Are the MPI EMD-powered MP36 and 40 commuter still cowels, or do the MPI's utilized a monocoque structure?
What about the EMD F59PHIs?
HERBYD BUILD A COMMON LOCOMOTIVE AS CLOSE TO A FREIGHT LOCOMOTIVE AS POSSIBLE. EMD OR GE ENGINE. COMONALITY OF PARTS. NOT A ODD LOT LIKE THE LONG ISLAND R R OR NOW THE FLORIDA TRI RAIL. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WRECK A FEW OR WANT TO ADD A FEW MORE. GP 38s.OR GP 40s YOU CAN ALWAYS GET A REBUILT OR BUY A FEW FOR PARTS. DONT GET TO EXOTIC.
BUILD A COMMON LOCOMOTIVE AS CLOSE TO A FREIGHT LOCOMOTIVE AS POSSIBLE. EMD OR GE ENGINE. COMONALITY OF PARTS. NOT A ODD LOT LIKE THE LONG ISLAND R R OR NOW THE FLORIDA TRI RAIL. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WRECK A FEW OR WANT TO ADD A FEW MORE. GP 38s.OR GP 40s YOU CAN ALWAYS GET A REBUILT OR BUY A FEW FOR PARTS. DONT GET TO EXOTIC.
Of course that was the "Industry standard" for a long time. The F40PH was essentially a cowl unit version of a GP40-2. The reason that the newer units are no longer built on road switcher frames is to make them lighter and more fuel efficient..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I am not sure about the Acela but, as far as I understand it, the Swedish X-2000 has a fiberglass nose over a steel structure. I have seen pictures of those trains after collisions, and the engineer cab was in a vary good condition, so I think it would be possible if the willingness is there.
Per
Here is another link to a Design House who has designed various High-Speed trainsets
Pininfarina
creepycrank It seems like the Cesar Vergara Studio is designing everybody's passenger locomotives. http://www.vergarastudio.com/
It seems like the Cesar Vergara Studio is designing everybody's passenger locomotives.
http://www.vergarastudio.com/
Fixed your link:
I thought we were talking about appearance. I know the Mustang is all new technology. I would say except for the lack of chrome bumpers, it's exterior appearance more than resembles the original. Someone said it couldn't be done with a '57 Chevy, I said the Mustang is an example of how it could. The PT Cruiser and Chevy HHR are also examples of styling from a bygone era.
The difference with cars is they're consumer products. Marketed to the buyers emotions and sensitivities. Locomotives are industrial tools, sold to railroads, and used to produce a service. It doesn't matter what they look like.
There was a time when the public cared what trains looked like. The railroads flaunted a positive public relations image. Witness the painting of slogans on rolling stock, and even on highway overpasses. In the era when the "covered wagons" were designed, the passenger train was facing demise at the hands of the airline industry. The look of airliners of the day, likely had a lot to do with how locomotives looked. The railroads wanted something that looked like a airliner. Take a look at the nose of a DC-3 or 6, and compare it with the design of an E or F.
But that era is long gone. Suffice to say, it doesn't make much since to build a modern locomotive in the image of an old E unit, just to appease a small niche group of railfans.
I think you missed his point. The new Mustang is an entirely new modern automobile that is shaped to resemble the old Mustangs. If it was an exact copy of a '65 mustang it would cost as much and few people would buy it's primitive technology.
If your argument is for new technology with a shape similar to the old Es and Fs, then I agree with you.
Today's passenger trains are designed aerodynamically. Freight engines don't bother because the entire train cannot be made with low drag.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I don't know, Ford did a pretty good job with the Mustang.
I would agree that some new thinking is needed at Amtrak. High speed trains should be powered by one locomotive at each end, with pass-through mu cvapability cabling built into every new car. The 1887 Frank Sprauge streetcar axle-hung motor is obsolete for high-seed rail, it is even obsolete for modern light rail cars, so it is somewhat rediculous for Amtrak to stick with it for new equpment now. Reduction of unsprung weight is important, and the quill drive of the NYNH&H E-2, E-3, E-4, and F-3 and the GG-1 made all these locomotives into smooth riders. Quill drive may be expensive to maintain, but now their are other gear packages that allow a completely sprung motors.
Even better than just a locomotive at each end would be some motors located along the train in the passenger car sthemseslves, but this would increase spection and maintenance costs, perhaps unreasonably.
Consider the Brill Bullets, which had a long operating life on the Philadelphia & Western Norristown line. Their design was based in part on wind tunnel testing.
Dutchrailnut no matter how streamlined you make the front end it will not gain you a bit. the space between cars will create a bigger drag than any front end.
no matter how streamlined you make the front end it will not gain you a bit.
the space between cars will create a bigger drag than any front end.
On a close coupled passenger train that can be dealt with, too.
The faster the train goes, the more important aerodynamics becomes.
All the manufacturers of high speed rail worldwide seem to disagree with you. I challenge you to find a high speed train that has not been designed with wind resistance and drag in mind.
I imagine GM could build a car that looks just like a '57 Chevy. Except, it would have to meet all of today's standards and regulations. Trying to make a current '57 Chevy in small batches, that met today's requirements would probably run the same price as a new Ferrari. Other than looking pretty darn cool I can't see any other advantage. Reproducing an E or F unit just for the cool look would be just about as pointless. It would, of course, look pretty darn cool!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I would rather see Amtrak looking forward rather than back.
A new passenger engine should be designed with a wind tunnel. Streamlined would equal fuel savings.
Thomas 9011 I don't think the topic is actually building old F units from the original blueprints again,but using a brand new locomotive with a car body that is similar looking to a old F unit.There is no doubt that even if you were to use the original design of the old F unit car body modifications would have to be made to meet current FRA standards.Obviously there is E and F units on the main lines today used for various reasons(such as the ones used by BNSF,UP,Norfolk southern,etc)for their special trains that have not been modified and must meet the standards for the FRA to operate on the main line.I have been in several of these units and there is no modifications to the nose section except for the pockets for the ditch lights.I think it is safe to say that the old F and E units meet or exceed current FRA standards concerning collisions and the only modification needed is to add ditch lights. I understand Caterpillar owns GM.Does that really change anything?Except for the paperwork not really.Most companies including Caterpillar will make anything you want if they get enough orders for it.Do I think they would build 40 or 50 modified F unit car bodies to be installed on a modern locomotive if they had orders for it?There is no doubt about it.Considering you are talking 2 to 3 million a piece for a locomotive you would have to be a complete idiot to turn down $150,000,000 dollars in orders.GM did the full Cowl body for CN many times on various locomotives. What railroads would buy them?I'm sure many railroads would buy them.If railroads such as BNSF,CP,UP,NS,and others are going to spend millions per unit rebuilding old E and F units I don't see why they wouldn't spend 2 million on a brand new one.I could easily see all the class one railroads picking up 3 or 4 to be used on special trains.Amtrak could buy 2 or 3 for special trains.I wouldn't be surprised if the Grand canyon railroad would by a few,along with the Napa valley wine train,dinner trains and others.
I don't think the topic is actually building old F units from the original blueprints again,but using a brand new locomotive with a car body that is similar looking to a old F unit.There is no doubt that even if you were to use the original design of the old F unit car body modifications would have to be made to meet current FRA standards.Obviously there is E and F units on the main lines today used for various reasons(such as the ones used by BNSF,UP,Norfolk southern,etc)for their special trains that have not been modified and must meet the standards for the FRA to operate on the main line.I have been in several of these units and there is no modifications to the nose section except for the pockets for the ditch lights.I think it is safe to say that the old F and E units meet or exceed current FRA standards concerning collisions and the only modification needed is to add ditch lights.
I understand Caterpillar owns GM.Does that really change anything?Except for the paperwork not really.Most companies including Caterpillar will make anything you want if they get enough orders for it.Do I think they would build 40 or 50 modified F unit car bodies to be installed on a modern locomotive if they had orders for it?There is no doubt about it.Considering you are talking 2 to 3 million a piece for a locomotive you would have to be a complete idiot to turn down $150,000,000 dollars in orders.GM did the full Cowl body for CN many times on various locomotives.
