives that the government-subsidized rail company says it needs to replace outdated engines.


A few additional details, although not many, can be found in this newstory from Philly.com.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2009)

It is interesting that GE thinks it is actually ready to build 124 or 200mph locomotives based on just signing an MOU with the Chinese Railways. Sounds more like a boondoggle to try to swallow some money from the stimulus to me. :unsure:

Or alternatively this could be a deal like EMD had with ASEA for the manufacturing of the AEM-7s, except in this case the design and technology will come from China possible based on original stuff from the likes of either some Japanese or European company.


----------



## orulz (Dec 1, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Lastly, the MP36 is highly compromised by its design which is intended to be built generically in relatively small numbers. Amtrak has specialized requirements, and also has a diesel fleet of some 250+ locomotives, as opposed to the individual commuter roads which have few locomotives.
> Keep in mind that none of the three big commuter roads use the MP36- NJT, LIRR, Metro-North. NJT has some old F40s and Geeps, plus their 33 Alstom PL42s, which are European in design and unique to NJT, with the rest of them scheduled to be replaced by Bombardier ALP-45DP Electro-diesel dual modes. LIRR uses DE30s and DM30s, both EMD and of unique design to that road (and are admittedly junk). Metro-North uses Genesis locomotives, both P32ACDMs and P40s bought from Amtrak. They also have a few F units around. They technically own a few F40s and Geeps, but those are used by NJ Transit.


Last I checked, when it comes to commuter rail ridership in the US, it's actually the big 4 agencies, with Metra coming in 2nd place:

1 Long Island Rail Road 347,600

2 Metra 311,900

3 Metro-North 278,700

4 NJT 276,000

Metra owns quite a few MPI's already and chances are that they will acquire more as the rest of their fleet is gradually retired. They had some issues with reliability shortly after delivery but it seems they are mostly resolved now.

That is not to say that Amtrak will necessarily want to acquire any MPI locomotives, and I agree that current MPIs would not meet Amtrak's needs, but MPI does seem perfectly capable of handling large orders for large agencies.


----------



## transit54 (Dec 1, 2009)

AlanB said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.
> ...


What would Amtrak need these for? IIRC, they are pretty much set as far as their levels of P42s. Would these be to replace aging P42s, or something else? Maybe P32DCs?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 1, 2009)

maybe its the electric motors that amtrak needs to replace the AEM-7.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 1, 2009)

It's painfully obvious to me they're talking about electrics. The speeds they're talking about, and the quantity point right to electrics. Amtrak doesn't need new diesels right now, not as long as there are P-40s sitting serviceable in Delaware.


----------



## MattW (Dec 1, 2009)

Or perhaps they'll be dual mode so they A. won't have to mess with an engine change at WAS at least for Regionals, and B. can free up true diesels for expanded service elsewhere.


----------



## cpamtfan (Dec 1, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> It's painfully obvious to me they're talking about electrics. The speeds they're talking about, and the quantity point right to electrics. Amtrak doesn't need new diesels right now, not as long as there are P-40s sitting serviceable in Delaware.



P40s are in BG for rebuild AO now.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 2, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> It's painfully obvious to me they're talking about electrics. The speeds they're talking about, and the quantity point right to electrics. Amtrak doesn't need new diesels right now, not as long as there are P-40s sitting serviceable in Delaware.


While I would agree that the quantity would seem to make it obvious that they are talking about the electrics, this next quote takes things right back out of the obvious category.



> But GE says it is also ready to build locomotives that run at 124 mph that would replace older, slower locomotives and help Amtrak take a step toward a high-speed system.


First problem in that statement is that 124 MPH would not be replacing any older, slower electric locos. All of Amtrak's current electric fleet is capable of 125 MPH.

Second, this would in no way help Amtrak take a step toward a high-speed system. The NEC is already a high-speed system.

So I have to conclude, at least based upon what was reported and that could be wrong, that they are talking diesels based upon that.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 2, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > It's painfully obvious to me they're talking about electrics. The speeds they're talking about, and the quantity point right to electrics. Amtrak doesn't need new diesels right now, not as long as there are P-40s sitting serviceable in Delaware.
> ...


Only 15 are in BG, several more still sit in Bear and not in servicable condition. In fact, Ivy City had to do some work on the 15 engines that went to BG before they could even be tacked onto the Cardinal for transport to BG.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 2, 2009)

Only 10 are in BG, the last 5 are still hanging around in Ivy City, and the first 5 went as a special move, not tacked on to the Cardinal.

(sorry, it isn't often that anyone gets to correct the master!  )


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2009)

> Only 15 are in BG, several more still sit in Bear and not in servicable condition. In fact, Ivy City had to do some work on the 15 engines that went to BG before they could even be tacked onto the Cardinal for transport to BG.


Only work that needed done was to have air brake valves COTSed and same with running gear.

You need to get locomotive within federal standards or it can't be moved, it has nothing to do with condition of locomotive.

If you store a brand new locomotive for 3 years or more it can not be moved unless air valves are all rebuilt.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 2, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> > Only 15 are in BG, several more still sit in Bear and not in servicable condition. In fact, Ivy City had to do some work on the 15 engines that went to BG before they could even be tacked onto the Cardinal for transport to BG.
> 
> 
> Only work that needed done was to have air brake valves COTSed and same with running gear.
> ...


Incorrect, if that were the case how were they moved from Bear down to Ivy City without getting that done?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 2, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > > Only 15 are in BG, several more still sit in Bear and not in servicable condition. In fact, Ivy City had to do some work on the 15 engines that went to BG before they could even be tacked onto the Cardinal for transport to BG.
> ...


FRA rules allow Hospital moves to nearest certified repair facility at restricted or other safe speed as per operating rules.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/49cfr229.9.htm


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 2, 2009)

Wouldn't Wilmington be the closest certified repair facility, since that's where they're being stored?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 2, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Incorrect, if that were the case how were they moved from Bear down to Ivy City without getting that done?


Dutch does this for a living. I would no sooner argue with Dutch about rail equipment regulations then with George Harris about track rules and conditions.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 3, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect, if that were the case how were they moved from Bear down to Ivy City without getting that done?
> ...


That doesn't make him infallible, despite what he may think.


----------



## jis (Dec 3, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > > Only 15 are in BG, several more still sit in Bear and not in servicable condition. In fact, Ivy City had to do some work on the 15 engines that went to BG before they could even be tacked onto the Cardinal for transport to BG.
> ...


Which part are we disputing here? Are we saying that no brake valve and COTS work needs to be done before moving?

AFAIR, there was some discussion in one of the boards about some additional work that needed to be done at Ivy City before CSX would allow those puppies on their territory. Is that inaccurate? I guess I am confused about what is being disputed here.

Is it within the realm of possibilities that the COTS, brake valve and running gear work was done before moving to Ivy City and then some additional work had to be done at Ivy City to make them acceptable for move over CSX?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 3, 2009)

im thinking that were disputing the fact that the FRA requires the valves to be rebuilt before being moved cause if that was the case then how did amtrak get away with moving the locos down to the first repair shop without rebuilding the valves.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 3, 2009)

jis said:


> Is it within the realm of possibilities that the COTS, brake valve and running gear work was done before moving to Ivy City and then some additional work had to be done at Ivy City to make them acceptable for move over CSX?


That's exactly what I was thinking, sorry I wasn't more clear.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 3, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Is it within the realm of possibilities that the COTS, brake valve and running gear work was done before moving to Ivy City and then some additional work had to be done at Ivy City to make them acceptable for move over CSX?
> ...


According to an informed post in this topic, post #186 to be precise, it would appear that the COTS work and other items were done before the P40's were moved to Ivy City. And while I was wrong in saying work needed to be done, it appears that Ivy City didn't trust the trucks on the engines and wanted a thorough inspection of them before allowing the Cardinal to transport them, which is what delayed their departure.


----------



## jis (Dec 3, 2009)

OK, my vague recollection is that Amtrak did the necessary work to meet FRA requirements before moving them to Ivy City. Then at Ivy City the inspector found certain additional issues that needed addressing before they could move them over CSX to Beech Grove. Hence the holdup at Ivy City.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 3, 2009)

jis said:


> OK, my vague recollection is that Amtrak did the necessary work to meet FRA requirements before moving them to Ivy City. Then at Ivy City the inspector found certain additional issues that needed addressing before they could move them over CSX to Beech Grove. Hence the holdup at Ivy City.



BEAR is not a certified Amtrak locomotive air shop, under FRA rules as long as brakes do work a locomotive can be moved at reasonable speed to nearest locomotive shop, in this case Wilmington.

At Wilmington the locomotives were prepared for service, including tractuonmotor lubrication, brakes etc etc.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 3, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> Wouldn't Wilmington be the closest certified repair facility, since that's where they're being stored?


The P40's were stored at Bear, not at Wilmington.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 3, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...



heres one for you: http://www.youtube.com/user/davidmagill1#p/u/55/mDuSWDTU8Dg don't get any woodies now ;-)


----------



## Ryan (Dec 3, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't Wilmington be the closest certified repair facility, since that's where they're being stored?
> ...


He's not saying that they were stored at Wilmington, he's saying that Wilmington is closer to Bear than Ivy City is. I see that now you're saying they were taken to Wilmington before going to Ivy City, thanks for conceding that you were wrong earlier.



Dutchrailnut said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


What the devil is that for?


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> heres one for you: http://www.youtube.com/user/davidmagill1#p/u/55/mDuSWDTU8Dg don't get any woodies now ;-)


Ah! The Turbo!


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...


Interesting Hokie. How do you read the sentence "_Wouldn't Wilmington be the closest certified repair facility, __*since that's where they're being stored?*_" and come to the conclusion that battalion is not saying that they were stored in Wilmington?

Are you and Dutch by the way going through a contentious separation proceedings or something? Some of your reaction to Dutch's postings seems to suggest such.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 4, 2009)

That's what I get for posting before coffee.

No, it isn't much of a secret that I can't stand Dutch (and my mistake doesn't change the fact that he was still wrong earlier).


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 4, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't Wilmington be the closest certified repair facility, since that's where they're being stored?
> ...


I will continue to argue this. As evidenced by:






















I'm not saying they were there permanently, but they were stored there for at least a little while.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 4, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...



These shots are from when the P40's were in Service, not when they were stored, when is last time you saw E-60 in Wilmington ???

long before the P40's went into storage.

for info: E60MA 600 Scrapped late 2003, Wilmington DE

and from http://members.trainorders.com/geoff_s/amt.../index.html#P40

All those stored are allocated to Wilmington for maintenance, and normally stored at Bear. They do move occasionally between Wilmington and Bear for maintenance.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 4, 2009)

Is that the corner of a MARC AEM-7 I spy on the left hand side of the 3rd picture? Definitely looks like an orange stripe under the blue to me.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 4, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Dutchrailnut said:
> ...


Dutch, I hate to say it. You are wrong. I was there. Those motors were NOT in service, they were among the first to be stored in July of 03.

Hokie, yes, there was a MARC AEM-7 in the yard that day. IIRC, this is around the time they tried to start to re-furb the motors but had major mechanical issues that are just now beginning to be worked out.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> Hokie, yes, there was a MARC AEM-7 in the yard that day. IIRC, this is around the time they tried to start to re-furb the motors but had major mechanical issues that are just now beginning to be worked out.


Wow, a 6 year refurb. 4901 and 4902 are back in service within the last month, and I've seen 4900 once running in testing (it's subsequently disappeared, so I suspect that it's having issues). Thanks for pinning down a start date for me. You don't happen to have any pictures of the MARC AEM-7's from that trip that you can share, do you?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 5, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > Hokie, yes, there was a MARC AEM-7 in the yard that day. IIRC, this is around the time they tried to start to re-furb the motors but had major mechanical issues that are just now beginning to be worked out.
> ...


The MARC AEM-7's have always been maintained at wilmington shops , so it does not pinpoint a refurb date.

Wilmington handles all the 92 and 365 day inspections as well.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...


Bolded for your attention. I'm well aware of the fact that all the maintenance is done at Wilmington, thanks.


----------



## cpamtfan (Dec 5, 2009)

http://www.rrpicturearchives.com/archiveThumbs.aspx?id=4511

I have to agree with Dutch on this one. I also checked it on Bing maps, and they were there.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 6, 2009)

I'm not saying they stayed in Wilmington forever, all I'm saying is they were there for a significant period of time, and they did float around some.


----------

