The case for freight locomotives as passenger power

My question to all pushing this idea , have you ever ridden a freight engine at 75> 80 mph ???
My guess is no , they ride like a lead sled and I would be off on disability pretty fast . they may ride good (even at speed) pulling a freight.
but pulling a passenger consist would be pure insanity.

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:25 pm My question to all pushing this idea , have you ever ridden a freight engine at 75> 80 mph ???
My guess is no , they ride like a lead sled and I would be off on disability pretty fast . they may ride good (even at speed) pulling a freight.
but pulling a passenger consist would be pure insanity.

ill second this. LOL

Wonder how Metra's SD70MACH order is going? 0 results so far. ARR tacks on an other unit,when a SD60 is running HEP with 5 powered axles.
ARR has a 49 mph MAS for passenger service to boot.

Keep in mind siemens/emd ac traction has one inverter for each two traction motors . so relegating one inverter for HEP . makes this a 4 axle locomotive with HEP. so who are we fooling...

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:33 pm Keep in mind siemens/emd ac traction has one inverter for each two traction motors . so relegating one inverter for HEP . makes this a 4 axle locomotive with HEP. so who are we fooling...

For the siemens stuff made for emd, yes. for the siemens ACS/SC etc no. they have 6 inverter banks (2 for HEP) and are not shared. there is individual TM output control for wheelslip etc. They are managed by only two TCUs though. So TCU 1 and TCU 2, truck 1 and truck 2.

For the 6 axle EMDs truck 1 both outer axles, truck 2 both outer axles and then one unit that runs the two inner axles together (seems stupid to me) and thats whats getting replaced for HEP. Im not sure how thats going to pull or ride. And a situation like that would not make sense for the auto train. You want those 6 axles for lugging power, which i guess youd get from one unit and not the other.

The thread's title has it backwards. There should be a case for passenger locomotives for freight trains or at least head end powered locomotives for refrigerated unit trains for transporting perishable freight?

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:25 pm My question to all pushing this idea , have you ever ridden a freight engine at 75> 80 mph ???
My guess is no , they ride like a lead sled and I would be off on disability pretty fast . they may ride good (even at speed) pulling a freight.
but pulling a passenger consist would be pure insanity.

I'll third this. I rode a GEVO both ways on a powered up Z9's between Belen, New Mexico (near Albuquerque) and Clovis. The fastest trains on the Southwest division are the "Z" trains and they're limited to 70 MPH. No, it was not a smooth ride at 70 MPH. As for the SD70MAC I rode one from Creston, Iowa to Lincoln, Nebraska on an empty coal train. Now empty coal trains on BNSF are limited to 55 MPH so I can't tell you how they ride at 70 MPH but it certainly didn't ride as smooth as the P42 I rode on A6 from Lincoln to Creston. In general BNSF kept the SD70's on coal and grain trains and off of the high speed (70 MPH) "Z" trains. The few times I saw an SD70 on a "Z" train the engineers would complain how rough they rode at 70 MPH.

Oh and one last thing ... I guess some of you have forgotten the last time Amtrak tried 6 axle (freight) power (E60 and SDP40F). Yes, I know the high centered water tank for the steam generator is a thing of the past but I still don't think six axle freight locomotives are the way to go for Amtrak. I wonder how successful METRA's SD70MAC program will be.

Why would four powered axles on a SD70 be a problem? E units were the gold standard workhorse passenger locomotive for long distance, and they only had four powered axles.

I'll admit that the cab ride might not be ideal, but when has crew comfort ever been a driving factor on motive power decisions?

Are there ways to isolate the cab or install those air-ride pneumatic seats you find in long haul trucker cabs? Is there a difference with the isolated cab that EMD offers?

I have no idea why four powered axles would be a problem. There have been successful examples of C-C, B-B, and A1A-A1A all around. The failures have centered around a few carriers, not a specific configuration.

Further, the freight roads are quickly embracing the concept of idler axles for higher speed service on C-C power.

The alternative is to continue on the current path, which leads to equipment failures, delays, and the usual BS. There is no need for "110mph" passenger power if most routes are 79mph max with plenty of running at 50mph behind whatever CSX has on the road.

You cannot compare an E unit to current freight locos. Weight difference, much higher center of gravity two prime movers, steam gen. There are traction adhesion issues with the A1A setups on current models. Its crap. You know whats also crap? Those EMD isolated cabs. They really dont do much but rattle you around esp when they wear out. They have heavy frames, heavy weight on drivers. A SD70 ACe can be over 400,000lbs up to 432,000. An E unit was about 315,000 on an A unit. That makes a difference in ride and performance at higher speeds. For comparison, an E60 that rode horrible at any speed over 50 was 400,000 and was 6 axles and limited to 90mph

As far as the "Current path" There is NOTHING wrong with the current designs. The problem is the maintenance. They do not take care of the stuff the way they should. It has nothing to do with a poor design. If you dont take care of it, it wont be reliable. The same problem will exist with all the other examples you gave. Amtrak already has engines with pony motors and guess what? Half the time they do not start, they wont make TLC, theres parts missing to fix other units. Any time we have one on the work trains for protect power i either find myself fixing it so it works or reminding the dispatcher i cant provide HEP to a rescue because theres parts missing/it just doesnt work/wont start.

