July TRAINS item on electrification - the "FL9" solution?

[Anonymous]

On the FL9 versus the Fairbanks Morse engine issue - I remember reading somewhere (probably TRAINS) that EMD threatened New Haven fairly overtly that if they chose the Fairbanks Morse engine, a lot of the GM cars going by New Haven would be switched (to trucks I guess).

Again, the FL9 eventually proved itself to be a hell of a locomotive, but the story, if true, speaks to GM's (and later GE's) ability to sway buyers their way.

ALCO, Baldwin, Fairbanks Morse, and others, weren't also huge railroad clients, like GM and GE were.  (Fact that GM made a superior product, also helped, don't get me wrong - but it's an interesting aside.)

Well, that brings me to another supposition.  Since the Milwaukee was an unabashed FM customer, at least for it's Olympian Hiawatha, I wonder if they ever considered producing a version of the dual mode P-12-42 aka "Speed Merchant" that could run under Milwaukee's 3kv catenary, rather than using the Erie-builds the whole way from Chicago to Seattle?  Did the OH ever use Joes as helpers for the FM-powered version, or was the three unit FM consist sufficient across the system?

Would that same cost differential apply regarding the Erie-builds vs the Speed Merchants?

[MichaelSol]

Well, that's a good example, albeit I can see a bit of an aberation regarding the westbound Joe into Avery being the same Joe for the eastbound out of Avery.  If that's the way it was done, then so be it, but was it normal SOP for the inbound Joe at Avery on #261 to also be the outbound Joe for #262? 

Oh, I doubt it was mandatory. On March 29, 1973, notes show that E78 came in on #261TC27 at 12:01 p.m., was turned, inspected, and left on #264, a 5500 ton train, at 4 p.m.. Happened to be that #264 was the next train out, rather than #262. E71 was placed on Advance 262S29 as it was leaving Avery about 40 minutes before #261 arrived.

However, in the example of the four hotshot trains each way, the fleet numbers of 32 SD40-2s and 4 Joes were what made it work. The individual SD unit ID numbers or Joe ID numbers weren't necessarily relevant from the standpoint of making an economic calculation, as specific locomotives were also cycling through other trains as well.

 

[MichaelSol]

I take it also that the idea of an abreviated electrification was never studied, aka instead of keeping the electrification from Avery to Harlowtown, reduce it to Avery-Haugen/Butte-Whitehall/Ringling-Martinsdale respectively.  Again, it comes down to the cost of maintaining catenary where needed (with that 5,400 hp per unit under wire) but eliminating it where diesel mode (at 3,000 hp per unit) would suffice.

The cost of building the catenary was an obstacle, but not the cost of maintaining it.

One of the compelling arguments General Electric made to MILW in 1972 for completing the "Gap" was that the use of a continuously electrified section would increase the normal efficiencies associated with electrification. With the two separated sections, maintenance costs per hp were about 47% of the costs of maintaining an equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower. This was high for a heavy electrification and due to several factors including the cost of operating two separate maintenance facilities, two separate fleets, and relatively shorter runs by the electric locomotives. By making a continuous section, and as long as possible, GE estimated that MILW could get its electric power maintenance costs down to the expected 30% of equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower.

I have the GE Econometric program used in the study, and as a "for example" input the cost of a dual mode locomotive and compared that to the cost of full Electrification, Harlowton to Tacoma, and compared that to full Dieselization as well, making a variety of assumptions regarding growth rate of traffic, inflation, and utilizing real costs of diesel fuel and electric power, 1974-2004, assuming a 15 year economic service life of the Dual Mode locomotives, and for a regular Diesel-electric, and 30 years for the straight electric, as well as a 9% annual interest charge or lease service charge. This assumed a 2.7% annual traffic growth over 30 years, whereas the actual traffic growth in the electrified territory, 1970-1977, averaged 8% per year, and had averaged 5% per year, 1960-1970. The significance of this point is that, again, an unjustified conservatism in the use of estimates grossly underestimated the impact of the decision, and in this case, the higher growth percentages strongly leveraged the outcomes in favor of the Electrification, but those numbers were not generated by the studies, and the executives reviewing the studies did not have a realistic range of estimates presented to them.

In addition, the numbers generated below were not based on the numbers used by the studies, but rather the actual power and fuel costs that existed over the thirty years since the studies were made. The studies, in hindsight, grossly underestimated the fuel cost changes, and grossly overestimated the price changes in electric power. Indeed, the studies used an average increase of 1% per year in electric power costs, even while acknowledging that, historically, costs had continually declined.

In these comparisons, the lease or interest charges on the locomotives is included in both the capital cost calculation and the operating cost, as the program was looking at "annual cost" of operation being the total cash flow, and full cost of financing charges (compared to NPV) rather than "operating" expense from a strictly accounting standpoint.

Capital cost, 30 years, NPV

Dual Mode SD40-2    $56,776,072

Full Electrification     $23,781,752

Full Dieselization       $39,417,480

Total 30 year Operating Costs (fuel, power, interest/lease charges, maintenance, inventory, inspection, lubricants)

Dual Mode SD40-2    $1,137,396,413

Full Electrification        $364,418,585

Full Dieselization        $1,048,739,950

Anything that would have diminished the role of the straight electric would have just cost money. And it's just hard to extract any operating savings from the Dual Mode system because of the higher capital cost and financing charges not only cost more, but welded that system to the rapidly escalating diesel fuel charges of the next 30 years, compared to electric power costs which actually declined from $.049/kwh in 1974 to $.048/kwh in 2004 (industrial rate), while diesel fuel went from $.096/gal. to $1.64, a 1700% increase.

Now, a qualification. These numbers are generated for an existing electrification, contemplating a 212 mile extension or supplementation. It is system specific and includes a variety of cost replacement factors for existing trolley poles and rectifier supplementation necessary for full electrification, signal alterations necessary for full-dieselization, etc, and includes here, for instance, a substantial credit to the capital costs of full dieselization/DM of the salvage value of the copper in the existing system, as well as a similar credit to the cost of full-electrification of the depreciated cost of existing Diesel-electrics that would be released for service elsewhere. It is unique for the specific system at the specific point in time for its specific needs. These are not the capital costs of electrifying the resulting 880 mile system from scratch and can't be seen as "showing" electrification as cheaper than alternative systems for any kind of a generalized system from an investment standpoint, as that would require a different calculation.

