P32AC-DM Question

[njtmnrrbuff]

There are still some that are in the Shamu paint scheme.

[mainline]

P32’s 705,706,708 are not in the new empire scheme. Have never photographed 709 but there was an older photo showing it in the old scheme.

Bill

[de402]

708 was incredibly ragged last time I rode to SDY, as in it had some pretty agressive tin-worm damage in the rear.

[njtmnrrbuff]

Just like the P42s, the P32AC-DMs won't be around forever. They have had their issues but at the same time, have gotten the job done very well moving people between the Big Apple, the Capitol District, the I-90 corridor cities, as well as to Rutland, Vermont.

[Backshophoss]

What remains of GE Locomotive will no longer support the P32 DM and the P-40/42 series locos.
There seems to be no or very little aftermarket parts around including the electronic cards.
Amtrak has already scrapped a bunch of wrecked units at Beech Grove/Bear shops.

The LD and Dual-mode Chargers need to show up real soon.

[east point]

A problem for all Amtrak locos is the wholesale conversion to AC traction motors. Rebuilding DC traction motors is fast becoming a lost art. Taking parts off present out of service locos can only last so long. The 75 new Chargers will allow for Amtrak to have a large parts pool.

[Tadman]

. Rebuilding DC traction motors is fast becoming a lost art.

There is a shop in Providence called Walco that does quite good business and they are in no danger of going anywhere. They do quite a lot of business for NYCTA. There are also quite a few shops near Houston that do the same as old locomotive traction motors often see a second life on drilling rigs after a rebuild.

[Tadman]

P32’s 705,706,708 are not in the new empire scheme. Have never photographed 709 but there was an older photo showing it in the old scheme.

Bill

I was always under the impression that the units are sent to Beech Grove to be painted if they suffer a major mechanical failure......is that actually the case? I know for a fact that employees from Rensselaer lurk these forums lol.

I might be very wrong, but I thought some of the NYS Amtrak guys were not happy about the paint because they were only getting paint and body work, rather than necessary mechanical attention.

[njtmnrrbuff]

I believe that Amtrak, Metro North, and the LIRR are working on a joint order of new dual mode third rail/diesel locomotives and the design could probably be based off of the design of the Charger locomotive. The Amtrak P32AC-DMs, I think, started running in 1996 while Metro North's did too.

[DutchRailnut]

your opinion does not overrule the opinion of engineering or operational departments, just sayinn.

[Backshophoss]

Well Caltrain,WADOT,ORDOT and ILDOT believe in the SC-44 Chargers,lessons learned from them will be added to the Amtrak LD units.
Not trilled with Cummins as the Prime Mover,but seem to throw a whole lot of factory support at the units.
MPI's MBTA HSP-46 was a botched attempt at using a GE GEVO Prime Mover "repower kit" for an "over spec'ed" loco by the customer.
Had way too many "teething problems" from the Factory. The Details are in the HSP-46 thread on the MBTA board.

[Tadman]

Chargers are a bad base for for an *intercity* passenger unit in my opinion. I don't trust the Cummins prime movers and I have heard they have horrendous wheelslip and dynamic braking issues through the grapevine....I don't get why Wabtec can't just make a dual mode HSP-46....they literally have the same traction motors as the P32......

It's worth unpacking for some of these issues.

1. The Cummins PM. It's not familiar to crews or shops, which breeds resentment, especially when new. This was the same problem Fairbanks Morse and Alco had on roads like Illinois Central. They order a few to keep EMD honest and those few are scrapped after absurdly short life because "they're no good". Well, the shop was not used to them and the crew wasn't, but the Alco-centric roads like PC and their prior iterations were just fine with them. It's as much an issue (if not more) of familiarity as it is design. I see this every day in my professional life with new cranes "they're no good". No, it's just not the same technology as the 1970's thing you have out back. I expect Cummins and Siemens to provide very high degrees of support to get over that hump, and it seems they are.

2. Wabtec and the HSP. This was not a success. It hit Wabtec hard, and they are essentially out of the new passenger power business now. I don't think anybody involved in the process - MBTA, GE, Wabtec - would want to repeat that project. It was also a case of putting the customer too much in the driver seat, kind of like DE/DM, Metroliner, etc... and the results were predictable.

[Tadman]

your opinion does not overrule the opinion of engineering or operational departments, just sayinn.

For what it's worth here, the engineering or operational departments are not always correct with regard to motive power procurements. It seems like the freight carriers have a very conservative mindset in those departments because the company is under the gun to make numbers every quarter. Ergo they make very deliberate and conservative choices with regard to power. On the other hand, the gov't passenger carriers do not have such profitability constraints, and it's also much harder to get fired, so they seem to go into procurements guns blazing, demanding all sorts of stuff they evidently read about in Popular Mechanics. The results are not usually good. HSP, DE/DM, etc...

[mtuandrew]

2. Wabtec and the HSP. This was not a success. It hit Wabtec hard, and they are essentially out of the new passenger power business now. I don't think anybody involved in the process - MBTA, GE, Wabtec - would want to repeat that project. It was also a case of putting the customer too much in the driver seat, kind of like DE/DM, Metroliner, etc... and the results were predictable.

That’s a shame too. Now that GETS is a subsidiary of Wabtec, it seems like their engineering department would be well-suited to fix the HSP’s design flaws. Or, the lessons learned could be applied to a new GEVO Genesis as had been proposed. Neither of those options are relevant to the P32ACDM though, since there realistically isn’t room for the third-rail equipment in such a necessarily-cramped carbody.

[Tadman]

That assumes the new GETS-Wabtec organization has the engineering talent to develop a new model. I have my doubts after seeing the state of the industry. There is so much stored power out there and the bulk of power purchases lately are rebuilds, so it doesn't make much sense to have a deep bench of engineering talent if there is little purchases of new equipment. Given GE's dire finances prior to the spinoff, I can't imagine they kept a couple hundred engineers on staff with little to do and little money to pay them.