# Does Amtrak Need a Newer More Powerful Locomotive?



## cocojacoby (Dec 9, 2018)

It seems that every 6000 hp freight locomotive recently designed has failed.  Many recent posting here and elsewhere have talked about Amtrak cutting back train length and removing cars so that they can operate with just one locomotive to reduce costs.  However, this practice severely restricts revenue generation and is hurting the bottom line.

It seems that Amtrak's single locomotives are a bit too under-powered and two locomotives are overkill.  Any new modern Siemens units are going to present the same dilemma.

Is there another solution?  After doing some quick research I found a possible answer.

These are an EMD American design.  They are full cowl.  They are 6300 hp.  I don't know how reliable they have been but there are over 300 out there being used everyday so perhaps the bugs have been worked out.

Add a little American styling and modern systems and electronics (Tier 4?) and perhaps this could be a better solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railway_HXN3

P.S. Cummins has a Tier 4 6000 hp engine


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 9, 2018)

So you’re suggesting Amtrak buy some new special type of locomotive with roughly 1.5 times the horsepower of Amtrak’s current diesels, because it is often overkill to run two P42s or Chargers on one train, and therefore this would be a good middle ground? Just seems...unnecessary.


----------



## TinCan782 (Dec 9, 2018)

I think "more reliable" would be a better pursuit!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 9, 2018)

cocojacoby said:


> It seems that Amtrak's single locomotives are a bit too under-powered and two locomotives are overkill.


I've yet to see any evidence that Amtrak's locomotives are underpowered relative to their intended purpose.  So far as I am aware when an Amtrak train with two locomotives is disabled by the loss of one it's due to operational or contractual reasons rather than the physics of motive power and traction.


----------



## railiner (Dec 9, 2018)

I would prefer having two locomotives like the present setup.   Better redundancy if one is disabled, or damaged at a grade crossing incident....


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 9, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I've yet to see any evidence that Amtrak's locomotives are underpowered relative to their intended purpose.  So far as I am aware when an Amtrak train with two locomotives is disabled by the loss of one it's due to operational or contractual reasons rather than the physics of motive power and traction.


Exactly. The TE is six Superliners and a baggage car, yet runs just fine with a single P42. The only issue with them doing that is the risk of it breaking down or something without a backup. So again, maybe reliability is more important here than horsepower.


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2018)

Another AU solution looking for a problem. [emoji3]


----------



## west point (Dec 9, 2018)

cocoj - -----------  If you review all the Amtrak alerts you will find that there are many due to locomotive problems.  That is the main reason for operating most LD trains with 2 fairly reliable locos.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Dec 9, 2018)

Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound??


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 9, 2018)

Personally, I'd be happy if we could just get GE to reopen the P42 production line (I know, emissions would need to be addressed) or to buy more Chargers. Edge to the P42 because with their clearance profile they can go anywhere on Amtrak including the East Coast tunnels; not sure how the Chargers stack up in that regard.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 9, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Personally, I'd be happy if we could just get GE to reopen the P42 production line (I know, emissions would need to be addressed) or to buy more Chargers. Edge to the P42 because with their clearance profile they can go anywhere on Amtrak including the East Coast tunnels; not sure how the Chargers stack up in that regard.


Chargers and P42s are both 14’ 4”, so that’s not an issue.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 9, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Chargers and P42s are both 14’ 4”, so that’s not an issue.


Now, if they could just create a dual-mode design to replace the old P32s on Empire Service and such, then we'd really have something!


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 9, 2018)

Got Money?


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 9, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Now, if they could just create a dual-mode design to replace the old P32s on Empire Service and such, then we'd really have something!


Indeed. And considering the full diesel Gennies are never used on the NEC, anyway, the only case where the height really would matter would be in the case of a P32 replacement. I personally think that it wouldn’t be _too _hard for Siemens to make a Charger that is primarily diesel but can run on third rail when necessary, though.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 9, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Indeed. And considering the full diesel Gennies are never used on the NEC, anyway, the only case where the height really would matter would be in the case of a P32 replacement. I personally think that it wouldn’t be _too _hard for Siemens to make a Charger that is primarily diesel but can run on third rail when necessary, though.


I'm sure both Siemens and GE are quite qualified in that regard; as Mr. Bratkinson points out, all it takes is funding.


----------



## railiner (Dec 10, 2018)

Good points, above...

