JT22CW wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: 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. I'm sorry; I thought that I was being clear. I'll spell it out once again, in not-so-sarcastic language:All of the railroads that are not Amtrak, that I had listed, all "beg for money" from their respective government(s).In the face of that, singling out Amtrak for special castigation over that same point is an unfair attack.
YoHo1975 wrote: 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.
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?
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
No, I got that, the problem is that I wasn't criticizing Amtrak, so I didn't understand whyyou were pointing this out in the first place. It was suggested that to rebuild Amtrak's fleet could require begging for money from the federal government. My point was that Amtrak exists at the behest of the Federal Government. Everything they do is based on requesting Tax Payer dollars. I was simply Clarifying in response to a previous post. No big deal
No, I got that, the problem is that I wasn't criticizing Amtrak, so I didn't understand whyyou were pointing this out in the first place.
It was suggested that to rebuild Amtrak's fleet could require begging for money from the federal government. My point was that Amtrak exists at the behest of the Federal Government. Everything they do is based on requesting Tax Payer dollars. I was simply Clarifying in response to a previous post.
No big deal
Ugh. NJDOT strikes again. Say no more.
Sad how NJDOT goes from bad to worse by opening up MMC, too. I've heard too many stories of them putting equipment back out on the road unrepaired.
JT22CW wrote: oltmannd wrote:NJT's GP40Ps, when NJT slide a HEP skid in the place of the steam gen. topped out at over 300,000 (lbs)I don't know where you heard this, but that's not true whatsoever. They wouldn't let anything with 75,000 pounds per axle out onto the railroad. The ex-CNJ Geeps, like other passenger Geeps on other roads, max out at 268,000 pounds.
oltmannd wrote:NJT's GP40Ps, when NJT slide a HEP skid in the place of the steam gen. topped out at over 300,000 (lbs)
Not knowingly... E'port didn't exactly do any real engineering when the slid the HEP in place of the steam genny and opened up the whole fuel tank for fuel. But they were that heavy when Juniata got them in for rebuilding. I know, because I did the weight balance on the rebuilt units and we got scale weights on the first one as received.
I could hardly believe it, myself.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Railway Man wrote:What's the difference between energy density and power density?Could you explain the battery issues with more depth, and the differences between battery types?
What's the difference between energy density and power density?
Could you explain the battery issues with more depth, and the differences between battery types?
Energy density (specific energy might be a better term) is in units of watt-hours/kg, power density (specific power might be a better term) is in units of watts/kg. Using automobiles as an example, energy density is the critical issue for pure electric cars (maximizing range) while power density is more important for hybrid vehicles (want to keep battery weight to a minimum). There's usually a bit of a tradeoff in maximizing one over the other.
Power density for batteries can range from a few watts/kg for carbon zinc to several kw/kg for Li-ion. Energy densities can range from ~20 w-hr/kg for old lead-acid to 450 w-hr/kg for Lithium-Sulfur (battery operated commuter locomotives are technically possible with Li-S - but expect major sticker shock). Power densities for ultra-caps are around 4 kw/kg while energy densities are 4-5 w-hr/kg assuming full discharge. The advantage of the ultra-caps is being able to tolerate hundreds of thousands of charge-discharge cycles without losing capacity.
I am by no means an expert on battery technology - just know enough to be dangerous. Some generalizations are that most batteries will only support a few hundred full charge/discharge cycles (though some might support a couple of thousand), but lifetime generally increases when depth of discharge is limited.
There is a manufacturer of Li batteries that appears to have something that would work in a hybrid commuter locomotive, but the information is at work, and I'm off until the 2nd. This battery was being marketed as competition to ultracaps, the manufacturer was touting power densities greater than ultracaps and lifetimes of over 100,000 cycles (albeit very limited depth of discharge).
erikem wrote: Frank, Republic locomotive was proposing to do something close to what you suggested.A couple of points. The first is that diesel engines throttle down well, you won't gain much in efficiency by shutting down one engine (an exception is where the second engine is HEP only during a layover). The second is that a hybrid would recover a lot of the energy normally wasted in braking.The gist of what I was proposing was making a hybrid with a high short term power rating - something that would have some of the advantages of an electric passenger locomotive without having to string up wires.
Frank,
Republic locomotive was proposing to do something close to what you suggested.
A couple of points. The first is that diesel engines throttle down well, you won't gain much in efficiency by shutting down one engine (an exception is where the second engine is HEP only during a layover). The second is that a hybrid would recover a lot of the energy normally wasted in braking.
The gist of what I was proposing was making a hybrid with a high short term power rating - something that would have some of the advantages of an electric passenger locomotive without having to string up wires.
In prior instances we've experienced main bearing failure on medium-speed stand-alone diesel HEP sets in locomotives when they were shut down and hauled around in trains. No one was keen about idling them for hours on end either due to fuel dilution issues. We resolved the problem by taking out the HEP sets.
RWM
erikem wrote: Railway Man wrote: Thanks -- that's very useful information. I will have to mull it over and talk it around here in the office. Care to speculate on when such technology might hit the operational threshold? RWM was replying to comments about my suggestion for a hybrid commuter locomotive - and my apologies to him for taking so long to reply - had to mull over the answer a few days.I suspect battery or capacitor technology may by ready in 5 to 10 years. If you're OK with the gas turbine route (i.e. a light prime mover allowing say 15 - 20 tons of batteries), the technology is available now - a lithium battery that can handle 500,000 charge/discharge cycles as long as the depth of discharge is limited to about 3% (may have the manufacturer's name at work) equivalent to about 4whr/kg (watt-hours per kilogram). Safe to say, the price on the locomotive would cause a pretty bad case of sticker shock. I'm basing my estimate by assuming that a B-B loco with a 3,000HP prime mover can accelerate its train at 1MPH/sec up to 20 MPH, that an extra 4,500KW from the battery should continue the 1MPH/sec rate to 60 MPH, followed by another 30 seconds of 4,500KW from the battery to accelerate to 80+ MPH. This works out to 62.5kwhr or about 15 metric tons to keep the Li batteries in the long life operating regime.The latest ultracaps from Maxwell are running 4 to 5whr/kg when completely discharged - we'd probably want to limit dischrage to 50% to keep the inverter input voltage from getting too low, and thus the cap bank weight works out to be 25 tons. There are claims that the energy density could be raised to 40whr/kg, in which case the cap banks would weigh a bit under 3 tons - which is what Bill Farquhar of NCTD (now running commuter rail in Dallas) said was the weight of the dynamic braking system on the FP40's - which wouldn't be needed with a hybrid loco. We might see this in ten years. A 3 ton Li battery pack would work, but lifetime would be a few thousand cycles at most (too short).An aside about the ultracaps - Oshkosh Truck is working on a hybrid off-road combat transport using a bank of ultracaps behind the cab. Testing is supposed to start in 2008.My understanding is that GE's hybrid locomotive uses a sodium sulfur battery. It sounds like the battery is being optimized for energy density rather than power density. I also have no idea of what the trade-offs are for depth of discharge, peak power and number of cycles with this battery. I would guess that this battery would work in a turbine locomotive, but don't know if the technology can be pushed to get a useful life from a battery pack light enough for a diesel locomotive. The upsides are that the battery is being developed specifically for locomotive use and that both sodium and sulfur are abundant.
Railway Man wrote: Thanks -- that's very useful information. I will have to mull it over and talk it around here in the office. Care to speculate on when such technology might hit the operational threshold?
Thanks -- that's very useful information. I will have to mull it over and talk it around here in the office. Care to speculate on when such technology might hit the operational threshold?
RWM was replying to comments about my suggestion for a hybrid commuter locomotive - and my apologies to him for taking so long to reply - had to mull over the answer a few days.
I suspect battery or capacitor technology may by ready in 5 to 10 years. If you're OK with the gas turbine route (i.e. a light prime mover allowing say 15 - 20 tons of batteries), the technology is available now - a lithium battery that can handle 500,000 charge/discharge cycles as long as the depth of discharge is limited to about 3% (may have the manufacturer's name at work) equivalent to about 4whr/kg (watt-hours per kilogram). Safe to say, the price on the locomotive would cause a pretty bad case of sticker shock.
I'm basing my estimate by assuming that a B-B loco with a 3,000HP prime mover can accelerate its train at 1MPH/sec up to 20 MPH, that an extra 4,500KW from the battery should continue the 1MPH/sec rate to 60 MPH, followed by another 30 seconds of 4,500KW from the battery to accelerate to 80+ MPH. This works out to 62.5kwhr or about 15 metric tons to keep the Li batteries in the long life operating regime.
The latest ultracaps from Maxwell are running 4 to 5whr/kg when completely discharged - we'd probably want to limit dischrage to 50% to keep the inverter input voltage from getting too low, and thus the cap bank weight works out to be 25 tons. There are claims that the energy density could be raised to 40whr/kg, in which case the cap banks would weigh a bit under 3 tons - which is what Bill Farquhar of NCTD (now running commuter rail in Dallas) said was the weight of the dynamic braking system on the FP40's - which wouldn't be needed with a hybrid loco. We might see this in ten years. A 3 ton Li battery pack would work, but lifetime would be a few thousand cycles at most (too short).
An aside about the ultracaps - Oshkosh Truck is working on a hybrid off-road combat transport using a bank of ultracaps behind the cab. Testing is supposed to start in 2008.
My understanding is that GE's hybrid locomotive uses a sodium sulfur battery. It sounds like the battery is being optimized for energy density rather than power density. I also have no idea of what the trade-offs are for depth of discharge, peak power and number of cycles with this battery. I would guess that this battery would work in a turbine locomotive, but don't know if the technology can be pushed to get a useful life from a battery pack light enough for a diesel locomotive. The upsides are that the battery is being developed specifically for locomotive use and that both sodium and sulfur are abundant.
Hi,
this might be a silly suggestion but why not create a passenger locomotive with two diesel engines along the lines of the new gen set switch engines. If a passenger engine has two 2000hp diesel engines only one might be required for 80 percent of the run they are on and the rest of the time the second diesel kicks in. IT would certainly make things more efficient.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
Railway Man wrote:Thanks -- that's very useful information. I will have to mull it over and talk it around here in the office. Care to speculate on when such technology might hit the operational threshold?
JT22CW:
We all know the truth about Amtrak.
For the record, all of NJT's F40PH-2s were rebuilt into F40PH-2CATs (with Caterpillar HEP "pony motors") in the 90s. (F40PH sans pony motor is 263,000 lbs.)
Interesting aside. You alluded to public objection to catenary. I was meeting on another topic with the director of planning for a major suburb of a large U.S. city a few weeks ago, and he mentioned that he was pleased that the transit system currently under design for his city would be using DMUs instead of EMUs, because "I've worked really hard to improve the visual appearance of this city and the overhead wires are awful." I tried not to look astonished that someone would take the noise, air pollution, and lower reliability of DMU over EMU, and consider it a good trade for the visual intrusion of catenary! It goes to show that people can have some very different value systems, and not to assume anything.
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
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.
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.
]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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I'm not sure I understand your point here.
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.
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.
A resurgece of gast turbine is by no means a certainty, but it is feasible. I'm not holding my breath, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.