PL42s. Success or failure?

The GPs are exempt from tier 4 regulations due to their age. Based on the contract that was awarded last summer (IFB No. 21-032), "This project involves the overhaul of four (4) EMD 16 – 645 E3B model diesel locomotive engines to include upgrading these engines to meet US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 0 locomotive emissions standards as required by 40 CFR 1033, which also requires that the locomotive they will be reinstalled into will need to be equipped with an Automatic Engine Start Stop (AESS) system".

Are the GP40s proposed for overhaul from the CNJ (4100) or PC (4200) series?

bid says "work engines" which presumably means non-revenue? 4300 series?

Whenever a new law is enacted, there is always a grandfather clause which older entities are not subject to if they met the requirements in place at that time. This goes for anything: stations built before the ADA, drugs on the market before the FDA was created, etc.

All "diesels" dating back to the Geeps and even before are actually "diesel-electric." A diesel prime mover powers electric traction motors to turn the wheels. In theory, this is what we would call a "hybrid" in every other type of application (cars, buses, etc). I would be hard pressed to believe the locomotives that roam NJT are the main cause of pollution. Cars are by far the worst culprit but we cannot let go of our big trucks or SUV's while "caring" about the environment (the irony).

Anytime a locomotive is built too specific and only for one railroad (which brings with it limited spare parts or usefulness of parts, inability to overhaul (i.e. to Tier IV) or not cost effective to overhaul, inability to sell) spells disaster. To add, NJT is having ALP45's replace them where dual modes are not needed. Well what about the SEC loop? At the rate we are going in which significant delays, massive red tape, and cost overruns are the norm, that should not even be considered when planning to procure new locomotives. Neither locomotive represents forward thinking or practical thinking, all things considered.

F40 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:04 pm Whenever a new law is enacted, there is always a grandfather clause which older entities are not subject to if they met the requirements in place at that time. This goes for anything: stations built before the ADA, drugs on the market before the FDA was created, etc.

Sorry this is simply not the case in this instance. Any time an engine is remanufactured, it needs to be in compliance with the corresponding tier regulations at the time of remanufacture. For example, Tier 0 engines built prior to 2001 had a PM limit of 0.6. A tier 0 engine remanufactured today has a PM limit of 0.22. See https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php.

All "diesels" dating back to the Geeps and even before are actually "diesel-electric." A diesel prime mover powers electric traction motors to turn the wheels. In theory, this is what we would call a "hybrid" in every other type of application (cars, buses, etc). I would be hard pressed to believe the locomotives that roam NJT are the main cause of pollution. Cars are by far the worst culprit but we cannot let go of our big trucks or SUV's while "caring" about the environment (the irony).

A "hybrid" is called as such because it uses two input fuels — gasoline/diesel and an onboard battery. Diesel-electric locomotives use exactly one input fuel, diesel, so are not hybrids by any definition of that word.

A PL42AC, as counterintuitive as it might seem, almost certainly outputs more pollution per passenger-mile than an SUV bought in the last decade. Nothing ironic about it. Furthermore if you care about taking cars off the road, you should be in favor of dual-mode expansion, as it's well-known that a one-seat ride is a great way to get people out of cars and into transit.

Anytime a locomotive is built too specific and only for one railroad (which brings with it limited spare parts or usefulness of parts, inability to overhaul (i.e. to Tier IV) or not cost effective to overhaul, inability to sell) spells disaster. To add, NJT is having ALP45's replace them where dual modes are not needed. Well what about the SEC loop? At the rate we are going in which significant delays, massive red tape, and cost overruns are the norm, that should not even be considered when planning to procure new locomotives. Neither locomotive represents forward thinking or practical thinking, all things considered.

Dual-modes provide operational flexibility, and having a more unified fleet with more common replacement parts and repair procedures provides its own kind of operational savings. I'd be more concerned about long-term viability and reliability of Bombardier, but I guess with the Alstom buyout we can look forward to…the dubious track record of that company. Something to think about for our politicians — how did we end up with absolutely zero domestic manufacturing base for an entire transportation sector? But that's neither here nor there.

lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm I'd be more concerned about long-term viability and reliability of Bombardier, but I guess with the Alstom buyout we can look forward to…the dubious track record of that company.