The need for 110mph allows for full system inter operation as well as 100% parts interchangeability with one single main back shop (beech grove) When you start having all different kinds of parts, you make more problems for repairs and replacement. The issue with train control systems can be a good example. There are certain P42s locked into michigan service for ITCS. There are certain ones that only have I-ETMS, and then theres the ACSES, I-ETMS, cab signal units that can pretty much go anywhere but they try to keep on the eastern part of the US so they can make moves on the NEC and empire lines.

As far as taking care of things goes also, the acelas are another great example. They have a lot of quirks and problems yes but as of recently with the new trainsets coming they are not fixing anything unless it stops the train from moving or meeting a daily inspection for safety or mechanical. Thats lead to a lot of issues on daily use. Most minor annoyances but some

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:54 am There is no need for "110mph" passenger power if most routes are 79mph max with plenty of running at 50mph behind whatever CSX has on the road.

Via Rail thought that way when they slowed down the schedule of the Canadian, and now their OTP is even worse than it was before.

Wash wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:53 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:54 am There is no need for "110mph" passenger power if most routes are 79mph max with plenty of running at 50mph behind whatever CSX has on the road.

Via Rail thought that way when they slowed down the schedule of the Canadian, and now their OTP is even worse than it was before.

True, but that’s on CN, not VIA or its locomotives. Not germane to this topic.

Though, tangentially, VIA has thus far kept its F40 fleet for its LD service. If any operator would be well-served by the kind of SD70 or AC4400/C44-9/ES44 conversion Tad suggests, it would be them. VIA is moving to a Siemens Charger fleet on their Corridor - it’ll be interesting to see whether they do the same for long-distance service, or if they just push their Geneses over to those lines.

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:14 pm As far as the "Current path" There is NOTHING wrong with the current designs. The problem is the maintenance. They do not take care of the stuff the way they should. It has nothing to do with a poor design...

In the big picture, not being designed for a maintenance culture is indeed a serious design problem. There are essentially four design philosophies in the world for heavy equipment. US, Euro, former Communist Bloc, and Japanese. Each has it's own pros and cons. The Euro design philosophy assumes frequent maintenance and replacement of wear parts as well as great track. The US design philosophy assumes a much more lax maintenance regimen and severe operating environment as well as less great track.

Now, anybody that thinks Amtrak is going to get religion and maintain stuff to DB or SNCF standards is kidding themselves. It's a government operation that does not really turn a profit and needs to beg for the money. It's a good day when that stuff is maintained to UP or BNSF standards. We can act on that information or bury our heads in the sand and pretend to have super awesome fast trains, but I guarantee the result is the same in 15 years. We'll have some problem similar to the P40 truck cracking or carbody rot and everybody will act super surprised, because "we have the best trains ever".

ApproachMedium wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:14 pm The need for 110mph allows for full system inter operation as well as 100% parts interchangeability with one single main back shop (beech grove) When you start having all different kinds of parts, you make more problems for repairs and replacement.

The fallacy of (a) full system interoperation and (b) carbodys meaning full system inter operation has been exposed so many times here over the last few months. Car/engine bodies do not mean uniform parts. They're just a shell that can rust and get welded, bondo'ed, or junked. The internal parts like prime movers and trucks are far more important. And what sense does it make to have the same kind of truck across the system when they have systemic cracking problems? What sense does it make when GE doesn't support much anyway? What sense does it make when there will always be two diesel fleets, DM and straight diesel?

Most of your points have some merit Tad (though foregoing future high speeds is fatalistic) but I still haven’t seen a cogent argument about fuel consumption! I don’t see how a pair of ET44C4s and HEP car could consume less than 25% more fuel than a pair of ALD-42s - maybe even three ALD-42s - traveling at the same speeds and having the same acceleration. Would love to see a factual basis on this front.

The facts exist on any Tier 3 or 4 locomotive. They suck up fuel if they are not being run because of emissions controls. Any HEP car is going to need to have a Tier 4 motor, which will need DEF added, a DPF and go thru regen cycles which consume far more fuel than a standard diesel engine with no emissions controls. Because these would be a new device, they will not be exempt from emissions. An NJT ALP45 Tier 3 consumes 2/3 more fuel during layovers with HEP enabled than a traditional 645/710 16 cyl with a cat 800kW HEP plant, which is pre emissions. The SC44 has the same idle HEP enabled fuel consumption problems from regeneration, and id imagine the F125 does also. I am not sure what a Tier4 SD70ACe would be because they do not idle long, they shut down and run the auto start stop cycles so they are not running constantly and clogging up the DPF. Data would have to be obtained off a HEP modified unit to see what it is, but i cant imagine its any good.