Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 amThat's a good point and a very big leap forward. But it still doesn't account for the fact that our infrastructure here is much different. The off-shelf European equipment works great in the European environment. Mostly temperate climate, immaculate track, high speed, frequent maintenance. Over here, you might be able to change the maintenance culture a bit, but the track won't change. The speed won't change.
I’ve never heard of Moscow being particularly temperate
nor is Russia State Railways known for its immaculate track. Might be they have a different maintenance regimen than Amtrak, or maybe they have regulations that are more lax, but they use European designs too.
Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 amWhich brings me right back to one of my biggest complaints. We buy stuff for imaginary high speed european operation and then run it 50-70mph all day down the UP. Why? All we get are rusted monocoque bodies and cracked trucks and an overall package that is approaching end of life (not rebuildable) at 20 years. We have heard from the insiders what a frustration the European power on the NEC is.
The GP40/F40 is just an analogy to a very viable concept. After that we saw the F59. More recently we've seen MPI build the MP36 with a 710. That appears to be out of production, but there are plenty of SD70's in storage and CP is buying SD80's as parts donors.
Maybe the frustration is due to Amtrak not having had the funding to properly train employees on how to maintain the new equipment? And it being a new equipment system? And that the 25Hz system is unreliable and poorly buffered against voltage spikes? The AEM-7 soldiered on for about 40 years with one major rebuild; never heard of any complaints except for the very beginning, immediately pre-rebuild, and very end of their service. The American E60CH and E60MA rebuild wasn’t great for NEC service, and the Canadian-American HHP-8 just wasn’t great all around.
As for rusted monocoque bodies, the Genesis will be in Amtrak service about as long as the frame-on-body F40PH - 25 years, give or take a few. The F40 was a simpler design and packed fewer features and less horsepower with higher fuel consumption, yet Amtrak chose not to ask for a rebuild. May have been a political decision... whatever. The F59 has had about the same service life for Amtrak National, and only NCDOT is keeping them in service in the Amtrak network.
Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 amAlso, it's important to define progress. Just coming up with new ideas doesn't get us anywhere. The passengers want to arrive reliably on time and have good options and frequencies. They don't care what pulls the train if it gets to Boston or Detroit on time. It could be a Caboose with the floor cut out and a Camel inside trotting down the tracks Flint-stone style. Provided they don't smell the s***, the passengers are happy.
Would you be happier commuting in a 1995 Chevy full-size pickup, standard cab with a 350 V-8 but rebuilt to more-modern spec, or a 2020 Honda Accord Sport? Which would provide more day-to-day reliability? Which one has better fuel economy and lower operating costs? Which one makes the neighbors give you the side-eye? Which one fits in your garage better? Which one is more comfortable to ride in? Which one has dealer support for the foreseeable future? Both are capable of 70 mph; which one is also easily capable of cruising at 100 if you wanted?
Point is, freight locomotives are great for dragging thousands of tons at low speed. Passenger locomotives are great for pulling hundreds of tons at any speed between the teens and the low hundreds. Get the right tool not just for the job you’re doing, but also the job you will do.
And just because Omaha is recalcitrant doesn’t mean Fort Worth or Calgary is.