First ACS-64 by Siemens for Amtrak is finished

[tobias b koehler]

The first of the new electric locomotive generation for Amtrak is finished.
Articles and photos:
http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1000001&lang=1
http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Amtrak-unveils-locomotives-to-replace-aging-fleet-4509373.php
http://www.siemens.com/press/en/presspicture/index.php?view=list&content=ICRL&tag=soicrl201317

[Nick Fotis]

Interesting to see a 1 MW generator tacked-in, I suppose that Amtrak
doesn't trust their electrification enough? :-)

And the livery is not very inspiring (to put it very mildly).
It looks as if USA railroads have an aversion to beautiful locomotives :-)

The price per locomotive (4.8 million Euros) seems rather high to me. I
suppose this includes the set-up of shop in Sacramento and the need to
satisfy 'buy America' requirements?

N.F.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 13.05.2013 20:06, schrieb Nick Fotis:

> Interesting to see a 1 MW generator tacked-in, I suppose that Amtrak
> doesn't trust their electrification enough? :-)

I don't think that's a "last mile diesel", that wouldn't be possible ...
or you'd end up with a dual power monster like the Bombardier ALP-45DP
which is heavier than the ACS-64 at lower power. To compare, the
ALP-45DP weighs 130.6 t at a power of 4400 kW, the ACS-64 weighs 97 t at
a power of 6400 kW.

1 MW is the power of the head end power/auxiliary inverters as stated in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Cities_Sprinter

Here is the Siemens press release:

http://news.usa.siemens.biz/press-release/corporate-and-cross-sector/amtrak-unveils-advanced-technology-locomotives-northeast-se

> The price per locomotive (4.8 million Euros) seems rather high to me. I
> suppose this includes the set-up of shop in Sacramento and the need to
> satisfy 'buy America' requirements?

And a completely new body had to be designed to satisfy AAR
crashworthiness standards. I assume that technically it's very similar
to the Vectron marketed in Europe (with moderate success; currently
Bombardier's Traxx family is selling better).

Indeed this may be including a maintenance contract?

[Nick Fotis]

On 13/05/2013 22:50, tobias b koehler wrote:
> Am 13.05.2013 20:06, schrieb Nick Fotis:
>
>> Interesting to see a 1 MW generator tacked-in, I suppose that Amtrak
>> doesn't trust their electrification enough? :-)
>
> I don't think that's a "last mile diesel", that wouldn't be possible ...
> or you'd end up with a dual power monster like the Bombardier ALP-45DP
> which is heavier than the ACS-64 at lower power. To compare, the
> ALP-45DP weighs 130.6 t at a power of 4400 kW, the ACS-64 weighs 97 t at
> a power of 6400 kW.

I judged by the TRAXX DE ME generators (Caterpillar C18), which weight
approximately 3 tonnes each (if my memory serves me correctly) and
generate 750 KW (each one).

It seems that I misread the press release, though, and that the system
is a solid state electronic device.
With an energy budget of 50 KW per passenger wagon, it should be able to
serve up to twenty wagons.

>> The price per locomotive (4.8 million Euros) seems rather high to me. I
>> suppose this includes the set-up of shop in Sacramento and the need to
>> satisfy 'buy America' requirements?
>
> And a completely new body had to be designed to satisfy AAR
> crashworthiness standards. I assume that technically it's very similar
> to the Vectron marketed in Europe (with moderate success; currently
> Bombardier's Traxx family is selling better).

The Vectron is a newcomer, while the TRAXX has a decade of sales behind
it already.
Give it time (despite Bombardier recently signing another framework
agreement for 450 more locomotives with DB).

Bombardier was very successful because they could take orders as small
as one locomotive, thanks to their standard platform and the very small
amount of available options, while traditional locomotive manufacturers
had to set-up a new assembly line for each new type.

I suppose that you have seen the Youtube videos titled "Giganten aus
Stahl", which shows the car assembly-like system in Kassel?
Now, there are very few new small rail operators, so Siemens will have
to fight hard for selling to locomotive leasing companies. And they just
got authorisations for running in some major European countries (they
have a head-start, compared to the class 187, or TRAXX AC3).

> Indeed this may be including a maintenance contract?

I doubt that the price includes maintenance.
I suspect that Amtrak will set-up their own maintenance shops to handle
these new locomotives.
If you include the R&D costs and the set-up of an assembly production
system in Sacramento, probably the price is normal (remember how much
the ALP-45DP cost? You could buy both an electric and a diesel
locomotive at that price!)
Custom designs always cost more.

I find it funny that we Europeans debate a new 'American' locomotive
firs, though :-)
The livery does not impress me (did I mention that already? :-).

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?

I would expect to see them transferred to secondary duties, or are the
Americans going to scrap these? I suppose their operating costs should
be OK

(after all, the original Rc locomotives from which the AEM-7 originated,
still run in Sweden, like in this page:
http://www.lokman.se/SJ_lokf/VSOE_en.htm or this photo:
http://www.lokman.se/SJ_lokf/Rc61375_Rc61364_Knivsta2_100313_JS.jpg )

N.F.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 13.05.2013 22:52, schrieb Nick Fotis:
> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?

And the 15 HHP-8 which are also planned to be replaced even though they
are still quite young. Apparently not satisfying.

Note that 29 AEM-7 have received completely new electric equipment since
1999 (then called AEM-7AC), I wonder what remaining lifetime they had in
mind.

> I would expect to see them transferred to secondary duties, or are the
> Americans going to scrap these? I suppose their operating costs should
> be OK

It's always a good idea not to scrap all your old rolling stock but keep
some of it around as a reserve for periods of high demand, unexpected
problems with new rolling stock, and so on. They won't go far every day
but they will be there if they are needed.

Perhaps NJ Transit, MARC or SEPTA would be interested too? Otherwise the
second hand market is limited (as long as the electrified network is not
extended).

With ever rising fuel prices I wonder when we will see the
electrification of the freight mainlines in the USA ....

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 01:15, tobias b koehler wrote:
> Am 13.05.2013 22:52, schrieb Nick Fotis:
>> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?
>
> And the 15 HHP-8 which are also planned to be replaced even though they
> are still quite young. Apparently not satisfying.
>
> Note that 29 AEM-7 have received completely new electric equipment since
> 1999 (then called AEM-7AC), I wonder what remaining lifetime they had in
> mind.

I think that both projects were done by Alstom, with less than
satisfying results.

> With ever rising fuel prices I wonder when we will see the
> electrification of the freight mainlines in the USA ....

Note that the current surge in natural gas and crude oil production in
USA due to fracking and other unconventional methods mean that USA may
become a very large oil producer - even larger than Saudi Arabia, if we
believe the newspapers
(and we know that newspapers are truthful, aren't they? :-) )

So, the freight railroads may feel less pressure to electrify their main
corridors. My favorite candidate is BNSF and their Transcon, since they
pulled out of the stock exchange after uncle Warren bought them, and
they can plan long-term capital projects without a pressure to provide
dividends each quarter.
And they do not lack the traffic, if the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kjslO89ews is any indication :-)

I would expect them to finish double-tracking the whole Transcon,
prepare everything regarding catenary clearances (double stacking means
at least 7 meters catenary height from the rails), and then probably ask
for a low-interest loan the government, like Pennsylvania did with their
NEC electrification during the Depression.

N.F.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmrj73$ah6$1...@news.ntua.gr>,

Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Vectron is a newcomer, while the TRAXX has a decade of sales behind
> it already.
> Give it time (despite Bombardier recently signing another framework
> agreement for 450 more locomotives with DB).

Amtrak all but publicly said they would not buy a Bombardier product.
The initial speculation was that they'd buy a variant of the ALP-46A,
but word leaked out that they pretty much told BBD to not bid. The two
have NOT been on speaking terms, Amtrak is NOT happy with the Acelas,
and wants to replace them.

It's widely speculated that the HHP-8s will be among the first units to
go.

I'm almost willing to bet that this is a trial ballon for that, and that
if the ACS-64 goes smoothly, Siemens will be the shoe-in for the next
generation HSTs on the Corridor. And I'm sure they've been told that.

> Bombardier was very successful because they could take orders as small
> as one locomotive, thanks to their standard platform and the very small
> amount of available options, while traditional locomotive manufacturers
> had to set-up a new assembly line for each new type.

BBD's also been very successful at buttfucking the state of NJ over new
locomotives. The best part? The ALP-45DPs seldom, if ever, go into
NYC. The state pretty much has no need for them. They run diesel, they
run electric, they switch modes, they don't switch modes.

It doesn't matter, since they don't go to Penn.

Also, there's been NO talk about Penn service (they did it a few
weekends ago for maintenance on the M&E, but that was it). Rumor has it
Amtrak's not happy with the way the things act on their tracks, and
would rather they not be there at all.

> I doubt that the price includes maintenance.
> I suspect that Amtrak will set-up their own maintenance shops to handle
> these new locomotives.
> If you include the R&D costs and the set-up of an assembly production
> system in Sacramento, probably the price is normal (remember how much
> the ALP-45DP cost? You could buy both an electric and a diesel
> locomotive at that price!)
> Custom designs always cost more.

At least the ACS-64 isn't too custom, just the typical FRA shit plus a
gigantic HEP package thrown in.

> I find it funny that we Europeans debate a new 'American' locomotive
> firs, though :-)
> The livery does not impress me (did I mention that already? :-).

It's better than Amtrak's attempts in the past. The flag's a cute
touch, though Amtrak needs a better logo, but they always have. At
least their isn't a variant of two arrows pointing in random directions
like 1/2 of Europe ;)

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/13/2013 4:52 PM, Nick Fotis wrote:
> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?

The ALP44s have already been retired from NJT, and I doubt anyone will
pick them up. They are parked in a single line all boarded up out by
Port Morris.

The reliability of AEM-7s is deteriorating as the days pass. There is a
loco failure now several times a week, fortunately not all on in service
trains. I know NJT is not going to pick up any. They are too busy
repairing their flood damaged fleet at present, to worry about taking
care of a old failing line of hand me downs. Besides they just finished
retiring their entire fleet of ALP44s last year which were essentially
AEM-7 clones.

The HHP-8s were never really that reliable to start with, and they also
do have a bit of a hunting problem.

> I would expect to see them transferred to secondary duties, or are the
> Americans going to scrap these? I suppose their operating costs should
> be OK

I think they will be scrapped. Some might hang around till 2018 or 19.
But that will be it for them. The DCs will go first and then the ACs.
Remember that the last of the ACSs get delivered sometime in 2017 AFAIR.

The old ALPs are tired. Of the 47 theoretically available it is seldom
the case that Amtrak is able to actually field 40 on a given day. We are
again on the verge of seeing the southern LD trains coming upto
Philadelphia under diesel power due to shortage of electrics.

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 01:37, Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> In article<kmrj73$ah6$1...@news.ntua.gr>,
> Nick Fotis<nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Amtrak all but publicly said they would not buy a Bombardier product.
> The initial speculation was that they'd buy a variant of the ALP-46A,
> but word leaked out that they pretty much told BBD to not bid. The two
> have NOT been on speaking terms, Amtrak is NOT happy with the Acelas,
> and wants to replace them.

I found strange to not try with the ALP-46A for Amtrak, since this is a
tried and tested product. Are NJT happy with it?
(I would guess so, else I doubt they would try the ALP-45DP after a bad
experience)

>> Bombardier was very successful because they could take orders as small
>> as one locomotive, thanks to their standard platform and the very small
>> amount of available options, while traditional locomotive manufacturers
>> had to set-up a new assembly line for each new type.
>
> BBD's also been very successful at buttfucking the state of NJ over new
> locomotives. The best part? The ALP-45DPs seldom, if ever, go into
> NYC. The state pretty much has no need for them. They run diesel, they
> run electric, they switch modes, they don't switch modes.

The price for ALP-45DP was very high, but I suspect that doing a custom
model suffering from featuritis and being overweight (in my opinion, a
125 mph 4-axle locomotive that weights 130 tonnes is plain crazy) should
be a major part for the outrageous price.

The famous BR103 of Deutsche Bahn provided 7.44 MW of power in six axles
at a weight of 126 short tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_103
), with a maximum speed of 125 mph.

With that money, as I said elsewhere, one could buy two TRAXX
locomotives adapted for FRA specifications, one diesel and one electric.
In general, they seem to have done a good work with standardized
locomotives, custom designs are always a risky venture.

> Also, there's been NO talk about Penn service (they did it a few
> weekends ago for maintenance on the M&E, but that was it). Rumor has it
> Amtrak's not happy with the way the things act on their tracks, and
> would rather they not be there at all.

The recent incident on Canada with the derailment of a Canadian sister
of ALP-45DP would make me skeptical as well.
If I am not wrong, the ALP-45DP is not permitted to run above 100 mph on
USA tracks?

> At least the ACS-64 isn't too custom, just the typical FRA shit plus a
> gigantic HEP package thrown in.

Well, solid state electronics are something that Siemens should have the
know how to implement well in the typical railroad environment.

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 01:43, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 4:52 PM, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?
>
> The ALP44s have already been retired from NJT, and I doubt anyone will
> pick them up. They are parked in a single line all boarded up out by
> Port Morris.

Not surprising, after the delivery of ALP-46 and ALP-46A.
Their Swedish sisters are still maintained and repainted, decades after
their introduction.

> The HHP-8s were never really that reliable to start with, and they also
> do have a bit of a hunting problem.

I noticed that these were quickly removed from service.
If (God forbid) the ACS-64 proves also a turkey, it will be an extreme
case of an electric locomotive class surviving two generations of
replacements.

> The old ALPs are tired. Of the 47 theoretically available it is seldom
> the case that Amtrak is able to actually field 40 on a given day. We are
> again on the verge of seeing the southern LD trains coming upto
> Philadelphia under diesel power due to shortage of electrics.

Judging from their Swedish brethren, I would suspect there is a definite
lack of maintenance in the USA.
Even with their comparatively simple and rugged construction, these old
ladies need regular maintenance in order to perform flawlessly.

Note that the freight deparment of Swedish state railroad (Green Cargo)
is rebuilding the Rc2 into newer Rd2:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/list/sweden/sweden_gc.html

Also, many private train operators in Sweden run passenger and freight
trains with Rc locomotives as well.

N.F.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmrqoo$1c50$1...@news.ntua.gr>,

Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I found strange to not try with the ALP-46A for Amtrak, since this is a
> tried and tested product. Are NJT happy with it?

NJT's happy with them, by all accounts. Amtrak *did* run the 46 (not
the A) briefly a few years ago as Clocker service wound down (heh:)

The stuff I've heard is that Amtrak, after the Acela, simply will not
buy a Bombardier product again, for a long time. They supposedly never
wanted the Acela, but were pushed into it by financing offered by
Canada's crownless Crown corporation.

The HHP-8s have been total duds, the Acela has had a long string of
technical problems and is rumored to (surprise!) be hard on the track.
They're also supposedly maintenance beasts - I do know that the ride on
them is VERY variable, I've been on ones that felt like they were going
to derail, and others that were at least passably smooth.

> (I would guess so, else I doubt they would try the ALP-45DP after a bad
> experience)

NJT will buy anything Bombardier offers them, as long as they can
somehow get it. It's no secret that BBD is NJT's preferred builder.
The reason they didn't buy Arrow IVs was rumored to be because CAF
undercut BBD by enough money that tossing BBD the contract would look
suspicious. This *is* New Jersey we're talking about. Under the table
dealings are the norm...

> The price for ALP-45DP was very high, but I suspect that doing a custom
> model suffering from featuritis and being overweight (in my opinion, a
> 125 mph 4-axle locomotive that weights 130 tonnes is plain crazy) should
> be a major part for the outrageous price.

The general attitude at NJT is they don't care. Sadly, Christie won't
clean house (election year), and his opponent won't promise a
housecleaning either. I wonder if Weinstein has a surprise in store
come next november, though.

> The famous BR103 of Deutsche Bahn provided 7.44 MW of power in six axles
> at a weight of 126 short tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_103
> ), with a maximum speed of 125 mph.

