Does Amtrak have enough diesel locomotives?

[Nathanael]

When the rebuilt P40s were rebuilt, they were rebuilt with the intention that they could be used interchangeably with P42s; I am sure anything which prevented that was altered.

 

[X]

According to a post on Facebook, Amtrak may have lost another one.

A wrecked Amtrak unit sits at UP's Settegast Yard Roundhouse. in Houston, TX.... It hit a 18-wheeler near Lissie, TX, which is about 70 miles west of Houston. It was #2 the eastbound Sunset Limited.

Hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like 120 just needs a 'standard' "nose job" and will be back in service within a month.

 

[Ryan]

Just passed the Oakland maintenance yard and noticed an 800 series Genesis (820 I think) paired with a low numbered locomotive. That's a P40, right? The P40 was backwards and the P42 was leading. I thought that the P40s were best suited for single operation because they have mechanically actuated brakes.

P40's are in the 8xx series, yes.

120 doesn't look like its in bad shape at all.

 

[jis]

I thought that the P40s were best suited for single operation because they have mechanically actuated brakes.

Could you give some more details on exactly what the differences were, and if the differences made the P40s incapable of operating with P42s?

 

[cirdan]

It's a question of duty cycle. You can have a GP7 that lasts 50 years if it runs only 3 hours a day, 3 days a week and rarely gets above Notch 4. If you have a P42 that is running flat-out on a long-distance train for 24 or 48 hours at a pop, then turned around quickly and put back on the road for another 24 or 48 hours, the equipment ages quickly. Even on class 1 freight railroads, only some locomotives are assigned that kind of duty cycle -- and they also tend to show wear after 15-20 years, such that they get thoroughly rebuilt or are demoted to less demanding service.

Although if you look at British rail, you have the class 43 which were mostly built in the mid 1970s (a handful being added in the early 1980s). With the exception of about 5 that were lost in various accidents and about 10 that are currently mothballed because surplus to requirements (just short of 200 built in total), they're all still running in high-speed service on a daily basis. They have been re-engined over the last couple of years. Amtrak could be doing the same. It's a lower cost solution than a completely new locomotive but permits the fuel economies of a modern prime mover. The class is expected to last in front-line service doing 125mph for another 20 years or so, which means the last would be about 60 years old when finally scrapped.

 

[jis]

One must admit though that there is no British locomotive that puts on the kind of mileage that typical Amtrak locomotives do, and that too on relatively horrible track compared to British 125mph trackage.

 

[BCL]

I thought that the P40s were best suited for single operation because they have mechanically actuated brakes.

Could you give some more details on exactly what the differences were, and if the differences made the P40s incapable of operating with P42s?

I don't know about incapable, but here goes.

Apparently the P42DCs have an electronic system that allows the brakes in an unmanned locomotive to be applied via an electronic signal from the cab. A traditional system would use an air "signal". My layman's understanding is that with an electronic system, both brakes in a two-locomotive setup can be applied at exactly the same time while with an air system there's a sequential delay.

 

[DET63]

How much is Amtrak able to use freight locomotives on any of its trains? I would assume a lead engine from a freight railroad could be used with an Amtrak engine trailing (with the latter meeting HEP requirements), or are they mechanically incompatible for other reasons?

 

[printman2000]

How much is Amtrak able to use freight locomotives on any of its trains? I would assume a lead engine from a freight railroad could be used with an Amtrak engine trailing (with the latter meeting HEP requirements), or are they mechanically incompatible for other reasons?

When Amtrak has engine failures on its long distance trains, it is common to have a freight unit added to the front. However, freight units are not geared the same as Amtrak units and therefore cannot run as fast. I think the usual maximum speed on a freight unit is 70mph where Amtrak runs a lot at 79mph and even 90mph in some places.

Therefore a freight unit will cause the train to lose a lot of time over a long distance route.

 

[jis]

I thought that the P40s were best suited for single operation because they have mechanically actuated brakes.

