Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Overmod"] I were serious I'd ask whether the ACS64 Sprinters (we need a better nickname), which I think are superior to even AC-drive AEM-7s, could be adapted to match at least some of the HHP-8 performance envelope.[/quote] What should be adjusted? I don't see large differences between HHP-8 and ACS-64. My information is from the following sources: HHP-8: Data sheet MARC/Bombardier: <a href="http://www.sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/a5.pdf">http://www.sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/a5.pdf</a> ASC-64: Septa specification: <a href="https://www.septa.org/business/bid/100k/detail/High-Speed%20Electric%20Locomotives%20RFP%2014-237-JFK%20Initial%20Release%20121214%20(File%202%20of%202%20Technical%20Specification).pdf">https://www.septa.org/business/bid/100k/detail/High-Speed%20Electric%20Locomotives%20RFP%2014-237-JFK%20Initial%20Release%20121214%20(File%202%20of%202%20Technical%20Specification).pdf</a> Speeds For both the following is identical: max. design speed 135 mph; max operating speed: 125 mph HHP-8: 14 cars at max. speed; 18 cars at reduced speed; cars not specifid ACS-64: 18 Amfleet cars at 125 mpg (from Siemens data sheet); According Septa able to pull 14 cars of 160,000 lbs each Acceleration: For both: 5 miles in 5 minutes and 10 miles in 7.5 minutes. HHP-8: 1 locomotive + 8 cars ACS-64: 1 locomotive + 7 cars of 160,000 lbs each. For both locomotives the performance needs to be achieved with 1,000 kW HEP power use. HHP-8 has 6,000 kW continous power rating ACS-64 has 5,000 KW continous power rating and 6,400 kW maximum (short time) So where do you see need for adjustments? Regards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag