Genesis discussion (AMD-103, P40DC, P42DC)

Being in spitting distance of Intel (Rio Rancho NM)IC chips due become obsolete on a regular basis
Chinese cloning speeds up the process in most cases.
Unless you live near an active military base,surplus chips are hard to find at military surplus stores.
Intel destroys excess production now a days to thwart cloning.
Radio Shack died a retail death,with help of the Cell Phone carriers.
There are few"mom & pop" electronic parts stores in some citys,now few and far between.
Some only support the Radio Hobbists.

Cards pulled out of Scrap units do not fit in the P40/42 electronics cabinets might allow some Chip salvage if
the torch/plasma cutter doesn't get there first.



'

Pretty much the same here.
Dick Smith electronic went to consumer electronics before going bust, RS equivalent Farnells has retreated to serving from England with 2 to 3 day delay. Can find more chips/transistors on Ali Express for lower price , but shipping 2 to 3 weeks , double at the moment. Pay $ 20 -$40 for TNT to get then here is 4 -7 days.
So replicating the whole board , whilst upgrading power capabilites of SSR's/ mosfets etc the way to go, depends how long a life span they want to achieve.
Kiwirail currently going through the process with their 35 yo Electrics, project has gone very quiet, since gaining govt funding.

The problem with P42/40 electronics is not chips and ICs the problem is the software. GE owns the rights to it, you cant just load the software on any hardware you cobble together. The computer modules etc usually just have to be repaired if any components on the boards go bad. Somebody was doing this in Albany for a while, but they retired and now its up to amtrak to deal with beech grove or wilmington electronics shop for component repairs on the dual modes which takes more time if they even go that route.

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:27 am The problem with P42/40 electronics is not chips and ICs the problem is the software. GE owns the rights to it, you cant just load the software on any hardware you cobble together. The computer modules etc usually just have to be repaired if any components on the boards go bad. Somebody was doing this in Albany for a while, but they retired and now its up to amtrak to deal with beech grove or wilmington electronics shop for component repairs on the dual modes which takes more time if they even go that route.

1) Reverse engineering exists for both hardware and software, although expensive to do because you must accomplish the same process using different materials to avoid lawsuits. But it can be done.
2) Additional spare parts could have been bought before the vendor stopped making them. Most vendors give existing customers the heads up.
3) What Amtrak decided years ago was to retire these locomotives at what they considered end of life. The F59PH and F59PHI locomotives sold by Amtrak and GO Transit are still in service elsewhere - where others are fixing and refurbishing these locomotives for another 10-20 years of service. I'm not suggesting Amtrak and GO are wrong, but others have taken a different tack and gave these retiring locomotives a new life. Different corporations can have different opinions.

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:27 am The problem with P42/40 electronics is not chips and ICs the problem is the software. GE owns the rights to it, you cant just load the software on any hardware you cobble together. The computer modules etc usually just have to be repaired if any components on the boards go bad. Somebody was doing this in Albany for a while, but they retired and now its up to amtrak to deal with beech grove or wilmington electronics shop for component repairs on the dual modes which takes more time if they even go that route.

I'm surprised there aren't circuit board/module repair shops for locomotive components and railroad equipment.

I work at a New Holland dealership and one of our popular offerings is the ability to send out bale control modules, ECUs, and various other controllers out for repair, usually when new replacements are no longer available or new/Reman parts are cost prohibitive.

It's a shame, you'd think there'd be a market for that sort of thing in the railroad industry. Not that I'm condoning continuing to keep dragging the Gennies through the dirt, just an interesting reflection.

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:27 am The problem with P42/40 electronics is not chips and ICs the problem is the software. GE owns the rights to it, you cant just load the software on any hardware you cobble together. The computer modules etc usually just have to be repaired if any components on the boards go bad. Somebody was doing this in Albany for a while, but they retired and now its up to amtrak to deal with beech grove or wilmington electronics shop for component repairs on the dual modes which takes more time if they even go that route.

MR Approach, isn't it possible that Amtrak write there own program, from scratch on a new inhouse constructed hardware? Basic is the system a PLC.

