Genesis discussion (AMD-103, P40DC, P42DC)

You know it's funny but when i first saw it the thought"baby faced Baldwin" went through my mind too. maybe they'll paint it tangerine and blue when NJT gets some.

http://www.insighting.co.uk/homauchchunk/2001_med.jpg

?? NJT's not going to buy any Genesis units, and if they did, they certainly would not paint them in any manner of "heritage" scheme à la ConnDOT's McGinnis paint.

Within the scope of this topic, Mr. Kevikens posting makes me ask the question why US passenger railroads avoid acquiring dual end locomotives?

Mr. Chieftain's current avatar establishes such are quite commonplace overseas - not only on the CIE in the Republic of Ireland, but, looking at my current 'Railway Magazine"(UK) calendar, there is a BR "Deltic'. There are many more dual end locomotives "on the Continent'.

Back when a Locomotive Fireman was part of the Engine crew consist, I could understand why railroads would prefer road switchers; "hey we have to pay for two sets of eyes anyway, why pay for two control stands"? However, Engineer only is the crew consist today of more passenger trains than not. Not sure, but I rather doubt if a high nose road switcher can be operated Engineer only in Class One service today.

I realize that NJTransit prefers locomotive hauled/pushed trains, but the cab cars are considered locomotives for mandatory service inspections. A dual-end locomotive would address that.

I'm mindful 'all that electronic stuff' costs a pretty penny. But it could be encased, like a laptop, in a 'black box' and plugged in to whichever end of the locomotive was the dessignated "front'.

Just some thoughts inspired to one who grew up along predominately passenger electrified lines and where dual-ends were simply the standard.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Chieftain's current avatar establishes such are quite commonplace overseas - not only on the CIE in the Republic of Ireland, but, looking at my current 'Railway Magazine"(UK) calendar, there is a BR "Deltic'. There are many more dual end locomotives "on the Continent'.

The common design in Europe these days, are dual-ended full bodies (but lately cowl designs have started to appear) for mainline units, and single cabs, offset to one end, and with the cab above the height of the hoods (sort of like an old Alco RS1) for roadswitchers. Small switchers generally look like scaled-down roadswitchers, although end-cab designs also exist. Electrics tend to be designed similar, although electric roadswitcers tend to have the cab in the middle rather than offset. Sometimes you will see single-cab full body locos in Europe too (mostly electrics), these tend to be either intended for push-pull passenger trains (with a driving trailer at the opposite end of the consist) or for heavy freight (such as Iron Ore), then usually coupled in sections (such as the Swedish IORE).

Without turning this posting as a "what if" scenario, it would make a great deal of sense for NJT to pursue the possibility of acquiring genesis dual mode from catenary drawn power locomotives that could be used on the NEC, other electric lines and diesel operated lines. This sort of thing would be perfect for the contemplated AC line fom Penn Station. I'd even settle for a PC mating worms paint job for that one.

A catenary dual mode could not exist in todays axle loadings.
A Genesis is about 298 000 Lbs on four axles add to that a 7 ton transformer and a rectifier group and the puppy won't fly.
and no passenger railroad in its right mind will buy 6 axle locomotives , no matter if they are C-C's or A1A-A1A.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Within the scope of this topic, Mr. Kevikens posting makes me ask the question why US passenger railroads avoid acquiring dual end locomotives?

Two thoughts. First, in classic times a lot of US passenger locomotives effectively *were* dual end -- consider that a back-to-back pair of E-units, PAs, or any other cab units is basically the same thing, except with a coupling in the middle. Second, in short-turnaround commuter service where bidirectionality would have the biggest advantage, a lot if not a majority of railroads used road switchers that could operate in either direction without turning... the New Haven (not counting hand-me-down DL109s), Boston & Maine, New York Central, Pennsylvania, Long Island (C-Liners excepted), Erie, and Lackawanna all come immediately to mind with their various GP7s, GP9s, RS3s, RS1s, etc., assigned to commuter runs.

no passenger railroad in its right mind will buy 6 axle locomotives

The B-B diesel locos are already at the weight limits for axle loading (note the MP36PH-3S). It's either the locos get lighter or more axles get added to distribute the weight.

