Amtrak Empire, LIRR, MNRR/CTDOT Dual Mode Procurement - Charger Variants

I'll just drop this off here:
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 0Final.pdf

Hmmm... Siemens Charger variant.

One thing that struck me though... multilevel cars. I wonder what the clearance is...

Very informative, thanks.

A couple of observations:

- Board approval given in December 2020 for 19+8 initial order
- 66 month timeline for delivery of initial 19. Given 5 1/2 years from today, order will be done late 2026/early 2027 at the earliest if no delays
- They are including them, potentially, in Penn Access; would the shoes be dual as the 8's are?
- Related to shoes: the LIRR page specifically says shoes adapted to under running; seems to me that should be dual
- CtDOT, LIRR, MNRR and (NYSDOT) (Amtrak) would have options for another 144 in total
- If NYSDOT exercises those options, they will meet Amtrak spec's
- Bi-level coaches are mentioned

I was wondering how they'd satisfy the requirement for an escape hatch on the nose; the second-man's window is a pretty clever solution

These are still over five years away from delivery.... Stunning considering that the Sprinter and Charger are already in service.

I'm not sure the first delivery will take five years, just that it would take that long for the total of 27 in the base order + first option.

I would think the first pre-production unit could be finished as soon as 2024 (?) pending the progress and completion of the ALC-42 and VIA Rail/extra Brightline orders.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:43 am I'm not sure the first delivery will take five years, just that it would take that long for the total of 27 in the base order + first option.

I'm going off the 50 month statement for the pilot locomotive plus an inevitable delay somewhere between contract approval and final FRA certification.

66 month commitment is only for the first 19.

Combined with the Amtrak announcement this week, Siemens sounds like they'll be running above their current capacity for several years. Maybe they'll be able to surprise us and keep up. Or not.

While looking through the LIRR one i noticed it was said they'd be equipped with the 32-pin system primarily used for the DM/DE30s and C3s; pehaps this is an indication that the C3 fleet will simply be augmented by the multilevels?

Fishrrman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:01 pmMetro-North changes to M-8 style equipment for Hudson service, with the changeover taking place between CP 11 and CP 12.

You're thinking along the right lines. But move the transition to Highbridge. Harlem Line M-7s can get to Yankees, freight traffic doesn't have to deal with third rail. Win-win.

Unfortunately, LIRR and MN have backed themselves into a corner where they have to replace the DMs or else get rid of direct service from diesel branches, as they have dragged their feet for decades on electrification to Danbury, Poughkeepsie, Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, and Patchogue. LIRR could just go back to "switch at Jamaica" until electrification is completed, MN has dug themselves a worse hole as they don't have a good alternative for Danbury and Poughkeepsie.

ALP-45DP style locomotives would open up a LOT of possibilities for Amtrak.

They've backed themselves into a corner by basically procrastinating on their replacements, not by the lack of electrification.

That's not to say that some electrification extension is not worth it. However, DC electrification extension is by its nature very expensive with the need for many more substations. When MNRR electrified the Upper Harlem in the early 80's, they did a poor job of it, underestimating the power draw of the M-1's and 3's. Except for some short LIRR projects and Penn Access, I don't see DC being extended anywhere.

The 20-year plan for MNRR at some point talked about extension of the Hudson to Peekskill; Poughkeepsie is a "Bridge too Far".

No mention of the "upper" Upper Harlem. It's 53 miles GCT to Southeast; it's another 29 to Wassaic. That's a lot of work for very little yield. DMU's would work instead of shuttle mini-Bombs; maxi's for through service.

Danbury? That's been bandied about for years, but always written off as too expensive for the yield. The 45's would be ideal for through service on Danbury, and Waterbury (to New Haven or Stamford), if those could be routed to Penn.

I would electrify to Patchogue; there's been a lot of growth there, and there's room to turn. It should be a two-platform station anyway. Ditto OB.

PJ I'm not too sure; that is a little farther.

Like I said in the BEMU topic, I can't help but feel that the introduction of M7/M9 BEMUs on diesel routes might make dual mode replacements moot.....

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 8:34 am Danbury? That's been bandied about for years, but always written off as too expensive for the yield.
The 45's would be ideal for through service on Danbury, and Waterbury.

Danbury was wired until 1961 and could work for a battery MU, not too far our and the mileage
"off the grid" is less than to Greenport.

BEMUs don't have the range for some of the longer runs these do.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 8:34 amThey've backed themselves into a corner by basically procrastinating on their replacements, not by the lack of electrification.

Procrastinating on their replacements just means that they get new dual modes later. If they had actually planned ahead and electrified, the dual-modes wouldn't be needed.

That's not to say that some electrification extension is not worth it. However, DC electrification extension is by its nature very expensive with the need for many more substations. When MNRR electrified the Upper Harlem in the early 80's, they did a poor job of it, underestimating the power draw of the M-1's and 3's. Except for some short LIRR projects and Penn Access, I don't see DC being extended anywhere.

Much of the LIRR system can't provide enough power for full acceleration of M-7 sets, and as you note, the Upper Harlem system can't handle full length trains. Extending DC power makes perfect sense for OB, PJ, and Patchogue, as the LIRR is an entirely DC system. The cost to do dual third rail/overhead EMUs and have two separate fleets would be astronomical.

The 20-year plan for MNRR at some point talked about extension of the Hudson to Peekskill; Poughkeepsie is a "Bridge too Far".

That's an application for AC overhead, switching at Highbridge, so that Amtrak could electrify to Albany with AC from Penn, MN Penn Access could run on AC, and freight wouldn't have to deal with third rail. Harlem would still have 3rd rail access to Yankees-153rd.

No mention of the "upper" Upper Harlem. It's 53 miles GCT to Southeast; it's another 29 to Wassaic. That's a lot of work for very little yield. DMU's would work instead of shuttle mini-Bombs; maxi's for through service.

They only have four through trains a day to Wassaic. They could just get rid of them, and add sidings to do more frequent DMU shuttle runs. I can't see any case for electrification beyond Southeast. Fixing the current system so that 12-car M-7 sets could come into Southeast does make sense, however. Depending on what is done with White Plains, a diesel train or two a day could go down there from Wassaic.

Danbury? That's been bandied about for years, but always written off as too expensive for the yield. The 45's would be ideal for through service on Danbury, and Waterbury (to New Haven or Stamford), if those could be routed to Penn.

It was electrified at one point, it would make perfect sense to put it back in order to handle direct service to GCT and Penn.

Ditto OB.

PJ I'm not too sure; that is a little farther.

PJ has a lot more traffic than OB. OB makes sense simply to provide direct service. Unfortunately, they now need to fix the screwed up track arrangement that they are building right now in Mineola. OB is the lowest priority out of the branches affected by the dual-mode situation.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 5:23 pmLike I said in the BEMU topic, I can't help but feel that the introduction of M7/M9 BEMUs on diesel routes might make dual mode replacements moot.....

BEMUs are, at this point, completely unproven in US heavy rail applications. Traditional electrification has been working reliably for over 100 years, and can electrify routes in the dozens of miles (DC) up to the thousands of miles (25kV AC).

HMUs are actually a more promising technology. While hydrogen cars are probably a non-starter due to lack of fueling infrastructure and up-front cost, for a basically captive fleet of trains that run back and forth, it starts to look a lot more attractive.