Potential P42 Replacement

[Acela150]

If their any topics open about this subject please refer me to them.

My Dad who is almost 70 has a tendency to think he knows EVERYTHING about Amtrak. He is 100% sure that Amtrak is ready to replace the P42's. Is this fair to say? Are they due for replacement soon? I told him I beg to differ. I said the fleet is strong. Yes they have had a few P42 fires lately but that's no means for replacement IMO.

Let me know your thoughts.

Steve

 

[bretton88]

I think Amtrak does want to begin the replacement of the P42s but they have other pressing needs first. The P42 isn't aging as well as Amtrak was hoping. But it's low on Amtrak's priority list right now.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

The P42s are going nowhere soon.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

The P42s are going nowhere soon.

Except up in flames.

 

[bretton88]

About the only way you'll hear about new diesels in Amtrak is for fleet expansion. They have a lot more pressing concerns than replacing 15 yr old engines right now.

 

[jis]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

Just for completeness, don't forget those clunky LIRR DE/DMs. They do fit in through the tunnels too. Not that I am suggesting anyone should consider building any more of those either.

About the only way you'll hear about new diesels in Amtrak is for fleet expansion. They have a lot more pressing concerns than replacing 15 yr old engines right now.

Yep they would be better off expending a little energy and resource maintaining them a little better. Why is it that Amtrak engines seem to melt down or motors seize up, with some regularity, whereas similar engines operated by others don't?

 

[anon]

What about the MPExpress locos? They're built for commuter service,but how hard would it be to modify them for Amtrak?

 

[jis]

What about the MPExpress locos? They're built for commuter service, but how hard would it be to modify them for Amtrak?

If fitting into NEC tunnels is a requirement then they are a non-starter. For similar reasons the NJT PLs are also non-viable. Also the MPEs are nowhere near the best diesel passenger locomotives available in the world today anyway. Even EMDs and GEs sold outside the US (e.g. in China and India) are arguably better.

If we must produce a custom locomotive we might as well do it using latest technology with best energy efficiency and environmental impacts rather than recycling old tired technology.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Why couldn't the P42 design be re-powered and re-equipped with more modern hardware? Why would it have to look different from the outside or have any external dimensions be different?

 

[DAWall]

Don't forget about Progress Rail/Caterpillar. (now EMD too) They are opening a new plant in Muncie Indiana. In there press release they mentioned passenger rail (buy American) as one of the reasons for adding the facility.

 

[had8ley]

Why couldn't the P42 design be re-powered and re-equipped with more modern hardware? Why would it have to look different from the outside or have any external dimensions be different?

Just one man's opinion; GE makes the engines'~ you can't change that and if you could you might wind up in worse shape. Amtrak is just going to have to suck up not going with EMD to begin with. <_<

 

[Oldsmoboi]

GE can't make newer ones?

I can get a GM Crate motor that will make my '81 Oldsmobile more powerful AND more efficient.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

Just for completeness, don't forget those clunky LIRR DE/DMs. They do fit in through the tunnels too. Not that I am suggesting anyone should consider building any more of those either.

According to some people I know who work dispatch at Penn, the DE/DMs, like the LIRR bi-levels, fit just fine through the East River tunnels. Unfortunately, they do not comfortably fit through the constraints at A-interlocking and the North River tunnels.

 

[jis]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

Just for completeness, don't forget those clunky LIRR DE/DMs. They do fit in through the tunnels too. Not that I am suggesting anyone should consider building any more of those either.

According to some people I know who work dispatch at Penn, the DE/DMs, like the LIRR bi-levels, fit just fine through the East River tunnels. Unfortunately, they do not comfortably fit through the constraints at A-interlocking and the North River tunnels.

Actually the LIRR bilevels and the DE/DMs fit quite fine through the North River tunnels provided they enter/exit same on track 2 or 3 at the New York end, and do not take the diverging tracks at the mouth of the tunnel. I was under the impression that because the DE/DMs are shorter in length they could actually take the diverging track too, but I have not checked that recently. The problem is with top corners scraping the tunnel when these high level equipment enter/leave the tunnel on diverging track, and the amount of overhang that cause the problem depends on the overall length of the car body and the pivot center for the trucks relative to the end of the car body.

 

[had8ley]

GE can't make newer ones?

I can get a GM Crate motor that will make my '81 Oldsmobile more powerful AND more efficient.

They did~ they're all burning up :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Shawn Ryu]

If one day P42 were to retire Amtrak should consider purchasing dual mode locomotive, from diesel to electric catenary and vice versa to use on many trains on the East Coast.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

only possible will be the MPI hsp-46 diesel with GE GEVO engine and AC propulsion.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

Just for completeness, don't forget those clunky LIRR DE/DMs. They do fit in through the tunnels too. Not that I am suggesting anyone should consider building any more of those either.

According to some people I know who work dispatch at Penn, the DE/DMs, like the LIRR bi-levels, fit just fine through the East River tunnels. Unfortunately, they do not comfortably fit through the constraints at A-interlocking and the North River tunnels.

Actually the LIRR bilevels and the DE/DMs fit quite fine through the North River tunnels provided they enter/exit same on track 2 or 3 at the New York end, and do not take the diverging tracks at the mouth of the tunnel. I was under the impression that because the DE/DMs are shorter in length they could actually take the diverging track too, but I have not checked that recently. The problem is with top corners scraping the tunnel when these high level equipment enter/leave the tunnel on diverging track, and the amount of overhang that cause the problem depends on the overall length of the car body and the pivot center for the trucks relative to the end of the car body.

