• North Carolina NCDOT-Amtrak Carolinian Service

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  by STrRedWolf
 
MACTRAXX wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:27 pm Keep in mind the ICT is not only UNPROVEN and UNTESTED technology - these new locomotives are still on the drawing board and have yet to be built...Count me as a skeptic in the realm of this new battery based tech...
That's... not entirely true. The ICTs are based off the Venture platform. A lot of the Venture sets are being run in the Midwest using Charger diesel engines. The only thing that is untested is the electric secondary engine and the battery secondary. Otherwise, it's all Chargers and Sprinters at both ends. Quite a modular platform.
Going back to the original topic - a 110 mile electrified extension into Virginia to the Richmond area would be a natural extension southward of the Northeast Corridor - Let's see what the CSX reaction to this proposal may be... CLE has a point - there will have to be the initial electrified trackage between Washington Union Station and the Alexandria Station area for this extension to get built...VRE as example to Fredericksburg could benefit from this...
Agreed there. Putting it into the "grander scope of things," if MARC is to run through, and they switch to all electric on the Penn (NEC) line, there goes direct run using that service unless it's electrified. MARC would have to run their Camden Line (CSX/Diesel) equipment through... and no, I don't see Brunswick line run-through for numerous reasons I've stated elsewhere.
  by scratchyX1
 
Ok, I'm trying to wrap my head around the external power tender. It's bypassing the prime movers, and applying power directly to the traction motors. So, how do the controls work? Since the "notches" are virtual, does the software detect that external power is applied, and just operate the locomotive like a sprinter? That means that the transformer/rectifier/solid state converter that is connected to the pantograph is effectively part of the locomotive, much like the battery pack. Do we know if power is transmitted through the train, like MU controls, so it's distributed to the rear locomotive?

I've said it before, The run through shouldn't be just a conventional MARC consist runthrough, it should be EMU/BMU that's shared between MARC and VRE, which can operate almost as a "metro Express" when going through DC proper.
  by STrRedWolf
 
scratchyX1 wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:39 pm Ok, I'm trying to wrap my head around the external power tender. It's bypassing the prime movers, and applying power directly to the traction motors. So, how do the controls work? Since the "notches" are virtual, does the software detect that external power is applied, and just operate the locomotive like a sprinter? That means that the transformer/rectifier/solid state converter that is connected to the pantograph is effectively part of the locomotive, much like the battery pack. Do we know if power is transmitted through the train, like MU controls, so it's distributed to the rear locomotive?

I've said it before, The run through shouldn't be just a conventional MARC consist runthrough, it should be EMU/BMU that's shared between MARC and VRE, which can operate almost as a "metro Express" when going through DC proper.
Basically. It'll work like a Sprinter. I doubt there's a "rear locomotive" in this case and it's more like cab controls at the rear end, so it's push-pull operation. Basically MARC or the Keystones but "backwards" looks better than the butt end of a coach.

That said... yes, I can see an express service, Alexandria/King Street to New Carollton with Crystal City, L'Efant Plaza, and DC Union Station being the stops. I can see that being dual-mode electric/diesel or electric/battery until it's electrified.

Electrify all the way down to North Carolina? Eventually.
  by west point
 
As much as I wold like to see CAT to RVR / RVM the big problm will be CSX. The VA owned track could have CAT but IMO CSX will fight it over their tracks. Kind of hard to use CSX for passenger trains to pass on non CAT CSX.

Now if the RVM trains are operating with ALC-Es then they could fire up the diesel whenever they are routed onto CSX to pass trains coming the other way.
  by mcgrath618
 
CSX dealt with catenary just fine on the Trenton Line between West Trenton and Bethayres. Even was good for double stacks. No reason the wire has to be constant tension/high speed. Just build it so that you can eventually convert it to constant tension.
  by MattW
 
mcgrath618 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:13 am CSX dealt with catenary just fine on the Trenton Line between West Trenton and Bethayres. Even was good for double stacks. No reason the wire has to be constant tension/high speed. Just build it so that you can eventually convert it to constant tension.
Constant tension is the standard even for low speed, a lot of light rail operations use it. No reason not to use it at this point.
  by nomis
 
The non-constant tension catenary in the SEPTA example above features a decreased MAS due to the pans being nearly fully extended in Double Stack territory.
  by mcgrath618
 
It comes down to budgeting. It'd be cheaper to put up variable tension, and since you're never going to get the speeds that constant tension can achieve because of the double stacks in the first place, all of the benefits of constant tension regarding speed would be lost (I think...). As nomis said, in order for those cars to clear the pans on the electric trains need to be fully extended, incurring a decreased MAS. Build it to variable tension to make it cheaper. Then, if CSX ever finds an alternate route, you'll have to go back and rebuild the wires to lower them anyways; kill two birds with one stone and make it constant at that time.

