Does Amtrak still operate this locomotives? Why they decide to discard them?
http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtF69PHAC.html
SSW9389 wrote:The last time I saw them they were at NRE in Mount Vernon, Illinois for disposition. They may be gone by now.
Yup. Stopped by Mount Vernon in mid-July and I did not see them there.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:The F69's were test beds for AC traction that were leased to Amtrak for operations. They rarely operated without the EMD test car while in Amtrak service.
Do you know why Amtrak decide not to use AC?
chefjavier wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:The F69's were test beds for AC traction that were leased to Amtrak for operations. They rarely operated without the EMD test car while in Amtrak service.Do you know why Amtrak decide not to use AC?
Economics. AC has two main benefits and you need to take advatage of both to "win". The first is increased tractive effort at low speeds. If you can take advantage of this and reduce the number of locomotives on a train, you can earn back part of the increased capital cost for the AC locomotives. Even with high speed gearing, a P42 still makes more than enough tractive effort at min cont. speed to get any Amtrak over the ruling grade on any route (except maybe the SW Chief over Raton), so two units is the rule on most LD trains and one on most short haul trains. There is not much room for reducing the number of locomotives.
The second main benefit is reduced traction motor maintenance. This is a big deal for the frt roads since a third to half of the total maintenance cost of a DC locomotive in mainline service is traction motors. While sustained passenger train speeds can be hard on the commutator, it's the high current, low speed operation that's really tough on the motor's windings and insulation. So, I suspect that Amtrak doesn't spend nearly the % of total maintenance on traction motors as the frt roads do.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
For the record, Amtrak's Genesis II dual-mode has AC traction motors (hence the designation P32AC-DM; the same type of engine is used by Metro-North Railroad). A number of other passenger diesels have AC traction, like the LIRR's DM/DE30AC and NJ Transit's PL42AC. Motive Power's MP36PH-3C/3S use DC traction, as does GO Transit's new MP40PH-3C. (And of course, Metro-North had a number of FL9s rebuilt as the FL9AC.)
How could they "stay with" a locomotive they never owned (and was an experimental design, to boot), of which were a mere two examples?The newest (and last) EMD that Amtrak operates in passenger service is the F59PHI. These are too tall (at 15' 11") to operate in the Northeast. These have the 12-cylinder 710E3, also rated at (what is now a rather low) 3,000 horsepower; from anecdotes I received from hoggers that operate them, their acceleration is anemic.Amtrak helped develop the Genesis type with GE, IINM. EMD could not meet the set of specifications they put out. (This is why the P40DC was originally called the "AMD-103".)
Frankly, the design of the F69PHAC's nose is the more homely, when put next to the design of the Genesis. However, if you're really that much of a fan, you can always visit the lookalikes that operate in Chicago, which are the F40PHM-2 "Winnebagos"...have fun.
JT22CW:
Interested information!
You have the F40PHM-2 @3200 Horsepower with a 16-645E3. It has a Full-cowl carbody, steamlined cab, built-out windshield sloping back from tip of nose. If the horsepower was an issue they should kept this one.
Another good unit is the new Motivepower MP40PH-3C. It's basically a copy of EMD stretched F40 with seperate-end power generator. We an engine of 710 can reproduce 4,000 HP. I don't know why Amtrak doesn't take a bite.
JT22CW wrote: How could they "stay with" a locomotive they never owned (and was an experimental design, to boot), of which were a mere two examples?
How could they "stay with" a locomotive they never owned (and was an experimental design, to boot), of which were a mere two examples?
I believe Amtrak actually did own the 451 for awhile, and then sold it back to EMD.
Well, Amtrak isn't buying more units, because they don't have the money too, not cause they're scared off. Their situation though is the opposite of the Situation in the most powerful locomotive thread. The only route on the system that they even begin to struggle with is Raton pass on the Chief. There goal is to maintain speed on relativly short trains. In that application, BB locomotives are a better choice. I know there are many examples of C-C Passenger power, but none were very numerous.
And think about this, an E unit has 2 engines in it and the A1A truck configuration essentially means 2 traction motors per engine, so they were even higher HP/Axle then an F.
In any case, I suspect Amtrak isn't gonna buy until they absolutely have too/They actually get enough money to do their jobs. When that does happen, I bet they'll contract out a new design Which will need to be Tier 2 or 3 compliant, maybe even a hybrid and it will probably be DC and BB trucks.
I agree that Amtrak's next locomotive will be BB's not CC's, but I disagree on the DC motors. For a given power output, an AC induction motor is lighter and cheaper than a DC motor. The prices for AC locomotives are still higher than DC, but I suspect that within a very few years that the AC locomotives will be cheaper.
A hybrid passenger locomotive makes more sense to me than a hybrid freight locomotive, the problem is that there isn't an energy storage system with the lifetime (i.e. charge/discharge cycles) and specific energy (watt-hours per pound or kilogram) to be truly useful. Li-ion has incredible specific energy, but when the depth of discharge is limited to get 100,000+ cycles, the effective specific energy is less than the ultracaps. Flywheels might be another option, but don't know how well they would stand up under locomotive service.
The idea of a hybrid locomotive first came to me when reading about the F69PHAC - one detail that struck me was that it could use dynamic braking power for the HEP - then thought how nice it would be to store some of that power. What would make this especially attractive is if the locomotives short term rating could be 2 to 3X the continuous rating (IIRC, the GE hybrid has a short term rating about 1.5X of the continuous rating).
Hybrid tech may make gas turbines practical as the turbine could be sized to run at full output most of the time.
Amtrak's fleet isn't THAT old, but remember, no matter what they choose, to do they will be begging for money from the federal government. They are afterall a federal agency. It's implicit.
Why are the MP36 units so heavy?
JT22CW wrote:I seriously doubt that hybrid technology would ever result in a resurgence of interest in gas-turbine propulsion. The outstanding problems of exhaust heat and high fuel consumption would have to be overcome, and simply putting batteries on the locomotive doesn't mitigate that.
GE's latest gas turbines are spec'ed at 46% thermal efficiency when running at full power (best diesels are about 50%) and over 40% at half power. While a locomotive sized turbine will show a lower efficiency, the fuel consumption disadvantage isn't anywhere near as bad as back in the days of the UP turbines - as long as the turbine is producing full rated power. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the turbine can be run at constant output. A turbine would be substantially lighter than an equivalent diesel.
A resurgece of gast turbine is by no means a certainty, but it is feasible. I'm not holding my breath, though.
YoHo1975 wrote: Amtrak's fleet isn't THAT old, but remember, no matter what they choose, to do they will be begging for money from the federal government. They are afterall a federal agency. It's implicit. Why are the MP36 units so heavy?
Yoho1975:
We all know MotivePower are know for rebuilder locomotives. Metra were the first to acquire the MP36-3S with 645 engine @ 3,600 HP. I think one the reason MP36 are heavy is their traction configuration and the remanufacture internal components.
erikem wrote: JT22CW wrote:I seriously doubt that hybrid technology would ever result in a resurgence of interest in gas-turbine propulsion. The outstanding problems of exhaust heat and high fuel consumption would have to be overcome, and simply putting batteries on the locomotive doesn't mitigate that.GE's latest gas turbines are spec'ed at 46% thermal efficiency when running at full power (best diesels are about 50%) and over 40% at half power. While a locomotive sized turbine will show a lower efficiency, the fuel consumption disadvantage isn't anywhere near as bad as back in the days of the UP turbines - as long as the turbine is producing full rated power. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the turbine can be run at constant output. A turbine would be substantially lighter than an equivalent diesel.A resurgece of gast turbine is by no means a certainty, but it is feasible. I'm not holding my breath, though.
YoHo1975 wrote:Amtrak's fleet isn't THAT old, but remember, no matter what they choose, to do they will be begging for money from the federal government
JT22CW wrote: YoHo1975 wrote:Amtrak's fleet isn't THAT old, but remember, no matter what they choose, to do they will be begging for money from the federal governmentWow, what a singular problem that other passenger rail does not experience. Certainly, VIA Rail doesn't "beg for money" from Ottawa, nor commuter rail from their respective state governments, nor DB from Berlin, nor SNCF from Paris, nor JR from Tokyo (in spite of the "privatized" operation companies, the infrastructure is still subsidized). How is it that Amtrak differs so markedly from these other passenger operators that they must have their own spotlight in spite of their needing to be funded just the same as they do?
