New diesel locomotive options?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Amtrak's best option for the time being would be to overhaul the current diesel fleet. The Genesis is only required to meet Tier 1 standards upon overhaul, which is easily attainable.
I know, it's an unfair comparison, but I'll make it anyway: I really liked the overhauled Superliner I vs. the "newer" Superliner II.

So, from a purely economic standpoint, does it make sense to overhaul the P42s? As mentioned earlier, they are nearing the end of their projected lifespan. How much is involved in an overhaul?

Trucks?

The prime mover?

Suspension?

Electronics and other cab stuff?

Traction motors?
 
I'm. Not an engineer or diesel mechanic George but the P-42s are pretty much run to death and becoming shop queens!

I'll leave the financial part to those more knowledgeable but I'm of a mind that it would cost Big Bucks to rehab these units!

It might do to redo a few for protect engines, but in the long run it probably will be better to order a new series of engines if our and Amtrak's masters in the Capitol allow Amtrak to do so??!!!
 
If, as you say (and I have no reason to doubt you!), they're EOL, it would seem that we have a serious problem. If there are 195 (that's what Wiki says) P42s in service and they're all going to die soon, what's in the pipeline for a fast replacement? There are only 32 Chargers that will be delivered in the near future. How fast can something like that ramp up, once the decision is made and funding allocated?
 
Some body is pulling wool over somebody eyes and they are believing it . What is this with the MTU series 4000. doesn't it meet Tier 4 without urea treatment? It is advertised as being so.
 
George-

Locomotives don't really have a lifespan. They have overhaul cycles. A locomotive can last 100 years or more, it just depends on availability of parts and so on.

All the components of the Genesis are still manufactured today by GE, and literally thousands of similar locomotives are still running, so parts won't become scarce any time soon.

The Amtrak diesel fleet is WELL past due for a rehab, yes, but there's no reason that with a full overhaul the Gennies wouldn't last another 10-15 years.

If Amtrak placed an order for new diesels tomorrow it would be 2- 3 years minimum before the first ones would be delivered. A P40/P42 rehab could be complete by then.

Metra just approved a rebuild program for 41 F40PHs. The rebuild involves completely replacing ALL engines, traction motors, wiring, trucks, and repairing anything on the frames and body panels. Every single component all the way down to the bolts will be replaced with brand new components. A computer control system will be added as well, since the F40s don't currently have a computer system. The project will cost Metra $2.2mil per unit. Compare that to ordering brand new Siemens Chargers, which when Illinois, Michigan, and California ordered them cost just over $7mil per unit- more than 3x more per unit than it would cost to rebuild the Gennies.

The Genesis fleet would probably cost even less to rebuild than the Metra fleet does. Amtrak is able to do the rebuilds in house at Beech Grove. We don't have that capability at Metra.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the MTU Series 4000 engines are promised to meet tier 4 without after treatment (DEF). But I'm pretty sure they top out at 3000HP, this would be way under what the new locos will require.
 
Right now, MPI does offer the MP40 with 5400 HP and Tier IV. It's a tad...... overweight and overheight, but MPI *does* offer it. It requires putting in two QSK60s. I don't know how this bodes for reliability, considering that the MP40 ALSO has an HEP genset. The MP40 could work for Amtrak outside of the NEC (as long as the weight doesn't cause bridge issues). Staging moves between Boston and anywhere else would require a trip to Chicago, however - unlike the P42, which can be hauled dead through Penn Station. 30th Street Station may also present issues - I'm not sure. At the very least, it could replace P42DCs south and west of DC. It could also replace the F59PHIs Amtrak owns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the aircraft business, we are worried about planes falling out of the sky. These are aluminum tubes that are pressurized and depressurized on a regular, if not multi-times-daily, basis.

Our biggest concern isn't the engines, landing gear, interior, cockpit avionics, or stuff like that. All components can be replaced. It's the airframe itself that has fatigue life issues. Over time, aluminum decays. The constant stress of expanding and contracting can cause cracks, which are exasperated by further pressurization.

That being said, though, I have worked on military aircraft that FLY DAILY that were built in 1962 - that's well over 50 years of service. Of course they have been overhauled. There's probably as much patchwork as original structure. But they work. They are finally looking towards an EOL, but not yet. For an ordinary aircraft, it eventually becomes cheaper to replace than overhaul. For these extraordinary aircraft, not necessarily.

So, I don't see the P42's can't have their entire guts removed and replaced. No parts? I'm sure if someone knew they were going to refurbish a couple hundred, they would produce the parts. If the original tooling hasn't been scrapped, even more better.