I've heard they were rough on track, too.

> With that money, as I said elsewhere, one could buy two TRAXX
> locomotives adapted for FRA specifications, one diesel and one electric.
> In general, they seem to have done a good work with standardized
> locomotives, custom designs are always a risky venture.

Or, they could have followed Warsh's plan to electrify the system.
There's ZERO reason NJT needs to run diesels. Period*. There's zero
reasons why they SHOULD.

> The recent incident on Canada with the derailment of a Canadian sister
> of ALP-45DP would make me skeptical as well.

It'll happen sooner or later on NJT. They're not very good at
maintenance of anything.

> If I am not wrong, the ALP-45DP is not permitted to run above 100 mph on
> USA tracks?

I don't think ANY of the ALPs are allowed over 100. The multilevels,
which are the bulk of NJT's fleet now, aren't any likely never will be.
There's no need for it.

The '45DPs might hit 80 somewhere on the system for a little while?
There's not much of NJT that realistically is above 60mph.

> Well, solid state electronics are something that Siemens should have the
> know how to implement well in the typical railroad environment.

Most folks I've talked to seem to think these units will be just fine.
There's going to be a typical period of whineing about them, but they'll
ultimately be decent motors, even if they don't have the Sprinter
startup noises (I hear they're internally based on the Vectron)

*Yes, this includes the RVL. NJT had it all designed out back in the
early 2000's. Wire heights, substation locations, what feeders to pull,
everything. They were litterally at the point of letting the contracts
out when Warrington came in and canned it all.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmrolr$ddk$1...@news.albasani.net>,

tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 13.05.2013 22:52, schrieb Nick Fotis:
> > Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?
>
> And the 15 HHP-8 which are also planned to be replaced even though they
> are still quite young. Apparently not satisfying.
>
> Note that 29 AEM-7 have received completely new electric equipment since
> 1999 (then called AEM-7AC), I wonder what remaining lifetime they had in
> mind.

The supposed order is going to be the 8's, followed by the DC 7's, then
the AC 7's. Or some combination of that ;) Nobody really knows for
sure.

The numbering is in the 600 series, where the HHP-8s are. That might be
a clue.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 13, 6:15 pm, tobias b koehler <tbk.un...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's always a good idea not to scrap all your old rolling stock but keep
> some of it around as a reserve for periods of high demand, unexpected
> problems with new rolling stock, and so on. They won't go far every day
> but they will be there if they are needed.

Once the new equipment is in service and has proven itself, keeping
old stuff around is costly to do. Old equipment must continued to be
inspected and maintained which increases operating costs. Secured
yard space must be found for it. Finding parts is a pain.

[Michael Finfer]

On 5/13/2013 2:06 PM, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 13/05/2013 20:17, tobias b koehler wrote:
>> The first of the new electric locomotive generation for Amtrak is
>> finished.
>> Articles and photos:
>> http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1000001&lang=1
>> http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Amtrak-unveils-locomotives-to-replace-aging-fleet-4509373.php
>>
>>
>> http://www.siemens.com/press/en/presspicture/index.php?view=list&content=ICRL&tag=soicrl201317
>>
>>
>
> Interesting to see a 1 MW generator tacked-in, I suppose that Amtrak
> doesn't trust their electrification enough? :-)

I think this is the HEP alternator.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[Michael Finfer]

I have heard unofficially, and I don't know how much truth there is to
this, that there is an issue with the weight of those units and the
condition of the roadbed and/or some structures between Newark and NY.

If anyone knows better, I'd like to hear the straight facts.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[HAL]

In article <kmrg66$s77$1...@news.albasani.net>, tobias b koehler

<tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed this may be including a maintenance contract?

Two years maintained by Siemens.

[mrob...@att.net]

tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> The first of the new electric locomotive generation for Amtrak is
> finished.

Thanks for the links!

I guess these will get towed East behind diesels? I wonder if Amtrak
or Siemens will put any of them on display along the way - say, parking
them at Union Station for the afternoon. On the other hand, it might
not be good politics to show off engines that won't be running in the
local area.

On the livery, the "Siemens" text on the nose and the side doesn't seem
to match Siemens' official logo... it sort of looks like somebody picked
almost the right color and then typed it in Arial. I wonder if later
engines will have the official logo.

I also think that a big old Pointless Arrow would look good on the side,
Helvetica text and all. But I don't charge big bucks as a branding
consultant, so this is unlikely to happen.

Matt Roberds

[Glen Labah]

In article <kmrru6$1hf1$1...@news.ntua.gr>,

Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Judging from their Swedish brethren, I would suspect there is a definite
> lack of maintenance in the USA.
> Even with their comparatively simple and rugged construction, these old
> ladies need regular maintenance in order to perform flawlessly.

How many miles are on those?

The Railway Age article

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/siemens-unveil
s-first-amtrak-cities-sprinters-locomotive.html?channel=35

says that the AEM7s have between 3.5 million and 4.5 million miles (5.8
to 7.5 million km) on them now.

At some point the economics of maintaining them plus the economics lost
due to not having modern electrical systems is greater than the price of
buying replacements.

Also, the AEM7 doesn't really fit that well with some of the current
train lengths. as best as I can tell. I've not been in the northeast
that much, but when I have seen AEM7s operating in Amtrak service it
seems like there is almost always two on the front of a train. That's
some platform and station track length that could go to another coach if
a single locomotive could do the job of two AEM7s.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

[Glen Labah]

In article <ZZ6dnR6Yo-I18QzM...@giganews.com>,

Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> On 5/13/2013 4:52 PM, Nick Fotis wrote:
> > Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?
>
> The ALP44s have already been retired from NJT, and I doubt anyone will
> pick them up. They are parked in a single line all boarded up out by
> Port Morris.
>
> The reliability of AEM-7s is deteriorating as the days pass. There is a
> loco failure now several times a week, fortunately not all on in service
> trains. I know NJT is not going to pick up any. They are too busy
> repairing their flood damaged fleet at present,

I suspect, however, that most of the AEM7s would wind up being sold as
parts sources to MARC or SEPTA, which also have AEM7s. The availability
of a bunch of parts source locomotives changes the economics of repair
for older equipment.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 14.05.2013 05:02, schrieb mrob...@att.net:

> On the livery, the "Siemens" text on the nose and the side doesn't
> seem to match Siemens' official logo... it sort of looks like
> somebody picked almost the right color and then typed it in Arial.
> I wonder if later engines will have the official logo.

I wonder about that too. Of course Siemens does have corporate design
guidelines stating the exact colour for the logo, which background to
place it on, how much space to leave around, how to align it with text
or other logos ... so this is a nice example of failed internal
communication.

In Germany there are a few negative backronyms around for Siemens
("Sicher ist eines, man erhï¿œlt nur Schrott" = "One thing is certain, you
only get scrap") but about anything about the locomotive that can break
has been proven in daily service in other types before. The only problem
that I know of is electric interference with signalling systems, which
means that the Taurus of Hector Rail in Sweden is still not allowed to
go to Denmark, and those of Austria took a long time to be approved in
the Czech and Slovak republics.

The design of the lowered roof reminds me very much of British
locomotives class 90 ... The pantographs are definitely not Siemens, are
they the same type as used by the Acela?

Regarding the livery - Personally I think that silver would look better
than that light grey that the unit now seems to have. The waving flag
reminds very much of that used by Union Pacific (but of course you can't
trademark a flag, it's free to use by anyone unless it's in an insulting
sense, right?) You could do a lot more with a big smooth wall than just
scattering a few logos/symbols over it.

And what is Amtrak planning in terms of coaching stock? Any idea what
comes after the Amfleet?

toby

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 02:47, Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> In article<kmrqoo$1c50$1...@news.ntua.gr>,
> Nick Fotis<nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The famous BR103 of Deutsche Bahn provided 7.44 MW of power in six axles
>> at a weight of 126 short tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_103
>> ), with a maximum speed of 125 mph.
>
> I've heard they were rough on track, too.

Don't know myself. If any German reader can tell us, it would be nice.

Having a 6-axle high-power beast like this running at 125 mph at
European tracks of the seventies must have been an 'interesting'
experience (note that jointed rails were the norm then, and UIC54 rail
profile was the 'high end' of the era)

>> The recent incident on Canada with the derailment of a Canadian sister
>> of ALP-45DP would make me skeptical as well.
>
> It'll happen sooner or later on NJT. They're not very good at
> maintenance of anything.

I guess that you don't hold them to high esteem :-)

>> If I am not wrong, the ALP-45DP is not permitted to run above 100 mph on
>> USA tracks?
>
> I don't think ANY of the ALPs are allowed over 100. The multilevels,
> which are the bulk of NJT's fleet now, aren't any likely never will be.
> There's no need for it.

Interesting - then why NJT bought 125 mph ALP-46A then instead of
upgrading the power of the ALP-46?

>> Well, solid state electronics are something that Siemens should have the
>> know how to implement well in the typical railroad environment.
>
> Most folks I've talked to seem to think these units will be just fine.
> There's going to be a typical period of whineing about them, but they'll
> ultimately be decent motors, even if they don't have the Sprinter
> startup noises (I hear they're internally based on the Vectron)

Wish they could maintain the 'singing locomotive' sound invented on the
Austrian "Taurus" ES64U...

> *Yes, this includes the RVL. NJT had it all designed out back in the
> early 2000's. Wire heights, substation locations, what feeders to pull,
> everything. They were litterally at the point of letting the contracts
> out when Warrington came in and canned it all.

I wonder, what was the supposed rationale behind such a decision?
Electrification of commuter routes is always a Good Thing (TM)

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 06:46, Glen Labah wrote:
> In article<kmrru6$1hf1$1...@news.ntua.gr>,
> Nick Fotis<nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Judging from their Swedish brethren, I would suspect there is a definite
>> lack of maintenance in the USA.
>> Even with their comparatively simple and rugged construction, these old
>> ladies need regular maintenance in order to perform flawlessly.
>
>
> How many miles are on those?

Noting that the oldest of these are 40+ years old, and the distances in
Sweden are pretty long, I wouldn't be surprised to see these surpassing
these numbers.

The first generation of their Swedish brethren (Rc1) runs since 1968.
Look in http://www.jarnvag.net/index.php/lokguide/ellok-i-trafik/rc1
(thanks to TBK for the link)

> At some point the economics of maintaining them plus the economics lost
> due to not having modern electrical systems is greater than the price of
> buying replacements.

Sure, not having regenerative braking is a disadvantage, but I suppose
that the AC version added that capability (similar to the Swedish Rd
being done by Bombardier:
http://www.jarnvag.net/index.php/lokguide/ellok-i-trafik/rd2

> Also, the AEM7 doesn't really fit that well with some of the current
> train lengths. as best as I can tell. I've not been in the northeast
> that much, but when I have seen AEM7s operating in Amtrak service it
> seems like there is almost always two on the front of a train. That's
> some platform and station track length that could go to another coach if
> a single locomotive could do the job of two AEM7s.
>

Well, 4.3 MW is not that powerful (the original Rc are 3.6 MW).
Combining two AEM-7 gives 8.6 MW on eight axles, which is necessary for
6+ wagons (don't know how much is available for HEP - the Wikipedia
article mentions 1 MW for HEP in the AC variant).
But these locomotives are fairly short (15.5 meters), a bit more than
half a passenger wagon, so removing one from the consist does not gain much.

N.F.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/13/2013 11:48 PM, Glen Labah wrote:
> In article <ZZ6dnR6Yo-I18QzM...@giganews.com>,
> Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 4:52 PM, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?
>>
>> The ALP44s have already been retired from NJT, and I doubt anyone will
>> pick them up. They are parked in a single line all boarded up out by
>> Port Morris.
>>
>> The reliability of AEM-7s is deteriorating as the days pass. There is a
>> loco failure now several times a week, fortunately not all on in service
>> trains. I know NJT is not going to pick up any. They are too busy
>> repairing their flood damaged fleet at present,
>
>
>
> I suspect, however, that most of the AEM7s would wind up being sold as
> parts sources to MARC or SEPTA, which also have AEM7s. The availability
> of a bunch of parts source locomotives changes the economics of repair
> for older equipment.
>

You don't really need all those parts from 47 engines to maintain just
11. So yeah a few might, but not most.

SEPTA has been on the verge of getting rid of theirs and the push pull
sets. They would do so tomorrow if they had the money to get enough
Silverliner VIs

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 6:45 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 14/05/2013 06:46, Glen Labah wrote:
>> In article<kmrru6$1hf1$1...@news.ntua.gr>,
>> Nick Fotis<nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Judging from their Swedish brethren, I would suspect there is a definite
>>> lack of maintenance in the USA.
>>> Even with their comparatively simple and rugged construction, these old
>>> ladies need regular maintenance in order to perform flawlessly.
>>
>> How many miles are on those?
>
> Noting that the oldest of these are 40+ years old, and the distances in
> Sweden are pretty long, I wouldn't be surprised to see these surpassing
> these numbers.
>
> The first generation of their Swedish brethren (Rc1) runs since 1968.
> Look in http://www.jarnvag.net/index.php/lokguide/ellok-i-trafik/rc1
> (thanks to TBK for the link)

At Amtrak ou need to realzie that things get maintained if they happen
to have the money, not otherwise. During the Gunn and Warrington years
there was severe shortage of funds and almost half the Amfleet 1s were
parked due to lack of routine maintenance, due to lack of funds. These
AEM-7s soldiered on through those lean years, and its effect shows.

>> At some point the economics of maintaining them plus the economics lost
>> due to not having modern electrical systems is greater than the price of
>> buying replacements.
>
> Sure, not having regenerative braking is a disadvantage, but I suppose
> that the AC version added that capability (similar to the Swedish Rd
> being done by Bombardier:
> http://www.jarnvag.net/index.php/lokguide/ellok-i-trafik/rd2

AFAIK Regenerative Braking was not added during the AC covnersion. They
just put in bigger resistor banks on the roof for dynamic brakes.

>> Also, the AEM7 doesn't really fit that well with some of the current
>> train lengths. as best as I can tell. I've not been in the northeast
>> that much, but when I have seen AEM7s operating in Amtrak service it
>> seems like there is almost always two on the front of a train. That's
>> some platform and station track length that could go to another coach if
>> a single locomotive could do the job of two AEM7s.
>>

In general the only time 2 AEM-7s are used on a single train is when one
of them has just come out of maintenance. It is unusual to put 2 AEM-7s
on a train purely due to performance reasons. The Regional and LD
schedules on the NEC are sufficiently lax so as to allow upto a 10 car
train with a single AEM-7 to be able to maintain schedule. Normal train
length for the Regionals is 8 cars, and they always get a single AEM-7.

> Well, 4.3 MW is not that powerful (the original Rc are 3.6 MW).
> Combining two AEM-7 gives 8.6 MW on eight axles, which is necessary for
> 6+ wagons (don't know how much is available for HEP - the Wikipedia
> article mentions 1 MW for HEP in the AC variant).
> But these locomotives are fairly short (15.5 meters), a bit more than
> half a passenger wagon, so removing one from the consist does not gain
> much.

As I said above, the norm is 8 car trains with a single AEM-7. Not
unusual to see 9 and 10 car trains with a single AEM-7 too.

I think one effect of the ACSs will be the ability to reduce running
times of Regionals. But Amtrak will not do so since that reduces the
differentiation between Acelas and Regionals, and hence reduces the
ability to charge as much more as they do for the Acelas. So only
schedule reliability will increase.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 4:00 AM, tobias b koehler wrote:

> And what is Amtrak planning in terms of coaching stock? Any idea what
> comes after the Amfleet?
>
> toby
>

One of the two remaining original prototype Viewliners was just moved
from Wilmington to Beech Grove to prototype a Corridor Coach using that
shell. It is more than likely that the Viewliner shell will be used for
the next round of single level Coaches, both corridor and LD. The single
level specification for standard US single level cars has been carefully
written to allow the use of Viewliner shells. It can be expected that
the Corridor Coaches will have vestibules at both ends whereas the LD
ones will have them at only one end.

