Trains.com

$8M locomotive

17296 views
59 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Thursday, August 6, 2009 8:55 AM

There is nothing to follow up on. The first 27 ALP-46As will be delivered 2010-2011, with the extra 9 following that.

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Austin, TX
  • 851 posts
Posted by Awesome! on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:05 PM

Did anyone follow up with the locomotive purchases?

http://www.youtube.com/user/chefjavier
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:51 PM
I didn't know any were in operation. Thats interesting.
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Monday, July 27, 2009 9:04 PM

Oh, I was talking about in operation. But yes, there is that one in Passaic.

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Monday, July 27, 2009 6:45 PM

Actually, one is sitting on the NY&GL property in Passaic.  I believe it is the one that was used on the Farewell to the U-boats excursion.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Friday, July 24, 2009 9:36 PM

Trainfan- None of the models specifically foul the wires, although the 4112  once hit the wires in Summit and had the horn replaced (have a photo of it, have to find it). In addition to the ex-CNJ units, there are also GP40PH-2As (4145-4150, except 4148) and GP40PH-2Bs (4200-4219; 4219 was re-rebuilt from 4148, which was wrecked in Secaucus in 1996), both rebuilt from GP40s by Conrail

Awesome- The U-Boats were retired in 1994. Last anyone knew, all but 2 have been scrapped, and the status of the 2 that were most recently owned by Alstom is unknown.

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Austin, TX
  • 851 posts
Posted by Awesome! on Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:19 PM

trainfan1221

Thats interesting, I remember when they first started showing up on other NJT lines.  They added a bunch more rebuilt from GP40s by Conrail I believe.

In NJ they have the famous U-Boats they should bring them back! Headphones

http://www.youtube.com/user/chefjavier
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:51 PM

Thats interesting, I remember when they first started showing up on other NJT lines.  They added a bunch more rebuilt from GP40s by Conrail I believe.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:00 AM
It would have to be on all of the GP40PH-2s. They are all about the same weight. They are heavy. As built, the GP40Ps were ~287,000#, I think. They were ridiculously heavy after NJT plopped the HEP skid in them and opened up the whole 3600 gallon fuel tank for fuel - over 300,000#! Conrail rebuilt them with, new, smaller fuel tanks and they weighed in at ~280,000#. NJT had them geared for 103 mph, but Amtrak would only allow 90 mph because of the weight. No instrumented tests were ever done that I'm aware of. They are perfectly good for commuter service on the AC line, Coast Line and lines in and out of Hoboken. The rebuild cost in the early 90s was roughly $700,000 - about 1/2 the cost of a similar, new F40PH at the time.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Monday, July 20, 2009 9:25 AM

Awesome!

I wonder why they used a heavy locomotive in the first place?

 

They wanted a 3000hp. locomotive with a separate HEP generator. The alternative would be to replace the EMD diesel with a lighter Cat, Cummins, or MTU diesel of similar power, and shorten the Overhaul cycle.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Sunday, July 19, 2009 3:32 PM

I think just the extra frame legnth and equipment on it made for the extra weight, they approach the legnth of a six axle unit.

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Austin, TX
  • 851 posts
Posted by Awesome! on Friday, July 17, 2009 11:22 PM

trainfan1221

ns3010

trainfan1221

I have heard that the diesels have had trouble on spots on the NEC too.

I believe that Amtrak has speed restrictions on the GP40PH-2s (ex-CNJ, 4100-4112). It has something to do with their weight.

For a 4 axle diesel they are very heavy. I also heard that one of the models, GP40FH? I think, actually would foul the wires in some spots.

I wonder why they used a heavy locomotive in the first place?

http://www.youtube.com/user/chefjavier
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:44 PM

ns3010

trainfan1221

I have heard that the diesels have had trouble on spots on the NEC too.

I believe that Amtrak has speed restrictions on the GP40PH-2s (ex-CNJ, 4100-4112). It has something to do with their weight.

For a 4 axle diesel they are very heavy. I also heard that one of the models, GP40FH? I think, actually would foul the wires in some spots.
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Austin, TX
  • 851 posts
Posted by Awesome! on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:47 PM

Update? Did anyone heard anything on the locomotives?

http://www.youtube.com/user/chefjavier
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Monday, July 13, 2009 8:56 PM

trainfan1221

I have heard that the diesels have had trouble on spots on the NEC too.

I believe that Amtrak has speed restrictions on the GP40PH-2s (ex-CNJ, 4100-4112). It has something to do with their weight.

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Monday, July 13, 2009 6:47 PM

ns3010

Awesome!

schlimm

If a freight ES-44AC (4400 hp) costs $2.2 mil., then an electric equipped for specialized transit service producing 7000 hp. (effectively equal to

2 of the ES 44's) doesn't seem so out of line.

The should have bought F69PHAC or F59PHI or  rebuilt F40PH for less the of money. The sad part of the story they are using the "Stimilus Package money".

Transit has plenty of diesel powered trains. They need electrics to run into New York Penn, and once ARC is built, to power the extra trains. Electrics are needed because 1) All of the diesel locomotives (save the ex-Amtrak P40DCs) have clearance issues the North River Tunnels (Either too long, too high, or both), and 2) Diesel locomotives are illegal in NYC.

I have heard that the diesels have had trouble on spots on the NEC too.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:33 PM

beaulieu
Rebuilding the ALP-44 to something like the ALP-46A would be similar to the challenge of rebuilding a MLW M636 into a ES44AC.

I was thinking of a DC to AC rebuild like Amtrak did with some of their AEM7s.  After all ALP44s are just AEM7s by a different name...more or less. 

You could pull longer trains, stall the capacity crunch and try to find a cheaper supplier!