ADMIN NOTE

I moved certain posts related to enginemen's memories of units other than Genesis, on lines other than Amtrak, to the LIRR forum.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:42 pm The F125 laid an egg on it's Metrolink(SCAX) debut there have been no reports if Metrolink(SCAX) has the F125 is in front line use.
BNSF has delivered 2 more batches to Metrolink(SCAX) since.

DRN squat not squad.

I was in LA two weeks ago, Sunset in and then round trip on San Diegan. Plenty of F125 leading trains. Nice and quiet.

It’s not uncommon to have teething issues at first, the MP had them as well. Usually some manufacturer support in the first 6-12 months makes things better. The same is common with Aircraft.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:29 pm All that may be true, Tad, but Amtrak had the chance to rebuild those F40PHs (at either EMD or MPI.) They could be running around the Amtrak system still, stuffed to the gills with 16-710s, pumping out 4,000 hp, and hitting 110 mph on the daily. Amtrak chose not to do so, chose not to order the F69PHAC, and only ordered a limited number of F59PHs. Further, it decided against ordering many P32-8BWHs when those would have been easy to add onto a supplemental order, and never did order a GP59MPH. You and I both know self-steering trucks were in their infancy, and Amtrak wasn’t willing to take the chance on six-axle power again.

But that extra 700 hp in the P40 made a difference. One fewer locomotive for long hauls, lower fuel consumption than an equivalent two-stroke, the potential to run through all those Corridor-sized nooks and crannies, and besides GE really wanted that deal.

Had EMD proffered a 16-710-powered F60PH with the same dimensions as the F40PH, we might have a different timeline.

I understand Amtrak had the choice, my position is that they made the wrong choice. The “we must have something special” culture at Amtrak is well known. Outside of NEC and a few select 90mph areas otherwise, it’s a 79mph show with averages well below that. An SD70M with 79 gearing and HEP would’ve been great for anything not running to New York.

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pmI understand Amtrak had the choice, my position is that they made the wrong choice. The “we must have something special” culture at Amtrak is well known. Outside of NEC and a few select 90mph areas otherwise, it’s a 79mph show with averages well below that. An SD70M with 79 gearing and HEP would’ve been great for anything not running to New York.

Which is funny because Amtrak had specifically done the opposite at founding, with the partial exception of electrics. The E60CP would’ve been right at home in Conrail blue, and had Conrail continued electric ops and Amtrak folded, the AEM-7 could have been regeared for freight exactly like the Swedish Rc4s. Everything else was freight from head to cowl.

The Genesis definitely serves a purpose - more efficient than the F40 it replaced, while more powerful and Corridor-sized. Can you imagine how much more costly a dual-mode would have been per unit? We might have had to go with rebuilt GP40s, MP15s, or even a second or third rebuild of the FL9s. There also wouldn’t have been much hope of 110 mph on the Michigan lines or north of Poughkeepsie.

But also, can you imagine an E70PACe-T4 (the four-motor version) in full cowl as a replacement for the long-distance Genesis and supplementing the new Siemens unit?

SRich wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:30 am

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:27 am The problem with P42/40 electronics is not chips and ICs the problem is the software. GE owns the rights to it, you cant just load the software on any hardware you cobble together. The computer modules etc usually just have to be repaired if any components on the boards go bad. Somebody was doing this in Albany for a while, but they retired and now its up to amtrak to deal with beech grove or wilmington electronics shop for component repairs on the dual modes which takes more time if they even go that route.

MR Approach, isn't it possible that Amtrak write there own program, from scratch on a new inhouse constructed hardware? Basic is the system a PLC.

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but for the rest, let me share my insight.
I work in this field ("embedded software") which is very much an engineering field. Embedded coders tend to be degreed engineers and not computer scientists as much of the software involves sensing and interacting with the physical world: implementing engineering models and control theory into software. That means that developers who write database code for Amtrak cannot be transitioned to a project like this. I highly doubt Amtrak even has in-house management capable of overseeing a project like this even after it's been contracted out. The programs are often closely tied to the original hardware so often involve a complete rewrite. If it was going to happen, doing it without vendor support would be a fool's errand. I'm not even sure GE has enough folks around preserving the "institutional knowledge." Also, the time to do it isn't now but was 5 years ago.

