RFP's for Electric's and Cars

[Acela150]

Any ideas on where the RFP's stand on the Electrics and the Cars? Bringing this up as the first ALP-46A is brought into service. How long could it be before Amtrak says we like the ALP-46A or we don't like it. The only thing that Bombardier would have to Improve is the Speed to 135MPH.

Who would build the new Viewliner II's? Could this all depend on the release of 8400?

Thanks,

Steve

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Any ideas on where the RFP's stand on the Electrics and the Cars? Bringing this up as the first ALP-46A is brought into service. How long could it be before Amtrak says we like the ALP-46A or we don't like it. The only thing that Bombardier would have to Improve is the Speed to 135MPH.
Who would build the new Viewliner II's? Could this all depend on the release of 8400?

Thanks,

Steve

Amtrak set out a specific time table, but this is government business. Delays are the norm.

Also, I suspect that Amtrak would be somewhat disinterested in the ALP-46As since GE seems to be looking to build their engines for them. Although, of much greater use to Amtrak, would be the ALP-45DPs.

 

[Eric S]

Although, of much greater use to Amtrak, would be the ALP-45DPs.

That's the dual-mode (overhead, rather than third-rail) locomotive that NJT & AMT (in Montreal) have ordered, right?

 

[MattW]

Hrm, Amtrak physically turns even the electric consists right? Does that include Wye-ing the Regionals with the Locomotive at WAS or do the AEM7s and HHP-8s just shuttle back and forth to Ivy City? If Amtrak is turning everything, then GML is right, the ALP45 sounds more like what they need. It could eliminate the engine change for Regionals south of WAS, help when there's a catenary outage, interline Regionals with the Springfield shuttle, run the Pennsylvanian, and if they can figure out how to stick a 3rd rail shoe on, run interline Regionals and Empire service trains maybe? Bah, last one's too far fetched really, the Empire service does just fine (right?). But a 125mph dual mode catenary unit would certainly open up some interesting possibilities IMHO.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Although, of much greater use to Amtrak, would be the ALP-45DPs.

That's the dual-mode (overhead, rather than third-rail) locomotive that NJT & AMT (in Montreal) have ordered, right?

Yes. Its an evolution of the ALP-46. The P32ACDM is basically a diesel motor with a shoe that can directly power the traction motors. I'm simplifying this incredibly, but you get the idea. If you had to call it either a diesel or an electric, diesel would be the more accurate description.

The ALP-45DP is something else entirely. It is, at its heart, an electric engine. Its motors are there to excite its electric power arrays. According to Bombardier, with 5 cars or less, it should be able to hit 125 mph in diesel mode. More importantly, though, it can do 100 in diesel mode with a full load, and it can hit 125 under the wire regardless. Its an engine that could realistically replace every motor in the Amtrak fleet, be used absolutely anywhere, and be ready to take advantage of any and all future electrification programs.

At least that's what it should be able to do on paper. I want to see how reliable it is. Perhaps Amtrak is wondering the same thing.

 

[Eric S]

Although, of much greater use to Amtrak, would be the ALP-45DPs.

That's the dual-mode (overhead, rather than third-rail) locomotive that NJT & AMT (in Montreal) have ordered, right?

Yes. Its an evolution of the ALP-46. The P32ACDM is basically a diesel motor with a shoe that can directly power the traction motors. I'm simplifying this incredibly, but you get the idea. If you had to call it either a diesel or an electric, diesel would be the more accurate description.

The ALP-45DP is something else entirely. It is, at its heart, an electric engine. Its motors are there to excite its electric power arrays. According to Bombardier, with 5 cars or less, it should be able to hit 125 mph in diesel mode. More importantly, though, it can do 100 in diesel mode with a full load, and it can hit 125 under the wire regardless. Its an engine that could realistically replace every motor in the Amtrak fleet, be used absolutely anywhere, and be ready to take advantage of any and all future electrification programs.

At least that's what it should be able to do on paper. I want to see how reliable it is. Perhaps Amtrak is wondering the same thing.

If it is as capable as you suggest (and reliable, as you also mention), then its possibilities for Amtrak seem almost endless. WOW!

 

[jis]

The only thing that Bombardier would have to Improve is the Speed to 135MPH.

What do you suppose Amtrak will pull using these hypothetical 135mph locomotives? They neither have and nor do have any plans at present to acquire Tier II compliant cars that are not part of a fixed consist.

 

[AlanB]

and if they can figure out how to stick a 3rd rail shoe on, run interline Regionals and Empire service trains maybe?

There would be no need for 3rd rail shoes to use these locos on the Empire Service connections. That tunnel has both 3rd rail and catenary, so these engines would be able to operate Empire Service trains even without 3rd rail shoes. Even if Amtrak doesn't buy these engines for any place else, they could well be the engines that replace the P32-ACDM motors that currently haul the Empire trains. And some of those P32's are already 15 years old, so Amtrak does need to start thinking about their replacements and keeping an eye on NJT's experiences with these new ALP's.

As for interlining, that's very unlikely to happen, as Regionals would either need to be reversed in Penn Station (and that requires either a cab car or running the motor around the consist) or running over to Queens to loop in Sunnyside yards before heading up the Empire Connection.

 

[jis]

if they can figure out how to stick a 3rd rail shoe on, run interline Regionals and Empire service trains maybe? Bah, last one's too far fetched really, the Empire service does just fine (right?). But a 125mph dual mode catenary unit would certainly open up some interesting possibilities IMHO.

There is no chance that they will stick any 3rd rail anything on those puppies. As it is they are woefully short of space and close to max weight allowed. No place for extra electronics needed for third rail stuff.

Then again as Alan says, there is absolutely no need for 3rd rail shoes.

Also as he says it is very unlikely that there will be through service from Empire Corridor to NEC south. Such was tried immediately after the Empire Connection opened and it soon became obvious that the headache of running such was simply not worth it.

Also keep in mind that these locomotives will be very very expensive and probably will also be quite expensive to maintain, at least way more so than a straight electric or diesel. So it is unlikely that they will be used very widely. There is a significant danger that even at NJT they might turn out to be hanger queens.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Lets see , the NYNH & H found out that having a pantograph (600v DC) over a diesel engine was not good for health of engine.

The NJT dual power AC units despite having smaller arcs will still need considerable fire proofing.

Or else the oil soaked diesel and engineroom may make a premature end to many of locomotives when that pantograph arcs to much

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Lets see , the NYNH & H found out that having a pantograph (600v DC) over a diesel engine was not good for health of engine.The NJT dual power AC units despite having smaller arcs will still need considerable fire proofing.

Or else the oil soaked diesel and engineroom may make a premature end to many of locomotives when that pantograph arcs to much

For a person in your position, your knowledge of the combustibility of diesel fuel is somewhat limited.

 

[pebbleworm]

Alstom at least is bidding on the Viewliner order-

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?...mp;#entry229155

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Lets see , the NYNH & H found out that having a pantograph (600v DC) over a diesel engine was not good for health of engine.The NJT dual power AC units despite having smaller arcs will still need considerable fire proofing.

Or else the oil soaked diesel and engineroom may make a premature end to many of locomotives when that pantograph arcs to much

For a person in your position, your knowledge of the combustibility of diesel fuel is somewhat limited.

Several FL-9's did catch fire after sparks enterd the engine room where hot oil or hot fuel was pressent.

it resulted in NYC demanding the removal of the DC pantographs on the NH FL-9's.

The Electrics had no problems due to absence of Fuel.

So as far as my technical knowledge yes I have seen my good amount of diesel fires both on trains and ships.

It appears your knowledge is limited about such risks.

 

[jis]

Several FL-9's did catch fire after sparks enterd the engine room where hot oil or hot fuel was pressent.it resulted in NYC demanding the removal of the DC pantographs on the NH FL-9's.

The Electrics had no problems due to absence of Fuel.

So as far as my technical knowledge yes I have seen my good amount of diesel fires both on trains and ships.

It appears your knowledge is limited about such risks.

Are you suggesting that GML is an armchair philosopher? :lol: Watch out he'll start correcting your spellings again and call them grammatical fixes, like he did to me a while back

 

[Ryan]

Somehow I think that engineering advances in the 50 years since the FL-9's were built can probably solve that problem.

 

[jis]

Somehow I think that engineering advances in the 50 years since the FL-9's were built can probably solve that problem.

Or alternatively made it worse. Sometimes the unanticipated consequences of technical/engineering advances can be quite spectacular We will know for sure only after we get some operating experience with these puppies under the belt. Afterall, those Eurostars were not supposed to short out and lie dead under the English Channel either, but they still did in spite of all the engineering advances in the world that is packed into them.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Several FL-9's did catch fire after sparks enterd the engine room where hot oil or hot fuel was pressent.it resulted in NYC demanding the removal of the DC pantographs on the NH FL-9's.

The Electrics had no problems due to absence of Fuel.

So as far as my technical knowledge yes I have seen my good amount of diesel fires both on trains and ships.

It appears your knowledge is limited about such risks.

Diesel fuel does not ignite with sparks. It requires a prolonged exposure to heat. A diesel engine can catch fire as a result of diesel fuel coming in prolonged contact with something very hot (an exhaust manifold, being the example of the FL-9) but not as a result of sparks. The FL-9s incendiary tendencies were a result of its crowded internal design, not particularly it having a pantograph. Removal of the pantographs and related gear allowed the layout to be modified, moving the exhaust manifold from below the too frequently leaky fuel return lines.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

[Diesel fuel does not ignite with sparks. It requires a prolonged exposure to heat. A diesel engine can catch fire as a result of diesel fuel coming in prolonged contact with something very hot (an exhaust manifold, being the example of the FL-9) but not as a result of sparks. The FL-9s incendiary tendencies were a result of its crowded internal design, not particularly it having a pantograph. Removal of the pantographs and related gear allowed the layout to be modified, moving the exhaust manifold from below the too frequently leaky fuel return lines.

Whooo now your gone pretent to know anything about FL-9's ??? nothing got moved on FL-9's from 1959 till 1984 when we started to put HEP on and move the electric compressor under carbody.

The Fires in early 1960's happened when the sparks fell into fan opening of No 4 fan and fell all over Governor and Fuel filters. which were nicely pre-heated by engine.

any more questions genius ??

 

[pebbleworm]

There is a big difference between a spark and an arc! And diesel is not "intrinsically safe"-take a look at TWA flight 800 in 1996, unless it was really shot down by the US Navy...

 

[Eric S]

There is a big difference between a spark and an arc! And diesel is not "intrinsically safe"-take a look at TWA flight 800 in 1996, unless it was really shot down by the US Navy...

What does TWA 800 have to do with diesel fuel?

 

[Dutchrailnut]

There is a big difference between a spark and an arc! And diesel is not "intrinsically safe"-take a look at TWA flight 800 in 1996, unless it was really shot down by the US Navy...

What does TWA 800 have to do with diesel fuel?

Jet A and Jet A1 is nothing more than super diesel fuel, basicly a Diesel fuel super filtered with lots of additives.

 

[Eric S]

There is a big difference between a spark and an arc! And diesel is not "intrinsically safe"-take a look at TWA flight 800 in 1996, unless it was really shot down by the US Navy...

What does TWA 800 have to do with diesel fuel?

Jet A and Jet A1 is nothing more than super diesel fuel, basicly a Diesel fuel super filtered with lots of additives.

Well, learn something new every day. Thanks!

 

[Trogdor]

IIRC, the generally accepted cause of the TWA 800 crash was that fuel vapor ignited, not the fuel itself.

 

[lyke99]

Jet A and Jet A1 is nothing more than super diesel fuel, basicly a Diesel fuel super filtered with lots of additives.

I was under the impression that jet fuel was essentially kerosene, not diesel. Of course, if kerosene and diesel are more similar than I realize, you'll know I'm not a petroleum engineer.

 

[MattW]

Everything I can find online indeed says kerosene rather than diesel fuel. It's similar in energy to diesel from what I can tell, but unless I'm just not searching Google right, that's where the similarities end.