Genesis discussion (AMD-103, P40DC, P42DC)

MEC407 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:02 pm

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.)

These are some good points, but I would look at the SD70-vs-HSP argument like this: You're saving 25%. The SD70 will be almost like new. The SD70 has a structure that will last for 70 years (if GP9/FL9 history stays true). The SD70 will have a good resale value unless wrecked (and also a mortgage value). The SD70 is a proven passenger (alaska) and freight locomotive. The HSP will be rusty-rotten in 20 years, with little ability to fix. The HSP was a disaster low-bid situation. The HSP will have little mortgage or resale value in 20 years.

That strikes me as a pretty good value.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:27 pm 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.

This is a very real concern. Other than motor change at Harmon, there is not way to get downtown other than a very custom dual mode. Perhaps the solution would've been a dual mode EMD Class 66, which has been a big success in the UK and EU (450 made, low profile) or the GE 70 class, which has been less successful (40 built). Remove the aft cab for HEP genset and third rail gear.

As for 110mph in Michigan, I'm not as big a fan as I once was. It's a nice marketing gimmick. The trains are still so late on account of NS that nobody notices a different. What ever money was spent on upgrading 79 to 110 should've gone to fixing NS somehow.

MEC407 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:33 pm

kitn1mcc wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:57 pm Amtrak has those gp35 with Hep around still.

GP38s you mean? Those units are limited to 65 MPH. I rode behind one on the Downeaster a few times.

those are them they used to be GP40tc then got converted

The GP40TC was a custom build for GOT with 575 VAC HEP,were rebuilt as GP38-3's with 480 HEP of limited capy.

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pmAn SD70M with 79 gearing and HEP would’ve been great for anything not running to New York.

Amtrak Class 5+ Corridors (non-NEC, various sections)

1. CHI-STL
2. CHI-DET
3. SAN-SLO
4. CHI-ABQ

I excluded the Keystone Corridor, the NHHS line and the upstate sections of 110 MPH in New York.

gokeefe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:10 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pmAn SD70M with 79 gearing and HEP would’ve been great for anything not running to New York.

Amtrak Class 5+ Corridors (non-NEC, various sections)

1. CHI-STL
2. CHI-DET
3. SAN-SLO
4. CHI-ABQ

I excluded the Keystone Corridor, the NHHS line and the upstate sections of 110 MPH in New York.

Those don't change my mind. The STL route is a joke and never sees 110 nor has good schedules, the DET route has PTC turned off half the time for bad hair days and it doesn't matter anyway because Norfolk Southern, SLO could be a viable corridor but last week we ran at 50 half the time, and ABQ is it's own animal. First, the 90mph areas don't start until Fort Madison or LaPlata, takes a big pause KC-Newton, and crosses a very mountainous area. Much as we buffs like the idea of 110 or 90, I stand by my statement that it's a marketing gimmick for the most part. Slow trains are made faster by eliminating all <20mph bottlenecks and delays before any high speed is worth it.

Ergo the SD70 is still a good choice. And there are plenty from the big BN 1993 order that are not suffering debilitating cracks and rust/rot.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:37 am Much as we buffs like the idea of 110 or 90, I stand by my statement that it's a marketing gimmick for the most part.

I've seen enough youtube videos of the supposed '110mph' areas that I don't know why anyone doing a reasonable back-of-the- envelope would even consider it, with the equipment Amtrak's running. The time it takes from 80 to 110 is so long that it's a useless endevor. Heck, even real high speed trains elsewhere don't accelerate that fast. Next time you're on the TGV, time how long it takes to get to 186. It's a while. They make sense because they stay up there for a good long time. It's not like the corridor where you hit 125 and then you're back to 50-60 for whatever stupid crap (*cough* Elisabeth S curve *cough*). And the TGV's putting upwards of 8000 kW to 12000 kW to the rails, which is a heck of a lot more than the laughable output of a P-42...

Amtrak Class 5+ Corridors (non-NEC, various sections)

1. CHI-STL

FWIW, the Chi-Stl line is now all 79 max. The higher speed section near Dwight is no longer. Supposedly it is a PTC issue before the line can get limits raised but there is no date set.

Mr. Steve, I've noted this before and this not likely an appropriate topic at which to do so again, which means if Moderator chooses to kill, I understand. All the Chi-Stl HSR ballyhoo that I've heard since '10, should have been noted with "your train will be delayed and you will be busteetooted so that Federal Funds allocated for passenger train improvements under ARRA08 can be used so the Union Pacific Railroad will have a new freight route into Chicago".

Moderator Note: indeed, Mr. Norman. I may sort some posts later (the passenger diesel question re: “what platform is best” belongs in its own thread) but let’s get back to the Genesis.

Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:06 am

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:37 am Much as we buffs like the idea of 110 or 90, I stand by my statement that it's a marketing gimmick for the most part.

I've seen enough youtube videos of the supposed '110mph' areas that I don't know why anyone doing a reasonable back-of-the- envelope would even consider it, with the equipment Amtrak's running. The time it takes from 80 to 110 is so long that it's a useless endevor. Heck, even real high speed trains elsewhere don't accelerate that fast. Next time you're on the TGV, time how long it takes to get to 186. It's a while. They make sense because they stay up there for a good long time. It's not like the corridor where you hit 125 and then you're back to 50-60 for whatever stupid crap (*cough* Elisabeth S curve *cough*). And the TGV's putting upwards of 8000 kW to 12000 kW to the rails, which is a heck of a lot more than the laughable output of a P-42...

Elizabeth curve is now 80 for acela and 70 for regionals. And if you have an engineer that knows what they are doing you will see every bit of that going east and west.

Newer diesels get from 80-110 much faster. A junky P32 dual mode with 5 cars can take up to 5 miles to reach 110 after leaving albany. An ACS-64 with a 5 car keystone can do it in about a mile. 86 with 8 cars in about a mile. I timed this with real world data from the operating position.

Five miles is a long distance from after the train departs Albany-Rennsellaer Station to reach 110 mph. However, the first few miles out of those five miles after the train departs that station, there are a few sharp curves with speed restrictions. Plus these trains have to cross the Livingston Avenue Bridge which has speed restrictions over it, given that there is a sharp curve on the east approach to LAB. Plus the bridge itself isn't in the best shape. West of LAB, there are a few more sharp curves in the City of Albany itself. When Amtrak trains travel through Colonie, they are maxing out at track speed since it is very straight through there.

coming out of 30 mph curve at cp216 (west shell)I use to have a 7 car consist up at 90 mph in about a mile, once that turbo is spooled up it would not take another mile to get up to 110 if it were allowed.

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 8:20 am coming out of 30 mph curve at cp216 (west shell)I use to have a 7 car consist up at 90 mph in about a mile, once that turbo is spooled up it would not take another mile to get up to 110 if it were allowed.

Your also pulling aluminum cars vs stainless, much lighter and locos that were geared for 90, not 110mph correct? Vomet comets also dont carry a restroom in every car loaded with water, a cafe car with two diff water tanks etc.

The restrictions coming out of albany dont mean much, you are still taking quite a distance to get a bunch of amfleets from zero to 110. The few times ive had to run a P42 with a 7 car train it only hit 110mph between Philly and DC twice and when it did i had to put the brake back on. You might be able to get from 0-50,60, 70 in not too bad of time but they dont do well overcoming wind resistance with that weight at higher speeds like an electric does.

amtrak and mn p32acdms are both geared for 110 and a full load of commuters will make up for car difference, plus its 7 cars vs your 5

Amfleet weight = 106,000–113,000 pounds (48,000–51,000 kg)

comets are about 100,000 lb (45,359 kg)