# New LD Locomotive Order Placed



## Ryan (Dec 21, 2018)

Merry Christmas!  Amtrak to receive 75 new Siemens locomotives.

https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/?fbclid=IwAR3b8VbmRejkrZTWN95TQpdgZ0bZIDWijpTw1hzy4Bn-qaJ7BHKbOPFVXpM


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 21, 2018)

This is obviously great from a practical point of view, but I love the Gennies, and this is definitely going to take some getting used to. hboy:


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 21, 2018)

This order suggests a commitment to long distance routes, which is good news.

As a passenger, will I notice a difference?  (e.g. acceleration, etc.)


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 21, 2018)

VTTrain said:


> As a passenger, will I notice a difference?  (e.g. acceleration, etc.)


While it should accelerate faster, the bigger piece of the pie is the  trains *shouldn't* break down due to mechanical failure as much.


----------



## BCL (Dec 21, 2018)

This is being made at the same plant in Sacramento that makes light rail vehicles?


----------



## stappend (Dec 21, 2018)

Any thoughts on the New York section of the LSL and its need for dual power.  I wonder if they will have to keep some of the dual mode units to fill that need or replace them with something else.


----------



## tim49424 (Dec 21, 2018)

We’ve had the Chargers on the Pere Marquette for a bit over a year now. I don’t really notice any difference except obviously the look.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2018)

stappend said:


> Any thoughts on the New York section of the LSL and its need for dual power.  I wonder if they will have to keep some of the dual mode units to fill that need or replace them with something else.


Amtrak has been working on specification of a dual mode engine. Anyway those are mostly used by NY State funded service, and it is unlikely that Amtrak will buy any without consulting with NYSDOT. Until then the P32ACDMs will soldier on.

Meanwhile, apparently MNRR has for the moment shelved working on their replacement order for P32ACDMs, until some unspecified time.


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 21, 2018)

I see what happened. Obviously Anderson is taking his Christmas vacation now, so Amtrak procurement made a late night phone call to Siemens, and marketing rousted some poor intern out of bed to dash off the press release without a copy edit, and now everyone at HQ is waiting with bated breath to see what happens. I’m sure Anderson is trying to find out right now whether Siemens makes busses he can order instead...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 21, 2018)

jis said:


> In terms of having random fun, I am seriously wondering what they will do with these 75 new locomotives when they cancel all Long Distance service this coming year, as I have been told in no uncertain terms by many vocal Amtrak opinionators (is that even a word? Or is cpotisch going to send me to the dog house? Shudder :lol: ).


So your saying 75 locomotives cover all the long distance trains?  Never did the math myself.


----------



## Acela150 (Dec 21, 2018)

I'm curious as to where the number 75 came from. IMO It's a good number to at least start replacing some of the least reliable units. And on top of that gives more wiggle room for the shop count. 

Also IINM, they'll have to do some work for these to be long distance units compared to what they have in the current charger units?


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So your saying 75 locomotives cover all the long distance trains?  Never did the math myself.


I am not saying anything. I am just having random fun at this point.

Clearly more than 75 are needed. But the press release names specific trains on which they are targeted for use. I am sure they are not going to decommission 250 P42s soon after receiving 75 Chargers :lol:

We have to see the actual order to see how many options remain unused by this order. Clearly this is not the last final time that Amtrak will order diesel locomotives for long distance trains, no matter how much some may wish that that is the case so that they can be proved right about discontinuance of LD trains. :lol:


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2018)

Acela150 said:


> I'm curious as to where the number 75 came from. IMO It's a good number to at least start replacing some of the least reliable units. And on top of that gives more wiggle room for the shop count.
> 
> Also IINM, they'll have to do some work for these to be long distance units compared to what they have in the current charger units?


Larger fuel tanks is the primary additional thing I believe.

The 75 number most likely has to do with how much money is available at this time for such.


----------



## PerRock (Dec 21, 2018)

BCL said:


> This is being made at the same plant in Sacramento that makes light rail vehicles?


Yes, the same one that made the existing Chargers, the ACS-64s, the Brightline trainsets, and will be making the State-bought single level fleet, and the new VIA fleet.

peter


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2018)

BCL said:


> This is being made at the same plant in Sacramento that makes light rail vehicles?


Same geographical location. Clearly not the same production line as the LRTs. Siemens is setting up a second production line for main line equipment in addition to the one that they already have for delivering the Viaggio Comfort derivative cars and Chargers. This was mentioned in their press release after receiving the VIA order.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 21, 2018)

*** Moderator Note ***

Numerous posts have been removed that question the typos and or grammatical errors. Please limit your comments to the actual reason for this thread - the locomotive order.

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 21, 2018)

Good news that Amtrak is starting to replace some of the Genesis (though the states Chargers are already replacing many of them). But really, who else with any credibility was in the running? More pics

https://media.amtrak.com/media-images/renderings-of-new-amtrak-locomotives/

Notice that long Superliner train with only one unit? Hint, hint.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 21, 2018)

Now when Amtrak orders new Siemens pax cars, the trains themselves will look like little Acelas consists.


----------



## BCL (Dec 21, 2018)

Maybe this was discussed (I'm sure it was) but is there any possibility of a Tier 4 drop-in replacement from GE.  As far as I can tell they still make them, although the whole sale of the division would be a wrinkle.


----------



## jis (Dec 21, 2018)

BCL said:


> Maybe this was discussed (I'm sure it was) but is there any possibility of a Tier 4 drop-in replacement from GE.  As far as I can tell they still make them, although the whole sale of the division would be a wrinkle.


Looks like Amtrak has decided  not to go the rebuild P42s route, with this order. I doubt that they will both order Chargers and rebuild P42s


----------



## desertflyer (Dec 21, 2018)

I'm really happy to hear about this order as I do think it shows that Amtrak has some interest in fulfilling their requirement to connect communities across the country with the long distance trains. Seeing the timeline of delivery, I am also a bit concerned since many of the P42s seem to barely be hanging on at this point, so I'm not sure how well they'll do between now and fall 2021 when the Chargers enter service.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Dec 21, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Good news that Amtrak is starting to replace some of the Genesis (though the states Chargers are already replacing many of them). But really, who else with any credibility was in the running? More pics
> 
> https://media.amtrak.com/media-images/renderings-of-new-amtrak-locomotives/
> 
> Notice that long Superliner train with only one unit? Hint, hint.




But no baggage car


----------



## StanJazz (Dec 21, 2018)

The rendering looks a bit odd. It starts with 2 California cars in Amtrak colors. Notice the double doors. Then the dorm with 1 small window on the front of the upper level, 2 unknown cars, the diner, the lounge and ends with some coaches.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 21, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Good news that Amtrak is starting to replace some of the Genesis (though the states Chargers are already replacing many of them). But really, who else with any credibility was in the running? More pics
> 
> https://media.amtrak.com/media-images/renderings-of-new-amtrak-locomotives/
> 
> Notice that long Superliner train with only one unit? Hint, hint.









This is a weird picture. The Charger actually looks pretty realistic, but then the first two cars it’s pulling are extremely unrealistic renderings of what seems to be a Surfliner or California Car (the double doors), followed by a bunch of extremely realistic (maybe an actual photo?) Superliners, which for some reason start with a Trans-Dorm. Just an odd choice for a rendering.


----------



## Acela150 (Dec 21, 2018)

jis said:


> Larger fuel tanks is the primary additional thing I believe.
> 
> The 75 number most likely has to do with how much money is available at this time for such.


I remember the fuel tanks needed to be larger which isn't that much of an issue. 

Your logic on why the number 75 makes sense. 



frequentflyer said:


> Notice that long Superliner train with only one unit? Hint, hint.


That's because the Chargers are AC propulsion. Better tractive effort. 



BCL said:


> Maybe this was discussed (I'm sure it was) but is there any possibility of a Tier 4 drop-in replacement from GE.  As far as I can tell they still make them, although the whole sale of the division would be a wrinkle.


If GE was interested in the Passenger game still I think we would have heard something out of them. But GE is also in the process of rebuilding DC units to AC Propulsion for NS and Other railroads as well.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 21, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> This is a weird picture. The Charger actually looks pretty realistic, but then the first two cars it’s pulling are extremely unrealistic renderings of what seems to be a Surfliner or California Car (the double doors), followed by a bunch of extremely realistic (maybe an actual photo?) Superliners, which for some reason start with a Trans-Dorm. Just an odd choice for a rendering.


It looks like there is locomotive exhaust over the 3rd and 4th cars from the rear.


----------



## west point (Dec 21, 2018)

Amtrak's release is kind of ignoring some facts.  No way locos could cover all routes. The need to service the locos with differet fluids will probably limit them at first to just a few routes.  Otherwise a waste of resources.  + deliveries not finished until 2024 would seem to indicate a very phased implementation .  Since Chargers will be in service out of Chicago we can expect them first there.  Would probably dispatch them on the short routes of either Capitol or City of NOL along with regular consists of P-42s . Then quickly onto the Empire Builder for the AC traction thru the snow.


----------



## DSS&A (Dec 21, 2018)

This Sacramento newspaper article has a Siemens statement that it can build a Charger locomotive in 45 days and 4 locomotives at a time.  Brightline is starting in the news this week that it intends to start construction to connect its service in March 2019 and trains will start running before the end of 2020.  So, there will be more Brightline train equipment built before they start on the Amtrak Charger order.

https://www.go﻿ogle.com/amp/s/www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/12/12/siemens-sacramento-factory-receives-735-million.amp.﻿html﻿


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 21, 2018)

For those considering the initial 75 number, I think we have to consider the Single level fleet replacement plan. If you recall, they were considering ordering DMUs and/or Combination D and EMUs. 

