Selecting the right locomotive...

I know a lot of people complain about the DM/DE's saying they shouldn't have gotten them, because since they were new they had a lot of bugs and defects in them, and also they were increadibly expensive compared to if the LIRR had gone with other locomotives, like the Genesis type (P40 P42 and EMD 103). Now I haven't really heard many reviews on the Genesis engines like the ones Amtrak and MNRR uses, but have there been any complaints about those? The complaints I've heard about the DM/DE's have been: since they are exclusive they were quite expensive. They are pretty fragile, most of them having cracked frames and chassis. The engines had to be re-done to increase the horsepower because the bi-level cars were too heavy for the original motors. Another thing about them being exclusive is that the repairs and spare parts are more expensive. Those are the only complaints I can think of.

I've heard that the Genesis DM's have also had their fair share of problems as well. Amtrak has had to send some back to Erie for repairs or modifications provided by warranty work. The reason for chossing GM over GE on the LIRR was more to do with the accleration of the units compared to that of the GE's. GM units are two cycle engines while GE's are 4 cycle. 2 cycle engines have better accelaration than 4 and is why even on freight units, GM units are very well known for picking up speed quickly while GE units have a longer acceleration process. On the LIRR, the company wanted to make sure that the locomotives can pick up speed quickly so as to not delay following MU's which accelerate rather quickly. Also, with the RR's hilly profile on some branches such as the PJ branch, they wanted a unit that can accelerate up inclines as well. Factor in also the experience that the LIRR shops have with GM engines, and you have a greater reason for why GM was chosen. The problem was that the units were custom built by the LIRR, designing a unit that is much better suited for cross-country operations, and ill suited for commuter operations. Much of the stuff incorporated into the DE/ DM's are not found on any other unit on GM's catalog. Hence why the LIRR is looking more like a Guinea pig with these units. On a side note however, much of the talk that is being mentioned of these units might be slightly over exaggerated at best. I have worked on many diesel trains and have rarely had any problems with them, and I regularly see the DE/ DM's trotting around with little problems. Problems that are encountered are nothing out of the ordinary that we may experience with the MU's, and the Bi-level fleet. I actually heard that the units that were sent for modifications to Altoona have had most of it's bugs ironed out. So unless there are new things that have come out lately, some of the problems mentiones were from a few years back. The DM's that operate into Penn have continued to operate with little problems as I have seen them keep there schedules day after day, while are MU's keep dying out on us. Some of those M-1's really need to go, and I mean soon.

Mark77,

I know this is off topic, but I couldn't help but see you live in Elmont. Well so do I, so whats up neighbor I agree with you on the DM/DE units. I think because of the political climate and the amount of money spent on them, people expected them to run without any problems at all. Also EMD was contracted because they sent the locos to Super Steel in NY, which was a sticking point in the bid process. The locos had to be built in NY with NY money.

I guess that sounds about right. Good points. I guess that when the only thing you hear are bad reviews, you don't think clearly about certain things. Are these locos going to remain exclusive to the LIRR, or are there any plans for other railroads to use them? I just gotta wonder though, if the Genesis engines don't accelerate as quick, why did MNRR go with them if they also need to keep up with the MU fleet?

Are the Dash 8-32BW engines GE? How is the acceleration with them? I was thinking about it, and those engines would look real nice with the yellow and blue nose, and the silver or gray body with blue stripes hooked up to some of the bi-level coaches.

These locomotives will remain exclusive to the LIRR. As it stands now all new locomotives have to meet the new environmental regulations. These locomotives were made before the regulations were put in place, so no railroad can buy them. At the time MN purchased their locomotives, the DE/DM that LIRR weren't even considered. Amtrak needed them so MN piggybacked on the order.

This Friday, the Ms & I took the scoot out to SD. Engineer was spot on with starts and stops, the consist rode beautifully, and we made it to SD as scheduuled 8:07.

Any ideas why some equipment rides lousy and some rides great? DE-408 was on the east end.

The DE/DM's were selected primarily because of their braking ability and the fact they were made in NY. Based on my own observations, the GE's accelerate faster, but this is just perception. The GE's seem very quick out of a station, but amtrak or MN consists may be lighter.

I have never read before that 2 cycle engines accelerate faster than do 4 cycle. Does anyone have any documentation on this?