Now most of NJT's fleet is under one roof, with the Comets, Multilevels, PL42s, ALP45/46. On the bus side,
the whole fleet is under the New Flyer family.

lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm

F40 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:04 pm Whenever a new law is enacted, there is always a grandfather clause which older entities are not subject to if they met the requirements in place at that time. This goes for anything: stations built before the ADA, drugs on the market before the FDA was created, etc.

Sorry this is simply not the case in this instance. Any time an engine is remanufactured, it needs to be in compliance with the corresponding tier regulations at the time of remanufacture. For example, Tier 0 engines built prior to 2001 had a PM limit of 0.6. A tier 0 engine remanufactured today has a PM limit of 0.22. See https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php.

In 2008, when Tier 3 and 4 emissions standards were rolled out (with actual rolling stock meeting this requirement by 2011/12) this made Tier 0-2 standards more stringent, but nothing which stipulates locomotives which were built when Tier 0-2 was in place need to meet Tier 3 or 4 standards when remanufactured. The PL42AC's were built between 2003-2006. This would make them Tier 1. The 2006's, almost at the cusp of Tier 2. There is no logic behind not overhauling them because you can't make PL42AC's Tier 4.

lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm A PL42AC, as counterintuitive as it might seem, almost certainly outputs more pollution per passenger-mile than an SUV bought in the last decade. Nothing ironic about it. Furthermore if you care about taking cars off the road, you should be in favor of dual-mode expansion, as it's well-known that a one-seat ride is a great way to get people out of cars and into transit.

Go to energy.gov, and you will certainly see commuter rail and intercity rail per-passenger mile fuel economy beat that of any sort of automobile. By this logic, a campaign should be run to get people off these "diesel-spewing" trains and into gas-guzzling SUV's, further contributing to traffic jams and more CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Specifics will vary but as an example, a Geep can consume about 200 gallons on a 30-mile commuter route. If it serves 300 passengers (on the low-end), it will have taken up to 300 cars off the road. Assuming 30 mpg per auto (not everyone will be in Civic's or get highway miles), this makes the "diesel-spewing" loco 33% more efficient than if everyone on the train took to driving. Taking the train is inherently "green," as the train is going to run regardless, but driving means that much more energy will be used to power your car, not the other way around.

Where is this "one-seat" ride you speak of for the Hoboken Division lines? Anyone in Bergen/Passaic counties cannot hope for a one-seat ride anytime soon. If Gateway/SEC loops were on the horizon, shovel-ready or in the ground, then it is sensible to order more dual-modes. But not at this stage.

lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:23 pm

Anytime a locomotive is built too specific and only for one railroad (which brings with it limited spare parts or usefulness of parts, inability to overhaul (i.e. to Tier IV) or not cost effective to overhaul, inability to sell) spells disaster. To add, NJT is having ALP45's replace them where dual modes are not needed. Well what about the SEC loop? At the rate we are going in which significant delays, massive red tape, and cost overruns are the norm, that should not even be considered when planning to procure new locomotives. Neither locomotive represents forward thinking or practical thinking, all things considered.

Dual-modes provide operational flexibility, and having a more unified fleet with more common replacement parts and repair procedures provides its own kind of operational savings. I'd be more concerned about long-term viability and reliability of Bombardier, but I guess with the Alstom buyout we can look forward to…the dubious track record of that company. Something to think about for our politicians — how did we end up with absolutely zero domestic manufacturing base for an entire transportation sector? But that's neither here nor there.

It is sad it came to this, and "they don't build them like they used to." You would think the builders we rely on (Alstom, Siemens Mobility, headquartered in France and Germany respectively) have the know-how to build quality locomotives/rolling stock. ACS-64's may suffer the same fate as the PL42's in going without a rebuild at the rate things are going. And not a great track record already for the new ALC-42's and SC-44's. Maybe NJT had no choice after all.

Seems as if giving the GP40s an EMD rebuild or upgrade kit might been better.

pateljones wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:08 am I believe only NJTransit bought this locomotive? I’m wondering why no other company bought PL42s. We’re they bad problem engines? Are they still in service?

The PL42's are a custom locomotive designed by or for NJTransit only. As far as I know, most if all are still running. They are used on multilevel consists as the HEP can handle them. I caught NJT 4018 is on train 5529 at Union, NJ on the Raritan Line on Sunday, March 5. I have seen them on Bergen County and Main Line trains as well. As to if they were a failure? Well they had some serious teething problems in the beginning. It seems as though the problems were fixed. The reason they are being replaced with another order of ALP45DP's is they need an overhaul and doing so would require them to meet Tier 4 specs which the 710 cant meet which is why Progress Rail, a subsidiary of CAT and also calls itself Electro Motive diesel switched to a new 4 cycle engine. The 710 just cant be made Tier 4 without urea or just cant be made Tier 4 compliant period. EMD spent two years developing the SD70ACe-T4. The railroads are not happy with Tier 4 locomotives from either Wabtec (GE) and Progress Rail (EMD) and are just not buying them. The Wabtec (GE's) are faring better than the Progress Rail (EMD's) I guess they are making money on rebuilds from DC to AC, selling parts, and building export locomotives. EMD/Progress Rail lease locomotives are very popular in Brazil.

Bracdude181 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:52 am What Dcell said, And why is it an issue that the PL42s don’t meet emissions requirements but the old GP40s, some of which are from the CNJ days, are still running around not having to worry about such requirements?

The GP40's are grandfathered into Tier0 our Tier1. They can keep overhauling them and using them. Many have had their HEP generators removed and the locomotive is used in standby service or MOW. 4101 and 4109 are two that were rebuilt and kept their HEP. They are assigned to the Hoboken division for single level consists. They both have been going up to Port Jervis a lot!!

Thanks for the additional details. I am shaking my head in disbelief that the rebuilt GP-40s will still be Tier 0 or Tier 1 pollution engines when NJT's new locomotives are meeting the current Tier 4 standard. I thought Gov Murphy is a big clean environment guy but it seems not to be true when it comes to locomotives.

F40 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:14 pm In 2008, when Tier 3 and 4 emissions standards were rolled out (with actual rolling stock meeting this requirement by 2011/12) this made Tier 0-2 standards more stringent, but nothing which stipulates locomotives which were built when Tier 0-2 was in place need to meet Tier 3 or 4 standards when remanufactured. The PL42AC's were built between 2003-2006. This would make them Tier 1. The 2006's, almost at the cusp of Tier 2. There is no logic behind not overhauling them because you can't make PL42AC's Tier 4.

Please stop moving the goalposts. You said things get grandfathered, I just gave you an example of how even Tier 0/1 need to meet updated (not latest, but updated, not grandfathered) regulations anytime a rebuild takes place.

As you said PL42ACs were delivered into 2006. They aren't going to overhaul half the fleet. Tier 2 applies to 2005 or later.

I thought Gov Murphy is a big clean environment guy but it seems not to be true when it comes to locomotives.

When River Line engines were overhauled a few years ago, they made them tier 4 compliant even though they didn't have to. It is not practical to make the GPs tier 4 compliant, the cost to do that would probably exceed the cost to buy a new locomotive. The emissions from two GPs that run a few times a week pales in comparison to replacing all the PL42s with 45DPs. So not sure where you see the contradiction. Of course, Murphy also doesn't run NJT, so his personal wishes probably have only limited impact on the buying decisions of the agency.

lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:54 pm As you said PL42ACs were delivered into 2006. They aren't going to overhaul half the fleet. Tier 2 applies to 2005 or later.

As mentioned earlier, the fleet was partially assembled in Hornell prior to January 1, 2005 to squeak by EPA Tier 2.

Chassis, carbody and truck work first and then installation of engines, with final assembly coming later.

Well, maybe someone feels bad about continuing to use tier 1 engines in 2023 then.

The overhaul bids have been delayed until May and I'm hearing the project may be cancelled and the units scrapped in favor of buying new Tier 4 clean diesel locomotives.