P32AC-DM Dual-Mode Genesis Discussion (Empire Service)

[BandA]

National Grid in Massachusetts charged 17.5 cents/kilowatt hour summer 2015, 22 cents/kWh winter 2015/16. There are 24*365 ==> 8,760 hours/year.

So, say 20 cents/kWh. 0.20 dollars/kWh * 8760 hours/year * 0.001 kilowatts/watt ==> $1.75/watt year.

[DutchRailnut]

and third rail at MN and LIRR is fed with NY power authority power at huge discount.

[Jeff Smith]

http://www.timesunion.com/allwcm/articl ... 170586.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Twice this spring locomotives have broken down in the tunnels leading out of Penn Station, stranding hundreds of passengers aboard Albany-bound trains. A third broke down in the Mohawk Valley, stranding its passengers for nearly four hours.

In each case, the trains involved were being hauled by aging General Electric locomotives that were specifically designed to operate under electric power into Penn Station and under diesel power elsewhere in the state.

State Department of Transportation officials had recommended that an order be placed for new locomotives before the breakdowns become intolerable. The Cuomo administration apparently said no.

"GE has ... stopped manufacturing new replacement components, which combined with age and intense use makes it difficult and costly for Amtrak's Rensselaer Maintenance Facility to keep these locomotives in service," said Jack Madden, a retired engineer at the state DOT's rail division, who argued for replacing them in an opinion piece in The Daily Gazette of Schenectady. "The average failure rate in service for the (dual-mode) fleet is increasing, leading to more frustrating delays to passengers."
...

[Tadman]

This might sound crazy, but it sounds like half the battle with dual modes is space and weight. Why not do a two-unit locomotive that looks just like two locomotives back to back? One is a straight diesel, one is a straight electric. They are semi-permanently coupled (IE only shop crews can uncouple). A bus line carries line power and traction power between the two (permissible since semi-permanent coupling). Now you have two lighter locomotives. You have eight traction motors for faster starting. You have (4) third rail shoes over 140' length rather than two over 70' to prevent gapping. You have a cab on either end so no turning necessary. The diesel is a standard off-shelf locomotive like the Siemens unit being bought for corridor service elsewhere, so less custom engineering is required.

I'm guessing the roadblocks are "we never do that", "we don't want two engines when one will do" etc....

Will probably never happen because it makes too much sense.

[Nasadowsk]

NJT kinda did that with the ACES service - a P40 at one end, ALP-44 at the other. It worked well enough.

It's a bit silly, for Amtrak, that they need dual modes, since they litterally need the DM feature for about 1 mile (if that) in/out of Penn on the west side, and the trip through the East river tunnels to Sunnyside. Now that the open space on the west end is closed up, and all, there's probably LESS ventilation down there. Too bad - it'd be interesting to see what the feasability of just changing ends at Penn, putting the loco on the west end, running a tier 4 unit, and doing the servicing up at MN's facility, would look like, and how that'd compare vs buying new DMs. For Amtrak, DM is a lot of effort for a tiny (TINY!) percentage of the track they run over.

In a better world, just electrify to Albany, and buy third rail electrics for long distance stuff and M8s for Albany runs (even if the M8 is less than ideal, it exists and there'd be parts commonality with MN and CDOT)

None of the operators of third rail DMs have much luck, and the the ALP45s don't seem to be too spectacular either, though NJT doesn't release numbers (they probably don't know them, knowing how dysfunctional NJT is...). The DM-30s are known duds (who did the traction on those?), the P-32s don't fare much better on MN.

[mtuandrew]

Tad: I agree in principle. In practice more likely that Amtrak MUs their P32 fleet back to back either with each other or with a P40/42.

And wouldn't an electrodiesel version of this be cool!?

[DutchRailnut]

a P40 or P42 can not control the third rail portion of a P32acdm

[David Benton]

If there were more trains that turned in Albany , then the idea would be to have a P32 type on one end, a straight 3rd rail electric/ cab car on the other. That would allow a quick turnaround at both ends.
I have often wondered as well why they bother with diesel / third rail combos . Easier to have 2 separate locos as Tads says, and make them talk to each other.

[R36 Combine Coach]

None of the operators of third rail DMs have much luck, the ALP45s don't seem to be too spectacular either, though NJT doesn't release numbers (they probably don't know them, knowing how dysfunctional NJT is...)

ALP45s make up a sizable percentage of push-pulls on both electric and diesel lines (especially with many GP40s and F40s retired or sold). If they can do better than P32s or DM30s, could work for the Empire Service, since line is wired with overhead wire to 42nd Street.

[AgentSkelly]

Here's a thought....

Could proper ventilation systems be installed at a lower cost than dealing with 3rd rail? from my understanding, you just need to have vent ducts placed at sections where a diesel locomotive would idle.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

There isn't a need for novel new kludges if Albany would just fund this joint MTA/NYSDOT loco procurement already and stop using that as a vector for taking more hostages over control of Penn. At 75-90 identical units for Amtrak, MNRR, and LIRR there's enough economy of scale this time to blunt the edge of the overkill of having a fully-capable DM for a mile's worth of terminal track. We're making too much about how little time the Empire units spend in E-mode per trip. The same Siemens-or-whatever make on commuter rail will spend much more of its time touching third rail simply by their far greater commuter schedule frequencies into GCT/NYP. The MTA is the party that provides nearly 70% of the ordering scale, not Amtrak/NYSDOT. If there were a need to change the E-mode technology involved, it would be commuter rail driving the change. As is, the request for battery storage to solve the gapping issue has its greatest potential utility on LIRR for allowing much greater share of E-mode running...so commuter rail scale is already steering the specs requests.

[SRich]

If the charger has full DM functionality, why not regular use the [s]e-motor[/s]3 rail instead of the diesel, then is the useful to buy an fully-capable DM.

Another question:
Use the MTA p32 (when is at the end ?) en the diesel is shut off the 3 rail to power the train till the diesel is starting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7K02GmvmzA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[east point]

It would appear that either a temporary connection from front to back so control of the e mode is possible or maybe have train stop near NYPS outside e area to add / depart a rider on the train ?

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Also, there is no dual mode Siemens Charger, as far as I know one hasn't even been designed yet. There may never be one albeit it is very very likely one will at least be designed.

Siemens did indeed respond with a DM Charger when the Request for Info was issued by NY State a few years ago. Way back before the first Charger was ever built. Docs are available online and were posted in the other AMTK subforum thread about the New York Dual Modes. It was them, Bombardier with the ALP45-DP, and MPI with a variant of the HSP-46 who responded to the RFI. All 3 entrants had remaining technical issues to square with the weight before they could meet New York's specs, but as this was the RFI and not the formal Request for Proposals the goal was only establishing initial interest and ballpark feasibility, not locking down a shipping product.

It is near-guaranteed likely that Siemens is going to bid a Charger derivative on the RFP now that the diesel Charger is a full shipping product in revenue service. Bombardier's still likely to be in the mix, but MPI is probably not because of the royal mess they made of the HSP-46 and pound of flesh that design disaster pulled from progress on the company's other Tier 4 lineups. With two players from the RFI left and Amtrak having a heavy hand in the Siemens v. BBD selection process, it's overwhelmingly going to be Siemens' bid to lose.

[AgentSkelly]

Only deal changer I could see with a BBD getting the order would that they would be built in Plattsburgh, so it supports the state economy verses Siemens getting it and building it in California.