Amtrak puts out RFP for new and rebuilt locomotives.

6213 views
85 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October, 2015
  • 71 posts
Amtrak puts out RFP for new and rebuilt locomotives.
Posted by longhorn1969 on Friday, June 01, 2018 3:44 PM
  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,481 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Saturday, June 02, 2018 2:03 AM
Interesting. I wonder, If new, would After treatment be usable for the long distance fleet? and so Chargers and F125s? Or are they going to need to go with one of the heavier freight designs? Rebuilds might make more sense. plenty of other FDL powered units are going under the knife now adays. Not sure what level of emissions they could meet. F59s would also presumably be ripe for rebuild. Not sure the F59s would do well in long distance.
  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Saturday, June 02, 2018 12:41 PM

YoHo1975
Interesting. I wonder, If new, would After treatment be usable for the long distance fleet? and so Chargers and F125s?

Amtrak would have to refill 130 gal at each tank stop. How many refueling stations does Amtrak have and what would the DEF infrastructure cost?

YoHo1975
Or are they going to need to go with one of the heavier freight designs?

I have doubts that Amtrak ever again will accept 6-axle trucks. Perhaps it gets the hour of an updated MPI HSP46AC. But the Tier 3 locomotive already weighs 290,000 lbs and it needs a larger fuel tank and the about 8,000 lbs heavier Tier 4 Gevo engine. Depending on top speed it might need different trucks. A monocoque design could provide weight savings of about 20,000 lbs.

YoHo1975
Rebuilds might make more sense. plenty of other FDL powered units are going under the knife now adays. Not sure what level of emissions they could meet.

The P42DC were build with a Tier 0 engine. Tier 1 would be available. GE developed the Gevo for Tier 2 as they feared a 7FDL-16 would consumate too much fuel and would possibly need exhaust aftertreatment. I don't know of any Tier 2 retrofit kit. Rebuilding to AC shouldn't be a problem but all components weigh. A retrofit with a Gevo Tier 2, perhaps Tier 3 might be possible. Tier 4 would be too heavy for the P42DC's monocoque, I think.

I hope the P42DC already have corner posts. These were not required in 1993 and I'm not sure if they were required in the AAR S-580-1994 crashworthiness standard. I think they wouldn't be easily put into a monocoque.

And with all these possible changes one has to look at the ratio of new to re-used parts. Has the locomotive more than 50% new parts by worth after rebuild it is called refurbished and a Tier 4 engine would be necessary.

If I had to renew Amtrak I would go for new locomotives.

But as long as we don't know the specification we only can speculate.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May, 2018
  • 15 posts
Posted by HR616 on Saturday, June 02, 2018 2:18 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

Amtrak would have to refill 130 gal at each tank stop. How many refueling stations does Amtrak have and what would the DEF infrastructure cost?

 

I wonder if they could fit larger DEF tanks into new units. Amtrak would probably have to install DEF infrastructure along their LD routes, as there isn't much currently.

VOLKER LANDWEHR

The P42DC were build with a Tier 0 engine. Tier 1 would be available. GE developed the Gevo for Tier 2 as they feared a 7FDL-16 would consumate too much fuel and would possibly need exhaust aftertreatment. I don't know of any Tier 2 retrofit kit. Rebuilding to AC shouldn't be a problem but all components weigh. A retrofit with a Gevo Tier 2, perhaps Tier 3 might be possible. Tier 4 would be too heavy for the P42DC's monocoque, I think.

I hope the P42DC already have corner posts. These were not required in 1993 and I'm not sure if they were required in the AAR S-580-1994 crashworthiness standard. I think they wouldn't be easily put into a monocoque.

The 7FDL cooling system can be modified to help meet Tier 2 standards, as seen on several modernized GE units.

The P42s do not have corner posts, as evidenced by several recent accidents. Upgrading the crashworthiness of a monocoque locomotive shell can be very difficult.

  • Member since
    April, 2016
  • 686 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Saturday, June 02, 2018 9:06 PM

If they go with a SCR equipped engine in the locomotive getting the DEF for it will not be a problem anymore. We get it delivered to our shops in 55 gallon drums and our drivers can fill up right in the yard.  The logistics support for DEF is almost 8 years old already on the OTR industry.  Both our truckstops and bulk fuel supplying companies know we need it and can get it. 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,480 posts
Posted by M636C on Sunday, June 03, 2018 7:17 PM

Would it be possible to fit the existing 7FDL-16 with SCR?

There is probably enough room over the engine in a P42 to fit an SCR outfit.

It surely wouldn't be more difficult than getting the F125s to work...

They are certainly still building those FDL engines for rebuilds and for export.

Peter

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Monday, June 04, 2018 10:43 AM

HR616
The 7FDL cooling system can be modified to help meet Tier 2 standards, as seen on several modernized GE units.

Can you help with an example, please?

All I have seen is Tier 1+ in locomotives, e.g. NS AC44C6M, the marine V228 engine (marine version of 7FDL9 with Tier 2. But Tier 2 marine allows higher emissions thaon locomotive Tier 2.

HR616
The P42s do not have corner posts, as evidenced by several recent accidents. Upgrading the crashworthiness of a monocoque locomotive shell can be very difficult.

I agree, the corner posts were recommended by the Railroad Safety Advisory Board in a draft paper in 2003. It took some time to find out.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Monday, June 04, 2018 10:58 AM

M636C
Would it be possible to fit the existing 7FDL-16 with SCR?

Engine wise it should be technically possible. I haven't seen a SCR retrofit kit yet. How much more weight can the P42's monocoque and the trucks carry? There are the four corner post with a load spreading structure already.

IIRC we talked about weight of SCR for CAt egines in another thread. Was it 6,000 lbs?

M636C
There is probably enough room over the engine in a P42 to fit an SCR outfit.

Here are two photos of part of the engine room: https://youtu.be/SRValOA7TZo?t=2929https://youtu.be/SRValOA7TZo?t=3166

They are at 48:48 and 52:46 of this video about the P42:  https://youtu.be/SRValOA7TZo

I think weight is the larger problem.

If you want to rebuild and accept SCR remotoring with a high-speed diesel like the Cummins QSK95 might be a way. At least it solves the weight restrictions and provides Tier 4:
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,481 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Monday, June 04, 2018 12:15 PM

In a world where Amtrak is trying to reduce costs on long distance trains, would even the marginal costs of SCR refill be adressable?

It sounds to me like they are going to make a tradeoff between emissions and operating costs on this one.

If they go rebuild, they wouldn't even need to reach Tier 2 depending on percentage new components.

EMD F59PHi's have a highly proven path to Tier 2, but they'd only be ~3000HP, That may not be viable.

 

I wonder how much weight the monocoque saves and would the corner posts and other crashworthiness requirements undermine that? Alternatively, I wonder if the newer 3 axle Radial or A1A/BB1 truck designs could be proven more reliable in Passenger service? We're a long time removed from the HT-C in terms of modern 3axle track design. Institutional memories probably run a bit longer than they need to here.

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Monday, June 04, 2018 1:53 PM

YoHo1975
If they go rebuild, they wouldn't even need to reach Tier 2 depending on percentage new components.

You are right, as long as they stay below 50% of new parts they are required to reach 1+. Tier 1+ is the same as EPA Tier 1 final. But how does this fit with the announcement of "the lowest emissions possible"?

Lowest possible emissions is Tier 4.

YoHo1975
I wonder how much weight the monocoque saves and would the corner posts and other crashworthiness requirements undermine that?

The monocoque design once saved 20,000 lbs according to a GE conference paper. The 20,000 lbs were used up by integrating 4,000 hp instead 3,000 hp of previous locomotive and a 400 gal larger fuel tank (2,200 gal).

SCR equipment, corner posts all add to the weight and might help to exceed the monocoque's and/or truck's load carrying limits.

YoHo1975
Alternatively, I wonder if the newer 3 axle Radial or A1A/BB1 truck designs could be proven more reliable in Passenger service? We're a long time removed from the HT-C in terms of modern 3axle track design. Institutional memories probably run a bit longer than they need to here.

I don't think it is institutional memory, rather European experience with truck performance at higher speeds. Even the newest designs seem to perform worse than 2-axle trucks at higher speed.

MPI/GE had a Tier 4 offering competing with the Siemens Charger but I have no clue of wheel arrangement and of technical design.
Regards, Volker

 

 

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,481 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Monday, June 04, 2018 6:06 PM

The HSP46 is a Tier 3 locomotive running a GEVO-12. It is NOT Tier4.

The MP54AC looks more like a classic MP series loco and has 2 Cummins QSK60s and Meets Tier4, I wonder if they'd consider that design? Go Transit is running them, I know nothing about success or failure of the model. Although, with the 2 smaller QSKs, each is rated at 2700HP, so you could achieve fuel and emissions savings by only ever running both engines when absolutely required. So the LD trains might be running on single engines across the plains until hitting the rockies and only then be running full out. 

the carbodies are classic MPi and the trucks are Blomberg Presumably the crashworthiness is already established. Alternatively, could you retrofit them into the P42 shell? 

Then that scenario begs others. For example, what if EMD or GE/Wabtec built either a 4 bogie version of a tier 4? OR, what if the locomotive were a pair of v8 units instead of the single V12? How does the Emissions equipment change for the smaller engine? Go old school and sell them as A and B units?

  • Member since
    May, 2018
  • 15 posts
Posted by HR616 on Monday, June 04, 2018 9:00 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

Can you help with an example, please?

All I have seen is Tier 1+ in locomotives, e.g. NS AC44C6M, the marine V228 engine (marine version of 7FDL9 with Tier 2. But Tier 2 marine allows higher emissions thaon locomotive Tier 2.

I'm pretty sure the NS Dash 8.5 rebuilds meet Tier 2. I also heard that the 4 axle BNSF Dash 8s being rebuilt in Ft. Worth will be Tier 2 as well. It is certainly an option that can be installed on rebuilt 7FDL poweres locomotives, but it isn't  requested by every customer.

VOLKER LANDWEHR
 

MPI/GE had a Tier 4 offering competing with the Siemens Charger but I have no clue of wheel arrangement and of technical design.
Regards, Volker 

MPI's Tier 4 dual mode locomotive proposal (for the NYC area) would ride on six axles. Of course, dual mode equipment adds weight, so a standard diesel model might be light enough for just four. 

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,480 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, June 04, 2018 9:54 PM

The fact that MPI and GE are both in the Wabtec family makes the possibility of an MP54 style unit seem more likely. It may be possible to rebuild a P42 with some combination of the MP54 equipment. Possibly a single engine QSK 95 giving 4000 HP, Tier 4 and AC traction as applied to the MP 54.

It occurred to me that the P32DM units could be rebuilt with a single V-18 QSK78 giving 3000 HP and Tier 4.

But the added reliability of a straight MP54, with 2700 HP with one engine shut down sounds like it might appeal to Amtrak, where the long distance trains can be a long way from assistance from outside.

Peter

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 900 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Monday, June 04, 2018 11:08 PM

M636C

But the added reliability of a straight MP54, with 2700 HP with one engine shut down sounds like it might appeal to Amtrak, where the long distance trains can be a long way from assistance from outside.

While we're at it may as well throw in larger fuel and DEF tanks for better range, and swap the B trucks for GE C4's to accommodate the extra weight.

This would give us a streamlined twin-engined A1A-A1A locomotive.  I wonder if anyone has ever tried that before...?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May, 2013
  • 3,051 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:07 AM

Yeah, the MP54AC is pretty heavy, at 280,000 to 290,000 lb over four axles.

https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlinedrawings/MP54AC-Commuter-Locomotive.pdf

That works out to around 70,000 to 72,000 lb per axle, which is exactly the same as the ballasted 432,000 lb units like the SD70AH.

I'm guessing that Amtrak won't like that and will want a singular high speed prime mover. My bet is on them picking up existing Charger options, but we will see.

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 900 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:27 AM

NorthWest

Yeah, the MP54AC is pretty heavy, at 280,000 to 290,000 lb over four axles.

https://www.wabtec.com/uploads/outlinedrawings/MP54AC-Commuter-Locomotive.pdf

That works out to around 70,000 to 72,000 lb per axle, which is exactly the same as the ballasted 432,000 lb units like the SD70AH.

GO is running those at 90+ mph every day.  I wonder how their track is holding up?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,481 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 9:45 AM

The HSP46 weighs in at about the same,

Charger is around 67,500 for axle loading.

F125 is around 280K total

P42 is around 274K total

F59PHi is around 264K

MP40PH-3C is 285K

All of those locomotives currently turn revenue miles every day.

 

Rumor on Loconotes is that for rebuilds, they're looking at rebuilding the P42s to AC. That makes sense in some ways, but doesn't really jive with their broader statements. But presumably, they could simply turn them into HSP46s internally and rebuild to T3. (the emissions plates would say T0+ or whatever)

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:22 AM

HR616
I'm pretty sure the NS Dash 8.5 rebuilds meet Tier 2.

The NS Dash-8.5 rebuilds were designed to achieve Tier 2. They had emission problems and the program was cancelled in 2016.

HR616
I also heard that the 4 axle BNSF Dash 8s being rebuilt in Ft. Worth will be Tier 2 as well. It is certainly an option that can be installed on rebuilt 7FDL poweres locomotives, but it isn't requested by every customer.

The NS AC44C6M rebuilds are similar to to the BNSF AC44C4M. Both are rebuilt by GE. The 7FDL-16 engines are brought up one EPA level to Tier 1+:
https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/locomotives/locomotive-gems-gems/

Tier 1+ is what EPA requires for these locomotive when rebuilt.

HR616
MPI's Tier 4 dual mode locomotive proposal (for the NYC area) would ride on six axles. Of course, dual mode equipment adds weight, so a standard diesel model might be light enough for just four.

MPI/GE had an offer in IDOT's multi-state locomotive procurement according to PRIIA section 305 specification. So they already have a design for a Tier 4 locomotive.

MPI/GE's weight estimate for a 3rd rail DM locomotive was 326,000 lbs based on a Gevo-T4. Taking Siemens' estimate for 3rd rail equipment and battery storage of about 35,000 lbs the pure diesel MPI/GE locomotive might be 4-axle at 290,000 lbs. That is what MPI HSP46 weighs.
Source: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Dual_Mode_DC_3rd_Rail-Appendix_A_4-110_MPH_-_for_TSCapproval.docx

But I haven't seen anything of this Tier 4 MPI /GE locomotive
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,073 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:32 AM

YoHo1975
Rumor on Loconotes is that for rebuilds, they're looking at rebuilding the P42s to AC.

That is not a rumor; it is the one part of the "rebuild", in the RFP, that Amtrak specifies.

It will be interesting to see the range of options at the meeting on the 20th.

  • Member since
    May, 2013
  • 3,051 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:47 AM

Indeed. Whichever option is selected will also have to clear the tunnels into NYP, which means a maximum height of 14'4'' or so.

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:58 AM

YoHo1975
Rumor on Loconotes is that for rebuilds, they're looking at rebuilding the P42s to AC.

That is not a rumor. The RFP says: Supply and delivery of EITHER (a) General Electric P42-8 locomotives to be rebuilt with alternating current (AC) propulsion OR (b) new long distance diesel-electric locomotives with Alternative Power and Structure Options AND (c) TSSSA for above-referenced locomotives.
Source: https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://7e7c6db809b56f05f8e58e6565a217df
and then DOC733896.

The rebuilt P42 has to comply to EPA Tier 1+. That is possible with the 7FDL-16.

Putting the innards of the HSP46 into the P42 shell looks like a challenge. The P42 is 2 ft shorter and 1 ft lower. The Gevo T3 is heavier than the FDL, the cooling system larger and heavier, and you have the weight of the additional AC equipment (IGBT etc.).

My personal opinion? I think as rebuilding offer we'll see a high-speed diesel engine replacement to address the load restriction of the P42's monocoque.

Better suited would be new locomotives I think, otherwise we talk about the same topic again in 10 to 15 years. That was one of the reasons why Amtrak choose to buy the new Genesis series instead of rebuilding the F40PH.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    December, 2006
  • 1,481 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:05 AM

I think the real question on rebuilding the P42 is going to be around Crashworthiness upgrades. If it weren't for that, the Tier1+ upgrade is a no brainer.

 

Do they really need to maintain access to NYP with a diesel? Or do they rebuild a set of the p42s just for that access and go new for the rest of the fleet? EMD and GE have built plenty of freight units to low clearance specifications for exports. So they know the tricks here. 

