VOLKER LANDWEHR VOLKER LANDWEHR The progress of the Amtrak procurement can be followed on the AASHTO-High Speed Rail website in the minutes of the section 305 Technical Subcommittee meetings: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/305TechComm.aspx There are a few bits of information in the minutes of the Technical Subcommitee's latest meeting: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%208-9%20-18%20draft.doc Excerpt: 7. Update: Amtrak Equipment Procurement - Charlie King: Charlie King provided an update/overview of the RFP and RFI for Amtrak equipment: The RFP for Power and the RFI for passenger rail cars process continues. As for the RFP for Power, Charlie provided an overview of some of the areas where the Amtrak specification differs from that of PRIIA: Among those differences cited were: Amtrak’s addresses third rail pick up, catenary and dual cab, and multiple access. Amtrak calls for speeds up to 125 mph whereas PRIIA is at 110. The fuel tank for Amtrak will be 2200 – PRIIA 18-2200. Amtrak calls for a service life of 30 years vs 25 for PRIIA. A few more bits of information are in the minutes of the Executive Board's latest meeting: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20%20-8-14-18%20DRAFT.doc Excerpt: 8. Amtrak Equipment Procurements Update – Charlie King, Amtrak: Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs. Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required. There is a discrepancy regarding speed in the two minutes. In the PRIIA specification I found a sustained 110 mph in diesel-mode and 80 mph in 3rd rail mode a required. It is from january 2015, so there might be a newer somewhere.
VOLKER LANDWEHR The progress of the Amtrak procurement can be followed on the AASHTO-High Speed Rail website in the minutes of the section 305 Technical Subcommittee meetings: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/305TechComm.aspx
There are a few bits of information in the minutes of the Technical Subcommitee's latest meeting: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%208-9%20-18%20draft.doc
Excerpt:
8. Amtrak Equipment Procurements Update – Charlie King, Amtrak:
Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.
Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph;
1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required.
There is a discrepancy regarding speed in the two minutes. In the PRIIA specification I found a sustained 110 mph in diesel-mode and 80 mph in 3rd rail mode a required. It is from january 2015, so there might be a newer somewhere.
Both minutes contain the same information now. Amtrak asks for 110 mph vs PRIIA's up to 125 mph.
The discrepancy to the January 2015 PRIIA revision remains which requires 110 mph sustained speed.
But it seems safe that Amtrak is requiring 110 mph.Regards, Volker
M636C Even at thumbnail size (which is all that I've seen), it is clear that the motor on the NJ2 truck is not a GE752. A GE752, like all big DC traction motors has a roughly octagonal shape dictated by the size and shape of the field coils. The motor illustrated is roughly circular in section, suggesting that it is indeed an asynchronous AC motor. I would say that it isn't big enough to be a GEB13 (particularly not wide enough) so I'd say it is a GEB30.
Even at thumbnail size (which is all that I've seen), it is clear that the motor on the NJ2 truck is not a GE752. A GE752, like all big DC traction motors has a roughly octagonal shape dictated by the size and shape of the field coils. The motor illustrated is roughly circular in section, suggesting that it is indeed an asynchronous AC motor. I would say that it isn't big enough to be a GEB13 (particularly not wide enough) so I'd say it is a GEB30.
The octagonal shape comes about from the field poles and coils plus the interpoles and their associated coils. It's easier to wind coils with flat end surfaces than a cylindrical profile, hence the flat sides to the frame makes sense. A flat surface would also make it easier to mount the pole face to the frame, as you want to keep the airgap to a minimum. The octagon comes from having 4 poles and 4 interpoles (AKA commutating poles).
IIRC, the Westinghouse hexapole motors had a round frame as there were a total of 12 poles to contend with (6 field poles and 6 interpoles).
To be honest, I'm not familiar with traction motor. So thank again for the explanation.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Thanks, Peter. I had only looked for NJ2 and C38AChe and ended up on the Wiki pages for single model lines that should be more detailed than the list you linked. The Trainorders page doesn't help much. Not subscribing I can only view the Thumbnail. But the list is the last puzzle piece to make AC clear.Regards, Volker
Thanks, Peter.
I had only looked for NJ2 and C38AChe and ended up on the Wiki pages for single model lines that should be more detailed than the list you linked.
The Trainorders page doesn't help much. Not subscribing I can only view the Thumbnail.
But the list is the last puzzle piece to make AC clear.Regards, Volker
The drawing on the dieselshop site is basically a complete fake. It literally shows GE 752 motors arranged like those on a Dash 8 with floating bolster trucks, in a completely imaginary truck frame design. The relative proportions of the body are wrong and the distinctive frame shape that goes with the integral fuel tank is not shown.
