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

[Dutchrailnut]

The charger is also much lower than Gennies, 12 foot something vs 14'6".

 

[Caesar La Rock]

I thought it looked "sleeker" than the GE P42. Turns out, it's almost 2 feet shorter!

Would this be a long-term replacement for the P42s?

The ACS-64 seemed bigger when I stood next to it, but that's just me. The ACS and Chargers are the same height I think.

 

[Fan Railer]

Charger height: 12'6''

 

[jis]

Talk about miniaturization even in locomotives!

 

[PVD]

Well, it is a touch longer than a P42.....I .have to admit that for a 25 year old design, I still see a freshly painted Genesis as a decent looking machine.....

 

[Paulus]

Delivery schedule has slipped 2-3 weeks

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Delivery schedule has slipped 2-3 weeks

Thanks for finding the info. Wow.

Lots of stuff. Chargers, 3rd rail locomotives, etc. About the bi-level cars, at the bottom, it's still not looking so good.

But c'mon, Paulus, , it's a public document, owned by the taxpayers like you n me, and not subject to the constraint of Fair Use. So let's go for it:

(Edited to cut stuff I couldn't understand or seemed boring to me, LOL)

Section 305 Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC)

Monthly Activities Report: March 31, 2016

Submitted by: Steven J Hewitt, Manager, S305 NGEC Support Services

Public law 110-432 required Amtrak to:

…establish a Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee, comprised of representatives of Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, host freight railroad companies, passenger railroad equipment manufacturers, interested States, and, as appropriate, other passenger railroad operators.

“The purpose of the Committee shall be to design, develop specifications for, and procure standardized next-generation corridor equipment.

(b) Functions – the Committee may –

1) Determine the number of different types of equipment required, taking into account variations in operational needs and corridor infrastructure.

2) Establish a pool of equipment to be used on corridor routes funded by participating states; and

3) Subject agreements between Amtrak and States, utilize services provided by Amtrak to design, maintain and remanufacture equipment.”

Executive Board

Chair: Eric Curtit, Missouri DOT

Vice Chair: Mario Bergeron, Amtrak

Secretary: Ray Hessinger, NYSDOT

Treasurer: Darrell Smith, Amtrak

The Executive Board holds bi-weekly conference calls – Tuesday’s at 11:30am Eastern

During the month of March, 2016, the Executive Board met twice –via conference call - on the 1st, and on the 15th. DC.

Key decisions and action items from the month of March, 2016 included:

• 514 Subcommittee update: . . .

• Bi-Level Car Procurement status as of March 15: The technical review team met to go through the elements of “Car Shell Model 2”. The official Design Review is anticipated for the end of May 2016, for consideration of acceptance. The production schedule is being updated. Overall, progress is being made. Caltrans is working closely with IDOT and the FRA on the funding issues.

• Diesel-electric Locomotive Procurement status as of March 15, 2016: The multi-state locomotive procurement continues to progress well and, although the timeline has showed some slippage, the overall schedule for delivery of the last locomotive is still within the ARRA funding window. IDOT is monitoring the situation closely with weekly meetings with Siemens focused on schedule.

• GAO Study: . . .

• Adoption of the Dual Mode Locomotive (DC 3rd Rail) specification – The Dual Mode (DC 3rd Rail) Locomotive specification PRIIA 305-011 is in final form with the initial release date and signature page having been completed. The spec can be accessed via the website following the NGEC procedures described therein.

• Finance and Administrative subcommittee update: The Finance & Administrative Sub-committee is continuing to work through the next steps for future funding options, and is doing a bit of a re-evaluation based on the NGEC’s actual spend rate as provided for this past year at the Annual Meeting (about half of what was planned). . . .

• Mid-West States – Section 6 progress report: The states are still working to finalize their agreements – the Mid-West Intercity Passenger Rail Commission (MWIPRC) has approved the ownership agreements to allow the states to own the vehicle jointly. The group is working on taking the necessary steps to own and operate the vehicles in the Mid-West. The Fleet Management Plan is being updated and the Fleet Manager procurement is still being worked on.

• Two page educational/outreach document: . . .

. . .

Diesel- Electric Locomotive procurement update as of 3-24-16 (provided by IDOT):

• All previous invoices . . .

JPEs are reviewing Siemens’ revised schedule, which now indicates a 2 to 3-week schedule slip for the first 11 locomotives. The overall schedule for delivery of the last locomotive is still within the ARRA funding window. IDOT is monitoring schedule closely with weekly meetings with Siemens focused on schedule.

· All of the supplier’s factory FAIs are complete. The remaining FAIs will take place at Siemens’ factory in Sacramento. At the time when the locomotive-complete FAI is scheduled in early June, it is planned that the FRA sample car inspection can also take place.

· The next monthly QA review is planned for April 13th at Siemens factory in Sacramento.

· All carbody compression and structural tests have been successfully completed and the tested carbody is now in paint prep.

· The first two of 15 DCRs have been sent . . . The Diesel Electric DCRs are tracking parallel to the edits for the Dual Mode Locomotive Specification.

· The test plan for 125 mph testing on the North East Corridor is being prepared and will be submitted to FRA by MARC . . .