I'm not sure I understand your point here.
erikem wrote:I agree that Amtrak's next locomotive will be BB's not CC's, but I disagree on the DC motors. For a given power output, an AC induction motor is lighter and cheaper than a DC motor. The prices for AC locomotives are still higher than DC, but I suspect that within a very few years that the AC locomotives will be cheaper.A hybrid passenger locomotive makes more sense to me than a hybrid freight locomotive, the problem is that there isn't an energy storage system with the lifetime (i.e. charge/discharge cycles) and specific energy (watt-hours per pound or kilogram) to be truly useful. Li-ion has incredible specific energy, but when the depth of discharge is limited to get 100,000+ cycles, the effective specific energy is less than the ultracaps. Flywheels might be another option, but don't know how well they would stand up under locomotive service.The idea of a hybrid locomotive first came to me when reading about the F69PHAC - one detail that struck me was that it could use dynamic braking power for the HEP - then thought how nice it would be to store some of that power. What would make this especially attractive is if the locomotives short term rating could be 2 to 3X the continuous rating (IIRC, the GE hybrid has a short term rating about 1.5X of the continuous rating). Hybrid tech may make gas turbines practical as the turbine could be sized to run at full output most of the time.
Very interesting line of reasoning. How about noise? I can't see any other big drawbacks to this approach other than initial cost. If emissions can be reduced beyond Tier III that will be very attractive.
RWM
chefjavier wrote: JT22CW:You have the F40PHM-2 @3200 Horsepower with a 16-645E3. It has a Full-cowl carbody, steamlined cab, built-out windshield sloping back from tip of nose. If the horsepower was an issue they should kept this one. Another good unit is the new Motivepower MP40PH-3C. It's basically a copy of EMD stretched F40 with seperate-end power generator. We an engine of 710 can reproduce 4,000 HP. I don't know why Amtrak doesn't take a bite.
Too heavy!
Railway Man wrote: erikem wrote: I agree that Amtrak's next locomotive will be BB's not CC's, but I disagree on the DC motors. For a given power output, an AC induction motor is lighter and cheaper than a DC motor. The prices for AC locomotives are still higher than DC, but I suspect that within a very few years that the AC locomotives will be cheaper.A hybrid passenger locomotive makes more sense to me than a hybrid freight locomotive, the problem is that there isn't an energy storage system with the lifetime (i.e. charge/discharge cycles) and specific energy (watt-hours per pound or kilogram) to be truly useful. Li-ion has incredible specific energy, but when the depth of discharge is limited to get 100,000+ cycles, the effective specific energy is less than the ultracaps. Flywheels might be another option, but don't know how well they would stand up under locomotive service.The idea of a hybrid locomotive first came to me when reading about the F69PHAC - one detail that struck me was that it could use dynamic braking power for the HEP - then thought how nice it would be to store some of that power. What would make this especially attractive is if the locomotives short term rating could be 2 to 3X the continuous rating (IIRC, the GE hybrid has a short term rating about 1.5X of the continuous rating). Hybrid tech may make gas turbines practical as the turbine could be sized to run at full output most of the time. Very interesting line of reasoning. How about noise? I can't see any other big drawbacks to this approach other than initial cost. If emissions can be reduced beyond Tier III that will be very attractive.RWM
erikem wrote: I agree that Amtrak's next locomotive will be BB's not CC's, but I disagree on the DC motors. For a given power output, an AC induction motor is lighter and cheaper than a DC motor. The prices for AC locomotives are still higher than DC, but I suspect that within a very few years that the AC locomotives will be cheaper.A hybrid passenger locomotive makes more sense to me than a hybrid freight locomotive, the problem is that there isn't an energy storage system with the lifetime (i.e. charge/discharge cycles) and specific energy (watt-hours per pound or kilogram) to be truly useful. Li-ion has incredible specific energy, but when the depth of discharge is limited to get 100,000+ cycles, the effective specific energy is less than the ultracaps. Flywheels might be another option, but don't know how well they would stand up under locomotive service.The idea of a hybrid locomotive first came to me when reading about the F69PHAC - one detail that struck me was that it could use dynamic braking power for the HEP - then thought how nice it would be to store some of that power. What would make this especially attractive is if the locomotives short term rating could be 2 to 3X the continuous rating (IIRC, the GE hybrid has a short term rating about 1.5X of the continuous rating). Hybrid tech may make gas turbines practical as the turbine could be sized to run at full output most of the time.