 This would obviously eliminate the need for a large number of diesels. I suppose they are waiting to see how that works out before committing to more diesels.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 21, 2018)

The rendering appears to be a photo of an LD train with the two P42s and baggage car photoshopped out and replaced with the single Charger and two stand-in Surfliner looking cars (most likely just the quickest thing whoever made this was able to cobble together). This would explain the diesel exhaust being where it is and why the third car is a trans dorm.

I also wouldn’t read too much into the consist. Most likely the reason there is no baggage car and only one Charger is that it simply looks cleaner. AC might have better tractive effort at slower speeds but the thing that matters for passenger service is horsepower, and the Charger only has a couple hundred more than the P42.

If you read the press release again, you might see where they mentioned that this is only a base order with options available for more units.

TL;DR everybody calm down.

PS: check out the road number. Are the stored toasters still on the active roster? They might need to be renumbered like the HHPs were.


----------



## MattW (Dec 21, 2018)

How many units are needed for non-state Corridor routes? Basically the shuttles, NER (Mass and VA), Carolinian, Pennsyvlvanian...am I missing any? (technically the latter are state corridor routes, but they largely use P42s/P40s from the national pool)


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 21, 2018)

jis said:


> Meanwhile, apparently MNRR has for the moment shelved working on their replacement order for P32ACDMs, until some unspecified time.


As it happens, they have just issued a new RFP for dual modes.  Hopefully we will see some progress made public next year.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Dec 21, 2018)

keelhauled said:


> As it happens, they have just issued a new RFP for dual modes.  Hopefully we will see some progress made public next year.


And how long did the FL9’s run??


----------



## railiner (Dec 21, 2018)

Here's an article from Trains....http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/10/03-connecticut-sells-its-last-fl9-locomotives


----------



## Ryan (Dec 21, 2018)

Amtrak706 said:


> The rendering appears to be a photo of an LD train with the two P42s and baggage car photoshopped out and replaced with the single Charger and two stand-in Surfliner looking cars (most likely just the quickest thing whoever made this was able to cobble together). This would explain the diesel exhaust being where it is and why the third car is a trans dorm.
> 
> I also wouldn’t read too much into the consist. Most likely the reason there is no baggage car and only one Charger is that it simply looks cleaner. AC might have better tractive effort at slower speeds but the thing that matters for passenger service is horsepower, and the Charger only has a couple hundred more than the P42.


Nailed it.  100% correct.  Someone with skill can probably even find the base photo this was derived from.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 21, 2018)

Oh hey, look what I found!  





https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/36684074375/


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 21, 2018)

jis said:


> Clearly more than 75 are needed. But the press release names specific trains on which they are targeted for use. I am sure they are not going to decommission 250 P42s soon after receiving 75 Chargers :lol:
> 
> We have to see the actual order to see how many options remain unused by this order. Clearly this is not the last final time that Amtrak will order diesel locomotives for long distance trains, no matter how much some may wish that that is the case so that they can be proved right about discontinuance of LD trains. :lol:


Do hope your right.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 21, 2018)

This should be a positive development for almost everyone.  Too bad the first page that greats the reader is full of sophomoric dogpile trolling.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Oh hey, look what I found!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like they just kinda stole it from this guy on Flickr too. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt and say they got permission, but this is Amtrak we’re talking about. Of course they did it the dumb way.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 22, 2018)

It has the owner's watermark in the lower right corner and the relative cost of a non-exclusive license for a photo like this is minimal.  There is a less than 1% chance they simply lifted, altered, and republished this without any permission whatsoever.  Most of the time if there is a dispute in a situation like this it's due to a non-owning/non-controlling entity being paid by mistake.


----------



## BCL (Dec 22, 2018)

Acela150 said:


> If GE was interested in the Passenger game still I think we would have heard something out of them. But GE is also in the process of rebuilding DC units to AC Propulsion for NS and Other railroads as well.


I wasn't sure what they (or the new company) was interested in doing.  However, I'm thinking that even if they're not interested in new passenger locomotives, dropping in a new powerplant isn't much different than what they're already doing with their freight business.  Is there someone else who might be able to accept the powerplant and do the work?


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 22, 2018)

I don’t think I’m the only person that’s disappointed in the renderings. Judging from what’s been rolling out from Elyria, it seemed like Amtrak was moving back to Phase III for the “Amtrak America” long distance stuff. 

It’s a pet peeve of mine, but not having a standardized fleet (same colors, etc) just doesn’t look good.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 22, 2018)

NSC1109 said:


> I don’t think I’m the only person that’s disappointed in the renderings. Judging from what’s been rolling out from Elyria, it seemed like Amtrak was moving back to Phase III for the “Amtrak America” long distance stuff.
> 
> It’s a pet peeve of mine, but not having a standardized fleet (same colors, etc) just doesn’t look good.


You expected competence?


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 22, 2018)

NSC1109 said:


> I don’t think I’m the only person that’s disappointed in the renderings. Judging from what’s been rolling out from Elyria, it seemed like Amtrak was moving back to Phase III for the “Amtrak America” long distance stuff.
> 
> It’s a pet peeve of mine, but not having a standardized fleet (same colors, etc) just doesn’t look good.


I actually like Phase III.  But I agree that everything should the same.  The mismatching bugs me too.  I think the Amtrak Heritage design in Phase III looks much better than the proposed design.

Also, on this recent order, it would be cool if Amtrak could get Siemens to throw in the aerodynamic noses!  The Charger looks much better with that front.


----------



## me_little_me (Dec 22, 2018)

VTTrain said:


> This order suggests a commitment to long distance routes, which is good news.
> 
> As a passenger, will I notice a difference?  (e.g. acceleration, etc.)


Yeah! As much commitment as buying new diners was to providing fresh, hot food was on all the routes they are used on!

With those new engines, Amtrak can make them look like really cool buses. :giggle:


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Do hope your right.


It looks like they might have exercised 75 out of the options that were part of the states Charger order. IIRC there were 150+ options associated with that order, so they still have some ways to go before they run out of options. That is if they used the options and did not create a completely new order. There has also been some mention of options associated with this order, so admittedly I am a bit confused, and await more concrete information.

As Thirdrail mentioned, if they choose to go for EMU/DEMU, which I suspect will come more in the form of top and tail powered sting of single level cars, possibly partly articulated, like the California sets (this will allow absorption of the existing ACS-64s seamlessly), then the need for self standing LD diesels will be substantially reduced. So we will just have to wait for the other shoe to drop on the single level car replacement decision.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

railiner said:


> Here's an article from Trains....http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/10/03-connecticut-sells-its-last-fl9-locomotives


Fun fact, and I swear this is completely true: Over the summer, [email protected][/USER] was actually helping me look into those listings, with the idea that I could buy one and lease it out to a shortline railroad or tourist railroad. The starting bid was only $100, and he expected them to go for something along the lines of $900, so we figured it was worth a look. Unfortunately, I ran out of time, and the locos sold for literally 80 times what we expected. Lesson learned there.


----------



## neroden (Dec 22, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So your saying 75 locomotives cover all the long distance trains?  Never did the math myself.


I actually did the math.  It's very curious.  If you put one locomotive on each train, 75 *should* cover all the so-called long-distance trains (even with a daily Cardinal and Sunset).

The question is how many of the trains need more than one locomotive.  The Chargers have different specs from the Genesis engines, so this is not a question with an obvious answer at all.

Does anyone have a better idea of where two locomotives will be required?  There are three separate sources of this requirement:

-- long trains combined with high HEP needs meaning that a second loco is needed to meet the acceleration profile

-- steep grades (such as going from Denver west on the California Zephyr) requiring a second loco to accelerate and maintain speed

-- host railroads demanding a second locomotive in case of locomotive failure en route

I really don't know the specific situation with regard to these factors on ANY of the lines. If someone knows more, I'd love the information.  I particularly know nothing about host railroad demands.

In terms of technical requirements, I believe the following trains have run with one Genesis locomotive with no problems in the past:

-- Lake Shore Limited

-- Capitol Limited

-- Cardinal

-- Silver Star

-- Silver Meteor

-- Crescent

-- California Zephyr from Chicago to Denver

(Most of these routes are pretty flat, while the Cardinal and Capitol Limited pull short trains and the mountain tracks have low speed limits which don't tax the locomotives so much)

I believe the following trains still run with one locomotive routinely:

-- City of New Orleans

-- Texas Eagle

(These are both flat routes AND short trains)

Is it possible that all the trains could run with one Charger locomotive?  I would expect a second one to be needed at least on the following bits:

-- California Zephyr up the Front Range from Denver to Salt Lake, and across the Sierras from Sacramento to Reno

-- Coast Starlight through the Cascades

-- Southwest Chief over Raton Pass

But I don't really know.

The Empire Builder crosses the Rockies with one locomotive for each section (Portland and Seattle), so I guess it probably would be OK with one locomotive for the whole flat part of the route if it has enough power for HEP and for accelerating to speed.


----------



## neroden (Dec 22, 2018)

jis said:


> Larger fuel tanks is the primary additional thing I believe.
> 
> The 75 number most likely has to do with how much money is available at this time for such.


It's also a nice round half of the number of "long distance" (large fuel tank) locomotives available in the option on the existing contract which delivered the Chargers to the state. (Amtrak has options to order 150 "long distance" locos on that contract; there are also some unused options for "corridor" locos.)

This may have had something to do with the terms of the option; they may have had to commit to part of it by the end of the year to keep the option.  That's pure speculation, mind you.


----------



## neroden (Dec 22, 2018)

jis said:


> Looks like Amtrak has decided  not to go the rebuild P42s route, with this order. I doubt that they will both order Chargers and rebuild P42s


Thank goodness.  With the Tier 4 requirements, (a) rebuilding looks like an attempt to evade the emissions requirements, or (b) it's really expensive.  In addition, the GE engines are overweight compared to the Chargers (1671 kg) and a Tier 4 retrofit would add more weight.  And it would still leave all the other mechanical components 20 years old or more, the extremely obsolete DC traction motors, etc.  Anderson, being from the airlines, does understand the problems with running antique equipment.

I think Amtrak is hoping to prove out the reliability of the Chargers sufficiently to convince the host railroads to drop the requirement for an extra locomotive in case of breakdowns. 

If the AC traction motors have better tractive effort and allow one locomotive to be used on routes which previously required two for technical reasons related to acceleration -- as two of our forum members have claimed -- even better.


----------



## PVD (Dec 22, 2018)

If I recall, the rebuild option included a mandatory change to AC traction and meeting T4 requirements. That wouldn't help the rebuild case much.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

PVD said:


> If I recall, the rebuild option included a mandatory change to AC traction and meeting T4 requirements. That wouldn't help the rebuild case much.


Yeah, that makes the rebuild exercise almost like keeping the carbody, the ashtray and the chair in the driver compartment, and changing out everything else. Since they had destroyed half the original trucks by carrying out faulty maintenance practices, they probably would have to find new trucks or remanufacture broken truck frames somehow, a very dicey thing to consider.


----------



## PVD (Dec 22, 2018)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Siemens own the rights to some truck designs, as well as manufacture trucks?


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Oh hey, look what I found!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now I guess the real question is if Amtrak checked the license to make sure they were using and modifying this appropriately, and if they properly credited the photographer by linking the original photo and mentioning the original author.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> *It has the owner's watermark in the lower right corner* and the relative cost of a non-exclusive license for a photo like this is minimal.  There is a less than 1% chance they simply lifted, altered, and republished this without any permission whatsoever.  Most of the time if there is a dispute in a situation like this it's due to a non-owning/non-controlling entity being paid by mistake.


They photoshopped the watermark out, though.


----------



## neroden (Dec 22, 2018)

Sounds like the rebuild would have saved pretty much the carbody only... which is too heavy.  So it made no sense.

Speculation for who will buy the abandoned P42 fleet may now commence.  I'm not sure if there's any operator for whom they are suitable.  Would any tourist operation want them (it would have to be one which pulls a lot of cars)?  One or two will probably go to museums.  They're not suitable for freight; they're too powerful for switching; I expect they'll mostly get scrapped.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 22, 2018)

neroden said:


> I actually did the math.  It's very curious.  If you put one locomotive on each train, 75 *should* cover all the so-called long-distance trains (even with a daily Cardinal and Sunset).
> 
> The question is how many of the trains need more than one locomotive.  The Chargers have different specs from the Genesis engines, so this is not a question with an obvious answer at all.
> 
> ...


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

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



cocojacoby said:


> Also, on this recent order, it would be cool if Amtrak could get Siemens to throw in the aerodynamic noses!  The Charger looks much better with that front.


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

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


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

PVD said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Siemens own the rights to some truck designs, as well as manufacture trucks?


Both ACS-64s and SC-44/BSC40s ride on Siemens model SF4 trucks.

I suspect that will continue to be the case for both the VIA SC-44s (VSC-44?) and Amtrak SC-44s (ASC-44?) too.


----------



## PVD (Dec 22, 2018)

thanks, for some reason I seem to remember them buying someone's design for an older truck, maybe it was rapid transit, not loco I'm thinking of....


----------



## Ryan (Dec 22, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I don't think it would be cool. I think it would be a functional nightmare not unlike the Acela.  Imagine hitting something and needing to lift that nose to rescue/tow it. Even if you automate the process, those latches can be damaged by impact or be subject to power loss.
> 
> That will add to the time it takes to rescue the set. To me, that isn't worth "the look."


Yep.  100% agreed.



Amtrak706 said:


> Looks like they just kinda stole it from this guy on Flickr too. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt and say they got permission, but this is Amtrak we’re talking about. Of course they did it the dumb way.


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



cpotisch said:


> Now I guess the real question is if Amtrak checked the license to make sure they were using and modifying this appropriately, and if they properly credited the photographer by linking the original photo and mentioning the original author.


The requirements to link and ID are requirements of the Creative Commons license that I license my photographs under.  They are not universal requirements, and the original photographer didn't necessarily have to ask for either of those as terms of the images used. I've had paid images used where neither requirement was levied (the cold hard cash was enough reward).



cpotisch said:


> They photoshopped the watermark out, though.


Or the original image provided by the photographer didn't have it.


----------



## neroden (Dec 22, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


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


Coming from the airline industry, Anderson is probably thinking about fuel usage, weight, efficiency, and cost of equipment.  I would not be even slightly surprised if he's trying to work out how to run single locomotives on as many routes as he can -- as long as it doesn't slow the train down. 

I guess the question is which routes can switch from two engines to one while maintaining schedule and HEP without difficulty.  And will the areas which require using multiple units be reduced with the new locomotives?

I mean, suppose you know that you could now meet all of the LSL schedule with one engine except, say, one hill between Utica and Schenectady.  Would you try to rearrange things to avoid carrying the extra engine?  Probably.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 22, 2018)

neroden said:


> Coming from the airline industry, Anderson is probably thinking about fuel usage, weight, efficiency, and cost of equipment.  I would not be even slightly surprised if he's trying to work out how to run single locomotives on as many routes as he can -- as long as it doesn't slow the train down.
> 
> I guess the question is which routes can switch from two engines to one while maintaining schedule and HEP without difficulty.  And will the areas which require using multiple units be reduced with the new locomotives?
> 
> I mean, suppose you know that you could now meet all of the LSL schedule with one engine except, say, one hill between Utica and Schenectady.  Would you try to rearrange things to avoid carrying the extra engine?  Probably.


The guidelines were written with fuel economy, acceleration and schedules in mind. The are updated constantly, tweeked, adjusted and even vary by season.  A lot of this will depend on the actual consist. If you've slashed your consist from 10 cars with a energy sucking dining car to a 6 car train with a cafe, you may be able to operate with 1 diesel without sacrificing the schedule of acceleration.

Along those lines, 92 (20) operated with 11 cars and one diesel. Sure, it was a bit sluggish but it made it.

The bottom line is we'll have to wait to see what the vision for the LD is. The end result may be tiny trains that are actually smaller (the normal Star,  the normal Card, the Eagle, the winter CAP, the winter Crescent) than some of the regional trains which are routinely 8 cars and above.


----------



## BCL (Dec 22, 2018)

PVD said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Siemens own the rights to some truck designs, as well as manufacture trucks?


Didn’t the manufacturer for the ones on the Genesis go out of business or got sold?  I vaguely recall that GE was getting replacements from Siemens.

Addendum: looking into it, Krupp was actual acquired by Siemens.  However, I thought they discontinued that design and Siemens had to substitute another model.


----------



## PVD (Dec 22, 2018)

Thanks, I was just looking at the same stuff...I guess I'm still thawing out from a long night at the rink last night....things are slowly coming back.....


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

Here is a nice PDF document about Siemens Bogies, i.e. Trucks in American lingo:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/sitecollectiondocuments/en/rail-solutions/components-and-systems/bogies-catalog-en.pdf

It shows upto SF3.

The SF4 bogie of the Vectron is a further developed Eurosprinter F4 bogie. For increased speed range this bogies drive line is of a partly suspended hollow shaft type with lateral dampers as a new feature. An option for the bogie is an ADD system steering the bogie to the curve and out of it reducing the Y forces. ADD is shortened for German Aktiver Drehdämpfer.

I am not sure which model is used in the P4xs, and if it even appears in the current catalog.


----------



## PVD (Dec 22, 2018)

Thanks....


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

neroden said:


> I actually did the math.  It's very curious.  If you put one locomotive on each train, 75 *should* cover all the so-called long-distance trains (even with a daily Cardinal and Sunset).
> 
> The question is how many of the trains need more than one locomotive.  The Chargers have different specs from the Genesis engines, so this is not a question with an obvious answer at all.
> 
> ...


I’m pretty certain the Auto Train will also need at least two locos no matter what. There’s just no way that single Charger can pull (and supply HEP to) 17-18 Superliners and 30+ auto racks. But the AT only has two consists, so that shouldn’t be much of an issue.

I also think that the fact that the EB is two sections means that it’s going to need two locomotives. I guess they could short turn the Portland section locomotive in Spokane, rather than having it run the entire trip to Chicago (so the Seattle loco would run CHI-SEA while the Portland loco would just bounce back and forth between PDX and SPK). But that assumes that a single locomotive could pull what is a pretty long train, through the Rockies, and the switching procedures in SPK would likely become significantly more complicated and risky.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 22, 2018)

I think everyone is partially wrong on which train will get them first. If I were making the choice I would put them on the Coast Starlight first. With new equipment it is best to keep them near a shop that is capable of maintaining them. And with the Cascades, SFO Corridor pool, and the Surfliners pool. You have a maintenance base at Los Angeles, and Seattle for end point repair. And in the event of a mid route problem Oakland. The next routes I would expect the to run on are the ones with an end point that's used to the engine on both ends. So the next trains that might get them are the California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Empire Builder. 

And if you count there is a shop in DC for the MARC engines you could get the Capitol and the Cardinal in. 

I think the last stand for the Gennies will be in the southeast United States.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 22, 2018)

jis said:


> Amtrak has been working on specification of a dual mode engine. Anyway those are mostly used by NY State funded service, and it is unlikely that Amtrak will buy any without consulting with NYSDOT. Until then the P32ACDMs will soldier on.
> 
> Meanwhile, apparently MNRR has for the moment shelved working on their replacement order for P32ACDMs, until some unspecified time.


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

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


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

Anderson said:


> Serious question: Can the Empire Connection take catenary?﻿


 Empire Connection has catenary installed from Penn Station (A interlocking) upto CP Empire just outside the connecting tunnel. There is enough clearance for its entire length to electrify it with OHE all the way to Spuyten Duyvil if someone wants to do so and pays for it.It would most likely be cheaper to go for the catenary dual mode if Amtrak is serious about operating through power to Virginia and Springfield too (and maybe someday through the N-S tunnel in Boston).


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

jis said:


> It would most likely be cheaper to go for the catenary dual mode if Amtrak is serious about operating *through power to Virginia and Springfield* too (and maybe someday through the N-S tunnel in Boston.


Sorry, what is this?


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Sorry, what is this?


Operating dual mode engines with no change of engine through Washington DC to Virginia and through New Haven to Springfield and Vermont


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > They photoshopped the watermark out, though.
> ...


The one on flickr does. Or are you saying that the original photographer may have specifically provided a version of the photo _without _the watermark to Amtrak?


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 22, 2018)

jis said:


> Operating dual mode engines with no change of engine through Washington DC to Virginia and through New Haven to Springfield and Vermont


Ah, thanks. I thought this was part of the discussion of the Empire Connection, so I got confused.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> The one on flickr does. Or are you saying that the original photographer may have specifically provided a version of the photo _without _the watermark to Amtrak?


I guess it is possible that we don't have full knowledge of all the transactions that transpired.



cpotisch said:


> Ah, thanks. I thought this was part of the discussion of the Empire Connection, so I got confused.


It was. The focus being on what sort of dual mode locomotive makes sense in terms of more universal usability rather than just for the Empire Corridor.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 22, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


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


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


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


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


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


----------



## TiBike (Dec 22, 2018)

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


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 22, 2018)

TiBike said:


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


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


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 22, 2018)

TiBike said:


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


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


----------



## west point (Dec 22, 2018)

Lots of posts to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## neroden (Dec 23, 2018)

west point said:


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


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



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


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



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


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



> 6.  Extra Chargers on LD trains might be a prudent standby in case of a major ( week or more ) failure of the NEC power systems either the PRR 25 Hz, , MNRR, or the New Haven BOS route.
> 
> 7. For regular ferrying Chargers on the NEC on regionals probably would not need 2 unless no electric was on line.
> 
> ...


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

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



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


----------



## neroden (Dec 23, 2018)

Anderson said:


> Serious question: Can the Empire Connection take catenary?  I ask since in context, if the wires would fit then electrifying the line for the approach to Penn Station and then rolling this together with a generalized dual-mode order would probably make more long-term sense than having two sets of dual modes (one for NYP-ALB and the other for the NEC).
> 
> (Of course, this gets me wondering about stupid things such as attaching an electric motor to a DMU north of WAS or a diesel motor to an EMU south of WAS...)


What Jis said.

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

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

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


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 23, 2018)

Amtrak706 said:


> You expected competence?


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


----------



## Anderson (Dec 23, 2018)

neroden said:


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


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

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


----------



## railiner (Dec 23, 2018)

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


----------



## jis (Dec 23, 2018)

railiner said:


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


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


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 23, 2018)

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

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


----------



## jis (Dec 23, 2018)

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


----------



## neroden (Dec 23, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 23, 2018)

neroden said:


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


At least the New Haven line uses catenary for a solid chunk of the route. And why is the Harlem Line a better candidate than the Hudson Line for an extension to Albany?


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 23, 2018)

jis said:


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


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


----------



## railiner (Dec 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> At least the New Haven line uses catenary for a solid chunk of the route. And why is the Harlem Line a better candidate than the Hudson Line for an extension to Albany?


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


----------



## jis (Dec 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


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


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

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


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 23, 2018)

jis said:


> You already answered your first question. Amtrak does not have catenary dual mode because none were available until very recently. They were considered technically infeasible even as recently as 10 or so years back. Even the ones available currently in the US cannot apparently change modes while in motion. Elsewhere they can.
> 
> I believe if you had spent five minutes on google you could have answered the questions yourself. You are a bright guy.


Thanks for the 1st paragraph.  The 2nd paragraph is unnecessary.  Never occur to me technically infeasible.  Just thought nobody order it before.  The whole AC, DC sources, and different overhead mishmash is slowing become much more standard.  Still we have multi voltage on the NEC, wonder if they have a long term plan to standardized the voltage.  Or is a accident standardization happening.  (Easy of new transformers to change inputs seemless.) So at some point everyone equipments can go everywhere, and they just convert the last few spots of different voltage to a standard voltage from Boston to Washington.


----------



## west point (Dec 23, 2018)

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


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 23, 2018)

neroden said:


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


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

https://www.midwesthsr.org/SleeperTrains



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


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



neroden said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 23, 2018)

jis said:


> You already answered your first question. Amtrak does not have catenary dual mode because none were available until very recently. They were considered technically infeasible even as recently as 10 or so years back. Even the ones available currently in the US cannot apparently change modes while in motion. Elsewhere they can.
> 
> I believe if you had spent five minutes on google you could have answered the questions yourself. You are a bright guy.






Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Thanks for the 1st paragraph.  The 2nd paragraph is unnecessary.  Never occur to me technically infeasible.  Just thought nobody order it before.  The whole AC, DC sources, and different overhead mishmash is slowing become much more standard.  Still we have multi voltage on the NEC, wonder if they have a long term plan to standardized the voltage.  Or is a accident standardization happening.  (Easy of new transformers to change inputs seemless.) So at some point everyone equipments can go everywhere, and they just convert the last few spots of different voltage to a standard voltage from Boston to Washington.


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


----------



## jis (Dec 24, 2018)

You are correct about the need to be able to get to GCT under exceptional circumstances. That would definitely require keeping a small fleet of 3rd rail dual modes around. Fortunately, with the advance of solid state power electronics it is now almost practical to build trimode engines, and I understand some have just been built elsewhere. But as you said, no matter what, they are technically complex beasts.

As for standardizing voltage and frequency, Amtrak at one time had such a plan, which eventually got shelved given the cost of changing the ~12kV 25Hz system to 25kV 60Hz system for the entire NEC South and SEPTA. The existence of the original plan that prompted NJT to go with 25kV 60Hz when they refurbished the Hoboken Division. OTOH, MNRR just changed the frequency to 60Hz and got rid of all the specialized 25Hz gear but did not change the voltage.

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


----------



## railiner (Dec 24, 2018)

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


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> At least the New Haven line uses catenary for a solid chunk of the route. And why is the Harlem Line a better candidate than the Hudson Line for an extension to Albany?


Sea level rise is likely to flood the Hudson Line, repeatedly.  The Harlem line stays high from 125th street all the way up, and is therefore much more resistant.


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2018)

jis said:


> You are correct about the need to be able to get to GCT under exceptional circumstances. That would definitely require keeping a small fleet of 3rd rail dual modes around. Fortunately, with the advance of solid state power electronics it is now almost practical to build trimode engines, and I understand some have just been built elsewhere. But as you said, no matter what, they are technically complex beasts.
> 
> As for standardizing voltage and frequency, Amtrak at one time had such a plan, which eventually got shelved given the cost of changing the ~12kV 25Hz system to 25kV 60Hz system for the entire NEC South and SEPTA. The existence of the original plan that prompted NJT to go with 25kV 60Hz when they refurbished the Hoboken Division. OTOH, MNRR just changed the frequency to 60Hz and got rid of all the specialized 25Hz gear but did not change the voltage.


By the standards of road construction projects, it's really not that expensive to convert the frequency to 60 Hz.  The voltage can be handled as with MNRR, or upgraded where it's easy.  Amtrak has just been penny-pinching for so long...

I believe it would make the most sense to convert the Penn Station area first, so that future service which doesn't enter New Jersey doesn't have to screw around with 25 Hz.  I believe that was prevented by NJT having consists which couldn't handle changing frequencies and voltages on the fly, but these are going away.


----------



## jis (Dec 24, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Thanks for the 1st paragraph.  The 2nd paragraph is unnecessary.  Never occur to me technically infeasible.  Just thought nobody order it before.  The whole AC, DC sources, and different overhead mishmash is slowing become much more standard.  Still we have multi voltage on the NEC, wonder if they have a long term plan to standardized the voltage.  Or is a accident standardization happening.  (Easy of new transformers to change inputs seemless.) So at some point everyone equipments can go everywhere, and they just convert the last few spots of different voltage to a standard voltage from Boston to Washington.


Changing voltage in a tap changing transformer has not been a problem since the '60s. It is just that around here the fiefdoms have been so strong that deliberately such capabilities have not been brought in until much later.

It is not just power delivery systems that cause equipment to be unable to go everywhere. For example, even though LIRR and Amtrak are essentially using the same interoprable ACSES overlay, the underlying cab signaling systems have inconsistent use of coding frequencies that makes it impossible for Amtrak engines to operate on LIRR legally. The nature of the incompatibility is such that LIRR trains can operate on Amtrak trackage. Given money that can be fixed too.

But the bottom line issue is that when funds are hard to come by and there are tunnels and other things that can cause complete disruption of service due to failure, the limited resources go towards fixing those. power and signaling system inconsistencies are much lower priority since they can easily be worked around, especially when new equipment is ordered.

Actually the situation even around New York is not as bad as for international trains in Europe for example. Of course they do have a plan for standardizing train control systems across the board, but it is acknowledged that even under the best of circumstances it will take 40-50 years to get there. They have no plans for standardizing on OHE voltage/frequency. They have decided to live with at least 3 systems going forward, if not 4. Interestingly, with the advent of Tram-Trains, where a street running LRT from the downtown, eventually gets on the main line to get to distant suburbs, running intermingled with main line suburban and long distance trains, is just adding to the mix, since no one will electrify street catenary with 25kV.


----------



## jrud (Dec 27, 2018)

neroden said:


>


Just as a data point. MARC has said that HHP-8s and Chargers are preferred for the higher speed stretches on the NEC. Remember that MARC is the 125 mph commuter railroad. MARC often has 8 cars as shown here. http://www.railpictures.net/photo/665091/ . Seven Kawasaki bi-levels and a single level bike car appears to be a common setup. I read that the Kawasaki cars are getting bike racks which, I presume, would lead to 8 bi-level car trains.


----------



## jis (Dec 27, 2018)

Aren't the Kawasakis actually Multi-Level like the Bombardiers, with the vestibule in the middle level?


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 27, 2018)

jis said:


> Aren't the Kawasakis actually Multi-Level like the Bombardiers, with the vestibule in the middle level?


Yep.


----------



## west point (Dec 27, 2018)

The way MARC is attracting riders it may be that more coaches will be needed whenever MARC can finally order them ?  Those extra cars are going to put MARC in a bind as Chargers will not be able to meet Amtrak required MAS and acceleration  MARC did not order any ACS-64s which are going to be needed especially for locals with their many stops.  It may be MARC will have to operate on the NEC with 2 Chargers on the longer trains.  That is going to really put the hurt on MARC as it interchanges train sets between all three lines.  MARC may have to rethink its equipment allocations.  This is just another reason that the NEC needs 4 tracking of the MARC segments but no money to be found.


----------



## jis (Dec 27, 2018)

Seriously, MARC should look into DEMUs if they wish to run a world class credible suburban service at 125mph but with frequent stops. The D for their non electrified lines. For operation just on the Penn Line EMUs would be way more efficient.

But all this has nothing to do with new LD locomotives since MARC ain’t LD.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 27, 2018)

jrud said:


> I read that the Kawasaki cars are getting bike racks


Some of them have them, I was in one last week.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 28, 2018)

The fuel economy is going to be a major issue. I really wonder what they will do to improve it.Commuter/short distance trains probably need better acceleration to sprint to their next stop while the long distance trains are more of a marathon.


----------



## neroden (Dec 28, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The fuel economy is going to be a major issue. I really wonder what they will do to improve it.Commuter/short distance trains probably need better acceleration to sprint to their next stop while the long distance trains are more of a marathon.


I'm not sure which locomotives you're referring to, but the Chargers already have better fuel economy than the antique P42s.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 28, 2018)

neroden said:


> I'm not sure which locomotives you're referring to, but the Chargers already have better fuel economy than the antique P42s.


I don't believe this applies to current version. Their range (adjusted for fuel capacity) has not been as great as the P42s, which is why they altered the rules for acceleration to reduce fuel consumption. It was explained to me in great detail (too much to be honest) but there was cause for concern, particularly when they were tested with a lot of cars, under load for long stretches. The ALP45 in diesel mode have a similar issue.   That is one of the reasons this engine wasn't a slam dunk.


----------



## jis (Dec 28, 2018)

Jokingly speaking ... the P42s load so slowly they should rightfully consume less than a sprightly performing engine. [emoji3]


----------



## neroden (Dec 28, 2018)

Yeah, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this is just an artifact of an locomotive which can accelerate faster.  The requirements for Tier 4 do use a little energy, but the lighter bodies and more efficient traction motors should make up for it.  Nothing will make up for the energy lost by accelerating faster though!


----------



## jrud (Dec 29, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Yep.


Beyond Superliner and Superliner derivatives (and specialized Canadian/Alaskan tourist trains) are there any bi-level passenger cars that don’t go down (and up) to the vestibule level at the ends? I’m racking my brain for any bi-level cars on the East Coast or in Europe where you walk between cars on the upper level. Even most West Coast commuter trains have that layout.
Surfliner Chargers appears to be push/pulling up to 7 cars.  . The ten car train had a locomotive at each end. 
Finally, I wish I could find the reference, but I remember a claim by MARC that substituting an MP36 for a (healthy) HHP-8 actually only added a few minutes to the schedule. They still preferred the faster accelerating electric, but it didn’t kill the schedule. 
To me MARC is the train on the Camden Line paralleling my MetroRail train, so I’m watching and not riding. Though my subway train appears to accelerate pretty quickly when it wants.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

jrud said:


> ​
> Finally, I wish I could find the reference, but I remember a claim by MARC that substituting an MP36 for a (healthy) HHP-8 actually only added a few minutes to the schedule. They still preferred the faster accelerating electric, but it didn’t kill the schedule.


The problem is they may not kill their schedule but a few minutes is the difference between clearing the path for the train behind you or interfering with the train behind you, which may cause your train to be places aside.


----------



## jis (Dec 29, 2018)

The Talgo bilevels in Finland are one better than Superliners. They have gangways at both levels.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The problem is they may not kill their schedule but a few minutes is the difference between clearing the path for the train behind you or interfering with the train behind you, which may cause your train to be places aside.


It does actually kill the schedule, using the MP-36 instead of an electric has been cited by them as the reason for delays in the past.


----------



## railiner (Dec 29, 2018)

jis said:


> The Talgo bilevels in Finland are one better than Superliners. They have gangways at both levels.


Some of the earlier "Ultra Domes" on the Alaska cruise trains also have access on both levels...


----------



## dgvrengineer (Dec 29, 2018)

Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.


----------



## jrud (Dec 29, 2018)

dgvrengineer said:


> Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.


Does the Talgo’s suspension system make this possible?
Operationally you always want as much power and redundancy as you can get. Trying to keep with HHP-8s and Chargers on the highest speed lines instead or MP36s indicates this desire. I was just pointing out that at times MARC has explicitly tried to make it seem unimportant. It depends on what they are trying to prove at the time.


----------



## jis (Dec 29, 2018)

The Finnish Talgos do not use the tilting Talgo suspension system. They are more conventional, actually they are not even branded as Talgo anymore. It was a turnkey contract or something like that apparently. Talgo does manufacture rail equipment that is not classic Talgo Pendular too apparently.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Dec 29, 2018)

I can't recall; wasn't Amtrak supposed to be getting some locomotives which could be used both on the NEC (north of WAS) as well as points south so that there wouldn't be engine switching in DC?


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2018)

Nothing like that is on the order books.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 29, 2018)

LookingGlassTie said:


> I can't recall; wasn't Amtrak supposed to be getting some locomotives which could be used both on the NEC (north of WAS) as well as points south so that there wouldn't be engine switching in DC?


There’s been plenty of discussion about it on AU, but Amtrak definitely doesn’t have any new dual-modes officially in the works at this point.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 29, 2018)

dgvrengineer said:


> Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.


Access on both levels would NOT be an “easy way” to satisfy ADA issues with Superliners. Superliners have low floors, so the trucks at each end completely prohibit going between cars on the lower level. This is also why the lower level on Superliners and Superliner derivatives are only a little over half the length of the whole car.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 29, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Access on both levels would NOT be an “easy way” to satisfy ADA issues with Superliners. Superliners have low floors, so the trucks at each end completely prohibit going between cars on the lower level. This is also why the lower level on Superliners and Superliner derivatives are only a little over half the length of the whole car.






dgvrengineer said:


> Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.


As long as you have to have the flexibility to change out individual cars to adjust capacity or sideline bad-order units, and you have to maintain compatibility with the standard freight locomotive coupler height for a potential rescue situation, and you have to fit it all within the standard North American loading gauge plates...you're not going to be able to have access on both levels. Besides, the diner kitchen has got to go somewhere....


----------



## jis (Dec 30, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> As long as you have to have the flexibility to change out individual cars to adjust capacity or sideline bad-order units, and you have to maintain compatibility with the standard freight locomotive coupler height for a potential rescue situation, and you have to fit it all within the standard North American loading gauge plates...you're not going to be able to have access on both levels. Besides, the diner kitchen has got to go somewhere....


None of those issues are showstopper, unless there is some reason for sticking with 16' tall, like Superliners, which is not really anything to do with standard American loading gauge.

American loading gauge allow cars to be 20' tall. That allows for two 8' tall floors (a little taller than standard Superliners), the lower floor being 4' above top of rail. Such a car would allow vestibules at both levels, standard AAR couplers at standard height. Kitchen is not a problem. A solution was worked out a century back for single level Diners.

Now of course boarding would have to be using high level platform to meet ADA requirements. But that is a separate issue.

And of course, there may be issues with clearance at some passenger facilities for anything taller than 16' too. Passenger facilities have odd restrictions in many places.

Incidentally Alska Railroad at one point did have such cars with vestibule at both levels I am told by railiner.


----------



## railiner (Dec 30, 2018)

jis said:


> Incidentally Alska Railroad at one point did have such cars with vestibule at both levels I am told by railiner.


While the "Ultra-Domes", ran over the ARR, the cars were actually owned by Princess Cruise Lines.   These cars were rebuilt from former Southern Pacific, PS 'gallery' commuter cars, and were built to operate as "pairs".  One car had the two dining room's on the lower level, the other car had the galley.  One car had full seating on the upper level, the other car had half seats, then a small gift shop, followed by an open-sided observation deck.   Later designs built from scratch,

made these cars individual, self sustaining units, for greater consist flexibility. These cars also have a wheelchair lift between decks.

Back in the eighties, Princess sent their first pair on a nationwide tour for the press and the travel industry, before placing them in service.   I got to tour them, when they visited Denver Union Station.  Before they were parked on the "Uncle Sam Spur", off Track One for the display, the DUT Ry Co. had to cut off the edges of the platform shed extending over the track..

Being duly impressed, I got the 'bug' to book my first cruise on Princess, a couple of years later...


----------



## neroden (Dec 30, 2018)

The Ultradomes are kind of amazing.  It would depend on route clearances, but it would be pretty awesome to have a high-floor-boarding, walk-through-on-both-levels, bilevel train.

The level boarding issue is still severe.  I do think high platforms should probably be standard everywhere, but that's going to take a long time and a lot of work.


----------



## jrud (Dec 30, 2018)

jis said:


> The Finnish Talgos do not use the tilting Talgo suspension system. They are more conventional, actually they are not even branded as Talgo anymore. It was a turnkey contract or something like that apparently. Talgo does manufacture rail equipment that is not classic Talgo Pendular too apparently.


I was more concerned with the lack of an axle in the Talgo suspension allowing two level passage. If you had a permanent trainset then only the ends might need standard couplers. https://www.serina.es/empresas/aecientificos/talgo/Foto8gran.jpg


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 30, 2018)

From drawings I saw there is no two level access on VR cars no longer Talgo but Transtec. it shows machinery space at ends on lower level.

 and car rides on conventional trucks.


----------



## jis (Dec 30, 2018)

Dutchrailnut said:


> From drawings I saw there is no two level access on VR cars no longer Talgo but Transtec. it shows machinery space at ends on lower level.
> and car rides on conventional trucks.


Good to know. Yeah I knew they ride on conventional trucks.


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 30, 2018)

This maybe what you are thinking about:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/27033561/talgo-22

There was a prototype built but nothing more I believe:


----------



## jis (Dec 31, 2018)

There are some variety of double deckers built by Talgo in regular service on VR. I don’t know if they are these ones.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Dec 31, 2018)

See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?


----------



## Ryan (Dec 31, 2018)

You need to check that math.  In fact, someone has already done it for you in this thread, I believe.


----------



## PVD (Dec 31, 2018)

Most of the LD routes have more than 2 sets. OTOH, a few run with a single unit


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 31, 2018)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?


Don't be surprised if you see more single unit LD trains.


----------



## west point (Dec 31, 2018)

The only way a bi level car could have access on 2 levels is ---------- .  If the wheel arrangement is such that each  wheel only has a short axel such as a few Talgos have.


----------



## jis (Dec 31, 2018)

west point said:


> The only way a bi level car could have access on 2 levels is ---------- .  If the wheel arrangement is such that each  wheel only has a short axel such as a few Talgos have.


That is clearly incorrect, since you can build a bilevel on a base floor 4’ above rail, riding on standard trucks, with two 8’ high floors within a 20’ tall standard loading gauge in the US.


----------



## west point (Dec 31, 2018)

That is so however a bi level that tall could only operate the Sunset and Coast starlight routes.  And Auto train which would be a very good route to use.  Only problem how to get that high of a car to Beech ? Cannot clear CHI or WASH CAT and 1st street tunnel.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 31, 2018)

You didn't specify that the car had to be usable in certain stations.

Regardless, fanciful conversations about cars that will never be ordered is quite a ways off of the topic of locomotives that have actually been ordered.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 31, 2018)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?


Nope, not even close. Let me put it this way. The Lake Shore Limited (New York section) is 20 hours end-to-end, making it one of the shortest long distance routes, yet it needs three consists. Here’s why.

This is the “life” of a Lake Shore Limited consist:

Day 1: Departs New York

Day 2: Arrives Chicago, then departs it that evening:

Day 3: Arrives New York

Day 4: Once again departs New York

You see, because the LSL runs daily, and each consist takes *three* days to make a complete “cycle”, the train needs a total of *three* consists.

Here’s another example. The Silver Meteor is a still-relatively-modest 26 hours, and uses a whopping FOUR consists:

Day 1: Departs New York

Day 2: Arrives Miami

Day 3: Departs Miami

Day 4: Arrives New York

Day 5: Again departs New York

The Meteor runs daily, and it takes *four* days for a consist to make a complete cycle, so the route needs *four* consists.

Now think about the fact that the western trains can be up to two nights and 50+ hours, and I think you can get a sense of the sheer number of consists (and therefore locomotives) needed for all the LD routes.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 31, 2018)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?


And BTW, there are actually only _14_ long distance routes. Still, the fact that the vast majority of them have WAY more than 2 consists more than makes up for this. :help:


----------



## PVD (Dec 31, 2018)

I count 15   AT CZ CS CR CL CARD CONO EB LSL PALM SM SS SWC SL TE... (Includes AT and Palm)


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Dec 31, 2018)

PVD said:


> I count 15   AT CZ CS CR CL CARD CONO EB LSL PALM SM SS SWC SL TE... (Includes AT and Palm)


There are 16.

1. Coast Starlight

2. Empire Builder

3. California Zephyr

4. Southwest Chief

5. Texas Eagle

6. City Of New Orleans

7. Sunset Limited

8. Crescent

9. Carolinian

10. Palmetto

11. Silver Meteor

12. Silver Star

13. Lake Shore Limited

14. Capitol Limited

15. Cardinal

16. Auto Train


----------



## PVD (Dec 31, 2018)

I left out the Carolinian because of its joint funding by NCDOT.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2019)

Carolinian is not an LD train. It is a state supported train. 

So there are 15, not 16.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 1, 2019)

PVD said:


> I count 15   AT CZ CS CR CL CARD CONO EB LSL PALM SM SS SWC SL TE... (Includes AT and Palm)


Whoops, forgot about the AT. I don’t count the Palmetto as a true long distance train because it doesn’t have sleepers or a dining car. I guess we are talking about diesel locomotives for the national network, so maybe it should be counted, but still, under that logic (that any non-state supported route which uses diesel counts as an LD train), then you would also have to count the Springfield Regionals and Pennsylvanian...


----------



## PVD (Jan 1, 2019)

Palmetto, while not an overnight, is not a state financed or joint venture like Carolinian or Penn.  NER are not LD.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 1, 2019)

PVD said:


> Palmetto, while not an overnight, is not a state financed or joint venture like Carolinian or Penn.  NER are not LD.


I thought the Pennsy wasn’t state funded? And why isn’t the NER long distance? I mean, I know it’s not, but what is the actual standard here?


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I thought the Pennsy wasn’t state funded?


Pennsy is funded by PennDOT. It almost got canceled at one point when negotiations between Amtrak and PennDOT ran into some rough waters.


----------



## PVD (Jan 1, 2019)

In a simplified form, from a business unit perspective, NEC and it extensions are "short haul"  the other 2 units are the state sponsored/partnered, and the long distance.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2019)

Palmetto is accounted for as part of the LDBU by Amtrak. I think that is what is relevant if we are talking about where the costs and revenues land up.


----------



## PVD (Jan 1, 2019)

Agreed. And the history of that train, in its various forms including the Silver Palm era, has at times included a sleeper. We may have touched on this subject of accounting/business units previously in discussions of carrying NEC traffic on certain trains and combining an NER local cars onto a non NER


----------



## west point (Jan 1, 2019)

You bring up an interesting question.  The Carolinian is state supported by NC however on previous Amtrak reports ( no longer available ) it was listed in the LD trains.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jan 2, 2019)

Since they'll be built in 2021 (which is the 50th anniversary of Amtrak), I wonder if any of them will be painted as Heritage Units?


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 2, 2019)

PVD said:


> In a simplified form, from a business unit perspective, NEC and it extensions are "short haul"  the other 2 units are the state sponsored/partnered, and the long distance.


I believe the NEC extensions are in the state supported category (Virginia branches, New Haven - Springfield, Vermonter, Carolinian, etc)

I think NEC BU is just BOS - WAS.


----------



## PVD (Jan 2, 2019)

Primarily, but NER operating as primarily NEC, also cross category.


----------



## Pipp (Jan 5, 2019)

I really like the Genesis units, but they are getting old and can't last forever. The new Charger locomotives don't look that bad.  The only thing main thing I don't like about them is: I wish the front wind shields would extend all the way to the edge of front(of locomotive).  With the current locomotives having failures like they do, the new units can't come soon enough!


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 26, 2019)

Pipp said:


> I really like the Genesis units, but they are getting old and can't last forever. The new Charger locomotives don't look that bad.  The only thing main thing I don't like about them is: I wish the front wind shields would extend all the way to the edge of front(of locomotive).  With the current locomotives having failures like they do, the new units can't come soon enough!


I think at least a few of the Genesis units will be preserved.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 26, 2019)

There are seven heritage units right now. Enjoy them because the buffs at the top of Amtrak are gone. I strongly doubt any of the new engines will have them. So enjoy them while you can. 

And the paint doesn't matter to me. The order is for too few engines right now to reequip the network. But when it comes to a locomotive I don't care what it looks like as long as it gets me from point A to Point B.


----------



## neroden (Feb 27, 2019)

Seaboard92 said:


> But when it comes to a locomotive I don't care what it looks like as long as it gets me from point A to Point B.


Me too.  Give me nice rolling stock (I'll be in it for hours); I don't care what pulls it as long as it works.


----------



## jrud (Mar 12, 2019)

Information on the changes to the Charger for Amtrak at http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/2019-Annual-Meeting-.aspx


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 12, 2019)

Seaboard92 said:


> There are seven heritage units right now. Enjoy them because the buffs at the top of Amtrak are gone. I strongly doubt any of the new engines will have them. So enjoy them while you can.
> 
> And the paint doesn't matter to me. The order is for too few engines right now to reequip the network. But when it comes to a locomotive I don't care what it looks like as long as it gets me from point A to Point B.


This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## PerRock (Mar 12, 2019)

Some images I extracted from the pdfs for those who don't want to download them.

Vestibule Steps:

Interior Vestibule
Interior Door
Outside #1
Outside #2

Coach Interior
Shells being built #1
Shells being built #2
Shells being built #3
Shells being built #4
Shells being built #5
Coach AC System

peter


----------



## cocojacoby (Mar 12, 2019)

HATE those fixed backward facing seats!


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Mar 13, 2019)

While its too soon to predict the future, the Genesis will be gone from Amtrak, but a second hand market maybe there for them is something to consider. Just like there are many F40s still on the tracks today, some of which are former Amtrak units retired many years ago. This new order for long distance locomotives just proves the long distance trains are being updated, now let's hope we can get some Superliner replacements and additional single level equipment to go with the new engines in the near future.


----------



## GBNorman (Mar 13, 2019)

PerRock said:


> Some images I extracted from the pdfs for those who don't want to download them.
> 
> Vestibule Steps:
> Interior Door


Funny how the vestibule steps so closely resemble those of Euro-City equipment:


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 13, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> Funny how the vestibule steps so closely resemble those of Euro-City equipment:
> 
> View attachment 12909


What about it makes you say that they resemble those cars so closely? As far as I can tell from the rendering, these are just going to be some pretty standard low platform steps, and the only real distinguishing feature I can identify in this EuroCity photo is the trapezoidal shape, which I’m not seeing that on these new coaches either. :wacko:


----------



## cocojacoby (Mar 13, 2019)

Well North American trains usually have a set of steps that drop down for low platforms and a steel trap door that flips down for high-level boarding.  I agree that this looks very European to me also.


----------



## jis (Mar 13, 2019)

It is the bottom two retracting steps that is different, and bears a vague resemblance to something that is standard practice for at least one retracting step in many European trains.

http://americantrainz.com/personal/New-US-Trains/Steps Out Iso.jpg

I guess in the process they lose the retracting bridge-plate for high level platforms as found on Brightline sets.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 13, 2019)

cocojacoby said:


> Well North American trains usually have a set of steps that drop down for low platforms and a steel trap door that flips down for high-level boarding.  I agree that this looks very European to me also.


That’s what this is, though...


----------



## jis (Mar 13, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> That’s what this is, though...
> 
> View attachment 12911


These just appear to stick out further onto the platform than is current practice in the US.

I am still curious about what happens at high level, level boarding platform. It certainly looks like they are going NJT style full length sliding or possibly plug doors with the trap entirely inside the door. Does the trap hold a sliding bridge plate for use at high level platform? Just idle wondering 'cause that'd be really cool!


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Mar 13, 2019)

tread is about locomotives , lets get this clear.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 13, 2019)

So now we have three Charger variants, the SC-44 for the PRIIA orders, the SCB-40 for Brightline, and the ALC-42 for Amtrak. I wonder why Amtrak went with 4200hp?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 13, 2019)

Dutchrailnut said:


> tread is about locomotives , lets get this clear.


Congrats on your promotion to Moderator.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 13, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> So now we have three Charger variants, the SC-44 for the PRIIA orders, the SCB-40 for Brightline, and the ALC-42 for Amtrak. I wonder why Amtrak went with 4200hp?


It's 4200 HP continuously. It would probably start at 4400 HP but run at 4200 continuously.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 13, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> So now we have three Charger variants, the SC-44 for the PRIIA orders, the SCB-40 for Brightline, and the ALC-42 for Amtrak. I wonder why Amtrak went with 4200hp?


I’m thinking reliability. Being the workhorses of the LD network is not an easy job, so I guess Amtrak feels that the extra hp of a standard Charger isn’t necessary, and that reliability is more important. That’s the reason Brightline went with only 4,000 hp.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 13, 2019)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> It's 4200 HP continuously. It would probably start at 4400 HP but run at 4200 continuously.


Nope, the standard Chargers are 4,400 continuous.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 14, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I’m thinking reliability. Being the workhorses of the LD network is not an easy job, so I guess Amtrak feels that the extra hp of a standard Charger isn’t necessary, and that reliability is more important. That’s the reason Brightline went with only 4,000 hp.


Brightline went with 4000 because they use theirs on both ends of short trains. Those trainsets are rockets, perhaps the highest HP/ton of any loco hauled train in regular service in America. Amtrak will be using theirs to replace P42s, presumably on a one-to-one ish basis. It might end up being a little better than that though, as P42s have 4250HP available when not in HEP mode but when providing HEP they provide a max of about 3500 and depending on HEP load can go all the way down to about 2500. With the chargers it’s way less substantial of a hit given they use modern inverters, I am not sure about the extract numbers.


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 14, 2019)

Ryan said:


> Congrats on your promotion to Moderator.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 14, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Brightline went with 4000 because they use theirs on both ends of short trains. Those trainsets are rockets, perhaps the highest HP/ton of any loco hauled train in regular service in America. Amtrak will be using theirs to replace P42s, presumably on a one-to-one ish basis. It might end up being a little better than that though, as P42s have 4250HP available when not in HEP mode but when providing HEP they provide a max of about 3500 and depending on HEP load can go all the way down to about 2500. With the chargers it’s way less substantial of a hit given they use modern inverters, I am not sure about the extract numbers.


Yes but reliability is the reason they specifically had them tuned down to 4,000.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 14, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Yes but reliability is the reason they specifically had them tuned down to 4,000.


Citation?


----------



## Fan Railer (Mar 20, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Nope, the standard Chargers are 4,400 continuous.


Page 1-4 of the operator's manual from Siemens says differently lol.
4200 continuous, 4400 maximum short-time.

If Amtrak is going with 4200 hp only, then the software simply doesn't call for the 200 horsepower short-time boost mode. The traction motors are only rated at 978 hp anyway, so even with no HEP load, you're only getting 3900 hp to rail.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 21, 2019)

Fan Railer said:


> Page 1-4 of the operator's manual from Siemens says differently lol.
> 4200 continuous, 4400 maximum short-time.
> 
> If Amtrak is going with 4200 hp only, then the software simply doesn't call for the 200 horsepower short-time boost mode. The traction motors are only rated at 978 hp anyway, so even with no HEP load, you're only getting 3900 hp to rail.


The traction motor rating isn’t completely relevant since a locomotive’s horsepower rating is at the prime mover shaft, not at the wheels. “4400 HP” freight locomotives aren’t supposed to make 4400 at the wheel either, that’s normal. And there is no such thing as “boost mode,” this is a diesel locomotive, not a Tesla Model S. AC traction motors don’t require short time ratings so I’m not sure why the software would need to kick it down to 4200. I’m interested to see what the manual actually says if you could you provide it.


----------



## keelhauled (Mar 22, 2019)

There can absolutely be a “boost mode” in diesels, either as a reference to to the natural power curve of the engine or probably more likely a software setting that modifies fuel injection and/or turbocharger geometry for increased power under certain circumstances. 

They’re smaller than locomotive engines, but modern FPT diesels have a little “boost” icon on the dash that supposedly corresponds to when the engine is reaching maximum power, although in my experience it comes on pretty much all the time at 1700 rpms, so I’m not exactly sure what it’s trying to say the engine is doing.


----------



## Fan Railer (Mar 22, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> The traction motor rating isn’t completely relevant since a locomotive’s horsepower rating is at the prime mover shaft, not at the wheels. “4400 HP” freight locomotives aren’t supposed to make 4400 at the wheel either, that’s normal. And there is no such thing as “boost mode,” this is a diesel locomotive, not a Tesla Model S. AC traction motors don’t require short time ratings so I’m not sure why the software would need to kick it down to 4200. I’m interested to see what the manual actually says if you could you provide it.


The manual is proprietary, so I'm not going to share that publicly, but if you say there's no such thing as "boost mode" on a diesel locomotive, perhaps you should tell that to Siemens lol
https://www.scribd.com/document/205490917/HSR-IDOT-Multi-State-Procurement-Protest-Feb-2014-Original
This is the official protest letter from EMD back when the initial locomotive contract was awarded by IDOT to Siemens instead of EMD.

On page 4:


> Siemens has offered a locomotive that cannot achieve and sustain 125 MPH, making its proposal non-compliant with the Procurement specifications. In its proposal, the Siemens locomotive is shown to be only 4200 BHP-rated. It is not possible for a locomotive to achieve, let alone sustain,125 MPH with merely 4200 BHP in the train configurations specified in the Procurement, despite the “BOOST” feature provided in Siemens’s design. The “BOOST” feature appears to elevate the locomotive’s BHP to 4400 for “a controlled period time,” which allows its locomotive “to achieve a higher acceleration or top speed.” In the context of “higher acceleration or top speed,” the“top speed” on the Siemens locomotive would be something less than 125 MPH because it lacks sufficient horsepower.



Though this letter is written by EMD, it specifically quotes from Siemens's technical proposal portion of its bid. It's important to note, as stated above, that the boost feature is for the DIESEL PRIME MOVER, not the traction motors. Just the same way you can derate a prime mover to reduce wear and tear, you can uprate a prime mover for a short period of time over the rated continuous output.

The traction motor output is relevant for the factoring in of HEP load on the prime mover. As stated before, if there is no HEP load on the locomotive, "boost mode" accomplishes nothing, as the 4200 continuous rating at the shaft is enough to account for any transmission losses from the alternator to the traction motors and any onboard aux loads. As soon as you add an external HEP load, boost mode becomes more relevant. Factoring in a 600 kW load (800 hp), you're looking now at about a 3100-3200 hp at wheel continuous, or 3300-3400 hp with "boost mode" active. This is likely useful for a commuter application where the stops are close together and acceleration matters. For a long distance application, the cost from the additional wear and tear on the prime mover likely outweighs the minuscule time gains from the extra 200 hp, which explains why Amtrak would opt not to have the traction software do that on their long distance spec'd locomotives.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 24, 2019)

Fan Railer said:


> The manual is proprietary, so I'm not going to share that publicly, but if you say there's no such thing as "boost mode" on a diesel locomotive, perhaps you should tell that to Siemens lol
> https://www.scribd.com/document/205490917/HSR-IDOT-Multi-State-Procurement-Protest-Feb-2014-Original
> This is the official protest letter from EMD back when the initial locomotive contract was awarded by IDOT to Siemens instead of EMD.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, thanks for the info. I assumed boost mode referred to the traction motors. As far as the manual, though, do you work for Siemens? I can absolutely appreciate not wanting to share it publicly, but if you have it unofficially yourself it’s not exactly proprietary information to yourself.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 24, 2019)

The fact that someone trusted him enough to give him information doesn’t mean that he’s free to just share it with random people on the internet. (In fact the two are probably inversely related - someone share because they can trust them precisely to not do that)

Rather than be demanding of them, be thankful that they had the information necessary to answer your questions and leave it at that.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 24, 2019)

Ryan said:


> The fact that someone trusted him enough to give him information doesn’t mean that he’s free to just share it with random people on the internet. (In fact the two are probably inversely related - someone share because they can trust them precisely to not do that)
> 
> Rather than be demanding of them, be thankful that they had the information necessary to answer your questions and leave it at that.


Where exactly was I demanding? I actually said that I can appreciate not wanting to share the info publicly. I thanked him for the information on EMD’s protest notice. I acknowledged that the information provided showed I was incorrect about the boost mode feature. No big deal. Not sure how you could infer any type of demand, unless you are just searching for something to call me out on. The only time I said something that wasn’t in complete agreement was when I pointed out that it’s not proprietary information to someone that got the info unofficially, it’s proprietary information to Siemens. That isn’t in order to argue “so therefore give me the information,” it’s just to point out that most of us here are railfans, not employees, so if you have something that is not intended for the public then it isn’t really “yours” either. Disrespect was neither delivered nor intended.


----------



## Fan Railer (Mar 25, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Where exactly was I demanding? I actually said that I can appreciate not wanting to share the info publicly. I thanked him for the information on EMD’s protest notice. I acknowledged that the information provided showed I was incorrect about the boost mode feature. No big deal. Not sure how you could infer any type of demand, unless you are just searching for something to call me out on. The only time I said something that wasn’t in complete agreement was when I pointed out that it’s not proprietary information to someone that got the info unofficially, it’s proprietary information to Siemens. That isn’t in order to argue “so therefore give me the information,” it’s just to point out that most of us here are railfans, not employees, so if you have something that is not intended for the public then it isn’t really “yours” either. Disrespect was neither delivered nor intended.


I never said it was proprietary to me. Yea, sure if I wanted to, I could drop it somewhere and share the link; but the point was already made as to why I wouldn't do such a thing with something like this.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 26, 2019)

Fan Railer said:


> I never said it was proprietary to me. Yea, sure if I wanted to, I could drop it somewhere and share the link; but the point was already made as to why I wouldn't do such a thing with something like this.


I think I just misconstrued what you originally said regarding the proprietary info. I absolutely agree with the reasoning for not sharing that stuff. Never asked for it after you said it wasn’t public.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 26, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> So now we have three Charger variants, the SC-44 for the PRIIA orders, the SCB-40 for Brightline, and the ALC-42 for Amtrak. I wonder why Amtrak went with 4200hp?



Simple. Fuel economy, the potential Achilles heal of the Chargers and the ALP-45DP. The extra isn't needed since it is marathon, not a sprint. 



Fan Railer said:


> The manual is proprietary, so I'm not going to share that publicly, but if you say there's no such thing as "boost mode" on a diesel locomotive, perhaps you should tell that to Siemens lol
> 
> 
> Though this letter is written by EMD, it specifically quotes from Siemens's technical proposal portion of its bid. It's important to note, as stated above, that the boost feature is for the DIESEL PRIME MOVER, not the traction motors. Just the same way you can derate a prime mover to reduce wear and tear, you can uprate a prime mover for a short period of time over the rated continuous output.
> ...



While the boost mode is in your manual, are the current offerings actually equipped with it? It has been a while but I don;t recall seeing it and I spoken with people that operate them regularly and they aren't aware of a boost. It is possible they don't have an indicator, but the performance of them wouldn't really indicate it is active.



Fan Railer said:


> I never said it was proprietary to me. Yea, sure if I wanted to, I could drop it somewhere and share the link; but the point was already made as to why I wouldn't do such a thing with something like this.



You've come a long way, baby. Now, explain that high speed "tilting subway!"


----------



## Fan Railer (Mar 27, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Simple. Fuel economy, the potential Achilles heal of the Chargers and the ALP-45DP. The extra isn't needed since it is marathon, not a sprint.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Knowing Siemens, there's probably some obscure screen option you can "tab" your way into that would display prime mover output. That's probably the only way to tell if the boost feature is actually active at any given point during a trip lol. As for the high speed tilting subway, all I have to say is superelevation upon superelevation 

EDIT: After going back into the manual, yes there is infact a tab on the screen for "engine data / health" that would display current RPM, hp output, among a host of other things.


----------



## jis (Mar 29, 2019)

Just a quick note on Brightline. Even though their current trains are short, their eventual plan is to go upto 10 car trains with two 4,000HP engines, traveling at upto 125mph. Granted the cars are probably quite a bit lighter than the Superliners that the Amtrak or state engines are expected to drag around.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Mar 30, 2019)

jis said:


> Just a quick note on Brightline. Even though their current trains are short, their eventual plan is to go upto 10 car trains with two 4,000HP engines, traveling at upto 125mph. Granted the cars are probably quite a bit lighter than the Superliners that the Amtrak or state engines are expected to drag around.


True, but even then their HP/ton will be similar to a Northeast Regional consist behind a Sprinter. In my experience those trains accelerate quick enough to actually make you feel the weight in your seat back.


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2019)

Yes. I think Brightline has configured their power just right for the trains they plan to run.


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 17, 2019)

Since this is the first thread I could find that anywhere close to related: 

MI Service P42s have apparently been removed from service. We’ve had a sudden influx of 42s numbered in the 50s and 60s with no sign of the original units. 

Anyone have any ideas? Chargers are supposed to be in service very soon, according to the most recent NGEC documentation and at least two units have arrived from Pueblo but I don’t see how that would cause a fleet change like this.


----------



## PerRock (Apr 18, 2019)

The ITCS has been down on the MI line for a while now, which opens up the ability for other locomotives to run on the line. For some strange reason Amtrak really likes moving locomotives & cars around.

peter


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 18, 2019)

PerRock said:


> The ITCS has been down on the MI line for a while now, which opens up the ability for other locomotives to run on the line. For some strange reason Amtrak really likes moving locomotives & cars around.
> 
> peter



ITCS has been up since at least the 13th according to TransitDocs.


----------



## Acela150 (Apr 19, 2019)

PerRock said:


> The ITCS has been down on the MI line for a while now, which opens up the ability for other locomotives to run on the line. For some strange reason Amtrak really likes moving locomotives & cars around.
> 
> peter



Moving cars and engines around is part of running a railroad. [emoji6]


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 20, 2019)

They are still in the throes of upgrading all of the PTC systems to the P42 fleet. Not all of them are completed and they are still contemplating running diesel operation over the corridor. They are continuing to install ACSES on some of them. 

They can't do this while they are in service.


----------



## Acela150 (Apr 20, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> They are still in the throes of upgrading all of the PTC systems to the P42 fleet. Not all of them are completed and they are still contemplating running diesel operation over the corridor. They are continuing to install ACSES on some of them.
> 
> They can't do this while they are in service.



And of course this takes time. It's not something that can be done overnight.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 22, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> They are still in the throes of upgrading all of the PTC systems to the P42 fleet. Not all of them are completed and they are still contemplating running diesel operation over the corridor. They are continuing to install ACSES on some of them.
> 
> They can't do this while they are in service.


Do you mean the possibility of DMUs as Amfleet replacements? If not, I think I missed some news somewhere.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 25, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Do you mean the possibility of DMUs as Amfleet replacements? If not, I think I missed some news somewhere.



I was responding to NSC1109. This has nothing to do with DMUs or Amfleets.


----------



## Mike G (Apr 26, 2019)

The 75 could be like in aviation a larger price decrease per unit plateau.


----------