The most recent corridor commuter cars that have been delivered all
appear to be multi-level, which are somewhat unsuitable for the amount
of luggage that is carried by Amtrak passengers. Many railfans have
talked about the possibility of using the NJT/AMT Bombardier
multi-levels, but Amtrak has categorically said they will not get
multi-level cars for its non-Superliner fleet.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 8:39 am, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> As I said above, the norm is 8 car trains with a single AEM-7. Not
> unusual to see 9 and 10 car trains with a single AEM-7 too.

Or even intercity trains pulled by a single AEM-7.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 8:48 am, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> One of the two remaining original prototype Viewliners was just moved
> from Wilmington to Beech Grove to prototype a Corridor Coach using that
> shell. It is more than likely that the Viewliner shell will be used for
> the next round of single level Coaches, both corridor and LD. The single
> level specification for standard US single level cars has been carefully
> written to allow the use of Viewliner shells. It can be expected that
> the Corridor Coaches will have vestibules at both ends whereas the LD
> ones will have them at only one end.

Is there anything intrisic about Viewliner shells that makes them
desirable, or this just using an existing design?

Will coaches have two sets of windows? (I hope not, as that's more of
a distraction than a qualtiy. With a strong sun, that's discomfort
(shining in passengers eyes) plus extra load on the a/c.

> The most recent corridor commuter cars that have been delivered all
> appear to be multi-level, which are somewhat unsuitable for the amount
> of luggage that is carried by Amtrak passengers. Many railfans have
> talked about the possibility of using the NJT/AMT Bombardier
> multi-levels, but Amtrak has categorically said they will not get
> multi-level cars for its non-Superliner fleet.

Railfans advocate use of the NJT Bombardier multi-levels on Amtrak???
That's ridiculous. On weekends, there is not enough room on NJT for
passengers' luggage as is, and Amtrak passengers typically have more
luggage than commuters or weekend city visitors. Schlepping the
suitcases up and down the stairs and narrow aisles is a pain.

[Nick Fotis]

On 14/05/2013 11:00, tobias b koehler wrote:
> The design of the lowered roof reminds me very much of British
> locomotives class 90 ... The pantographs are definitely not Siemens, are
> they the same type as used by the Acela?

I would guess these are from the same supplier who made the pantographs
for the AEM-7.
Regular European pantographs cannot reach high enough for the 7+ meter
tall cable height, except if you mount them on (unsightly) platforms on
top of the locomotive.

N.F.

[John Albert]

"AFAIK Regenerative Braking was not added during the AC covnersion. They
just put in bigger resistor banks on the roof for dynamic brakes."

The AEM-7 AC "remanufactured" units did indeed have regenerative braking.

I looked at some pics of the new engines, they could have had bigger
side windows for better visibility. Particularly when it comes to yard
moves.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 10:03 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:> On May 14, 8:39 am,

Yes, quite often. None of them are more than 10 or 11 cars long anyway.
Mostly 9 or 10 cars.

They do often get HHP-8s though, as do many Regionals. it all depends on
what is handy at the time of their departure I suppose.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 10:13 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 14, 8:48 am, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> One of the two remaining original prototype Viewliners was just moved
>> from Wilmington to Beech Grove to prototype a Corridor Coach using that
>> shell. It is more than likely that the Viewliner shell will be used for
>> the next round of single level Coaches, both corridor and LD. The single
>> level specification for standard US single level cars has been carefully
>> written to allow the use of Viewliner shells. It can be expected that
>> the Corridor Coaches will have vestibules at both ends whereas the LD
>> ones will have them at only one end.
>
> Is there anything intrisic about Viewliner shells that makes them
> desirable, or this just using an existing design?
>
> Will coaches have two sets of windows? (I hope not, as that's more of
> a distraction than a qualtiy. With a strong sun, that's discomfort
> (shining in passengers eyes) plus extra load on the a/c.

No Coaches won;t have the upper level windows of course. The thing about
Viewliners is that they are designed to be modular. So in principle it
is easy to reconfigure a car to be half coach, half sleeper if one
wanted to do so. It would take just a few days to swap out some coach
modules and replace them with sleeper modules and knock through the
windows and install window frames for upper window and voila.... or at
least that is the theory anyway.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 12:59 PM, John Albert wrote:
> "AFAIK Regenerative Braking was not added during the AC covnersion. They
> just put in bigger resistor banks on the roof for dynamic brakes."
>
> The AEM-7 AC "remanufactured" units did indeed have regenerative braking.

Ah my bad. Thanks for the correction!

> I looked at some pics of the new engines, they could have had bigger
> side windows for better visibility. Particularly when it comes to yard
> moves.

Speaking of yard moves, did you notice that the locomotive rolled out
under its own (battery) power, pantos down until it got just outside the
building, when it then raised its pantograph to carry on? Is this a new
feature or did the precious locomotives have this capability?

[John Albert]

On 5/14/13 3:19 PM, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
> Is this a new
> feature or did the precious locomotives have this capability?

No previous electric locomotive used on Amtrak (at least none I ever
heard of) has/had the ability to move on "battery power only".

No pan up -- no movement.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 14.05.2013 00:31, schrieb Nick Fotis:

> Note that the current surge in natural gas and crude oil production in
> USA due to fracking and other unconventional methods mean that USA may
> become a very large oil producer - even larger than Saudi Arabia, if
> we believe the newspapers

They may still remain a petrol importing country (though I don't have
figures and estimations), so they depend on the world market price.

> So, the freight railroads may feel less pressure to electrify their
> main corridors. My favorite candidate is BNSF and their Transcon,
> since they pulled out of the stock exchange after uncle Warren bought
> them, and they can plan long-term capital projects without a pressure
> to provide dividends each quarter.

Northern or southern Transcon?

Perhaps Siemens is counting on a future market to continue using their
factory once the ACS-64 is finished. A freight version could be six-axle
with a heavier frame and six traction inverters, doing without the head
end power inverter. Something like the DSB EG (developed for
cross-border freight trains via the undersea tunnels) but newer and for
US specifications.

And Amtrak could use ACS on the trains going over those lines.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 14.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Jishnu Mukerji:

> No Coaches won;t have the upper level windows of course.

It would be great to have some "panorama coaches" though ... similar to
the Swiss ones
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/EC/panorama/interior/pix.html
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/EC/panorama/Switzerland/pix.html

If they don't it wouldn't make much sense to call them viewliners. Sure
there will be some who don't like sunlight on their laptop screens, but
then again landscape is a unique experience that railways can offer, and
a coach with extra windows for the view to the sky would have a
wonderful atmosphere!

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmu91g$ia7$1...@news.albasani.net>,

tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> If they don't it wouldn't make much sense to call them viewliners. Sure
> there will be some who don't like sunlight on their laptop screens, but
> then again landscape is a unique experience that railways can offer, and
> a coach with extra windows for the view to the sky would have a
> wonderful atmosphere!

Ahh, but who *really* wants to see the NEC? It's pretty ugly by the
tracks. Save for the northern approach to Manhattan over the Hell Gate.

The Hudson line, on the other hand...besides the river, you get a great
view of Indian Point :) and Sing Sing, too.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmt2vh$1jsv$1...@news.ntua.gr>,

Nick Fotis <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't know myself. If any German reader can tell us, it would be nice.
>
> Having a 6-axle high-power beast like this running at 125 mph at
> European tracks of the seventies must have been an 'interesting'
> experience (note that jointed rails were the norm then, and UIC54 rail
> profile was the 'high end' of the era)

When the US tried 6 axle power at 125mph, the end result was a
locomotive in a ditch. Twice I believe. End result: the E-60 had a
90mph restriction in service, though I think it was more severe north of
NYC once Metro-North got their hands on the trackage.

> I guess that you don't hold them to high esteem :-)

This is a transit agency that's had wheels pop off their trains multiple
times in the past :)

More seriously, read about the flooding issues they had last year...

> Interesting - then why NJT bought 125 mph ALP-46A then instead of
> upgrading the power of the ALP-46?

Change from GTO to IGBT. That and the US has a huge hard on for buying
obscenely fast things and going slow with them. You'd be amazed how
many Porsches are sold on Long Island, where they'll never exceed
60mph...

Americans like to brag about going fast and never actually do it*. Go
figure. Most people in this country would shit in their pants if they
ever got near the top speed of their car, and let's face it, a Toyota
Camary isn't that fast...

> Wish they could maintain the 'singing locomotive' sound invented on the
> Austrian "Taurus" ES64U...

Me too...

> I wonder, what was the supposed rationale behind such a decision?
> Electrification of commuter routes is always a Good Thing (TM)

Warrington was an asshole and didn't like electrification, so he caned
it. That's the justification. There's a good % of the rail industry
that doesn't like - and is even scared of - the concept. It had nothing
to do with economics 0- thje costs of wiring up all of NJT weren't much
more than the ALP-45 order, and paled in comparison to the aborted ARC
project. Or hell, even the various useless extensions to the HBLRT and
Newark Subway (250million for 1/4 mile of track).

Or you have the situation on LI, where the LIRR doesn't want to admit
the Port Jefferson line desperately needs it,and pretends it doesn't,
then can't understand why he ridership on the *single track* Ronkonkoma
line is so high...

The funny part is they're going to double track Ronkonkoma (when it was
electrified, they actually designed the electrification for it),which
will just drag more traffic away from Port Jeff...

*Full disclosure: I've done 150+mph 1/4 miles in rear engined dragsters
before...

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <rNCdnRrtL6vtsQ_M...@giganews.com>,

Because regardless of what the DVARP says, push pulls make zero sense on
Septa. As do dual modes, I might add.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmsqvi$a32$1...@news.albasani.net>,

tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder about that too. Of course Siemens does have corporate design
> guidelines stating the exact colour for the logo, which background to
> place it on, how much space to leave around, how to align it with text
> or other logos ... so this is a nice example of failed internal
> communication.

Given how many tries it took or me to get off of Siemens' automation
mailing list, I'm suspecting that communications isn't their strong
point...

> In Germany there are a few negative backronyms around for Siemens

> ("Sicher ist eines, man erhält nur Schrott" = "One thing is certain, you

> only get scrap") but about anything about the locomotive that can break
> has been proven in daily service in other types before.

In the US, we just giggle at the name. Actually, we don't get to often
at my office since the Siemens rep knows better than to poke his head in
the door. We only use their instrumentation if the engineer holds a gun
to our head, we're much happier with Endress and Hauser.

> The only problem
> that I know of is electric interference with signalling systems, which
> means that the Taurus of Hector Rail in Sweden is still not allowed to
> go to Denmark, and those of Austria took a long time to be approved in
> the Czech and Slovak republics.

I suspect that wont' be an issue in the US, since AC traction equipment
is pretty common on the NEC. I'd be more worried about the thing
popping substations...

> The design of the lowered roof reminds me very much of British
> locomotives class 90 ... The pantographs are definitely not Siemens, are
> they the same type as used by the Acela?

They're probably the same as the Acelas and everything else Amtrak runs.
I think they have a 'standard' pantograph, along with NJT now.

> Regarding the livery - Personally I think that silver would look better
> than that light grey that the unit now seems to have. The waving flag
> reminds very much of that used by Union Pacific (but of course you can't
> trademark a flag, it's free to use by anyone unless it's in an insulting
> sense, right?)

Last I checked, the US flag wasn't trademarked :)

As an aside: You don't have to pay sales tax on US flags either, in
many states. Do other countries do things like this?

> You could do a lot more with a big smooth wall than just
> scattering a few logos/symbols over it.

Yes, as the NYCTA found out the hard way in the 70's and 80's...

http://tinyurl.com/btlqlh2

Sometimes it even got political:
http://tinyurl.com/cv933ra

Better artists would copy or leave the car number unpainted. Go figure.

Worse, some idiot at the MTA decided the answer to this was to paint the
cars a nice inviting shade of...white. It wasn't until the rather
famous red of the 80's (which IIRC was also resistant in some way) that
this went away. Then some kid found out how easy subway windows scratch
with a key...

> And what is Amtrak planning in terms of coaching stock? Any idea what
> comes after the Amfleet?

Coaching stock? :) I'm imagining my HS coach giving the train a pep
talk, here.

What comes after the Amfleet? Who knows. They've only ordered more
viewliners (for whatever reason).

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 3:16 pm, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> No Coaches won;t have the upper level windows of course. The thing about
> Viewliners is that they are designed to be modular. So in principle it
> is easy to reconfigure a car to be half coach, half sleeper if one
> wanted to do so. It would take just a few days to swap out some coach
> modules and replace them with sleeper modules and knock through the
> windows and install window frames for upper window and voila.... or at

> least that is the theory anyway.-

IIRC, the original Amfleet was supposed to be somewhat modular in
seating capacity. The seats were supposed be on rails, adjustable.
The reading lamps were in a grid, supposedly movable. How often that
was actually done in practice I don't know.

One time a while ago I was coming up from Washington, DC, and I
originated my trip at Alexandria, at a very small increase in price.
But in doing so I was able to get a reserved seat in the Amfleet II
section of the train--the low density seating with leg rests.

Theoretically that should've worked out great. But I was rather tired
and there was a large loud party going on in the car I was in. So, I
changed seats to the more crowded Amfleet-I section added at
Washington, but at least it was a lot quieter.

I believe since then they have changed the ticketing rules from
Alexandria, so that kind of trip is no longer possible.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 5:01 pm, tobias b koehler <tbk.un...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They may still remain a petrol importing country (though I don't have
> figures and estimations), so they depend on the world market price.

Even if the US becomes an oil exporting country (which I doubt given
our voracious energy needs), it would still be sensitive to world
pricing. If the world market for oil is at $100/bbl, then a US
producer will seek that price. If he can't get it in the US, he can
get it elsewhere (less of course shipping costs and technical issues).

As to US electrifying freight railroads, I strongly doubt it. Every
time oil climbs up it backs down again. IMHO, it would take an
extremely prolonged and severe energy shortage to justify the massive
investment in elecrification for freight railroads. Remember, they're
essentially already electrified--diesels are electric engines, only
with their onboard power source. Also, railroads are very energy
efficient, and not as sensitive to energy prices as some other
industries (like airlines).

If someone somehow could invent technology that would allow generation
AND distribution of nuclear power dirt cheap then that could impact
things. But I doubt that will happen.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 5:06 pm, tobias b koehler <tbk.un...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It would be great to have some "panorama coaches" though ... similar to

> the Swiss oneshttp://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/EC/panorama/interior/...http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/EC/panorama/Switzerla...

>
> If they don't it wouldn't make much sense to call them viewliners. Sure
> there will be some who don't like sunlight on their laptop screens, but
> then again landscape is a unique experience that railways can offer, and
> a coach with extra windows for the view to the sky would have a
> wonderful atmosphere!

IMHO, the upper level Viewliner windows are only good for looking at
the sky, not the landscape. They're too high up. AFAIK, the upper
window was created for upper berth passengers, not sightseeing.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 6:27 pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:

> > I wonder, what was the supposed rationale behind such a decision?
> > Electrification of commuter routes is always a Good Thing (TM)
>
> Warrington was an asshole and didn't like electrification, so he caned
> it.  That's the justification.  There's a good % of the rail industry
> that doesn't like - and is even scared of - the concept.  It had nothing
> to do with economics 0- thje costs of wiring up all of NJT weren't much
> more than the ALP-45 order, and paled in comparison to the aborted ARC
> project.  Or hell, even the various useless extensions to the HBLRT and
> Newark Subway (250million for 1/4 mile of track).

Middleton's book on steam railroad electrification examined the
economics of it, and found that at the writing, 1974, it wasn't as
economical as it was originally. That's why a lot of pioneer electric
carriers got rid of it. Conrail chose not to expand PRR
electrfication as its route changed and got rid of it.

Remember, electrification originally was to be more flexible and
efficient than the steam locomotive. Diesel locomotives do much of
that, and even more today with modern propulsion.

Electrification is very expensive, and really only justified in high
volume situations to cover the high fixed costs. For whatever reason,
substations cost a fortune (for non-RR applications, too).

NJT _has_ added electric mileage on some routes.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 6:28 pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:
> In article <rNCdnRrtL6vtsQ_MnZ2dnUVZ_rOdn...@giganews.com>,

I don't recall DVARP ever saying anything in favor of push-pulls.
Everyone knows they run slow, even on express trains. Heck, I think
DVARP may have advocated keeping the old Silverliners instead of the
push-pulls due to better performance of the MUs.

BTW, the ex-E-L trainset _may_ be out of service; one run it was one
is now SL5s.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 14-May-13 17:27, Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> In article <kmt2vh$1jsv$1...@news.ntua.gr>, Nick Fotis
> <nick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Interesting - then why NJT bought 125 mph ALP-46A then instead of
>> upgrading the power of the ALP-46?
>
> Change from GTO to IGBT. That and the US has a huge hard on for
> buying obscenely fast things and going slow with them. You'd be
> amazed how many Porsches are sold on Long Island, where they'll never
> exceed 60mph...
>
> Americans like to brag about going fast and never actually do it*.
> Go figure.

The speed limits are artificially low across the US, and most people
don't consider it worth paying the fines to go a decent speed; those who
do are a major source of funding for municipal budgets.

> Most people in this country would shit in their pants if
> they ever got near the top speed of their car, and let's face it, a
> Toyota Camary isn't that fast...

Most imports, including the Camry, have a top speed of 120mph+. It may
take a while to get there, though, depending on the model.

There are few roads in the US straight enough--and with light enough
traffic--that driving at such speeds would be safe even for expert
drivers; I'm not sure an average driver would necessarily "shit their
pants" in such a case, but it would be unwise for them to try it.

OTOH, see here for an amusing publicity stunt:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/10/25/car-hits-220-mph-on-new-texas-highway/

> *Full disclosure: I've done 150+mph 1/4 miles in rear engined
> dragsters before...

I've never been in a dragster, but I've driven my own car at up to
170mph on a racetrack--with no engine modifications. I'll plead the
Fifth as to my top speed in that same car on the highway.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kmukrm$j2g$1...@dont-email.me>,

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> The speed limits are artificially low across the US, and most people
> don't consider it worth paying the fines to go a decent speed; those who
> do are a major source of funding for municipal budgets.

Which is why the limits are artificially low. Especially in NY state.
It's a good money maker.

Oddly, NJ, out of the rush, the Turnpike and GSP move at a reasonable
clip, maybe 70-80 or so.

> Most imports, including the Camry, have a top speed of 120mph+. It may
> take a while to get there, though, depending on the model.

I have a friend who swears he got a late 90's Hyundai up there. I still
don't believe him.

> I've never been in a dragster, but I've driven my own car at up to
> 170mph on a racetrack--with no engine modifications.

Oh, they're *fun*. Was 2 days of Frank Hawley's NHRA Drag Racing school
out at Maple Grove, PA. Beautiful track in a beautiful area. Taught by
Frank himself.

This was going back, shit, 10 years now. I feel old :(

> I'll plead the
> Fifth as to my top speed in that same car on the highway.

For shits and giggles go to youtube and type "<motorcycle model> top
speed". GoPros make these videos prolific as hell. As a practical
measure, all liter bikes and all are computer limited to 'only' 186mph,
unless clip this wire over here...

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article
<f1c7e2ca-5e20-429f...@k4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I don't recall DVARP ever saying anything in favor of push-pulls.

IIRC, it was a newsletter back a few years questioning why SEPTA was
buying more EMUs...

> Everyone knows they run slow, even on express trains.

> Heck, I think
> DVARP may have advocated keeping the old Silverliners instead of the
> push-pulls due to better performance of the MUs.

Maybe. I think their only real consistent whine is service to REading,
for some odd reason.

> BTW, the ex-E-L trainset _may_ be out of service; one run it was one
> is now SL5s.

Oh well.

Oddly, a few AEM-7s on Septa still have their original builder's
plates...

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article
<f14fc46e-54e6-48e2...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Also, railroads are very energy
> efficient, and not as sensitive to energy prices as some other
> industries (like airlines).

From:
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/nat
ional_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html

For 2010:

Domestic air travel: 2,691 BTU/pax-mile
Amtrak: 1,668 BTU/pax-mile

The trends are more telling:
In 1980:
Air: 6,029
Amtrak: 2,148


In 1990:
Air: 4,767
Amtrak: 2,066

In 2000:
Air: 3,892
Amtrak: 2,688

I'm not sure why Amtrak bumped in 2000 (Wasn't that the middle of the
"Let's become a freight RR" hoopla?). But, that bump put it where air
travel is today.

The last word I heard was that P&W's GTF really does work and really
does deliver a 15% or reduction, right out of the box. The C Series
(ironically made by Bombardier) has its first flight later this year I
think. The older fleets powered by JT-8Ds are fast being retired.

I wouldn't be surprised if *domestic* air operations get near parity
with Amtrak this decade. Fleet turnover will do that. Of course,
working against this is the rise of the short haul 'regional' flights,
which are better suited for rail anyway.

But, the idea that air travel is a huge energy sucker is, quite
literally, set in the past. It's actually more efficient than driving
now.

> If someone somehow could invent technology that would allow generation
> AND distribution of nuclear power dirt cheap then that could impact
> things. But I doubt that will happen.

Nuclear's already pretty cheap, the problems are:

* Nuclear plants are very expensive to build. Thus they're only built
in large to huge sizes.

* Not all local grids can take a 1000 - 1600 MW power plant.

* Every time someone tries to build one, they get stuck in years of
legal battles. Look at Vogtle or VC Summer.

* Natural gas is 'cheap' now, which means everyone's flocking to it.

* The current cast of clowns in DC are dead set against nuclear
expansion.

But:

* Once operating, the fuel costs are tiny and pretty fixed actually.

* A larger plant makes cheaper electricity because its costs are almost
the same as a smaller one.

* Nukes are still competitive in most markets, especially older plants.
That's why VT Yankee and Indian Point are still being operated, despite
the opposition to them - they make LOTS of money for their owners.

* Natural gas will get more expensive, and in fact the spot market
prices this winter were quite scary at times.

* There's been research into smaller nuke plants, but the economics
aren't there because of the licensing and operation side, yet.

* There's five nukes under construction in the US right now. Most of
the utilities are waiting to see how the new 'standard design' and
'combined license' process actually works out in real life.

I think Vogtle 3 is still set for 2017 or so. Watts Bar 2 might beat it
if the TVA ever gets its act together. The TVA swears 2015. They said
2013 a few years ago...

(Watts Bar 1 was the 'last' nuke to open, in '96)

Oh, and coal? It's dead. The utilities don't want it anymore - look at
how Futuregen turned out.

[Michael Finfer]

The multilevels are totally unsuitable for people traveling with
luggage. There is only space for luggage on the mezzanines near the
doors, an obviously undesirable location for bulky stuff.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[Nick Fotis]

On 15/05/2013 00:01, tobias b koehler wrote:
> Am 14.05.2013 00:31, schrieb Nick Fotis:
>
> > So, the freight railroads may feel less pressure to electrify their
> > main corridors. My favorite candidate is BNSF and their Transcon,
> > since they pulled out of the stock exchange after uncle Warren bought
> > them, and they can plan long-term capital projects without a pressure
> > to provide dividends each quarter.
>
> Northern or southern Transcon?

The Southern one (Kansas city to Los Angeles), which is mostly
double-tracked already.
Did you see the video I referenced?

> Perhaps Siemens is counting on a future market to continue using their
> factory once the ACS-64 is finished. A freight version could be six-axle
> with a heavier frame and six traction inverters, doing without the head
> end power inverter. Something like the DSB EG (developed for
> cross-border freight trains via the undersea tunnels) but newer and for
> US specifications.

I was thinking something like the Bombardier IORE (two-section
locomotive, 12 axles in total, 10-12 MW total power).

A pair of these could easily handle a typical USA freight over the
Transcon (you would need a bit more on stiff grades like Cajon pass, of
course).

> And Amtrak could use ACS on the trains going over those lines.

Hmm yes, provided that there would be an electrified line connecting the
NEC to the Transcon.

N.F.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 15-May-13 04:29, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 15/05/2013 00:01, tobias b koehler wrote:
>> Perhaps Siemens is counting on a future market to continue using
>> their factory once the ACS-64 is finished. A freight version could
>> be six-axle with a heavier frame and six traction inverters, doing
>> without the head end power inverter. Something like the DSB EG
>> (developed for cross-border freight trains via the undersea
>> tunnels) but newer and for US specifications.
>
> I was thinking something like the Bombardier IORE (two-section
> locomotive, 12 axles in total, 10-12 MW total power).
>
> A pair of these could easily handle a typical USA freight over the
> Transcon (you would need a bit more on stiff grades like Cajon pass,
> of course).

By "pair", do you mean one married pair or two?

Based on what they do with diesels, I'd expect the freight RRs to prefer
the operational flexibility of unmarried units, even if a bit of
redundancy increases the cost per unit. They frequently operate with an
odd number of units today, which would mean wasted capacity with married
pairs of similar size.

Married pairs also conflict with the common practice of taking wrecked
cab units and turning them into slugs--unless you inserted the slug into
the middle of a married pair, making it a married triplet, but that
makes the operational flexibility problem even worse.

>> And Amtrak could use ACS on the trains going over those lines.
>
> Hmm yes, provided that there would be an electrified line connecting
> the NEC to the Transcon.

Well, they could run an ACS-64 from LA to KC and switch to a P42 (or
two, or three) from KC to Chicago.

The ACS-64 seems like overkill for that scenario, though; I'd expect a
derivative model that was sized and geared appropriately for (much)
slower freight lines. Most of the parts could be shared, reducing the
development, training and maintenance costs.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 15.05.2013 13:52, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:

> Based on what they do with diesels, I'd expect the freight RRs to prefer
> the operational flexibility of unmarried units, even if a bit of
> redundancy increases the cost per unit. They frequently operate with an
> odd number of units today, which would mean wasted capacity with married
> pairs of similar size.

Then there's the question whether they would order single or double cab
units. If they are going to run them in groups of two or three anyway,
single cab units would be enough if they are considerably cheaper to
build and operate, but need a possiblity to turn units around
(turntables, triangles, pentagrams or whatever) when forming consists.

Or they would have to completely change the layout to form a narrow hood
similar to current diesel locomotives, but I wonder whether that's worth
the hassle for limited long hood forward running capability when you
could just keep the second cab. For a freight locomotive of limited
speed the cab design may be a bit more utilitarian and angular, avoiding
fibreglass sections.

For Amtrak locomotives designed for freight railways, perhaps some money
could be saved with nose mounted traction motors, rather than the fully
suspended drive required for high speed operation.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 15-May-13 07:13, tobias b koehler wrote:
> Am 15.05.2013 13:52, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:
>> Based on what they do with diesels, I'd expect the freight RRs to
>> prefer the operational flexibility of unmarried units, even if a
>> bit of redundancy increases the cost per unit. They frequently
>> operate with an odd number of units today, which would mean wasted
>> capacity with married pairs of similar size.
>
> Then there's the question whether they would order single or double
> cab units. If they are going to run them in groups of two or three
> anyway, single cab units would be enough if they are considerably
> cheaper to build and operate, but need a possiblity to turn units
> around (turntables, triangles, pentagrams or whatever) when forming
> consists.
>
> Or they would have to completely change the layout to form a narrow
> hood similar to current diesel locomotives, but I wonder whether
> that's worth the hassle for limited long hood forward running

> capability when you could just keep the second cab. ...

All the freight locos I see around here have a single center cab. I can
see the advantage of that for switchers, but it seems like an
unnecessary design limitation for road units.

I can't recall having seen end cab units in US freight service. That
they always run the lead unit with the short hood forward implies they
could deal with turning units around when required for single end cab
units, though multiple-unit running means they shouldn't need to do it
that often anyway with either design.

Note that having two end cabs is _not_ functionally equivalent to having
a single center cab.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 5:06 PM, tobias b koehler wrote:
> Am 14.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Jishnu Mukerji:
>
>> No Coaches won;t have the upper level windows of course.
>
> It would be great to have some "panorama coaches" though ... similar to
> the Swiss ones
> http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/EC/panorama/interior/pix.html
>
> http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/EC/panorama/Switzerland/pix.html

True. But the space for luggage is extremely important on those trains
considering how much baggage people carry and that there never will be
checked baggage service on the NEC in general. So no, there will not be
upper level windows in the generic coach cars.

That is not to say that they will not design a Lounge car with upper
level windows along its whole length. Again given the modular design of
Viewliners it would just be a matter of putting together a bunch of
Lounge modules.

> If they don't it wouldn't make much sense to call them viewliners. Sure
> there will be some who don't like sunlight on their laptop screens, but
> then again landscape is a unique experience that railways can offer, and
> a coach with extra windows for the view to the sky would have a
> wonderful atmosphere!

Oh they'll probably call them Amfleet III. Finding a name should not be
a problem that guides what sort of facilities the cars provide. :)

[Jishnu Mukerji]

OTOH dual mode DEMUs would not be such a bad thing to restore service to
Reading e.g.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 15.05.2013 16:45, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:

> All the freight locos I see around here have a single center cab. I can
> see the advantage of that for switchers, but it seems like an
> unnecessary design limitation for road units.

Rather "off center" meaning when they run long hood forward (LHF) the
visibility is limited and you need two persons watching the track. So I
assume that mode is currently not preferred ....

> Note that having two end cabs is _not_ functionally equivalent to having
> a single center cab.

Certainly when changing directions often a single center cab is
preferred but that's not for long distance road operation.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/14/2013 8:03 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I believe since then they have changed the ticketing rules from
> Alexandria, so that kind of trip is no longer possible.
>

It is still possible on the Carolinian, the Palmetto and Regionals. On
the Palmetto you should be able to get a seat in an Amfleet II car by
playing nice with the conductor too.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 15, 12:50 pm, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> True. But the space for luggage is extremely important on those trains
> considering how much baggage people carry and that there never will be
> checked baggage service on the NEC in general. So no, there will not be
> upper level windows in the generic coach cars.

In looking over old schedules it seems railroad checked baggage was
somewhat cumbersome to use. On the plus side, many commuter stations
would accept it for a long distance trip. but, there was often only
one commuter train a day that handled baggage*, so baggage had to be
checked in advance. Indeed, railroads encouraged advance baggage
checking and warned passengers that baggage did not necessarily travel
on the same train as the passenger.

Also, there was a fee to check baggage. Passengers could have REA
Express pick up baggage from home or deliver to a destination at an
extra charge.

Returning to the NEC, Amtrak eliminated checked baggage at some
intermediate stops several years ago as a cost saving measure. Giving
the crowding of luggage and high density aboard NEC trains, perhaps a
more liberal baggage checking service ought to be offered, including
that of major intermediate stops. Railroads used to pick up a little
extra money shipping parcels, and perhaps that could be expanded,
too. ("Amtrak Express" still handles small package, remains, and LTL
shipping.) http://www.amtrak.com/express-shipping


*In old MU fleets there were usually MU combines or even MU baggage
and RPO cars. Even the RDCs had a baggage combine. But modern fleets
didn't have them, indeed, old fleets would be modernized to eliminate
them (such as the Reading Blueliners).

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/15/2013 1:37 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Returning to the NEC, Amtrak eliminated checked baggage at some
> intermediate stops several years ago as a cost saving measure. Giving
> the crowding of luggage and high density aboard NEC trains, perhaps a
> more liberal baggage checking service ought to be offered, including
> that of major intermediate stops. Railroads used to pick up a little
> extra money shipping parcels, and perhaps that could be expanded,
> too. ("Amtrak Express" still handles small package, remains, and LTL
> shipping.) http://www.amtrak.com/express-shipping

Currently there is no checked baggage service on any Regional, except
66/67. There is checked baggage service on the LD trains including the
Palmetto and the Carolinian. North of New York it is only 66/67. There
are not enough baggage cars nor time in the schedules to handle checked
baggage on the Regionals.