  • Member since
    October, 2015
  • 71 posts
Posted by longhorn1969 on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:45 AM

For the sake of competition in the bidding process, I wander if the EMD F125 in serious contention. Though Amtrak or someone has 150 options for Chargers with larger fuel tanks.

  • Member since
    October, 2015
  • 71 posts
Posted by longhorn1969 on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:48 AM

YoHo1975

The HSP46 weighs in at about the same,

Charger is around 67,500 for axle loading.

F125 is around 280K total

P42 is around 274K total

F59PHi is around 264K

MP40PH-3C is 285K

All of those locomotives currently turn revenue miles every day.

 

Rumor on Loconotes is that for rebuilds, they're looking at rebuilding the P42s to AC. That makes sense in some ways, but doesn't really jive with their broader statements. But presumably, they could simply turn them into HSP46s internally and rebuild to T3. (the emissions plates would say T0+ or whatever)

 

Do not understand how the F125 can be so heavy. Must be the same frame as the hefty DM30s.

 

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 900 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:09 PM

For comparison:

A FP9 weighs 260,000 lbs (65,000/axle)

E9 is 315,000 lbs (52,500/axle)

Both those models have long, successful track records running at 90-100 mph (more on some railroads).

A shame one could not order a new run of E bodies and place QSKs inside.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:43 PM

longhorn1969
Do not understand how the F125 can be so heavy. Must be the same frame as the hefty DM30s.

Both DM30 and F125 have monocoques, the side walls take part in carrying the loads. The weight saving compared to the same locomotive on a platform is about 20,000 lbs.

To comply to crashworthiness standards you need, put simple, material and that weighs. And than you have the whole equipment. Here is an overview of the F125 in an early state: https://prezi.com/xhizn5e6bity/f125-tier-4-emd-status-report/

All the modern passenger locomotives weigh between 270K and 290K lbs with the F125 in between.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 900 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 5:09 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
My personal opinion? I think as rebuilding offer we'll see a high-speed diesel engine replacement to address the load restriction of the P42's monocoque.

Interesting postulation. Unfortunately all the railroad ready high-speed diesels: Cummins, Cat, MTU, are already spoken for. GE's P616 Jenbacher dirived engine is the right size at 99 litres but unless they can get it to 1800 RPM/4400 HP then it's no sale. On top of all that modifying the existing systems to accept a new plant will probably make the conversion cost prohibitive.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    May, 2018
  • 15 posts
Posted by HR616 on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 9:49 PM

YoHo1975

I think the real question on rebuilding the P42 is going to be around Crashworthiness upgrades. If it weren't for that, the Tier1+ upgrade is a no brainer.

 

Do they really need to maintain access to NYP with a diesel? Or do they rebuild a set of the p42s just for that access and go new for the rest of the fleet? EMD and GE have built plenty of freight units to low clearance specifications for exports. So they know the tricks here. 

 

As far as crashworthiness goes, there are no requirements for upgrades when you're dealing with an older rebuilt locomotive. Aside from checking and repairing structural elements with corrosion damage, I can't think of anything else that could be done easily.

 

As for the units used around NYC, a new dual mode order is apparently in the works, so that might allow them to access the low the clearance tunnels if other new engines couldn't fit.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • 3,480 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:43 PM

Unfortunately all the railroad ready high-speed diesels: Cummins, Cat, MTU, are already spoken for:

Why would Cummins stop supplying engines to MPI? The MP54 uses them, and the MP27C and MP33C export units use QSK60s and QSK78s.

I'd expect Cummins would be very happy to provide QSK95s to rebuild Amtrak locomotives to MPI or whatever Wabtec ends up calling GE Transportation.

Peter

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Wednesday, June 06, 2018 4:23 AM

I don't see this problem either. None of the engine manufacturers are married to locomotive manufacturers except perhaps Caterpillar.

I wonder if EMD will offer the F125 again with the experience they made with this locomotive at Metrolink. Looks to me like a fiasco with just 3 engines conditionally accepted as of May 2nd, 2018.

With monocoque body, cab, and truck frames produced by Vossloh, now Stadler, in Spain they seem to be in a tight spot additionally. Buy America was 68%.

But we'll see.
Regards, Volker

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy