Amtrak unloaded their F40PH's because they were old (at least 20 years old and up) and worn out. Most of the remaining F40PH's are in suburban service, which is less demanding, and a fair number of those have been rebuilt.
Ham549 wrote:It seems that many people share the view that the F40PH was not only better then the Genesis but the Genesis just plane sucks...
It seems that many people share the view that the F40PH was not only better then the Genesis but the Genesis just plane sucks...
Ham549 wrote:It seems that many people share the view that the F40PH was not only better then the Genesis but the Genesis just plane sucks.
It seems that many people share the view that the F40PH was not only better then the Genesis but the Genesis just plane sucks.
well, you know what Jay Leno once said
"Amtrak gets more air than jetblue!"
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
I have asked Amtrak workers and I get F40PH (although they do say the cab on the Genesis is more comfortable.) Also a 2 stroke engine has more advantages to a 4 stroke. The fuel tank is a easy fix as CSX has proven. The notch 8 part is true but the F40 can cut out cylinders also updating it with a 2ed engine or an alternator in the nose would work to fix this.
I like the GP38 better than the SD60 however I do relies that the SD60 is a better locomotive for many reasons. I also don't really care for the new VIA updated F40PHs but I understand that they are not in it for pleasing rail fans and need to make money and could use some of those upgrades. HOWEVER, the Genesis is a complete POS also consider
1. One of the main guys in charge of upgrading the Amtrak fleet had ties with GE
2. It would have been cheaper to upgrade the F40PHs than to get new locomotives (isn't Amtrak always cash strapped?)
3. VIA got 20 Genesis locomotives and then no more and decided to rebuild there current fleet.
4. In this months Trains it mentions how a locomotive shell can fetch $50,000 (more than the scrap value of a F40PH yet Amtrak decided to cut a bunch of them into 3x3 sections and sell the rubble to junk yards
5. If one of those F40PHs that were scraped were leading that Metra train that struck that SUV would we have had that horrid crash?
And as for the Genesis locomotive safety record... well need I go on
You can't really compare a GP38(-2) to an SD60 - apples and oranges, my friend. They are built for different tasks.
The GE Genesis is the unit that Amtrak is running now. These might have their flaws, but they are newer and more full of life than the newest F40PH that was in Amtrak's fleet. I personally, from a railfan perspective, prefer EMD but I also know the GE units are better for Amtrak, right now, than the F40s are. Besides, those F40PHs were screaming machines running in Notch 8 all of the time for HEP. Run one of those for 12 hours a day and you'll welcome the quiet comfort of the Genesis.
The F40PH is a locomotive nearing or exceeding 30 years of age, and the whole time they've been run hard and put away wet. See if you can last 30 years doing that!
There was an articeal in Trains about all the premature traction motor failures on the P42s
Ham, i'm gonna have to agree with CPRted. take my word for it too, because i can relate to you on this issue. i'm the same way with CNW locomotives. but i realize that protesting what has become of them wont do anything but bother everyone else. change may suck sometimes, but it's inevitable. learn to adapt to the now and let go of the past as i have. if i may quote CopCarSS..
"everyone was so upset about the end of steam that they missed some really cool first generation diesels."
i'm upset about my CNWs all being destroyed, but i've moved on to enjoy UP SD70Ms, GEs, and other new stuff that UP rosters. the P42 can't be THAT bad (unless it's being towed behind 261. 1930s passenger trains didnt have P42s on them dammit!!!). everything has flaws. i'm sure the F40PH had problems of its own. and i'll even admit to it. CNW's SD60s gave crews big headaches. the new computer systems with the 710 engines failed many times. add that to the fact that these were among the first SD60s ever built. so the design wasnt tweaked and improved on like it was on SOO's batch.
the F40PH was a nice locomotive, but it certainly wasnt perfect. no locomotive is perfect.
i wont tell you to be thankful that several are being converted to cabbages like some may however. because i HATE when i'm told i should enjoy that many CNWs still run in UP's boring paint scheme. i know cabbages simply arent the same as F40PHs.
i also suggest getting an HO layout if you dont yet have one, Kato makes avery nice F40PH model that you may want to look into getting. i cant say i know of a company that makes those classic Amtrak coaches (the unilevel round-ish ones) but walthers makes nice superliners. you could make a whole HO passenger terminal with F40PHs and superliners everywhere. i've begun to make a CNW freight route on my layout and it really does make me happy. immortalize your past in HO scale. trust me, it's worth it.
mull it over for a while and try to find a way to enjoy this hobby even without the F40PH.
I've heard that F40PHs were not loved by their crews because they were extremely noisy in the cabs. That aside, you can only rebuild a locomotive so many times, without a proper diesel or generators to replace the old worn out ones, without replacement traction motors, eventually all engines will die out unless retrofit modifications are possible.
I personally dont like the P42s astethics, they look like big steel lunchboxes to me. But them I dont like most all dismals.
Have fun with your trains
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HZWpeU55J3E
vs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r2r139F9CUo&feature=related
Ham549 wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HZWpeU55J3Evshttp://youtube.com/watch?v=r2r139F9CUo&feature=related
I activated the links for you. I am not quite sure what the point is though.
An "expensive model collector"
Ham549 wrote:http://youtube.com/watch?v=HZWpeU55J3Evshttp://youtube.com/watch?v=r2r139F9CUo&feature=related
Quite Frankly, I think the F40 only looks slightly better then a Genesis. I'd take the FP45 over either and they've been running longer.
Amtrak does have the F59phi and I've heard, despite the weight issues, that they are well liked and less onerous then the P42s, but there aren't as many of them and they don't have the same power and weight characteristics as the P42. Eventually Amtrak will HAVE to get something new.
Wow. Lots of opinions here. Let me wade in with my
Design:
The F40PHs were phenominally successful considering they were a rush job. They are really just "dressed up" GP40-2s with a gear driven HEP generator added on. In order to keep the weight under control, they have very small fuel tanks. They have ride stability issues and ride quality issues, that, admirably, EMD managed to address with yaw dampers and chevron rubber pad secondary suspension. They were noisy, both outside and inside the cab. They don't fit everywhere. They weigh too much for the Park Ave. Viaduct into GCT (although that's a moot point, now) and they don't fit into Penn Sta.- so couldn't accomodate a dual mode version.
The Genesis locomotives were designed from a clean sheet of paper to address all of the F40PHs shortcomings. More and better protected fuel. Lower weight. Lower noise emmissions and noise level in the cab. Complied with new FRA crashworthiness std. Greater length = greater stability at speed.
F40PHs worn out?