Basically, the artist made it up as he went along.
The real locomotive is much closer in appearance and dimensions to the P42.
Peter
VOLKER LANDWEHR M636C Wikipedia uses the Dash 9 reference but does say they have AC traction. Which Wikipedia entry? The Wiki GE Dash 9 Series entry doesn't contain information about the C38AChe traction neither does the China Railways NJ2 entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Dash_9_Series#C-38AChe But in the end it doesn't matter At least not for the topic of this thread.Regards, Volker
M636C Wikipedia uses the Dash 9 reference but does say they have AC traction.
Which Wikipedia entry? The Wiki GE Dash 9 Series entry doesn't contain information about the C38AChe traction neither does the China Railways NJ2 entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Dash_9_Series#C-38AChe
But in the end it doesn't matter At least not for the topic of this thread.Regards, Volker
Volker,
If you go to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locomotives_in_China
and scroll down to the end of the diesel electric locomotive section you will find the "Imported" section.
The last entry is the NJ2.
Its transmission is shown, correctly I think, as AC-DC-AC.
Power is still shown incorrectly as 3800kW rather than 3800HP.
There is a link to the actual entry.
I think the reason that no reference was made to the AC4400CW is that there was a prototype electric locomotive (scroll down further) known as type "AC4000" and they may have wished to avoid confusion with this unit.
I wrote a book on Chinese locomotives in 1984, and this whole list is remarkably accurate, although there are the usual Wikipedia errors.
There is a photo of an NJ2 traction motor at:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1087388
It looks like an AC motor to me. It definitely isn't a 752 which isn't the same shape at all.
OvermodBecause any Tier-4 (or better) build that does not use monocoque construction and SCR would be so heavy as to require more than four axles' worth of support, same as now understood for freight locomotives (but complicated with the added weight requirements of practical 440V HEP)
That is not completely correct. THE MPI 54AC is Tier 4, has 4 axles and no monocoque. The total weight is about 290,000 lbs.
As MPI and GE are now both part of Wabtech and will offer the next passenger locomotive together. And here the intended Gevo-Tier 4 engine might let the scales tip to 3-axle trucks.
The two Cummins 16VQSK60 weigh dry about 39,000 lbs without SCR, a Gevo-T4 59,700 lbs.
But perhaps MPI/GE find ways to keep a diesel-electric to 4 axles.
For the Dual Power (diesel + 3rd rail) the announced 3-axle trucks already.Regards, Volker
longhorn1969Why are we talking about 6 axle locomotives for Amtrak ?
Because any Tier-4 (or better) build that does not use monocoque construction and SCR would be so heavy as to require more than four axles' worth of support, same as now understood for freight locomotives (but complicated with the added weight requirements of practical 440V HEP)
M636CWikipedia uses the Dash 9 reference but does say they have AC traction.
but why are they described as based on a standard 9-44CW and not the AC4400CW?
They have the 7FDL-16 engine. Perhaps the person who prepared the text quoted the first locomotive he found with that engine.
Wikipedia uses the Dash 9 reference but does say they have AC traction.
As I think I have indicated, the locomotive has no structural features in common with any domestic GE apart from the power equipment (but not, I think, the traction motors).
Several sources in internet give a top speed of 120 kph (75 mph) for the NJ2. There is so little information about this locomotive that even this might be wrong and perhaps conclude of the max. speed of the rail line.
What still bothers me is AC traction. The designation C38AChe leads to this conclusion, but why are they described as based on a standard 9-44CW and not the AC4400CW? Any ideas?Regards, Volker
The C38 AChe trucks are mentioned in a brochure describing a later truck design. the UGL Flexicurve which is a self steering design. These have mainly been used on GE locomotives in South Africa and Moazambique so are 1067mm gauge. Three 1067 gauge demonstrator locomotives were built for Australia but sat around until Pacific National were persuaded to take them, probably for not much money.These used the P616 engine.
Anyway, in a table of earlier truck designs 156 trucks for the C38AChe were built in Australia by UGL, and shipped to Erie or CSR in China for assembly. I had forgotten that these trucks were built in Australia. I think the locomotive underframe was almost certainly designed by UGL also, and possibly the cowl as well.
Keeping the weight to 138 tonnes with the six inverter units needed for the six GEB30 motors was pretty good, if GE estimated that weight for a four axle DC locomotive, even if it had 752 motors. These aren't regarded as "High Speed" in China and probaly can't exceed 160 km/h. The additional adhesion from six axles must be useful in winter since these units are used on the line to Lhasa in Tibet.
Similar trucks adapted to the higher stresses of a 150 tonne locomotive were fitted to the Chinese ES59ACi. I assume these units had the GEB13 motors as well as a 6000HP 16 cylinder Evo engine. UGL built only five trucks (presumably two units and one to copy, since they appear to have been paid for licence fees for 1300 more trucks built in China.
So there must be at least 752 6000 HP GE locomotives operating in China....
We should not consider Export locomotives as being less advanced than domestic units. The first EMD HTC trucks were used in Australia in 1967, seven years before they became standard in the USA on the Dash 2 line.
M636CThey did well in getting the weight down to 138 tonnes if it is based on the AC4400CW. The "AC" in C38ACi means that it has AC traction. Its trucks (more or less) are used in Australian C44ACi locomotives all of which use GEB30 AC tracton motors and I know of no locomotive using that truck with 752 motors. It would be a bit of a waste using such heavy motors on a lightweight fabricated truck.
The only source I found that named the traction motors was thedieselshop.us. I know that it is not always right, to say it posetively.
M636CAs I indicated, it looks like a P42 painted white (or green for the later units). The body is the same shape, more or less as the P42. Since everything is in the same place as the P42, the same monocoque could be used.
Just to complement your Edit:
GE P42: https://history.amtrak.com/exhibit-train/gallery/ge-p42-66-in-phase-ii-livery-at-washington-union-station/image
C38AChe: http://www.railpictures.net/showimage.php?id=165966&key=5038400
It is for sure not the P42's monocoque. The nose and the cooling air intakes at the rear are completely. Both would require a complete re-design and new Finite Element Analysis and Ge hasn't done this til now.
The GE Genesis (P40) would have been according to GE about 20,000 lbs heavier than with monocoque. That would be about 134 tonnes. For the P40 the monocoque was the way to avoid 3-axle trucks, which was possibly out of reach for the NJ2 anyway.
It is no monocoque.Regards, Volker
I'm quite sure that the NJ2 is a frame-cowl locomotive based on the C44-9W.
They did well in getting the weight down to 138 tonnes if it is based on the AC4400CW. The "AC" in C38ACi means that it has AC traction. Its trucks (more or less) are used in Australian C44ACi locomotives all of which use GEB30 AC tracton motors and I know of no locomotive using that truck with 752 motors. It would be a bit of a waste using such heavy motors on a lightweight fabricated truck.
As I indicated, it looks like a P42 painted white (or green for the later units). The body is the same shape, more or less as the P42. Since everything is in the same place as the P42, the same monocoque could be used.
My models are 300 km away right now, so I can't check easily.
Here are some photos
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Chinese+NJ2+Locomotive&qpvt=Chinese+NJ2+Locomotive&FORM=IGRE
most of these are of the Bachmann model, and some of unrelated classes.
Most of these units were built in China (all the green ones?)
They are 3800HP, not 3800kW as indicated on Wikipedia.
EDIT: looking more closely at the photographs linked above, it seems clear that the NJ2 has a separate underframe, but one that owes nothing to any domestic GE locomotive. It has an integral fuel tank, where fuel is stored between the two side members of the frame, which curve down in the centre to form a fuel tank. This design was used by the Alco C-855 and the export Alco DL-560, mainly used in India. On the model clearly, and just visible on the prototype, there are clear indications of panel joins between the cowl sections.
The frame is very similar to that of the Australian C44ACi, as are the trucks. The engine is the same, 7FDL-16 and the weight is similar. It seems likely that the NJ2 has exactly the same traction equipment as the C44ACi, with GEB30 traction motors.
M636CAre you familiar with the Chinese NJ2, GE model C38ACi? This looks like a six axle P42. It is, as the model number suggests, AC traction and weighs only 138 tonnes, about 14 tonnes heavier than a P42. It ha fabricated trucks designed by GE's Australian associate UGL and I think it uses relatively light weight GEB 30 traction motors.
I know only what the web provides. According to TheDieselshop.us the GE C38AChe has GE 752 traction motors. All I could find says they are DC.
M636CWhile there was an advantage in having only four motors with a paasenger locomotive with DC traction, since the motor speed was directly proportional to the voltage across each motor, since the motor speed is controlled largely by the frequency, so there should be less objection to having six motors.
I can only talk about Germany. There was no objection against 3 traction motors but three axles in a single truck. Experience of DB with class 103 (Co-Co, 125 mph) led to decision not to accept 3-axle trucks on high-speed locomotives any more.
The Federal Railroad Administration published the "Safety Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Bogie Concepts": https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26380
The report evaluates 14 truck designs from different manufacturers for speeds between 87 mph (140 kph) and 233 mph (375 kph). Interestingly all trucks are two axle. The study checked among others the compliance with the PRIIA 305 specification and possibly needed additional measures.
