Freight verse Passenger engines

[A Voice]

Well, Amtrak doesn't really have much else to rebuild. Aside from 21 F59PHI units, its rebuild a mid-90's General Electric engine or nothing. Norfolk Southern has other options, its easier to buy secondhand power (the Union Pacific SD90MAC's), and the major builders have current production freight models already in service.

Aren't those state-owned?

Per the On Track On Line roster, California owns 15 units and North Carolina at least eight, but the 21 locomotives referenced above are Amtrak engines. I welcome corrections, of course.

 

[seat38a]

Well, Amtrak doesn't really have much else to rebuild. Aside from 21 F59PHI units, its rebuild a mid-90's General Electric engine or nothing. Norfolk Southern has other options, its easier to buy secondhand power (the Union Pacific SD90MAC's), and the major builders have current production freight models already in service.

Aren't those state-owned?

I believe the Cascades ones are owned by Amtrak, and possible the Surfliner ones.

peter

Surfliner ones are Amtrak owned. CA owned ones primarily run up north.

 

[Gulfwind2]

I can't be the only one wondering why Amtrak's future approach toward power mentions nothing about Multiple Unit power. The Stadler DMU product which is being built for Tex Rail between downtown Fort Worth and the DFW airport for example is certified to run with mixed traffic and meets all current FRA/EPA standards for passenger equipment. I have ridden the EMU variant of the same product in Norway and I can attest to the fact that they are well-equipped to run comfortably and efficiently in corridors up to 500 miles.

I understand the obvious advantage of running locomotives with conventional cars: you can add cars where the demand warrants it. But I sometimes balk at the idea of a locomotive such as the P42 being used top & tail with a Horizon consist in the midwest where the steep grades that the P42 was engineered for are nowhere to be found.

The P42 is excellent considering the abuse it has taken and it has been faithful in serving the long distance trains. But on short distance corridors that serve cities where the intermediate terrain is as flat as a pancake, locomotives and conventional cars are unnecessary more often than not.

 

[jis]

DMUs would be more appropriate for the state funded short to medium distance service. They would probably be inappropriate for LD service. Equipment for short to medium distance service is now primarily decided by their paymasters, i.e. the states in question.

 

[BCL]

I understand the obvious advantage of running locomotives with conventional cars: you can add cars where the demand warrants it. But I sometimes balk at the idea of a locomotive such as the P42 being used top & tail with a Horizon consist in the midwest where the steep grades that the P42 was engineered for are nowhere to be found.

I see them being used on Capitol Corridor quite often, and that's an extremely flat route. That has a elevation gain of maybe 50 feet tops, and that's only because it has to cross a bridge over the Carquinez Strait. Seems like overkill, although the F59PHIs are probably overkill too.