EMD to produce new 125mph locomotive for American market

amtrakowitz wrote:

David Benton wrote:Um , your still breaking the law , wether you get caught or not . Is it alright to murder someone , as long as you dont get caught . ?

Who got murdered?

He was just making up a hypothetical situation??

morris&essex4ever wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:

David Benton wrote:Um , your still breaking the law , wether you get caught or not . Is it alright to murder someone , as long as you dont get caught . ?

Who got murdered?

He was just making up a hypothetical situation??

For what purpose?

amtrakowitz wrote:For what purpose?

To show that breaking the law is breaking the law whether you get caught or not.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Oh, and why buy a batch of only 33 passenger locomotives? That's not going to keep an assembly line open. That's not going to support continuing employment. That's just a continuation of the same thinking that leads to small batches of problematic, unreliable passenger locomotives - and to be honest, the current fleet of passenger locomotives is lacking in reliability. If personal automobiles were as reliable as contemporary passenger locomotives, I think you'd see a horse in every garage.

When it comes to motive power orders, think big or forget about it.

No, there are various commuter rail agencies, although it's arguable whether commuter locomotives are a different market or whether it only appears to be a separate market because Amtrak orders are so infrequent.

I agree, economies of scale should be employed for passenger locomotives to help drive down costs and increase reliability. I'm wondering if this is to be meant as a workhorse locomotive like the P42s but its higher speed allows it to also be used on developing high speed rail corridors. I don't know much about how locomotives actually work but I don't think this is going to be marketed at commuter rail agencies.

trainmaster611 wrote:I agree, economies of scale should be employed for passenger locomotives to help drive down costs and increase reliability. I'm wondering if this is to be meant as a workhorse locomotive like the P42s but its higher speed allows it to also be used on developing high speed rail corridors. I don't know much about how locomotives actually work but I don't think this is going to be marketed at commuter rail agencies.

Which commuter rail agencies in America operate on 125 mph rail corridors (NEC) today?
NJT, MBTA, MARC, and SEPTA
NJT and MARC use electric power locomotives on the NEC. SEPTA uses EMUs on the NEC. Only MBTA uses diesel locomotives on the NEC. MBTA is already buying new diesel locomotives, NJT and MARC recently completed purchasing diesel locomotives, and SEPTA doesn't use diesel locomotives at all, why would they order a brand new diesel locomotive design?

electricron wrote:Which commuter rail agencies in America operate on 125 mph rail corridors (NEC) today?
NJT, MBTA, MARC, and SEPTA
NJT and MARC use electric power locomotives on the NEC. SEPTA uses EMUs on the NEC. Only MBTA uses diesel locomotives on the NEC. MBTA is already buying new diesel locomotives, NJT and MARC recently completed purchasing diesel locomotives, and SEPTA doesn't use diesel locomotives at all, why would they order a brand new diesel locomotive design?

MARC uses diesel on the NEC as well as electric. Also, you're forgetting Shore Line East/CDOT, which also uses diesel, though perhaps not for long with their M-8 order.

I'd hope that EMD/Progress shops around this 125 mph locomotive to all the North American passenger rail agencies, whether or not they currently use diesel power on the Corridor. It wouldn't take much to change the gearing to 110, 90 or 79 mph MAS. If Caterpillar is really thinking ahead, they'd have EMD design a parallel 200 km/h locomotive for world markets with the same electronics and prime mover, but a lighter frame, smaller loading gauge, and lower axle loading.

electricron wrote:

trainmaster611 wrote:I agree, economies of scale should be employed for passenger locomotives to help drive down costs and increase reliability. I'm wondering if this is to be meant as a workhorse locomotive like the P42s but its higher speed allows it to also be used on developing high speed rail corridors. I don't know much about how locomotives actually work but I don't think this is going to be marketed at commuter rail agencies.

Which commuter rail agencies in America operate on 125 mph rail corridors (NEC) today?
NJT, MBTA, MARC, and SEPTA
NJT and MARC use electric power locomotives on the NEC. SEPTA uses EMUs on the NEC. Only MBTA uses diesel locomotives on the NEC. MBTA is already buying new diesel locomotives, NJT and MARC recently completed purchasing diesel locomotives, and SEPTA doesn't use diesel locomotives at all, why would they order a brand new diesel locomotive design?

