Amtrak Siemens Charger locomotive (SC44, ALC42, ALC42E) (2015 - 1Q 2024)

[afigg]

I saw a couple of days ago that the NGEC Executive Board had posted July 19 meeting minutes and was going to write about it, but they also just posted the August 2 draft minutes. There is actual news in the minutes on the testing of the 2 units at the Pueblo facility.

Excerpts from the August 2 minutes:

· The first two pilot locomotives were being at TTCI for vehicle/track dynamic interaction. The tests are concluded with successful results.
· The locomotives were also tested for AAR Chapter XI track interaction protocol. The tests are concluded with successful results.
· JPEs hope for Siemens to test PTC, while at Pueblo. Legal issues for one-day use of the Data Radio and the communications software (the “Image”) continue to be a difficulty. Assistance from Amtrak is needed to facilitate use of the “Image” for this one-day test in Pueblo.
· The four MARC cars have arrived at TTCI for locomotive propulsion tests. Initial tests up to 130 mph have been successfully completed.
.....
· The test plan for 125 mph testing on the North East Corridor was approved by FRA, as submitted by (Maryland MARC Train Service) MARC. MARC/Amtrak are reported processing the test agreement.
· Siemens targets shipping locomotive #4 to Baltimore, next Friday 8/5.
· Each JPE are working out details for pre-revenue test plans, with Amtrak.
.....
The locomotive weight was reported in June 2016, at 270,725 lbs (+/-). Based on actual component weights, the locomotive weight has varied little in the last six months. The calculated P2 force is within specified limits.

Eric Curtit thanked John Oimoen for the “good news” and added “we all appreciate it.”

Yes, it is nice to have good news on successful equipment tests and the shipment to the east coast of a unit for testing on the NEC.

 

[west point]

If that was just one SC-44 that pulled 4 MARC cars that would stop any speculation they cannot meet the 125 on Amtrak territory. Find that somewhat overwhelming.

 

[KnightRail]

Excerpts from the August 2 minutes:

· Siemens targets shipping locomotive #4 to Baltimore, next Friday 8/5.

4604 should be third out on the Zephyr originating Saturday 8/6

 

[Fan Railer]

Here it is, thanks to Agent:

 

[Agent]

Here it is, thanks to Agent:

I would have posted that sooner, but I got distracted by Olympics coverage.

Anyway, while I was there I spoke with a man from Siemens that was going along with this unit to the Northeast. You can hear part of the conversation in the middle of the video. Some of the things he said was that this engine belongs to Illinois, that it's the fourth Charger, and the sixth one is currently in Sacramento.

 

[Fan Railer]

Do you have any idea if it left Chicago immediately on the today's Capitol Limited (8/8)? Or is it leaving on tomorrow's Cap (8/9)?

 

[afigg]

Do you have any idea if it left Chicago immediately on the today's Capitol Limited (8/8)? Or is it leaving on tomorrow's Cap (8/9)?

IIRC, the ACS-64s typically spent a night in Chicago before being sent eastward on the next day's CL or, on a few occasions, the Cardinal. If the SC-44 is moved on the NEC by an ACS-64, hopefully someone will get a photo or video of it.

 

[Agent]

Do you have any idea if it left Chicago immediately on the today's Capitol Limited (8/8)? Or is it leaving on tomorrow's Cap (8/9)?

I doubt it left today. I'm not aware of any Sprinter leaving the same day it arrived in Chicago. #6(06) was running two and a half hours late too.

 

[Fan Railer]

Thanks guys.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

4th charger shipped for NEC testing, in this video it starts with a long distance shot, it clearly shows the height difference between Genesis at 14'6" and Charger at 12'6"

 

[PerRock]

Do you have any idea if it left Chicago immediately on the today's Capitol Limited (8/8)? Or is it leaving on tomorrow's Cap (8/9)?

Why would it go east on the CL? The Chargers are owned by the midwest states & will be in revenue service there.

peter

 

[PVD]

Isn't MARC getting some? Those would operate on portions of the NEC.

 

[OBS]

The engine probably has to put an appearance in at Wash. DC for political purposes....

 

[CCC1007]

It isn't being delivered at this time, just going to the corridor for testing.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Do you have any idea if it left Chicago immediately on the today's Capitol Limited (8/8)? Or is it leaving on tomorrow's Cap (8/9)?

Why would it go east on the CL? The Chargers are owned by the midwest states & will be in revenue service there.

peter

right now their owned by Siemens , their not owned by any agency till their formally accepted.

 

[afigg]

Why would it go east on the CL? The Chargers are owned by the midwest states & will be in revenue service there.

peter

Read back a page to my post #376 in this thread with excerpts from the most recent NGEC executive board meeting minutes. MARC is purchasing 8 Chargers and has received approval from the FRA for testing on the NEC for speeds up to 125 mph. The Chargers at the Pueblo test facility have been run up to 130 mph, but that is test track, not the NEC with all its constraints.

 

[R30A]

4th charger shipped for NEC testing, in this video it starts with a long distance shot, it clearly shows the height difference between Genesis at 14'6" and Charger at 12'6"

It clearly shows the lack of a major height difference, and that the height of the SC-44 is substantially higher than 12' 6". It shows that the SC-44 is equal to or taller in height than the roughly 14' Viewliner baggage behind it.

 

[JohannFarley]

4th charger shipped for NEC testing, in this video it starts with a long distance shot, it clearly shows the height difference between Genesis at 14'6" and Charger at 12'6"

It clearly shows the lack of a major height difference, and that the height of the SC-44 is substantially higher than 12' 6". It shows that the SC-44 is equal to or taller in height than the roughly 14' Viewliner baggage behind it.

Yeah I'd have to agree that it seems to be at least 14' tall if not a little more. That close up shot shows that it isn't that big of a difference.

 

[jis]

4th charger shipped for NEC testing, in this video it starts with a long distance shot, it clearly shows the height difference between Genesis at 14'6" and Charger at 12'6"

It clearly shows the lack of a major height difference, and that the height of the SC-44 is substantially higher than 12' 6". It shows that the SC-44 is equal to or taller in height than the roughly 14' Viewliner baggage behind it.

Yeah, it looks like it is 14'4" tall just like the P42s.

This image shows this very clearly....

https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13925742_1039709436084039_987268846580454813_o.jpg

 

[JohannFarley]

I'm wondering why the wikipedia page taken from the specs says 12.6'? Is that only above the wheels? That would make it seem correct then based on how it looks.

 

[jis]

I'm wondering why the wikipedia page taken from the specs says 12.6'? Is that only above the wheels? That would make it seem correct then based on how it looks.

I speculate that when the Spec was originally put together for distribution to the public domain, it was assumed that the same car body as the Sprinter was going to be used. That changed somewhere on the way since you don't require all that tall insulator hardware on the roof in a diesel engine, and you do require more space inside the carbody. The updated spec sheet was never shared publicly.

 

[PerRock]

Why would it go east on the CL? The Chargers are owned by the midwest states & will be in revenue service there.

peter

Read back a page to my post #376 in this thread with excerpts from the most recent NGEC executive board meeting minutes. MARC is purchasing 8 Chargers and has received approval from the FRA for testing on the NEC for speeds up to 125 mph. The Chargers at the Pueblo test facility have been run up to 130 mph, but that is test track, not the NEC with all its constraints.

In the video posted they say that #4604 belongs to the State of IL, not MARC. It's also plainly in the Midwest paint scheme, not MARCs.

peter

 

[jis]

In the video posted they say that #4604 belongs to the State of IL, not MARC. It's also plainly in the Midwest paint scheme, not MARCs.

I think irrespective of who this locomotive will eventually belong to it is being used as a testbed for validation and certification for operation on the NEC at upto 125mp as required eventually for use by MARC on the NEC. None of these locomotives belong to anyone other than Siemens until they are accepted as delivered by the eventual recipients. Until they are delivered Siemens has quite a bit of discretion about what tests it wants to carry out with them I'd suppose.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Nobody said it wasn't an Illinois locomotive. Testing on the NEC will see if the locomotives can maintain the 125 mph needed by MARC. The locomotive is still Siemens' property, it hasn't been delivered yet.

 

[R30A]

I'm wondering why the wikipedia page taken from the specs says 12.6'? Is that only above the wheels? That would make it seem correct then based on how it looks.

I speculate that when the Spec was originally put together for distribution to the public domain, it was assumed that the same car body as the Sprinter was going to be used. That changed somewhere on the way since you don't require all that tall insulator hardware on the roof in a diesel engine, and you do require more space inside the carbody. The updated spec sheet was never shared publicly.

Perhaps the same height as the european versions?

The Sprinter has the same height specification confusion that the Charger has. Claims to be 12' 6" while it is in reality roughly 14'