M636CWhile such a locomotive would cost more than an A1A-A1A, it would have much greater tractive power, and adhesion might be a problem with an A1A-A1A passenger locomotive since it would be much lighter than a ET44C4 for example.
The PRIIA specification requires only 65,000 lbs minimum starting tractive effort. If the manufacturer can achieve it with the A-1-A configuration he will use it.
M636CI think the NJ2 is also a monocoque like the P42, but it might be a cowl. I'm not sure how you could tell.
I'm quite sure that the NJ2 is a frame-cowl locomotive based on the C44-9W. The P42's monocoque was designed by Krupp and the weight proposal MPI/GE gave for a dual power locomotive compared to the competition indicates that it is again a frame-cowl locomotive like all MPI locomotive. MPI/GE already stated that they will use 3-axle truck for their Dual Power proposal.
None of the American builder has ever designed a monocoque AFAIK. Not saying they can't do it but they'll pay dearly as the European builders did in the beginning.Regards, Volker
Shadow the Cats owner Look at the CAT C280 already certifed for Tier4 emissions it is their primary Very Large Mine truck engine so they know it is reliable. RPM is 1000 so low Speed no issues with needing a reduction gear for the Alternator. 15 feet long just over 11 feet tall and under 7 feet wide. It should fit into a Full width carbody.
Look at the CAT C280 already certifed for Tier4 emissions it is their primary Very Large Mine truck engine so they know it is reliable. RPM is 1000 so low Speed no issues with needing a reduction gear for the Alternator. 15 feet long just over 11 feet tall and under 7 feet wide. It should fit into a Full width carbody.
The C280/3600 CAT engines were initially designed for natural gas compression (to drive shaft driven compressors.) No 3600 engine has been used in a haul truck application from my recollection, even pre C175, CAT utilized the 3524B engine for their largest mine truck to output 3,370 (net hp).
I’d have to say the C175 is the perfect engine for light/passenger rail applications. Some lesser informed individuals will try to dispute that.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Peter, I'm not propagating the C280. My feeling is they are too large for a passenger locomotive fitting the mentioned Amtrak loading gauge. Usually the weight would it make unlikely too, but another precondition was an A-1-A truck, when Shadow the Cats owner brought this up. As said the PRIIA specification requires 20'' passageways. The question is how thick are the ribs in a semi-monocoque. But with A-1-A truck most likely a simple frame-cowl design is possible.Regards, Volker
Peter,
I'm not propagating the C280. My feeling is they are too large for a passenger locomotive fitting the mentioned Amtrak loading gauge. Usually the weight would it make unlikely too, but another precondition was an A-1-A truck, when Shadow the Cats owner brought this up.
As said the PRIIA specification requires 20'' passageways. The question is how thick are the ribs in a semi-monocoque. But with A-1-A truck most likely a simple frame-cowl design is possible.Regards, Volker
Are you familiar with the Chinese NJ2, GE model C38ACi?
This looks like a six axle P42. It is, as the model number suggests, AC traction and weighs only 138 tonnes, about 14 tonnes heavier than a P42. It ha fabricated trucks designed by GE's Australian associate UGL and I think it uses relatively light weight GEB 30 traction motors.
I purchased a Bachmann model NJ2 to display next to an Athearn P42 just to show the similarity.
While such a locomotive would cost more than an A1A-A1A, it would have much greater tractive power, and adhesion might be a problem with an A1A-A1A passenger locomotive since it would be much lighter than a ET44C4 for example.
While there was an advantage in having only four motors with a paasenger locomotive with DC traction, since the motor speed was directly proportional to the voltage across each motor, since the motor speed is controlled largely by the frequency, so there should be less objection to having six motors.
I'm sure the Chinese would be happy to make an NJ2 available for testing by Amtrak in China where there would be a number of high speed lines for such tests.
I think the NJ2 is also a monocoque like the P42, but it might be a cowl. I'm not sure how you could tell.
But I'm not a big fan of the Cat C280. The marine uses of the 3600 were not unmitigated successes, either, even compared to competition that was far from perfect.
It was the big MK5000s that had vee-type 3600 engines. When rebuilt with 645F3 enfines, they got new hoods. There might be some clues in a dimensioned drawing of an MK5000.
The DB fitted some Russian built 232s with 3600 engines, didn't they? They had in line 3608 engines, I think.
VOLKER LANDWEHRI would not bet. Taking the F125's C175 as comparison, the C280 is with 11'-2'' about 3 ft higher and with 6'-8'' approx. 8 inch wider. I don't know if 1'-6'' walkways are sufficient.
I found an information in the PEIIA 305-005 specification. Aisle ways and passageway width is minimum 20':Regards, Volker
The C280 is a development of the older 3600 series which was tried in locomotives in the USA in the 1980s without much success. It would be heavier for a given power than the C175 and I would be surprised if Cat offered it. Of course, the E23, the EMD 710 is available with aftertreatment to tier 4 and would be a much easier design to sell for locomotive use.
timzLooks like one model of 12-cyl C280 is 13+ feet tall overall, which would rule it out. If it's actually 11+ ft, it would still have to sit on a depressed frame between the trucks.
Here is the data sheet the above C280's dimensions are from: http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/LEHM7106-01
Does it fit into a locomotive with a hight limit of 14'-8'' according to Amtrak loading gauge 05-1355? An EMD 710 is just 9' high, a GE Gevo 9'-2''.Regards, Volker
Shadow the Cats ownerLook at the CAT C280 already certifed for Tier4 emissions it is their primary Very Large Mine truck engine so they know it is reliable. RPM is 1000 so low Speed no issues with needing a reduction gear for the Alternator. 15 feet long just over 11 feet tall and under 7 feet wide. It should fit into a Full width carbody.
Looks like one model of 12-cyl C280 is 13+ feet tall overall, which would rule it out. If it's actually 11+ ft, it would still have to sit on a depressed frame between the trucks.
Shadow the Cats ownerLook at the CAT C280 already certifed for Tier4 emissions it is their primary Very Large Mine truck engine so they know it is reliable.
I think that is a non-road, not a locomotive Tier 4 certification. Locomotive NOx, HC, and CO emissions limits are about half of non-road. Not to say it can't be done, but it is quite some work do.
Shadow the Cats owner15 feet long just over 11 feet tall and under 7 feet wide. It should fit into a Full width carbody.
I would not bet. Taking the F125's C175 as comparison, the C280 is with 11'-2'' about 3 ft higher and with 6'-8'' approx. 8 inch wider. I don't know if 1'-6'' walkways are sufficient.
Thereare five companies asking questions. I'm quite sure that are EMD, Siemens, Bombardier, MPI/GE, and a 5th I can't name.
The first three have a base they can work on: F125, SC44 Charger, ALP-45DP. If the switch back to a slow running diesel they would start from scrap, very unlikely. MPI/GE has the GE Gevo Tier 4. So only the unknown questioner remains.
The PRIIA 305-005 specification allowed 2-axle and 3-axle trucks. MPI/Ge already announced n discoussions that they would need 3-axle trucks on dual power engines.Regards, Volker
OvermodFor the far less impressive example of a three-axle truck, I believe some of the German electric locomotives had good examples.
Here is the 3-axle truck of a DB class 103 electric locomotive with a maximum speed of 125 mph: https://books.google.de/books?id=sptJbbTH4awC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=db+103+drehgestelle+-ho+-n+-modellbahn*+-m%C3%A4rklin+-piko+-fleischmann+-roco&source=bl&ots=17GrPrUmz1&sig=MVk3dmbWorGBg3gYo0u8n2Ogji8&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij8uX6m_bcAhVBmuAKHQeQB4QQ6AEwEnoECCYQAQ#v=onepage&q=db%20103%20drehgestelle%20-ho%20-n%20-modellbahn*%20-m%C3%A4rklin%20-piko%20-fleischmann%20-roco&f=false
Four pre-production locomotives were built in 1965, the 145 production locomotives were built from 1970 on. It was the last high speed locomotive with 3-axle trucks ordered by DB.
The truck is a welded hollow-section frame with two crossbeams. It wasn't steerable but the center axle allowed an additional 0.32'' lateral movement.Regards, Volker
Edit: For those interested, here is a link to a current Siemens bogie catalog:
https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/components-and-systems/bogies-catalog-en.pdf
NorthWestIt would be interesting to see what a low unsprung weight six axle truck would look like.
Yes, that would be impressive.
For the far less impressive example of a three-axle truck, I believe some of the German electric locomotives had good examples. There are 'fast' versions of trucks like the FlexiFloat, too. If I'm not mistaken, a three-axle steerable truck dynamically guides better than a two-axle passive-steering truck, up to the point the geometrical advantages of two-wheel trucks become significant.
SD70DudeAs used under all the E-units, the Blomberg A1A truck has a excellent track record at speeds of up to 120 mph.
Though it does have a lot of unsprung weight, which Amtrak tried to get away from by using the not entirely trouble-free truck under the Genesis family.
It would be interesting to see what a low unsprung weight six axle truck would look like.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.