EntropyLame? huh, please elaborate.
Leaving aside that 'Caterpillar' and 'success' have not been particularly associated in the field of large diesel locomotive prime movers for decades...
C175 makes a fine constant-speed stationary genset engine ... if you can overlook the emergent speed-stability problems when the engine is at full operating temperature that supposedly make it impossible to synchronize them to line frequency effectively. Makes a fine truck engine in the 797, if you overlook the bearing longevity issues ... which I think are related to precisely the kind of power excursions that will be likely in HSR service. I know of no railroad that's going to be happy with mandatory 250-hour oil changes, especially when they were promised much longer intervals, or having to 'watch' the results of frequent oil tests to catch the momentary 'spike' and then mildly higher levels of bearing metal that correspond to the incipient damage.
I trust that the problems with local dealers being clueless on locomotive support, with reported 6- to 10-week response times, have been corrected. I suspect that any 1800-rpm engine making that many hp at that peak piston speed is likely to have trouble in a locomotive environment, particularly in a light monococque structure operating at high speed. I would certainly like to be wrong, and I hope I am wrong on all counts. But so far I have seen little contradictory evidence.
I do have to chuckle a bit at Caterpillar claiming credit for the 'over 70,000 rail engines' that EMD has produced.
Wizlish Even with a Cummins QSK (instead of the lame Caterpillar C175 in the EMD Spirit)
Even with a Cummins QSK (instead of the lame Caterpillar C175 in the EMD Spirit)
Lame? huh, please elaborate.
zkr123 So you don't think they'll be successful?
So you don't think they'll be successful?
My personal opinion is that the market for 125 mph service is not the same as it was for the HSTs in Britain. The diesel services are more likely to thrive at 110 mph, and HSR in most American corridors where higher speed is warranted is likely to use a higher peak speed, probably above 150 mph, which I think will only be achievable with full electrification (or turbine power).
I'll be delighted to see AAF or IDOT succeed with their 125 mph peak trains, but I have grave doubts that the expenses will prove justified (over what the 110 mph or much faster alternatives will offer)
We'll see how reliable they are. They will displace locomotives from corridor services, but these will simply enter the national LD pool (where they will likely be needed due to the inevitable wreck attrition). The P40DCs will not disappear.
Please stop asking these wacky questions.
The Siemens Charger is purpose-designed for 125 mph trains. It has nothing in common with anything a P40 (or any other Genesis locomotive) would pull. Even with a Cummins QSK (instead of the lame Caterpillar C175 in the EMD Spirit) I have my doubts that high-speed diesel prime movers would have a happy future in 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger services, even 110 mph services.
With the Siemens Charger locomotive on its way, is it safe to say they will be replacing the P40dc's? Or is it to supplement the Genesis roster?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.