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:28 PM

Awesome!

schlimm

If a freight ES-44AC (4400 hp) costs $2.2 mil., then an electric equipped for specialized transit service producing 7000 hp. (effectively equal to

2 of the ES 44's) doesn't seem so out of line.

The should have bought F69PHAC or F59PHI or  rebuilt F40PH for less the of money. The sad part of the story they are using the "Stimilus Package money".

Transit has plenty of diesel powered trains. They need electrics to run into New York Penn, and once ARC is built, to power the extra trains. Electrics are needed because 1) All of the diesel locomotives (save the ex-Amtrak P40DCs) have clearance issues the North River Tunnels (Either too long, too high, or both), and 2) Diesel locomotives are illegal in NYC.

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • 42 posts
Posted by HERBYD on Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:42 PM

HI

  WHAT ARE THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE GE LOCOS. THE ENGINES OR THE ELECTRICAL

I THINK THE NEW GEVO ENGINE SHOULD BE TERIFIC BUT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE PROBLEMS.I THINK THE EMD ENGINE WAS THE GREATEST BUT THANKS TO THE GOVT THEY WANT TO DO AWAY WITH IT.BUROKRACY RUN AMUK.

HERBYD

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:57 PM

doghouse

 

Not to pick nits or anything, but 8 million $US = about $EU 5,740,00. 

 

And it will be different again on Monday. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:54 PM

oltmannd

Maybe...just.....a little.  They could rebuilt those ALP44s for a heck of a lot less - even upgrade them to AC ala Amtrak so they could take the longer trains into Penn that is the justification for buying the new locos in the first place.  $8M for a commuter locomotive that makes 1 or 2 round trips a day is absurd. 

 

Rebuilding the ALP-44 to something like the ALP-46A would be similar to the challenge of rebuilding a MLW M636 into a ES44AC.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Where it's cold.
  • 555 posts
Posted by doghouse on Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:31 PM

beaulieu

Here is a big part of the problem

6/13/09    $8,000,000  = € 5,680,000

 

6/13/01    $8,000,000 =  € 9,360,000

 

Understand?

 

Not to pick nits or anything, but 8 million $US = about $EU 5,740,00. 

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Austin, TX
  • 851 posts
Posted by Awesome! on Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:02 PM

schlimm

If a freight ES-44AC (4400 hp) costs $2.2 mil., then an electric equipped for specialized transit service producing 7000 hp. (effectively equal to

2 of the ES 44's) doesn't seem so out of line.

The should have bought F69PHAC or F59PHI or  rebuilt F40PH for less the of money. The sad part of the story they are using the "Stimilus Package money".

http://www.youtube.com/user/chefjavier
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, July 4, 2009 10:50 PM

If a freight ES-44AC (4400 hp) costs $2.2 mil., then an electric equipped for specialized transit service producing 7000 hp. (effectively equal to

2 of the ES 44's) doesn't seem so out of line.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Austin, TX
  • 851 posts
Posted by Awesome! on Saturday, July 4, 2009 12:12 AM

It like

ns3010

Awesome!
I don't understand our thinking process!Banged Head


Welcome to the world that is called New Jersey Transit!Big Smile

There were some cases where Transit made a decision because it was the right one and/or they were forced to, such as:
Multilevels (no other two-level car could fit in the North River Tunnels
Dual-Modes (no locomotive offered diesel and catenary power)

And then there were some bad ones:
PL42ACs (could have easily bought other "proven" locos)

The only good thing is that we know that this is money well spent, because the ALP-46s are reliable and have proven so in the past 8 years.

Its like Austin Metro buying this stupid light rails locomotive that can't able to work in the rails. Problems with the signals system etc. 

http://www.youtube.com/user/chefjavier
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:08 PM

The ALP-44s are being rebuilt, although nobody (heck, I don't even think NJT knows when!) this will actually happen or any details.

As much as I would like to see the Jersey Geeps last, I think they probably only have a few more years left.Sigh
The members of Trains.com should raise money to buy and restore one!Big Smile

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:44 PM

espeefoamer

I thought one of the advantages of electric locos was longevity.The oldest ALP 44s are not quite 20 years old. the GG1 lasted almost 50 years.The ALP 44s therefore should have at least another 25 years before retirement.Could it be that  NJT is a government agency that doesn't have to be fiscally responsible have anything to do with it ?

Maybe...just.....a little.  They could rebuilt those ALP44s for a heck of a lot less - even upgrade them to AC ala Amtrak so they could take the longer trains into Penn that is the justification for buying the new locos in the first place.  $8M for a commuter locomotive that makes 1 or 2 round trips a day is absurd.  Actually, what NJT paid for their latest diesels is absurd, too.  Those GP40PH-2s could go on for a few more decades even if you did have to upgrade them for Tier II.

If you've ever seen the grandious Secauscus Jct or Neward Airport stations, you can tell that NJT spends like it's "other people's money".

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: West Coast
  • 4,122 posts
Posted by espeefoamer on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:20 PM

I thought one of the advantages of electric locos was longevity.The oldest ALP 44s are not quite 20 years old. the GG1 lasted almost 50 years.The ALP 44s therefore should have at least another 25 years before retirement.Could it be that  NJT is a government agency that doesn't have to be fiscally responsible have anything to do with it ?

Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool.
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: North Jersey
  • 1,781 posts
Posted by ns3010 on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:33 AM

They're not quite what I would call "double-headed"... more like "Dead-In-Tow!"Big Smile But in the winter, they had two of them pulling the "Santa Claus Special"- That was pretty cool to see and hear!

And they have also been having some trouble with the P40s.

My Model Railroad: Tri State Rail
My Photos on Flickr: Flickr
My Videos on Youtube: Youtube
My Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy