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

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:01 am This is probably a great place to eventually use battery powered locomotives as they are tested and developed. Seems a perfect solution.

If you read the RFI they want battery storage on the proposed engines....it's often a factor in why the weigh estimates are so high.

As for them being tested and developed that is a joke, name one railroad that has a sizable fleet of battery locomotives. I doubt one could run between Rensselaer and New York City for a round trip on a charge, let alone the several most of the current units run in one day.

ALBCastaway1993 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:03 am

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:01 am This is probably a great place to eventually use battery powered locomotives as they are tested and developed. Seems a perfect solution.

As for them being tested and developed that is a joke, name one railroad that has a sizable fleet of battery locomotives. I doubt one could run between Rensselaer and New York City for a round trip on a charge, let alone the several most of the current units run in one day.

No one substantially has them yet but BN is very high on the concept and will be testing in a few months. As far as what is actually needed, it's a ridiculously short stretch of track from a Penn Station platform to just outside NYP at the very southern end of the West Side Connection. The diesel can run almost the entire way and a battery powered engine can be charging all the way from Albany-Ren and then take over for the final 3/4 mile. It gets recharged all the way back and plugged in at Albany-Ren when needed. Pretty simple.

Which weighs more, a battery to pull a train a mile or a pantograph + voltage converter? Also with a giant battery you have to worry about a lithium fire.

BandA wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:22 pm Which weighs more, a battery to pull a train a mile or a pantograph + voltage converter? Also with a giant battery you have to worry about a lithium fire.

It makes far more sense to me to have a pantograph and voltage converter on a diesel than a battery. You could use such equipment on the overnight Regionals and Pennsylvanians as well. Using the batteries on those runs would require having chargers at several other locations.

The battery would be charged by the diesel engine , the pantograph if available, and any regenerative braking. Basically a train version of a Toyota Prius. I would agree though that it would seem to have little application in the USA, outside commuter runs.

This is a 4-way order,Amtrak,MN,CnnnDOT,and LIRR. the weight problem is the Park Ave viaduct into GCT due to the "energy storage module" needed to jump 3rd rail gaps
in GCT and NY Penn all the way to Sunnyside Yard. Battery power will not last long with HEP demand from the consist
Possible cure ,,A-1-A trucks to spread the weight out.

Why are we trying so hard to reinvent the wheel? Third rail is in place, it doesn't have to be recharged. and doesn't significantly add weight to the locomotive. Sure, you need the shoe and DC switchgear, but in exchange for running everything continuously, it's a pretty big bargain.

The FL-9 got access to GCT by using the A-1-A truck to spread the weight of the oversized High Voltage Cabinet MG set ,Steam generator, and Full water tanks for the steam generator.

A diesel that has a under running / overrunning shoe appears to be the best. Unfortunately the third rail's lower voltage limits the power that can be applied to the traction motors. The higher HP of the current diesel electrics use a higher voltage to get full HP to the traction motors. A pan on the top of these locos to power the new locos thru the puzzle switches at NYP. There would need to be a fail safe method to prevent the PAN from contacting the NYP 12Kv AC CAT.

CR,then MN did away with the overhead 3rd rail over the GCT puzzle switches,too many of the "tiny" pans were ripped off the FL-9's and the S -motor's roofs.
The battery/capacitors/DC link unit weight is the hang up.
NY Penn might have had overhead 3rd rails, long removed due to the catenary being installed,DD-1's rarely died on the 3rd gaps there,but used reacher flats with 3rd rail shoes for freight service.

Every time the discussion goes to "We can barely fit all this heavy stuff into one unit" I keep thinking "okay, let's have two!" wherein a diesel and a third rail unit are semi-permanently coupled and one operates but both can control, and they are double ended so no more turns/wyes.

But then we have the "we can't/it won't/never works/tried that in 1984" discussion and come back to the same place.

I assume in two years after plenty of Louis T Klauder studies for $5m, we're going to order a dual-mode diesel/third rail charger and have the same problems as usual.

Not saying it cant be done, but for Amtrak a couple of miles of third rail into and out of Penn, WHY??? Two control stands means twice the inspections as both would be counted as locomotives.Then you going to drag a power unit all the way to NFL for??? What if it has to go to TOR or MTR ??? Albany already has a hard time getting stuff fixed in a timely manner. If it were me and this well above my pay grade just put a pan on it and call it a day. Many years ago GE reps used to ride quite a bit when the dual modes were still relatively new and chatting with one he told me if GE had to do it again no third rail just a pan. AC voltage directly from the wire to the traction motors no giant AC to DC inverters.

If it were another company running service, or an agency without deep pockets, we would see a diesel up front and a third-rail (or AC) cab-equipped MU on the far end geared for 15 mph max under its own power. Not much, just enough to shove a train into NYP and pull it back out at walking speeds.

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:25 am Not saying it cant be done, but for Amtrak a couple of miles of third rail into and out of Penn, WHY??? Two control stands means twice the inspections as both would be counted as locomotives.Then you going to drag a power unit all the way to NFL for??? What if it has to go to TOR or MTR ??? Albany already has a hard time getting stuff fixed in a timely manner. If it were me and this well above my pay grade just put a pan on it and call it a day. Many years ago GE reps used to ride quite a bit when the dual modes were still relatively new and chatting with one he told me if GE had to do it again no third rail just a pan. AC voltage directly from the wire to the traction motors no giant AC to DC inverters.

The AC pan idea makes quite a lot of sense. I suggest the split-up two-unit method as an alternative to what's happening today and the continued determination to use third rail. I think that's perhaps because they can build enough between Amtrak and MN to make a larger order than just one carrier needs, which drives per-unit cost down.

Also, I can't say the "two control stands" argument has held much sway in the past. They have oodles of cab cars and cabbages laying around the system, ten more control stands cannot make or break the maintenance infrastructure.

Well... what's heavier? Diesel + third rail, or diesel + caternary?