# NJT/AMT's ALP-45DP displayed at Innotrans 2010



## MattW (Sep 21, 2010)

NJT and AMT's newest locomotive type was on display at Innotrans 2010 in Berlin. Someone was able to take quite a few pictures and post to their photobucket:

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c63/bengts/ellok/ALP45/

And it is one beautiful locomotive! I am jealous!


----------



## battalion51 (Sep 21, 2010)

Good find Matt. I'll be interested to see what the reviews are like once these motors get on the road. I would hope (but not holding my breath) that Amtrak would order some of these for their fleet. These would be great for the Regionals since it would eliminate the engine change at WAS/NHV but still allow the train to run at MSP while on the corridor. Not to mention it would come in handy when they need to take a section of catenary offline in the off hours for maintenance. It'd give Mechanical larger windows to work with since trains like 66/67 and the early morning on corridor Regionals could use one of those ponies and just switch to diesel to operate through the dead section.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 21, 2010)

battalion51 said:


> These would be great for the Regionals since it would eliminate the engine change at WAS/NHV but still allow the train to run at MSP while on the corridor.


The Regionals no longer change power in New Haven, except in rare circumstances like right now with 66. Only trains that change power at NHV are trains that run through to Springfield, which IIRC is only one Regional and the Vermonter.

The Regionals however still do change the operating crews at NHV; a throw back to when the power was always changed at NHV.


----------



## jis (Sep 22, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The Regionals no longer change power in New Haven, except in rare circumstances like right now with 66. Only trains that change power at NHV are trains that run through to Springfield, which IIRC is only one Regional and the Vermonter.


And the weekend Lynchburger - er - Northeast Regional to Lynchburg and back


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 22, 2010)

Sadly, unless the moratorium gives us the time to kill the deep cavern, I fear they will only be found on trains that don't go to Penn Station.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Sep 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Sadly, unless the moratorium gives us the time to kill the deep cavern, I fear they will only be found on trains that don't go to Penn Station.


Its diesel only?


----------



## jis (Sep 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Sadly, unless the moratorium gives us the time to kill the deep cavern, I fear they will only be found on trains that don't go to Penn Station.


Don't worry. Christie will kill the whole thing, not just the deep cavern :-/


----------



## MattW (Sep 23, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, unless the moratorium gives us the time to kill the deep cavern, I fear they will only be found on trains that don't go to Penn Station.
> ...


No, from what I'm hearing, they're going to be run on catenary where available vs. the P32s for example which only run electric in a certain area and are otherwise diesel. I think the comment means that the Penn lines are all electric lines to the terminating points whereas both diesel and electric services run out of Hoboken.

However, I am confused as I thought there were some "electric" lines that had a switch from electric to diesel (usually cross-platform) partway down the line which the ALP-45DPs would allow one-seat rides.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 23, 2010)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, unless the moratorium gives us the time to kill the deep cavern, I fear they will only be found on trains that don't go to Penn Station.
> ...


That was always the danger of fighting the proposal as it stood. We all understood that. I hope it doesn't get killed completely, but I think it will. Christie apparently doesn't realize he is supposed to be benefiting the people who voted for him- or at least play lip service to the idea, rather than the people that gave him campaign contributions.

But don't worry, Jis. Give it 15 years or so, the tunnel will be built on the Federal level- which is what it should have been all along.



MattW said:


> No, from what I'm hearing, they're going to be run on catenary where available vs. the P32s for example which only run electric in a certain area and are otherwise diesel. I think the comment means that the Penn lines are all electric lines to the terminating points whereas both diesel and electric services run out of Hoboken.
> 
> However, I am confused as I thought there were some "electric" lines that had a switch from electric to diesel (usually cross-platform) partway down the line which the ALP-45DPs would allow one-seat rides.


The electric lines that switch to diesel partway down the route are exactly what these things are for. Of course, that is what Hoboken was used for when people were thinking clearly, but I digress.

I am discussing a controversial aspect of a project known as ARC- Access to the Region's Core. The basic concept behind it was to construct a second North River tunnel pair. The conflict has to do with whether those tunnels go to Penn Station as it currently exists, a deep-cavern terminal that connects to nothing, or both. The plan as it currently stood before it was (theoretically) temporarily shelved, was for the second of those options. Which has been pissing off various rail advocacy groups, Amtrak, New York City, and others to no end.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Sep 24, 2010)

Ive gotten alot of heat form other transit bloggers when i said NJT should wait for Amtrak's new Tunnels. Whats the point of building 4 New Tunnels into Manhattan? The plan calls for 6 tracks and a Non-Expandable station what a waste. 6 Tracks will do nothing to relive the congestion into NYC.....Newark Penn is 7 and at the breaking point.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 24, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Ive gotten alot of heat form other transit bloggers when i said NJT should wait for Amtrak's new Tunnels. Whats the point of building 4 New Tunnels into Manhattan? The plan calls for 6 tracks and a Non-Expandable station what a waste. 6 Tracks will do nothing to relive the congestion into NYC.....Newark Penn is 7 and at the breaking point.


