Boardman complaining about Diesels needing replacement

[D.Carleton]

longhorn1969

Amtrak could throw desperate EMD a bone and get new F125s near that rebuild price.

Those are the machines running $7 million a pop. Also, as the real railroads have eschewed exhaust treatment Amtrak should follow suit. Railroads are always swapping parts and supplies. If the railroads are not using it then you don't want it.

[CMStPnP]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Skirting vanished shortly after WW2

Not all of it.    CB&Q Zephyr cars used skirting and so did some of their E series locomotives.   Even the Rio Grande Zephyr cars into the 1980's still had some skirting in use.

Note how the Zephyr cars appear via the illusion of shadow to float above the rails in some camera shots............result of skirting along the frame that can be removed for maintenance..........you can see the difference between the gold and silver car and the all stainless steel cars as the train passes the camera below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCXx_c7qq04

Even though skirting is a PITA maintenence wise it gives the train more streamlined asthetics and adds to the panache......in my opinion.

Understand the costs of fabrication for a bulldog nose but even a F40PH looks better than a P42 and even with angular designs you can do nice things from a streamlining design perspective.........look at the angular windows on a skytop obs for example.

[longhorn1969]

Amtrak could throw desperate EMD a bone and get new F125s near that rebuild price.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

CMStPnP

Additionally, the new Passenger Locomotive carbodies are getting uglier and uglier in design.     Whatever happened to streamlining and skirts for the passenger cars that give the illusion via shadow that the train is floating in air as it appears to glide along the tracks.     Geez we are losing something here as a country.

 

Skirting vanished shortly after WW2.  It served little useful or aesthetic purpose and had to be removed whenever underbody equipment needed to be repaired or replaced.  Folding steps are also less common.

 

As far as locomotives are concerned, the EMD bulldog nose and to a lesser extent the Alco-GE flatnose were expensive to fabricate.  Siemens has done a reasonable design job with the ACS-64 and the Charger.  Industrial design involves a lot more than appearances, fabrication and assembly need to be considered as part of the design package.

[D.Carleton]

oltmannd

schlimm

One would think re-engining, etc. would work.  The tank is not analogous in terms of the reasoning.  Military aircraft get that treatment.

NS isn't reengining their Dash 9 rebuilds.  Why should Amtrak?  Nothing wrong with the FDL engine.

Nope, nothing wrong at all with the FDL. I was thinking along the lines of rebuilding a P42 internally moreorless into a HSP46.

[CMStPnP]

Additionally, the new Passenger Locomotive carbodies are getting uglier and uglier in design.     Whatever happened to streamlining and skirts for the passenger cars that give the illusion via shadow that the train is floating in air as it appears to glide along the tracks.     Geez we are losing something here as a country.

[oltmannd]

schlimm

One would think re-engining, etc. would work.  The tank is not analogous in terms of the reasoning.  Military aircraft get that treatment.

 

NS isn't reengining their Dash 9 rebuilds.  Why should Amtrak?  Nothing wrong with the FDL engine.

[schlimm]

One would think re-engining, etc. would work.  The tank is not analogous in terms of the reasoning.  Military aircraft get that treatment.

[D.Carleton]

oltmannd

So, back to the topic.  Why would P42s need replacing?  You can rebuild them back to "like new" performance and reliability, so why replace them?  You might consider retrofitting to AC propulsion ala NS's Dash 9s (their contemporaries), but I don't seen any reason to replace them for the power on LD trains.  There's nothing to drive the ROI.

Completely agree with Mr Oltmann's point. The P42s are part of the Dash 9 family. NS and BNSF seem to be having success rebuilding their Dash 9s into AC traction. GE inverters have gotten smaller since the AC4400 days. The Krupp designed Genesis trucks will accept an AC motor as evidenced br the Genesis Series 2. When it comes to space under the hood then that may be all the more reason to replace the FDL16 with a GEVO12. A new passenger locomotive is now running $7 million per copy. I'm certain a rebuilt P42, even with a new plant, can be done for one-third that price. Furthermore the job could be done by GE in Erie (jobs).

[BaltACD]

CMStPnP

 

oltmannd

So, back to the topic.  Why would P42s need replacing?  You can rebuild them back to "like new" performance and reliability, so why replace them?  You might consider retrofitting to AC propulsion ala NS's Dash 9s (their contemporaries), but I don't seen any reason to replace them for the power on LD trains.  There's nothing to drive the ROI. 

Likewise, I thought Amtrak moved to the P42 design for the same reason the Army moved to the M1 tank, the basic architecture is such you can just keep recycling the body over and over again and only change out the components, saving untold millions of dollars over the much extended life of the locomotive.     I thought with the newer and uglier P42's we would be stuck with that design close to 100 years with the new approach of rebuild vs retire.

Technology moves on in many levels - Diesels that Amtrak gets for the future must be PTC compliant with the PTC systems that the Class 1 carriers have designed and are implementing and testing as I write this.  The system that Amtrak has on the NEC is not the system that the Class 1 carriers are using.  

Computerization of diesel electric locomotives have progressed over the lifespan the the P40's & P42's, probably to a point where it is not economic to rebuild a worn out carbody, and carbodys do wear in railroad service.  I would expect, if the Army comes up with new ideas for tank warfare, there will be a M2 or some other kind of tank design to supplant the M1.

[CMStPnP]

oltmannd

So, back to the topic.  Why would P42s need replacing?  You can rebuild them back to "like new" performance and reliability, so why replace them?  You might consider retrofitting to AC propulsion ala NS's Dash 9s (their contemporaries), but I don't seen any reason to replace them for the power on LD trains.  There's nothing to drive the ROI.

Likewise, I thought Amtrak moved to the P42 design for the same reason the Army moved to the M1 tank, the basic architecture is such you can just keep recycling the body over and over again and only change out the components, saving untold millions of dollars over the much extended life of the locomotive.     I thought with the newer and uglier P42's we would be stuck with that design close to 100 years with the new approach of rebuild vs retire.

[CMStPnP]

schlimm

 

 

CMStPnP

It's intermixed with the Diesel Fuel during combustion and reduces significantly the harmful emissions that Diesel Engines produce.  

 

 

DEF

Thanks for the correction, guess I should read the owners manual.    It is really, really nice to only have to take the car in every 10,000 miles for lube and oil and have the car be smart enough to do menial tasks for you, like adjusting the headlights and cruise control.     Makes for a more relaxing trip.

[oltmannd]

So, back to the topic.  Why would P42s need replacing?  You can rebuild them back to "like new" performance and reliability, so why replace them?  You might consider retrofitting to AC propulsion ala NS's Dash 9s (their contemporaries), but I don't seen any reason to replace them for the power on LD trains.  There's nothing to drive the ROI.

[schlimm]

CMStPnP

It's intermixed with the Diesel Fuel during combustion and reduces significantly the harmful emissions that Diesel Engines produce.  

DEF

[Overmod]

CMStPnP

It's intermixed with the Diesel Fuel during combustion and reduces significantly the harmful emissions that Diesel Engines produce.

What incredible alternate universe are you posting from where this is done? 

In any system I have ever seen (and that's not a particularly small number) the DEF is an aqueous urea solution that is injected into the exhaust gas stream, well away from the valves and any turbo components (let alone the combustion chamber or injectors!) to perform the things that it does.

That is not to say you can't put some aqueous solutions of other substances into the charge air, or even inject them in special circuits (the Snow methanol systems are one example).  But to my knowledge, urea DEF is NOT one of those solutions, and for a fairly good number of reasons shouldn't be.

[CMStPnP]

oltmannd

DEF is diesel exhaust fluid.  In the automotive world, it's often called "AdBlue".

It's intermixed with the Diesel Fuel during combustion and reduces significantly the harmful emissions that Diesel Engines produce.    So much so that a Mercedes Diesel engine in my Alabama built ML350 SUV pollutes far less than a gas engined American brand car.    Whats even more interesting is my ML350 SUV is about a full ton in weight if not more and it gets better mileage than most American Sedans that are smaller and weigh less.    The best part of course is with the greater torque and other improvements to the Diesel the Germans designed, I can get away with a 4 cylinder engine with approx the same pickup and acceleration if it had been a 6 cyclinder.

Unfortunate for the United States,  the Germans are pulling back in marketing clean burning Diesel engines over here because most Americans are afraid to buy one due to old stereotypes and fear they won't be able to find a service station that sells Diesel.     No longer can you buy one in a GLE350 (which replaces the ML 350).    The AdBlue fluid is fairly cheap if you buy it yourself but it is pretty expensive if you buy it via the dealership.

It's a good technology though.  The new clean burning Diesels do not knock as much as the old ones and most of the smell is gone as well after the Blue fluid cleans the exhaust.

[oltmannd]

DEF is diesel exhaust fluid.  In the automotive world, it's often called "AdBlue".

[PJS1]

What is DEF fluid?

[NorthWest]

They will need urea (DEF), but Amtrak generally relies on truck-based contractors for refueling as it is (not the railroads) so these contractors will simply need to carry a supply. Because trucks need it, they already might.

[josephr33]

I believe the Sprinters will need DEF fluid for the aftertreatment system similar to current diesel trucks.  Correct me if I'm wrong but Tier IV freight diesels don't need DEF fluid.  This could pose a refueling problem for long distance trains since DEF would not be available for mid route refueling.  Of course, I suppose the DEF tanks could be made large enough for full cross country trips.  Most semis only need a DEF refill about every three times you refill the diesel.

[blue streak 1]

WANNA bet that for many cases they will be interchangeable.  Would just have to fuel regional spriters more  oten ?                                                

[NorthWest]

Boardman is talking about a speculated 150-unit Charger order to replace the P42DCs. These would have larger fuel tanks and other detail differences.

[CMStPnP]

OK I am curious here because I thought there was an order placed with Siemens that is being filled as I type this for new Sprinter Locomotives for the Midwest High Speed Compact?    So I am curious, is that order not enough for Amtrak?    Do they need to replace more locomotives?      Mr Boardman stated that unfortunately for LD or outside of the NEC trains, Amtrak cannot just use it's profits to replace diesels used for LD trains.    Instead there has to be a formula for States to pay for that replacement program or for Congress to approve specifically the money for replacement.