Come on people, just because the locomotive is capable of 125mph doesn't mean that it has to be run at 125mph. P42s are capable of 110mph but that doesn't mean it has to be restricted to 110mph segments. We don't know enough about it yet but it may just as easily be adapted to regular 79mph service. Stop saying that there is no use for it on non-125mph track until we know.

On a side not, I want to facepalm every time I think about MBTA's decision to buy more diesels to operate on the NEC. I realize there were "fleet compatibility" concerns but they could improve performance of their Boston-Providence route so much just by switching to electric powered trains (especially EMUs).

Edit:
Ok, mtuandrew already expressed my sentiments on the whole 125mph thing.

trainmaster611 wrote:Come on people, just because the locomotive is capable of 125mph doesn't mean that it has to be run at 125mph. P42s are capable of 110mph but that doesn't mean it has to be restricted to 110mph segments. We don't know enough about it yet but it may just as easily be adapted to regular 79mph service. Stop saying that there is no use for it on non-125mph track until we know.

Edit:
Ok, mtuandrew already expressed my sentiments on the whole 125mph thing.

I think I found a picture of an early EMD testbed:

I have to view this development as a rare positive in a venue too often driven by wishes and fantasies, just as was the replacement of the original Metroliners by "Metroshells" and locomotives.

Whatever eventual improvements take root within the development of the next generation of high- (maybe just moderate-to-high-) speed rail, things first have to be adapted to the limitations of the infrastucture currently in place. The idea of new systems designed from scratch is both too costly and too vulnerable to NIMBY opposition.

If this latest improvement proves adaptable to the handful of "emerging" corridors, it could then be upgraded for higher speeds and longer distances -- I'm thinking in particular, I'll freely admit, of the gradual upgrade of the San Joaquins into a "true" HSR core for a California corridor.

A long ways off, but a scenario for which most of the long-term trends and constraints are pointing the right way.

2nd trick op wrote:I have to view this development as a rare positive in a venue too often driven by wishes and fantasies, just as was the replacement of the original Metroliners by "Metroshells" and locomotives.

Whatever eventual improvements take root within the development of the next generation of high- (maybe just moderate-to-high-) speed rail, things first have to be adapted to the limitations of the infrastucture currently in place. The idea of new systems designed from scratch is both too costly and too vulnerable to NIMBY opposition.

If this latest improvement proves adaptable to the handful of "emerging" corridors, it could then be upgraded for higher speeds and longer distances -- I'm thinking in particular, I'll freely admit, of the gradual upgrade of the San Joaquins into a "true" HSR core for a California corridor.

A long ways off, but a scenario for which most of the long-term trends and constraints are pointing the right way.

I have to take issue with your thought that the locomotive hauled trains were a good thing. EMUs generally have better performance. I talked about it in this topic. The metroliners themselves were subpar but that shouldn't lead to the dismissal of EMUs in general.

As for whether an incremental approach or a completely new HSR ROW is warranted, I would say it depends on the the situation. In places like North Carolina, I would say incremental is the better approach. In Calfornia however, this is definitely not the case. The single biggest problem is that there is no reasonably fast train service between the bay area and LA. Due to geographical and infrastructure constrains an incremental improvement on service isn't going to work here -- you still have the trains meandering up to Martinez from Oakland (it doesn't even serve San Francisco) then when you get to Bakersfield, the line stops and you have to switch to a bus the rest of the way to LA because the Tehachapi Loop is filled to capacity. All told, it's 8hr30min between Oakland and LA. That's compared to 6hr15min driving and 1hr15min flying. Even with incremental upgrades, you would hardly approach the driving time and you couldn't even touch the flying time even when you take into account the whole airport routine (getting there, checking in, security, etc). CAHSR is only going to take 2hr40min between SF and A (maybe 3hours-ish if you're one of the cynics). Despite this, the San Joaquins are insanely popular which means the time to build true HSR in California is now. There's only so much infrastructure upgrades can do for a line, and in California's case, that isn't enough.

mtuandrew wrote: I think I found a picture of an early EMD testbed:

Thanks man, I needed that

After looking at to specifications it hit me that there was something familiar about it. Then I remembered the Strombecker model of the Rock Island Rocket from about 60 years ago. In 1937 Electro Motive Corporation / Budd Company produced several train sets of 3 to 4 cars all powered by the TA model locomotive rated at 1200 hp and 110 mph. Superficially they seem the same with 4 wheel trucks and a bridge type frame. Of course 1200 hp isn't much and its short of the 125 mph (probably have to double the power), and it has a train line boiler instead of HEP, and I'm sure that the traction motors are DC and nose hung instead of AC and quill drive. Still it might be a good reference point to start from. I particularly liked the graphics.

