Amtrak AMT125 Proposal

Yep, just because it used the same "125" moniker means nothing.

Boeing used the 717 model designation twice, and the 717-100 and 717-200 have absolutely nothing in common.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:00 pm Oh that’s the AMT125 proposal from the 1970s, not the 80s. It was supposed to be something like a GP39-2H (with a 12-645T rated around 2300 hp) wrapped in a tight North River Tunnel-size shell. EMD intended it to be the American answer to the British Rail InterCity 125 or the MLW/Bombardier LRC, with two AMT125s bracketing a number of Amfleets. Never built of course.

There’s some info on this site somewhere about it, probably in the EMD forum. It reminds me strongly of French designs like the Turboliner and especially the original electric TGV.

Thank you for correcting this info. Now that I'm back from my "break", I meant to say it was from the 70s based on the phase II livery it had. Although, the red nose is somewhat reminiscent of the phase I livery, so it looks like an interesting combination of both liveries.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:00 pm Oh that’s the AMT125 proposal from the 1970s, not the 80s. It was supposed to be something like a GP39-2H (with a 12-645T rated around 2300 hp) wrapped in a tight North River Tunnel-size shell. EMD intended it to be the American answer to the British Rail InterCity 125 or the MLW/Bombardier LRC, with two AMT125s bracketing a number of Amfleets. Never built of course.

this made me wonder how the LRC would have performed if fitted with something like Paxman engines rather than Alco 251s. I am seeing numbers online which indicates an 12-RP200 was 8.1 tonnes dry vs a 16-251F at 34 tonnes. While the 251 numbers (from a Fairbanks Morse data sheet) might not be exactly in line with the 16-251s as fitted on the LRC, even if it was close it would account for most of the weight difference between the 113 tonne LRC and the 70 tonne Class 43/IC125. But that might not have provided the same number of jobs at Montreal Locomotive Works building 251s?

The LRC used an 18-251F, not a 16 cylinder! On the other hand, you have to balance the weight of a single locomotive with one prime mover & alternator, albeit a heavy one, with two power cars each with their own prime mover, alternator, motors, etc. The equation doesn’t look so bad that way.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 3:41 am Yep, just because it used the same "125" moniker means nothing.

Boeing used the 717 model designation twice, and the 717-100 and 717-200 have absolutely nothing in common.

Very off-topic, but there actually were three Boeing 717s - first what became the Boeing C-135 Stratolifter/KC-135 Stratotanker, then what became the Boeing 720. and then the redesignation of the MD95 after Boeing took over McDonnell-Douglas