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

Sinds Amtrak is buying the new IC-Trainsets with an dual power capability (AC/Diesel or Battery/Diesel), why won't LIRR and MNRR don't follow Amtrak.

Maybe change te battery to third rail and 3 powered trucks. Add some third rail pick-up to the second unit on both trucks. The trains can be used everywhere and the old worn dual locs and passenger trains can be scrapped.

The MTA probably wants higher capacity trains that are fully compatible with the existing fleet. In Metro-North's case I doub't they are getting rid of the Shoreliner cars anytime soon and I believe were looking into bilevels/multilevels to supplement the existing fleet. Having traditional loco-hauled sets allows for greater flexibility for resizing sets and transferring units across the system for pool and branch service.

As far as the MTA goes I feel like a dual-mode variant of the Charger is the better choice here, rather than fixed-trainsets.

Also LIRR operations are usually very flexible - out east, sets are shorter, and then the trains into manhattan tend to be really long.

Won't Amtrak still need to have a couple of dual modes around for the Lake Shore Limited?

Good point Randall, I wonder what the game plan is. There's no way the ICT's are running the full service as they're not set up for overnight running.

NaugyRR wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 8:50 am Good point Randall, I wonder what the game plan is. There's no way the ICT's are running the full service as they're not set up for overnight running.

I assume the ALC42 and superliner replacements will be used for the overnights.

That's fine north of Rensselaer, but doesn't cover the NYP leg. Unless they plan on making that a cross-platform transfer instead of a through train, but that would just be plain stupid on their part.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:40 pm Won't Amtrak still need to have a couple of dual modes around for the Lake Shore Limited?

scratchyX1 wrote:

NaugyRR wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 8:50 am Good point Randall, I wonder what the game plan is. There's no way the ICT's are running the full service as they're not set up for overnight running.

I assume the ALC42 and superliner replacements will be used for the overnights.

Yes, ALC42's namely for NYP and fuel savings. Plus, you can't shove a Superliner into ether NYP or BOS -- the clearances aren't there (or for BOS, too tight for comfort), so you're using Viewliner equipment.

Now granted, a cross-platform transfer to a Superliner at Albany wouldn't be that bad (it'll be done during daylight) but the luggage in the baggage cars would be an issue -- easier to use the Viewliners and connect them up.

NaugyRR wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:32 amThe MTA probably wants higher capacity trains that are fully compatible with the existing fleet. In Metro-North's case I doub't they are getting rid of the Shoreliner cars anytime soon and I believe were looking into bilevels/multilevels to supplement the existing fleet. Having traditional loco-hauled sets allows for greater flexibility for resizing sets and transferring units across the system for pool and branch service.

They really don't have good applications for loco-hauled anything. They should electrify to Oyster Bay, Port Jeff, Patchogue, Poughkeepsie, and Danbury, and get DMUs or HMUs for everything beyond those points with more frequent shuttle service.

The two applications that debatably would make sense for loco-hauled push-pull would be the Penn Access MN service, as it could run AC all the way, and CDOT's SLE for low-level/non-platform access.

If the empire connection is electrified with 12 kV 25 Hz maybe Amtrak(MNRR can piggyback on it) can use an ALC42E Elektro/Diesel as Dual power. MNRR can use the same loc for Penn access for west side access.

SRich wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:08 am If the empire connection is electrified with 12 kV 25 Hz maybe Amtrak(MNRR can piggyback on it) can use an ALC42E Elektro/Diesel as Dual power. MNRR can use the same loc for Penn access for west side access.

They need to convert the whole thing to overhead AC electrification from Highbridge to Poughkeepsie (and Albany for Amtrak). Somewhere on the Empire Connection the 25kV/60 could meet the 11.5kv/25 and PRR third rail from NYP.

The ALC42Es rely on the Airo trainsets to provide the pantograph. Unless the LSL is going to become a Chicago-Boston train with a connection in Albany to NYP (or the LSL NYP section is going to carry a coach that terminates at Albany), I don't see the ALC42Es providing power for it. (Although maybe if the Broadway Limited was reintroduced, following the route of the Capitol Limited west of Pittsburgh, Eire would be the only city to loose direct service to NYP if the Albany to NYP section became its own train.)

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:12 pm They need to convert the whole thing to overhead AC electrification from Highbridge to Poughkeepsie (and Albany for Amtrak). Somewhere on the Empire Connection the 25kV/60 could meet the 11.5kv/25 and PRR third rail from NYP.

M-8s do not work on 25 Hz. Why not just convert the CAT to 60 Hz 12.5 kV into the location at NYP that 3rd rail ends on the Empire corridor? Then extend the 12.5 Kv 60 Hz on the west line thru SD and onto the Hudson line where the 3rd rail can be used by the M-8s to POU?

The M-8s could then use the Hudson line thru NYP to drop passengers from the Hudson line at stations on the Hell Gate line. Of course as well the opposite direction. That gives many more possible one train rides.

M-8's are an expensive option; you'd probably have to double the fleet. I would expect that they are also more maintenance-intensive. Then there's the cost of catenary, and it's maintenance, on a line that already has power. I've also heard, on here, that the FRA would likely not approve dual electrification; it's one or the other.

Then there's design and clearance issues. It would be great if you could get High(er) Speed Rail on the Hudson, but you still need that DC for last mile through the Park Avenue Tunnel. You're adding a lot of weight just to provide a solution in search of a problem.

west point wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:17 pmM-8s do not work on 25 Hz. Why not just convert the CAT to 60 Hz 12.5 kV into the location at NYP that 3rd rail ends on the Empire corridor?

That's what I said. The 11.5kv/25 and PRR third rail would meet (with PRR third rail overlap for transition) the 25kv/60 that the M-8s can run off of.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:57 pmM-8's are an expensive option; you'd probably have to double the fleet. I would expect that they are also more maintenance-intensive. Then there's the cost of catenary, and it's maintenance, on a line that already has power. I've also heard, on here, that the FRA would likely not approve dual electrification; it's one or the other.

There are three key advantages to switching the Hudson line to 25kV/60 at Highbridge and along the Empire Connection:

1. Amtrak could electrify and run AC power all the way to Albany.
2. MN could eliminate dual-mode operations with 25kV/60 run to Poughkeepsie and Danbury.
3. Switching at Highbridge provides an unimpeded freight route from Selkirk to Oak Point and Fresh Pond with no third rail.

Switching at Highbridge preserves access from the Harlem Line to Yankees Stadium on DC power.

Yes, the M-10 fleet would need to be big, but if combined with adding tracks south of NWP on the Harlem and increasing the substation capacity to full acceleration with 12-car sets all the way to Southeast, the Harlem could soak up about 2/3 of the Hudson Line M-7 fleet, the rest could be rebuilt for LIRR, as they'd soak up those cars plus hundreds more with electrification to Port Jefferson, Oyster Bay, and Patchogue, not to mention reactivating the Central Branch further into the future.

MN should really get AC EMUs that can run on 25hz and handle low level boarding but not third rail and pool those with CDOT for electrification to Springfield and SLE to Westerly, which would allow for all-AC operations into NYP from POU and NHV, but that's a different issue.

Then there's design and clearance issues. It would be great if you could get High(er) Speed Rail on the Hudson, but you still need that DC for last mile through the Park Avenue Tunnel. You're adding a lot of weight just to provide a solution in search of a problem.

At one point I recall seeing a map that showed 19' Autorack clearance to the GM plant at Tarrytown from the North, which is no longer there, so the only clearance issues for Plate C clearance under 25kV/60 would be for 18mi south to Highbridge. The M-8 design is proven on the New Haven Line, and yes, it is a bespoke solution for NYC, but it has a lot of benefits, and combined with 25kV/60 to Danbury/New Milford would eliminate the kludgy dual-mode diesels, so it's a worthwhile trade-off.