Unless I am mistaken in that constant tension would negate the speed restrictions incurred by a fully extended pantograph, in which case disregard my entire statement.
  by scratchyX1
 
mcgrath618 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:09 pm It comes down to budgeting. It'd be cheaper to put up variable tension, and since you're never going to get the speeds that constant tension can achieve because of the double stacks in the first place, all of the benefits of constant tension regarding speed would be lost (I think...). As nomis said, in order for those cars to clear the pans on the electric trains need to be fully extended, incurring a decreased MAS. Build it to variable tension to make it cheaper. Then, if CSX ever finds an alternate route, you'll have to go back and rebuild the wires to lower them anyways; kill two birds with one stone and make it constant at that time.

Unless I am mistaken in that constant tension would negate the speed restrictions incurred by a fully extended pantograph, in which case disregard my entire statement.
How reduced is the MAS? The Trenton line is showing 70mph on openrailwaymaps.
While 70mph isn't HSR, it's still a lot faster than I95 in NOVA, most of the time.
I know the plan is for dedicated passenger tracks, slowly getting built out.
  by mcgrath618
 
scratchyX1 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:46 pm
mcgrath618 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:09 pm It comes down to budgeting. It'd be cheaper to put up variable tension, and since you're never going to get the speeds that constant tension can achieve because of the double stacks in the first place, all of the benefits of constant tension regarding speed would be lost (I think...). As nomis said, in order for those cars to clear the pans on the electric trains need to be fully extended, incurring a decreased MAS. Build it to variable tension to make it cheaper. Then, if CSX ever finds an alternate route, you'll have to go back and rebuild the wires to lower them anyways; kill two birds with one stone and make it constant at that time.

Unless I am mistaken in that constant tension would negate the speed restrictions incurred by a fully extended pantograph, in which case disregard my entire statement.
How reduced is the MAS? The Trenton line is showing 70mph on openrailwaymaps.
While 70mph isn't HSR, it's still a lot faster than I95 in NOVA, most of the time.
I know the plan is for dedicated passenger tracks, slowly getting built out.
CSX has since been completely segregated from the West Trenton Line traffic. They lowered the wires in some places awhile ago to get that 70 mph MAS iirc.
  by scratchyX1
 
mcgrath618 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:41 pm
scratchyX1 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:46 pm
mcgrath618 wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:09 pm It comes down to budgeting. It'd be cheaper to put up variable tension, and since you're never going to get the speeds that constant tension can achieve because of the double stacks in the first place, all of the benefits
Unless I am mistaken in that constant tension would negate the speed restrictions incurred by a fully extended pantograph, in which case disregard my entire statement.
How reduced is the MAS? The Trenton line is showing 70mph on openrailwaymaps.
While 70mph isn't HSR, it's still a lot faster than I95 in NOVA, most of the time.
I know the plan is for dedicated passenger tracks, slowly getting built out.
CSX has since been completely segregated from the West Trenton Line traffic. They lowered the wires in some places awhile ago to get that 70 mph MAS iirc.
I thought they split it into separate lines, it looks like one track concrete ties, 2 wooden .
I'm guessing former rfp will be that way.
I'm guessing the SEHSR S line will be single track with sidings?
  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
Just wondering why they couldn't design a pantograph that could work at say a 30 foot wire height. Might take up more space on the roof especially if it were full diamond.

What I think we'll see in the future is charging points/stations combined with battery hybrids. Yards at Richmond and Charlotte will get overhead wire. Select points on the S-Line will be wired. Maybe a few wired sidings at stations on the north end. Trains in overnight storage can run HEP off the wire and trains can get a boost at select points to keep them off diesel for longer..
  by west point
 
The only problem with higher CAT is that the cross level difference between the 2 rails needs more careful work That is to prevent the PAN from swinging too much side to side. A wider PAN will mitigate that somewhat.
  • 1
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 43