[Glen Labah]

In article <kn0es8$9bj$1...@news.albasani.net>,

tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 15.05.2013 16:45, schrieb Stephen Sprunk:
>
> > All the freight locos I see around here have a single center cab. I can
> > see the advantage of that for switchers, but it seems like an
> > unnecessary design limitation for road units.
>
> Rather "off center" meaning when they run long hood forward (LHF) the
> visibility is limited and you need two persons watching the track. So I
> assume that mode is currently not preferred ....

I've never seen this done with modern locomotives on the main line
railroads. They must do it when something like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davetoussaint/5173665296/

backs into the train to couple to it, but even in these cases I have
always seen the trailing locomotive of the consist face the train.

http://www.rail-pictures.com/name/train-photo/2772/gallery/USA~Companies~
BNSF.html

That way, they can run the locomotives into the train while facing it in
the rear cab. This also means that if they need to change directions
for some reason, they already have a cab facing the other direction.

I'm not sure that rear visibility in the current operations is really as
important as it used to be. The radiator grids and other protrusions on
the rear of the locomotive make visibility terrible anyway. Also, I
think most of the newer power has desk type controls in it, which makes
it much harder to operate a unit going the opposite direction. The
older style "road switcher" locomotives had controls and seats that
allowed the crew to operate facing in either direction.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

[mrob...@att.net]

Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> In article <kmsqvi$a32$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course Siemens does have corporate design guidelines stating the
>> exact colour for the logo, which background to place it on, how much
>> space to leave around, how to align it with text or other logos ...
>> so this is a nice example of failed internal communication.
>
> Given how many tries it took or me to get off of Siemens' automation
> mailing list, I'm suspecting that communications isn't their strong
> point...

The last couple of big companies I have worked for (including both
Europe- and US-based ones) had a "corporate identity" or "graphic design
standards" page on their intranet site. This page offered downloads of
the logo in different resolutions, colors, and file formats, and had at
least a "logo standards for dummies" document. They also had a "please
please ask these people if you have any questions, it's freeee" pitch
along with contact information.

>> You could do a lot more with a big smooth wall than just scattering a
>> few logos/symbols over it.
>
> Yes, as the NYCTA found out the hard way in the 70's and 80's...
> http://tinyurl.com/btlqlh2
>
> Sometimes it even got political:
> http://tinyurl.com/cv933ra

I used to live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which had a popular several-mile-long
park along the Arkansas River. Because this park is the "low spot", it
also has several concrete structures for both sanitary and storm sewer
manholes. These are usually about six feet on a side and anywhere from
1 to 10 feet tall. When I first moved there in the late 1990s, pretty
much all of them had some kind of artwork or design painted on them.
Not graffiti - people had spent several hours on some of these with a
brush. Some of them had to do with local festivals, events, and
history, and some were just cool paintings of animals and other scenes.

Long-time residents told me that the park department allowed people to
submit artwork or proposals for approval, and if granted, the submitter
could then paint the design in the park. The idea was that people would
be less likely to do graffiti over the designs, and in my opinion, it
worked well. Graffiti would appear on nearby structures that didn't
have things already painted on them, but pretty much didn't show up over
the existing paintings.

Around three or four years ago - about the time I moved out - some of
the structures were repainted a plain white or beige color, and then
words like "responsibility", "justice", "pride", and similar were
stenciled on them in black paint. About three nanoseconds after that
paint dried, people started adding their own words before or after the
existing ones, yielding things like "screw responsibility" and "no
justice for you". I don't think this was an improvement over the
previous pictures.

I wonder if some kind of "approved graffiti" program, similar to what
the Tulsa park department did, would be useful for rail cars - freight
and passenger. The goals would be to discourage later graffiti and
to make the trains look more interesting.

I am thinking that a new railcar would first be painted normally (for
corrosion protection), with the last coat being a plain solid color.
Then, people get to paint their own designs onto the sides of the cars.
There would have to be some rules like approval of designs (I think
there is an early-20th-century law about ads on freight cars still on
the books), using the right kind of paint, and "don't paint over the
data stencils or the windows". People would also have to accept that
the designs might get painted over or partially removed in the future,
in case the car was repaired or repainted.

There are probably a hundred reasons why this won't work, of which
several will be noted shortly.

Matt Roberds

[Nick Fotis]

On 15/05/2013 14:52, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 15-May-13 04:29, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> I was thinking something like the Bombardier IORE (two-section
>> locomotive, 12 axles in total, 10-12 MW total power).
>>
>> A pair of these could easily handle a typical USA freight over the
>> Transcon (you would need a bit more on stiff grades like Cajon pass,
>> of course).
>
> By "pair", do you mean one married pair or two?

Two pairs for 15.000+ tonnes (24 powered axles in total), or one pair
for 8.000+ tonnes, depending on grades.

Alternatively, Siemens could provide a 'baby IORE' like the
China-specific HDX1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD1
This is an already proven design on the DaQin heavy haul railway,
hauling nearly 400 million tonnes of coal per year.

> Based on what they do with diesels, I'd expect the freight RRs to prefer
> the operational flexibility of unmarried units, even if a bit of
> redundancy increases the cost per unit. They frequently operate with an
> odd number of units today, which would mean wasted capacity with married
> pairs of similar size.

You can split a dual section locomotive and marry different segments due
to differences on maintenance or collision damage - these are just
joined by steel bars instead of regular couplers.
This will have to be done in the shop, though.

>> Hmm yes, provided that there would be an electrified line connecting
>> the NEC to the Transcon.
>
> Well, they could run an ACS-64 from LA to KC and switch to a P42 (or
> two, or three) from KC to Chicago.

Make that 'at least two' P42s

> The ACS-64 seems like overkill for that scenario, though; I'd expect a
> derivative model that was sized and geared appropriately for (much)
> slower freight lines. Most of the parts could be shared, reducing the
> development, training and maintenance costs.
>

Judging from cases like the Siemens "Taurus" (ES64U), there is a
possibility of a universal locomotive, which can easily haul freight or
passenger trains. And having a single type for this task leads to
economies of scale and simpler maintenance logistics.

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

On 16/05/2013 07:40, Glen Labah wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that rear visibility in the current operations is really as
> important as it used to be. The radiator grids and other protrusions on
> the rear of the locomotive make visibility terrible anyway. Also, I
> think most of the newer power has desk type controls in it, which makes
> it much harder to operate a unit going the opposite direction. The
> older style "road switcher" locomotives had controls and seats that
> allowed the crew to operate facing in either direction.
>

That is my rationale for using dual-section locomotives like the HXD1 or
the IORE - you have excellent visibility in both directions and you do
reduce the cost compared to two dual-cab locomotives.

Of course, I suspect that road crews on freight railroads will prefer to
have the short hood/nose for additional protection in collisions.

This could be solved in some degree by using an inch-thick steel plate
at the front of each locomotive, like the IORE.

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

There is some experience in France with the AGC BiBi models, which are
employing both diesel and electric traction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorail_%C3%A0_Grande_Capacit%C3%A9 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_B_82500 should give some good
information.

Push-pull trains using electric locomotives are still popular in Germany
and central Europe, because these provide the flexibility of
locomotive-hauled trains with the quick turnaround of multiple units.

Even diesel push-pull trains are used on relatively long distances where
the acceleration provided by the electric locomotive does not make a
great difference (and the tracks are not electrified).

N.F.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 16.05.2013 06:40, schrieb Glen Labah:

> I've never seen this done with modern locomotives on the main line
> railroads. They must do it when something like this:

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/davetoussaint/5173665296/

> backs into the train to couple to it, but even in these cases I have
> always seen the trailing locomotive of the consist face the train.

I guess it was more common in early days of diesel operation when
locomotive crews were used to having not much more visibility than in a
steam locomotive.

Still you can search youtube for "Long hood forward" and you will see
lots of examples even in modern US operations. I guess those are local
trains into sidings/branchlines that don't have a possibility to turn
around the locomotive.

I experienced long distance LHF operation in India but even there they
are gradually changing to dual cab variations of the latest EMD/DLW models.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 16.05.2013 14:38, schrieb Nick Fotis:

> Push-pull trains using electric locomotives are still popular in Germany
> and central Europe, because these provide the flexibility of
> locomotive-hauled trains with the quick turnaround of multiple units.

This is common with double deck trains particularly.
For these, Deutsche Bahn Regio has ordered new "multi-engine"
diesel-electric locomotives (four engine/generator sets), we will see
how these prove themselves in regular operations.

In a double deck DMU you would need so much space for the engine,
radiator etc. that the power car could only be single deck, it seems to
be more practical to have a separate locomotive then. On electrified
tracks the trend seems to be towards double-deck EMUs which are
currently offered by Alstom, AnsaldoBreda, Bombardier, Siemens, Skoda
and Stadler. (Talgo too but only on paper, the Talgo 22 has not been
ordered yet ...)

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 16-May-13 07:21, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 15/05/2013 14:52, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 15-May-13 04:29, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>> I was thinking something like the Bombardier IORE (two-section
>>> locomotive, 12 axles in total, 10-12 MW total power).
>>>
>>> A pair of these could easily handle a typical USA freight over
>>> the Transcon (you would need a bit more on stiff grades like
>>> Cajon pass, of course).
>>
>> By "pair", do you mean one married pair or two?
>
> Two pairs for 15.000+ tonnes (24 powered axles in total), or one
> pair for 8.000+ tonnes, depending on grades.
>
> Alternatively, Siemens could provide a 'baby IORE' like the
> China-specific HDX1:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD1 This is an already
> proven design on the DaQin heavy haul railway, hauling nearly 400
> million tonnes of coal per year.

I'd imagine our freight RRs would love something like that, assuming
they had electrified lines to use them on.

One thing that worries me, though, is the operating speed of 40-43mph;
is that a matter of gearing or is that because they're designed for use
with heavy coal trains? What speed could they do pulling, say, an
intermodal train? Or would a different model be justified for that?

>> Based on what they do with diesels, I'd expect the freight RRs to
>> prefer the operational flexibility of unmarried units, even if a
>> bit of redundancy increases the cost per unit. They frequently
>> operate with an odd number of units today, which would mean wasted
>> capacity with married pairs of similar size.
>
> You can split a dual section locomotive and marry different segments
> due to differences on maintenance or collision damage - these are
> just joined by steel bars instead of regular couplers. This will have
> to be done in the shop, though.

That still seems to assume married pairs, though. Could you create a
triplet if 3 units were needed? Could a single unit operate alone for
light trains?

>>> Hmm yes, provided that there would be an electrified line
>>> connecting the NEC to the Transcon.
>>
>> Well, they could run an ACS-64 from LA to KC and switch to a P42
>> (or two, or three) from KC to Chicago.
>
> Make that 'at least two' P42s

Why bother with multiple locos when the train spends most of its time in
the hole doing 0mph--and is stuck behind slow coal/grain trains even
when it is moving?

>> The ACS-64 seems like overkill for that scenario, though; I'd
>> expect a derivative model that was sized and geared appropriately
>> for (much) slower freight lines. Most of the parts could be
>> shared, reducing the development, training and maintenance costs.
>
> Judging from cases like the Siemens "Taurus" (ES64U), there is a
> possibility of a universal locomotive, which can easily haul freight
> or passenger trains. And having a single type for this task leads to
> economies of scale and simpler maintenance logistics.

We can't even seem to get much commonality even within the various
operators of one type of traffic or the other.

I'd love to see a small number of universal locos, with maintenance
shops that can handle both from any operator, rather than today's world
where every operator has their own maintenance shops and has to haul
locos across the country for service.

[Nick Fotis]

On 16/05/2013 19:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 16-May-13 07:21, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> Alternatively, Siemens could provide a 'baby IORE' like the
>> China-specific HDX1:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD1 This is an already
>> proven design on the DaQin heavy haul railway, hauling nearly 400
>> million tonnes of coal per year.
>
> I'd imagine our freight RRs would love something like that, assuming
> they had electrified lines to use them on.

Yes, that is a 'small detail' to work on it :-)

> One thing that worries me, though, is the operating speed of 40-43mph;
> is that a matter of gearing or is that because they're designed for use
> with heavy coal trains? What speed could they do pulling, say, an
> intermodal train? Or would a different model be justified for that?

The HXD1 has a top speed of 120 km/h (or 75 mph), isn't this enough for
freight needs?
Siemens could easily raise the top speed to 140 km/h, if the freight
railroads warrant this speed. Do they?

> That still seems to assume married pairs, though. Could you create a
> triplet if 3 units were needed? Could a single unit operate alone for
> light trains?

You could ask for a 3-section locomotive (think the original FT diesel,
with drawbar connection between each section, if that helps you
visualize the concept). I feel that an 8-axle two-section locomotive
would be a nice 'building block' for freight railroads.

>> Judging from cases like the Siemens "Taurus" (ES64U), there is a
>> possibility of a universal locomotive, which can easily haul freight
>> or passenger trains. And having a single type for this task leads to
>> economies of scale and simpler maintenance logistics.
>
> We can't even seem to get much commonality even within the various
> operators of one type of traffic or the other.

Well, if you check on Youtube, the "Taurus" (my most beloved electric
locomotive) hauls everything, from push-pull commuters to named
intercity trains to freight over alpine grades as steep as 2.8%, etc.
A sample video shows the many uses for a "Taurus":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMRmBAxXpJU

> I'd love to see a small number of universal locos, with maintenance
> shops that can handle both from any operator, rather than today's world
> where every operator has their own maintenance shops and has to haul
> locos across the country for service.

Universal locomotives are always pricier than specialized locomotives.
The Austrian Railways (ÖBB) made a giant order of 400 Taurus
locomotives. So, they were able to reduce the price for this high-end
electric locomotive down to 2 million Euros apiece (if my memory is
correct).

(note: ES64U means 'Eurosprinter, 6.4 MW, universal', while the ES64U2
and ES64U4 variants were for dual and quad voltage and frequency,
respectively).

N.F.

[tobias b koehler]

Am 16.05.2013 19:12, schrieb Nick Fotis:

> You could ask for a 3-section locomotive (think the original FT diesel,
> with drawbar connection between each section, if that helps you
> visualize the concept). I feel that an 8-axle two-section locomotive
> would be a nice 'building block' for freight railroads.

That's how the Russians and Chinese are doing it.
US freight railroads might be happier with units that can be freely
assembled in the number needed, and that would only require a different
coupler.

> Well, if you check on Youtube, the "Taurus" (my most beloved electric
> locomotive) hauls everything, from push-pull commuters to named
> intercity trains to freight over alpine grades as steep as 2.8%, etc.

Technically that's no problem but the Austrian railways (ÖBB) are in a
minority in Europe because they didn't completely separate passenger
from freight operations like so many others but kept a fleet of
universal locomotives. So the Taurus 1x16 series are a rare example of
universal locomotives actually used as such (with some exceptions
already: some units are specially equipped and painted for railjet or
CAT = City Airport Trains).

The German 120.1 were designed as universal locomotives but ended up
with Fernverkehr (long distance passenger trains), similarly the Swiss
Re 460 were designed to be universal but are now all needed for
intercity trains because they are the only locomotive capable of 200
km/h. SBB cargo received a fleet of cheaper Traxx units that aren't
equipped for high speed (and the Re 460 isn't even produced any more,
but that has to do with the unfortunate end of the SLM locomotive works).

> Universal locomotives are always pricier than specialized locomotives.

As in the USA the passenger and freight railways are completely separate
from each other (it was different in the past) we will see specialized
passenger and freight locomotives there. Even in Russia where everything
is under one organization they maintain different fleets of passenger
and freight locomotives, even with newly built units.