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM must have a real taste for irony since the Speed Merchant (P12-42) was an even more specialized application than the FL9.  Only four of them were built (2 for NH, 2 for B&M) and only those on NH had third-rail shoes.  They were not suitable for any purpose other than pulling Talgo or similar trains.

Similarly, the Baldwin RP210H used a torque-converter drive to presumably eliminate many of the complexities of a standard electric drive.  The addition of third-rail shoes and other control equipment to the NH power negated this theoretical advantage.

Question for Michael Sol:  Were the box-cab electrics on MILW also equipped to run in multiple with diesels in a fashion similar to the Joes? 

[oltmannd]

Too, there is a vibration problem. The equipment that is not being used doesn't just sit there while the other subsystem is operating. In electric mode, the lubricants in the diesel engine are all being shaken down off the cylinder walls and out of the bearings. And bearings don't like to just sit in one spot and vibrate. Neither do piston rings. In diesel mode, all those important electrical contacts are just sitting there, breathing the nice moist or dirty air for 1,000 miles of their journey.

Non-issues.  RRs regularly tow dead power hundreds of miles at a shot with no adverse effect.  Surface tension of the oil film will hold plenty of oil where it's need for quite a while.  You only have to pre-lube the engine after it's been dead for 2 days or more. 

I have no doubt that there is a difference between a one-time tow, for however many hundreds of miles, and a daily characteristic of operation. Can't see an analogy between a 400 mile tow once in a while, and a regular daily 600 mile run, up to 200,000 miles per year. These just aren't comparable. There is a 50,000% difference in the cycles, assuming one tow cycle per year, compared to the operating cycles.

Even if the tow cycle was once a month, the engine would have to last 4,166 years to experience the equivalent exposure to non-operating vibration and buffeting motion that the engine experiences in a single year of normal operation.

This is an extremely poor sampling comparison and simply cannot be the basis for a valid conclusion.

The diesel engine itself is a much larger source of damaging higher frequency vibration than transmitted through the suspension.  A half a G at 1/2 to 2 Hz doesn't have enough power to hurt anything.

This is refering to an operating locomotive, operating on a trolley while the diesel engine is off.

The switch between electric and diesel on an AC traction dual mode loco would be similar to a rotary DB switch on an EMD or set of contactors on a GE on a current diesel loco.  A few days of non-use in a filtered, pressurized electrical cabinet wouldn't hurt'em even a little bit - particularly compared to what happens to them under normal use when they break an arc.

Ahhh .. "filtered" ... "pressurized." Code words for "filter not changed," "seal broke", "compressor failed." More parts. "A few days." Again, this doesn't recognize the daily operating cycle of day in and day out. I have no doubt it would be better than the "open" cabinets of the GE Boxcabs and Joes, even at 3,400 volt DC, even opening and closing constantly compared to continous operation, and even in extremes of service conditions.

 

OK.  Lets try an analogy.  Using a set of GE contactors to switch between the traction alternator and traction transformer on a dual mode locomotive would be like using locomotive battery knife switch to operate a flashlight.

Trying to damage engine parts letting a shut down diesel travel over the RR is like trying to mix paint by putting the can in the trunk of a Rolls Royce and driving on an interstate.  It's about energy.  You can tow power dead on a 50% duty cycle, a day off and a day on, year in and year out an not do a bit of damage.  The lubrication at start up will be just fine. 

You're pretty savy with economics and accounting, but leave the engineering to those who practice it!

[MichaelSol]

Question for Michael Sol:  Were the box-cab electrics on MILW also equipped to run in multiple with diesels in a fashion similar to the Joes? 

Yes, a similar system was developed by H.R. Morgan in 1957 and allowed the Boxcabs to MU with Diesel-electrics.

 

[MichaelSol]

You're pretty savy with economics and accounting, but leave the engineering to those who practice it!

Ha!

It is true that I stopped renewing my membership in the Surface Chemistry section of the American Chemical Society in 1984. I was practicing law at that point, and wasnt't going back into the field. However, during my ten years with the USDA, and my reason for having that particular membership, was because one of my odd duties -- didn't consume a lot of day to day work -- at USDA was to be a primary investigator at the Metallurgical Fatigue and Surface Chemistry Laboratory. Tell me all about the engineering and stress on metal of vibration and environment.

My supervisor only had a BA in chem, whereas I was finishing a doctorate in chemistry and had the bachelor Chem E and so she did the administering and I did the chemistry. This involved study of surface erosion dynamics and stress application to various metals and alloys in various environments, determining effects both by periodic examination through hundreds of thousands of stress cycles using a Carl Zeiss Metallurgical microscope as well as measurement to failure through fatigue testing under varying levels of stress.

You are just guessing, whereas I do, in fact, bring a specific background in metallurgical analysis and testing to my conclusion based on specific professional experience in design, testing and evaluation of metal fatigure and surface erosion.

I'm not going to write a dissertation here, nor respond specifically to your condescending remark, but you almost have the key, you are just holding it backwards.

It is indeed a matter of energy.

And you do not, nor will you ever, have the sample necessary to reach the conclusion you feel strongly about, unless somebody dedicates a diesel locomotive to hauling around, starting it up and shutting it down two or three times a day while rolling it a few hundred miles at a time between shutdowns, and doing this for between 8 and 30 years. However, energy will transfer to cylinder walls and bearings. It's slow, but it will happen from normal vibration. And it will cause site specific erosion, particularly if the engine, as many do, stop in a specific configuration each time. And with a dual purpose locomotive, you would have many more hundreds of thousands of such cycles than you would ever have in the normal operation of an occasional tow of a locomotive.

 

[Tom Curtin]

Some comments on the history and evolution of the FL9

1. It is true that the initial idea by NH management for a dual power locomotive back in the early 50s was to take some load off the railroad's Cos Cob, CT power plant. But by the time the EMD FL9's were actually ordered in 1956 this strategy had changed completely because the RR was under control of a severely misguided management that considered the whole idea of electrification obsolete and was determined to replace all existing diesel and electric passenger power with FL9s.

2. NH was not short of electric locomotives when they ordered the FL9s. In fact they retired a number if fine straight electrics before their time.

3. Both FM and Alco issued to the NH a proposal for a dual power locomotive. However, at the time the strategy was under the control of a manager who was fanatically pro-EMD and wouldn't hear of any other builder's designs. No looking for bears behind trees on that one, those are the facts, pure and simple.

4. The FL9's have had an utterly amazing career for a number of owners. Really amazing when you consider how badly they were neglected in midlife by a couple of bankrupt owners.

