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

andegold wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:48 am Weren't the ALP45-DPs created for the concept of using the pans as the primary source and the diesel for last mile? If true, that would mean fuel efficiency was secondary, almost immaterial. Yes, I understand "last mile" here is a bit of a misnomer particularly on the Raritan Valley line or for future service on West of Hudson lines if a loop was ever built. However, whether on those lines or on the NJCL where there is more electric mileage than diesel the point is that electric power needed to be either the primary focus or equal to diesel power. Amtrak, MetroNorth, and LIRR only need electric for true "last mile" service and, therefore, much lower power requirements and, presumably, weight.

Could a pan-equipped motor make sense for Amtrak and LIRR? It would need enough power for a slow slog through the tunnels and for HEP, not for any type of high speed acceleration (other than to clear out of the station in a timely fashion and not become a bottle neck). What are the speed limits within the electric only zones of Penn and Sunnyside?

Metro North would be much more difficult because of different clearance issues and lack of AC catenary to begin with. Since that would make a single spec joint purchase impossible perhaps it is either (A) not worth it at all or, (B) more worth it to examine routing all MN diesel trains via West Side or Hell Gate to Penn and require a transfer somewhere for NYG.

If you read the RFI they basically look at Bombardiers bid they basically propose the ALP45-DP. However, it is too heavy and doesn't meet Tier 4, not to mention I hear they are maintenance and reliability nightmares.

ALBCastaway1993 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:20 pmHowever, it is too heavy and doesn't meet Tier 4....

The forthcoming option ALP-45s for NJT will be, as is now required for new build locomotives, tier 4 compliant, so that’s not a barrier to selling more.
https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/new ... ercom.html

With the Alstom-BBD merger pending, will Alstom phase out the TRAXX series (inherited by BBD from AEG/AdTranz) in favor of its own products? That could affect future ALP45 deliveries.

The AL 45 DP uses 2 class 8 truck engines from Cat as the off wire prime movers,,require more maintenance to stay at Tier III specs.
Basicly a pair of Industrial Gensets inside,under sized for the job at hand

If you read Amtrak's 5 year plan, they are serious about using dual-modes in a lot of other places to eliminate engine changes.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y20-24.pdf

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:48 am If you read Amtrak's 5 year plan, they are serious about using dual-modes in a lot of other places to eliminate engine changes.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y20-24.pdf

On page 44, the reference to ending engine changes references three locations in particular... Washington (NE Regionals, Palmetto, and Carolinian) , Philadelphia (Pennsylvanian), and New Haven (Vermonter, Valley Flyer, and Hartford Line). It would seem to be these locomotives aren't the focus of such an idea. If they were working with commuter railroads for such a locomotive, they picked the wrong ones. The locomotive described on page 44 would seem to fit the needs of NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC, MBTA, and CTDOT.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:49 amIt would seem to be these locomotives aren't the focus of such an idea. If they were working with commuter railroads for such a locomotive, they picked the wrong ones. The locomotive described on page 44 would seem to fit the needs of NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC, MBTA, and CTDOT.

Who says Amtrak will pick a locomotive? They’ve been talking heavily about DEMUs.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:49 am On page 44, the reference to ending engine changes references three locations in particular... Washington (NE Regionals, Palmetto, and Carolinian) , Philadelphia (Pennsylvanian), and New Haven (Vermonter, Valley Flyer, and Hartford Line). It would seem to be these locomotives aren't the focus of such an idea. If they were working with commuter railroads for such a locomotive, they picked the wrong ones. The locomotive described on page 44 would seem to fit the needs of NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC, MBTA, and CTDOT.

Just speaking for MARC. I doubt they would go for it unless the price for the equipment is within a small multiplier of diesel equipment. They looked at replacement electrical engines, balked, and went with the Chargers (as well as rehabbing the HHP-8's).

As part of the joint order for Amtrak NY State, MNR, CDOT for MNR pool service, and LIRR, there will be new locomotives ordered. I don't think NY State is considering DEMUs. Whatever locomotive NY State is choosing for Amtrak for the Empire Service, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and Ethan Allen trains, I'm sure that there will be enough supply so that way they all can just run on their entire journey without having to change engines at ALB. In better times, the Adirondack and Maple Leaf trains had their power swaps at ALB given the fact that there were probably not enough dual mode P32AC-DMs to pull the trains on their entire journey to Canada. Dwell time at ALB for the Maple Leaf and Adirondack trains were about 30 minutes.

The only thing an ALP-45-DP won't work for is GCT. I have a thread over in MNRR where I posit that it would be a useful, intrastate engine for CtDOT branches (Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford, and SLE where Amtrak doesn't want M8-s). It would make sense for MNRR in pool service for Penn service, which is in doubt due to the financial disaster which is looming. LIRR might be a challenge, especially on a branches like Montauk and Greenport due to diesel range.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:40 am The only thing an ALP-45-DP won't work for is GCT. LIRR might be a challenge, especially on a
branches like Montauk and Greenport due to diesel range.

They have run out to Port Jervis (95 miles) and on a regular basis to Hackettstown (around 55 miles).

My solution for the Hudson line service, both Amtrak and Metro-North:

Put up AC catenary from CP 12 to Rensselaer (or even Schenectady).
Extend existing catenary from the north end of the Empire tunnel to CP 12.

Now...
Amtrak service runs with electrics Penn Station to Albany/Ren. (Use existing design, just order more)

Metro-North changes to M-8 style equipment for Hudson service, with the changeover taking place between CP 11 and CP 12.

Metro-North can now extend service through to Rhinecliff (with connecting bus to Kingston).

No new locomotive technology required and the solution uses less (as in, "no") fossil fuels...
(J.Albert)

Fishrrman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:01 pm No new locomotive technology required and the solution uses less (as in, "no") fossil fuels...
(J.Albert)

And what generates the electricity pray tell?
(Just being a wise ass)

The juice is NOT worth the squeeze there, Mr. Fishrrman. Why would MNRR want to replace third rail? M8's carry a weight penalty and are more expensive. Then there's the cost; can you imagine what it would cost? Not just south of Croton, but all the way to Albany and beyond? An ALP-45 obviates the need for any additional infrastructure on either route.

Not enough round trips to Albany to justify electrification. Now if a way to get jobs ---- Maybe ? To justify we probably would need 12 or more round trips. New Haven - BOS has 19 scheduled RTs week days..