[Nick Fotis]

Of course, you may want to go for a dual-cab 6-axle locomotive for most
flexibility, like the HXD2B (a 6-axle 9.6 MW monster) from Siemens,
weighting 150 metric tonnes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8WlLzj1BaU

Personally, I like more the looks of the Bombardier equivalent (HXD3B):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD3B

The equivalent Alstom locomotive is the HXD2B:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD2B#HXD2B

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

Forgot to illustrate with some videos from China (in particularly the
DaQin line):

20.400 metric tonnes coal train with just two 2-section locomotives
(Alstom heading, Siemens in mid-train):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91LJkrtYWw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_FvBD2rpz8

Also, the 'small' 6-axle locomotives often haul passenger trains as
well, as you can see in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEfYlmk5f7s
Usually the 'junior' HXD3 (7.2 MW, with electronics from Toshiba) hauls
the passenger trains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD3
China Railways have ordered 1040(!) of the latter type, so there should
plenty of experience with that type...

N.F.

[Glen Labah]

In article <kn2md7$eui$2...@news.albasani.net>,

tobias b koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess it was more common in early days of diesel operation when
> locomotive crews were used to having not much more visibility than in a
> steam locomotive.
>
> Still you can search youtube for "Long hood forward" and you will see
> lots of examples even in modern US operations. I guess those are local
> trains into sidings/branchlines that don't have a possibility to turn
> around the locomotive.

I've seen lots of long hood forward operations on the BNSF and UP.
However, I have never seen them do it with a newer locomotive. It is
always an older locomotive that would have been set up with a control
stand that could be accessed from either direction. Also, they don't
have quite as huge radiator structures in the rear to try to see around.

Typically what I have seen around here used in such services are GP40-2,
and compare that with the rear visibility of something more recent, such
as a SD70MAC.

Also, you are correct that generally (at least on the BNSF an UP lines
around here) when running long hood forward it is usually a local
switching move of some sort. Thus, there are going to be two people (or
sometimes three) in the cab anyway in order to accomplish the switching
of cars at the various industries along the line.

The through freights get the newer, bigger, more modern power. Such
local switching jobs would not be economically handled by those anyway.

In some cases, notably on the UP, when operating long hood forward I
have seen them do so using the remote controller and simply stand on the
end platform of the locomotive. I've only seen this done at very low
speeds, but again it is something we have today that wasn't around when
the decision was made to have walkways on the side of locomotives. At
one time ALL switching would have to be done with someone in the cab,
and today there are situations where the person operating the locomotive
doesn't necessarily need to be in the cab.

At one time the walkways on the sides were also preferred as supposedly
it allowed for easier maintenance while on the road. I'm not sure that
is true any more either. The older ex-Southern Pacific employees talk
of making simple emergency repairs to their road locomotives c. 1950.
However, after generations of technological changes I'm not sure how
much of that type of thing road crews would be capable of doing these
days. You would have to have a crew that was well versed in computer
programming and power electronics, as well as knowing how to operate a
locomotive.

[Glen Labah]

In article <kn1s1n$nl8$1...@dont-email.me>, mrob...@att.net wrote:

> I wonder if some kind of "approved graffiti" program, similar to what
> the Tulsa park department did, would be useful for rail cars - freight
> and passenger. The goals would be to discourage later graffiti and
> to make the trains look more interesting.

I actually wrote to the AAR and BNSF suggesting such a thing, some years
back. The AAR because they have a policy against interchange of any
equipment with advertising or other non-railroad stuff painted on the
sides of it. In my opinion it is an outdated policy, and the objections
that created it could be overcome today.

For what it is worth, Victoria has a few professional artworks done in a
graffiti like manner along the "Galloping Goose Trail:

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/20b29e/

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/20b29b/

Seattle has a collection on industrial buildings in the industrial area
in the southern section of downtown:

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/1f6ef2/

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 16-May-13 12:12, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 16/05/2013 19:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>> One thing that worries me, though, is the [HXD1's] operating speed of

>> 40-43mph; is that a matter of gearing or is that because they're
>> designed for use with heavy coal trains? What speed could they do
>> pulling, say, an intermodal train? Or would a different model be
>> justified for that?
>
> The HXD1 has a top speed of 120 km/h (or 75 mph),

The HXD1's Wonkypedia page says normal operating speed is 40-43mph.

> isn't this enough for freight needs? Siemens could easily raise the
> top speed to 140 km/h, if the freight railroads warrant this speed.
> Do they?

US freight speed limits* are generally 60mph, but some trunk routes are
rated for 80mph. I'd expect that's primarily for intermodals, but that
is the fastest-growing type of traffic, eg. containers from China being
moved from West coast ports to the rest of the US.

Higher speed limits correlate well with higher cost-effectiveness of
electrification, though, so that's an important issue.

(* Not the same as passenger speed limits: a section of track might be
F40/P60, F60/P80 or F80/P90.)

>> That still seems to assume married pairs, though. Could you create
>> a triplet if 3 units were needed? Could a single unit operate
>> alone for light trains?
>
> You could ask for a 3-section locomotive (think the original FT
> diesel, with drawbar connection between each section, if that helps
> you visualize the concept). I feel that an 8-axle two-section
> locomotive would be a nice 'building block' for freight railroads.

I don't see why you'd to marry them in the first place; just put
couplers on them and use standard MU cables, which would allow you to
put together however many are needed for a particular train without
requiring a shop visit.

>> I'd love to see a small number of universal locos, with
>> maintenance shops that can handle both from any operator, rather
>> than today's world where every operator has their own maintenance
>> shops and has to haul locos across the country for service.
>
> Universal locomotives are always pricier than specialized
> locomotives.

That's logical, but presumably they have a higher resale price since
there would be more buyers on the secondary market, which means the
quarterly depreciation is probably the same, if not lower, than a
purpose-built unit.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 13-May-13 13:06, Nick Fotis wrote:
> The price per locomotive (4.8 million Euros) seems rather high to me.

I find references to Siemens winning bids in Europe with the ES64U4 for
around €4M each, so these aren't _that_ much more expensive.

This is particularly interesting since US operators usually have to pay
_significantly_ more for custom FRA designs rather than off-the-shelf
designs used by the rest of the world.

I am curious why the ACS-64 is based on the old Taurus platform rather
than the new Vectron platform, but perhaps Amtrak has been burned enough
times by now to insist on something with a proven track record, which is
especially important when replacing their entire fleet at once.

> I suppose this includes the set-up of shop in Sacramento

These units are being made at an existing Siemens LRV plant.

> and the need to satisfy 'buy America' requirements?

US parts and assembly was a requirement of the $466M loan from USDOT,
but that doesn't seem to have affected the price much, if at all.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 13-May-13 15:42, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 13/05/2013 22:50, tobias b koehler wrote:
>> Am 13.05.2013 20:06, schrieb Nick Fotis:
>>> Interesting to see a 1 MW generator tacked-in, I suppose that
>>> Amtrak doesn't trust their electrification enough? :-)
> ...
> It seems that I misread the press release, though, and that the
> system is a solid state electronic device. With an energy budget of
> 50 KW per passenger wagon, it should be able to serve up to twenty
> wagons.

I assume the 1MW inverter (for Amtrak's 480V HEP) had to be added
because European models provide HEP directly from the DC link? Could
that account for the difference in price, perhaps?

>> And a completely new body had to be designed to satisfy AAR
>> crashworthiness standards. I assume that technically it's very
>> similar to the Vectron marketed in Europe (with moderate success;
>> currently Bombardier's Traxx family is selling better).
>
> The Vectron is a newcomer, while the TRAXX has a decade of sales
> behind it already. Give it time (despite Bombardier recently signing
> another framework agreement for 450 more locomotives with DB).

ACS-64 appears to be based on the Taurus, not the Vectron.

>> Indeed this may be including a maintenance contract?
>
> I doubt that the price includes maintenance. I suspect that Amtrak
> will set-up their own maintenance shops to handle these new
> locomotives.

Amtrak already has maintenance shops, and they expect _lower_ costs due
to only having to maintain one model rather than three models today.

> (remember how much the ALP-45DP cost? You could buy both an
> electric and a diesel locomotive

If they did that, though, someone would eventually look at the cost of
those extra diesels vs. just electrifying the few remaining lines, and
we can't have that, can we?

> at that price!)

Probably not when they already have to redesign everything to FRA
specifications, though, rather than use off-the-shelf designs.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 14-May-13 19:23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Remember, electrification originally was to be more flexible and
> efficient than the steam locomotive. Diesel locomotives do much of
> that, and even more today with modern propulsion.
>
> Electrification is very expensive, and really only justified in high
> volume situations to cover the high fixed costs. For whatever
> reason, substations cost a fortune (for non-RR applications, too).

Electric locos also put out more power per unit at lower cost, they're
simpler to inspect and maintain, there are fewer units to inspect and
maintain, and regenerative braking saves on energy costs.

The real problem is that, until recently, the RRs' cost of capital was
simply too high to do invest in _any_ major projects, and the resulting
backlog has too many higher-priority projects (eg. double-tracking of
major routes) ahead of electrification.

Ironically, they'd save even more money with electrification today,
given how fuel their diesel locos waste idling in the hole.

> NJT _has_ added electric mileage on some routes.

NJT electrified part of the NJCL in 1982/1988, but it's still diesel
from Long Branch to Bay Head because they didn't finish the job, and
their Arrow IIIs can't cross the voltage change at Matawan.

What else has NJT electrified?

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 13-May-13 15:52, Nick Fotis wrote:
> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?

SEPTA might want a few AEM-7s for spares, but not all 49 of them.

The other Amtrak locos being replaced are HHP-8s, not ALP-44s. They may
keep a few to provide spare parts for Acela, but not all 15, and Amtrak
intends to dump the Acelas in a few years, too.

MARC may want to replace their six HHP-8s with AEM-7s and/or buy some
AEM-7s/HHP-8s for spares, but again, not all of them.

Whatever units are not wanted by SEPTA or MARC will get scrapped. It'll
be cheaper for Amtrak to buy a few extra ACS-64 units for reserves (or
future expansion) than to keep maintaining a handful of older units that
already have serious reliability problems.

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 11:17, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 13-May-13 15:42, Nick Fotis wrote:
> I assume the 1MW inverter (for Amtrak's 480V HEP) had to be added
> because European models provide HEP directly from the DC link? Could
> that account for the difference in price, perhaps?

Don't think so - often the European locomotives use a separate solid
state device for supplying train heating/air-conditioning, because there
are various voltages in use, from 1500 VDC to 3000 VAC etc.

>> The Vectron is a newcomer, while the TRAXX has a decade of sales
>> behind it already. Give it time (despite Bombardier recently signing
>> another framework agreement for 450 more locomotives with DB).
>
> ACS-64 appears to be based on the Taurus, not the Vectron.

According to the press releases, the ACS-64 guts are more Vectron-based
than Eurosprinter-based (of which the Taurus is one variant)

>>> Indeed this may be including a maintenance contract?
>>
>> I doubt that the price includes maintenance. I suspect that Amtrak
>> will set-up their own maintenance shops to handle these new
>> locomotives.
>
> Amtrak already has maintenance shops, and they expect _lower_ costs due
> to only having to maintain one model rather than three models today.

According to another poster, the price includes a 2-year warranty and
service.

N.F>

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 06:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 16-May-13 12:12, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> On 16/05/2013 19:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> One thing that worries me, though, is the [HXD1's] operating speed of
>>> 40-43mph; is that a matter of gearing or is that because they're
>>> designed for use with heavy coal trains? What speed could they do
>>> pulling, say, an intermodal train? Or would a different model be
>>> justified for that?
>>
>> The HXD1 has a top speed of 120 km/h (or 75 mph),
>
> The HXD1's Wonkypedia page says normal operating speed is 40-43mph.

I find that curious, maybe they mean that their typical loaded coal
train speed is this?

The reference is to a Chinese page which is not available anymore.

The Siemens reference page
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/logistics/cargo-transport/reference-list-locomotives-en.pdf
shows the HXD1 top speed to be 120 km/h, though.

>> isn't this enough for freight needs? Siemens could easily raise the
>> top speed to 140 km/h, if the freight railroads warrant this speed.
>> Do they?
>
> US freight speed limits* are generally 60mph, but some trunk routes are
> rated for 80mph. I'd expect that's primarily for intermodals, but that
> is the fastest-growing type of traffic, eg. containers from China being
> moved from West coast ports to the rest of the US.
>
> Higher speed limits correlate well with higher cost-effectiveness of
> electrification, though, so that's an important issue.

Well, ask for a higher speed version (140 km/h = 87 mph).
Siemens (or Alstom or Bombardier) will only be too happy to sell you
this variant.
And note that high speed freight works better with 2-axle trucks/bogies,
hence my suggestion for thinking in terms of an 8-axle dual section
locomotive.

> (* Not the same as passenger speed limits: a section of track might be
> F40/P60, F60/P80 or F80/P90.)

You could ask for a 140 km/h (87 mph) universal locomotive, which could
pull both freight and passenger trains.
Or leave the passenger trains to ACS-64 entirely (you could have the
spare ACS-64 to provide extra horsepower for underpowered intermodal
trains, by the way)

>> You could ask for a 3-section locomotive (think the original FT
>> diesel, with drawbar connection between each section, if that helps
>> you visualize the concept). I feel that an 8-axle two-section
>> locomotive would be a nice 'building block' for freight railroads.
>
> I don't see why you'd to marry them in the first place; just put
> couplers on them and use standard MU cables, which would allow you to
> put together however many are needed for a particular train without
> requiring a shop visit.

The idea behind a two-section locomotive is to save the cost of a second
cab per section.

I feel that an 8-axle, two section locomotive would pound less the
tracks and offer better hauling power *and* higher speed than a 6-axle
Co-Co locomotive
(Bo-Bo-Bo configuration can offer high speed also, but if you are going
to pay for three trucks/bogies, why not go to an 8-axle machine?).

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 11:05, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 13-May-13 13:06, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> The price per locomotive (4.8 million Euros) seems rather high to me.
>
> I find references to Siemens winning bids in Europe with the ES64U4 for
> around €4M each, so these aren't _that_ much more expensive.

For a 70-piece order, the price is not cheap, though.
I suppose that, if you ordered seventy "Taurus" locomotives, the price
would be towards 3 million apiece (did you note the reference to 2
million on the ÖBB massive 400-piece order?)
When you order less than a dozen, usually the price is rather high,
because Siemens has to set-up a new production line.

> This is particularly interesting since US operators usually have to pay
> _significantly_ more for custom FRA designs rather than off-the-shelf
> designs used by the rest of the world.

It also depends on quantity. The Bombardier IORE is a very high price
locomotive compared to the plain vanilla TRAXX which Kassel cranks out
every day. But the operator had very stringent specifications which
could not be satisfied with even three TRAXXes ganged together.

N.F.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 17-May-13 04:46, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 11:17, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> I assume the 1MW inverter
>> (for Amtrak's 480V HEP) had to be added because European models
>> provide HEP directly from the DC link? Could that account for the
>> difference in price, perhaps?
>
> Don't think so - often the European locomotives use a separate solid
> state device for supplying train heating/air-conditioning, because
> there are various voltages in use, from 1500 VDC to 3000 VAC etc.

The standard RIC HEP types are 1000V 16⅔Hz, 1500V 50Hz, 1500VDC and
3000VDC. The first two can be supplied from a tap on the main
transformer, and the latter two directly from the catenary; none require
the use of an inverter as North American HEP does.

European trains would, of course, need rectifiers/inverters inside each
coach to provide a consistent and usable power supply, whereas North
American coaches need only a standard 480V/277V transformer.

(The HXD1D/3C/3D seem to use 600VDC, which is easily supplied via a
simple transformer from the DC link. Again, no inverter required.)

>> On 13-May-13 15:42, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>> The Vectron is a newcomer, while the TRAXX has a decade of sales
>>> behind it already. Give it time (despite Bombardier recently
>>> signing another framework agreement for 450 more locomotives with
>>> DB).
>>
>> ACS-64 appears to be based on the Taurus, not the Vectron.
>
> According to the press releases, the ACS-64 guts are more
> Vectron-based than Eurosprinter-based (of which the Taurus is one
> variant)

Wonkypedia's Eurosprinter page lists the ACS-64 under "variants", and
the Vectron page doesn't mention it at all. Should that be reversed?

Also, "Amtrak Cities Sprinter" has an obvious relation to the
Eurosprinter name.

Does Eurosprinter use GTO traction inverters? ACS-64 seems to use IGBT
inverters, which is also mentioned as one of the differences in the HXD1
variant. I assume Vectron uses IGBT.

>>> I doubt that the price includes maintenance. I suspect that
>>> Amtrak will set-up their own maintenance shops to handle these
>>> new locomotives.
>>
>> Amtrak already has maintenance shops, and they expect _lower_ costs
>> due to only having to maintain one model rather than three models
>> today.
>
> According to another poster, the price includes a 2-year warranty
> and service.

A couple of years is probably necessary to train Amtrak's maintenance
staff and to deal with any infant mortality (aka "lemon") issues. Is
such a warranty not common for European customers?

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 17-May-13 05:07, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 06:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 16-May-13 12:12, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>> The HXD1 has a top speed of 120 km/h (or 75 mph),
>>
>> The HXD1's Wonkypedia page says normal operating speed is
>> 40-43mph.
>
> I find that curious, maybe they mean that their typical loaded coal
> train speed is this?

That's my assumption. I don't think US RRs would be happy with locos
that could only move a coal train at 40-43mph. I assume two would be
able to do at least 60mph, though.

>>> isn't this enough for freight needs? Siemens could easily raise
>>> the top speed to 140 km/h, if the freight railroads warrant this
>>> speed. Do they?
>>
>> US freight speed limits* are generally 60mph, but some trunk routes
>> are rated for 80mph. I'd expect that's primarily for intermodals,
>> but that is the fastest-growing type of traffic, eg. containers
>> from China being moved from West coast ports to the rest of the
>> US.
>>
>> Higher speed limits correlate well with higher cost-effectiveness
>> of electrification, though, so that's an important issue.
>
> Well, ask for a higher speed version (140 km/h = 87 mph). Siemens (or
> Alstom or Bombardier) will only be too happy to sell you this
> variant.

Of course--for a price.

> And note that high speed freight works better with 2-axle
> trucks/bogies, hence my suggestion for thinking in terms of an 8-axle
> dual section locomotive.

Is 60-80mph really considered "high speed" freight?

>>> You could ask for a 3-section locomotive (think the original FT
>>> diesel, with drawbar connection between each section, if that
>>> helps you visualize the concept). I feel that an 8-axle
>>> two-section locomotive would be a nice 'building block' for
>>> freight railroads.
>>
>> I don't see why you'd to marry them in the first place; just put
>> couplers on them and use standard MU cables, which would allow you
>> to put together however many are needed for a particular train
>> without requiring a shop visit.
>
> The idea behind a two-section locomotive is to save the cost of a
> second cab per section.

A "two-section" locomotive appears to be two single-cab locomotives with
a drawbar between them to create a married pair. If you replace the
drawbar with a coupler, then you don't need a shop visit to put three
(or one, or five) units on a given train. Nothing else changes.

As long as you have at least two units, you can arrange things so the
end units' cabs are both facing outward, which means you don't need to
turn units to go the other direction. US RRs usually arrange multiple
locos with the short hoods facing outward for the same reason.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/17/2013 4:17 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 13-May-13 15:42, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> On 13/05/2013 22:50, tobias b koehler wrote:

>>> And a completely new body had to be designed to satisfy AAR
>>> crashworthiness standards. I assume that technically it's very
>>> similar to the Vectron marketed in Europe (with moderate success;
>>> currently Bombardier's Traxx family is selling better).
>>
>> The Vectron is a newcomer, while the TRAXX has a decade of sales
>> behind it already. Give it time (despite Bombardier recently signing
>> another framework agreement for 450 more locomotives with DB).
>
> ACS-64 appears to be based on the Taurus, not the Vectron.

I am told by the Amtrak folks that internally the ACS-64 is Vectron, not
Taurus. But I have no way of verifying that independently.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/17/2013 4:42 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 14-May-13 19:23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>> NJT _has_ added electric mileage on some routes.
>
> NJT electrified part of the NJCL in 1982/1988, but it's still diesel
> from Long Branch to Bay Head because they didn't finish the job, and
> their Arrow IIIs can't cross the voltage change at Matawan.
>
> What else has NJT electrified?

Montclair Bay St. to Great Notch when they built the Montclair
Connection connecting the old E&L branch to Montclair with the NY and
Greenwood Lake route that was previously used by the Boonton Line.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

On 5/17/2013 5:21 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 13-May-13 15:52, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> Also, I wonder what will all these AEM-7 and ALP-44 do?
>
> SEPTA might want a few AEM-7s for spares, but not all 49 of them.

There are only 47 left, not 49. Two were scrapped last year after fire
damage.

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 13:37, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 17-May-13 04:46, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> On 17/05/2013 11:17, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> I assume the 1MW inverter
>>> (for Amtrak's 480V HEP) had to be added because European models
>>> provide HEP directly from the DC link? Could that account for the
>>> difference in price, perhaps?
>>
>> Don't think so - often the European locomotives use a separate solid
>> state device for supplying train heating/air-conditioning, because
>> there are various voltages in use, from 1500 VDC to 3000 VAC etc.
>
> The standard RIC HEP types are 1000V 16⅔Hz, 1500V 50Hz, 1500VDC and
> 3000VDC. The first two can be supplied from a tap on the main
> transformer, and the latter two directly from the catenary; none require
> the use of an inverter as North American HEP does.

If the catenary is 25 kV @50 Hz and the wagon train heating cable is
using 1500 or 3000 VDC, how can the wagons be fed directly from the
catenary, as you mention? (this is the situation in SE Europe)
So, I suppose that an inverter is needed anyway in a passenger
locomotive in Europe.

> Wonkypedia's Eurosprinter page lists the ACS-64 under "variants", and
> the Vectron page doesn't mention it at all. Should that be reversed?

I am not sure, as these may be parallel developments.
I think that the Vectron platform should be viewed as an amalgamation of
the multiple Eurosprinter and Eurorunner variants into a single
platform, like Bombardier did with their TRAXX platform with great success.

> Also, "Amtrak Cities Sprinter" has an obvious relation to the
> Eurosprinter name.

The branding is one thing, the guts of the locomotive may be something
altogether different.

> Does Eurosprinter use GTO traction inverters? ACS-64 seems to use IGBT
> inverters, which is also mentioned as one of the differences in the HXD1
> variant. I assume Vectron uses IGBT.

The initial Eurosprinters used GTO inverters (hence the 'singing Taurus'
trick). The four-voltage Taurus (ES64U4) uses IGBT, if I remember
correctly, losing the 'singing' capability.

>> According to another poster, the price includes a 2-year warranty
>> and service.
>
> A couple of years is probably necessary to train Amtrak's maintenance
> staff and to deal with any infant mortality (aka "lemon") issues. Is
> such a warranty not common for European customers?

I *think* that the typical warranty period in EU for locomotives is one
year, and you can pay for extension of the warranty period or arrange
for maintenance done by the manufacturer or an approved service center
(if your company does not have its own maintenance shop - the latter
happens often with open access operators).

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 14:08, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 17-May-13 05:07, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> On 17/05/2013 06:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 16-May-13 12:12, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>>> The HXD1 has a top speed of 120 km/h (or 75 mph),
>>>
>>> The HXD1's Wonkypedia page says normal operating speed is
>>> 40-43mph.
>>
>> I find that curious, maybe they mean that their typical loaded coal
>> train speed is this?
>
> That's my assumption. I don't think US RRs would be happy with locos
> that could only move a coal train at 40-43mph. I assume two would be
> able to do at least 60mph, though.

I started my own train forces simulator, and I found that two 2-section,
8-axle locomotives weighting 210 metric tonnes each (420 tonnes total
locomotive weight) and offering 10 MW each (20 MW total power) can haul
a 10.000 metric tonnes train at 60.5 km/h (37.6 mph) up a 1% grade.

On a 0.5% grade, the speed rises to 94.3 km/h (58.6 mph), and on a 0.25%
grade, the maximum speed surpasses 121 km/h (75 mph).
On the 2.2% grade of Cajon pass, you would need four such locomotives
(double the power), in order to reach 41 km/h (25.5 mph) going up this
grade with a 10.000 metric tonnes train (11.000 short tons).

Is this a realistic situation for North American railroad, or should I
calculate for less steep grades?
Should I add more power per locomotive? That's easy, order these with
bigger transformers ;-)

>>>> isn't this enough for freight needs? Siemens could easily raise
>>>> the top speed to 140 km/h, if the freight railroads warrant this
>>>> speed. Do they?
>>>
>>> US freight speed limits* are generally 60mph, but some trunk routes
>>> are rated for 80mph. I'd expect that's primarily for intermodals,
>>> but that is the fastest-growing type of traffic, eg. containers
>>> from China being moved from West coast ports to the rest of the
>>> US.

Do not forget that the horrible aerodynamic resistance of stacked
containers is a major drag on high speed freight.

>> And note that high speed freight works better with 2-axle
>> trucks/bogies, hence my suggestion for thinking in terms of an 8-axle
>> dual section locomotive.
>
> Is 60-80mph really considered "high speed" freight?

The aerodynamic resistance for typical freight trains is a major
impediment (especially if the gap between wagons increases).

And for typical bulk and containerized freight, going above these speeds
means a substantial increase in end costs, which end customers probably
will not appreciate.

The fastest freight trains in Europe run at 100 mph, behind passenger
locomotives like the Taurus (look for "Parcel Intercity PIC").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8S1qrSZqYU
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcel_InterCity describes this service (in
German)

There are also postal trains running up to 100 mph
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_325 ) , but I suppose
these are not a typical case (and the "TGV La Poste", which run at 168
or so mph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste ).

> A "two-section" locomotive appears to be two single-cab locomotives with
> a drawbar between them to create a married pair. If you replace the
> drawbar with a coupler, then you don't need a shop visit to put three
> (or one, or five) units on a given train. Nothing else changes.

well, a drawbar gives you a stronger (and more reliable) connection
relative to the standard coupler (and you have to pass also various
cables and hoses between the sections, which involves also the
high-voltage cable along the roof - only one pantograph is used per
locomotive).

N.F.

[Stephen Sprunk]

A modern unit coal train would be ~15,000 short tons.

For grades like Cajon Pass, you'd probably have another four units (two
pairs) on the rear pushing. OTOH, on flat land, you could probably get
away with one pair, maybe one and a half (three units) to be safe.

>> A "two-section" locomotive appears to be two single-cab locomotives
>> with a drawbar between them to create a married pair. If you
>> replace the drawbar with a coupler, then you don't need a shop
>> visit to put three (or one, or five) units on a given train.
>> Nothing else changes.
>
> well, a drawbar gives you a stronger (and more reliable) connection
> relative to the standard coupler

The forces on the coupler between the units will be lower than the
forces on the coupler between the rear unit and the first wagon, so I
don't see the problem there.

Perhaps that's a bigger deal in Europe, which is stuck with that silly
flower wire stuff. It's not a big deal for a Janney coupler.

> (and you have to pass also various cables and hoses between the
> sections,

US freight RRs already do that today with multiple-unit operations,
which is the norm for diesels.

> which involves also the high-voltage cable along the roof - only
> one pantograph is used per locomotive).

That would be new here. Is there a reason the second unit's pantograph
isn't used? I wouldn't expect catenary wave problems at such low
speeds; that phenomenon wasn't discovered until TGV prototypes were
running at well over 100mph.

IIRC, Acela runs with both pans up because it doesn't go fast enough to
have those problems.

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 18:04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 17-May-13 09:01, Nick Fotis wrote:
>
> A modern unit coal train would be ~15,000 short tons.

A question is, do you really need such large trains, or (on a
double-tracked mainline) shorter trains at 10.000 tonnes each would flow
better along the other types of trains?
A major capacity constraint on such lines is the speed differential
between various classes of trains.

If your energy costs can be reduced greatly, it may be better to have a
more 'homogenized' freight train speed. Of course, then you have the
yard capacity problem, but that's another *long* story... as UP and
Espee discovered in their service meltdowns in the past.

At any rate, let's 'upgrade' our locomotives to the Bombardier IORE
size, at 6 axles and 180 metric tonnes each segment, and with 7.2 MW
power per section (I count the power to the rails, not at the
transformer input, which would be around 8 MW with an efficiency ration
of 90%, including air compressor etc. losses).

Two pairs of these locomotives can haul a 14.500 metric tons train at a
1% grade at a speed of 60 km/h (37.2 mph), and at 93.2 km/h (58 mph).
Is this good enough for you, or should we add more power per locomotive? :-)

> For grades like Cajon Pass, you'd probably have another four units (two
> pairs) on the rear pushing. OTOH, on flat land, you could probably get
> away with one pair, maybe one and a half (three units) to be safe.

A very nice thing about electric locomotive is that you do not consume
more energy than you really use (no energy is used when idling), so you
can add an extra locomotive without affecting your energy consumption much.

>> which involves also the high-voltage cable along the roof - only
>> one pantograph is used per locomotive).
>
> That would be new here. Is there a reason the second unit's pantograph
> isn't used? I wouldn't expect catenary wave problems at such low
> speeds; that phenomenon wasn't discovered until TGV prototypes were
> running at well over 100mph.

The general practice about using the trailing pantograph is that if you
get catenary damage, you protect the front pantograph from damage, so
you can move ahead (debris from catenary failure could damage a trailing
pantograph in the 'up' position).

Also, when you carry dangerous cargo (fuel, chemicals etc.), it is
common practice to use the pantograph which is away from the wagons.

N.F.

[Nick Fotis]

Forgot to add the Wikipedia entry for the IORE, to give a comparison idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore

You can find lots of videos with these beast, which run above the Arctic
circle.

N.F.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 17-May-13 11:10, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 18:04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 17-May-13 09:01, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>
>> A modern unit coal train would be ~15,000 short tons.
>
> A question is, do you really need such large trains, or (on a
> double-tracked mainline) shorter trains at 10.000 tonnes each would
> flow better along the other types of trains?

It's a matter of efficiency. There is a fixed amount of empty track
between trains for safety reasons. Therefore, to maximize the amount of
freight moved per track used, you want each train to be as long as possible.

For instance, say a 15,000tn coal train is 2mi long, plus there's 2mi of
empty space behind it. Two such trains consume 8mi of track. Now say a
train is only 10,000tn and 1.3mi long, plus the same 2mi of empty space
behind it. You now need three such trains to move the same amount of
coal, which consume a total of 10mi of track: a 25% increase in track
usage for the same amount of revenue. Oh, and now you have to pay three
train crews instead of two, a 50% increase in wages.

> A major capacity constraint on such lines is the speed differential
> between various classes of trains.

If you make the trains shorter to speed them up, you increase the energy
costs _and_ the amount of empty space between trains, further reducing
efficiency (for those trains, at least).

Note that bulk unit trains are the most profitable, while intermodal
trains barely break even (and passenger trains lose money), which means
you're messing with exactly the wrong trains.

> At any rate, let's 'upgrade' our locomotives to the Bombardier IORE
> size, at 6 axles and 180 metric tonnes each segment, and with 7.2 MW
> power per section (I count the power to the rails, not at the
> transformer input, which would be around 8 MW with an efficiency
> ration of 90%, including air compressor etc. losses).
>
> Two pairs of these locomotives can haul a 14.500 metric tons train at
> a 1% grade at a speed of 60 km/h (37.2 mph), and at 93.2 km/h (58
> mph). Is this good enough for you, or should we add more power per
> locomotive? :-)

That's probably sufficient. Still, two pairs of IOREs per train? That
just feels _wrong_.

Seems like it'd be better to use three pairs of something smaller, which
would provide more operational flexibility.

>> For grades like Cajon Pass, you'd probably have another four units
>> (two pairs) on the rear pushing. OTOH, on flat land, you could
>> probably get away with one pair, maybe one and a half (three units)
>> to be safe.
>
> A very nice thing about electric locomotive is that you do not
> consume more energy than you really use (no energy is used when
> idling), so you can add an extra locomotive without affecting your
> energy consumption much.

OTOH, having that extra loco idling means you're wasting scarce capital
assets and increasing the maintenance required for no good reason.

Furthermore, US freight RRs don't seem to care much about energy
consumption; they leave trains idling in sidings for hours at a time,
leave locos idling in yards overnight, etc. And, of course, they
haven't electrified, which would provide tremendous energy savings.

Double-tracking trunk routes, not improvements in traction, is what they
believe will produce the biggest efficiency gains, as shown by where
they're investing their capital.

>>> which involves also the high-voltage cable along the roof - only
>>> one pantograph is used per locomotive).
>>
>> That would be new here. Is there a reason the second unit's
>> pantograph isn't used? I wouldn't expect catenary wave problems at
>> such low speeds; that phenomenon wasn't discovered until TGV
>> prototypes were running at well over 100mph.
>
> The general practice about using the trailing pantograph is that if
> you get catenary damage, you protect the front pantograph from
> damage, so you can move ahead (debris from catenary failure could
> damage a trailing pantograph in the 'up' position).

Is there no practical limit to how much power can be collected by a
single pantograph?

[Nick Fotis]

On 17/05/2013 22:44, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 17-May-13 11:10, Nick Fotis wrote:
>> On 17/05/2013 18:04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> A modern unit coal train would be ~15,000 short tons.
>>
>> A question is, do you really need such large trains, or (on a
>> double-tracked mainline) shorter trains at 10.000 tonnes each would
>> flow better along the other types of trains?
>
> It's a matter of efficiency. There is a fixed amount of empty track
> between trains for safety reasons. Therefore, to maximize the amount of
> freight moved per track used, you want each train to be as long as possible.

I suppose you mean 'braking distance', right?
If you have a serious signaling system like LZB, it computes for your
train automagically the braking distance (you tell it which of the
pre-defined braking curves to use), and keeps the correct distance from
the preceding train.
I hope/suppose that the coming PTC will offer such functionality.

> For instance, say a 15,000tn coal train is 2mi long, plus there's 2mi of
> empty space behind it. Two such trains consume 8mi of track. Now say a
> train is only 10,000tn and 1.3mi long, plus the same 2mi of empty space
> behind it. You now need three such trains to move the same amount of
> coal, which consume a total of 10mi of track: a 25% increase in track
> usage for the same amount of revenue. Oh, and now you have to pay three
> train crews instead of two, a 50% increase in wages.

You assume a fixed braking distances for all kinds of trains (based on
the worst case), which is a very inefficient use of track capacity.

>> A major capacity constraint on such lines is the speed differential
>> between various classes of trains.
>
> If you make the trains shorter to speed them up, you increase the energy
> costs _and_ the amount of empty space between trains, further reducing
> efficiency (for those trains, at least).

The energy cost can be so low, compared to diesel fuel (thanks also to
regenerative braking and driver advisory systems), that you will be able
to afford different strategies.

> Note that bulk unit trains are the most profitable, while intermodal
> trains barely break even (and passenger trains lose money), which means
> you're messing with exactly the wrong trains.

This happens because the diesel fuel consumption behavior directs you
towards a model of 'the minimum horsepower which can go over the hill'.

With electric traction, this behaves differently, as you can get back
the energy you spent going uphill when going downhill (provided that you
have large enough electrified sections that there will be trains able to
consume that power)

>> Two pairs of these locomotives can haul a 14.500 metric tons train at
>> a 1% grade at a speed of 60 km/h (37.2 mph), and at 93.2 km/h (58
>> mph). Is this good enough for you, or should we add more power per
>> locomotive? :-)
>
> That's probably sufficient. Still, two pairs of IOREs per train? That
> just feels _wrong_.

Well, things you have learned with diesel-electric are not valid anymore
when you go straight electric.

Note that one 2-section 12-axle IORE hauls 8.500 metric tonnes iron ore
train in Sweden.
Chinese pull 10.200 metric tonnes per 2-section 8-axle locomotive, with
"only" 25 metric tonnes/axle.

> Seems like it'd be better to use three pairs of something smaller, which
> would provide more operational flexibility.

No reason to do that. The reliability of electric locomotives, if you do
not do any major gaffe, exceed the one attainable by a diesel
locomotive, thanks to their much simpler construction (much fewer
mechanical elements, mostly solid state electronics and some electric
motors).

I remember somewhere reading that the 125 mph Class 101 of German
railways were guaranteed for up to one train-stopping failure per
million kilometers. And even Indian railways (Southern region) report
than 2.5 failures per million kilometers on their electric locomotives.

>> A very nice thing about electric locomotive is that you do not
>> consume more energy than you really use (no energy is used when
>> idling), so you can add an extra locomotive without affecting your
>> energy consumption much.
>
> OTOH, having that extra loco idling means you're wasting scarce capital
> assets and increasing the maintenance required for no good reason.

The amounts of maintenance needed by straight electric locomotives are
generally very low compared to diesel-electrics.
And when an electric locomotive idles while having the pantograph up, it
is practically the same as parked (only maybe the air compressor operates).

> Furthermore, US freight RRs don't seem to care much about energy
> consumption; they leave trains idling in sidings for hours at a time,
> leave locos idling in yards overnight, etc. And, of course, they
> haven't electrified, which would provide tremendous energy savings.

Since they are (still) passing their cost of fuel to the customer (and
have a fuel surcharge to boot), why should they care (yet)?

> Double-tracking trunk routes, not improvements in traction, is what they
> believe will produce the biggest efficiency gains, as shown by where
> they're investing their capital.

If you trace back my initial comments on this thread, the reason I
suggested BNSF Transcon as the most likely candidate is that they have
double-tracked almost all the route already.
And they have pulled out of Wall St., so they are free from the tyranny
of quarterly reports and dividends.

>> The general practice about using the trailing pantograph is that if
>> you get catenary damage, you protect the front pantograph from
>> damage, so you can move ahead (debris from catenary failure could
>> damage a trailing pantograph in the 'up' position).
>
> Is there no practical limit to how much power can be collected by a
> single pantograph?

The limit is due to amperage (and heating due to resistance). When you
up the voltage to at least 25 kV, you have a large enough margin (you
may prefer to go as high as 50 kV, if the cable clearances are met, and
you can install fewer substations en route)

The largest single locomotives I know are the 9.6 MW 6-axle motors
currently running in China, and the 10 MW dual-section HXD.
The most powerful trainsets are the 16-car Siemens Velaro: 16 MW for the
Eurostar (e320), 19.2 MW for the Chinese 380CL (I think these use two
pantographs, spaced 8+ cars apart):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro

N.F.

[mrob...@att.net]

Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The older ex-Southern Pacific employees talk of making simple
> emergency repairs to their road locomotives c. 1950. However, after
> generations of technological changes I'm not sure how much of that
> type of thing road crews would be capable of doing these days.

From the online writings of at least a couple of freight engineers (JD
Santucci and Al Krug), I get the impression that some engineers still
carry a small selection of tools, duct tape, etc, to make repairs while
underway. Nobody is going to fix a broken connecting rod on the prime
mover with duct tape, but it seems like there are lots of smaller things
that are fixable with basic tools. A lot of the same things that have
been breaking for the past 100 years or seem to keep breaking: screws/
bolts loose, pipe fitting loose, hole in pipe, low voltage wiring cut
or unplugged, etc.

Sometimes the broken thing doesn't have anything to do with actually
making the locomotive go or stop, but the law says it has to be there,
like horns and lights. If the train has more than one locomotive, being
able to fix those kinds of things quickly may save some time versus
having to switch the engine with the working whatever into the lead.

> You would have to have a crew that was well versed in computer
> programming and power electronics, as well as knowing how to operate a
> locomotive.

Pretty much nobody expects an engineer to fire up a laptop on the side
of the road and recompile the software for their locomotive. (This
probably doesn't even happen at the railroad's overhaul shop; it happens
at the locomotive manufacturer.) Also, pretty much nobody expects an
engineer to break out a soldering iron and do component level repair on
some circuit board. There are diagnostics built into the hardware -
enough that the engineer can look at the electronics rack for red
lights, or look at a diagnostic page on the computer screen for fault
details. The engineer can then attempt to recover ("if fault LED 1 is
on, turn breaker 13 off, wait 30 seconds, turn it back on, try again"),
maybe switch to a backup system if there is one, or know that whatever
is broken is so broken that the locomotive isn't going to move.

The railroad *does* hire some technicians that are experts on the
various locomotive systems, and gives them a radio or a telephone. If
something breaks out on the road, the engineer can pick up the radio
or call 1-800-DEAD-TRAIN and get assistance. Since most of the
locomotives aren't broken most of the time, paying the techs to sit
around and answer calls is cheaper than sending all the engineers to
locomotive mechanic school.

Some locomotives even have their own cell phones and the ability to
call home when they feel ill, so by the time the engineer calls in for
advice, somebody on the other end already has some idea of what the
problem is. I know this is done in Europe but I don't know if any US
railroads have adopted it yet.

Matt Roberds

[Glen Labah]

In article <kn6b4q$qkq$1...@dont-email.me>, mrob...@att.net wrote:

> Some locomotives even have their own cell phones and the ability to
> call home when they feel ill, so by the time the engineer calls in for
> advice, somebody on the other end already has some idea of what the
> problem is. I know this is done in Europe but I don't know if any US
> railroads have adopted it yet.

There are some here, in fact.

However, it seems to me that such features actually reduce the need for
walkways on the sides of locomotives rather than make them more
desirable, because the crew and those monitoring the locomotives have so
much better information to work with today. They don't necessarily have
to go out on the walkway, open the side doors, and take a look at what
the engine or generator is doing.

[Glen Labah]

In article <kn4qb4$ucf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 14-May-13 19:23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Remember, electrification originally was to be more flexible and
> > efficient than the steam locomotive. Diesel locomotives do much of
> > that, and even more today with modern propulsion.
> >
> > Electrification is very expensive, and really only justified in high
> > volume situations to cover the high fixed costs. For whatever
> > reason, substations cost a fortune (for non-RR applications, too).
>
> Electric locos also put out more power per unit at lower cost, they're
> simpler to inspect and maintain, there are fewer units to inspect and
> maintain, and regenerative braking saves on energy costs.

Demand charges from the power company mean that you have to either have
your own hydro plant, or have a lot of traffic. Otherwise, one train an
hour costs about the same as 20 trains an hour. Power companies just
don't like to see those huge impulse loads, and thus the huge demand
charges on the electric bill for industrial customers that have those.

The power price structure may be different in Europe thanks to different
power regulations.

> The real problem is that, until recently, the RRs' cost of capital was
> simply too high to do invest in _any_ major projects, and the resulting
> backlog has too many higher-priority projects (eg. double-tracking of
> major routes) ahead of electrification.

The other problem is the sheer amount of capital it takes with
electrification to save money.

When the Burlington Northern was looking at solving the Cascade Tunnel
problem, they in fact looked at electrification. Their conclusion,
according to an article in Trains produced in the mid 1990s, was to make
electrification work here in the northwest they would need to put at
least 1,000 miles of route under wire.

It wound up being cheaper to make a lot of different upgrades elsewhere,
including resurrect the Stampede Pass line (though today that line is
again surplus to the needs of BNSF).

[tobias b koehler]

Am 17.05.2013 22:40, schrieb Nick Fotis:

>> Is there no practical limit to how much power can be collected by a
>> single pantograph?

> The limit is due to amperage (and heating due to resistance). When you
> up the voltage to at least 25 kV, you have a large enough margin (you
> may prefer to go as high as 50 kV, if the cable clearances are met, and
> you can install fewer substations en route)

Some examples:

from
http://www.stemmann.de/en/railway/roof_mounted_pantographs/roof_mounted_pantographs/series

DSA150, DSA200, DSA250, DSA350SEK, DSA380F: 800A/1000A
DSA380D: 1000A

DSA350G: 2400A (this is the variant used by the multi-voltage ICE3 in DC
systems)

from
http://www.schunk-sbi.com/en/sbi/AirBellowSuspensionSystem/schunk01.c.45490.en

Schunk WBL: 500A AC / 2000A DC current with peaks of 750 A AC / 3000 A DC

from http://www.melecs.com/stromabnehmer.html?&L=en

melecs SSS87, SSS400: 1000 A (carbon), 2200 A (metal impregnated carbon)
melecs SBS2T: 1000 A (carbon), 4000 A (metal impregnated carbon)

So you can collect much higher amperages with specialized pantographs
for DC systems using metal/carbon collection bars (sometimes four of
them on a pantograph). But that also makes them heavier which is not as
good for very high speeds because the pantograph won't follow the wires
as easily, leading to more arcing.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 17-May-13 08:24, Nick Fotis wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 13:37, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 17-May-13 04:46, Nick Fotis wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2013 11:17, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> I assume the 1MW inverter (for Amtrak's 480V HEP) had to be
>>>> added because European models provide HEP directly from the DC
>>>> link? Could that account for the difference in price,
>>>> perhaps?
>>>
>>> Don't think so - often the European locomotives use a separate
>>> solid state device for supplying train heating/air-conditioning,
>>> because there are various voltages in use, from 1500 VDC to 3000
>>> VAC etc.
>>
>> The standard RIC HEP types are 1000V 16⅔Hz, 1500V 50Hz, 1500VDC
>> and 3000VDC. The first two can be supplied from a tap on the main
>> transformer, and the latter two directly from the catenary; none
>> require the use of an inverter as North American HEP does.
>
> If the catenary is 25 kV @50 Hz and the wagon train heating cable is
> using 1500 or 3000 VDC, how can the wagons be fed directly from the
> catenary, as you mention? (this is the situation in SE Europe)

In that case, you would simply take 1500VDC from the rectifier (at the
DC link). All RIC cars are required to accept 1500V 50Hz, though, so
it'd be simpler to take that from the transformer, so the HEP wouldn't
depend on the rectifier.

> So, I suppose that an inverter is needed anyway in a passenger
> locomotive in Europe.

A HEP inverter would only be required in Europe if the catenary was DC
and, for some crazy reason, you wanted to supply AC HEP.

>>> According to another poster, the price includes a 2-year
>>> warranty and service.
>>
>> A couple of years is probably necessary to train Amtrak's
>> maintenance staff and to deal with any infant mortality (aka
>> "lemon") issues. Is such a warranty not common for European
>> customers?
>
> I *think* that the typical warranty period in EU for locomotives is
> one year, and you can pay for extension of the warranty period or
> arrange for maintenance done by the manufacturer or an approved
> service center (if your company does not have its own maintenance
> shop - the latter happens often with open access operators).

So, two years is not unreasonable, and adding one extra year probably
wouldn't affect the cost to any significant degree. I think the point
is that they're not contracting for lifetime maintenance, which _would_
have a significant effect on the price.

[Michael Finfer]

On 5/17/2013 4:42 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> On 14-May-13 19:23, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Remember, electrification originally was to be more flexible and
>> efficient than the steam locomotive. Diesel locomotives do much of
>> that, and even more today with modern propulsion.
>>
>> Electrification is very expensive, and really only justified in high
>> volume situations to cover the high fixed costs. For whatever
>> reason, substations cost a fortune (for non-RR applications, too).
>
> Electric locos also put out more power per unit at lower cost, they're
> simpler to inspect and maintain, there are fewer units to inspect and
> maintain, and regenerative braking saves on energy costs.
>
> The real problem is that, until recently, the RRs' cost of capital was
> simply too high to do invest in _any_ major projects, and the resulting
> backlog has too many higher-priority projects (eg. double-tracking of
> major routes) ahead of electrification.
>
> Ironically, they'd save even more money with electrification today,
> given how fuel their diesel locos waste idling in the hole.
>
>> NJT _has_ added electric mileage on some routes.
>
> NJT electrified part of the NJCL in 1982/1988, but it's still diesel
> from Long Branch to Bay Head because they didn't finish the job, and
> their Arrow IIIs can't cross the voltage change at Matawan.
>
> What else has NJT electrified?
>
> S
>

The Boonton Line from the Montclair Connection to Great Notch. Nothing
else.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