5. Before Metro North replaced them with the GE "Gennie" units the DC power option was non-functional on just about all of them, and they were operating on diesel into GCT, despite laws to the contrary. A few are still running on MN today, but not into GCT.

Despite their long service lives, all the research on their history supports that they were originally born due to a totally misguided strategy.   The New Haven blew away tons of capital on this --- capital they didn't have in the late 50s, and no doubt that strategy hastened the company's bankruptcy.

 

[Anonymous]

I take it also that the idea of an abreviated electrification was never studied, aka instead of keeping the electrification from Avery to Harlowtown, reduce it to Avery-Haugen/Butte-Whitehall/Ringling-Martinsdale respectively.  Again, it comes down to the cost of maintaining catenary where needed (with that 5,400 hp per unit under wire) but eliminating it where diesel mode (at 3,000 hp per unit) would suffice.

The cost of building the catenary was an obstacle, but not the cost of maintaining it.

I remember vaguely one of your posts from a while back when you discussed the decision making involved in the eventually abandonment of the Milwaukee electrification.  You had worked on this first hand if I remember correctly, and the analysis you and your coworkers came up with showed that maintaining the electrification was preferable to abandoning it, yet management chose the latter supposedly due to the economics of standardization.

One question:  What was the analysis of the electric locomotive situation vis-a-vis remaining useful service life of the Joes et al and the cost of buying new electrics to replace the 50 year old boxcabs during the discussion of whether to continue the electrification or not?  Can we assume the Joes still had 20 or 30 years left in them in 1974?  What about the cost of replacing the older electrics (assuming they needed replacement)?

One thing I'm getting at is that a dual mode locomotive would not necessarily have been superfluous to the locomotive market if electrification was ended, since they could be stripped of their electrification equipment and still ran as straight diesel-electrics.  But if Milwaukee bought brand new electrics, they were stuck with them with no resale possibility if electrification was abandoned a few years later.

Another comparitive consideration is the recent plethora of new locomotive designs, aka hybrids, gen-sets, and now this new GE prototype where the power from dynamic braking is stored in battery packs rather than disapated as heat.  Why would a modern day dual mode locomotive be any more of a maintenance hassle than these current offerings?  Again, if the one thing keeping modern electrification from making a return is the up front costs of electrifying whole subdivisions, wouldn't segmented electrification of these subdivions and whole fleets of dual mode locomotives be a less expensive option than wholesale electrification and whole fleets of single mode electric locomotives?  Wouldn't dual mode locomotives have better resale prospects down the road than new electrics?

One of the compelling arguments General Electric made to MILW in 1972 for completing the "Gap" was that the use of a continuously electrified section would increase the normal efficiencies associated with electrification. With the two separated sections, maintenance costs per hp were about 47% of the costs of maintaining an equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower. This was high for a heavy electrification and due to several factors including the cost of operating two separate maintenance facilities, two separate fleets, and relatively shorter runs by the electric locomotives. By making a continuous section, and as long as possible, GE estimated that MILW could get its electric power maintenance costs down to the expected 30% of equivalent Diesel-electric horsepower.

I agree that electrifying the gap made sense as the distance between necessary stops was lengthened with time and locomotives could stay with consists conceivably across the country.  But there's still the issue of standardization.

I have the GE Econometric program used in the study, and as a "for example" input the cost of a dual mode locomotive and compared that to the cost of full Electrification, Harlowton to Tacoma, and compared that to full Dieselization as well, making a variety of assumptions regarding growth rate of traffic, inflation, and utilizing real costs of diesel fuel and electric power, 1974-2004, assuming a 15 year economic service life of the Dual Mode locomotives, and for a regular Diesel-electric, and 30 years for the straight electric,

Why assume only a 15 year economic service life for the dual mode?  Didn't the FL9's last 50 years? 

If we assume 15 years for diesel and 30 years for electric, wouldn't a more logical dual mode assumption be 20 to 25 years since it is operating part time as an electric and part time as a diesel?  The other consideration is that it is operating in diesel mode over less strenuous territory and in electric mode over the more strenuous territory, so it's diesel service life portion should last longer than diesels that went everywhere.

[MichaelSol]

I take it also that the idea of an abreviated electrification was never studied, aka instead of keeping the electrification from Avery to Harlowtown, reduce it to Avery-Haugen/Butte-Whitehall/Ringling-Martinsdale respectively.  Again, it comes down to the cost of maintaining catenary where needed (with that 5,400 hp per unit under wire) but eliminating it where diesel mode (at 3,000 hp per unit) would suffice.

The cost of building the catenary was an obstacle, but not the cost of maintaining it.

I remember vaguely one of your posts from a while back when you discussed the decision making involved in the eventually abandonment of the Milwaukee electrification.  You had worked on this first hand if I remember correctly, and the analysis you and your coworkers came up with showed that maintaining the electrification was preferable to abandoning it, yet management chose the latter supposedly due to the economics of standardization.

One question:  What was the analysis of the electric locomotive situation vis-a-vis remaining useful service life of the Joes et al and the cost of buying new electrics to replace the 50 year old boxcabs during the discussion of whether to continue the electrification or not?  Can we assume the Joes still had 20 or 30 years left in them in 1974?  What about the cost of replacing the older electrics (assuming they needed replacement)?

Well, I have three, four inch thick binders with memos and studies, MILW CMO, Electrical Engineer, VP-Management Services, Puget Sound Power & Light, Montana Power Co., Washington Water Power, LW Wylie, HR Morgan, EMD, GE, and an independent study arguing about this. Even H.F. Brown was consulted. Hard to make a cogent summary as they were all over the place.

By 1972, the Boxcabs were retired. E29ACB, E50AB and a C unit, E45ABCD, and I recall E37 or possibly E-39ABCD were still soldiering on, but by and large, the fleet was gone. I don't keep track of details on numbering, but that's what I recall. The Coast Division Electrification operation was suspended -- there wasn't anything left to run on it. Only the 12 Little Joes remained in service, 22 years after their purchase. The remaining Boxcabs moved to the Rocky Mountain Division.

The studies performed uniformly saw the electrification as the most economically viable alternative, but Chairman Quinn was seeking a consolidation of RM Division trackage with BN, and the electrification stood as an obstacle, not an asset from that viewpoint. He had inspected the division with BN officers in September, 1973 on the business car "Milwaukee" -- Quinn's personal car -- and they had offered no support for preserving the system. I was on that business car a couple of weeks later going over the same territory -- Quinn wasn't aboard  -- but QW Torpin, GM Lines West, was and he had been with the Quinn party. In no uncertain terms, he told me that the conversation had been purely about consolidation, and that the studies were simply disregarded as consolidation looked so important at that time.

The life span of the Little Joes apparently had everyone a little perplexed. Milwaukee electrification people used the standard 30 year lifespan -- attempting at each turn to appear conservative in their estimates -- a cumulative mistake in my view. GE studies ran the Joes out to 1985 -- a 35 year span for study purposes. Notes within those studies indicated that GE engineers had concluded on inspection that an "indefinite" life span could be justified for those rugged machines.

The 15 year estimate for Diesel-electrics for road service was based, again in a misguided effort to appear unbiased, on figures acknowledged by the Electrification Department in its studies. This was notwithstanding that the Company had just gone through three generations of road power -- GP30, GP40 and SD40-2 within a space of ten years. L.W. Wylie himself told me at the time that really the best they could expect from a road diesel was 8 years before overhaul and yet, even his study did not use that figure. If they had, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that full dieselization could not have been justified. Without that, it was "just close enough." GE used the 15 year figure in their Electrification study, as they were of course in the market to sell their own diesels and not about to spill the beans on the point. The Power Companies used the 15 year life span because that was what the Milwaukee and GE said to use.

The enactment of Laws, the manufacture of sausages, and Electrification decisions are all processes that cannot be viewed closely by the squeamish.

And that economic service life is simply an economic measure of the point at which major portions of the machine must be overhauled in order to continue to be able to use the machine efficiently, for both fuel efficiency and horsepower output. A rule of thumb has been that if it costs 50% or more of the original cost to overhaul it -- then it is a capitalized expenditure representing a "new" investment. On a typical road diesel, that's 8 years. On the machine you referred to, it was overhauled in this fashion no doubt several times during its 50 year life span. If you wish to spend the money, any machine can be kept running for 50 or more years. Specialized machines such as the one you refer to generally will receive those kinds of rebuilds/investments because the costs of the replacement machinery is proportionately higher, particularly where it is virtually a custom machine.

A dual purpose locomotive may not put the miles on the diesel engine "quite" as rapidly because of its alternative electric service, but in heavy service, this factor may only extend the economic service life to 10 years, if, say, the electric portion is used over 20% of the route miles.

But this is still below, for instance, the economic service life used in the study and, compared to the very conservative number utilized for straight electric service life, in reality simply does not, cannot, come close to offering the full benefits of electrification while at the same time offering higher capitalization and debt service costs than the Diesel-electric which more than offset the operating savings achieved by virtue of being a dual-purpose machine.

The DP machine would, in fact, offer operating savings. If financing was available at 1%, the savings might even be "net" over the cost of the Diesel-electric and the cost of the electrification overhead, but at market interest rates in effect since 1955, the financing charges are larger than the cost savings differential obtained by the spread between electric power costs and diesel fuel costs.

That could change.

 

[JT22CW]

Regarding existing US hybrids, both the EMD FL9 and GE P32ACDM have significant limitations on 3rd rail power. Amtrak has instructions to train crews to switch from 3rd rail power to diesel as soon as they are out of the tunnel, unless the diesel won't start, in which case they must notify the Dispatcher immediately, and then permission to run on electric will be given to run on 3rd rail to Croton-Harmon, where help can be obtained.

That's an impossibility.  There is no third rail between the tunnel just outside NY Penn and Spuyten Duyvil (across the bridge on the Bronx side), so if the diesel prime mover dies there, the train is stuck there; and (to the best of my knowledge) the third-rail contact shoe on the Amtrak P32AC-DMs cannot swivel around to use Metro-North under-running third rail—it's set for Long Island RR over-running third rail, and the contact shoes are retracted while in Metro-North territory.  Besides, limping in E-mode at 60 mph or less would hold up the 90-mph Hudson Line.

(Last year, when the Harlem River drawbridge was stuck open after being struck by barges and Amtrak had to divert Empire Service trains into Grand Central, the prime movers of Amtrak's P32AC-DMs had to be kept running within GCT—they were turned on the station's loop—until the mech department could realign the contact shoes for Metro-North third-rail.)

The FL9 had a useful service life running 50 years, didn't it?

Not quite.  The FL9s were highly troublesome, and most of the time during the 80s and earlier 90s, they were not running in dual mode within GCT; I remember seeing them quite often with prime-movers on at the GCT platforms (now whatever waiver was necessary for that, I do not know).  Amtrak's units seemed to be in better shape than the MTA's ones, and would operate in electric mode in both GCT and NY Penn.

Their longevity was most likely due to their being the only dual-mode locomotive available for a long time.  They were rebuilt in 1978 by Morrison Knudsen (but this didn't improve their dual-mode capabilities, as already noted); they were rebuilt yet again as 3000-horsepower FL9ACs by ABB Traction (which enabled Metro-North and Amtrak to run most trains with a single unit instead of two, and restored their dual-mode operation for the most part).  The A1A truck on the rear of the locos was to enable the frame to carry a steam generator, and was not for HEP.

The switch from 25 cycle AC to commercial 60 cycle (Hertz) power from local power companies was the death of the northeast electric locomotives (including the GG1), (except rectifier electrics that could be modified)

That's not the reason for the retirement of the GG1, which lasted until 1984 on NJ Transit (most GG1s had cracked frames, plus transformers that used PCBs besides).  The Northeast Corridor is still 11.5 kV 25 Hz from Shell (the Bronx) all the way to Washington Union Station, plus out to Harrisburg PA on the PRR Main Line.  Further, the E60 operated under 12 kV 60 Hz (Metro-North/CDOT) out to New Haven, AFAICR.  The key to operating on multiple voltages and frequencies is the automatic variable-tap transformer setup, which can change transformer taps "on the fly" when switching from one system to another.

Incidentally, there are two other electric motors that are prevalent on the NEC, those being the ALP-44 (NJT and SEPTA; has superficial resemblance to the AEM-7 and AEM-7AC) and the ALP-46 (a Bombardier Traxx variant, operated primarily by NJT but was also operated by Amtrak on the Clockers until that service ended last year).

Montreal and NJT have a request for proposal out on just such a beast. I were a frt RR, I'd certainly have my eye open watching this develop

RFP for the impossible.  No longer than 75 feet and no taller than 14 feet 9 inches with pantograph down; no heavier than 298,000 lbs on a B-B frame; catenary operation at 60 mph at least, and diesel operation at 100 mph?  No proposal will come from this.  (FTR, the GG1 was 79 feet long and 14' 10" tall with pantograph down.)

