http://www.goerie.com/article/20111210/NEWS02/312109945/Sen-Casey-urges-slower-speeds-for-high-speed-rail-contracts
IMHO this backsliding would be very counter - productive. The senator mentions CHI - STL but other routes are potential 125 MPH diesel operations.
1. PHL - Harrisburg in case of CAT failure
2. Maybe the Detroit - CHI route in certain spots
3. A biggie -- The Richmond - Raleigh route until it is electrified
4. California HSR while under construction switching back and forth from HSR track to conventional.
5. MARC - Wash - Perryville to meet AMTAK requirements to prevent delays on that trackage.
I suspect that AMTRAK and others especially MARC want a compatible loco that can be used anywhere on its system. If GE cannot build a 125 diesel loco they are not the company we have been led to believe they are capable of being.
Something not mentioned is that specifications for the next gen diesel loco require certain acceleration numbers that freight locos and present AMTRAK locos cannot meet.
A hundred years of tradition unhampered by progress.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Sounds to me like the regieme's favorite suck up, Jeffery Imhelt, has somebody whispering in this PA Democrat US Senator's ear that GE can not build a 125 MPH loco. Sounds like horsefeathers to me, but why would GE put the story out??
Mac
Is there anything involved other than changing the gear ratio?
Phoebe Vet Is there anything involved other than changing the gear ratio?
I think it might require quill drive traction motor instead of nose hung to reduce the unsprung weight but I thought that the GE's that AMTRAK already had that.
creepycrank Phoebe Vet: Is there anything involved other than changing the gear ratio? I think it might require quill drive traction motor instead of nose hung to reduce the unsprung weight but I thought that the GE's that AMTRAK already had that.
Phoebe Vet: Is there anything involved other than changing the gear ratio?
Nope. Nose suspended 752's.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
110mph is really pushing it for nose suspended DC traction motors. Half the motor's weight is unsprung and really pounds away at the track. AC motors reduce the traction motor weight a bit, but the real solution is to mount the motors on the truck frame ala AEM7s.
Not just the weight of the traction motors, but also the total weight of the locomotive. I don't see how the requirement can be met without going to a medium-speed diesel, which GE doesn't produce, unlike CAT-EMD. They would have to partner with MTU or Cummins. An EVO or 710G is just to heavy for the power produced, in this type of service.
beaulieu Not just the weight of the traction motors, but also the total weight of the locomotive. I don't see how the requirement can be met without going to a medium-speed diesel, which GE doesn't produce, unlike CAT-EMD. They would have to partner with MTU or Cummins. An EVO or 710G is just to heavy for the power produced, in this type of service.
You mean a high speed diesel engine. The current EMD and GE engines are medium speed.
The P42s aren't particularly heavy. F59s have a weight problem. They are traditional EMD design, but the GE's have a monocoque carbody that is strong and fairly light weight.
Since quill drives have been around for a long time I would suspect that almost all patents pertaining to them have expired ?? so there should be no reason for GE not to use them other than " it has not been invented here " The new specifications for next gen AMTRAK passenger diesel lists 125 MPH , AC traction., faster acceleration than present P-42s, more trailing tonnage capacity, etc. These all point to AC quill drives ??
Unsprung weight reduction would seem to please the MOW persons when these diesels operate on HrSR or new HSR lines.
I can imagine that P-42s operating CHI - STL would beat the track down quite a bit
Also the Pennsylvanian uses P-42s PHL - HAR. soon to be 125 MPH trackage
blue streak 1 Since quill drives have been around for a long time I would suspect that almost all patents pertaining to them have expired ?? so there should be no reason for GE not to use them other than " it has not been invented here ".
Since quill drives have been around for a long time I would suspect that almost all patents pertaining to them have expired ?? so there should be no reason for GE not to use them other than " it has not been invented here ".
The first locomotives for the pioneering B&O 1895 electrification used quill drives, though I'm having a wee bit of trouble remembering the manufacturer.
- Erik
At this point some conclusions can be drawn that to go over 100 mph reliably the locomotive will have to have a lot of power - remember the requirement for 100KW HEP or equivalent to 1300 hp alone, and light weight with quill drive to not beat up the track. The EMD F59 is essentially a covered over GP59 with a heavy freight type platform frame. The EMD / Vossloh design already is certified for 125 MPH (200 kph) in Europe with quill drive and a bridge - truss type frame and quill drive.
Its interesting to note that Rock Island Rocket of 1937 was powered by the EMD TA locomotive with a 1200 HP Winton 201A diesel and pulled 3 or 4 lightweight cars at 110 mph. Lighting and heat in the cars were probably handled by batteries and axle driven generators. The FA was the predecessor of the FT with a bridge - truss frame but ran on AAR trucks with nose hung traction motors
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.