Amtrak's new tunnels? What new tunnels? The ones mentioned as a possibility in the NEC master plan? The ones that are likely decades (at best) in the future? How about Amtrak and NJT working together, combining the transit funding NJT has been able to assemble with any intercity rail funding Amtrak might be able to bring to the table, to develop and construct a facility that will benefit both users sometime in the next decade or so?


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Sep 24, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> > Ive gotten alot of heat form other transit bloggers when i said NJT should wait for Amtrak's new Tunnels. Whats the point of building 4 New Tunnels into Manhattan? The plan calls for 6 tracks and a Non-Expandable station what a waste. 6 Tracks will do nothing to relive the congestion into NYC.....Newark Penn is 7 and at the breaking point.
> ...


Yea , its part of an 11 Billion $$ NYC Upgrade of the NEC includes the New Moynihan Station , a New set of Hudson & East River Tunnels. I don't know why Amtrak would care about a Tunnel to no where. They are working with NJT in Upgrading the NJ part of the NEC. Nah i think by the end of the decade construction will start and only take a few years seeing that Amtrak will probably get some overseas experts for them.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 24, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> > Ive gotten alot of heat form other transit bloggers when i said NJT should wait for Amtrak's new Tunnels. Whats the point of building 4 New Tunnels into Manhattan? The plan calls for 6 tracks and a Non-Expandable station what a waste. 6 Tracks will do nothing to relive the congestion into NYC.....Newark Penn is 7 and at the breaking point.
> ...


If one looks at the future projected growth of the population in this region, 6 tracks into NY will eventually be necessary. Four tracks will never be enough to handle things 30 to 40 years down the road and perhaps even sooner than that.

As for Newark being a bottleneck, first there are ways around that or to fix that. Second, the "current" tunnels being talked about here are really more about getting the Bergen, Main, and Passcack Valley lines into NY; instead of forcing those passengers to make a transfer either at Secaucus or Hoboken. And getting rid of the transfer would increase ridership on those lines and perhaps make a small dent in Northern NJ's traffic problems. It would also open up the possibility of still more routes in NNJ, once funding is found.

All that said, while I still support the current project since it will have to be done one way or another, I would have preferred to see Amtrak and NJT working on a combined tunnel first to an expanded Penn Station. Then let NJT come behind things and work on this plan.


----------



## jis (Sep 24, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Amtrak's new tunnels? What new tunnels? The ones mentioned as a possibility in the NEC master plan? The ones that are likely decades (at best) in the future? How about Amtrak and NJT working together, combining the transit funding NJT has been able to assemble with any intercity rail funding Amtrak might be able to bring to the table, to develop and construct a facility that will benefit both users sometime in the next decade or so?


In fact it would appear that whatever NJT thought it might have assembled in the say of funding from the State of NJ is on the verge of disappearing, so talking about any project with or without Amtrak at the moment may be moot.

See this article in which it says:



> In an e-mail to a staffer for U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who helped secure $3 billion in federal funding for the tunnel, David Kuhn, the executive director for capital investment strategy for the New Jersey Department of Transportation, called New Jersey a "critical commerce corridor" for the entire country but said the state shouldn't be forced to pay for the tunnel, which is known as Access to the Region's Core.
> 
> "ARC is an important piece of the country's economy and merit's additional consideration as a project of national significance," Kuhn wrote on March 30, according to a copy of the e-mail obtained by The Associated Press. "New Jersey should not be saddled with any of the cost of this project."


If this is true then it looks like the Governor may be putting the groundwork in place to cancel the ARC project in its entirety, since the feds will never cover 100% of its cost.

It would appear that an interesting coalition of rail advocates and an anti-rail Governor may be on the verge of successfully deep-sixing an admittedly somewhat ill-conceived, rail project at least for the time being.  If that happens the federal funds will be gone and the PANYNJ funds will probably get used for building more roads in NJ given the current Governor's propensity to support roads and motor vehicles to the exclusion of everything else.

In another 15 years it will be a different conversations starting from ground zero to put together the funding for the then cost of somewhere around $20 billion or more, but that conversation is yet to begin and is years away.

I find the NJDOT spokesperson's position that the only beneficiary of the current project should not have pay for it at all, to be somewhat, shall we say, disingenuous. NJ has forever been trying to minimize the cost of this project to itself while maximizing the control over it. I have no idea what potent stuff these guys smoke or what kind of idiots they take everyone else to be. I as a taxpaying resident of NJ cannot in all honesty, support such an utterly cynical position. If it is going to be a fully or even substantially (with little or zero NJ State contribution) federally funded project, the control should lie with the federal government or some nationwide entity like Amtrak and not with NJ or an NJ entity like NJTransit.

Well I guess I have just set myself up for being excommunicated from NJ, but c'est la vie.

BTW I hope my prognostication as presented above is wrong, but unfortunately it looks more than likely to me than any other scenario at present.


----------



## jis (Sep 24, 2010)

Now to bring this mercilessly hijacked thread to its original subject, see this article in _Railway Gazette International_. Among other things it says:



> Locomotive 4500 was rolled out from Bombardier's Kassel plant in early August, and is due to be delivered to NJ Transit in April 2011 following initial testing and software ugrades. It will then be used for gauging clearance and driver training. Second unit 4501 will be the first to arrive in North America, as it is due to be delivered to Pueblo in March for commissioning trials and approvals. The first AMT loco will follow in May. NJ Transit expects to put its electro-diesels into revenue service during the third quarter of 2011.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Sep 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Nexis4Jersey said:
> ...


You can bypass the Newark Bottleneck by building a line via the CSX ROW to the East of the Ironbound. Form Kearny Interlocks , to the Raritan Valley Interlocks , then Amtrak can send trains down that line around Newark Penn.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 27, 2010)

I can't imagine Amtrak wanting to skip such a major station. After all, it's not like we're talking about a station like say New Brunswick. Newark is simply too big.

Even NJT I believe stops all of its express trains in Newark, unlike say the LIRR that does blow some trains through Jamaica without stopping during rush hour or NJT at SEC where only select trains stop.

Not that I actually expect to see it happen, but frankly it would probably be easier and make more sense in the long run to move PATH out of the existing facilities and give that over to Amtrak & NJT. Send PATH underground prior to Harrison and terminate it underneath Newark.


----------



## jis (Sep 27, 2010)

The major problem at Newark is the conflict at Dock East to move RVL deadheads into track 5 from Hudson Yard. If those can be removed then Newark is nowhere near any breaking point. Newark effectively has 6 tracks to handle about 25-30tph in the rush direction and somewhat less than that, something like 15-20 tph in the other direction. Now if a station cannot handle no more than than 10 tph on each platform track then what needs fixing is its signaling system. It does not need additional bypass tracks.

A partial solution to that conflict problem is the so called pocket tracks, but that only allows two trains to be turned at a time without incurring the conflict, and does not address the issue of trains originating at Hoboken or Hudson Yard. During the westbound rush hour, there is need for both more trains to be crossed over for RVL and also Hoboken originating trains for NJCL to be crossed over to track 2. The only way to fully fix the problem is to build the second track (westbound for the reverse Kearny/Gold Coast connection. I think that any money that is spent to relieve Newark should be focused on building the second Gold Coast connection track rather than other fancy things like a Newark bypass, which I think simply cannot be cost justified.

The next conflict is at Hunter where eastbound RVL trains have to cross over from track 5 to track 1 and 2. Again this can be relieved by building the Hunter flyover that is documented in the Amtrak plan. These two will more than relieve all the current congestion and make the flow much smoother in both directions through Newark.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Sep 27, 2010)

Well True HSR won't stop in Newark , it will need a straighter path and that will be on the CSX ROW , same in Wilmington.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Sep 27, 2010)

Good find on the pictures! Its not that attractive personally I like they way the ALP-46 looks but not crazy about the ALP-45DP


----------



## jis (Sep 27, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Well True HSR won't stop in Newark , it will need a straighter path and that will be on the CSX ROW , same in Wilmington.


Do you suppose the NJ Senators and Congressmen will actually support the funding of such a "True HSR"? Besides I don't know what you mean by "True HSR". Are you talking of the U Penn screed. That really does not have much chance of ever coming to fruition.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Sep 28, 2010)

Actually it wasn't , but its needed for extra capacity. Newark is not a busy stop for Amtrak , it is for NJT.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 28, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Actually it wasn't , but its needed for extra capacity. Newark is not a busy stop for Amtrak , it is for NJT.


It's not a busy stop for Amtrak? Um, Newark Penn Station is the 13th busiest station for Amtrak, making it a pretty significant/important Amtrak stop.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 1, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Actually it wasn't , but its needed for extra capacity. Newark is not a busy stop for Amtrak , it is for NJT.


As Jishnu was saying, Newark Penn, as a station, has no capacity issues. It can handle way more trains than it is alloted to, and does when things are going screwy. The issue for Newark Penn are the Raritan Valley Line crossing over the entire NEC at Hunter going east bound (it shouldn't happen- a flyover would eliminate the problem). In the event that Newark was ever truly deemed to need more capacity, it could be quite easily converted to an 8-track station with the Path track and an additional track ajacent to it being constructed. Properly operated, Newark Penn could and should be able to accomadate 60 trains an hour. Secaucus can.

Newark's problem isn't Newark. Newark's problem is the trackage leading up to it. Which can be corrected without bypassing the station.

Every Amtrak train operating between NYP and TRE stops at Newark. And believe me, they have plenty of boardings there. Train watching at Newark is a passtime of mine.


----------