What railroads would buy them?I'm sure many railroads would buy them.If railroads such as BNSF,CP,UP,NS,and others are going to spend millions per unit rebuilding old E and F units I don't see why they wouldn't spend 2 million on a brand new one.I could easily see all the class one railroads picking up 3 or 4 to be used on special trains.Amtrak could buy 2 or 3 for special trains.I wouldn't be surprised if the Grand canyon railroad would by a few,along with the Napa valley wine train,dinner trains and others.
A brand new locomotive has to meet different standards (emissions, cab safety, ect.) than a rebuilt unit. The older Es and Fs you mentioned are "grandfathered" but a new built locomotive wouldn't be...
None of the railroads you mentioned have spent "millions" per unit rebuilding their business train and excursion locomotives. And none of them have bought new built locomotives for that purpose, because any new unit is going to be as expensive as a freight diesel..
Caterpillar doesn't own GM, they do own EMD, and neither EMD nor GE are going to invest a lot of money into designing a custom unit for a manufacturing run of what, 20 locomotives? (I'm using your numbers).
One thing I could see happening with older covered wagon type units would be remanufacturing with a package like EMD offers for their GP22ECO program with a new 2000 HP 8-710 engine, alternator, microprocessor based electronics, ect.. Not cheap (although much less $ than new built locomotives) and a possibility given that the upcoming Tier IV regulations may prohibit rebuilding 567 and 645 engines in many cases...
Paul Milenkovic I read over that Draft Specification, and it looks like "build me another Genesis." The spec calls for either "axle hung" (nose suspended) traction motors or "frame mounted" (I guess truck frame -- would open the door to quill drive if they can meet the maintenance spec of doing wheelset and traction motor changeouts). Oh, the thing is suppose to be "aerodynamic" and operate at 125 MPH -- I guess that is the new thing that everything operate at NEC "track speed." The British experience is that at 125 MPH, the conventional type of nose-suspended traction motor will pound the stuffing out of the roadbed, but if you are subsidized, what incentive is there to worry about track rehab costs? As to aerodynamics, you cannot get good aerodynamics simply by making it look good -- the recessed grabs in the spec. You have to do model wind tunnel testing and perhaps testing of the prototype at Pueblo, and do this mated to the kind of passenger cars you are going to pull. And yes, at 125 MPH, aerodynamics is a big consumer of power and fuel. Why the 4000 HP? Why not a much lighter weight 2000 HP locomotive, put one at each end of a "corridor" consist? You apparently need a locomotive at each end anyway instead of using Turboliner style power cars or Colorado Railcar style DMU cars at each end, so why not make each one a locomotive instead of one a locomotive and the other a dead weight. And since you are splitting the HP between two units, it should be possible to make each unit strong enough but lighter in weight -- saves fuel, saves roadbed pounding.
I read over that Draft Specification, and it looks like "build me another Genesis." The spec calls for either "axle hung" (nose suspended) traction motors or "frame mounted" (I guess truck frame -- would open the door to quill drive if they can meet the maintenance spec of doing wheelset and traction motor changeouts). Oh, the thing is suppose to be "aerodynamic" and operate at 125 MPH -- I guess that is the new thing that everything operate at NEC "track speed."
The British experience is that at 125 MPH, the conventional type of nose-suspended traction motor will pound the stuffing out of the roadbed, but if you are subsidized, what incentive is there to worry about track rehab costs?
As to aerodynamics, you cannot get good aerodynamics simply by making it look good -- the recessed grabs in the spec. You have to do model wind tunnel testing and perhaps testing of the prototype at Pueblo, and do this mated to the kind of passenger cars you are going to pull. And yes, at 125 MPH, aerodynamics is a big consumer of power and fuel.
Why the 4000 HP? Why not a much lighter weight 2000 HP locomotive, put one at each end of a "corridor" consist? You apparently need a locomotive at each end anyway instead of using Turboliner style power cars or Colorado Railcar style DMU cars at each end, so why not make each one a locomotive instead of one a locomotive and the other a dead weight. And since you are splitting the HP between two units, it should be possible to make each unit strong enough but lighter in weight -- saves fuel, saves roadbed pounding.
I think you have it exactly right. And, it leaves me with a queasy feeling that we are in the process of making a mess going forward with passenger rail.
Clearly, there is no challenging of old idea going on.
