Line haul means anything that is for service outside of yards. California paid for theirs using emissions reduction money that WA and OR did not have access to. The emissions reduction was the primary goal, but reliability improvements were a happy accident.
I'm pretty sure that you can still do ECO repowers, or otherwise NS has been in violation quite a bit for the last couple years. A company recently did a mostly Tier IV or close to it rebuild of a standard F59PH after tests done on SCAX 865, see:
http://railpropulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/North-Carolina-Leads-The-Way-In-Emissions-Reduction.pdf
and http://www.ncampo.org/3-Locomotive%20Emissions%20Improvement.pdf
The F125s are supposed to replace all the SCAX F59s, and maybe the MPs as well.
EPA has a simple definition: All locomotives with less than 2,300 hp has to cpmply with the switch cycle every locomotive above this horsepower level has to comply to line-haul cycle.
Locomotive don't have to comply to Tier 4 if they are remanufactured according to the following definition: (Sorry it is the Canadian definition)
remanufactured locomotive means a locomotive that was originally manufactured after December 31, 1972, that contains more than 25 percent previously used parts and that
(a) has had, whether during a single maintenance event or cumulatively within a five-year period, each power assembly
(i) replaced, or
(ii) inspected and qualified for use;
(b) has been converted to enable it to operate using a fuel other than a fuel it was originally manufactured to use;
(c) is a repowered locomotive; or
(d) is a previously used locomotive into which a remanufactured locomotive engine is installed. (locomotive reconstruite)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2017-121/page-1.html?wbdisable=trueRegards, Volker
Edit: After trying to understand the above I realized that these seem to be Canadian regulations. Sorry for the misleading post. Posting late in the night doesn't seem a good idea. The EPA definition follows in a new post.
The GP33ECOs done from GP50s are true ECOs with 12-710 prime movers. The language of the law is pretty confusing, but they wouldn't be building them if they were illegal.
Following the posting of the Canadion rules in my previous post I hopefully get it right this time.
The definitions are in 40 CFR 1033.901: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/1033.901
Freshly manufactured locomotive means a new locomotive that contains fewer than 25 percent previously used parts (weighted by the dollar value of the parts) as described in § 1033.640.
Refurbish has the meaning given in § 1033.640.
Remanufacture means one of the following:
(1)
(i) To replace, or inspect and qualify, each and every power assembly of a locomotive or locomotive engine, whether during a single maintenance event or cumulatively within a five-year period.
(ii) To upgrade a locomotive or locomotive engine.
(iii) To convert a locomotive or locomotive engine to enable it to operate using a fuel other than it was originally manufactured to use.
(iv) To install a remanufactured engine or a freshly manufactured engine into a previously used locomotive.
(v) To repair a locomotive engine that does not contain power assemblies to a condition that is equivalent to or better than its original condition with respect to reliability and fuel consumption.
(2) Remanufacture also means the act of remanufacturing.
And 40 CFR 1033.640: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/1033.640
(a) The provisions of this section apply for locomotives that are produced from an existing locomotive so that the new locomotive contains both previously used parts and parts that have never been used before.
(1) Repowered locomotives are used locomotives in which a freshly manufactured propulsion engine is installed. As described in this section, a repowered locomotive is deemed to be either remanufactured or freshly manufactured, depending on the total amount of unused parts on the locomotive. It may also be deemed to be a refurbished locomotive.
(2) Refurbished locomotives are locomotives that contain more unused parts than previously used parts. As described in this section, a locomotive containing more unused parts than previously used parts may be deemed to be either remanufactured or freshly manufactured, depending on the total amount of unused parts on the locomotive. Note that § 1033.901 defines refurbishment of a pre-1973 locomotive to be an upgrade of the locomotive.
(d) If the weighted fraction of the locomotive that is comprised of previously used parts is greater than or equal to 25 percent, then the locomotive is considered to be a remanufactured locomotive and retains its original date of manufacture. Note, however, that if the weighted fraction of the locomotive that is comprised of previously used parts is less than 50 percent, then the locomotive is also considered to be a refurbished locomotive.
Regards, Volker
Edit: I've tried to illustrate the definitions for my own understanding:
Ok. I think I understand it now. Thanks for finding and posting that!
If you produce a new locomotive by replacing the engine in a 1990 locomotive with a freshly manufactured engine, but all other parts are used, then the locomotive would likely be considered to be a remanufactured locomotive and its date of original manufacture is the date on which assembly was completed in 1990. (Note: such a locomotive would also be considered to be a repowered locomotive.)
The talgo trains have always been run with two locomotives, one at each end. This is so the train does not have to be turned around after each trip.
ATSFGuyThe talgo trains have always been run with two locomotives, one at each end. This is so the train does not have to be turned around after each trip.
I don't think so. Early Cascade Talgo trains ran with a cabcar: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/122/286603565_34ce0ce818_b.jpg
Later they ran with a non-powered control unit (NPCU), a rebuilt F40 locomotive with all drive components removed and a baggage compartment installed:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Cascadeswithcabbage.jpg/1024px-Cascadeswithcabbage.jpg
The Wisconsin built Talgos have a special cabcar: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mspdude/11813596785/sizes/l/Regards, Volker
CShaveRRLocomotves on both ends will be found on most, if not all, of the trains that operate at 110 m.p.h. Apparently one unit and a cab car can't make it work. I was under the impression that the Milwaukee trains were using Cabbages at one end.
They use two locomotives on the Chicago to Milwaukee trains when they are unsure of the reliability of the other locomotive. Such is the case with the new Siemens Charger locomotives, they have no clue how they will perform in harsh winter conditions so on the Chicago to Milwaukee runs they have been assigning two operating locomotives during harsh weather and running the cabbage cabs during moderate weather.
December 30th the Milwaukee to Chicago run I rode had a Cabbage Cab, Amtrak GE Frieght Style unit, and the Siemens Charger loco. It was minus 5 to minus 10 which is a Temperature unique to CONUS vs. Europe. Hence the caution on the new Siemens design. I expect once the Siemens Chargers experience a few winters they will trust them to run solo in harsh conditions.
LabWhen I rode the wolverine from Jackson mi to Chicago and return a few months ago there only the engine pulling the train. No engine or cab car on the Rear. When boarding in Chicago we walked past the engine which had pulled the train into the depot. The rest of the train was seperate by about one car length with a different engine at the other end to pull us out.
I used to work long ago at the GM HQ building on West Grand Blvd with excellent views of the GT and Detroit trackage. They have several handy wyes in Detroit area and Northern Burbs such that the Chicago to Detroit trains can be easily turned at several points from near Detroit's Amtrak station onwards....North. I am not entirely sure of Pontiac but there is another Wye somewhere up the line North of Detroit. Also remember from the old Bluewater Michigan trips the GT had a proliferation of WYE trackage in eastern Michigan.
The existence of these wyes doesn't necessarily mean that they can be used easily. The wyes may be beyond yard limits which would translate into paying for a road crew to turn the train.
There is a Wye about 5 miles NW of the station.
Amtrak seems to prefer bi-directional operation on its corridor trains, even when a wye is available.
I had wondered about this too, on MO River Runner or IL service, there is never a rear engine, train is short. But they do have to carry some extra cars now in MO, UP wants extra axles, something to do with crossings so the train is longer, but not a push pull operation.
SunnylandI had wondered about this too, on MO River Runner or IL service, there is never a rear engine, train is short. But they do have to carry some extra cars now in MO, UP wants extra axles, something to do with crossings so the train is longer, but not a push pull operation.
Back in the day, my carrier restricted single locomotives or single Budd car trains to 30 MPH. The limited number of axles did not guarantee the proper operation of the signal system at the time (relay based signals). The single moving piece of equipment could go through 'detector' circuits faster than the relays could detect the equipments presence and do their job properly.
I don't know how big the Missouri River Runner's are, no do I know what types of issues UP is seeing with their operation.
CSX still maintains the 30 MPH restriction on the operation of a single locomotive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Sunnyland I had wondered about this too, on MO River Runner or IL service, there is never a rear engine, train is short. But they do have to carry some extra cars now in MO, UP wants extra axles, something to do with crossings so the train is longer, but not a push pull operation. Back in the day, my carrier restricted single locomotives or single Budd car trains to 30 MPH. The limited number of axles did not guarantee the proper operation of the signal system at the time (relay based signals). The single moving piece of equipment could go through 'detector' circuits faster than the relays could detect the equipments presence and do their job properly. I don't know how big the Missouri River Runner's are, no do I know what types of issues UP is seeing with their operation. CSX still maintains the 30 MPH restriction on the operation of a single locomotive.
Sunnyland I had wondered about this too, on MO River Runner or IL service, there is never a rear engine, train is short. But they do have to carry some extra cars now in MO, UP wants extra axles, something to do with crossings so the train is longer, but not a push pull operation.
CN's restrictions are similar:
One locomotive - 30 mph
Two locomotives, or one locomotive pulling one car - 50 mph
Anything more than that is allowed track speed. These rules were introduced in years past after Dispatchers began noticing that small consists (caboose hops, single RDCs etc) would intermittently disappear from their CTC display panel.
The most recent instance of this becoming an issue was when VIA Rail was testing a 3 car Danish ABB Flexliner in Ontario and Quebec, operating it at the permitted track speeds of over 90 mph. Being articulated, the Flexliner had only 8 axles and did not properly activate track circuits or crossing warning devices at the higher speeds.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude BaltACD Back in the day, my carrier restricted single locomotives or single Budd car trains to 30 MPH ...CSX still maintains the 30 MPH restriction on the operation of a single locomotive. CN's restrictions are similar: One locomotive - 30 mph
BaltACD Back in the day, my carrier restricted single locomotives or single Budd car trains to 30 MPH ...CSX still maintains the 30 MPH restriction on the operation of a single locomotive.
CN's restrictions are similar: One locomotive - 30 mph
This is interesting because the fastest I ever saw an early Geep run was on the Northeast Corridor, just west/south of the Trenton bridge, in 2001: light engine and, to my eyes, considerably faster than 85mph (I was extremely surprised that the engine could run that fast, let alone be sanctioned to run that fast -- I suspect some shop personnel had 'breathed' on it a bit). This was one of the Amtrak 'orange' units; perhaps someone knows what modifications these may have had.
Is there some aspect of ACSES or other systems that make signaling more reliable for light engines on the high-speed parts of the NEC?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.