Tadman [quote=Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pm
I understand Amtrak had the choice, my position is that they made the wrong choice. The “we must have something special” culture at Amtrak is well known. Outside of NEC and a few select 90mph areas otherwise, it’s a 79mph show with averages well below that. An SD70M with 79 gearing and HEP would’ve been great for anything not running to New York.

I won't disagree with you here. Amtrak has 75 LD Chargers on order with options for more and is still working out some of the bugs but it has ~210 Genesis units on hand that are starting to wear out. Going the METRA route and converting SD70MACs or AC4400CWs to passenger service could provide a little breathing room for any slip in the Charger order. Regearing for 79 mph and covering the areas outside the Northeast where passenger carriers are loathe to operate 6-axle power would help. The Chief route is the only significant freight trackage where Amtrak can exceed 79 mph. Drop some ballast and find room for a HEP inverter or drag a round a HEP sled in a View-bag or MHC.

With precision scheduled railroading in full swing, carriers are shedding excess power. SD60s, SD70s, and Dash-8s (same "vintage" as the Genesis) are off to the scrapper. NS even stored some of it's newly rebuilt AC4400C6Ms.

as for software , the railroad pays for use of software and not to try copying a proprietary devise.
Metro North and LIRR got caught when trains started to have problems cause purchasing forgot to renew the Software contract with Bombardier

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:27 pm can you imagine an E70PACe-T4 (the four-motor version) in full cowl as a replacement for the long-distance Genesis and supplementing the new Siemens unit?

I can imagine it, and I'll be having nightmares about it for the next few nights, thank you very much lol

WhartonAndNorthern wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:37 pm Amtrak has 75 LD Chargers on order with options for more and is still working out some of the bugs but it has ~210 Genesis units on hand that are starting to wear out. Going the METRA route and converting SD70MACs or AC4400CWs to passenger service could provide a little breathing room for any slip in the Charger order.

Perhaps, but going this route is not as fast or affordable as one might think. Metra's 15-unit order of SD70MACHs is costing them $4.7 million per locomotive, and they won't be delivered until 2023. (Source: press release from Metra board of directors). (To put the price in perspective: the MPI HSP46s built for MBTA were $5.7 million each.)

SRich wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:30 am

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:27 am The problem with P42/40 electronics is not chips and ICs the problem is the software. GE owns the rights to it, you cant just load the software on any hardware you cobble together. The computer modules etc usually just have to be repaired if any components on the boards go bad. Somebody was doing this in Albany for a while, but they retired and now its up to amtrak to deal with beech grove or wilmington electronics shop for component repairs on the dual modes which takes more time if they even go that route.

MR Approach, isn't it possible that Amtrak write there own program, from scratch on a new inhouse constructed hardware? Basic is the system a PLC.

Absolutly not. This is not PLC idiot machine hardware. This is very complex stuff. You are talking about gate drive hardware coupled to excitation modules for traction, HEP, and everything under the hood of that engine is fed into remote input output modules that provide fault logging, switch position reporting, mode changes, lights on, lights off etc. Any attempt to reverse engineer the software would be in violation of GEs license on the software. You would need to gut the locomotive and re engineer an entire propulsion control system, fault monitoring, traction, user interface, cab displays etc. At that point you might as well have a new machine. The only reason why the EMD stuff still chugs around is the electronics are a bit simpler and Progress rail still provides support and upgrades for the EM2000 control system, which is total crap compared to how GEs system works.

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:22 pm as for software , the railroad pays for use of software and not to try copying a proprietary devise.
Metro North and LIRR got caught when trains started to have problems cause purchasing forgot to renew the Software contract with Bombardier

This is a good point. Where a short line might quietly backwards engineer something, a federally-owned Class 1-sized carrier is not about to get their hands dirty on that one.