No. Locomotives never wear out. They are designed to run until either they rust away or are supplanted by more cost effective technology. Each and every component on a locomotive is designed to, and is, regularly rebuilt. The F40PHs would normally have their trucks rebuilt every couple of years, all the power assemblies changed every 4 years, for example.
Genesis not worthy?
It appears to me that the Genesis locomotives are pretty darn good. Yes, they have had issues with traction motors. But, all locomotive models have their issues. The F40PHs had their issues, too. The HEP system was the source of lots of trouble, in particular, the reduction gear gearbox, plus ride quality/truck issues.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
edbenton wrote:Lets see here F40 required the engine to run in Notch 8 to provide HEP to the train only has 3000 hp when not providing HEP 2200 when in HEP and only has 1800 gallons of fuel. Genesis series HEP is in notch 5 saving fuel 4000HP in the first ones 4200 in the second set 3600HP when producing HEP carries 2400 gallons of fuel. Ge also desigened to fit into the Hudson river tunnels and be capable of running on 3rd rail the P32ACDM to replace the FL-9.
Why were/are F40s required to run in notch 8 to provide HEP. They weren't always in notch 8 when pulling trains so what happens then?
FTGT725 wrote: edbenton wrote:Lets see here F40 required the engine to run in Notch 8 to provide HEP to the train only has 3000 hp when not providing HEP 2200 when in HEP and only has 1800 gallons of fuel. Genesis series HEP is in notch 5 saving fuel 4000HP in the first ones 4200 in the second set 3600HP when producing HEP carries 2400 gallons of fuel. Ge also desigened to fit into the Hudson river tunnels and be capable of running on 3rd rail the P32ACDM to replace the FL-9.Why were/are F40s required to run in notch 8 to provide HEP. They weren't always in notch 8 when pulling trains so what happens then?
The engine was required to run at Notch 8 to allow the HEP alternator to provide enough power for the train. When in HEP mode, the throttle only controls output from the main alternator. When F40's were operated in multiple, only the trailing unit was in HEP mode.
The HEP gen was gear driven off the front of the diesel engine. In order to make 60 Hz, the diesel engine had to turn at 896 RPM - which is notch 8 engine speed. So, even when the throttle is in idle and the train is stopped, the diesel engine was still turing at 896 RPM, but there was no load on the main generator - no excitation provided by the control system. When the engineer notches out, the main generator is excited and power to move the train is generated.
F40PHs could operate in "freight" mode with the HEP turned off and would have 8 distinct engine speeds, one for each notch. They could also operate in "standby" mode where HEP power came off the main generator with the engine running notch 6 speed (and the traction motors not being powered)
I rode the Broadway one night where the 2nd unit died climbing the Horseshoe curve. The lights and heat went out. Then the 1st unit stalled right in the curve. The came and fetched us with a couple of ancient Conrail SD40 helpers, towed us back to Altoona, ran around the train and took us to Chicago - all the way at 65 mph. A minor miracle considering the condition of those SD40s at the time. They had the former lead F40PH running in standby mode to provide the HEP.
Im not sure I understand this. Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power? If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?
FTGT725 wrote:Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power?
FTGT725 wrote: If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?
timz wrote: FTGT725 wrote:Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power?No. FTGT725 wrote: If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?The F40 isn't always in Notch 8-- its engine is running at Notch 8 speed when providing HEP, but it's comparable to running your car's engine at 4000 rpm with the gearshift in neutral. If no excitation current is going to the AR10 it just spins freely, absorbing no power from the prime mover; the engine's control system provides enough excitation current to get the pulling power corresponding to the throttle notch.
So when supplying HEP, are you saying they basicly idle at the notch 8 rpm setting?
edbenton wrote:Correct and sucking down the fuel at 200 Gallons per HOUR.
It doesn't, of course. If it's "idling" at 896 RPM and supplying no HEP or traction power, it burns ... what's it supposed to be, around 25 gal/hr?
Caltrain still has a couple of old-style F40s (not converted with a separate engine for HEP) so somebody hopefully has a clue what the correct figure is.
Those Fuel tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasn't a "seamless" car body so you could easily get at and replace parts.
As you can see it dosen't take much to derail a Genesis
Ham549 wrote: Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.
Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.
1800 gallons looks big?
2200 gallons on the P42. 400 more gallons extends range by at least two hours, which is quite a big difference.
Try turning wrenches on an F40. Then tell me it's easier to get at things than on a P42. All carbody type locomotives have poor maintenance access to the prime mover and equipment rack.
I applaud your determination and persistence.
RWM
timz wrote: edbenton wrote:Correct and sucking down the fuel at 200 Gallons per HOUR.It doesn't, of course. If it's "idling" at 896 RPM and supplying no HEP or traction power, it burns ... what's it supposed to be, around 25 gal/hr?Caltrain still has a couple of old-style F40s (not converted with a separate engine for HEP) so somebody hopefully has a clue what the correct figure is.
From the manueal
"
NORMAL -
Intended for normal passenger service. Engine operates at full speed (893 RPM); AC power supplied to trainlined power connectors by Head End Generator; throttle varies AR 10 excitation for traction motor control. (the F40PH is pulling your train and provideing HEP)
STANDBY -
Intended for short term stopover in passenger service such as loading-unloading, scheduling anticipations or delays, or to prepare the passenger section (heating or air conditioning) prior ‘to passenger boarding. Engine operates at standby speed (720 RPM); trainlined power connectors supplied AC by AR 10 main generator; no power to traction motors; no throttle response. (The F40PH is only provideing HEP)
ISOLATE -
Intended for operation without auxiliary AC power. No AC power to trainlined power connectors; engine - speed varies with throttle position as with a conventional freight locomotive. Normal idle speed of 410 RPM. (F40PH is only pulling no HEP)"
Amtrak liked to have one locomotive in the consist soley for HEP on bigger trains.
Railway Man wrote: Ham549 wrote: Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.1800 gallons looks big?2200 gallons on the P42. 400 more gallons extends range by at least two hours, which is quite a big difference. Try turning wrenches on an F40. Then tell me it's easier to get at things than on a P42. All carbody type locomotives have poor maintenance access to the prime mover and equipment rack.I applaud your determination and persistence.RWM
Look at the tanks again they are bigger then 1800 looks to be more like 2500 to 3000
Those CSX units have had larger fuel tanks added 2600 Gallons I believe. They are not "stock."
Here's a Stock Fuel tank
http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=79057
I think in my opinion F59PHI is a better locomotive than both of them junk. It's a better stable and more for the $$$.
edbenton wrote:Ham have you EVER PULLED a wrench in your life or worked with steel before. In order to modify those units first you have to remove all the batteries and placethem somewere else in the unit then build a new fuel tank and then mount it to the unit. Word to the wise making a fuel tank is not easy. You have to make sure there are NO LEAKS OF ANY KIND and bending 1/2 inch thick steel is not easy. Then you have to remove the old one and mount the new one in place plumb the intake and return and the fillers plus make sure all the air lines tanks do not need to be moved.
chefjavier wrote: http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=79057I think in my opinion F59PHI is a better locomotive than both of them junk. It's a better stable and more for the $$$.
Except the fact that they are overweight.
Ham549 wrote: Railway Man wrote: Ham549 wrote: Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.1800 gallons looks big?2200 gallons on the P42. 400 more gallons extends range by at least two hours, which is quite a big difference. Try turning wrenches on an F40. Then tell me it's easier to get at things than on a P42. All carbody type locomotives have poor maintenance access to the prime mover and equipment rack.I applaud your determination and persistence.RWM Look at the tanks again they are bigger then 1800 looks to be more like 2500 to 3000
I checked and the tanks on CSX's F40s are 2520 gallons.
edbenton wrote:Considering a LOG truck will derail just about anything out there nothing to laugh at. Remember that cargo is solid also and can get under the wheels and lift them if it is HARDWOOD also then you are in a world of hurt.
Uuhhhh, Ed, ya might want to see this first...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-GzO7q0c8&feature=related
The first batch of F40s had 1200 gallon tanks.
FTGT725 wrote: timz wrote: FTGT725 wrote:Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power?No. FTGT725 wrote: If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?The F40 isn't always in Notch 8-- its engine is running at Notch 8 speed when providing HEP, but it's comparable to running your car's engine at 4000 rpm with the gearshift in neutral. If no excitation current is going to the AR10 it just spins freely, absorbing no power from the prime mover; the engine's control system provides enough excitation current to get the pulling power corresponding to the throttle notch. So when supplying HEP, are you saying they basicly idle at the notch 8 rpm setting?
Yes. Notch 8 engine speed, no load. Having the throttle in idle while in HEP mode is nearly the same is if the throttle was in Notch 8 with the generator field switch down.
Ham549 wrote:I know thoes aren't stock. The fact is it was easy to fix the fule tank problem.
No, then you have a weight problem! (which is tollerable depending where you go and how fast you want to run.)
Fuel is 7.043#/gallon
cprted wrote: edbenton wrote:Ham have you EVER PULLED a wrench in your life or worked with steel before. In order to modify those units first you have to remove all the batteries and placethem somewere else in the unit then build a new fuel tank and then mount it to the unit. Word to the wise making a fuel tank is not easy. You have to make sure there are NO LEAKS OF ANY KIND and bending 1/2 inch thick steel is not easy. Then you have to remove the old one and mount the new one in place plumb the intake and return and the fillers plus make sure all the air lines tanks do not need to be moved.Ham is a kid who volunteers at a Trolley Museum (and can't understand why an F40 doesn't fit the collection plan) and likes Amtrak F40PHs (Amtrak ones, not the Via, not the Metra, the AMTRAK)
Would Amtrak's last batch, the ex-GO Transit ones rebuilt at Juniata be acceptable?
A 16-645E3 turning at N4 (560 RPM) no load is about 15 gal/hr. and if the HEP was making a full 700 HP, the fuel consumption would be roughly that share of full speed/full load or 700/3000 x 180 ~40 gal/hr, so 25 is a pretty good guess!
He reminds me alot of the company driver that wants the Pete 379 for the looks Yet the Boss and shop decided on Freightliners for ease of maintance and fuel mileage.
vsmith wrote: edbenton wrote:Considering a LOG truck will derail just about anything out there nothing to laugh at. Remember that cargo is solid also and can get under the wheels and lift them if it is HARDWOOD also then you are in a world of hurt.Uuhhhh, Ed, ya might want to see this first...http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-GzO7q0c8&feature=related
All this video proves is the reason police ballistics labs go to great lengths to create the EXACT set of circumstances under which the crime occurred. The only fair test would be to have BOTH loco's run into the SAME log truck and load. Given the price of locos and trucks, I kind of doubt that someone set up an experiment just to see what happens when a loco hits a log truck. Plenty of empirical evidence for that. It looks more like it was an experiment to see if cutting the logs in the middle made any difference in the damage to the loco.
Size of the logs, speed of impact, number of logs on the truck, whether the logs were chained down, angle of impact, motion of the log truck, not to mention blind, dumb luck ... all of these (and thousands more) factors would affect whether a loco derailed after hitting a log truck.
Which isn't to say that a Genesis doesn't derail more easily than an F40PH. In fact, if it is designed like a car with a safety cage, it might be designed to deflect forces to the side of the crew compartment, which would have the effect of making the loco move sideways if it encountered a heavy enough obstacle.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
F40-
P42-problems, problems, problems....
The P42-nice engine- estimates too much, so won't stop right.
I don't like the odd look of the P42.
That is not the nose of an F40PH. That is a much newer EMD cab (~1990 vintage) designed to a much newer set of crash standards.
Just semantics, but that wasn't an SD60 with the wide nose, but an SD40T-2 that had been modified.
Yes though, apples and oranges.
The Genesis derailment would have happened with any locomotive, given the circumstances.
edbenton wrote:If you look closer the engine that hit the log truck was a SD-60M there is a HUGE differance in weight between a F40 and a SD60 namely about 50 tons. Also the cab was set back with the anticlimber of the SD Series and not the F40 right there. Comparing that test to the Genesis being derailed by log truck is like comparing a Cab over engine truck to a long nose convential truck getting into an accident. On a Cab over YOU ARE THE FIRST THING TO THE ACCIDENT. With a convential the engine is the first thing and slows the truck down first kind of like the safety cab.
I agree. Looked like a tunnel motor with the 2nd generation SD60 cab (two window version with slight nose taper) attached to it.
Let's try this again as my first post was deleted.
Unless you work on them, in them, or depend on them on a daily basis, you guys are pretty much focused on looks and the railfan belief of waxiing nostalgia. Which will last longer? Simple - the one that drains the least amount of money. Why did Amtrak replace the F40s? More computer orientated, better on fuel, crew comfort and safety, warranty, and having the latest model usually ensures a reliable source of parts.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Ham549 wrote:....I have noticed that they tend to catch fire more often then not...
Where have you noticed this? I've been tracking Amtrak derailments and wrecks for a long time now and the integral fuel tank of the P40/42 appears to be a safer design then the relatively open and unprotected tank of an F40.
Perhaps the best comparison between the two locomotives is the terrible Sunset Limited wreck of 1993. The lead Genesis (819) unit did not catch fire. However one, if not both, of the trailing F40's (262 and 312) fuel tanks ruptured and a devastating fire resulted. Take a look at photos if you can find them. They are hard to come by, especially of 819 after being pulled from the mud, but you'll notice the lack of scorching and relatively good condition of 819 compared to the F40s. Although tragically both crew members in the Genesis perished, they did not die from fire but asphyxiation from mud. The F40s did catch fire...and led to the burning of the baggage car and crew car (former Santa Fe Hi-level) and a few deaths from the fire.
Looking quickly at my files the only Genesis locos that suffered fires induced by wrecks that I know of were on the California Zephyr wreck of 2001 (Wendover Utah) and the City of New Orleans wreck of 1999 (Bourbonnais Illinois). Both of these fires resulted from passenger cars crushing or badly bending the locomotive frame resulting in fuel spills.
But I'd really like to hear where they have caught fire more often then not? Are you simply referring to the stack fires common to GE's, and not a catastrophic fuel fire?
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
And MArch 5, 1999 crash to name a few
Ham549 wrote:Or maybe because the guy who headed the project had ties with GE. Also why did VIA not get any more Genesis locomotives. Also the Genesis is all about looks and not what workes. haveing to remove the prime mover every time you want to work on it isen't very good desighn
You don't have to take the diesel engine out to work on it.
And, OK, I'll bite. Why DID VIA not buy more Genesis? How about "they couldn't afford them"?
(I'll let you in on a little secret. I spent quite a bit of time in LaGrange, Erie and London in the 80s and 90s talking to locomotive design engineers. Genesis is mostly about function, safety, performance, maintainability and toughness. "Looks" were applied secondary to all these things)
You seem pretty bright, but you don't seem to have enough information to feed your thinking machinery. You might try asking and listening more, thinking longer and ranting less (unless ranting is your hobby...then carry on!)
zugmann wrote:In the battle between facts and passion (or obsession), the latter will always win...
oltmannd wrote:And, OK, I'll bite. Why DID VIA not buy more Genesis? How about "they couldn't afford them"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHI
http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288
Let's see what is the best locomotive?
Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..
chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..
OK. You're entitled to your opinion.
Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?
oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?
Let's start with Commuter trains in California. L.A. to San Diego for example>Short haul. What do you think?
chefjavier wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?Let's start with Commuter trains in California. L.A. to San Diego for example>Short haul. What do you think?
A good fit!
sovablunt wrote: I used to have arguments like this over why my beloved Tomcats were retired so that the gay Super Hornets could take over the flight deck. But mainly its cost effectiveness, ease of maintenance and ultimately the fact that the government wasnt too happy with one company either. So, generally, similar rules apply here. I like F40s because of how they look and sound, I'm nostalgic like that. I also know that they are old and and lack the performance and the ease of maintenance based on what I have learned from all you guys.
In your opinion which is better plane for maintance, F-14 or F-18?
oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?Let's start with Commuter trains in California. L.A. to San Diego for example>Short haul. What do you think?A good fit!
Pretty convient then that that's what they use.
Of course, Santa Barbara to San Diego hardly qualifies as commuter neither does the full extent of the the Capitol Corridor trains nor the Cascades. Those are at best medium distance trains.
YoHo1975 wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?Let's start with Commuter trains in California. L.A. to San Diego for example>Short haul. What do you think?A good fit! Pretty convient then that that's what they use.Of course, Santa Barbara to San Diego hardly qualifies as commuter neither does the full extent of the the Capitol Corridor trains nor the Cascades. Those are at best medium distance trains.
I think that 100-200 miles stuff is short haul. Medium haul would be those day coach trains like the Maple Leaf, Pennsylvanian and Carolinian. Somewhat longer distances between the stops.
Let's talk about long-haul from LA to CHicago.. What would be the right unit for the job. In my opinion F40PH
MotivePower's MP40PH-3C being delivered right now to GO Transit would be best in my opinion. It's got an honest 4,000 traction HP regardless of HEP demand and a proven EMD traction system, all while meeting Tier 2 emissions.
oltmannd wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?Let's start with Commuter trains in California. L.A. to San Diego for example>Short haul. What do you think?A good fit! Pretty convient then that that's what they use.Of course, Santa Barbara to San Diego hardly qualifies as commuter neither does the full extent of the the Capitol Corridor trains nor the Cascades. Those are at best medium distance trains. I think that 100-200 miles stuff is short haul. Medium haul would be those day coach trains like the Maple Leaf, Pennsylvanian and Carolinian. Somewhat longer distances between the stops.
Well, it's ~100Miles LA to San Diego, so when you tack on the trip to Santa Barbara, it's significantly longer. Cascades is for sure longer.
I'm not sure how long the distance is from Bakersfield to Sacramento is for the San Joanquins (which is what I meant when I said capital Corridor.)
bogie_engineer wrote: MotivePower's MP40PH-3C being delivered right now to GO Transit would be best in my opinion. It's got an honest 4,000 traction HP regardless of HEP demand and a proven EMD traction system, all while meeting Tier 2 emissions.
An EMD guy is just never gonna like anything GE, huh!
According to MotivePower's web page, the MP40PH-3C locomotives weight 285-295,000#. That's a lot! I'd guess you'd not want to run them much faster than 80 mph or so.
They'd be great for some of those long METRA gallery trains, though. Fast loading, lots of HP for traction for good acceleration between suburban station stops.
YoHo1975 wrote: oltmannd wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: oltmannd wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F40PHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_F59PHIhttp://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288Let's see what is the best locomotive? Take a look at the details.....In my opinion, I think F59PHI is worth the money..OK. You're entitled to your opinion. Which details should we look at? Worth the money for what purpose? To look at? Commuter? Short haul? Long distance? Freight? Easiest to paint with a roller? What?Let's start with Commuter trains in California. L.A. to San Diego for example>Short haul. What do you think?A good fit! Pretty convient then that that's what they use.Of course, Santa Barbara to San Diego hardly qualifies as commuter neither does the full extent of the the Capitol Corridor trains nor the Cascades. Those are at best medium distance trains. I think that 100-200 miles stuff is short haul. Medium haul would be those day coach trains like the Maple Leaf, Pennsylvanian and Carolinian. Somewhat longer distances between the stops.Well, it's ~100Miles LA to San Diego, so when you tack on the trip to Santa Barbara, it's significantly longer. Cascades is for sure longer.I'm not sure how long the distance is from Bakersfield to Sacramento is for the San Joanquins (which is what I meant when I said capital Corridor.)
Well, to be fair, it's probably the station spacing and route profile that matter more than the total route miles. For a typical LD train with station stops 30 miles or more apart, the quicker loading of the EMD doesn't get you much. The Surfliners, with their fairly closely spaced stations probably benefit from the quicker loading.
Ham549 wrote:cost effectiveness, ease of maintenance <-- That is why the F40PH was better
Yes, the F40PH is more cost effective and easier to maintain than an F7.
Are you incorrigible?
You're allowed to like them "just because", you know.
Locomotives are machines. And as such they get worn out and replaced. Thus is the story of the F40. It was a step up from the Fs and Es and P30s. The P42s are a step up from the F40. They are safer, more fuel efficient, more comfortable, more electronicy, have a longer range, and probably came with a GE warranty when new.
They'll serve for another bunch of years then eventualy something will replace them. Time marches on.
Isn't it about time you get a life and let this go?
chefjavier wrote: sovablunt wrote: I used to have arguments like this over why my beloved Tomcats were retired so that the gay Super Hornets could take over the flight deck. But mainly its cost effectiveness, ease of maintenance and ultimately the fact that the government wasnt too happy with one company either. So, generally, similar rules apply here. I like F40s because of how they look and sound, I'm nostalgic like that. I also know that they are old and and lack the performance and the ease of maintenance based on what I have learned from all you guys.In your opinion which is better plane for maintance, F-14 or F-18?
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I had to throw my 2 cents in! I'm not an Amtrak engineer, but I get the privilege of running the old Amtrak F40s every day in commuter service. All of ours went through a complete rebuild and sound deadening tech has gotten super advanced now in the 2020s! Two of our locomotives have cabs almost as quiet as a GE, and that's with the HEP running.
Now for my $0.02 worth.
From late 2012 to the end of 2014, I was working in Santa Ana and usually commuting via Amtrak. Motive power then was usually an F40PH (AKA Thunderwagon) or a Genesis - the Genesis were notably better on acceleration.
As of this date, I still ride behind (or ahead of) an F40PH on Metra's Southwest Service (ex-Wabash) for my daily commute.
Erik_Mag Motive power then was usually an F40PH (AKA Thunderwagon) or a Genesis - the Genesis were notably better on acceleration.
People say the Siemens are quicker -- apparently that means they can be quicker, but they don't usually turn out to be anything special.
timzAn F40 with Cummins-or-whatever-it-is HEP will do a standing-start mile faster than any GE. If the train is shortish, any F40 will beat the GE.
It was my impression observing the last days of the U34CHs that they would out-accelerate any EMD operating in NJT service then. In part that was due to the way their prime movers were governed at station stops -- held at 725rpm for HEP frequency compatibility, and excited in passenger service only slightly behind the governor feeding additional fuel at constant rpm for the start. A typical consist starting from North Hackensack with the locomotive opposite the MdDonald's at River Edge Road would have the cab car end crossing the street at a good percentage of track speed... the subsequent passage and echoes being very much 'honorary steam engine' as the prime-mover chugging did not change cadence with acceleration.
I think the eix vs. four traction motors and the relatively rudimentary state of effective traction-control 'electronics' may have had something to do with this, more than the additional horsepower difference (which IIRC is between 3400 traction hp and about 2200 for the GE and EMD respectively when producing HEP to the consist...)
CSSHEGEWISCHMost of the remaining F40PH's are in suburban service, which is less demanding...
This thread was a nostalgia trip. Kinda miss silly threads about Railfan preferences.
And now even the Genesis days are numbered.
One wonders, Metrolink is looking at buying more Tier 4. I wonder if they will continue with F125s or move ot Seimens. Or, someone else.
I don't know if all the F125 issues were worked out and maybe the change in ownership of Vossloh made it impossible, but it would have been nice to see a bit more competition in the space.
I'd like to see EMD build a commuter electric locomotive in an F59PHI/F59 or even F40 shell.
Probably the PHI for crash worthiness. Assuming they can find some to do it with.
Not sure if such a unit would work out for weight and still have enough capacity to fill even a commuter need, but it would satisfy the itch to see these units ride high again.
Of course in some sense, you could throw batteries under an F7 skin if all you wanted was a nostalgic engine.
On the little side tangent. One of the interesting things about Instagram (reels) and Tiktok is that a lot of people that have knowledge of isoteric things...and can explain them in a compelling way can make a name for themselves on the platform.
In the realm of jet fighters, a subject I understand even less than Diesel electric locos, but have even stronger preferences, it was via tiktok that I learned just how close the SuperTomcat 21 came to reality. And that, the new Airframe, GE engines and modern systems would likely have lead to a fighter that outperformed even the F15E/EX at a much better reliability than the F18 and the original F14A/B/D. And that the SuperTomcat was considered for some of the USAF roles that the F15 plays
As much as I love EMD engines for no reason than as a fan,
My Fighterjet preference is so much stronger. The F14 is my fighterjet as everyone (at least ever boy back in my GenX youth) has to chose. I will go to my grave thinking that US made a horrible choice in not getting us a SuperTomcat 21.
timz An F40 with Cummins-or-whatever-it-is HEP will do a standing-start mile faster than any GE. If the train is shortish, any F40 will beat the GE.
An F40 with Cummins-or-whatever-it-is HEP will do a standing-start mile faster than any GE. If the train is shortish, any F40 will beat the GE.
My experience with riding Amtrak in 2013-14 was that a Genesis would get the train up to track speed faster than a F40PH and in general would make better time.
In reply to Yoho, simply putting the GE F110 engines in the F-14 would have made a big difference - think a few of the F-14Ds had them. One advantage is that the F110 powered F-14's could take off safely with no afterburners. I also heard about what the F-110 engine does in an F-16 - a former F-16 jock got in trouble when doing a maneuver that would not put him above Mach 1 with an F100 engine did end up exceeding Mach 1 with the F110 - broke a number of windows on the ground below.
The fact that a Genesis locomotive has over a thousand more horsepower than a F40 might have something to do about accerating faster.
Erik_Mag timz An F40 with Cummins-or-whatever-it-is HEP will do a standing-start mile faster than any GE. If the train is shortish, any F40 will beat the GE. My experience with riding Amtrak in 2013-14 was that a Genesis would get the train up to track speed faster than a F40PH and in general would make better time. In reply to Yoho, simply putting the GE F110 engines in the F-14 would have made a big difference - think a few of the F-14Ds had them. One advantage is that the F110 powered F-14's could take off safely with no afterburners. I also heard about what the F-110 engine does in an F-16 - a former F-16 jock got in trouble when doing a maneuver that would not put him above Mach 1 with an F100 engine did end up exceeding Mach 1 with the F110 - broke a number of windows on the ground below.
Yes, if they start side by side the GE might well catch up to the F40 after a few miles.
YoHo1975 This thread was a nostalgia trip. Kinda miss silly threads about Railfan preferences. And now even the Genesis days are numbered. One wonders, Metrolink is looking at buying more Tier 4. I wonder if they will continue with F125s or move ot Seimens. Or, someone else. I don't know if all the F125 issues were worked out and maybe the change in ownership of Vossloh made it impossible, but it would have been nice to see a bit more competition in the space. I'd like to see EMD build a commuter electric locomotive in an F59PHI/F59 or even F40 shell. Probably the PHI for crash worthiness. Assuming they can find some to do it with. Not sure if such a unit would work out for weight and still have enough capacity to fill even a commuter need, but it would satisfy the itch to see these units ride high again. Of course in some sense, you could throw batteries under an F7 skin if all you wanted was a nostalgic engine.
Oh yeah I miss them too. I remember reading this thread when I was little...now I have a bit of input I can add! The rebuilds they are doing today are insane. Even the factory spec rebuilds ours got, I would trust 381 and 122 (399) to take a train anywhere in the country, and would dare say could be put into regular Amtrak service reliably.
Overmod timz An F40 with Cummins-or-whatever-it-is HEP will do a standing-start mile faster than any GE. If the train is shortish, any F40 will beat the GE. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with locomotive power; it only reflects GE's preoccupation with slow electrical loading. Eliminate the pollution fakery and you will see what Erik indicated. It was my impression observing the last days of the U34CHs that they would out-accelerate any EMD operating in NJT service then. In part that was due to the way their prime movers were governed at station stops -- held at 725rpm for HEP frequency compatibility, and excited in passenger service only slightly behind the governor feeding additional fuel at constant rpm for the start. A typical consist starting from North Hackensack with the locomotive opposite the MdDonald's at River Edge Road would have the cab car end crossing the street at a good percentage of track speed... the subsequent passage and echoes being very much 'honorary steam engine' as the prime-mover chugging did not change cadence with acceleration. I think the eix vs. four traction motors and the relatively rudimentary state of effective traction-control 'electronics' may have had something to do with this, more than the additional horsepower difference (which IIRC is between 3400 traction hp and about 2200 for the GE and EMD respectively when producing HEP to the consist...)
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with locomotive power; it only reflects GE's preoccupation with slow electrical loading. Eliminate the pollution fakery and you will see what Erik indicated.
My experience load testing quite a few EMD Dash 2s and GEs with Sentry Excitation is the EMD would crush a GE in commuter service.
Time to full load from idle for the EMD was about 20 seconds and pretty linear. GE uses a three-slope curve for loading. Wipe the throttle from idle to 8 and it take 80 seconds to get to full load. The first slope is shallow. about 30 seconds to get to a few hundred HP. The second slope is steeper. Another 30 seconds and you're at about 1/3 load. The last slope is steep, with the last 2/3 coming on like gangbusters in the last 20 seconds.
Both get to full engine speed pretty quickly. Getting to full load is where the EMD shines.
I have a friend who worked at nuclear plant. The back up diesels there had to be a full load in 20 seconds. They used ALCO 251s. How? By using compressed air to spin up the turbo to get the intake manifold pressure up, fast. You could do this with an FDL, I suppose...
timz Yes, if they start side by side the GE might well catch up to the F40 after a few miles.
We can simulate on a spreadsheet. Someone should do it.
oltmannd timz Yes, if they start side by side the GE might well catch up to the F40 after a few miles. We can simulate on a spreadsheet. Someone should do it.
There are way too many people that think spreadsheeting is railroading.
IT IS NOT.
Railroading is done in the real world, with real weather and real varying condiditons.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
oltmannd My experience load testing quite a few EMD Dash 2s and GEs with Sentry Excitation is the EMD would crush a GE in commuter service. Time to full load from idle for the EMD was about 20 seconds and pretty linear. GE uses a three-slope curve for loading. Wipe the throttle from idle to 8 and it take 80 seconds to get to full load. The first slope is shallow. about 30 seconds to get to a few hundred HP. The second slope is steeper. Another 30 seconds and you're at about 1/3 load. The last slope is steep, with the last 2/3 coming on like gangbusters in the last 20 seconds.
My experience with F40's vs Genesis was on Amtrak where the shortest start to stop was on the order of 15 miles. The extra 1000HP in the Genesis had plenty of time to make their presence known.
Battery technology has progressed to where a hybrid commuter locomotive would make sense, where tractive effort could be adhesion limited to a much higher fraction of track speed than with a standard diesel-electric.
oltmanndWe can simulate on a spreadsheet. Someone should do it.
I remember walking along the high platform at Summit (DL&W), alongside the cab of a GP40P. I think the amp needle was at 1200 before the train was too fast for me -- but maybe I misread it. Does that sound reasonable?
timz oltmannd We can simulate on a spreadsheet. Someone should do it. Maybe you can do it (lotsa luck!) but none of us knows how much tractive effort any engine has X seconds after it starts, having reached speed Y by that time, since the TE depends on both X and Y. I remember walking along the high platform at Summit (DL&W), alongside the cab of a GP40P. I think the amp needle was at 1200 before the train was too fast for me -- but maybe I misread it. Does that sound reasonable?
oltmannd We can simulate on a spreadsheet. Someone should do it.
Maybe you can do it (lotsa luck!) but none of us knows how much tractive effort any engine has X seconds after it starts, having reached speed Y by that time, since the TE depends on both X and Y.
The slower a train moves with the locomotives a full throttle - the higher the reading of the amp meter. The 'short time' ratings that are used with DC traction motor engines represent this fact.
Amperes through traction motors generate heat - more amps, more heat. Heat that is capable, in the extreme, of basically melting its electrical parts down.
AC traction motors, through electrical processes I don't have enough knowledge to explain do not have this same kind of failure mode.
BaltACD oltmannd timz Yes, if they start side by side the GE might well catch up to the F40 after a few miles. We can simulate on a spreadsheet. Someone should do it. There are way too many people that think spreadsheeting is railroading. IT IS NOT. Railroading is done in the real world, with real weather and real varying condiditons.
Of course. But the physics can be done on a spreadsheet. It's simple stuff.
And I've been involved in enough, real world, over the road, locomotive performance testing to know the limits of what you can and shouldn't do on a spreadsheet.
This GE vs EMD train acceleration question is answerable on a spreadsheet.
oltmannd Overmod timz An F40 with Cummins-or-whatever-it-is HEP will do a standing-start mile faster than any GE. If the train is shortish, any F40 will beat the GE. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with locomotive power; it only reflects GE's preoccupation with slow electrical loading. Eliminate the pollution fakery and you will see what Erik indicated. It was my impression observing the last days of the U34CHs that they would out-accelerate any EMD operating in NJT service then. In part that was due to the way their prime movers were governed at station stops -- held at 725rpm for HEP frequency compatibility, and excited in passenger service only slightly behind the governor feeding additional fuel at constant rpm for the start. A typical consist starting from North Hackensack with the locomotive opposite the MdDonald's at River Edge Road would have the cab car end crossing the street at a good percentage of track speed... the subsequent passage and echoes being very much 'honorary steam engine' as the prime-mover chugging did not change cadence with acceleration. I think the eix vs. four traction motors and the relatively rudimentary state of effective traction-control 'electronics' may have had something to do with this, more than the additional horsepower difference (which IIRC is between 3400 traction hp and about 2200 for the GE and EMD respectively when producing HEP to the consist...) My experience load testing quite a few EMD Dash 2s and GEs with Sentry Excitation is the EMD would crush a GE in commuter service. Time to full load from idle for the EMD was about 20 seconds and pretty linear. GE uses a three-slope curve for loading. Wipe the throttle from idle to 8 and it take 80 seconds to get to full load. The first slope is shallow. about 30 seconds to get to a few hundred HP. The second slope is steeper. Another 30 seconds and you're at about 1/3 load. The last slope is steep, with the last 2/3 coming on like gangbusters in the last 20 seconds. Both get to full engine speed pretty quickly. Getting to full load is where the EMD shines. I have a friend who worked at nuclear plant. The back up diesels there had to be a full load in 20 seconds. They used ALCO 251s. How? By using compressed air to spin up the turbo to get the intake manifold pressure up, fast. You could do this with an FDL, I suppose...
GE FDLs had crappy exhaust mainfolds - alway cracking. So, in the 90s, GE redesigned and result was reduced volume, which promised to reduce turbo lag some. I don't know if they ever took advantage of it with micro-Sentry excitation rates.
Oops. Sentry was wheelcreep. CHEC was excitation. In the late Dash 7s. Micro version in Dash 8s.
So... spreadsheet. Those who guess that the P42's HP would catch the F40 in less than a mile were good seat of the pants estimaters. I used one locomotive, 500 HEP HP, 8, 55 ton coaches.
EMD to full load in 20 seconds, linear. GE to full load, 10% after 30 seconds, 50% at 60 seconds, full load at 90 seconds - each piece linear.
GE train caught EMD after 0.4 miles. Balance speed for EMD train about 96, 113 for the GE.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cWsPYCVvVde4fC5SA
oltmannd each piece wise linear.
each piece wise linear.
As I mentioned a few times, my experience was that the P42's could get up to track speed faster than the F40's when hauling the Surfliners.
What would be really interesting is how a hybrid locomotive would work out where the battery was sized to put out 3MW for a short period of time. That is it would be more like an electric locomotive.
Erik_MagWhat would be really interesting is how a hybrid locomotive would work out where the battery was sized to put out 3MW for a short period of time. That is it would be more like an electric locomotive.
Keep in mind that you would retain the GE-style excitation that loads the diesel engine comparatively slowly for emissions, and the diesel engine would not be kept at full synchronous RPM for HEP as on the U-34s (or the F40s set up to take it off the main or dedicated generator). Naturally, if you could pre-accelerate the engine against only its own pumping resistance plus nominal small excitation, and then ramp up the alternator excitation quickly in sync with the battery excitation, you could get any desired AC starting current that the motors could use. If you were using even the current generation of hydrogen fuel cells, there might be comparatively little lag to bring the cells on in parallel with the battery drain once you got the train over about 10mph and could start using the higher horsepower to maintain acceleration rate...
Undortunately, I don't see any use for acceleration above about 2.5fpsps (the old transit 'norm' I recall was about 1.5) so zero to 79 in under a trainlength might not be customer-desired. But it would be fun to watch, and probably to hear...
Overmod Undortunately, I don't see any use for acceleration above about 2.5fpsps (the old transit 'norm' I recall was about 1.5) so zero to 79 in under a trainlength might not be customer-desired. But it would be fun to watch, and probably to hear...
With a locomotive hauled train, the advantages of the extra accelerating power will come from raising the speed where acceleration is limited by adhesion. 1.5 ft/sec sustained to 60mph will get you to 60 mph in 1/2 mile. To get a higher acceleration rate would require motors on the trailing car axles with batteries or supercaps on each car. The advantage in the latter case is that more of the braking energy could be re-used for acceleration - a potential win-win with faster schedules and lower fuel consumption.
At what acceleration rate does it affect the passengers, i.e. those walking down the aisles?
oltmanndGE train caught EMD after 0.4 miles. Balance speed for EMD train about 96, 113 for the GE. https://photos.app.goo.gl/cWsPYCVvVde4fC5SA
The graph says the F40 and the GE are at the same speed at the 0.4-mile mark, but they don't pass it at the same time. The F40 passes that point at 38 mph, and some time later the GE passes the same point at 38 mph.
Remember: the area under the speed-vs-time curve equals distance-vs-time. Looks like the GE catches the F40 about 4.7 minutes from the start -- 4 miles or so.
BackshopAt what acceleration rate does it affect the passengers, i.e. those walking down the aisles?
There were reports in Trains (I think in Pennypacker's story on the Metroliners circa 1967) that mentioned the higher figure for those trains. The lower figure was for 'transit' vehicles -- could have been BART, could have been Silverliners, I find I don't remember precisely enough.
I do not know offhand either what the various figures for the higher-speed Shin Kansen, TGV, Chinese HSR, and various maglev systems are, but they should be relatively easy to find for comparison discussion.
If you could guarantee all passengers firmly in their seats and belted in, you could get remarkable acceleration out of modern AC drive. But I don't think that's practical.
FWIW, the acceleration rate for the original BART cars was 3 mphps from 0 to 30mph, and 3 mphps is roughly 4.5 fpsps. The traction control system took a couple of seconds to go from standing still to max acceleration. I remember walking in BART cars when starting and I had time to adjust between walking on level and hill climbing. The PCC research indicated that a high rate of acceleration was tolerable as long as the change from no acceleration was done smoothly. FWIW, the PCC cars could do 5 mphps.
My recollection was that the Metroliners were set up to accelerate at 1.1 mphps (~1.6 fpsps) from 0 to 100 mph. I suspect the 2.5 fpsps figure came from the Silverliners, where short distances between stops prioritized higher initial acceleration, while the longer distances between stops for the Metroliners priotitized sustained acceleration.
Erik_MagFWIW, the acceleration rate for the original BART cars was 3 mphps from 0 to 30mph
I haven't been on new Silverliners, but fifteen years ago the DC-motor (?) cars took maybe 70 seconds to reach 80 mph. In the first ten seconds, maybe 100 feet.
timz The graph says the F40 and the GE are at the same speed at the 0.4-mile mark, but they don't pass it at the same time. The F40 passes that point at 38 mph, and some time later the GE passes the same point at 38 mph. Remember: the area under the speed-vs-time curve equals distance-vs-time. Looks like the GE catches the F40 about 4.7 minutes from the start -- 4 miles or so.
For a 15 to 25 mile run, the GE will obviously be faster than the F40. The chart does reflect my experience with P42 powered trains going noticeably faster over most of the route.
I'm assuming Don was calculating speeds for level track, and I would expect that the GE would show up better on an ascending grade such as northbound out of San Juan Capistrano. Another thing that hasn't been discussed is accelerating from some sort of restricted speed, where the P42 would already be partially loaded.
timz oltmannd GE train caught EMD after 0.4 miles. Balance speed for EMD train about 96, 113 for the GE. https://photos.app.goo.gl/cWsPYCVvVde4fC5SA You're misinterpreting your graphs. (And you mislabeled them -- is that easy to fix?) The graph says the F40 and the GE are at the same speed at the 0.4-mile mark, but they don't pass it at the same time. The F40 passes that point at 38 mph, and some time later the GE passes the same point at 38 mph. Remember: the area under the speed-vs-time curve equals distance-vs-time. Looks like the GE catches the F40 about 4.7 minutes from the start -- 4 miles or so.
oltmannd GE train caught EMD after 0.4 miles. Balance speed for EMD train about 96, 113 for the GE. https://photos.app.goo.gl/cWsPYCVvVde4fC5SA
You're misinterpreting your graphs. (And you mislabeled them -- is that easy to fix?)
Damn it! Of course, you're right! Here's the charts you're looking for...
https://photos.app.goo.gl/a1CmBUVWp65k9BUi6
GE catches up after 4:46 and 4.04 miles.
Erik_Mag oltmannd each piece wise linear. As I mentioned a few times, my experience was that the P42's could get up to track speed faster than the F40's when hauling the Surfliners. What would be really interesting is how a hybrid locomotive would work out where the battery was sized to put out 3MW for a short period of time. That is it would be more like an electric locomotive.
If I'm a commuter agency, or even short haul intercity, I'd be all about trying to get hybrid locomotive that could keep me at 2 mph/sec or better all the way up to track speed. (And then get a good hunk of the energy back on braking! - with batteries continuing to charge during the station stop.)
Backshop At what acceleration rate does it affect the passengers, i.e. those walking down the aisles?
I'm throwing in with the 2-3 mph/sec acceleration as max for passenger comfort crowd...
oltmanndIf I'm a commuter agency, or even short haul intercity, I'd be all about trying to get hybrid locomotive that could keep me at 2 mph/sec or better all the way up to track speed. (And then get a good hunk of the energy back on braking! - with batteries continuing to charge during the station stop.)
RPS in Fullerton has been saying they can provide that for a number of years.
In my opinion you'd use some combination of on-board KERS and supercapacitor banks for fast regenerative-braking storage in the absence of 'punctuated catenary' or smart third rail. This would then be used for controlled-rate charge and discharge of the actual chemical traction battery between its 20 and 80% or whatever is optimal for its battery chemistry by now -- even with the somewhat cockamamie RPS plan to rebuild cells from BEV batteries en masse to get the necessary capacity, you'd start having trouble if you tried slamming that acceleration and deceleration rate repeatedly across the battery alone with typical peninsula-size loads.
timz oltmannd If I'm a commuter agency, or even short haul intercity, I'd be all about trying to get hybrid locomotive that could keep me at 2 mph/sec or better all the way up to track speed. (And then get a good hunk of the energy back on braking! - with batteries continuing to charge during the station stop.) How possible do you suppose it is?
oltmannd If I'm a commuter agency, or even short haul intercity, I'd be all about trying to get hybrid locomotive that could keep me at 2 mph/sec or better all the way up to track speed. (And then get a good hunk of the energy back on braking! - with batteries continuing to charge during the station stop.)
How possible do you suppose it is?
I think the correct question is how practical it is, as it appears to be possible with existing technology. My recollection is that LFP batteries are good for repeated 5C charge/discharge rates and with specific energy of say 140w-hrs per tonne, a 10 tonne (11 short ton) battery would be good for 7 MW. Coupled with perhaps 3 MW from the prime mover, 10 MW would be good for 50,000 lbf tractive effort at 100 mph, 62,500 lbf at 80 mph and 100,000 lbf at 50 mph. The fastest charging would be during initial deceleration - the question is if the prime mover can make up for the difference between accelerating energy and regenerated braking energy.
I've been wondering about hybrid passenger locomotives since reading about EMD's F69 (12 cyl 710 with AC traction motors) back in the 1990's.
Erik_MagMy recollection is that LFP batteries are good for repeated 5C charge/discharge rates and with specific energy of say 140w-hrs per tonne, a 10 tonne (11 short ton) battery would be good for 7 MW.
Until it's near fully charged would be the short and snappy answer. There's a tradeoff between specific power and specific energy, hybrid cars, trucks, commuter locomotives would require high specific power.
Note that the 7MW charge rate would be for less than a minute, with charge rate decreasing as the train slows down. The key question is how many of these rapid charging cycles could be handled by the battery without degrading the battery? My impression is that number varies with with depth of discharge per cycle. I've lso seen many repports on modifications to Li-ion batteries to allow large numbers of high rate cycles.
Erik_MagThere's a tradeoff between specific power and specific energy
Exactly.
LFP (lithium iron phosphate) batteries have a higher specific power (watts/kg or watts/lb) than Li-ion batteries. Li-ion batteries have a higher specific energy (w-hrs/kg or watt-hrs/lb) than LFP batteries by about a factor of two. Batteries for a hybrid commuter locomotive would be designed for high specific power (long with a high cycle count), while batteries for a pure battery-electric locomotive would be designed for high specific energy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.