On the LIRR, stopping distance determines the maximum authorized speed of consists. Old diesels were limited to 65MPH for this reason. The better braking in the DM/DE's permits a max speed of 80MPH. This in turn allows better headways west of Jamaica.

mark777 wrote:I've heard that the Genesis DM's have also had their fair share of problems as well. Amtrak has had to send some back to Erie for repairs or modifications provided by warranty work. The reason for chossing GM over GE on the LIRR was more to do with the accleration of the units compared to that of the GE's. GM units are two cycle engines while GE's are 4 cycle. 2 cycle engines have better accelaration than 4 and is why even on freight units, GM units are very well known for picking up speed quickly while GE units have a longer acceleration process. On the LIRR, the company wanted to make sure that the locomotives can pick up speed quickly so as to not delay following MU's which accelerate rather quickly. Also, with the RR's hilly profile on some branches such as the PJ branch, they wanted a unit that can accelerate up inclines as well. Factor in also the experience that the LIRR shops have with GM engines, and you have a greater reason for why GM was chosen. The problem was that the units were custom built by the LIRR, designing a unit that is much better suited for cross-country operations, and ill suited for commuter operations. Much of the stuff incorporated into the DE/ DM's are not found on any other unit on GM's catalog. Hence why the LIRR is looking more like a Guinea pig with these units. On a side note however, much of the talk that is being mentioned of these units might be slightly over exaggerated at best. I have worked on many diesel trains and have rarely had any problems with them, and I regularly see the DE/ DM's trotting around with little problems. Problems that are encountered are nothing out of the ordinary that we may experience with the MU's, and the Bi-level fleet. I actually heard that the units that were sent for modifications to Altoona have had most of it's bugs ironed out. So unless there are new things that have come out lately, some of the problems mentiones were from a few years back. The DM's that operate into Penn have continued to operate with little problems as I have seen them keep there schedules day after day, while are MU's keep dying out on us. Some of those M-1's really need to go, and I mean soon.

I agree with you. A lot of those M1s aren't going to last too long.

"I have never read before that 2 cycle engines accelerate faster than do 4 cycle. Does anyone have any documentation on this?"

Who knows why, but conventional wisdom has always been that GMs load faster than GEs. Fans often attribute this to the GM turbo not just being exhaust-powered, and for all we know maybe that's true.

In any case, a MetroNorth P32 with six Comets will take at least 110 seconds, likely 115, to do the first mile from the start. A NJTransit F40/GP40 typically takes 105 seconds, occasionally 100-102.

The LIRR bilevels are apparently much heavier, so we can't compare them to Comets; as I recall a DE30 with four bilevels will take 105+ seconds for the first mile.

There have actually been numerous articles on magazine's in the past such as Trains magazine and RailFan that actually speak of the 2cycle engine compared to 4 Cycle engines, and their performances, and many engineers country wide have commented on that GM's accelerate better than GE's. In fact, I actually have to look for it, but there was once an article in a magazine, probably not Trains, that spoke of the reasons for the LIRR selecting GM over GE. I could have sworn it was in a magazine called Rail News which ceased printing back in the late 90's. I have to turn my house upside down to find it. Whats interesting to note however is that while MNR is almost all within areas of high ground, the LIRR actually has a more incline profile than does MNR. Just look at MNR's Hudson line, the entire line skims the shores of the Hudson river, and I do believe that the NYC used to refer this as the water level line (correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, the harlem line might be the branch with the most inclines and even then, very few Diesels treck these rails with most operating north of Brewster. So with little inclines to worry about, acceleration performance might not have been a huge factor for the MNR when they went shopping for new engines. MNR could of very well have gone for a custom built unit as well if it were not for Amtrak's order for the Genesis first.

Two stroke cycle engines DO accelerate faster than four stroke cycle engines. Think of a chainsaw (two stroke ) versus a B&S powered lawnmower (four stroke). It is a given based upon the mechanics, thermodynamics, etc of the machinery.

As someone said elsewhere on these forums, the EMD 2 stroke cycle engine has a preternatural ability to come up to speed quickly under heavy load. This fact-coupled with the known reliability of the Dash 2 design AND the lack of heavy transient acceleration smoke was the reason that the LIRR purchased the GP-38-2's back in 1976.

In comparison, the LIRR got bit on the ass with the DE/DM's for some not so obvious reasons-which I reveal in a moment. However, one thing has been repeated here a number of times that needs to be corrected.

Some of the features of the DE/DM's are not as unique as some of you folks may believe. For one thing, the LIRR units are lineal descendants of the F69PHAC test units that operated on Amtrak some years previously. Same 12-710 3000 hp engine, Siemens AC drive, static HEP package, etc. Another point is that the DM/DE's share some features with contemporary
EMD AC freight units. One of these features is the replacement of the conventional auxiliary generator (driven off the engine gear train) with a 'black box' affair that is powerted off the traction alternator. So, the traction alternator is always loaded on these creatures.