The P32 will probably get rebuilt perhaps, and become the oldest road locomotives on Amtrak...just like their FL-9 predecessor...


----------



## Siegmund (Dec 10, 2018)

If I were going to have two basic flavors of diesels rather than one, I'd go in the opposite direction, making the new design lower-powered, perhaps in the 2500 neighborhood.

The idea would be that the runs with 3-car trains would benefit a little bit from lower acquisition and operating costs, and the runs that are right on the cusp of managing with one high-horsepower unit might have 2 lower-HP units assigned (instead of the current 2 high-HP.)

Though, to be honest, I think the Colorado Railcar DMU proposal of several years ago was the more realistic solution for almost all the short-distance trains. Was sorta surprised it fizzled.

Re the 6000 HP idea, remember too that if you are limited by grades, you need weight on drivers, not just horsepower, and you can't make the current 4000HP engines 50% heavier without breaking a lot of rails. Super-high horsepower per axle only works for high speed on level ground.


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Now, if they could just create a dual-mode design to replace the old P32s on Empire Service and such, then we'd really have something!


They are working on it, as the NGEC report says.

As for DMU, my guess is that something like the Americanized FLIRT in various configurations is what will become a common sight on short/medium distance service, in addition to Siemens Viaggio derivatives with two derated Charger like powerheads.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 11, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Personally, I'd be happy if we could just get GE to reopen the P42 production line (I know, emissions would need to be addressed) or to buy more Chargers. Edge to the P42 because with their clearance profile they can go anywhere on Amtrak including the East Coast tunnels; not sure how the Chargers stack up in that regard.


To my knowledge, no final decision has been made yet, but a P42 rebuild _was _an option listed for the overhaul of the fleet. Although to the general public that it would seem that Amtrak is simply refurbishing/repainting old engines, it would really be a totally new locomotive on its old frame. The P42s are an Amtrak signature, and hearing the distinctive "chug" always brought a smile to my face as a kid. 



jis said:


> They are working on it, as the NGEC report says.
> 
> As for DMU, my guess is that something like the Americanized FLIRT in various configurations is what will become a common sight on short/medium distance service, in addition to Siemens Viaggio derivatives with two derated Charger like powerheads.


Metro-North canceled their procurement because funding sources changed and now they have to rework the proposal to include federal funding clauses. Amtrak's stuff isn't listed, but they were working on the procurement together according to previous documents.


----------



## west point (Dec 11, 2018)

The P-42 rebuild is supposed to include AC traction motors.  If that is so that is the only way we can support the rebuild program instead of new SC-44s .  We still prefer the new SC-44s as it would probably seal current SD and LD trains.  That would allow for the unlikely event that Amtrak could expand LD services by keeping the P-42 in service that are the most reliable. ?


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 13, 2018)

jis said:


> They are working on it, as the NGEC report says.
> 
> As for DMU, my guess is that something like the Americanized FLIRT in various configurations is what will become a common sight on short/medium distance service*, in addition to Siemens Viaggio derivatives with two derated Charger like powerheads.*


Some thing like this-

https://railcolornews.com/2018/12/12/ca-via-rail-canada-orders-charger-locomotives-and-passenger-trains-from-siemens/

I think sets like what Brightline has and VIA will be getting are in competition with any FLIRT order. With as many orders Siemens is getting for their Viaggio, I gotta think the price is pretty compelling compared with what Stadler is offering.

As regards locomotives, Siemens will offer a maintenance contract on its new locomotives, which is the way the transportation segment is going. I doubt GE or whoever own the locomotive divison now will offer the same mx deal even if the diesel and traction motors are new.


----------



## railiner (Dec 13, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> As regards locomotives, Siemens will offer a maintenance contract on its new locomotives, which is the way the transportation segment is going. I doubt GE or whoever own the locomotive divison now will offer the same mx deal even if the diesel and traction motors are new.


I would think that if one manufacturer is offering some sort of maintenance contract or benefit...it's rival's would have to do likewise, if they hoped to remain competitive....


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 13, 2018)

railiner said:


> I would think that if one manufacturer is offering some sort of maintenance contract or benefit...it's rival's would have to do likewise, if they hoped to remain competitive....


I should have been more clear, new Siemens versus refurbished or rebuilt GE locomotives. Doubt a rebuilt unit comes with a mx contract, maybe they do.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> I should have been more clear, new Siemens versus refurbished or rebuilt GE locomotives. Doubt a rebuilt unit comes with a mx contract, maybe they do.


Of course just because the P4xs were originally manufactured by GE does not imply that they must be remanufactured by GE, specially if changing out the guts in its entirety. Some outfit like Alstom, Bombardier MPI for example could as well do the remanufacturing.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 13, 2018)

jis said:


> Of course just because the P4xs were originally manufactured by GE does not imply that they must be remanufactured by GE, specially if changing out the guts in its entirety. Some outfit like Alstom, Bombardier MPI for example could as well do the remanufacturing.


Is that sort of like how Pullman-Standard built the Superliners Is but Bombardier built the Superliner IIs, or how Budd built the original Viewliner prototypes, Morrison-Knudsen built the Viewliner Is, and CAF builds the V-IIs? Or is that a different sort of thing because the differences between iterations in those examples are much more significant than what a remanufacture of the Gennies would likely look like?


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2018)

My assumption is that the same bodies and possibly even trucks will be used. Because if even that is not the case then I don’t see how remanufacture will be any cheaper than a new unit.


----------



## railiner (Dec 13, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Is that sort of like how Pullman-Standard built the Superliners Is but Bombardier built the Superliner IIs, or how Budd built the original Viewliner prototypes, Morrison-Knudsen built the Viewliner Is, and CAF builds the V-IIs? Or is that a different sort of thing because the differences between iterations in those examples are much more significant than what a remanufacture of the Gennies would likely look like?


Maybe more like what Morrison-Knudsen did many years ago, remanufacturing railcars and locomotives built by other's...


----------



## cirdan (Dec 14, 2018)

jis said:


> My assumption is that the same bodies and possibly even trucks will be used. Because if even that is not the case then I don’t see how remanufacture will be any cheaper than a new unit.


I understand that sometimes remanufacturing is selected because if a locomotive counts as older, it can worm its way aroun having to fulfill newer emissions standards.

This is what RENFE did with their rebuilds of the 333 class. The new 333 was virtually a new locomotive but they somehow managed to include  a token quantity of original parts. If you include the examples built for  non RENFE customers, they are even numerically more of them now than there were before. So the concept of a rebuild was stretched to extremes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 14, 2018)

cirdan said:


> I understand that sometimes remanufacturing is selected because if a locomotive counts as older, it can worm its way aroun having to fulfill newer emissions standards. ﻿


American freight railways are currently blaming urea as the reason why they're refusing to purcahse T4 locomotives.  Which might be a logical complaint if you had to refill the reservoir with every fuel tank service, but since it's closer in schedule to an offline maintenance item than an online consumable this argument makes no sense to me.


----------



## katzgar (Dec 22, 2018)

since the locos are being purchased with US government stimulus money which requires domestic purchase AMTRAK is just driving another nail in its coffin by buying foreign.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

katzgar said:


> since the locos are being purchased with US government stimulus money which requires domestic purchase AMTRAK is just driving another nail in its coffin by buying foreign.


The LD locomotives are not being bought using stimulus money and they completely meet Buy America requirements. So I believe your conjecture to be not supported by known facts.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

jis said:


> katzgar said:
> 
> 
> > 2 hours ago, katzgar said:
> ...


Did they intend to post in this thread?





And also, even if this first-time poster is correct that they “are being purchased with US government stimulus money which *requires* domestic purchase”, how would Amtrak even be able to make this big an order from Siemens. I imagine that an order of 75 new locomotives for the national network, is significant enough that they couldn’t just do it subtly under the table and ignore some big requirement.  h34r:


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

Actually I am not sure what was meant by domestic purchase, since the locomotive purchase is a domestic purchase from Siemens Mobility USA denominated in US dollars.


----------



## TinCan782 (Dec 23, 2018)

jis said:


> Actually I am not sure what was meant by domestic purchase, since the locomotive purchase is a domestic purchase from Siemens Mobility USA denominated in US dollars.


*Yep ... *"Amtrak is paying for the new locomotives through available funds and will comply with Buy American provisions. They will be built at Siemens Mobility's rail manufacturing plant in Sacramento, Calif., a facility which uses solar power and employs more than 1,300 people."

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/12/21-siemens-to-supply-75-new-tier-4-locomotives-to-amtrak


----------