Amtrak merely accepts the FRA standards as if they were handed down by Moses and the result is locomotives modeled after concrete blocks.
High speed rail planners in CA and FL ignore the FRA standards (for good reasons) and then wind up with plans that are extremely expensive for the first and last mile, needing completely new ROW and track, and do not connect to the existing conventional rail network well (or at all!). Notice how the first section of the CA HSR will be out in the rural Central Valley. I have not found anything anywhere that says how they expect to start operating over that section at first. Are they going to tie it into the BNSF route, even temporarily and operate the San Joaquins at 110 mph. Make passengers transfer? Run it as a stand-alone?
Equipment manufacturers are more than willing to build what you ask for. They just price them accordingly (NJT dual mode locos for example). They have not taken a lead role in this, either.
Nobody has set any goals for passenger rail in terms of fuel economy. We have legislated CAFE standards for cars, but we don't have anything in the new car and locomotive specs anywhere. Isn't energy part of the reason we're doing this?
What we'll wind up with at the rate we're going is a hodge podge of some completely independent HSR links, some not-very-fuel-efficient conventional corridor services and the planners, suppliers and gov't administration each pointing the finger at each other.
This is actually a good place for the AAR and APTA to team up lead.
As for "new" Es and Fs? The Genesis carbody is pretty much a new F. It's fairly lightweight, has clean lines, was purpose built and has modern four axle trucks. I think it's just that some of us don't like the stying and/or the Shamu paint job...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Firelock76 I forget where I read this, but the compound curves on the E and F unit noses were actually done with "Bondo" auto body putty, just lots and lots of it. No exotic sheet metal fabrication was needed. If anyone can correct me on this feel free to do so.
I forget where I read this, but the compound curves on the E and F unit noses were actually done with "Bondo" auto body putty, just lots and lots of it. No exotic sheet metal fabrication was needed. If anyone can correct me on this feel free to do so.
Well, yes and no. They nose sheet metal was actually pressed to the shape, but finishing off the seams and imperfections took some Bondo.
The cost of doing that kind of sheet metal pressing today would be rather high, I think. If you set up for doing a few thousand, like the E and F units, it might not be terribly expensive on a per unit basis, but for only a few hundred...
Thomas 9011 I have often thought about a the same idea.I would have to disagree with the majority of the posts here only because I used to overhaul locomotives as a welder and fabricator from front to rear.I good portion of new locomotive costs goes into the engineers who has to think up the plans to build it to begin with.Years of designing,planning,types of steel,tooling,etc. Those older E and F units have already been designed,fabricated,and built from the ground up.All you have to do is break out the old blueprints and give it to the welders.All the engineering has already been done.Of course you would have to do some modifications to the car body depending on width and length of frame.You might have to add or take away a few feet of the car body but that is not a big deal.I'm positive everything from the cab to the rear of the locomotive would fit with room to spare.The 710 engine that powers the modern F59's are nothing more then beefed up 645 engines.The 645 engines were nearly identical to the F units 567 engine.Much of the cooling system,air system,fuel system,etc has changed little since the F units.The Blomberg B truck which has been in use since 1936 was used on the old F units and is used on todays F59's and nearly all 4 axle locomotives. Many railroad have done amazing rebuilds with those old F units.Instead of putting a old car body on a new locomotive,the take everything out of the old F unit and put new components inside.New turbocharged engine,new seats and control stand,electrical gutted,new HEP in the rear,anything you can imagine.I have been inside some of those rebuilt F units and they look as modern as any Amtrak locomotive out there. I would also have to disagree about the safety of the E and F units nose in a collision.I know the E and F units front end were so strong they were often used as a snow plows in the winter time.Engineers used to hit huge snow drifts as high as the headlight at 15-20 mph with the E and F units all with no damage to the nose.Not sure any Amtrak locomotive can do that. I am sure down the road we will probably see some sort of comeback with the old E and F units.GM will likely one day produce a short run of 40 or 50 units to cater to the many tourist and other railroads needing classic looking but moder power.They will of course be F59s with a F unit body.I don't think the cost would be more expensive.I actually think they would be less expensive.
