I don't think either the Bombardier ALP-46 or the Siemens ACS-64 has the body strength to pull a freight train. The power electronics and the traction motors would be alright with a lower gearing.
There was a very interesting powerpoint presentation presented by Bombardier 2-3 years ago about possible designs for line haul electric locomotives suitable for heavy duty North American style freight train operations.
Bombardier proposed using existing production 6 axle AC motored diesel electric designs (either Evolution series or Aces) converted to catenary electric power, in other words reusing the frames,cabs, trucks,traction motors and brake systems of the diesels with new electric internals.
They also proposed an adaption of their heavy haul electric IORE locomotives used for hauling heavy iron ore trains in Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore
The presentation indicated that the electric locomotive designs currently in production for US passenger service were not appropriate for freight work.
Sadly the presentation is no longer available on-line (and I did not save a copy to my hard drive: D'OH!!)
There is a (very long) document online that is a study of electrification schemes for freight rail in Southern California (mainly the Alameida Corridor) that does address locomotive design requirements:
http://www.freightworks.org/DocumentLibrary/CRGMSAIS%20-%20Analysis%20of%20Freight%20Rail%20Electrification%20in%20the%20SCAG%20Region.pdf
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1There was a very interesting powerpoint presentation presented by Bombardier 2-3 years ago about possible designs for line haul electric locomotives suitable for heavy duty North American style freight train operations. Bombardier proposed using existing production 6 axle AC motored diesel electric designs (either Evolution series or Aces) converted to catenary electric power, in other words reusing the frames,cabs, trucks,traction motors and brake systems of the diesels with new electric internals.
I don't have the specific reference to a downloadable copy of the Conrail electrification-expansion study from the early '80s, but there is at least one thread (here or on RyPN, IIRC) that has a link. That study proposed relatively minimal additions to 'regular' diesel-electrics to make them essentially dual-mode compatible for expansions of electrified service. Many of the design ideas described for those locomotives remain viable today.
I have a .pdf of the technical part of the study if anyone cares to e-mail me.
any US locomotive has same strenght of frame from coupler to coupler, the problem with Freight is todays electrics don't have enough weight to move todays US freight.
but locomotives in Europe are used for freight all time.
Any of the current crop of dual-mode and straight electric locomotives could be made into good frieght locomotives by regearing for more power and somewhat less speed, and also ballested for a higher factor of adhesion, up to the limit that starts problems for the track structure for the particular application. Truck springs would be replaced, of course. With a full-width cab at only one end, not good for local freights have setouts and pickups, however.
Aw, why don't they just dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and go from there?
After all, nothing succeeds like success.
Firelock76 Aw, why don't they just dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and go from there? After all, nothing succeeds like success.
NOT a success on Amfleet at over 110 mph. Don't remind me; I'm still bitter after all these years.
The GG1 was a great example of 1930's technology, but just about every bit of electrical technology has moved on since then. The transformers were Oil-cooled with PCB laced Oil. Modern electrics use de-ionized water for cooling. The GG1 used single-phase Universal Motors which required low frequency (25 Hz AC electrical feed) which in return required a heavier Iron Core in the transformer (though weight isn't a problem on a freight locomotive). The wheel arrangement with 4 unpowered idler axles is a waste on freight trains. The wheelslip system was non-existent. The visibility ffrom the Cab was very poor, worse than a ES44AC running long hood forward).
but the visibility was no worse, personal experience, than from the cab of a typical steam locomotive.
definitely intended for two-man operation with both the fireman and engineer looking forward.
rode a gg1 new-haven - ny once
beaulieu Firelock76 Aw, why don't they just dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and go from there? After all, nothing succeeds like success. The GG1 was a great example of 1930's technology, but just about every bit of electrical technology has moved on since then. The transformers were Oil-cooled with PCB laced Oil. Modern electrics use de-ionized water for cooling. The GG1 used single-phase Universal Motors which required low frequency (25 Hz AC electrical feed) which in return required a heavier Iron Core in the transformer (though weight isn't a problem on a freight locomotive). The wheel arrangement with 4 unpowered idler axles is a waste on freight trains. The wheelslip system was non-existent. The visibility ffrom the Cab was very poor, worse than a ES44AC running long hood forward).
Should have been paying attention to this thread...
Well, I WAS being a little snarky with my GG1 comment, and what Beaulieu says is certainly true, but my opinion is the very "primitiveness" of the GG1 is what made it such a success, at least until time and metal fatigue caught up with it, and remember those things ran almost fifty years.
In an odd sort of way it makes me think of pre and post-war Lionel trains. It's the very basicness and simplicity of those toy trains that has enabled them to last all these years. The fear in the back of most toy train guys is whether the circuit board heavy toy trains of today will still be running after 40, 50, or even 100 years like those old Lionels. No-one's sure.
Newer and more sophisticated isn't necessarily better. And as far as visibility is concerned an old GG1 engineer said it best. He didn't worry too much about visibility since you couldn't stop on a dime anyway!
The biggest single knock against the GG1 would be its "Fuel" inefficiency. Too much of the electrical energy entering the locomotive from the contact wire turns to heat which requires more energy to power fans to rid the locomotive of the waste heat. The need to eliminate that waste is the reason that many European electric locomotives are being retired before their time.
A better design analogy would be to compare the GG1 with the SD40-2. Neither design was revolutionary. They were more evolutionary, being a successful assembly of previously proven concepts and components.
Hey, remember what I said about old Lionels? Everyone may find this interesting, a restoration of a 1917 vintage Standard Gauge locomotive.
cs.trains.com/ctt/f/95/t/232705.aspx
This fella did one helluva job! Have you ever looked at the CTT site? If you haven't, you should. It's a lot of fun!
From the "Classic Toy Trains" Forum.
You are so right about inefficiency. Train engines of the future will be super high speed turbins driving each traction wheel. Forward and reverse speeds can be regulated internally. Megga engines will be norm and will replace stack trains without loosing efficiency.
have to disagree about effiiency., as opposed to dc mu cars and locomotives (New York Central, South Shore, Bute Anaconca & p, Milwaukee, most interubans)
Whereas dc electrics hae to heat up starting resistors, the gg-1 and other ac electrids simply have many taps off a transformer. i doubt that modern electrics are more than a percent or two more efficient than a GG1 EXCEPT for ability to turn braking energy into regenerated electric power.
I doubt that the dc AEM-7 had this capability, unsure about the ac motor version, but the new stuff does have this capability and is thus more efficient.
These argumkents about DC versus AC remind me of the arguments between Edison and Telsa. Thank goodness Telsa won. However AC was compromised by various frequencys 25, 50, 60 hertz in the USA. If engineering could today pick a frequency it probably would be either 100 or 120 Hertz. That would decrease motor size significantl and eliminate the flicker of AC lights. Do not know enough about LEDs as they only use one side of the AC. If Edison had won by his many dirty tricks we would have a very inefficient power plant in every city and no rural electrification. ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.