And, piling on, even better if we're talking commuter service.
Trying to squeeze all that stuff into a 4 axle unit built in the std manner of a frt locomotive (i.e. all the structural strength is in the frame) yields a heavy locomotive. The F40s just got by by having small fuel tanks and no separate HEP engine gen set. NJT's GP40Ps, when NJT slide a HEP skid in the place of the steam gen. topped out at over 300,000#. Yikes! I don't think they really knew..... Even when Juniata rebuilt them with smaller fuel tanks, they were still near 290,000#. The ATSF GP60Ms were fighting weight. With their relatively short length - required to keep the weight down, among other reasons, they were prone to hunting at and above 70mph.
The Genesis locomotives are of monocoque construction where the stregth is carried through the whole carbody. They are remarkably light for their size and their length and relatively light axle loadings give them good tracking characteristics at high speed.
]The Genesis locomotives are of monocoque construction where the stregth is carried through the whole carbody. They are remarkably light for their size and their length and relatively light axle loadings give them good tracking characteristics at high speed.
This lightness is also their weekness. At least on VIA, wwehn teh P42's were purchased up here they tried them on system wide services. Today they tend to have comgregated on the corridor as they can't handle the long distance trains. The Canadian , The Ocean etc. The F40's still out perform them on the hillier terrain. Even the part of the Corridor that i live on there is the Dundas hill to climb up the Niagara escarpment.When the Genesis units are on my local trains they tend to really labour up the hill.I've heard from the crews as well that the maintenance tends to be harder and more often than with the old EMD's.Give the P42's a nice flat piece of track and they will do their thing better than most.Give them some humps and bumps and some frost or water on the rails and they tend to slip slide away.
Railway Man wrote:Very interesting line of reasoning. How about noise? I can't see any other big drawbacks to this approach other than initial cost. If emissions can be reduced beyond Tier III that will be very attractive.RWM
I don't think noise will be a show-stopper, but the solutions will not be trivial (can imagine some creative wor with computational fluid dynamics). The main source of noise is shear between the exhaust stream and ambient air, and I seem to recall that the noise is proportional to the third or fourth power of the speed difference. A 50% reduction in exhaust gas speed would mean a large reduction in noise.
Initial cost of a gas turbine hybrid will be steep, but probably not as steep as electrification. It would also avoid the problem dealing with NIMBY's - after reading all the hollering about the passing siding recently put in Encinitas (where the AT&SF had one until 1969), I shudder thinking about what the reaction would be to placing catenary on the SDNRR.
Emissions would likely be better with a turbine than diesel - and a method of improving both thermal efficiency and emissions is to use the exhaust heat to produce steam that would be injected into the combustion chambers. The steam would both cool the flame (reducing NOx) and give extra mass flow (increasing power output). Yet another advantage of a turbine is greater flexibilty in fuel.
What I don't see being available now is an approrpriate energy storage technology. Ultracaps have the cycle lifetime and power density, but the energy density is an order of magnitude too low (several groups are promising an order of magnitude improvement). Li-ion batteries have the energy and power density, but have relatively limited cycle lifetime. I'd also think that the ultracaps would be a better match with a diesel hybrid where the batteries would be better for the gas turbine (one could imagine the turbine shut down on layovers with the batteries providing HEP).
Once an appropriate energy storage technology is developed, a hybrid commuter locomotive (whether diesel or turbine) would have some very compelling advantages.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.