New LD Locomotive Order Placed

[PVD]

If I recall, the rebuild option included a mandatory change to AC traction and meeting T4 requirements. That wouldn't help the rebuild case much. 

 

[jis]

If I recall, the rebuild option included a mandatory change to AC traction and meeting T4 requirements. That wouldn't help the rebuild case much. 

Yeah, that makes the rebuild exercise almost like keeping the carbody, the ashtray and the chair in the driver compartment, and changing out everything else. Since they had destroyed half the original trucks by carrying out faulty maintenance practices, they probably would have to find new trucks or remanufacture broken truck frames somehow, a very dicey thing to consider.

 

[PVD]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Siemens own the rights to some truck designs, as well as manufacture trucks?

 

[cpotisch]

Oh hey, look what I found!  



https://www.flickr.com/photos/100814870@N06/36684074375/

Now I guess the real question is if Amtrak checked the license to make sure they were using and modifying this appropriately, and if they properly credited the photographer by linking the original photo and mentioning the original author.

 

[cpotisch]

It has the owner's watermark in the lower right corner and the relative cost of a non-exclusive license for a photo like this is minimal.  There is a less than 1% chance they simply lifted, altered, and republished this without any permission whatsoever.  Most of the time if there is a dispute in a situation like this it's due to a non-owning/non-controlling entity being paid by mistake.

They photoshopped the watermark out, though.

 

[neroden]

Sounds like the rebuild would have saved pretty much the carbody only... which is too heavy.  So it made no sense.

Speculation for who will buy the abandoned P42 fleet may now commence.  I'm not sure if there's any operator for whom they are suitable.  Would any tourist operation want them (it would have to be one which pulls a lot of cars)?  One or two will probably go to museums.  They're not suitable for freight; they're too powerful for switching; I expect they'll mostly get scrapped.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I actually did the math.  It's very curious.  If you put one locomotive on each train, 75 *should* cover all the so-called long-distance trains (even with a daily Cardinal and Sunset).

The question is how many of the trains need more than one locomotive.  The Chargers have different specs from the Genesis engines, so this is not a question with an obvious answer at all.

Does anyone have a better idea of where two locomotives will be required?  There are three separate sources of this requirement:

-- long trains combined with high HEP needs meaning that a second loco is needed to meet the acceleration profile

-- steep grades (such as going from Denver west on the California Zephyr) requiring a second loco to accelerate and maintain speed

-- host railroads demanding a second locomotive in case of locomotive failure en route

I really don't know the specific situation with regard to these factors on ANY of the lines. If someone knows more, I'd love the information.  I particularly know nothing about host railroad demands.

Long story short. Most of the LD network that routinely operate with more than one diesel have the power for acceleration and schedule for portions of the trip.  There are specific instructions regarding the use of multiple engines and it varies by train and terrain. While just about any train CAN operate with a single engine (even the auto train has done it when one of the units shuts down) the guidelines tell you where you multiple units are allowed isolate additional units and operate with one for portions of the trip.

Most train operate with two units on line for the trip.

Also, on this recent order, it would be cool if Amtrak could get Siemens to throw in the aerodynamic noses!  The Charger looks much better with that front.

I don't think it would be cool. I think it would be a functional nightmare not unlike the Acela.  Imagine hitting something and needing to lift that nose to rescue/tow it. Even if you automate the process, those latches can be damaged by impact or be subject to power loss.

That will add to the time it takes to rescue the set. To me, that isn't worth "the look."

 

[jis]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Siemens own the rights to some truck designs, as well as manufacture trucks?

Both ACS-64s and SC-44/BSC40s ride on Siemens model SF4 trucks.

I suspect that will continue to be the case for both the VIA SC-44s (VSC-44?) and Amtrak SC-44s (ASC-44?) too.

 

[PVD]

thanks, for some reason I seem to remember them buying someone's design for an older truck, maybe it was rapid transit, not loco I'm thinking of....

 

[Ryan]

I don't think it would be cool. I think it would be a functional nightmare not unlike the Acela.  Imagine hitting something and needing to lift that nose to rescue/tow it. Even if you automate the process, those latches can be damaged by impact or be subject to power loss.

That will add to the time it takes to rescue the set. To me, that isn't worth "the look."

Yep.  100% agreed.

Looks like they just kinda stole it from this guy on Flickr too. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt and say they got permission, but this is Amtrak we’re talking about. Of course they did it the dumb way.

Quite the self fulfilling prophesy to make something up and then hold it up as an example of Amtrak's incompetency.

Now I guess the real question is if Amtrak checked the license to make sure they were using and modifying this appropriately, and if they properly credited the photographer by linking the original photo and mentioning the original author.