I have often thought about a the same idea.I would have to disagree with the majority of the posts here only because I used to overhaul locomotives as a welder and fabricator from front to rear.I good portion of new locomotive costs goes into the engineers who has to think up the plans to build it to begin with.Years of designing,planning,types of steel,tooling,etc.
Those older E and F units have already been designed,fabricated,and built from the ground up.All you have to do is break out the old blueprints and give it to the welders.All the engineering has already been done.Of course you would have to do some modifications to the car body depending on width and length of frame.You might have to add or take away a few feet of the car body but that is not a big deal.I'm positive everything from the cab to the rear of the locomotive would fit with room to spare.The 710 engine that powers the modern F59's are nothing more then beefed up 645 engines.The 645 engines were nearly identical to the F units 567 engine.Much of the cooling system,air system,fuel system,etc has changed little since the F units.The Blomberg B truck which has been in use since 1936 was used on the old F units and is used on todays F59's and nearly all 4 axle locomotives.
Many railroad have done amazing rebuilds with those old F units.Instead of putting a old car body on a new locomotive,the take everything out of the old F unit and put new components inside.New turbocharged engine,new seats and control stand,electrical gutted,new HEP in the rear,anything you can imagine.I have been inside some of those rebuilt F units and they look as modern as any Amtrak locomotive out there.
I would also have to disagree about the safety of the E and F units nose in a collision.I know the E and F units front end were so strong they were often used as a snow plows in the winter time.Engineers used to hit huge snow drifts as high as the headlight at 15-20 mph with the E and F units all with no damage to the nose.Not sure any Amtrak locomotive can do that.
I am sure down the road we will probably see some sort of comeback with the old E and F units.GM will likely one day produce a short run of 40 or 50 units to cater to the many tourist and other railroads needing classic looking but moder power.They will of course be F59s with a F unit body.I don't think the cost would be more expensive.I actually think they would be less expensive.
I really am no expert on the collision worthiness of the old covered wagons but I know that the current FRA cab specs are a lot more stringent and they are not going to be repealed..
GM is not in the locomotive business anymore...Caterpillar owns EMD and they are in business to make money selling locomotives that meet current specs.
BTW, the F59 series does not meet the regulations anymore and is no longer offered although there are some being rebuilt..
What tourist railroad has the money to buy a new built, mainline passenger locomotive of any make or model?
The most modern rebuilt F units I know of were the FL9's rebuilt to 2300 HP AC drive specifications for Metro North. these were impresssive locomotives but cost nearly as much as a new built Genesis unit.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The compound curves on a bulldog nose require a lot of man-hours to fabricate and as a consequence are expensive. Just having the blueprints available doesn't make it any cheaper. Compare it to the Alco flatnose design which considered the cost of fabrication when it was designed and the flat sheet metal of various hood and cowl designs, especially EMD's 35 and 40 series.
I still think it could be done without too much trouble or redesign, but then I thought, why would GE want to make one of their locomotives look like an EMD product? Now if they could make it look like an ALCO PA that might be another matter! ALCO's gone, so who cares?
The Draft specification for future engines and cars(single level) has been set, the standards were developed by Amtrak, FRA, States.
locomotive stuff at bottom.
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/DocsSpecs.aspx
Thank you everybody for the replies. I never thought that there were all these different factors that are taken into consideration in building a passenger locomotive.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
da_kraut Hello everybody, when I look at he classic design of the E and F series diesel engines I have to wonder if it is possible to apply these classic locomotive lines to todays passenger engines. Basically take the car body of one of these older beauties and put it over a modern MP 40 type of drive train. That would be a stunning modern locomotive. Just look at Volkswagen, they brought back the beetle. What do you think? Frank
Hello everybody,
when I look at he classic design of the E and F series diesel engines I have to wonder if it is possible to apply these classic locomotive lines to todays passenger engines. Basically take the car body of one of these older beauties and put it over a modern MP 40 type of drive train. That would be a stunning modern locomotive. Just look at Volkswagen, they brought back the beetle.
What do you think?
I very much doubt that that type of cab would meet the current FRA crash-worthiness requirements. The other issue is most of the passenger train riding public doesn't seem to be concerned with locomotive styling (most people nowadays probably don't even remember the "covered wagon" era or weren't alive then)....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.