Genesis discussion (AMD-103, P40DC, P42DC)

<i>Assuming roughly equal horsepower, drawbar pull, acceleration, and deceleration...

At this time (2004), are there operational or cost advantages, aside from infrastructure, in running Diesel or Electric?</i>

Yes, to get equal HP and acceleration, you need at least 2 diesels for every electric, meaning a LOT more weight, plus 2 times as much rolling equipment to maintain. An HHP-8 will outdo a P-42 in virtually every way. It's got a higher HP by far (more than 2 times), it can sustain it's TE (which is about the same anyway) to a higher speed (better acceleration), it's significantly lighter (better on track), it's quieter (Better to neighbors and passengers). Even the AEM-7 used to outperform the F-40 by good margin.

So, in order to approach electric performance, you need more locomotives. Which means more axles to maintain, more track damaging and useless weight, more equipment, etc etc etc.

On an HP to HP bassis electrics are quite less expensive to operate, provided the track gets decent utilization.

Electrics also last longer - the AEM-7s and E-60s both outlasted their diesel contemporaries - I'll predict that the AEM-7s will be running in one form or another 10 years from now (at least). More like 15 - 20. Look how long the notoriously bad E60s held on, not to mention how long the GG-1s lasted. Of course, when your fleet power lasts longer, it means lower costs over the years.

Plus, currently, there are no passenger diesels that meet the EPA's phase II emissions. GE's offering such a unit, but with such a flood of surplus power out there, there's no reason to order new locomotives.

What Amtrak needs before another diesel order is another order of electrics, either HHP-8 or ALP-46. I suspect when NJT starts adding trains, they'll want theirs back...

On the Keystone Corridor, it will be nice when all electric service comes back. At least, they should do that for the locals. A Genesis is a good locomotive because it saves money on fuel. However, its acceleration is bad. Many stops on the Keystone are close to one another.

Olton Hall wrote:Part of the reason Amtrak has an electric loco shortage is that so many are sitting around awaiting repair. Last year I read it was around 37% of the AEM-7's were out of service.

Where did you read this? I know that a few were out with fire damage and not sure if the rebuilding process was still taking place. Wouldn't be surpized if Amtrak used the MARC HHP-8's and don't know what happened to there AEM-7's..

Nasadowsk wrote:Of course, when your fleet power lasts longer, it means lower costs over the years.

I don't know. Usually with any kind of equipment, don't maintenence costs go up? That's usually what contributes to the retirement of locomotives. The cost of maintenence eventually gets too high and "unfeasible".

I think with the surplus of AMD-103s they have now, they may be able to squeeze more life out of them as less work is required per locomotive (I would assume) which translates into less milage.

AmtrakFan wrote:Now with no M & E Dave Gunn is running 3 & 4 with 2 Locomotives over Raton HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What if you have one fail going up?

AmtrakFan

Simple (relatively): You split the train, set the handbrakes on one set, and pull the other set "over the hill". Then come back for the second set, pull that over, then recouple.
Or just call BNSF and hope they have some engine that can get to you quicker than the above tactic.

Also, don't think that with 4 engines makes you safe. In the Trains Jan. '92 edition, you can read about 2 out of 4 F40's failing on a Chief. The good news is that failures are pretty rare compared to how many successful runs are made.

I would think that Canada's VIA would want to replace more of their F40'S with Genesis Units. They seem to be popular up their and offer better fuel economy.

Any purchase of new rolling stock, and locomotives, will signal to Congress that Amtrak wants to expand service, and that will never happen in the current climate in Washington D.C.

I must disagree as Amtrak has too many diesels right now.

The P40's were not unreliable, that is not why they are sitting idle.

Thanks for the clarification Nip. But they should make good use of their P40s to supplement the P42, there haven't been any P40s around, I don't know why Amtrak decided to put them out to pasture so early

Why?? because with no longer having Mail/express the engine consist became smaller and about 40 surplus diesels began sitting around at terminals.
They decided to mothball the P40's cause they were due for next major overhaul and used more diesel fuel than their P42 brothers.
any diesel not used and still idling at terminal still eats $1000 a day in fuel and maintenance.
with 6 P40's for sale, look for more to be on for sale list.

They decided to mothball the P40's cause they were due for next major overhaul and used more diesel fuel than their P42 brothers.

Uh sorry then, that part I missed (mea culpa). Hopefully they'll add more features to the P40s when rehabbed.

And as you stated, there will be more of the P40s going out for sale, don't know if the commuter transit agencies will go for them........

Why does,nt VIA jump on the P40'S. They have to be more efficient than the F40's.

VIA's F40's are relativly new, and the Governement of Canada may not want VIA to spend money on locomotives they don't really need now.

There is one additional savings on running electrics over diesels in an electrified zone, you are already energizing the wires. Keeping them supplied with power and then using a diesel increases cost, both for having to maintain two types of locos for the same strech of track as well as the energy loss from transmission.

Actually, I'd love to know what the losses of a catenary system that's not being used is. It's gotta be very minor - there should be a slight loss due to insulators and transformers. I'm guessing it's not more than a watt or two every mile, though. At least if the insulators are clean.

One other thing - when an electric loco isn't needed, you can punch the pan down button. Then it's not using any power. Though there's still likely a cost for daily inspections, etc.

metman499 a catenary without a locomotive using power in the section is not using any energy. just like an outlet in a wall does not consume electricity till something is plugged in and switched on.