In my opinion, the real problem with these units is that they were the first units that were the result of EMD's new 'paperless' design process. On top of that, the subcontractor who did the carbody fabrication/ locomotive assembly was 'problematic.'

As for the MN GE's, one would have to see the original MN spec in order to ascertain why GE got the order in seeming defiance of "made in NYS" considerations. My own thought has to do with 'politics.'

Final thought of this-I wonder if these LIRR locomotives would've been such a bone of contention if not for the internet ? Engineering 101 folks-very few products as complicated as a locomotive (or a multiple unit railcar) are perfect out the gate !!!

NRECer, I am not saying I disagree with you inasmuch as I am no expert, but I over the years I have read more conclusions to the contrary. A few articles talked of Alco switchers loading faster than their EMD counterparts. I think this had more to do with electrical transmission than 2-cycle vs. 4 cycle. In the 80's I listened to 2 LIRR engineers on different days say that the Alco's were quicker than the the EMD's, but again this may have been electrical, not mechanical. A D&H engineer told me in the early 90's that the RS units could really kick cars much easier than could the GP's.

In 2003 I was riding with an engineer on a U18B, and he said the GE was painfully slower in accelerating than an RS11 which was 20 years older. He said it was due to GE's conservative settings in the electical cabinet. As an aside, he said liked the old GE's and Alco's more than the new CSX AC4400's and SD's. With the old engines he could feel the response as opposed to looking at a monitor.

Regarding why the LIRR selected EMD's, the Inspector General's report said that is was due to superior braking. That is probably not the whole story; it only tells why the LIRR did not want to use "off the shelf" models. It begs the question why GE would not bid on the new technology locomotive. It seems that the new technology was mostly the brake system. Monocoque construction, fabricated trucks, etc. were in use on the Genesis units.

I hope this does not sound argumentative; it is not intended to be.

Here are some excerpts from the IG's report:

To maximize rush hour capacity in the approaches and tunnels leading to Penn Station, LIRR determined that its diesel fleet needed to perform similarly to its electric cars so that diesel equipment would not slow down the system. This decision entailed some risk for LIRR. They felt that such a high level of performance could not be obtained from diesel equipment available on the market. Therefore, they pursued the development of new high performance diesel electric and dual mode locomotives.

To perform, as closely to its electric fleet as possible, LIRR’s high performance diesel locomotives had to be able to stop within a given signal block length. With this improved braking ability, the diesel fleet can operate at high speeds similar to the electric fleet, which the current diesel fleet could not do. We confirmed that the desired locomotive braking performance was achieved.

From October 1998 to December 1999 diesel electric locomotives and dual mode locomotives brakes were tested on LIRR property, mostly at 30 miles per hour and 40 miles per hour; speeds LIRR considered most critical. Test results indicated that equipment stopped within required LIRR stopping distances. After a consultant’s evaluation of the new diesel fleet’s braking ability, the new diesel equipment was authorized to run at the same maximum allowable speed as electric equipment.

My dad has been driving buses for over 20 years. Until recently the Detriot Diesel in his rig had been a 2 cycle design (8V Silver 92). They ate crank case oil and generally rattled themselves apart over time, but were turboed, intercooled and cranked out horses all over the rpm band. 2 cycles were popular 'cause they had operating characteristics similar to a gas job and were relatively simple mechanicaly. Now emission standards have eliminated most if not all 2 cycles in public transit. The new rigs have electronics and other emissions gagets that are not as reliable but are more eco friendly. that's probably why the LIRR selected the 2 cycle. IIRC, it took ten years to get these things built and the rr probably did not see those environmental changes coming.

I'm not going to get into the whole Alco vs EMD vs GE thing yet another time. That one has been beaten to death ad naseum. Besides, right now there are FOUR viable suppliers of passenger locomotives in NA-EMD, GE, MPI and Alstom. Alco is a DEAD issue.

Most commuter operators spec. EMD or 'engineer approved' equal for their locomotives. How many GE powered commuter units are out there ?

The IG report about braking in interesting. I note that they don't mention anything in reference to the role that the COACHES play in braking.

Once again, my point is that the basic design elements of the LIRR units were standard EMD issue. Issue was the integration of same into a reliable locomotive vehicle. The part that seemed to cause the most problems was the STAINLESS STEEL carbody. Could it be that both EMD and the carbody supplier had little or no experience with design/fabrication of S/S monocoque
carbodies ?

On the first Amtrak P40's, GE went off-shore to Krupp for carbody sourcing.