(And off-topic, but the longest-lived version of the "F40" family has been the six-axle F40C.)

hsr_fan wrote:I kind of like the ALP-46 myself. It's grown on me! And it seems to be a reliable workhorse and a worthy AEM-7 successor - what the HHP-8 should have been!

If one was to paint an ALP-46 bright red, it would be identical to many new locos in Germany.

Your comment about the F40c is noted, but they were built to keep axle loadings light on light rail commuter lines, the weight is of a near identical F40 but spread on 6 axles.
At passenger speeds they were not easy on the rails and even Metra would never purchase another 6 axle unit.

Not possible?

"A catenary dual mode could not exist in todays axle loadings.
A Genesis is about 298 000 Lbs on four axles add to that a 7 ton transformer and a rectifier group and the puppy won't fly.
and no passenger railroad in its right mind will buy 6 axle locomotives , no matter if they are C-C's or A1A-A1A."

Not possible only, if you take what is existing form GE or EMD. Weight is not only generated by the equipment, also by the carbody and the trucks. They are much more heavier in the US than in the rest of the world. So take, e.g. the ALP46, which has no more than 94t, reduce the electric power part to 4200hp and add a 4200hp diesel pack.

This shall not be possibe below 288 000lbs? For me, this approach is very pessimistic. So, why not taking actual technology driving in europe or elsewhere, you can have a 3rd rail, 25kV and diesel in one, and I'm shure, not for much more than 20% in addition to a HHP8 has cost.

So, where are the not existing possibilities?
Sorry, with such an approach, nobody would have been higher than 2000ft in the sky. No Mercury, no Apollo, nothing more.
Where is that spirit gone? I'm wondering, but still hoping.


Best wishes
Catch

The European train is a YUGO in strenght compared to American MACK truck.
As long as the passenger corridors are shared with locomotives over 200 ton and coal cars and others of upto 150 ton , you won't see European technology, were locomotives weigh 75 ton and passenger cars weigh 24 ton.
I have seen results in Europe were the EMD import locomotives totaly trashed a commuter train at a 15 mph impact.
Lucky the FRA prevents that kind of mismatch here in USA.

... and a Hummer versus a small Chrysler will be the same. ANd wahts about the Accela? 150t for one powerhead? I don't think so.

So, the ALP46 was made according to the FRA rules, so there is nothing missing, no smal DMU/EMU like your comparison may show. And 94t give much space for adding equipment up to 120ts (aprox 288'000lbs).

So again, even by having the required strengh in the mechanics, where is really a problem for dual- or even tripple mode locos?
I still cannot see any (expect willingnes, money or knowledge...and perheps ignorance (hope not!) to advanced technology from no-use sites)

To be open minded is not a handicap for reaching goals, isn't it?

Keep the facts, nothing else: 120t - 94t = 26t, This for some gas, generator, diesel. Reducing the transformer to 4200hp would give in addition 5t, so 31t are available to create the add-on diesel to the e-part.
Not possible???

Have a nice day and smooth ride
Catch

catch wrote: ANd wahts about the Accela? 150t for one powerhead?

The Acela locomotives only weigh 102 tons, which I think is a mere 1 ton heavier than an AEM-7. While perhaps heavy for high speed rail, it's actually a pretty light locomotive!

I'm looking at an Amtrak equipment roster and got to thinking: why doesn't Amtrak reactivate the fleet of remaining P40s, and in exchange dispose of the P32s?

This would reactive a fleet of locomotives that are newer than the P32s, and are similiar to the P42s that Amtrak operates everywhere else in diesel territory; and would give Amtrak some cash on a model of locomotive that is saleable to freight carriers or possibly a commuter operator as well.