Amtrak HHP-8 Discussion: Use, Reliability, Disposition

Given the MBTA's current financial problem and the immense budget overrun on the Green Line extension into Somerville and Medford, the Fall River/New Bedford passenger rail service restoration is very unlikely to happen anytime in the immediate future. When/if it does happen, it will be diesel, since traffic levels down there will never be sufficient to support the significant additional capital cost of electrification.

west point wrote:MBTA Electrification ?? Although HHP-8s BOS - PVD there appears no way. But isn't the Fall River / New Bedford expansion going to be all electric. Or has that changed ?

Yes it will be electric and the T has been looking at Dual Modes.

8th Notch wrote:
Yes it will be electric and the T has been looking at Dual Modes.

Yes, I think I need to clarify since it appears folks seem to think I am referring to the MBTA picking up the HHP8s, which they would never touch. I was referring to dual modes, which the T has expressed interest in before NJT built theirs. After all, the way the EPA is going eventually all lines are going to have to be electrified. Europe did this a LONG time ago, we are just really behind the curve here in the states.

It just occurred to me that based on longevity at least, the E60s were more successful than the HHP-8s that were purchased to replace them!

Matt Johnson wrote:It just occurred to me that based on longevity at least, the E60s were more successful than the HHP-8s that were purchased to replace them!

Freight version of the E60's are still in-service on those two isolated mining RR's, and figure to be for many years to come. They carry punishing tonnage all day, every day. Wasn't a bad design, just a freight lineage that was too much a square-peg fit for the NEC, the deplorable state-of-repair of the NEC in the 80's and 90's, and Amtrak's compromised finances for coping with that 80's-90's maint overhead.

Not sure there's anything that would've made the Hippos as-designed a non-temperamental beast.

ST214 wrote:

8th Notch wrote:
Yes it will be electric and the T has been looking at Dual Modes.

Yes, I think I need to clarify since it appears folks seem to think I am referring to the MBTA picking up the HHP8s, which they would never touch. I was referring to dual modes, which the T has expressed interest in before NJT built theirs. After all, the way the EPA is going eventually all lines are going to have to be electrified. Europe did this a LONG time ago, we are just really behind the curve here in the states.

But Europe has a density of service that just doesn't exist in the US outside of the NEC. Possibly Chicago suburban lines, can't think of any others. With the development of tier 4 diesel prime movers the emissions advantage of electric is minimized. Remember most electricity in the US is from fossil fuels, Europe has lots of nuclear which we don't have here to that degree.

Jon

I disagree with you. An Electric Loc has more power and lower weight then an diesel-electric loc. For example: The NJ AL 45DP has about 4 MW an power for traction under wire or electric power. Under dieselpower the poweroutput had dropped to near 3MW with out HEP needs ore 2 with HEP needs. So the train is faster and could be longer under wire then dieselpower. For freight is exactly the same. More power, less fuel use and less use of locs.... and faster...

It is true that electrics can provide faster service as higher short term power means better acceleration. However the main point is that one cannot justify the infrastructure cost of electrification on many lines in the US as the frequency is not high enough. For example take many of the MBTA lines in Boston, the Fitchburg line for example 18 trains a day each way, one cannot justify a multi million dollar expenditure on electric infrastructure. If one wanted to reduce emissions there are better ways to spend that money than eliminating 36 diesel locomotive trips.

Jon

IMO it is not the number of trains operated but the total energy used on a route. Extreme example 20 two car trains as opposed to 20 16 car trains.
A secondary consideration will be the emissions given off the various diesel locomotives.
Using your MBTA example --- A consideration is how far out on various routes does another route consolidate with the first route there by doubling number of trains into terminal station.
BOS south station has or will have many route consolidating at various locations into a single route.
BON ( Boston North ) is much more diverse close to the station.
Then the final consideration is to not put all eggs in one basket either electric or diesel.

Tier 4 does not reduce carbon emissions significantly , in fact it may increase them due to slightly more energy use.

My understanding is the MBTA is having trouble coping with their older locomotives. I would assume they wouldn't want HHP-8's which are near end of life. Also, MBTA's Boston Engine Terminal is near North Station, which would require electric locomotives to be towed for any service. To support electric locomotives, a servicing facility would need to be built near South Station. I've also heard that Amtrak prices their electricity too high.

BandA wrote:My understanding is the MBTA is having trouble coping with their older locomotives. I would assume they wouldn't want HHP-8's which are near end of life. Also, MBTA's Boston Engine Terminal is near North Station, which would require electric locomotives to be towed for any service. To support electric locomotives, a servicing facility would need to be built near South Station. I've also heard that Amtrak prices their electricity too high.

They can't initiate electric service on the Providence Line to begin with without upgrading Sharon substation, wiring up Pawtucket layover, and wiring up some omitted station tracks like the 2 Attleboro platform tracks. Amtrak built the barest minimum electrification for their own trains and expected the commuter rail operators on the Shoreline to add all the capacity they needed above-and-beyond.


It's a bunch of relatively minor to-do's, but a collective price tag (esp. for the substation expansion) that nonetheless takes some advance planning and probably $50M or a little more to settle up just the on-line work (maint facility a whole other bag). So unfortunately simply coming into some cheap old short-term beaters doesn't quite make the Providence Line plug-and-play.

Not to mention who in their right mind wants a locomotive that costs $60 grand a day to operate? Amtrak could be buying Audis instead of chevrolets for that money.

I'm getting off-topic, but it makes a lot of sense for the MBTA to run electric on the Boston-Providence-Wickford line. But using Amtrak pooled electric locomotives. And the cost of buying an electric locomotive needs to be lower than the diesel, since an electric locomotive should be less complex than a diesel-electric. Since Amtrak is phasing out HHP-8s, that's a dead end.

BandA wrote:I'm getting off-topic, but it makes a lot of sense for the MBTA to run electric on the Boston-Providence-Wickford line. But using Amtrak pooled electric locomotives. And the cost of buying an electric locomotive needs to be lower than the diesel, since an electric locomotive should be less complex than a diesel-electric. Since Amtrak is phasing out HHP-8s, that's a dead end.

Haven't we beat this topic to death already? It does not make any sense for the T to purchase electrics to run on one line or I'm sure they would have done so already ya think? I can probably give you 10 reasons why it makes no sense vs your 1 reason why they should (and it can't be faster acceleration).The sets are not confined to one line and it makes absolutely zero sense to purchases electrics and run dedicated sets on the Providence line. The T is not equipped for electrics, they would have to contract out the maintenance, electrify the layovers as well as the portions of the mainline that have no wire just to start. Electrics cost more for a reason, yes not as much moving mechanical parts but electrics have more sophisticated computers and subsystems.