ACS-64 Heads Up

[jis]

#604 will be released by Siemens within the next day or two, and it will start its treck across the country to the east coast soon thereafter. The 2 P42s for picking it up have been designated according to reports on TO.

 

[afigg]

#604 will be released by Siemens within the next day or two, and it will start its treck across the country to the east coast soon thereafter. The 2 P42s for picking it up have been designated according to reports on TO.

Since this is the fifth unit (with the first four used for testing), it indicates that the testing has gone smoothly with no serious problems that would require a significant design or production manufacturing change. TO also reports that the Amfleets used at Pueblo have been shipped back east to WAS over the past week, so the testing at Pueblo must be wrapping up.

If the 2 units at Pueblo are shipped east and Siemens production ramps up to 2 per month, won't be long before there are a bunch of ACS-64s on the NEC.

 

[afigg]

It is reported on trainorders that #604 is on the #30 Capitol Limited arriving at WAS on 9/3. There are also 3 PVs on the CL, so #30 has a rather long consist today.

 

[NE933]

Once the ramp up starts, can't they then ship 2 at a time to save money and tying up motive power?

 

[Acela150]

Sure, but keep in mind that is dead weight they'd be towing. I think 500,000 pounds is a little bit to much extra weight for two Genesis units to pull. They'd need a third and potentially a fourth.

 

[gmushial]

#604 will be released by Siemens within the next day or two, and it will start its treck across the country to the east coast soon thereafter. The 2 P42s for picking it up have been designated according to reports on TO.

Since this is the fifth unit (with the first four used for testing), it indicates that the testing has gone smoothly with no serious problems that would require a significant design or production manufacturing change. TO also reports that the Amfleets used at Pueblo have been shipped back east to WAS over the past week, so the testing at Pueblo must be wrapping up.

If the 2 units at Pueblo are shipped east and Siemens production ramps up to 2 per month, won't be long before there are a bunch of ACS-64s on the NEC.

Will passengers notice a difference (other than visually seeing different looking locos at the front of the trains) - or will this change only be seen by Amtrak management/beancounters?

 

[Ryan]

Better acceleration could mean better schedules, or more ability to make up time.

Less delays caused by breakdowns.

 

[cirdan]

Better acceleration could mean better schedules, or more ability to make up time.
Less delays caused by breakdowns.

It will be interesting to see whether they opt to use those saved minutes to cut scheduled journey time, or whether they will keep them as padding. I haven't yet seen any announcement that they intend to tighten the schedules at any point.

 

[afigg]

It will be interesting to see whether they opt to use those saved minutes to cut scheduled journey time, or whether they will keep them as padding. I haven't yet seen any announcement that they intend to tighten the schedules at any point.

If they do trim the Regional schedules because of the ACS-64 acceleration and power, it won't be until after there is a uniform ACS-64 locomotive fleet or close to it. So long as they are running a mix of locomotive types with AEM-7DC's to ACS-64s, have to set the schedule on the lowest performance loco in use. At the reported delivery rate of 2 per month, it will take another ~32 months to deliver all 70 units. In the meantime, the better acceleration and, one would hope, better reliability of the ACS-64s as they are deployed should boost the overall on-time performance of the Regionals.

 

[jis]

I doubt that they will trim schedules of Regionals until such time when they can trip schedules of Acelas. They are hardly likely to undermine Adela revenues by making the schedule running time of Regionals closer to those of Acelas.

 

[gmushial]

It will be interesting to see whether they opt to use those saved minutes to cut scheduled journey time, or whether they will keep them as padding. I haven't yet seen any announcement that they intend to tighten the schedules at any point.

If they do trim the Regional schedules because of the ACS-64 acceleration and power, it won't be until after there is a uniform ACS-64 locomotive fleet or close to it. So long as they are running a mix of locomotive types with AEM-7DC's to ACS-64s, have to set the schedule on the lowest performance loco in use. At the reported delivery rate of 2 per month, it will take another ~32 months to deliver all 70 units. In the meantime, the better acceleration and, one would hope, better reliability of the ACS-64s as they are deployed should boost the overall on-time performance of the Regionals.

Being on the other coast (still), I have an understanding that the 7DCs weren't the most reliable loco to be had... two questions: 1) just how unreliable were they, ie, how many spare units did they have to keep so as to have enough to run the scheduled trips, and 2) did the 7DCs tend to have a single point of failure, or were they like a 1980's chevy: fix one thing and something else would break, fix that and something else would fail?

as always: many thanks - greg

 

[user 1215]

I doubt that they will trim schedules of Regionals until such time when they can trip schedules of Acelas. They are hardly likely to undermine Adela revenues by making the schedule running time of Regionals closer to those of Acelas.

Silly me again. I would love to see ALL the trains that are permanently on the NEC between WAS & BOS get Acela-esque trainsets, albeit longer. Much longer. And maybe without the articulated bogies. The difference in service then would not be the equipment, but rather in the schedules. Acela would be much faster, stopping at 5-10 stops, Regionals would double that, and the commuters would pick up everything else. Then, the ACS-64s would be used for only LD trains with a power change in DC.

 

[gmushial]

Slightly off topic: I'm assuming the reason that the NEC was electrified was to eliminate the smoke/pollution/"emissions" produced by the trains of yesteryear (they produced many/much). Now with the electrics the pollution is generated somewhere else and the electricity is sent to the NEC for use. Two questions: 1) the total carbon footprint of the current system [emissions produced at the generation end, the emissions to produce the generation end hardware, the emissions to produce the infrastructure to get the power to the NEC, is actually less than that that would be generated by a modern tech diesel-electric loco in situ? 2) are there, has there been development done toward clean locos, along the lines done for automobiles over the last three or four decades?

 

[Nathanael]

Two questions: 1) the total carbon footprint of the current system [emissions produced at the generation end, the emissions to produce the generation end hardware, the emissions to produce the infrastructure to get the power to the NEC, is actually less than that that would be generated by a modern tech diesel-electric loco in situ?

Definitely less. This is easy:- First of all, some of the electrical generation for the NEC is from hydroelectricity and other carbon-free sources.

- Second, very large fixed-place turbine powerplants have better thermal efficiency than locomotive diesel engines.

- Third, the transportation of the diesel fuel uses a lot of energy, and this generally generates carbon emissions. Transportation of electricity has very low losses comparatively.

- Fourth, carbon emissions from refining petroleum into diesel fuel are quite substantial.

- Fifth, the diesel locomotive has to haul around diesel fuel and an engine; the electric locomotive has to haul around a transformer. The latter usually weighs less.

- Sixth, regenerative braking is implemented on modern electric locomotives, and can only be implemented to a very limited extent in diesel locomotives.

2) are there, has there been development done toward clean locos, along the lines done for automobiles over the last three or four decades?

Yes. Diesel locomotives are actually very good compared to gasoline cars.

 

[gmushial]

Two questions: 1) the total carbon footprint of the current system [emissions produced at the generation end, the emissions to produce the generation end hardware, the emissions to produce the infrastructure to get the power to the NEC, is actually less than that that would be generated by a modern tech diesel-electric loco in situ?

Definitely less. This is easy:- First of all, some of the electrical generation for the NEC is from hydroelectricity and other carbon-free sources.

- Second, very large fixed-place turbine powerplants have better thermal efficiency than locomotive diesel engines.

- Third, the transportation of the diesel fuel uses a lot of energy, and this generally generates carbon emissions. Transportation of electricity has very low losses comparatively.

- Fourth, carbon emissions from refining petroleum into diesel fuel are quite substantial.

- Fifth, the diesel locomotive has to haul around diesel fuel and an engine; the electric locomotive has to haul around a transformer. The latter usually weighs less.

- Sixth, regenerative braking is implemented on modern electric locomotives, and can only be implemented to a very limited extent in diesel locomotives.

2) are there, has there been development done toward clean locos, along the lines done for automobiles over the last three or four decades?

Yes. Diesel locomotives are actually very good compared to gasoline cars.

An excellent, well thought out answer - thank you.

 

[jis]

I doubt that they will trim schedules of Regionals until such time when they can trip schedules of Acelas. They are hardly likely to undermine Adela revenues by making the schedule running time of Regionals closer to those of Acelas.

Silly me again. I would love to see ALL the trains that are permanently on the NEC between WAS & BOS get Acela-esque trainsets, albeit longer. Much longer. And maybe without the articulated bogies. The difference in service then would not be the equipment, but rather in the schedules. Acela would be much faster, stopping at 5-10 stops, Regionals would double that, and the commuters would pick up everything else. Then, the ACS-64s would be used for only LD trains with a power change in DC.

yes, given enough money that would be an ideal situation. But I don't see that happening in the next several decades.
Articulated bogies? Who has articulated bogies. nothing on the NEC at present. Semi-permanently coupled, yes, articulated, no.

I also don't think that there will ever be enough LD trains to require 70 electric locomotives to haul them around on the NEC.

 

[user 1215]

My bad. Thought the Acelas were articulated, hence permanently coupled.

Maybe I'm thinking Talgos...

 

[Acela150]

I doubt that they will trim schedules of Regionals until such time when they can trip schedules of Acelas. They are hardly likely to undermine Adela revenues by making the schedule running time of Regionals closer to those of Acelas.

Silly me again. I would love to see ALL the trains that are permanently on the NEC between WAS & BOS get Acela-esque trainsets, albeit longer. Much longer. And maybe without the articulated bogies. The difference in service then would not be the equipment, but rather in the schedules. Acela would be much faster, stopping at 5-10 stops, Regionals would double that, and the commuters would pick up everything else. Then, the ACS-64s would be used for only LD trains with a power change in DC.

yes, given enough money that would be an ideal situation. But I don't see that happening in the next several decades.
Articulated bogies? Who has articulated bogies. nothing on the NEC at present. Semi-permanently coupled, yes, articulated, no.

I also don't think that there will ever be enough LD trains to require 70 electric locomotives to haul them around on the NEC.

Jis talking about Articulated bogies, could the Next Gen HSR benefit from these? IIRC the X2000 had them.

 

[jis]

Jis talking about Articulated bogies, could the Next Gen HSR benefit from these? IIRC the X2000 had them.

I don't believe X2000s are articulated. See for example:

http://funini.com/train/sweden/x2000/09.html

TGVs are articulated. See:

 

[afigg]

I doubt that they will trim schedules of Regionals until such time when they can trip schedules of Acelas. They are hardly likely to undermine Adela revenues by making the schedule running time of Regionals closer to those of Acelas.

Good point. Don't undercut the money maker. First, as some of the current NEC projects are completed, improve the Acela trip times to keep the Acela ridership up - and show that progress is being made on the NEC Then eventually follow that with trims to the Regional trip times.

 

[gmushial]

I doubt that they will trim schedules of Regionals until such time when they can trip schedules of Acelas. They are hardly likely to undermine Adela revenues by making the schedule running time of Regionals closer to those of Acelas.

Silly me again. I would love to see ALL the trains that are permanently on the NEC between WAS & BOS get Acela-esque trainsets, albeit longer. Much longer. And maybe without the articulated bogies. The difference in service then would not be the equipment, but rather in the schedules. Acela would be much faster, stopping at 5-10 stops, Regionals would double that, and the commuters would pick up everything else. Then, the ACS-64s would be used for only LD trains with a power change in DC.

yes, given enough money that would be an ideal situation. But I don't see that happening in the next several decades.
Articulated bogies? Who has articulated bogies. nothing on the NEC at present. Semi-permanently coupled, yes, articulated, no.

I also don't think that there will ever be enough LD trains to require 70 electric locomotives to haul them around on the NEC.

Jis talking about Articulated bogies, could the Next Gen HSR benefit from these? IIRC the X2000 had them.

Unless they're incredibly well damped, isn't there too much of a chance of introducing degrees of freedom that translate into resonances (and in the extreme self-destructive behaviors) - from the auto racing world: at high speeds, when things go wrong, they go very badly wrong, very quickly? Maybe supporting that many tons this is less of a concern or problem??

 

[jis]

One of the most stable high speed trains in existence today is the TGV and it is articulated. So I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Of course one would not design things with resonant frequencies that are easily excited in day to day operation. One can have similar problems even in single rail cars. Designing vehicles taking t=such things into account is not rocket science and is very well understood engineering discipline.

 

[gmushial]

I guess my concern comes from both auto racing, where at high speeds things "just happen" that weren't supposed to be able to do such; and from spaceflight where yet again, unexpected vibrations can cause unexpected and very destructive things to happen... if as you say that it's a very well understood discipline: I'll leave it to those that fully understand the engineering.... but from previous experience the operative message, sometimes learned the hard way: if it doesn't absolutely need to gimbal, lock it down - especially if human lives are at stake. Maybe on an ultra smooth surface where outside excitations are less inclined to be induced, then maybe such is that way to go; but in the case of pushing existing rails to higher limits, I would be concerned (though maybe without merit).

 

[cirdan]

I guess my concern comes from both auto racing, where at high speeds things "just happen" that weren't supposed to be able to do such; and from spaceflight where yet again, unexpected vibrations can cause unexpected and very destructive things to happen... if as you say that it's a very well understood discipline: I'll leave it to those that fully understand the engineering.... but from previous experience the operative message, sometimes learned the hard way: if it doesn't absolutely need to gimbal, lock it down - especially if human lives are at stake. Maybe on an ultra smooth surface where outside excitations are less inclined to be induced, then maybe such is that way to go; but in the case of pushing existing rails to higher limits, I would be concerned (though maybe without merit).

You can't really compare trains to auto racing. In auto racing, cars are built to go as fast as possible and this can sometimes be at the cost of optimizing to the limits and leaving very little margin to absorb things when things go wrong. A train is designed to provide 30 to 40 years of service clocking up many millions of miles whereas a racing car may at best be required to provide a season or two of performance with a lot of breathing space between races to thoroughly rebuild anything that has gone wrong.

TGVs have run at speeds of something like 570km/h on test runs. many individual parts have been exposed to simulated speeds on testers that were considerably higher than that even. In service they run at a max of 350 km/h. This shows the margin of safety there is in the system. Furthermore, speeds have not increased in leaps and bounds but have been gradually ramped up over the years in line with experience and confidence levels. The initial TGV ran at 250 km/h and this was upgraded to 270 km/h after a year or two. As the second generation came online they went to 300 km/h (with many of the older sets being retrofitted), then they did 320, then 350. This is a development that spans 30 years, not 6 months. With all those 100s of sets still in service, and close collaboration between SNCF and Alstom with operating and maintenance experience flowing back into the design process, and technical staff also being exchanged between the companies on a regular basis, you can bet that if there is anything nasty that can go wrong, that the right people are aware of that and have thought of something.

 

[jis]

TGVs also have a perfect safety record in high speed derailments, specially the one caused by a part of the track structure collapsing into a long lost WW I trench remnants, causing a TGV to derail at more or less full speed. The only serious injuries were to people standing trackside from flying ballast.