· Each JPE has had kick-off meetings with Siemens and Amtrak for commissioning of the locomotives, as working out details for pre-revenue test plans.

. . .

· The locomotive weight was reported in February 2016, at 271,924 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. Weight is being closely monitored, each month.

• Bi-Level Car Procurement Update provided by Caltrans, as of 3-24-16:

One FAI is scheduled for 4- 7/8 - 16 in Rochelle, Illinois.

The manufacturer has made some progress on the car shell re-design.

The next web update meeting on the car shell re-design will take place on 4-4-16.

The next face to face meeting may take place in Sacramento, CA on 4-25-16.

The next version of the revised production schedule is anticipated for mid-April.

The next QA and maintenance readiness meeting will take place in Rochelle, Illinois on 4-7-16.

. . .

 

[Steve4031]

Thank you for the updates. This is better than simply nothing. Those charger locomotives will be interesting to ride behind.

 

[Ryan]

The test plan for 125 mph testing on the North East Corridor is being prepared and will be submitted to FRA by MARC, with IDOT/JPE will send letter of concurrence.

HUZZAH!!!!

 

[west point]

Two very important points in the report/

1 Plans for 125 MPH tests by MARC on the NEC. Between Wash - Baltimore or north of Trenton which can provide track rated higher speed for the FRA requirement of testing at speeds above final rated speeds. Can we assume that will be after testing at the TTC ( Pueblo ) ?

2. The building of a 3rd rail dual mode loco. That unit would only be needed on the Empire corridor Albany - NYP. So Amtrak must be planning to replace its DMs sometime in the near future once the 3rd rail Charger proves itself ? As well 125 rated speeds on those portions of the Empire corridor that Amtrak may increase speeds to. That certainly does not preclude some agency from installing a third rail section in say a terminal station but that seems highly unlikely..

3. One has to wonder if Siemens also plans a dual mode CAT loco very similar to Chargers and ACS-64s ? Maybe a future replacement to the NJT ALP-45DMs ?

 

[PVD]

There are 2 common versions of the 3rd rail P32AC-DM the AMTK Empire Service ones use over, the MNRR are under (running). No 3rd rail Charger has been ordered or built, MN has been rebuilding theirs, and it is not likely the Amtrak ones are going anywhere until NY State kicks in the money. 3rd rail Charger can't prove itself, it doesn't exist. LIRR (over) has a bunch of EMD DM's also, they are almost 20 years old (97-98) also.

 

[jis]

Two very important points in the report/

1 Plans for 125 MPH tests by MARC on the NEC. Between Wash - Baltimore or north of Trenton which can provide track rated higher speed for the FRA requirement of testing at speeds above final rated speeds. Can we assume that will be after testing at the TTC ( Pueblo ) ?

2. The building of a 3rd rail dual mode loco. That unit would only be needed on the Empire corridor Albany - NYP. So Amtrak must be planning to replace its DMs sometime in the near future once the 3rd rail Charger proves itself ? As well 125 rated speeds on those portions of the Empire corridor that Amtrak may increase speeds to. That certainly does not preclude some agency from installing a third rail section in say a terminal station but that seems highly unlikely..

3. One has to wonder if Siemens also plans a dual mode CAT loco very similar to Chargers and ACS-64s ? Maybe a future replacement to the NJT ALP-45DMs ?

The NGEC report says nothing about anyone funding to build a dual mode yet. All that it says is the specification is being completed. We are a few years away from anyone actually building one, and it is not a given that Siemens will necessarily get the order from that procurement process. They might, but it is yet to be seen.

The NGEC was tasked to produce specifications for single level, bi-level and diesel locomotive specifications for use by Amtrak and possibly whoever else wants to, so as to be able to pool orders to gain critical mass. This has happened with the Regional bi-level order and likely happening with the diesel order too.

 

[afigg]

2. The building of a 3rd rail dual mode loco. That unit would only be needed on the Empire corridor Albany - NYP. So Amtrak must be planning to replace its DMs sometime in the near future once the 3rd rail Charger proves itself ? As well 125 rated speeds on those portions of the Empire corridor that Amtrak may increase speeds to. That certainly does not preclude some agency from installing a third rail section in say a terminal station but that seems highly unlikely..

The Dual Mode (DC 3rd Rail) Locomotive specification document has been available in draft form in a sequential series of revisions for years. We have discussed the specification and reports before. First, this would be a NYS DOT purchase as they are the lead agency on the Dual Mode specification. There are statements buried in the lengthy activities reports that NYS DOT plans to start the RFP process after the Dual Mode specification is finalized, but that could be years. The state has to budget for the locomotive order first.

These would not be 125 mph locomotives. The specification calls for 110 mph max speeds in diesel mode, 80 mph in 3rd rail mode. The earlier drafts called for 125 mph max speeds, but the committee changed the requirement to 110 mph after feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system.

Finally, the Dual Mode (DC 3rd rail) locomotive order would be a new bid, so EMD and possibly Motive Power would be submitting bids. Siemens presumably has the edge in getting the contract, but since this is NY State, politics could be the deciding factor in who gets the contract (whenever that happens).

 

[neroden]

I am disappointed that they're making a DC 3rd rail dual mode spec, and are not making an AC overhead dual mode spec. DC 3rd rail dual mode is primarily of use to Metro North, and nobody else. Amtrak could use either, but would have more use for an AC overhead design.

Thoughtless.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The 3th rail capable diesel will be joint order for Amtrak, LIRR and MN and last two have no use for AC capable diesel.

to make a AC propulsion diesel int a 3th rail capable one does not require much. but to build a AC capable one your lugging a lot of heavy equipment for the diesel ride.

 

[afigg]

I am disappointed that they're making a DC 3rd rail dual mode spec, and are not making an AC overhead dual mode spec. DC 3rd rail dual mode is primarily of use to Metro North, and nobody else. Amtrak could use either, but would have more use for an AC overhead design.

Thoughtless.

The pending final Dual Mode DC 3rd Rail locomotive spec and subsequent RFP has been discussed in this thread before; see page 2 for example. It is generally off-topic for the Siemens Charger contract and delivery. if the subject is going to keep coming up (lather, rinse, repeat) and it will once the final spec and requirements are posted, we should have a separate Dual Mode DC 3rd Rail thread on it. With links to the AASHTO NGEC documents page(s).

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

2. The building of a 3rd rail dual mode loco. That unit would only be needed on the Empire corridor Albany - NYP. So Amtrak must be planning to replace its DMs sometime in the near future once the 3rd rail Charger proves itself ? As well 125 rated speeds on those portions of the Empire corridor that Amtrak may increase speeds to. That certainly does not preclude some agency from installing a third rail section in say a terminal station but that seems highly unlikely..

The Dual Mode (DC 3rd Rail) Locomotive specification document has been available in draft form in a sequential series of revisions for years. We have discussed the specification and reports before. First, this would be a NYS DOT purchase as they are the lead agency on the Dual Mode specification. There are statements buried in the lengthy activities reports that NYS DOT plans to start the RFP process after the Dual Mode specification is finalized, but that could be years. The state has to budget for the locomotive order first.

These would not be 125 mph locomotives. The specification calls for 110 mph max speeds in diesel mode, 80 mph in 3rd rail mode. The earlier drafts called for 125 mph max speeds, but the committee changed the requirement to 110 mph after feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system.

Finally, the Dual Mode (DC 3rd rail) locomotive order would be a new bid, so EMD and possibly Motive Power would be submitting bids. Siemens presumably has the edge in getting the contract, but since this is NY State, politics could be the deciding factor in who gets the contract (whenever that happens).

Why not 125 MPH?

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

For anyone that does loco repaints on the computer, or maybe photoshop, could someone do a rendering of it in Amtrak Phase V paint, as well as Phase IIIb paint?

 

[PVD]

No where in the territory that the 3rd rail DM locos operate is likely to be 125 mph track anywhere in the forseeable future.

 

[Ryan]

Why not 125 MPH?

From the part you quoted: "feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system."

 

[afigg]

These would not be 125 mph locomotives. The specification calls for 110 mph max speeds in diesel mode, 80 mph in 3rd rail mode. The earlier drafts called for 125 mph max speeds, but the committee changed the requirement to 110 mph after feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system.

Finally, the Dual Mode (DC 3rd rail) locomotive order would be a new bid, so EMD and possibly Motive Power would be submitting bids. Siemens presumably has the edge in getting the contract, but since this is NY State, politics could be the deciding factor in who gets the contract (whenever that happens).

Why not 125 MPH?

More detailed answers to your question can be found in the Dual Mode specification and requirement related documents on this NGEC Documents/Specifications page. Look for the discussion points for 125 vs 110 mph document under the Dual Mode requirements. Further info about the technical issues raised by Siemens for the Dual Mode loco is in the activities report available elsewhere on the NGEC pages.

Edit: Section A.4 in the Dual Mode requirement Revision A document discusses the weight issues and the P2 force limits on the rail at 125 mph with the information provided by all 4 potential locomotive builders.

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

Why not 125 MPH?

From the part you quoted: "feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system."

Oh, I see. So weight is one of the main problems.

 

[CCC1007]

Why not 125 MPH?

From the part you quoted: "feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system."

Oh, I see. So weight is one of the main problems.

Weight is one of the biggest considerations in the design of any vehicle, as having too much on the wheels can lead to restrictions of where that vehicle can be used. A good example is the Airbus A380-800 design process as this aircraft was forced to cut almost 30% of its original weight once the configuration was set. If the weight was not cut, it would have cracked the taxiways and runways wherever it went.

 

[jis]

Yeah. They had to either cut weight or put in even more wheels and undercarriages thus increasing the weight even more. Of course the other reason to cut weight is to reduce weight penalty on fuel burn rate too.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Why not 125 MPH?

From the part you quoted: "feedback from the manufacturers on weight and car length issues for the 3rd rail DC gear and energy storage system."

Oh, I see. So weight is one of the main problems.

Plus, of course, that they don't NEED to run 125 mph on the short run out of NYP. There's what one to three miles of third rail going out of Penn Station.