I have to take issue with your thought that the locomotive hauled trains were a good thing. EMUs generally have better performance

Depends on how you want to gauge "performance". EMUs generally also have more moving parts than loco-hauled trains.

trainmaster611 wrote:
As for whether an incremental approach or a completely new HSR ROW is warranted, I would say it depends on the the situation. In places like North Carolina, I would say incremental is the better approach. In Calfornia however, this is definitely not the case. The single biggest problem is that there is no reasonably fast train service between the bay area and LA. Due to geographical and infrastructure constrains an incremental improvement on service isn't going to work here -- you still have the trains meandering up to Martinez from Oakland (it doesn't even serve San Francisco) then when you get to Bakersfield, the line stops and you have to switch to a bus the rest of the way to LA because the Tehachapi Loop is filled to capacity. All told, it's 8hr30min between Oakland and LA. That's compared to 6hr15min driving and 1hr15min flying. Even with incremental upgrades, you would hardly approach the driving time and you couldn't even touch the flying time even when you take into account the whole airport routine (getting there, checking in, security, etc). CAHSR is only going to take 2hr40min between SF and A (maybe 3hours-ish if you're one of the cynics). Despite this, the San Joaquins are insanely popular which means the time to build true HSR in California is now. There's only so much infrastructure upgrades can do for a line, and in California's case, that isn't enough.

Your point is well taken, but we have to note here that the overwhelming majority of travel in a slowly-developed "California Supercorridor" would not be from end-point to end-point. It would involve at least one of the intermediate stops, and might well involve a local-transit feeder within one of the Super-Metro "anchors".

While the recent emergence of $4/gal liquid fuel might have put the brakes on the trend for the time being, the history of urbanization in Californis is such that "horizontal", rather than "vertical" construction has predominated, so much so that places like Lancaster, Victorville, Gilroy and Santa Rosa are now "exurbs". Travel from and between these points. even when use of a Corridor rail system is only a modest part of the overal journey, both strengthens the contribution to the overhead and demonstrates the potential benefit if the system overall is improved, and travel times and congestion are reduced, albeit marginally.

Admittedly, this is a very long-term process which none of us here will see to full fruition ..... but the underlying economic and societal factors continue to inveigh in the right direction.

*The top prize winner in a "Martian Lottery" got $5/year .... for a million years.

Agree with 2nd trick op in his assessment of this development. EMD/Caterpillar will have a product for a market with decent and realistic potential, based on technology where U.S. builders actually have proven strength and world-class knowhow (diesel locomotives), unlike EMU designs. I'm sure EMD will look to experience gained from the 125mph-rated BR class 67 design (built by Alstom but EMD engined) to help. Whether or not a true high speed line gets built in our lifetimes, there will still be the "higher speed" lines rated in the 90mph~125mph range that will need these types of locomotives as well as 125mph rated rolling stock such as the recently announced KHI types, all compliant with current FRA regs.

2nd trick op wrote: Your point is well taken, but we have to note here that the overwhelming majority of travel in a slowly-developed "California Supercorridor" would not be from end-point to end-point. It would involve at least one of the intermediate stops, and might well involve a local-transit feeder within one of the Super-Metro "anchors".

I think identifying the objective of the rail system makes a major difference between true high speed rail and 'incremental high speed rail'. If you're just talking about the Bay to somewhere in Central Valley, then only incremental high speed rail would be warranted (at least in the near future). The point of CAHSR though is primarily to connect LA to SF and Sacramento. The Central Valley cities are of secondary importance.

kaitoku wrote:EMD/Caterpillar will have a product for a market with decent and realistic potential, based on technology where U.S. builders actually have proven strength and world-class knowhow (diesel locomotives), unlike EMU designs.

That alone I don't think is a good reason to choose a diesel locomotive over an EMU. There's a lot of arguments for choosing a diesel loco but this one holds the least water.