Paul Milenkovic3D printing?
I don't think "3D printing of locomotive noses" and "cost-effective" can be used in the same paragraph.
You might use 3D printing, probably of the type used for architectural spaces (I will find the explicit technical reference; it uses a large gantry and high-speed additive plastic to produce a 'wireframe' that is then filled with less expensive material) to create molds for panels that will be produced with more conventional (and le$$ expen$ive) methods. But that's just a one-time exercise. You wouldn't make production noses that way, and I'd be tempted to add that any nose design that actually needed to be produced via 3D printing ... with FRA strength and collision provisions inside ... might be a triumph of "design" over practicality in precisely the wrong Cesar Vergara style.
dakotafred daveklepper Hand-crafter compound-curved nose expensive to build. Otherwise, you are right. The Alco FA and PA nose is less complex. Would that be OK? Oh, yes!
daveklepper Hand-crafter compound-curved nose expensive to build. Otherwise, you are right. The Alco FA and PA nose is less complex. Would that be OK?
Hand-crafter compound-curved nose expensive to build.
Otherwise, you are right.
The Alco FA and PA nose is less complex. Would that be OK?
Oh, yes!
3D printing?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Firelock76 Buslist dakotafred Bring back EMD's E-series body! Nothing since has looked as streamlined and "American." Could they still meet FRA's new crash worthyness standards?
Buslist dakotafred Bring back EMD's E-series body! Nothing since has looked as streamlined and "American." Could they still meet FRA's new crash worthyness standards?
dakotafred Bring back EMD's E-series body! Nothing since has looked as streamlined and "American."
Bring back EMD's E-series body! Nothing since has looked as streamlined and "American."
Could they still meet FRA's new crash worthyness standards?
[/quote]
If you want to see what kind of crashworthiness can be built into a loco nose, find a copy of the specs for the front end of the original Shinkansen end-of-train cars. The curved pilot plate under that bullet nose concealed a multi-layer stack of steel plates - armor better than that on most battleships. Since the whole thing was only a few centimeters above the rails, NOTHING was going to get in there to damage or derail a train. OTOH, whatever it hit would probably be punted into low Earth orbit.
Aerodynamic considerations have caused the bullets to evolve into inverted grain scoops. I suspect the armor is still in there.
Chuck
carnej1 What Gensets are you referring to? The Genesis is not a Genset locomotive..
What Gensets are you referring to? The Genesis is not a Genset locomotive..
i was waiting to see how long it took for that question to be asked. I refrained just to see, took a lot longer than I thought it would.
Personally I can't see why not, there's a heckuva lot more "nose" on an E unit, or a PA for that matter, than a Genesis locomotive. Reenforcing it to modern crash standards should be easy, at least in my uneducated opinion.
carnej1What Gensets are you referring to? The Genesis is not a Genset locomotive..
Let's be charitable and say he was posting from a phone that didn't correct texting quite right...
No, on second thought, that wouldn't explain "gettint". Maybe he was posting from a mindset that didn't correct texting quite right?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Pimp my P-42?
The GE Genesis locomotives were beasts of their time, the 1980's and 90's. In my opinion the shape of the locomotive is not as important as the paint scheme which decorates it. The "modern" schemes like those on the Brightline locos and the Rocky Mountaineer look more like motorhomes than locomotives. I recall that the original GE P32 locomotives where pretty much like and other hood unit, but in the "Pepsi Can" scheme they looked great! http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/brightline-plan-for-miami-to-orlando-train-is-terrible-critics-say-7384403 http://www.rockymountaineer.com/en_CA_BC/routes_and_packages/canadian_rocky/first_passage_to_the_west
CandOforprogress2 Bringing new people to rails is impaortant and sexy hot looking locos is the start. That is what the auto industry has done with brands like Mustang and Pontiac
Bringing new people to rails is impaortant and sexy hot looking locos is the start. That is what the auto industry has done with brands like Mustang and Pontiac
If you think that the modern traveler gives two hoots in a windstorm about the exterior appearance of his common-carrier conveyance, you're hallucinating. The same is true of present-day rubber-wheelers, For every Mustang or Pontiac on the road there are a dozen RVs and pickups, most of which range from homely to butt-ugly.
In order to produce transportation at minimum cost, locomotive designers have to concentate on things that advance that requirement. "Pretty," isn't even on their priority list. Since aerodynamics is, they might produce, "Pretty," by accident. Or they might not...
Chuck (Who drives ugly vehicles with lots of interior space)
Well, one might start with the fact it's a locomotive...
Since the 1950s, in areas where passenger trains are taken seriously, *MUs (DMUs/DEMUs/EMUs) have become fairly dominant. They're cheaper to maintain, and more fuel efficient.
quote above
Less expensive to maintain only with short trainis.
Otherwise more expebsuve, because each mu motor czr is essentially a locomotive. Can be lots more expensive.
NorthWestYup. The number is 225. I wonder if the states will wish they had bought the larger fuel tanks if the LD ones are built.
One aspect of these Tier IV compatible designs that I haven't come across - will the LD version have a large enough pee, er urea tank? Also, what does the LD version give up in order to squeeze in a larger fuel tank?
Back to topic, the EMD Spirit looks better to me but doesn't have an LD version yet AFAIK. Both it and the Siemens Charger are unproven in north American service, so I care much more that both locos will be reliable and maintainable.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
aegrotatio peharri It'd be nice to see Amtrak transition out of the first half of the 20th Century and start running modern diesel systems. So what is it about the Genesis locomotive, the first generation of which came out in 1992, that makes it part of the "first half of the 20th Century?"
peharri It'd be nice to see Amtrak transition out of the first half of the 20th Century and start running modern diesel systems.
So what is it about the Genesis locomotive, the first generation of which came out in 1992, that makes it part of the "first half of the 20th Century?"
But that said, my comment wasn't ruling out locomotives like the Genesis altogether. Like I said, bi-directional push-pull sets like the Intercity 125 are a reasonable choice especially for longer distance journeys. I'm a little surprised that given the obvious advantages, Amtrak doesn't modernize its fleet, or at least modernize how it uses what it has.
[quote user="Firelock76"]
When you come down to it it wouldn't take much effort for GE to build passenger diesels that were ALCO PA or FA lookalikes, but the thing is most Amtrak passengers could care less what the locomotives look like, as long as they get the job done.
I was looking at a photo of a PA the other day and wondered if the "slice of cheese" provides better wind tunnel results than the PA or, for that matter, an E7.
As for the P42, it does have more in common with an E8 than with what's coming out of Siemens or Progress Rail today.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
peharriIt'd be nice to see Amtrak transition out of the first half of the 20th Century and start running modern diesel systems.
CSSHEGEWISCH Redundancy was a fringe benefit in the E-unit arrangement. E's had two V-12's because EMD was avoiding using turbochargers on their prime movers and did not have a single engine that could produce 2000-2250 HP like the 244 in the PA's.
Redundancy was a fringe benefit in the E-unit arrangement. E's had two V-12's because EMD was avoiding using turbochargers on their prime movers and did not have a single engine that could produce 2000-2250 HP like the 244 in the PA's.
In the long run EMD was right. In the rush to get into the post-war passenger diesel market ALCO didn't "torture-test" the 2,000HP 244 engine as well as they should have, and we all know what happened afterward.
Got that from a "Classic Trains" article on ALCO PA's that came out several years ago.
As a matter of fact I've got a book written by a former Erie engineer who HATED the PA's. He said the most important accessory you could have on a PA was a fire extinguisher.
Anything wrong with the Siemen's Intercity 125 inspired trainsets for this, that they're doing for All Aboard Florida? I recall seeing a recent report with Joe Boardman explicitly stating he'd like to buy more locomotives like those being used for that project after visiting the Siemens factory.
It'd be nice to see Amtrak transition out of the first half of the 20th Century and start running modern diesel systems. They're probably not going to use DMUs for LDs, but there's no reason why they can't use push-pull bi-directional trainsets, and they look sleek and modern too.
You are so right. There must be redundancy as when E8s pulled most
of our passenger trains. E8s had TWO prime movers and TWO steam
generators.
Considering the recent Amtrak decision to run many trains that were formerly pulled by two locomotives with only one, and the spate of engine failure related delays that resulted, I wonder if Locomotives with two diesel engines would be in order? MPExpress54 anyone?
Looks kinda nice, and for you video fans it looks like the LED lamps are compatible with digital video now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipu4cTNdqLo
Of the Amtrak option, 75 are corridor version and 150 are the LD version with larger fuel tanks. Of course, it's an option, so anything can happen.
Yup. The number is 225. I wonder if the states will wish they had bought the larger fuel tanks if the LD ones are built.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.