Also, let's make sure we all understand that the terms "diesel-electric", "dual-mode" and "hybrid" do not refer to the same kind of locomotive.  Diesel-electrics are your standard non-dual-mode road diesels (remember, the "steam killers"); dual-modes are the specialized locomotives that are specifically for electric operation in low-ventilation areas; and hybrids are diesel-electrics (not dual-mode) that store the energy from regenerative braking in batteries versus losing that energy as heat.

[beaulieu]

Regarding existing US hybrids, both the EMD FL9 and GE P32ACDM have significant limitations on 3rd rail power. Amtrak has instructions to train crews to switch from 3rd rail power to diesel as soon as they are out of the tunnel, unless the diesel won't start, in which case they must notify the Dispatcher immediately, and then permission to run on electric will be given to run on 3rd rail to Croton-Harmon, where help can be obtained.

That's an impossibility.  There is no third rail between the tunnel just outside NY Penn and Spuyten Duyvil (across the bridge on the Bronx side), so if the diesel prime mover dies there, the train is stuck there; and (to the best of my knowledge) the third-rail contact shoe on the Amtrak P32AC-DMs cannot swivel around to use Metro-North under-running third rail—it's set for Long Island RR over-running third rail, and the contact shoes are retracted while in Metro-North territory.  Besides, limping in E-mode at 60 mph or less would hold up the 90-mph Hudson Line. 

(Last year, when the Harlem River drawbridge was stuck open after being struck by barges and Amtrak had to divert Empire Service trains into Grand Central, the prime movers of Amtrak's P32AC-DMs had to be kept running within GCT—they were turned on the station's loop—until the mech department could realign the contact shoes for Metro-North third-rail.)

The FL9 had a useful service life running 50 years, didn't it?

Not quite.  The FL9s were highly troublesome, and most of the time during the 80s and earlier 90s, they were not running in dual mode within GCT; I remember seeing them quite often with prime-movers on at the GCT platforms (now whatever waiver was necessary for that, I do not know).  Amtrak's units seemed to be in better shape than the MTA's ones, and would operate in electric mode in both GCT and NY Penn.

Their longevity was most likely due to their being the only dual-mode locomotive available for a long time.  They were rebuilt in 1978 by Morrison Knudsen (but this didn't improve their dual-mode capabilities, as already noted); they were rebuilt yet again as 3000-horsepower FL9ACs by ABB Traction (which enabled Metro-North and Amtrak to run most trains with a single unit instead of two, and restored their dual-mode operation for the most part).  The A1A truck on the rear of the locos was to enable the frame to carry a steam generator, and was not for HEP.

The switch from 25 cycle AC to commercial 60 cycle (Hertz) power from local power companies was the death of the northeast electric locomotives (including the GG1), (except rectifier electrics that could be modified)

That's not the reason for the retirement of the GG1, which lasted until 1984 on NJ Transit (most GG1s had cracked frames, plus transformers that used PCBs besides).  The Northeast Corridor is still 11.5 kV 25 Hz from Shell (the Bronx) all the way to Washington Union Station, plus out to Harrisburg PA on the PRR Main Line.  Further, the E60 operated under 12 kV 60 Hz (Metro-North/CDOT) out to New Haven, AFAICR.  The key to operating on multiple voltages and frequencies is the automatic variable-tap transformer setup, which can change transformer taps "on the fly" when switching from one system to another.

Err, no. The problem is that the GG1 has AC traction motors designed to run on low frequency AC. Without a frequency convertor there is no way for them to run on 60Hz. AC. If the voltage was the only problem the difference between 11.5Kv and 12Kv. wouldn't be a big problem to deal with. Remember when the GG1s were build the only way to convert AC to DC or to change the AC frequency, was with motor-generator sets. Low frequency AC will work in a series wound motor just like DC does. 

 

Incidentally, there are two other electric motors that are prevalent on the NEC, those being the ALP-44 (NJT and SEPTA; has superficial resemblance to the AEM-7 and AEM-7AC) and the ALP-46 (a Bombardier Traxx variant, operated primarily by NJT but was also operated by Amtrak on the Clockers until that service ended last year).

Montreal and NJT have a request for proposal out on just such a beast. I were a frt RR, I'd certainly have my eye open watching this develop

RFP for the impossible.  No longer than 75 feet and no taller than 14 feet 9 inches with pantograph down; no heavier than 298,000 lbs on a B-B frame; catenary operation at 60 mph at least, and diesel operation at 100 mph?  No proposal will come from this.  (FTR, the GG1 was 79 feet long and 14' 10" tall with pantograph down.)

Also, let's make sure we all understand that the terms "diesel-electric", "dual-mode" and "hybrid" do not refer to the same kind of locomotive.  Diesel-electrics are your standard non-dual-mode road diesels (remember, the "steam killers"); dual-modes are the specialized locomotives that are specifically for electric operation in low-ventilation areas; and hybrids are diesel-electrics (not dual-mode) that store the energy from regenerative braking in batteries versus losing that energy as heat.

[daveklepper]

I agree with the previous posting except for the following:

The EF-3's were built in the early 40's, not the 30's, and they were dual-service, used on  Penn-job passenger trains during the day and freights at night.   I happen to think they were the very best electrics ever built, and they were the most powerful, both TE and Hp, in New England.  There retirement was very premature.  The esthetics were a near duplicate of the earllier EP-4's.    The EP-5's were the rectifiers that introduced the orange-red, black, and white Herbert Matter scheme.

 

A different dual-power concept is an electric and a diesel paired, the diesel being a slug to the electric under wire (more motors and the weight serving to give tractive effort under this highest horsepower mode) and the electric being a slug to the diesel outside the electric zone.   Either useful independently as well.

[Tom Curtin]

Why assume only a 15 year economic service life for the dual mode? Didn't the FL9's last 50 years?

Well to be accurate about this, the FL9s lasted 50 years through multiple rebuilding programs. I think the official definition of "economic life" when talking about locomotives means "elapsed time before a major rebuilding." There were various rebuilding programs, e.g., Morrison Knudsen rebuilt some for Amtrak to operate between New York and Albany; GE rebuilt several for MTA in pre-Metro North days; Chrome Locomotive rebuilt others for Connecticut DOT to use in Metro North New Haven Line commute service; then there were the oddball FL9-AC "Starship" rebuilds, and so on.

[oltmannd]

You're pretty savy with economics and accounting, but leave the engineering to those who practice it!

Ha!

It is true that I stopped renewing my membership in the Surface Chemistry section of the American Chemical Society in 1984. I was practicing law at that point, and wasnt't going back into the field. However, during my ten years with the USDA, and my reason for having that particular membership, was because one of my odd duties -- didn't consume a lot of day to day work -- at USDA was to be a primary investigator at the Metallurgical Fatigue and Surface Chemistry Laboratory. Tell me all about the engineering and stress on metal of vibration and environment.

My supervisor only had a BA in chem, whereas I was finishing a doctorate in chemistry and had the bachelor Chem E and so she did the administering and I did the chemistry. This involved study of surface erosion dynamics and stress application to various metals and alloys in various environments, determining effects both by periodic examination through hundreds of thousands of stress cycles using a Carl Zeiss Metallurgical microscope as well as measurement to failure through fatigue testing under varying levels of stress.

You are just guessing, whereas I do, in fact, bring a specific background in metallurgical analysis and testing to my conclusion based on specific professional experience in design, testing and evaluation of metal fatigure and surface erosion.

I'm not going to write a dissertation here, nor respond specifically to your condescending remark, but you almost have the key, you are just holding it backwards.

It is indeed a matter of energy.

And you do not, nor will you ever, have the sample necessary to reach the conclusion you feel strongly about, unless somebody dedicates a diesel locomotive to hauling around, starting it up and shutting it down two or three times a day while rolling it a few hundred miles at a time between shutdowns, and doing this for between 8 and 30 years. However, energy will transfer to cylinder walls and bearings. It's slow, but it will happen from normal vibration. And it will cause site specific erosion, particularly if the engine, as many do, stop in a specific configuration each time. And with a dual purpose locomotive, you would have many more hundreds of thousands of such cycles than you would ever have in the normal operation of an occasional tow of a locomotive.

 

A chemist is not a mechanical engineer.   "Normal" vibration, indeed!

[MichaelSol]

A chemist is not a mechanical engineer.   "Normal" vibration, indeed!

Well, when you've spent some time in the area of metallurgical analysis, you can call it what you want in the context of the conversation and within the parameters of defining a standard for an experimental design. In any case, you do not have the sampling to support your conclusion, and the standard you attempt to employ is wildly different than the proposed conditions of the dual mode project -- and it is the cumulative effect of the cycles that are important, not the incidental impact of towing a locomotive once in a while. That is simply insupportable. And a chemist is not a chemical engineer, either. Don't know why they didn't put the ME's on staff on the project ... well, actually I do. I was better qualified.

In any case, towing doesn't represent the operating cycle. The traction motors of the dual purpose machine are operating when in electric mode and the diesel engine is shut down.

Go wrap yourself around a traction motor that's working hard and tell me there's no vibration, that Don Oltmann can't feel a thing, and that that's "normal".

We don't need to get into the electrical field effects on working electrical machinery and the role that this plays in metal fatigue and surface erosion over thousands of operating cycles.

 

[DMUinCT]

Your right when we go to New Haven Freight Locomotives.

New Haven 1944 roster: from the New Haven publication, "Along The Line" 7/1944

EF-1, 37 built 1912-13 ____ EF-2, 5 built 1926 ____  EF-3, 10 built 1942-43 (War Production)

EP-1, 10 built 1906-08 ___  EP-2, 27 built 1919-28  ____  EP-3, 10 built 1931 ____ EP-4, 6 built 1938.

Diesels, in use or on order, 110 Switchers ___  60,  DL109 Road Diesels, built 1941-44

Steam Locomotives: Ranging from 0-6-0 to 2-10-2 and ten Streamlined Super Hudsons.  211 locomotives. 

[DMUinCT]

You need this, reserve or backup power for ConnDOT.  FL9 IN USE

[jeaton]

I like this thread.  Three pages on a solution looking for a problem.

There were basicly 2 objectives for 20th Century electrification.   It was either used to eliminate engine emissions in tunnels or densly populated areas or to provide a form of locomotion that was better than the steam power of the day for use in areas of frequent high grades.  The former produced relatively short stretches of electrification and at least in the case of the Milwaukee, the latter left gaps in the system.  I don't mean to suggest that electrification stopped at the exact point where steam could take over.  It's clear the PRR went beyond such a point.  However, there were obviously many places where the eletrification stopped short of a the complete route of traffic movement and that produced power management problems.  Whether successful of not, the dual mode unit was a reasonable effort to eliminate the costs associated with swapping power.

Clearly, primary object of future electrification projects will be to reduce the use of petroleum based fuels.  Obviously, it will be decades between the time of the start of the first electrification project to the point where a very high percentage of mainline is under wire.  Getting the biggest bang for the buck will mean that the highest density lines will go first.  Along with that, I suspect that the scope of each project will take power management into consideration, and an effort will be made to have the segments extend between the existing major engine terminals.

Of course the whole thing will complicate power management, especially so where there are now engine/train run through arrangements.  But, will dual mode power be the economic solution?  Frankly, I think not.  I can't see anything that will require that every train operating under wire must be pulled by a straight electric.  So, if there is a good reason to run a train with all diesel power, then run the train that way.  If there is a circumstance where both straight electric and diesel electric are needed for a particular train, it seems to me that keeping the two modes on separate platforms will likely be a better cost option than the manufacture and use of the apparantly very expensive dual mode locomotives.  

Is frequent starting and stoping of the diesel prime mover in a mixed power mode train a real problem?  Then let it run in idle. 

[MichaelSol]

Of course the whole thing will complicate power management, especially so where there are now engine/train run through arrangements.  But, will dual mode power be the economic solution?  Frankly, I think not.  I can't see anything that will require that every train operating under wire must be pulled by a straight electric.  So, if there is a good reason to run a train with all diesel power, then run the train that way.  If there is a circumstance where both straight electric and diesel electric are needed for a particular train, it seems to me that keeping the two modes on separate platforms will likely be a better cost option than the manufacture and use of the apparantly very expensive dual mode locomotives.  

This is how the Milwaukee did it, and one specific study showed that this was the more economically effective solution than either all-diesel or all-electric.

 

[MichaelSol]

Is frequent starting and stoping of the diesel prime mover in a mixed power mode train a real problem?  Then let it run in idle. 

Milwaukee let them idle, and engaged the synchronous controller only when needed.

