The technical spec that was put out is the Amtrak PRIIA spec-which appears to have been generated internally. It can viewed on the web.
One would think that EMD had a built-in advantage on the IDOT bid, given that they have an order in hand...and are no doubt well along on set of shop drawings for the Cal DOT order.
It will be interesting to see what transpires when the IDOT order hits the rails-given the lack of institutional product knowledge in the field.I wonder how the field service function will be divided up between Siemens and Cummins.
CPM500
creepycrank...but it uses a CAT C175 diesel that has only been tested for a couple of years on some NS locomotives.
They are "hanger queens" that never get far from their home in Birmingham, AL.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Okay, so around 4200-4700 HP. Thanks for the information, it will be interesting to see where this all goes.
NorthWest What are the horsepower requirements for a diesel locomotive of this type? I can't imagine much more than 5000, and the GEVO-16 will get you close to 6000. A 16-710 will produce about 4300. With these, weight and size may be issues, but these can be mitigated through an effective suspension.
What are the horsepower requirements for a diesel locomotive of this type? I can't imagine much more than 5000, and the GEVO-16 will get you close to 6000. A 16-710 will produce about 4300.
With these, weight and size may be issues, but these can be mitigated through an effective suspension.
By the way in Cummins introductory announcement they claimed that the QSK95 was "the highest horsepower high speed diesel" at 4200hp @ 1800 rpm. I guess they are fixated on MTU ignoring the CAT C176 at 4700 hp @ 1800rpm
Paul Milenkovic Paul MilenkovicDon't know, maybe they could partner with an overseas source on the trucks and quill drive for low track impact at high speeds, and the Genesis has a European truck design, no? But going with anything but EMD or GE sounds scary. I don't care how big Siemens is or how many people they employ in the U.S.. I was asking about reliability. ... But I am skeptical of Diesel prime movers without proven railroad experience, even if they come from a U.S. supplier. Maybe my concerns are unfounded, but they have nothing to do with "American trains need to be built here."
Paul MilenkovicDon't know, maybe they could partner with an overseas source on the trucks and quill drive for low track impact at high speeds, and the Genesis has a European truck design, no? But going with anything but EMD or GE sounds scary.
I don't care how big Siemens is or how many people they employ in the U.S.. I was asking about reliability.
...
But I am skeptical of Diesel prime movers without proven railroad experience, even if they come from a U.S. supplier. Maybe my concerns are unfounded, but they have nothing to do with "American trains need to be built here."
Posters have shown how both the GE and EMD/CAT high speed engines have had problems. What prime movers that have proven railroad experience are you suggesting to use? It's apparent from this thread the application of high speed rail diesel is so new and developing, that there is no history from which to draw comparisons.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD I can't speak to Amtrak or any of the commuter agencies, but freight railroads only want to see their engines in the shop every 92 days for their required Quarterly Inspection that is required by law. Other than that they just want to put fuel and sand in the locomotive and dump the toilet holding tank. Anything else is considered at maintenance queen - lounging in the shop. Dump the toilet hold tank . . . every 92 days? Ewwwww!
BaltACD I can't speak to Amtrak or any of the commuter agencies, but freight railroads only want to see their engines in the shop every 92 days for their required Quarterly Inspection that is required by law. Other than that they just want to put fuel and sand in the locomotive and dump the toilet holding tank. Anything else is considered at maintenance queen - lounging in the shop.
I can't speak to Amtrak or any of the commuter agencies, but freight railroads only want to see their engines in the shop every 92 days for their required Quarterly Inspection that is required by law. Other than that they just want to put fuel and sand in the locomotive and dump the toilet holding tank. Anything else is considered at maintenance queen - lounging in the shop.
Dump the toilet hold tank . . . every 92 days? Ewwwww!
Service truck that supplies fuel and sand also dumps the holding tank. 92 days for holding tank would be ripe.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm Paul MilenkovicDon't know, maybe they could partner with an overseas source on the trucks and quill drive for low track impact at high speeds, and the Genesis has a European truck design, no? But going with anything but EMD or GE sounds scary. Don't forget, although Siemens is a giant, worldwide German company, their US subsidiary employs about 60,000 American workers. And Cummins is a US company dating back to 1919.
Don't forget, although Siemens is a giant, worldwide German company, their US subsidiary employs about 60,000 American workers. And Cummins is a US company dating back to 1919.
We can offer all kinds of theories -- the bumps and knocks of track and coupling impacts make for heavier duty service, the supposed desire of railroad people in America not to put much effort into maintenance, they historically heavier passenger and freight trains in the U.S., that railroad equipment is a rather narrow market and that only a couple market entrants doing the necessary R&D and continuous improvement can be supported.
But imported railroad equipment, passenger equipment, Diesel locomotives, haven't had a great history, with the AEM-7 being a fortunate exception. The mid 50's Talgo didn't work out that well, but the Cascades Talgo is successful? But then Talgo has insisted on a rather pricey maintenance contract so they have control over the level of maintenance so as to not sully their reputation, but that maintenance contract cost is a sticking point on ever putting the Wisconsin Talgos into service.
I have never, ever around here insisted on a "buy American" policy on passenger rail, especially since our own Budd and Pullman Standard are no longer supplying passenger cars. Buying passenger trains is buying foreign, with maybe a window dressing of a US factory that assembles from the imported parts. And maybe a low track-impact locomotive will require imported parts -- the quill drive trucks.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepper "they probably would be droppihg valves by now" Where when who? Y?
"they probably would be droppihg valves by now" Where when who? Y?
The high power density engine market is dominated by MTU and that's what CAT and Cummins engine are trying to get a piece of the action. The price to be paid is that of short service life between overhauls.
The Siemens Vectron, the locomotives that these will be based off of, use MTU diesels.
MTU invented the large displacement high speed diesel used mostly in high speed naval vessels and some of these catamaran passenger ferries. Now CAT and Cummins have jumped into the market. I think that the CAT C175 has been in production for about 5 years but the biggest Cummins engine was the QSK60 which has been used in marine propulsion and ming trucks. The QSK95 was announced about a year ago and I think at that time they would have a prototype ready to test about this time with production starting in 2015. None of these engines are easy to work on and both have 4 turbos with a sequential loading system to try to beat turbo lag.
GE builds Jennbacher high speed diesels under license for their Power Haul locomotive but the first batch has had a lot of problems with fuel fires that has done a lot of damage. Remember that the Fairbanks Morse OP engine had a long history of reliable service in the navy and with power generator sets until it met its downfall in locomotive service.
Can I presume that any HrSR diesel engine is going to have to run at higher RPMs to keep the overall weight within reasonable limits? Do any of the diesel builders have a large high speed diesel engine that isn't relatively new?
The Progress Rail/ EMD passenger locomotive that they sold some California commuter railroad is 125 mph capable but it uses a CAT C175 diesel that has only been tested for a couple of years on some NS locomotives. I'm sure CAT thinks that they are but if they are typical CATs they are probably dropping valves by now.
The Cummins QSK 95 is only in the prototype stage now, essentially a cyber diesel that works fine on the computer. The large high speed diesels among other things to get high horsepower have very high piston speed that results in shorter service life. Remember NASCAR engine last only one race and top dragsters are good for maybe 4 runs or one mile before the engine is replaced. advantage that Cummins has is a proprietary system that periodically drains off some of the lube oil and replace it with fresh oil. In some circles its called the "english oil change" as in replacing oil that leaks out.
Paul Milenkovic What inquiring minds want to know is, what about reliability? ... Don't know, maybe they could partner with an overseas source on the trucks and quill drive for low track impact at high speeds, and the Genesis has a European truck design, no? But going with anything but EMD or GE sounds scary.
What inquiring minds want to know is, what about reliability?
Don't know, maybe they could partner with an overseas source on the trucks and quill drive for low track impact at high speeds, and the Genesis has a European truck design, no? But going with anything but EMD or GE sounds scary.
The diesel engines will be built by Cummins, a US company. Their website says they have experience in European high speed diesel service. Are Cummins engines not dependable?
If EMD or GE would have to go to Europe to buy running gear, then how is that different than Siemens coming here?
Since high speed passenger diesel (above 110 mph), is new to the US, it's not unexpected that EMD and GE don't have the institutional knowledge to jump right on it.
CSSHEGEWISCH A lot depends on the specs included in the bid package. It is quite possible that MPI couldn't come up with a qualifying bid based on the HSP46.
A lot depends on the specs included in the bid package. It is quite possible that MPI couldn't come up with a qualifying bid based on the HSP46.
carnej1 D.Carleton Interesting that this new generation of American Passenger locomotives, with the exception of the HSP46, utilize a high-speed prime mover: MTU, Cat, Cummins. What's a meduim-speed, medium-size engine mechanic to do? Go to work for the MBTA who are taking delivery of new MBTA/Wabtec locomotives with GEVO prime movers and GE electrical systems.
D.Carleton Interesting that this new generation of American Passenger locomotives, with the exception of the HSP46, utilize a high-speed prime mover: MTU, Cat, Cummins. What's a meduim-speed, medium-size engine mechanic to do?
Interesting that this new generation of American Passenger locomotives, with the exception of the HSP46, utilize a high-speed prime mover: MTU, Cat, Cummins. What's a meduim-speed, medium-size engine mechanic to do?
Go to work for the MBTA who are taking delivery of new MBTA/Wabtec locomotives with GEVO prime movers and GE electrical systems.
Um, the new MBTA diesels are the HSP46s...
Speaking of them, why didn't MPI bid with a modified HSP46?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Paul Milenkovic I get the impression that the Diesels in Europe are for light duty use because their really hard "pulls" are all electrified?
Well, the latest diesels being built for Europe are:
GE Powerhauls,
EMD JT42CWR (Class 66)s,
Vossloh Euro-uses EMD 710 prime mover
Voith Maxima-diesel hydraulic, not many built.
Siemens Eurorunner, Vectron diesels.
Bombardier TRAXX diesels.
The last 2 use MTU diesels.
Three out of the 6 use American equipment.
The scary part of 'specialized' locomotive is the continuing availability of replacement parts and skills necessary to maintain them. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Electric locomotives are pretty much a specialty of the European builders, and the AEM-7's have been particularly successful. Diesel locomotives maybe not so much. I get the impression that the Diesels in Europe are for light duty use because their really hard "pulls" are all electrified?
The Krauss-Maffei Diesel hydraulics didn't work out very well at all on the "our side of the Pond." Maybe they were "one-of" designs adapted to U.S. freight requirements, and if there was a demand they would have stuck with it to improve the design? Maybe K-M just didn't have European experience with such heavy duty use because they use straight electrics for that application? Maybe the economics of European railroads ( government ownership) were such that they tolerated much higher levels of preventive maintenance (and maybe providing employment for their workers in the transportation sector was a policy goal as we might do for the aerospace sector?).
Anyway, of the plethora of U.S. first-gen Diesels, only EMD achieved high reliability (also over time), and maybe ALCo, if your shop people "understood them" (no, ALCo had a Diesel engine model that probably sank their effort), and GE achieved reliability only over a long time, using their deep corporate resources, and putting their techs into railroad shops as "locomotive whisperers."
But look at the problems when EMD partnered with a foreign source on their 4-stroke H models, and how they back-tracked to the 710 design?
Maybe passenger locos are not as problematic as freight units operated in Run 8 for hours at a time whereas passenger units pull light trains, they accelerate their trains at high power and then throttle back? Commuter engines may be "light duty" as the bulk of their heavy pulling is only 4 hours a day in the AM and PM rush hour, but Amtrak engines really put on miles.
GE may have decided not to bid because they have as many orders as they can handle.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.