As for the diesel engines themselves, you can continue to oversize bore the cylinders while increasing the size of the pistons and rings, but eventually, you start to burn more and more fuel, losing an economically sound efficiency. The motors, I would imagine, would eventually lose efficiency as well.
 
Ultimately the prime mover can be replaced, like was done on the HST125s in the UK. Their original Paxman Valentas were replaced mostly by MTUs and they soldier on, perhaps the most successful 125 mph diesel passenger equipment deployed anywhere.

In the US we still cannot operate diesel passenger trains at a speed higher than 110mph!
 
I'm not sure where we would want to operate diesel passenger trains above 110 mph, even if locomotives or MU-trainsets were available. Electrification and speeds above 110 mph are correlated here. In the UK they are not.
 
AAF will be operating diesel passenger service at 125 mph between Cocoa an Orlando International. That is an example of where we would do so. Other potential places are in NY State and even on the SEHSR. There is no reason whatsoever to tie 125mph operation with electrification in this day and age. If we are doing so it is yet another one of our pointless silliness that works against providing attractive passenger service.
 
It would certainly be nice to make 125 during the night run of 66/67 along the NEC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No SEHSR above 110, and for that matter there is reconsideration to reduce "SEHSR" to 90 or even 79. The longer the project goes unfunded, the greater the pressure to rationalize it.

The real issue with 125 is that the incremental cost to surpass 110 isn't justified by incremental revenues or other benefits of 125, except for a few corridors that don't generate enough demand for diesel equipment to justify the fixed costs of developing it. The distance between Cocoa and MCO is 35 miles. Even if a train could instantaneously accelerate and decelerate to/from 125, it would save a whopping 2 minutes by running at 125 instead of 110. It's not worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would certainly be nice to make 125 during the night run of 66/67 along the NEC.
This will be made possible as soon as it replaces its bag with a new VLII bag.
Edit: That said, it still may not happen, as the schedule has a boatload of padding in it so that there are rational calling times at the endpoints. Higher speed for that train provides little to no added benefit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would certainly be nice to make 125 during the night run of 66/67 along the NEC.
This will be made possible as soon as it replaces its bag with a new VLII bag.
Edit: That said, it still may not happen, as the schedule has a boatload of padding in it so that there are rational calling times at the endpoints. Higher speed for that train provides little to no added benefit.
Yeah - I thought about the fact that the night trains don't have to make full speed. Shrug. Thanks!
 
Amtrak's best option for the time being would be to overhaul the current diesel fleet. The Genesis is only required to meet Tier 1 standards upon overhaul, which is easily attainable.
I know, it's an unfair comparison, but I'll make it anyway: I really liked the overhauled Superliner I vs. the "newer" Superliner II.

So, from a purely economic standpoint, does it make sense to overhaul the P42s? As mentioned earlier, they are nearing the end of their projected lifespan. How much is involved in an overhaul?

Trucks?

The prime mover?

Suspension?

Electronics and other cab stuff?

Traction motors?
All of the above. This would be a mid-life overhaul., no huge deal and considerably cheaper than new. For example,Via Rail did this with their F-40PH's a couple of years ago. This is not your family car or a bus. locomotives are much more robust and therefore suitable to rebuild for many further years of reliable service.

Put me on the list for disliking the looks of Euro locos and rolling stock
 
Amtrak's best option for the time being would be to overhaul the current diesel fleet. The Genesis is only required to meet Tier 1 standards upon overhaul, which is easily attainable.
I know, it's an unfair comparison, but I'll make it anyway: I really liked the overhauled Superliner I vs. the "newer" Superliner II.

So, from a purely economic standpoint, does it make sense to overhaul the P42s? As mentioned earlier, they are nearing the end of their projected lifespan. How much is involved in an overhaul?

Trucks?

The prime mover?

Suspension?

Electronics and other cab stuff?

Traction motors?
All of the above. This would be a mid-life overhaul., no huge deal and considerably cheaper than new. For example,Via Rail did this with their F-40PH's a couple of years ago. This is not your family car or a bus. locomotives are much more robust and therefore suitable to rebuild for many further years of reliable service.

Put me on the list for disliking the looks of Euro locos and rolling stock
Does GE still make the diesel engines, or at least have a drop-in replacement? I remember seeing several for sale - probably scavenged from freight locomotives and sold to be rebuilt.

The electronic controls must be really old though. Still nothing compared to the military transport/tanker plane I visited based off of a DC-10. That thing had dials, knobs, etc but none of the touchscreens you'd see in a modern cockpit. I think it was older than the pilot. I've heard that many military pilots choose transports because of a shorter commitment and easier transition to commercial aviation, but that doesn't seem the case if the controls are from the 70s.
 
GE still makes the diesel engines, as well as all other parts for the Genesis, including the computer system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top