 

[Anonymous]

I like this thread.  Three pages on a solution looking for a problem.

There were basicly 2 objectives for 20th Century electrification.   It was either used to eliminate engine emissions in tunnels or densly populated areas or to provide a form of locomotion that was better than the steam power of the day for use in areas of frequent high grades.  The former produced relatively short stretches of electrification and at least in the case of the Milwaukee, the latter left gaps in the system.  I don't mean to suggest that electrification stopped at the exact point where steam could take over.  It's clear the PRR went beyond such a point.  However, there were obviously many places where the eletrification stopped short of a the complete route of traffic movement and that produced power management problems.  Whether successful of not, the dual mode unit was a reasonable effort to eliminate the costs associated with swapping power.

Clearly, primary object of future electrification projects will be to reduce the use of petroleum based fuels.  Obviously, it will be decades between the time of the start of the first electrification project to the point where a very high percentage of mainline is under wire.  Getting the biggest bang for the buck will mean that the highest density lines will go first.  Along with that, I suspect that the scope of each project will take power management into consideration, and an effort will be made to have the segments extend between the existing major engine terminals.

Of course the whole thing will complicate power management, especially so where there are now engine/train run through arrangements.  But, will dual mode power be the economic solution?  Frankly, I think not.  I can't see anything that will require that every train operating under wire must be pulled by a straight electric.  So, if there is a good reason to run a train with all diesel power, then run the train that way.  If there is a circumstance where both straight electric and diesel electric are needed for a particular train, it seems to me that keeping the two modes on separate platforms will likely be a better cost option than the manufacture and use of the apparantly very expensive dual mode locomotives.  

Is frequent starting and stoping of the diesel prime mover in a mixed power mode train a real problem?  Then let it run in idle. 

You're fomenting an assumption based on past hypotheticals regarding the notion that a dual power locomotive would be "very expensive".  In case you haven't noticed, all new locomotives are very expensive, very complex, and are facing increasing emissions scrutiny overkill thanks to your econut friends.  In reality, a better template for the relative cost of a dual power locomotive would be the new GE concept which will store energy generated from dynamic braking and allow it's use during peak power demand.  Let's see how much that will cost relative to hybrids and gen-sets in addition to Tier II diesels, then we can make better assumptions regarding dual mode cost factors.

Remember, a diesel is emitting the most emissions during peak demand.  If a dual mode allows for power to be drawn from overhead wire during peak demand, the average emissions from the dual mode drop precipitously, especially if the diesel engine can be shut off during electric mode.  Dual mode may represent the most efficacious way to meet future environmental demands.

[JT22CW]

Err, no. The problem is that the GG1 has AC traction motors designed to run on low frequency AC. Without a frequency convertor there is no way for them to run on 60Hz. AC. If the voltage was the only problem the difference between 11.5Kv and 12Kv. wouldn't be a big problem to deal with. Remember when the GG1s were build the only way to convert AC to DC or to change the AC frequency, was with motor-generator sets. Low frequency AC will work in a series wound motor just like DC does.

I wasn't arguing that point; the point I was arguing is that there was no en-masse conversion to 60 Hertz on the Northeast Corridor that required an immediate retirement of the GG1s, which is what DMU in CT was claiming.  The former New Haven RR is the one place that conversion took place (at that time), which meant that GG1s could no longer operate via Shell (and, practically, on the Hell Gate line in revenue service).  Possibly, Penn Central moving the EP-5s off passenger service out of GCT and moving the motors to the former PRR (calling them E40s) was a reaction to this.

Incidentally, the Long Island RR used FL9s with their C1 bilevels.  There are new dual-modes on the LIRR, built by Super Steel and using EMD prime-movers (the DM30ACs) which see limited use (the LIRR attempted to run these for extended periods in electric mode at 80 mph, but the units went on fire).

You're fomenting an assumption based on past hypotheticals regarding the notion that a dual power locomotive would be "very expensive". In case you haven't noticed, all new locomotives are very expensive, very complex, and are facing increasing emissions scrutiny overkill thanks to your econut friends.

If newer locomotives are "very expensive", then dual-mode locomotives are more expensive still and require far more maintenance and downtime.  I believe that the thread already established this, so it's pointless to rehash points already debunked.

In reality, a better template for the relative cost of a dual power locomotive would be the new GE concept which will store energy generated from dynamic braking and allow it's use during peak power demand. Let's see how much that will cost relative to hybrids and gen-sets in addition to Tier II diesels, then we can make better assumptions regarding dual mode cost factors.

You're describing a hybrid locomotive and then expressing a wish to see how much it will cost relative to hybrids?  The GE "concept" is not for a dual-power locomotive, but the first road hybrid.

Remember, a diesel is emitting the most emissions during peak demand. If a dual mode allows for power to be drawn from overhead wire during peak demand, the average emissions from the dual mode drop precipitously, especially if the diesel engine can be shut off during electric mode. Dual mode may represent the most efficacious way to meet future environmental demands.

There are no catenary dual modes in existence; and if any are ever built, they'll most likely weigh 1¾ times as much as a GG-1, have several C-C trucks to distribute that weight, be articulated, be "shop queens", and never make it past the prototypical stage.  (Just to clarify:  Russia did build a catenary dual-mode, but it was for DC wires rather than AC, and resembled what the imaginary AC-overhead dual-mode would most likely resemble—a diesel-electric connected to an electric motor via an articulated frame.)

Remember, the purpose of dual-mode is to prevent diesel emissions in low-ventilation areas, not to reduce diesel consumption in order to placate and appease reactionary and self-styled "environmentalists" whose mouths exceed their qualifications by several quantum jumps.

[jeaton]

As I said at the top of my post above, dual mode locomotives are a solution looking for a problem.  Rare is the circumstance where swapping convential electric and diesel electric power is going to be so costly that a dual mode locomotive is going to generate big returns.  Perhaps it might now work OK on some of the commuter routes north and east of New York City, but that is the rare circumstance where the combined electric/diesel route is fairly short.

I think it is clear that the next mile of wire is going to be justified by the savings over the use of high cost petroleum based fuels.  In that case, what would keep Metro North and The Long Island Rail Road from running wire out to the end of the "dual mode" lines.

[JT22CW]

As I said at the top of my post above, dual mode locomotives are a solution looking for a problem.  Rare is the circumstance where swapping convential electric and diesel electric power is going to be so costly that a dual mode locomotive is going to generate big returns.  Perhaps it might now work OK on some of the commuter routes north and east of New York City, but that is the rare circumstance where the combined electric/diesel route is fairly short.

I personally agree with you on the point of swapping electric motors for diesel hogs; but as a matter of record, NJ Transit dispensed with that practice, which they inherited from the PRR, on the North Jersey Coast Line (former New York & Long Branch RR), once they exchanged their fleet of E60CHs for ALP-44s.  (The practice remained in force using E60s even after extending electrification from Matawan to Long Branch and moving the engine change from South Amboy to Long Branch.)  This spelled the end of direct service between New York Penn Station and Bay Head NJ; it was not replaced.  Unnecessary, IMHO.

SEPTA currently has a fleet of push-pull cars hauled by AEM-7s, but instead of using engine changes to restart service to former destinations like Reading and Bethlehem/Allentown, they invent the "Schuylkill Valley Metro" concept and try to sell it to the federal government (it raised the capital costs for restarting the Philadelphia-Reading service, which had been gone since Reading Terminal closed in the early 80s, to a colossal $2 billion).

I think it is clear that the next mile of wire is going to be justified by the savings over the use of high cost petroleum based fuels.  In that case, what would keep Metro North and The Long Island Rail Road from running wire out to the end of the "dual mode" lines.

Well, the fact that they are electrified with third-rail and not wire, for one (apart from former New Haven Lines, that is; and Metro-North cut back the wires on that system from Woodlawn to just east of Pelham, actually extending third rail up that direction.) Metro-North also extended third rail from White Plains to Brewster North on its Harlem Line, and Long Island RR extended third rail on its main line all the way to Ronkonkoma, during the 80s; this is in spite of the fact that you need a substation every two miles for third-rail extensions, and further in spite of the fact that during bad winter storms and not-so-bad floods, third rail shorts out and you end up with no rail service.  So political will can kick in from time to time.

[Kevin C. Smith]

By 1972, the Boxcabs were retired. E29ACB, E50AB and a C unit, E45ABCD, and I recall E37 or possibly E-39ABCD were still soldiering on, but by and large, the fleet was gone. I don't keep track of details on numbering, but that's what I recall. The Coast Division Electrification operation was suspended -- there wasn't anything left to run on it. Only the 12 Little Joes remained in service, 22 years after their purchase. The remaining Boxcabs moved to the Rocky Mountain Division.

Wandering off topic into a sidebar here...

I didn't know that the Coast Division had been stripped of electric motive power! Wow-talk about cannibalization! That was, what, 200+ miles of railroad? Was this more because of the retirement of locomotives or because of an increase in traffic? Did the electrics ever return or did the Coast Division remain all diesel until the end? If the electrics did not return, was the electrification system kept up or left to deteriorate?

[daveklepper]

The reason for the replacement of AC wire with DC third rail from Woodlawn to the Mount Vernon Station was that the changeover point had been on a grade and the new changeover point is on level ROW, a better deal for coasting.   But the catenary has been restored to Woodlawn, almost as far as it was, to provide for greater flexibility in operation .  The towers were never removed.

Still no comments on my idea for pairing a diesel with an electric.   It seems to me the best dual-mode concept.

 

Electrification can come more easily with power company use of rail ROW for new power lines.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A different dual-power concept is an electric and a diesel paired, the diesel being a slug to the electric under wire (more motors and the weight serving to give tractive effort under this highest horsepower mode) and the electric being a slug to the diesel outside the electric zone.   Either useful independently as well.

I feel like a 5-inch gun amid an exchange of 16-inch main batteries but I'll try to answer to this suggestion.  Using the diesel or the electric as a glorified slug is a rather expensive way to avoid an engine change.  Slugs add low-speed tractive effort but do not provide any additional horsepower, at least when the diesel engine is supplying the horsepower.  At any speed above 20 MPH or so, a slug is just extra dead weight to be hauled around.  I'm not sure about the situation when the electric is drawing power because short-time ratings get involved.  Added expenses would be the additional wiring necessary to serve as a slug mother and a possible beefing up of the circuitry on the electric to jack up the continuous HP rating to support the additional traction motors.  All things considered, it would be easier and probably cheaper to operate as MILW did and just add an electric ahead of the diesels at the division point where the catenary begins.

[beaulieu]

I like this thread.  Three pages on a solution looking for a problem.

Of course the whole thing will complicate power management, especially so where there are now engine/train run through arrangements.  But, will dual mode power be the economic solution?  Frankly, I think not.  I can't see anything that will require that every train operating under wire must be pulled by a straight electric.  So, if there is a good reason to run a train with all diesel power, then run the train that way.  If there is a circumstance where both straight electric and diesel electric are needed for a particular train, it seems to me that keeping the two modes on separate platforms will likely be a better cost option than the manufacture and use of the apparantly very expensive dual mode locomotives.  

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but power management for BNSF and UP is already going to get a lot tougher. Starting sometime in 2009, both railroads will only be allowed to operate  locomotives meeting Tier II or better in Southern California (LA Basin). There are still a lot of road locomotives in both companies fleets that only meet Tier 0 or Tier I standards. They will have to be switched out before they arrive in the LA Basin. Look for the rest of California to follow and the standard to move up as Tier III and eventually Tier IV standards are introduced.

I could see LA to Yuma/Needles/Yermo/Bakersfield as being the first part electrified. 

[oltmannd]

A chemist is not a mechanical engineer.   "Normal" vibration, indeed!

Well, when you've spent some time in the area of metallurgical analysis, you can call it what you want in the context of the conversation and within the parameters of defining a standard for an experimental design. In any case, you do not have the sampling to support your conclusion, and the standard you attempt to employ is wildly different than the proposed conditions of the dual mode project -- and it is the cumulative effect of the cycles that are important, not the incidental impact of towing a locomotive once in a while. That is simply insupportable. And a chemist is not a chemical engineer, either. Don't know why they didn't put the ME's on staff on the project ... well, actually I do. I was better qualified.

In any case, towing doesn't represent the operating cycle. The traction motors of the dual purpose machine are operating when in electric mode and the diesel engine is shut down.

Go wrap yourself around a traction motor that's working hard and tell me there's no vibration, that Don Oltmann can't feel a thing, and that that's "normal".

We don't need to get into the electrical field effects on working electrical machinery and the role that this plays in metal fatigue and surface erosion over thousands of operating cycles.

 

Traction motors are axle hung/nose suspended - no isolation at all.  BIG difference between their environment and stuff mounted on the locomotive frame - which is doubly isolated - no?