Then why are they fully resticted in Hudson tunnels ?? as per Amtrak NEC timetable ???

 

[Acela150]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

Just for completeness, don't forget those clunky LIRR DE/DMs. They do fit in through the tunnels too. Not that I am suggesting anyone should consider building any more of those either.

According to some people I know who work dispatch at Penn, the DE/DMs, like the LIRR bi-levels, fit just fine through the East River tunnels. Unfortunately, they do not comfortably fit through the constraints at A-interlocking and the North River tunnels.

Actually the LIRR bilevels and the DE/DMs fit quite fine through the North River tunnels provided they enter/exit same on track 2 or 3 at the New York end, and do not take the diverging tracks at the mouth of the tunnel. I was under the impression that because the DE/DMs are shorter in length they could actually take the diverging track too, but I have not checked that recently. The problem is with top corners scraping the tunnel when these high level equipment enter/leave the tunnel on diverging track, and the amount of overhang that cause the problem depends on the overall length of the car body and the pivot center for the trucks relative to the end of the car body.

Then why are they fully resticted in Hudson tunnels ?? as per Amtrak NEC timetable ???

LIRR doesn't use the Hudson River tunnels.

 

[Gord]

The only option for replacing the P42 is some kind of custom engine. The only engine that is on our mainstream rails today, meets FRA standards, and fits into the North River Tunnels is the Genesis. Its replacement would have to be equally custom. A possible modification of the ALP45DP is the only engine that is even remotely available off the shelf, and at the ridiculous price they cost, it makes no sense.

The Motive Power Industries (WABTEC) MP-40 is being produced right now for commuter service and is roughly equiavlent to the old GM, F-59PH. It has sufficient hp and HEP. There are other mods required for LD service, increased fuel capacity and so on, not deal breakers. If there are clearance issues, wouldn't it make sense to purchase an off the shelf unit, modify the roofline, decrease wheel diameter, etc.? The MP-40 uses the proven, Blomberg 4 wheel truck, EMD prime mover, traction motors and alternator.

Another option is a mid-term rebuild and upgrade on the P-42's as Via is currently doing with their F-40 fleet, a lot cheaper than buying new. Locomotives are not the disposable family car, they should last 30+ years. We have some GP-9's here that are getting close to sixty years old and are in daily, main line service.

Brookville also produces custom diesel locomotives and GE has mused about getting back in the passenger game.

Gord

 

[Gord]

What about the MPExpress locos? They're built for commuter service, but how hard would it be to modify them for Amtrak?

If fitting into NEC tunnels is a requirement then they are a non-starter. For similar reasons the NJT PLs are also non-viable. Also the MPEs are nowhere near the best diesel passenger locomotives available in the world today anyway. Even EMDs and GEs sold outside the US (e.g. in China and India) are arguably better.

If we must produce a custom locomotive we might as well do it using latest technology with best energy efficiency and environmental impacts rather than recycling old tired technology.

The new GO Transit MP-40's are high tech and comply with the latest APTA and EPA standards. Other than the usual teething process, they seem to be handling 12 car trsins of double deck cars, well. They do employ some old and proven technology, EMD prime mover, Blomberg (EMD)trucks, EMD traction motors, EMD alternator, etc. The Blomberg 4 wheel truck was developed back in the 1930's and in spite of various upgrades is still readily recognizable and provides excellent service today, if it ain't broken...

The best source as to reliability / maintainability issues with any of these locos is to talk directly to mechanics who have worked on them for years. I've repaired rail equipment for a lot of years but have worked on electrics, not disesls. It would be great to hear the real scoop rather than speculation on mechanical matters from diesel locomotive mechanics.

Gord

 

[jis]

On the matter of P42s we are getting ahead of ourselves regarding replacement. The root cause of P42 problems are arguably the quality or lack thereof, of maintenance at Chicago, which has been a long standing problem. Similar models owned by others and even Amtrak's own P32s which are maintained elsewhere are not suffering from any of these problems.

So it is quite likely that even the newest engines with best technology will be rapidly destroyed by Chicago, should they be given the responsibility to maintain them. Properly maintained, there is absolutely no reason that the P42s won't continue to work another 15 years. Without change in maintenance practices in Chicago there is no reason to believe that anything else will last even 15 years without melt-downs.

Apparently even Amtrak knows this, but they have had great difficulty getting Chicago maintenance fix its personnel and practices problems. The same outfit also has regular freezeup every winter when the rest of the railroads in US and Canada continue working much better.

 

[MattW]

Just throwing this out here, but this pic demonstrates approximately the height difference between an MP series and P42/40.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2713/4124654277_d8d5c0b5eb.jpg

What first struck me is the cab on the MP actually seems to be lower than the 42/40, or the windows just come lower. I'm not sure what's in that top angled section of the MP so I have no clue if stuff can just be moved around, but based on that pic, shortening the MP looks like it'd take some major body work. But before us railfans try to start dictating Amtrak policy again, I say we wait and see what the HSP-46 will look like

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Like others had said, Amtrak would have to make a custom order for a new LD locomotive that can fit inside the North River Tunnels... etc etc...

And like others have said, Amtrak isn't going to retire the P42s any time soon.

The only reason why Amtrak would purchase new diesel locos is for increased services outside the NEC.

I do like the look of the MPI locos, but I don't think Amtrak would only purchase them for specific operations in certain states like California, Texas, North Carolina, etc. Plus, the current max speed of the MPI locos is just over 100 mph... a little less than the top speed of the P42.