Sounds like the energy costs did not / do not play significant part in this equation. In Europe electricity is used in general when ever it is available.
CSSHEGEWISCH What's interesting about the FL9's and the P32AC's is that, although equipped with third-rail shoes, they changed over to diesel power as soon as they reached open air, even in third-rail equipped zones.
What's interesting about the FL9's and the P32AC's is that, although equipped with third-rail shoes, they changed over to diesel power as soon as they reached open air, even in third-rail equipped zones.
Is this a P32DC or P32AC too, just without the third rail show?
The ALP45-DM, found on NJT and AMT (Montreal) are equipped with pantographs for use in electric zones.
Impressive data Nortwest! And thanks, fortunately during year's end there will be time for interesting discussions :)
Yes, TRAXX AC3 and Vectron AC + 2 x power module are about the same design (notice that Finnish Vectron has two power packs so its more than just last mile diesel), but created with slightly different design philophies. Vectron is the Mercedes Benz or Toyota, always dependable, while TRAXX is more like Fiat, works where it works. No offence to Fiat drivers, but I had to find a comparison...
NorthWest Actually, some of the FL9s did have a pantograph for third rail gaps in GCT. NYC also had electro-battery-diesels in the 1920s. McKey, good to see you here! TRAXX AC3 LMs can go 50KPH (max) for about 8 hours on a tank of fuel, I suspect Vectrons with last mile modules are about the same.
Actually, some of the FL9s did have a pantograph for third rail gaps in GCT.
NYC also had electro-battery-diesels in the 1920s.
McKey, good to see you here!
TRAXX AC3 LMs can go 50KPH (max) for about 8 hours on a tank of fuel, I suspect Vectrons with last mile modules are about the same.
Here is a picture of Bombardier TRAXX F140 AC3. Finally modern design has found its way to Bombardier locomotion too! It turned out that the pilot user BLS of Switzerland was in financial trouble at the time in 2012 and these are only now entering line use.
Looking from across the pond, why not? Closely related solutions exist and actually this is becoming quite a fashionable model. There are two types of flexible designs:
1) Electrics (both locos and EMUs) with diesel aggregates / prime movers.
1a) In the picture a Vossloh British class 68 diesel, relative similar to the to be built in the near future class 88 electro-diesels with 700 kW Caterpillar power plants and overhead electricity capacity. This cool looking class 68 was displayed at Innotrans 2014.
1b) another example of this approach is the SBB electro-diesel Eem 923 switcher, which has both electric capability and large diesel aboard. This has rendered many smaller diesel switchers stationed at intermeadiate stations obsolete. Here one unit is seen at Innotrans 2012 as a favorite climbing spot for younger visitors (took a while to wait before no climbers were aboard ;).
1c) Third example are the near future Finnish VR bought Vectron locomotives capable of handling any task under wires for up to 200 km/h (125 mph) and two 180 kW diesel modules aboard. These will provide the necessary "last mile" diesel traction for any train (obviously for freight no great speed is necessry for this). First units will arrive in March 2015 for test drives before the batch production for 78 more will start at Siemens Mobility factory. Below the general looks of Vectron, closely related to Amtrak ACS64s. Picture by Siemens.
I think this is enough for starters as examples of fashionable solutions from Europe, where overhead wires are commonplace and diesel tractions is seen mostly obsolete. How different approaches we can take on these two continents!
2) The other approach being used a lot in Europe is the multielectric solutions like TGVs capable of using 4 different electricity systems for running or Eurostar TMST units earlier capable of using both third raill and overhead el. But that is another story for later.
Yes, you could build one. It would almost certainly be too expensive for the flexibility it provided. A similar situation prevailed for steam boosters on many roads, including the LNER -- the advantages were not outweighed by the costs in the opinion of the folks with the money.
I see comparatively little point in using an expensive diesel, alternator, fuel in the tank, etc. effectively as 'ballast' most of the time on a locomotive intended primarily for electric service, or putting a high-priced OHLE pickup system on a locomotive that will spend much of its life self-propelled. There are better opportunity uses for the money used to make those things.
Dave Klepper has commented on ways to implement third-rail shoes that work effectively with both overrunning and underrunning contact, so although we need to be aware of that added constraint (in the New York area) it could in theory be accommodated with comparatively little effort.
Remember that Conrail looked at a (relatively) inexpensive version of a dual-mode in the early '80s for freight service (and adapting this to modern AC drive with third-rail shoe system feeding the DC link appropriately is not a difficult exercise). There are some interesting future possibilities for such locomotives -- but only with infrastructure that is not yet developed, so don't look for them yet, or soon.
I don't think this is an approach that will solve 'all the power switch issues/delays for Amtrak'. Especially not on Amtrak's available MP budget this soon after buying the new ACS-64s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.