GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Discussion of General Electric locomotive technology. Current official information can be found here: www.getransportation.com.

Moderators: AMTK84, MEC407

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby Ken S. » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:02 am

I think the model in question at the time would have been a "U34BH" since the U34CH was basically a U36C with some HP used for the HEP system, this model would have been a U36B built to similar specs.
User avatar
Ken S.
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: Whiting, NJ

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby MEC407 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:18 am

Ken S. wrote:I think the model in question at the time would have been a "U34BH" since the U34CH was basically a U36C with some HP used for the HEP system, this model would have been a U36B built to similar specs.


Quite right, although I was envisioning it in the late Dash 7 or early Dash 8 era, and with a full cowl carbody (in order to compete with the F40PH).
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby MEC407 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:23 am

mtuandrew wrote:Another question, in the four-motor vein, though more directed as a modern-day E or PA:

Both GE and EMD-Cat have a fair amount of experience with steerable six-axle trucks, and have recently rolled out new versions of the old two-motor, three-axle A1A (or B1) truck. Amtrak has turned down six-axle equipment since the E60MA rebuilds were retired, except for rental equipment on work trains. However, should a commuter agency be interested, would there be any issues with creating an ES44C4H (ES44HC4, PE44H, what have you) with HEP and steerable trucks? It seems like length and weight wouldn't be an issue, since the ES60AC (AC6000CW conversions) ride on the same frame with a larger prime mover.


Depending on the speeds involved, I don't see why it couldn't be possible. I do think, however, that there is still a lot of fear and suspicion among U.S. railroads regarding six-axle passenger units. I find this similar to the distrust of 20-cylinder engines based on the early problems with the SD45, even though those problems were eventually ironed out. No railroad or commuter agency wants to be the first to give a six-axle passenger unit a try, and possibly find out "the hard way" that it was a bad idea. :-\
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby v8interceptor » Tue May 21, 2013 12:55 pm

MEC407 wrote:
mtuandrew wrote:Another question, in the four-motor vein, though more directed as a modern-day E or PA:

Both GE and EMD-Cat have a fair amount of experience with steerable six-axle trucks, and have recently rolled out new versions of the old two-motor, three-axle A1A (or B1) truck. Amtrak has turned down six-axle equipment since the E60MA rebuilds were retired, except for rental equipment on work trains. However, should a commuter agency be interested, would there be any issues with creating an ES44C4H (ES44HC4, PE44H, what have you) with HEP and steerable trucks? It seems like length and weight wouldn't be an issue, since the ES60AC (AC6000CW conversions) ride on the same frame with a larger prime mover.


Depending on the speeds involved, I don't see why it couldn't be possible. I do think, however, that there is still a lot of fear and suspicion among U.S. railroads regarding six-axle passenger units. I find this similar to the distrust of 20-cylinder engines based on the early problems with the SD45, even though those problems were eventually ironed out. No railroad or commuter agency wants to be the first to give a six-axle passenger unit a try, and possibly find out "the hard way" that it was a bad idea. :-\



There certainly is no engineering reason why a HEP equipped passenger service version of either the GE GEVO or EMD SD70 series couldn't be built: the Alaska RR uses modified SD70MAcs in passenger service (although with their version one of the two AC inverters needs to be switched over to HEP and thus one of the locomotives 2 trucks is actually unpowered in passenger mode (they run SD70MAcs in pairs on passenger trains so the lead engine just provides traction) which wouldn't work for Amtrak) and EMD's new B-1-1-B(not A-1-A) SD70 variant is based on a 70 series passenger locomotive built for Indian railways. However the primary reason it's exteremly unlikely that an US or Canadian passenger carrying rail entity (Amtrak, VIA or commuter agency) would order such a unit is that it would be significantly heavier than one of the newer monocoque body passenger locomotives and thus would not be nearly as fuel efficient..
v8interceptor
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby Backshophoss » Tue May 28, 2013 12:08 am

With the EVO 44c4 becoming a proven locomotive model with multiple orders from BNSF,A passenger variant for use on Auto Train,
with the option of Distrubuted power to even out the HEP load,cowl it if you must,but should be considered.
As far as 6 axle power,EMD's F-40C was used by a pre-METRA commuter district,then by METRA outright,
the 2 remaining units are now stored(and parts donors :( )
The P-32-BWH was a -8 40B variant,how does P-44(c4)-BWH sound as an EVO 44c4 variant??
It should be noted that MPI is using the Evo Prime mover for a MBTA order(HSP-46),should start testing sometime soon
this year.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 4516
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby MEC407 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:31 am

Backshophoss wrote:The P-32-BWH was a -8 40B variant,how does P-44(c4)-BWH sound as an EVO 44c4 variant??