The requirements to link and ID are requirements of the Creative Commons license that I license my photographs under.  They are not universal requirements, and the original photographer didn't necessarily have to ask for either of those as terms of the images used. I've had paid images used where neither requirement was levied (the cold hard cash was enough reward).

They photoshopped the watermark out, though.

Or the original image provided by the photographer didn't have it.

 

[neroden]

Long story short. Most of the LD network that routinely operate with more than one diesel have the power for acceleration and schedule for portions of the trip.  There are specific instructions regarding the use of multiple engines and it varies by train and terrain. While just about any train CAN operate with a single engine (even the auto train has done it when one of the units shuts down) the guidelines tell you where you multiple units are allowed isolate additional units and operate with one for portions of the trip.

Most train operate with two units on line for the trip.

Coming from the airline industry, Anderson is probably thinking about fuel usage, weight, efficiency, and cost of equipment.  I would not be even slightly surprised if he's trying to work out how to run single locomotives on as many routes as he can -- as long as it doesn't slow the train down. 

I guess the question is which routes can switch from two engines to one while maintaining schedule and HEP without difficulty.  And will the areas which require using multiple units be reduced with the new locomotives?

I mean, suppose you know that you could now meet all of the LSL schedule with one engine except, say, one hill between Utica and Schenectady.  Would you try to rearrange things to avoid carrying the extra engine?  Probably.
 

 

[Thirdrail7]

Coming from the airline industry, Anderson is probably thinking about fuel usage, weight, efficiency, and cost of equipment.  I would not be even slightly surprised if he's trying to work out how to run single locomotives on as many routes as he can -- as long as it doesn't slow the train down. 

I guess the question is which routes can switch from two engines to one while maintaining schedule and HEP without difficulty.  And will the areas which require using multiple units be reduced with the new locomotives?

I mean, suppose you know that you could now meet all of the LSL schedule with one engine except, say, one hill between Utica and Schenectady.  Would you try to rearrange things to avoid carrying the extra engine?  Probably.
 

The guidelines were written with fuel economy, acceleration and schedules in mind. The are updated constantly, tweeked, adjusted and even vary by season.  A lot of this will depend on the actual consist. If you've slashed your consist from 10 cars with a energy sucking dining car to a 6 car train with a cafe, you may be able to operate with 1 diesel without sacrificing the schedule of acceleration.

Along those lines, 92 (20) operated with 11 cars and one diesel. Sure, it was a bit sluggish but it made it.

The bottom line is we'll have to wait to see what the vision for the LD is. The end result may be tiny trains that are actually smaller (the normal Star,  the normal Card, the Eagle, the winter CAP, the winter Crescent) than some of the regional trains which are routinely 8 cars and above.

 

[BCL]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Siemens own the rights to some truck designs, as well as manufacture trucks?

Didn’t the manufacturer for the ones on the Genesis go out of business or got sold?  I vaguely recall that GE was getting replacements from Siemens.

Addendum: looking into it, Krupp was actual acquired by Siemens.  However, I thought they discontinued that design and Siemens had to substitute another model.

 

[PVD]

Thanks, I was just looking at the same stuff...I guess I'm still thawing out from a long night at the rink last night....things are slowly coming back.....

 

[jis]

Here is a nice PDF document about Siemens Bogies, i.e. Trucks in American lingo:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/sitecollectiondocuments/en/rail-solutions/components-and-systems/bogies-catalog-en.pdf

It shows upto SF3.

The SF4 bogie of the Vectron is a further developed Eurosprinter F4 bogie. For increased speed range this bogies drive line is of a partly suspended hollow shaft type with lateral dampers as a new feature. An option for the bogie is an ADD system steering the bogie to the curve and out of it reducing the Y forces. ADD is shortened for German Aktiver Drehdämpfer.

I am not sure which model is used in the P4xs, and if it even appears in the current catalog.

 

[PVD]

Thanks....

 

[cpotisch]

I actually did the math.  It's very curious.  If you put one locomotive on each train, 75 *should* cover all the so-called long-distance trains (even with a daily Cardinal and Sunset).

The question is how many of the trains need more than one locomotive.  The Chargers have different specs from the Genesis engines, so this is not a question with an obvious answer at all.

Does anyone have a better idea of where two locomotives will be required?  There are three separate sources of this requirement:

-- long trains combined with high HEP needs meaning that a second loco is needed to meet the acceleration profile

-- steep grades (such as going from Denver west on the California Zephyr) requiring a second loco to accelerate and maintain speed

-- host railroads demanding a second locomotive in case of locomotive failure en route

I really don't know the specific situation with regard to these factors on ANY of the lines. If someone knows more, I'd love the information.  I particularly know nothing about host railroad demands.

In terms of technical requirements, I believe the following trains have run with one Genesis locomotive with no problems in the past:

-- Lake Shore Limited

-- Capitol Limited

-- Cardinal

-- Silver Star

-- Silver Meteor

-- Crescent

-- California Zephyr from Chicago to Denver

(Most of these routes are pretty flat, while the Cardinal and Capitol Limited pull short trains and the mountain tracks have low speed limits which don't tax the locomotives so much)

I believe the following trains still run with one locomotive routinely:

-- City of New Orleans

-- Texas Eagle

(These are both flat routes AND short trains)

Is it possible that all the trains could run with one Charger locomotive?  I would expect a second one to be needed at least on the following bits:

-- California Zephyr up the Front Range from Denver to Salt Lake, and across the Sierras from Sacramento to Reno

-- Coast Starlight through the Cascades

-- Southwest Chief over Raton Pass

But I don't really know.

The Empire Builder crosses the Rockies with one locomotive for each section (Portland and Seattle), so I guess it probably would be OK with one locomotive for the whole flat part of the route if it has enough power for HEP and for accelerating to speed.

I’m pretty certain the Auto Train will also need at least two locos no matter what. There’s just no way that single Charger can pull (and supply HEP to) 17-18 Superliners and 30+ auto racks. But the AT only has two consists, so that shouldn’t be much of an issue.

I also think that the fact that the EB is two sections means that it’s going to need two locomotives. I guess they could short turn the Portland section locomotive in Spokane, rather than having it run the entire trip to Chicago (so the Seattle loco would run CHI-SEA while the Portland loco would just bounce back and forth between PDX and SPK). But that assumes that a single locomotive could pull what is a pretty long train, through the Rockies, and the switching procedures in SPK would likely become significantly more complicated and risky.

 

[Seaboard92]

I think everyone is partially wrong on which train will get them first. If I were making the choice I would put them on the Coast Starlight first. With new equipment it is best to keep them near a shop that is capable of maintaining them. And with the Cascades, SFO Corridor pool, and the Surfliners pool. You have a maintenance base at Los Angeles, and Seattle for end point repair. And in the event of a mid route problem Oakland. The next routes I would expect the to run on are the ones with an end point that's used to the engine on both ends. So the next trains that might get them are the California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Empire Builder.

And if you count there is a shop in DC for the MARC engines you could get the Capitol and the Cardinal in.

I think the last stand for the Gennies will be in the southeast United States.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak has been working on specification of a dual mode engine. Anyway those are mostly used by NY State funded service, and it is unlikely that Amtrak will buy any without consulting with NYSDOT. Until then the P32ACDMs will soldier on.

Meanwhile, apparently MNRR has for the moment shelved working on their replacement order for P32ACDMs, until some unspecified time.

Serious question: Can the Empire Connection take catenary?  I ask since in context, if the wires would fit then electrifying the line for the approach to Penn Station and then rolling this together with a generalized dual-mode order would probably make more long-term sense than having two sets of dual modes (one for NYP-ALB and the other for the NEC).

(Of course, this gets me wondering about stupid things such as attaching an electric motor to a DMU north of WAS or a diesel motor to an EMU south of WAS...)

 

[jis]

Serious question: Can the Empire Connection take catenary?

Empire Connection has catenary installed from Penn Station (A interlocking) upto CP Empire just outside the connecting tunnel. There is enough clearance for its entire length to electrify it with OHE all the way to Spuyten Duyvil if someone wants to do so and pays for it.It would most likely be cheaper to go for the catenary dual mode if Amtrak is serious about operating through power to Virginia and Springfield too (and maybe someday through the N-S tunnel in Boston).

 

[cpotisch]

It would most likely be cheaper to go for the catenary dual mode if Amtrak is serious about operating through power to Virginia and Springfield too (and maybe someday through the N-S tunnel in Boston.

Sorry, what is this?

 

[jis]

Sorry, what is this?

Operating dual mode engines with no change of engine through Washington DC to Virginia and through New Haven to Springfield and Vermont

 

[cpotisch]

They photoshopped the watermark out, though.

 Or the original image provided by the photographer didn't have it.

The one on flickr does. Or are you saying that the original photographer may have specifically provided a version of the photo without the watermark to Amtrak?

 

[cpotisch]

Operating dual mode engines with no change of engine through Washington DC to Virginia and through New Haven to Springfield and Vermont

Ah, thanks. I thought this was part of the discussion of the Empire Connection, so I got confused.

 

[jis]

The one on flickr does. Or are you saying that the original photographer may have specifically provided a version of the photo without the watermark to Amtrak?

I guess it is possible that we don't have full knowledge of all the transactions that transpired.

Ah, thanks. I thought this was part of the discussion of the Empire Connection, so I got confused.

It was. The focus being on what sort of dual mode locomotive makes sense in terms of more universal usability rather than just for the Empire Corridor.