creepycrank I don't think EMD is going to be doing anything anymore with MPI. They do have a light weight passenger design, if flawed, in the LIRR DE/DM design that has AC traction. Although they don't run any faster than the old GP38's and MP15's that the LIRR uses for passenger power. At least EMD knows what not to do.
I don't think EMD is going to be doing anything anymore with MPI. They do have a light weight passenger design, if flawed, in the LIRR DE/DM design that has AC traction. Although they don't run any faster than the old GP38's and MP15's that the LIRR uses for passenger power. At least EMD knows what not to do.
EMD is supposedly working on their own design (which may actually be a modified version of a locomotive offered by Vossloh).
General Electric is teaming up with MPI to build a new GEVO engine powered commuter unit for MBTA, based on the MPExpress...
The Cowl unit 6 axle roadswitcher designs like the FP40 and FP45 as well as the steam generator equipped CCs(SDP40,SDP35 ect..)were purchased by railroad largely so the units could be easily converted to freight service when passenger service was dropped. Even the Amtrak SDP40F was purchased with that in mind as there were doubts about Amtraks viability, and in fact, 18 of those units were traded to ATSF after they were withdrawn from service.
Both Metra(F40C) and NJ Transit(U34CH's originally built for and operated by EL) did get good service out of CC passenger units...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Cut the Fuel hauled in HALF for one thing. If you dump 2500 gallon of fuel your saving close to 18000 lbs. 2 Axles with Wheelsets are right around 6 thousand pounds. The FB-2 was not that bad of a Truck or Find some old Blombergs and OH them. Will need 5 Inverters if going AC 4 for the Axles 1 for HEP Using an Inverter would save about 2 tons. The Frame would be Shorter less Weight there. It could be done will be tight but possible.
Sorry I worked at one place were my boss wanted Ideas to lighten the Trucks. Lightest Weight got a 4K bounus. I used the Bounus as a Downpayment on a Car. I shaved 2200 lbs out of an OTR Truck without getting stupid crazy and Increased the HP the Engine had.
jdkuehn I don't understand why you think an SD70ACE would not be fuel efficient in passenger service. Amtrak's P42's are older and less fuel efficient than GE's current EVO's. BNSF lead the way with the A-1-A AC44C4 A-1-A locomotives they have started purchasing. They are built with just 4 traction motors. I think it is an interesting concept to take an SD70ACE and make it an A-1-A locomotive and use the current from the missing traction motors to feed the HEP. One of the difficulties with new passenger power is to keep the weight limits low enough for 4-axles. If you build a six axle locomotive like the BNSF units the weight can be on the 4 powered axles at low speeds to maximize the tractive effort while there is little dynamic impact, and then distributed over the six axles as the speed goes up to minimize the dynamic impact. With the EMD HT-R truck, assuming you could put a similar weight transfer mechanism on the center axle would provide nearly the same wear and tear on trackage as a four-axle locomotive, but would have a larger fuel capacity (could save Amtrak some fueling points) and largely be similar in cost and performance to a freight locomotive. The P42's were quite expensive per unit as are commuter locomotives which typically are custom built.
I don't understand why you think an SD70ACE would not be fuel efficient in passenger service. Amtrak's P42's are older and less fuel efficient than GE's current EVO's. BNSF lead the way with the A-1-A AC44C4 A-1-A locomotives they have started purchasing. They are built with just 4 traction motors. I think it is an interesting concept to take an SD70ACE and make it an A-1-A locomotive and use the current from the missing traction motors to feed the HEP. One of the difficulties with new passenger power is to keep the weight limits low enough for 4-axles. If you build a six axle locomotive like the BNSF units the weight can be on the 4 powered axles at low speeds to maximize the tractive effort while there is little dynamic impact, and then distributed over the six axles as the speed goes up to minimize the dynamic impact. With the EMD HT-R truck, assuming you could put a similar weight transfer mechanism on the center axle would provide nearly the same wear and tear on trackage as a four-axle locomotive, but would have a larger fuel capacity (could save Amtrak some fueling points) and largely be similar in cost and performance to a freight locomotive. The P42's were quite expensive per unit as are commuter locomotives which typically are custom built.
If you only need power from 4 axles, why not just design a four axle locomotive? It's not impossible to design a lightweight four axle diesel suitable for high speed, with good range. It's just not possible following standard North American freight locomotive practices.
I can understand wanting to use an off the shelf design as a starting point for passenger power, but the North American six axle locomotive is so highly specialized for current freight service that it is not a very good starting point.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
the idea is to put a test bed out there using a advailable platform for high speed running tests and to confirm the viabilty of the project idea using components already in production. a B-B UNIT would be the next step. or just modify 1 of MP's 40 series commuter locos for a test bed. ( since EMD already supplies the power plants and trucks )
EMD#1 SD70s are geared for a max speed of 70 MPH. Change the gearing to 90 MPH, make it an A-1-A like the BNSF ES44C4 locomotives, add HEP and then you'd have a great passenger locomotive for their long distance trains!
SD70s are geared for a max speed of 70 MPH. Change the gearing to 90 MPH, make it an A-1-A like the BNSF ES44C4 locomotives, add HEP and then you'd have a great passenger locomotive for their long distance trains!
Well, great for railfans perhaps..given that a modern 4 axle AC traction passenger locomotive (as EMD is planning on marketing,GE is teaming up with MPI to build one as well) is going to have about the same tractive effort and use less fuel (because it is a lighter locomotive,not built on a roadswitcher type frame) as a modifed 200 ton freight locomotive, I doubt Amtrak would see it that way..
All the old test locomotives are gone, including the SDP40Fs. EMD now has 4 test locomotives, two SD90MAC-H (numbers 90 and 91), a SD89MAC (numbered 92), and a SD70ACe (numbered 70). As EMD has sold off unneeded bits of their LaGrange, IL property and torn down unused buildings, they sold off old test locomotives for scrap including F9Am 462, ET909 the dyno car built from a f-9B shell. SD45X 5740, and SDP40F number 169. All are gone.
i belive EMD offered optional 40" wheels like Alco and Baldwin did for thier units. ( not sure about the FM's or Erie-builts.) i know about the F9, i have seen photo's of it on the interenet taken in the 70's or early 80's in the blue and white/silver paint. i also saw the E pictures from the same time frame and possibly by the same Photog. maybe someone could find out for sure from a EMD MAN.using 40" wheels would give you more room/clearance for the larger motors, plus the added benifit of a larger contact area for adhesion at the rail. and there is always the SDP40P unit to play with.
I am unaware of any EMD E9 'test' unit. EMD did have a very modified F9A(not sure if it still exists). As for using the A-1-A Blomberg trucks - the mounting is very different. The A-1-A Blomberg has a large center ring that is the attachment to the bolster. This also provides a path for traction motor cooling air to get to the DC traction motors(via sheet metal ducting). I am not sure you could even fit AC traction motors/45" diameter wheels on that truck(E's have 36" diameter wheels). That Blomberg truck is very good riding however. Those 36" diameter wheels allowed gearing for a balancing speed of 85 mph up to 117 mph. Many early E's did have the 117 mph gearing, but 'post war' many railroad came to their senses and ordered 98 mph gearing. 20-24 mph minimum speed to prevent traction motor damage and very slippery starting were traits of E's. Once they got up to speed, they seemed to get a 'second wind' at around 70 mph and would pull all day at that speed.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I guess EMD could take the SD70Ae’s AC-traction and inverters, Tier-2 16-710G-3 and house them in a sleek passenger carbody with A-1-A trucks and HEP as a potential future intercity passenger loco. Though IMO, by the time Amtrak pursues a new intercity passenger diesel to supplement the P40/42s they’d be dealing with Tier-3 or even Tier-4 emissions standards.
EMD could take the E9 they have as a test unit, refit it with the ac traction motors on the A-1-A Blomberg trucks and intall invertors and go from there. everything is off the shelf except for the trucks. and since the trucks under a E-Unit were geared for up 117 mph (at least on the ATSF) it would make for some interesting testing.
Or going a different route,slip the Blomberg trucks under a modified SD70Ac and do a little sheet metal work ala the FP45. or even modify the SDP40 salvaged from the Amtrak trade ins with the guts from a SD70Ac loco for testing. and since Amtark has a known history of using what ever is advailable for work trains and hospital trains and rail & ballast trains it can be a freight unit and still earned their keep. (i know this since I work for Amtrak in Philly and belive me when I say RACE ST Enginehouse will run whatever they got on ANYTHING when it needs power! )
rrlineman
Overall locomotive weight is as big a problem for track alignment and rail wear as weight on axle. Adhesion is almost irrelevant on a passenger locomotive. Total train weight is so low, that train performance is horsepower limited rather than tractive effort limited.
The post about the Alaska Railroad SD70MACs functioning as A1A - A1A locomotives when the are providing power to the train is incorrect they are C-3 (rear truck is not powered at all) when providing power to the train. It was too complex to have it any other way and would have required the AC traction converters to be redesigned at very significant expense. ARR was looking for a relatively inexpensive solution to powering their passenger trains.
what are some of the passenger specific items on any loco.
1. HEP inverter and control
2. HEP wiring and thru supply
3. second high pressure air line for control of specific items on passenger cars. (Doors, toilets, etc)
4. Higher capacity air compressor for item #3
5. Cab signaling equipment for all US systems (ITCS, ACSES, ATS, ATC, PTC, [Other RR specific items [FEC, CSX, NS, UP]) which suspect is a major cost?
6. Higher speed 110MPH gearing?
7. Proven 6 axel High speed trucks that do not act up as the SDP-40 trucks did
7. Other items???
Mr. Railman Is it possible to convert a normal SD70ACe by installing steam genorators (or other form of electricity genorator) and label it a passenger locomotive.
Is it possible to convert a normal SD70ACe by installing steam genorators (or other form of electricity genorator) and label it a passenger locomotive.
Modern passenger equipment doesn't use steam heating (although there is historical equipment still operating that does)...
I doubt a passenger service modified SD70ACe would be very economical (fuel efficient) in commuter or Amtrak service..
Alaska RR bought theirs as dual service units,they haul passenger trains in during the Tourist season and freight all year 'round...
If the unit was set up like the Alaska units, there would be little change needed. Since it worked for the Alaska SD70MAC, it should work for the SD70ACe.
What you do is arrange for one inverter to feed four motors on the two trucks, so the loco is effectively an A1A-A1A. Then the other inverter is set to provide HEP power at 60Hz and provided with the appropriate connections to feed the passenger train.
The Alaska locomotives were designed to be swapped between passenger and freight service and retained all six motors. Usually locomotives like the SD70ACe are built with a gear ratio allowing at least 70 MPH.
If you wanted to use an SD70ACe as a dedicated passenger locomotive, you could select a gear ratio and delete two traction motors. It would be easy, and EMD would be pleased to help, I think....
M636C
I forgot about the Alaska RR. But they do both freight and passenger service right? Also my previous post was just my guess so please anyone correct any errors.
You'd probably have to change the gearing too. Not sure but I don't see the practicality in doing so because I would think that an SD70ACe would be underutized in regular passenger service.
The Alaska Railroad has HEP equipped SD70MAC's, so theoretically I dont see why not.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.