I like it, and I'm guessing that they'd call it an "ES44C4H" or something like that. They dropped the "W" when they introduced the Evolution Series, and they wouldn't use a "B" in this model's designation unless it had B-B trucks. The cowl version would also include the letter "P"... probably "ES44C4PH" or similar. Or they could just give it a whole new model name, such as P44AC. :)

I have to admit, I like the idea of taking an off-the-shelf freight unit like the ES44C4 and modifying it for AutoTrain service. After all, the AutoTrain is essentially a freight train that also hauls passengers.
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby Stmtrolleyguy » Fri May 09, 2014 2:08 am

Well, there's some interesting combinations out there.

The FL9s were 2 axles in the front, and three in the back. B-B A-1-A.

The GMD-1s were also A-1-A - A-1-A - but the middle idler axle was about 6" smaller in diameter so the traction motors could still fit on the truck under the frame!

I think the real question is do we need modern six axle passenger power?
An E8 only had 4 traction motors, and it weighed 315,000 pounds.
A P40 weighs only 268,000 pounds. That's a 50,000 lb (25 TON) difference.
You also loose a little bit of traction with that extra axle in there, since there isn't as much weight on the driving axles.

(Just some food for thought. Found this thread while searching for something else.)
Stmtrolleyguy
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby Allen Hazen » Sat May 10, 2014 2:37 am

Stmtrolleyguy--
Evidently the people who BUY passenger locomotives in the U.S. haven't been convinced that we need six-axle (or even five-axle, like the FL-9 or FM's passenger C-liner) units!
I tend to harp on the issue in posts to this forum, but I'm an amateur, a railfan, with no technical training: there's no particular reason anybody should listen to me. But, in case anybody IS interested, my reasoning is along these lines:
---The 268,000 pound P40 is far from the heaviest four-axle passenger diesel in recent years: a number of commuter lines have bought significantly heavier units.
---There's a real difference in weight PER AXLE: the E-8 was maybe abut 55,000 pounds, some recent four-axle power closer to 70,000: a 27% increase.
---Particularly at high speeds (so maybe this would be more of an issue for Amtrak, which is looking at sustained 110mph running on, e.g., their Detroit-Chicago line), higher axle loads lead to more track damage. (This may be less of an issue for commuter railroads, where the top speed is usually lower.)
---You're right that having idler axles and only four motors loses you tractive effort, but American passenger trains aren't limited by tractive effort concerns: at high speeds, the locomotive's power can be fully utilized with only four motors. (A commuter operator, with more stop-and-start, might be more interested in low-speed performance, and so worry more about tractive effort.)
---
And, of course, on a GE forum it's worth noting a configuration that might combine the best of both types: A1A trucks, but with pneumatically operated levers to transfer weight from one axle to another, as in the ES44C4. (Motive for the ES44C4 seems -- from what press releases said -- to be more a matter of cost reduction, by replacing two expensive traction motors by a cheaper weight-transfer mechanism, rather than avoiding track damage, but…)
A unit like this could, at low speeds (where tractive effort is more of a concern and where the "dynamic augment" leading to track damage with heavily loaded axles less of one), transfer more of its weight to the powered axles, and then lighten them when operating at speeds where track damage is a worry and the available power can be utilized with lower weight-on-drivers.
Allen Hazen
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada (formerly Melbourne, Australia)

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby mtuandrew » Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:45 pm

One more flight of fancy, based on a post from the LIRR forum:

2behind1 wrote:By the early 1970's , the carrier was looking to replace the first L1's (C420's), RS1's ,Rs3's, and S1's. ALCO was not building engines in the US and the carrier was not buying MLW engines from Canada. The serious option considered was GE and the UB18's . However, when the new Master Mechanic came from the Milwaukee Road (which just ordered MP 15's), the order was placed for MP15's and the GP38's.

How about it - baby U-boats opposite power-pack FAs on the LIRR, push-pulling MP72 sets? Maybe even a cowled version of the U18B?
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4011
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: GE equivalent of EMD F40PH?

Postby MEC407 » Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:19 pm

I think you all know me well enough to know how I'd feel about such a scenario... :-D
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Previous

Return to General Electric

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest