Trains.com

IDOT to select SIEMENS/CUMMINS locomotives

10456 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:50 PM

I can't speak to Amtrak or any of the commuter agencies, but freight railroads only want to see their engines in the shop every 92 days for their required Quarterly Inspection that is required by law.  Other than that they just want to put fuel and sand in the locomotive and dump the toilet holding tank.  Anything else is considered at maintenance queen - lounging in the shop.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Friday, December 27, 2013 12:27 PM

BaltACD

I can't speak to Amtrak or any of the commuter agencies, but freight railroads only want to see their engines in the shop every 92 days for their required Quarterly Inspection that is required by law.  Other than that they just want to put fuel and sand in the locomotive and dump the toilet holding tank.  Anything else is considered at maintenance queen - lounging in the shop.

Dump the toilet hold tank . . . every 92 days?   Ewwwww! Angry

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, December 27, 2013 3:47 PM

Paul Milenkovic

BaltACD

I can't speak to Amtrak or any of the commuter agencies, but freight railroads only want to see their engines in the shop every 92 days for their required Quarterly Inspection that is required by law.  Other than that they just want to put fuel and sand in the locomotive and dump the toilet holding tank.  Anything else is considered at maintenance queen - lounging in the shop.

Dump the toilet hold tank . . . every 92 days?   Ewwwww! Angry

Service truck that supplies fuel and sand also dumps the holding tank.  92 days for holding tank would be ripe.Dead

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, December 27, 2013 10:19 PM

Paul Milenkovic

Paul Milenkovic
Don't know, maybe they could partner with an overseas source on the trucks and quill drive for low track impact at high speeds, and the Genesis has a European truck design, no?  But going with anything but EMD or GE sounds scary.

I don't care how big Siemens is or how many people they employ in the U.S..  I was asking about reliability.

...

But I am skeptical of Diesel prime movers without proven railroad experience, even if they come from a U.S. supplier.  Maybe my concerns are unfounded, but they have nothing to do with "American trains need to be built here."

Posters have shown how both the GE and EMD/CAT high speed engines have had problems.  What prime movers that have proven railroad experience are you suggesting to use?  It's apparent from this thread the application of high speed rail diesel is so new and developing, that there is no history from which to draw comparisons.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, December 27, 2013 10:50 PM

What are the horsepower requirements for a diesel locomotive of this type? I can't imagine much more than 5000, and the GEVO-16 will get you close to 6000. A 16-710 will produce about 4300.

With these, weight and size may be issues, but these can be mitigated through an effective suspension.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 429 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:46 AM

NorthWest

What are the horsepower requirements for a diesel locomotive of this type? I can't imagine much more than 5000, and the GEVO-16 will get you close to 6000. A 16-710 will produce about 4300.

With these, weight and size may be issues, but these can be mitigated through an effective suspension.

The problem starts in going from 110 mph to 125 mph in the axle loading both sprung and unsprung. The example of the PR/EMD F175 locomotive is that there is no EMD freight locomotive content. 

By the way in Cummins introductory announcement they claimed that the QSK95 was "the highest horsepower high speed diesel"  at 4200hp @ 1800 rpm. I guess they are fixated on MTU ignoring the CAT C176 at 4700 hp @ 1800rpm

Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:44 PM

Okay, so around 4200-4700 HP. Thanks for the information, it will be interesting to see where this all goes.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:55 PM

creepycrank
...but it uses a CAT C175 diesel that has only been tested for a couple of years on some NS locomotives.

They are "hanger queens" that never get far from their home in Birmingham, AL.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Wednesday, January 1, 2014 9:11 AM

The technical spec that was put out  is the Amtrak PRIIA spec-which appears to have been generated internally. It can viewed on the web.

One would think that EMD had a built-in advantage on the IDOT bid, given that they have an order in hand...and are no doubt well along on set of shop drawings for the Cal DOT order.

It will be interesting to see what transpires when the IDOT order hits the rails-given the lack of institutional product knowledge in the field.I wonder how the field service function will be divided up between Siemens and Cummins.

CPM500

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