Could you give some more details on exactly what the differences were, and if the differences made the P40s incapable of operating with P42s?

I don't know about incapable, but here goes.

Apparently the P42DCs have an electronic system that allows the brakes in an unmanned locomotive to be applied via an electronic signal from the cab. A traditional system would use an air "signal". My layman's understanding is that with an electronic system, both brakes in a two-locomotive setup can be applied at exactly the same time while with an air system there's a sequential delay.

Oh electronic actuation is an overlay that is available on quite a bit of passenger equipment, and it need not be sued even if present. On the NEC it is common to use electronic actuation, specially in higher speed operations
Still I dontl understand what electronic actuation has to do with single unit use or multiple unit use.

 

[BCL]

I thought that the P40s were best suited for single operation because they have mechanically actuated brakes.

Could you give some more details on exactly what the differences were, and if the differences made the P40s incapable of operating with P42s?

I don't know about incapable, but here goes.

Apparently the P42DCs have an electronic system that allows the brakes in an unmanned locomotive to be applied via an electronic signal from the cab. A traditional system would use an air "signal". My layman's understanding is that with an electronic system, both brakes in a two-locomotive setup can be applied at exactly the same time while with an air system there's a sequential delay.

Oh electronic actuation is an overlay that is available on quite a bit of passenger equipment, and it need not be sued even if present. On the NEC it is common to use electronic actuation, specially in higher speed operations
Still I dontl understand what electronic actuation has to do with single unit use or multiple unit use.

It was just my understanding that the ideal situation would be for two P42s to be used together, and that braking performance would be enhanced as a result.

I'm guessing the cars are still mechanically braked sequentially. I heard that with some long freight trains, it can take as long as a couple of minutes for the last car to start braking.

 

[jis]

Yeah. I believe that Amfleets are equipped with electronic actuation. I am not sure about others. All NJT trains also use electronic actuation AFAIR.

So I see your point. it is not that P42s are bad for single operation, it is the case that two P40s together or a P40 with a P42 would have slightly worse braking performance than two P42s together, and hence preferably P40 should be used in single op.

I suspect though that the 15 P40s that were refurbished and brought upto par with P42s have also gotten the P42-like braking system.

 

[BCL]

Yeah. I believe that Amfleets are equipped with electronic actuation. I am not sure about others. All NJT trains also use electronic actuation AFAIR.
So I see your point. it is not that P42s are bad for single operation, it is the case that two P40s together or a P40 with a P42 would have slightly worse braking performance than two P42s together, and hence preferably P40 should be used in single op.

I suspect though that the 15 P40s that were refurbished and brought upto par with P42s have also gotten the P42-like braking system.

I read up on it. Apparently the refubs did a lot to boost the output of the P40s but didn't change the braking system.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/31648-dash-8-40bps-banned-on-the-nec/?p=220652

battalion51Don't forget that Amtrak is releasing the P-40's back into the system. They'd be banning their own power. Where's the logic? Especially since the P-42 is effectively the same except for the brakes.

This forum has some discussion. I thought they were electrically actuated air brakes on the P42s and not electric (aka "fly by wire") brakes like high-speed rail uses.

http://www.westcoastrailforums.com/thread-6845-page-2.html

 

[Nathanael]

I thought that the P40s were best suited for single operation because they have mechanically actuated brakes.

Could you give some more details on exactly what the differences were, and if the differences made the P40s incapable of operating with P42s?

I don't know about incapable, but here goes.

Apparently the P42DCs have an electronic system that allows the brakes in an unmanned locomotive to be applied via an electronic signal from the cab. A traditional system would use an air "signal". My layman's understanding is that with an electronic system, both brakes in a two-locomotive setup can be applied at exactly the same time while with an air system there's a sequential delay.

I could be wrong, but I believe that installing this electronic system was part of the P40 rebuild. This sort of electronic stuff is cheap to retrofit.

 

[xyzzy]

Although if you look at British rail, you have the class 43 which were mostly built in the mid 1970s (a handful being added in the early 1980s). With the exception of about 5 that were lost in various accidents and about 10 that are currently mothballed because surplus to requirements (just short of 200 built in total), they're all still running in high-speed service on a daily basis. They have been re-engined over the last couple of years. Amtrak could be doing the same. It's a lower cost solution than a completely new locomotive but permits the fuel economies of a modern prime mover. The class is expected to last in front-line service doing 125mph for another 20 years or so, which means the last would be about 60 years old when finally scrapped.

It happens that I spend about half my time in the UK (and am going there again Monday). For those who don't know, the Class 43 is generally considered the fastest diesel locomotive in the world, at least in terms of regular service. It was built to run 125 mph. Of course, the end-to-end distance is quite short relative to USA geography -- and the grades in the UK are much flatter as well. Furthermore the standards of passenger car construction in the two countries are quite different, and consequently both the Class 43 locomotive and the carriages it pulls weigh much less than their Amtrak counterparts. For example, one P42 has roughly 3 times the tractive effort of one Class 43.

The UK would have replaced the Class 43s by now, if it could.

As for the P42s, replacing or rebuilding the prime mover is the easy part. The steel, the traction motors, the electrical system, and the control electronics are where the costs lie.

 

[BCL]

As for the P42s, replacing or rebuilding the prime mover is the easy part. The steel, the traction motors, the electrical system, and the control electronics are where the costs lie.

My understanding is that they were more or less hot-rodded to get more power. Each cylinder in one of these things displaces more than 10 liters.

Still - how much would it cost to replace the engine, and does GE still make them? I suppose they can't just drop in a crate engine like you could do with a tractor. How many companies make this kind of engine. I understand GE does in house, and maybe Caterpillar.

 

[DET63]

How much is Amtrak able to use freight locomotives on any of its trains? I would assume a lead engine from a freight railroad could be used with an Amtrak engine trailing (with the latter meeting HEP requirements), or are they mechanically incompatible for other reasons?

When Amtrak has engine failures on its long distance trains, it is common to have a freight unit added to the front. However, freight units are not geared the same as Amtrak units and therefore cannot run as fast. I think the usual maximum speed on a freight unit is 70mph where Amtrak runs a lot at 79mph and even 90mph in some places.

Therefore a freight unit will cause the train to lose a lot of time over a long distance route.

On most western LD routes, there is not that much 79 mph or even 75 mph running, so the delays caused by using a freight loco on many of those services would probably be minimal (especially in comparison to the other delays that tend to happen). There might be some fast running on the corridor services, but those tend to use one loco anyway, so they would have to be headed by something with HEP capability, i.e., a passenger-train engine.

 

[gn2276]

Neather the P42 nor the F59 are being built as the engines that when in them are the Tier II air compliant. Sound Transit just got 3 of the MP40's, right now this is the only pure passenger engine that Amtrak can get. But at over a million dollars a piece it is to much right now as far as cost.

 

[gn2276]

According to a post on Facebook, Amtrak may have lost another one.

A wrecked Amtrak unit sits at UP's Settegast Yard Roundhouse. in Houston, TX.... It hit a 18-wheeler near Lissie, TX, which is about 70 miles west of Houston. It was #2 the eastbound Sunset Limited.

Hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like 120 just needs a 'standard' "nose job" and will be back in service within a month.

The nose on the P42 are 2 big pieces of fiberglass so they are not that hard to replace as long as there is a nose piece avaible.

 

[NW cannonball]

Neather the P42 nor the F59 are being built as the engines that when in them are the Tier II air compliant. Sound Transit just got 3 of the MP40's, right now this is the only pure passenger engine that Amtrak can get. But at over a million dollars a piece it is to much right now as far as cost.

A lousy million apiece? I thought list price on freight locos is now in the 2 million - three million range - but maybe bulk discounts? Don't know, but Minneapolis-saint-paul is paying near $3million for each articulated light rail car for their new line.

Getting the production line started even for a redesigned P42 will cost multimillions for the first prototypes - expect an average cost in the 2-3 million range.

If only -- mass production could come into effect. Not likely.

 

[NW cannonball]

How much is Amtrak able to use freight locomotives on any of its trains? I would assume a lead engine from a freight railroad could be used with an Amtrak engine trailing (with the latter meeting HEP requirements), or are they mechanically incompatible for other reasons?

When Amtrak has engine failures on its long distance trains, it is common to have a freight unit added to the front. However, freight units are not geared the same as Amtrak units and therefore cannot run as fast. I think the usual maximum speed on a freight unit is 70mph where Amtrak runs a lot at 79mph and even 90mph in some places.

Therefore a freight unit will cause the train to lose a lot of time over a long distance route.

On most western LD routes, there is not that much 79 mph or even 75 mph running, so the delays caused by using a freight loco on many of those services would probably be minimal (especially in comparison to the other delays that tend to happen). There might be some fast running on the corridor services, but those tend to use one loco anyway, so they would have to be headed by something with HEP capability, i.e., a passenger-train engine.

I know that on the EB - there is a lot of 79 mph running - and some recent posts here have noted that even with two BNSF helpers the EB EB gets at least 6 hours behind with this help.

 

[BCL]

Neather the P42 nor the F59 are being built as the engines that when in them are the Tier II air compliant. Sound Transit just got 3 of the MP40's, right now this is the only pure passenger engine that Amtrak can get. But at over a million dollars a piece it is to much right now as far as cost.

A lousy million apiece? I thought list price on freight locos is now in the 2 million - three million range - but maybe bulk discounts? Don't know, but Minneapolis-saint-paul is paying near $3million for each articulated light rail car for their new line.

Getting the production line started even for a redesigned P42 will cost multimillions for the first prototypes - expect an average cost in the 2-3 million range.

If only -- mass production could come into effect. Not likely.

I don't know if the answer was about the cost of the entire locomotive or just the diesel engine itself. At the heart it's just a big diesel generator.

 

[printman2000]

On most western LD routes, there is not that much 79 mph or even 75 mph running, so the delays caused by using a freight loco on many of those services would probably be minimal (especially in comparison to the other delays that tend to happen). There might be some fast running on the corridor services, but those tend to use one loco anyway, so they would have to be headed by something with HEP capability, i.e., a passenger-train engine.

The western trains are exactly where there is a lot of 79mph running. Trust me, when they put a freight on, they lose quite a bit of time.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Since the Obama Administration is Currently doing a Big "Manufacture in the USA" Push, Why Not Encourage the Big 3 Automakers (and the other Engine Manufacturers) to make Diesel/Electric Engines again!? Back in the Grim Early Days of WWII, they Transitioned from Making Cars and started Cranking out the Arsenal of Democracy within Weeks of Pearl Harbor! Planes,Trains, Ships and Military Vehicles (ie Tanks, Jeeps and Trucks!)were built in the Millions by Rosey the Riveter and 4-F Guys and the Economy started Humming again! Tax Incentives and Cost Plus Deals would be a Better use of Stimulus Funds and Tax Payers Money than Wars, and might just be the Ticket to help get People Back to Work @ Liveable Wages instead of McJobs with Un-Liveable Wages!

It's a Win!Win! Deal for the Taxpayers, Amtrak and Railfans!

 

[Nathanael]

I know that on the EB - there is a lot of 79 mph running - and some recent posts here have noted that even with two BNSF helpers the EB EB gets at least 6 hours behind with this help.

Both the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr have long stretches of 79 mph running as well. The SWC runs at full speed west of Albuquerque and east of Kansas City, at least, and the Zephyr runs at full speed for a large portion of the distance between Denver and Chicago. Further east, the Lake Shore Limited runs at 79 for nearly its entire distance from Albany until the final Chicago approach. I believe (though I haven't verified it personally) that the Crescent gets a long stretch of 79 mph running south of DC as well. Pretty much every one of Amtrak's trains has significant stretches of 79 mph running.